7 ms·

Mass transit is wildly unprofitable. Anyone with industry experience would tell you your statement is wildly off the mark, beyond perhaps employees desiring a

Mass transit is wildly unprofitable. Anyone with industry experience would tell you your statement is wildly off the mark, beyond perhaps employees desiring a livable wage. Literally everyone in public transportation cares about prices, customers congestion and the environment.

mentalpiracy 1y ago
public transportation is a service, a public utility, not a business. it should not need to be profitable, and framing it terms of profit at all is wrong imo.
- silotis 1y ago
  It doesn't need to be a cash cow (and probably shouldn't be), but public transit should be able to break even because that is the only reliable signal that a service is providing enough value to justify its cost.
  - amanaplanacanal 1y ago
    Roads and highways don't break even. I guess we should stop maintaining those, since they don't justify their cost.
  - vel0city 1y ago
    All roads should become toll roads then. The moment you leave your private drive you should be paying for the roads to break even. Calling the police or fire department should incur service chargers. Libraries should charge rental fees. Schools should all charge tuition, including "public" schools. If they're not at least breaking even, are we sure they're providing any public good?
  - dns_snek 1y ago
    If they're breaking even then what "cost" is there to justify? That's a really roundabout way of saying that public transit doesn't deserve public financing.
  - mentalpiracy 1y ago
    If that is the only reliable signal in this context - what signals of measuring value are available in this context that you feel are unreliable?
- amanaplanacanal 1y ago
  Imagine trying to make roads and highways profitable. Very few people would be able to drive.
- xnx 1y ago
  > it should not need to be profitable, and framing it terms of profit at all is wrong imo. What is the right way to frame it? Total cost per passenger mile might be good. The transit systems that move the most people efficiently would do well on that metric.
  - mentalpiracy 1y ago
    public transit benefits the community/region more so than any individual benefit, so I don't think cost per passenger is appropriate either. Sometimes basic science research funding is framed in terms of "this program generated $10 of economic activity for every dollar spent." Social programs sometimes measured this way too. The term for this escapes me at the moment, but I think it would be more useful?
    - nickff 1y ago
      >” Sometimes basic science research funding is framed in terms of "this program generated $10 of economic activity for every dollar spent."” This type of cost-benefit analysis (or economic multiplier calculation) is also used to justify public subsidy of sports stadiums and the like. Unfortunately, these analyses always use overly optimistic assumptions, and fall victim to the broken windows fallacy.
      - mentalpiracy 1y ago
        that’s very true, good point
xnx 1y ago
> Literally everyone in public transportation cares about prices Not sure how that squares with ~$40 billion high speed rail in California. Most US transit agencies are designed as jobs programs (not necessarily bad, just wasteful) or to transfer tax money to construction firms.
- comte7092 1y ago
  What does that project have to do with buses? Have you actually looked at the cost breakdown of California HSR? This isn’t all going to contractors but to land acquisition, feasibility studies, parts and materials, etc etc. I also don’t know where you get the notion that it is representative of public transportation in the US, which is by and large just bus services.
  - xnx 1y ago
    > What does that project have to do with buses? It's an example of how most US transit systems have completely lost the plot. There has been almost no change in the services offered despite smartphones totally changing how services could be offered. Transit systems would rather run empty buses on the same fixed routes than adapt a more efficient, Uber-like, system.
    - comte7092 1y ago
      > Transit systems would rather run empty buses Most transit systems carry dozens of passengers per bus per hour. Fixed route services are more efficient than uber. I’m just having a conversation with your own personal biases at this point. The major differences between uber and transit are technology yes, but also in the fact that it is a public service that is here to meet the needs of everyone. Uber doesn’t have to comply in the same manner with the civil rights act and the ADA, and it doesn’t have a unionized workforce, which in sum is as much if not more of an impact on the services provided than the technology aspects.
bryanlarsen 1y ago
> Mass transit is wildly unprofitable. Far less unprofitable than the road system. Gas taxes & tolls cover a far smaller percentage of road building & upkeep than bus fares cover of transit costs.

mentalpiracy 1y ago

public transportation is a service, a public utility, not a business. it should not need to be profitable, and framing it terms of profit at all is wrong imo.

silotis 1y ago
It doesn't need to be a cash cow (and probably shouldn't be), but public transit should be able to break even because that is the only reliable signal that a service is providing enough value to justify its cost.
- amanaplanacanal 1y ago
  Roads and highways don't break even. I guess we should stop maintaining those, since they don't justify their cost.
- vel0city 1y ago
  All roads should become toll roads then. The moment you leave your private drive you should be paying for the roads to break even. Calling the police or fire department should incur service chargers. Libraries should charge rental fees. Schools should all charge tuition, including "public" schools. If they're not at least breaking even, are we sure they're providing any public good?
- dns_snek 1y ago
  If they're breaking even then what "cost" is there to justify? That's a really roundabout way of saying that public transit doesn't deserve public financing.
- mentalpiracy 1y ago
  If that is the only reliable signal in this context - what signals of measuring value are available in this context that you feel are unreliable?
amanaplanacanal 1y ago
Imagine trying to make roads and highways profitable. Very few people would be able to drive.
xnx 1y ago
> it should not need to be profitable, and framing it terms of profit at all is wrong imo. What is the right way to frame it? Total cost per passenger mile might be good. The transit systems that move the most people efficiently would do well on that metric.
- mentalpiracy 1y ago
  public transit benefits the community/region more so than any individual benefit, so I don't think cost per passenger is appropriate either. Sometimes basic science research funding is framed in terms of "this program generated $10 of economic activity for every dollar spent." Social programs sometimes measured this way too. The term for this escapes me at the moment, but I think it would be more useful?
  - nickff 1y ago
    >” Sometimes basic science research funding is framed in terms of "this program generated $10 of economic activity for every dollar spent."” This type of cost-benefit analysis (or economic multiplier calculation) is also used to justify public subsidy of sports stadiums and the like. Unfortunately, these analyses always use overly optimistic assumptions, and fall victim to the broken windows fallacy.
    - mentalpiracy 1y ago
      that’s very true, good point

xnx 1y ago

> Literally everyone in public transportation cares about prices Not sure how that squares with ~$40 billion high speed rail in California. Most US transit agencies are designed as jobs programs (not necessarily bad, just wasteful) or to transfer tax money to construction firms.

comte7092 1y ago
What does that project have to do with buses? Have you actually looked at the cost breakdown of California HSR? This isn’t all going to contractors but to land acquisition, feasibility studies, parts and materials, etc etc. I also don’t know where you get the notion that it is representative of public transportation in the US, which is by and large just bus services.
- xnx 1y ago
  > What does that project have to do with buses? It's an example of how most US transit systems have completely lost the plot. There has been almost no change in the services offered despite smartphones totally changing how services could be offered. Transit systems would rather run empty buses on the same fixed routes than adapt a more efficient, Uber-like, system.
  - comte7092 1y ago
    > Transit systems would rather run empty buses Most transit systems carry dozens of passengers per bus per hour. Fixed route services are more efficient than uber. I’m just having a conversation with your own personal biases at this point. The major differences between uber and transit are technology yes, but also in the fact that it is a public service that is here to meet the needs of everyone. Uber doesn’t have to comply in the same manner with the civil rights act and the ADA, and it doesn’t have a unionized workforce, which in sum is as much if not more of an impact on the services provided than the technology aspects.

bryanlarsen 1y ago

> Mass transit is wildly unprofitable. Far less unprofitable than the road system. Gas taxes & tolls cover a far smaller percentage of road building & upkeep than bus fares cover of transit costs.