Avoiding Transit’s Death Spiral, an Interview With Yonah Freemark
Low Ticket Alert for Curbivore '24
Surmounting Transit’s Fiscal Cliff: A Conversation with Urban Institute’s Yonah Freemark
The Urban Institute’s Yonah Freemark (who also publishes the must-read Transport Politic) recently released an important paper: “Surmounting the Fiscal Cliff, Identifying Stable Funding Solutions for Public Transportation Systems.”
The research aims to help American transit agencies avoid a death spiral, whereby budget shortfalls lead to higher fares and less frequent shortfalls, which further depresses ridership, which begets further cuts, until there’s not much transit left at all.
While unprecedented federal funding has been a boon to transit agencies since the pandemic, that money’s soon to dry up and agencies with very Downtown-oriented service, or that lack diversified funding, are particularly in trouble. While I recommend you read the paper (or at least the synopsis) for the full set of recommendations, I sat down with Dr. Freemark to gather his own thoughts on how transit operators and governments can respond to this moment.
Jonah Bliss: What drew you to start exploring this particular issue — the fiscal cliff?
Yonah Freemark: It was becoming increasingly clear that US transit agencies were facing financial obstacles that threatened their future ability to provide service. I had been worried about this since the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, but fortunately the US government stepped in with billions of dollars in assistance. It was only really in early 2023 that agencies began seriously asking the public and politicians how they would fund themselves in the coming years.
JB: Are there certain operators that you’re especially concerned will fall off the cliff, so to speak? Conversely, are there some where you think either strong funding streams or adept leadership will keep things working relatively smoothly?
YF: At the moment, we’re still waiting for clear future financial plans for Chicago’s CTA, Philadelphia’s SEPTA, and Washington, DC’s WMATA. Those are each very large transit agencies that provide hundreds of thousands of daily rides and that do not have the funds at the moment to escape the fiscal cliff. What they need is state government intervention on their behalf to ensure they can fill the gap. Each of the agencies operates in states where Democrats—theoretically sympathetic to investing in transit—lead the legislatures. What excuses do they have for not helping these agencies?
I have been excited to see steady support for New York’s MTA, on the other hand. There, the state government has taken real steps forward to ensure long-term funding for that agency, in part through the introduction of congestion pricing.
JB: There are a few large operators where transit ridership has recovered to pre-pandemic levels, or even bested previous ridership records. Is there something in common about those operators, or some particular learning for other agencies?
YF: What seems to be clear is that the agencies that are recovering their ridership more quickly are those that have taken a look at their service plans and have ensured that those better address the needs of riders. That has meant, in places like Cincinnati, the introduction of more frequent and reliable bus lines on routes in the densest urban areas, or the creation of new routes to serve previously neglected suburban zones.
For smaller agencies, the introduction of free fares seems to have been associated with growing ridership as well. We’ve seen the success of transit systems in places like Alexandria and Richmond, Virginia, both of which introduced free fares and have stuck to that system. I don’t think that free fares are realistic for bigger agencies, which currently collect hundreds of millions or sometimes even billions of dollars from riders, but they make sense for smaller agencies.
JB: Even the best operational reforms aren’t going to bring all the downtown commuter riders back on a system like BART or Metra. You identified a lot of possible strategies to make up for lost fare revenue, are there any in particular you prefer, or that you think we’re more likely to see used?
YF: The revenue strategy I’m most excited about seeing introduced is using state highway funding for transit. This is authorized by federal law; in essence, it allows states to take the dollars they receive from Washington from the Federal Highway Administration and either use them directly on transit projects, or “flex” them into funds for transit agencies. There is a huge potential here, but it’s something we’ve yet to see implemented on a large scale.
JB: If transit agencies can’t fix their budget holes, what are the second order effects, beyond reduced service? What does it mean for cities, for citizens, for local businesses?
YF: We’ve seen repeated evidence that transit plays an essential role in guaranteeing access to jobs for millions of people. There is research by Yingling Fan and others, for example, showing that the opening of a new light rail line in Minneapolis vastly expanded the ability of low-wage earners to get to jobs. We also have evidence from transit strikes transit that public transportation is associated with significant reductions in automobile congestion, car crashes, and pollution. Cathy Liu and Jerry Zhao were recently out with a really interesting paper showing that investment in transit reduces income inequality and poverty rates at the metropolitan scale. Transit plays a key role in improving our society!
JB: In the paper, you point to how we fund other essential services, like parks and libraries, as an example of how we can fund transit more broadly. But oftentimes those same services are funded regressively, or even in a way that discourages other necessary production. So if a city “saves transit” by say slapping another $10,000 in fees on every new housing permit, do we really come out ahead? How do we point city and transit leaders to outcomes that work for everyone?
YF: Certainly we need to be careful when we add new taxes and fees. The goal should be to develop broad-based, progressive funding sources. That’s why generalized property and income taxes have been so useful in the past. We should increasingly return to those sources to fund public services in general.
JB: If you could snap your fingers to do one thing to save transit, what would it be?
YF: Require states to provide equal funding to transit and road investments each year.
Low Ticket Alert!
We’re almost two months away from Curbivore 2024, and tickets are going quickly! We only have 3 Early Bird VIP tickets left, letting lucky ticket holders save $600 on early, guaranteed access to workshops and side events, curated introductions to industry leaders and other high-touch goodies.
Regular tickets are going fast as well; we’re building something special for March 28 & 29 — we hope you’ll join us!
HOT INDUSTRY NEWS & GOSSIP
Fin is in: British sustainable logistics startup Fin has acquired competitor Urb-it, after the latter company filed for bankruptcy. Fin is a particularly green courier service, using pedal-powered quadbikes for urban deliveries, and electric vans in the suburbs. The company estimates its special bikes can handle 91% of all urban deliveries. This acquisition also brings some major clients into its arms: AliExpress, Zara and Shein.
Small cities, big money: With the Feds dolling out Safe Streets and Roads for All grants, a number of smaller communities are finally getting the cash they need to improve street and curb issues that have long vexxed them. StreetsBlog looks at the keys to a successful application. Speaking of funding, CALSTART has an interesting sounding webinar on how to tap into $100M in green transit money.
Good MTA, Bad MTA: The NYC MTA has figured out that by reusing tunnels it built in the 70s, it can save over a billion dollars on its expensive Second Ave Subway Phase 2 project. That’s the innovation we like to see! On the not so good front, it’s innovative (for America, anyway) new open gangway subway cars apparently can’t be used on express tracks. And instead of adding platform screen doors, as is common in many large systems, the agency has started installing random-looking gates at busy stations.
California forever and ever: California Forever, the plan to start a new community on underutilized land between the SF Bay and Sacramento, has released some fresh renderings of what its city might look like. Obviously this is all pretty speculative, but the urban form looks quite good (in a curb-tastic way) and the planned density would be conducive to walking to local businesses. Complaints that most residents would drive to jobs are fair, as the plan has sadly neglected to address regional transit improvements. While I wish that not building this meant that more homes would be added in SF proper, the far more likely outcome is that even worse sprawl gets built, even further away, with even less urban-esque benefits. (See Mountain House, a 58 mile drive from ‘Frisco.)
In other development news: Vancouver has approved the massive, and massively urban, Jericho Lands project, whereby the indigenous Musqueam, Squamish, and Tsleil-Waututh First Nations are building a new, car-light neighborhood near the western edge of Vancouver, and the NIMBYs can’t stop them. And in LA, a new tower rising in Century City shows that the office market isn’t weak in every big city submarket; fortunately for commuters this should finish up about the same time the new Metro line opens next door.
You Go, Toronto: Toronto’s Metrolinx has accepted a proposal to turn what’s currently a commuter rail network into something much more akin to an RER or S-Bahn. With that, trains on the 388-mile Go Transit network will come frequently at most hours of the day, helping make the region’s booming suburbs far more urban and pedestrian friendly. Can we get some of that down here?
Zap! The Feds have been dolling out plenty of EV cash lately, with $150 million going to fund 4,500 public chargers. Our friends at itselectric were fortunate enough to score $1.5M themselves, for urban-focused charging. Meanwhile, the Republicans are trying to stall the electric revolution completely.
Great name for an 80s metal band, bad name for a street: Before NYC kicked off its Vision Zero program, Queens Boulevard was known as the “Boulevard of Death,” thanks to 19 pedestrian dying in 1997 alone. While safety upgrades have cut the carnage down considerably, a new road now vies for the ignominious title: Atlantic Boulevard, in Brooklyn, where 40 people have lost their lives in the past decade. Having once lived near it, I can tell you I purposefully would avoid walking by this street when I could…
Dream job alert: The City of Pasadena is looking for a new Director of Transportation. You get a capital budget of $184M, staff of 54, and a salary that tops out above $244k. Not bad!
LA, Vote Yes on Measure HLA: It would implement the City of LA’s Mobility Plan safety improvements any time a street is repaved. This measure would save lives by making our streets safer, cut down on car-related emissions, and promote the use of public transportation as a way of getting around. Measure HLA will appear on the March 2024 ballot.
A few good links: SF sues to stop robotaxis. Daytrip raises $10M for ridehail meets vacation travel. Starship celebrates five years of campus deliveries. Just Eat Takeaway.com pulls out of France. Did activist Edin Alex Enamorado go to far in his defense of street vendors? San Diego hopes that loosening restrictive rules will lure back micromobility operators. Flexport raises $260M from Shopify. LA Metro about to launch all door boarding. DC to fine motorists who drive in bus lanes. NYC creating Department of Sustainable Delivery.
P.S. Got your Curbivore ticket yet?
- Jonah Bliss & The Curbivore Crew