The COVID-19 pandemic has profoundly impacted public transit systems across the United States, leading to a significant decline in ridership and a subsequent productivity crisis.
A recent policy brief by the Reason Foundation, “Addressing the Transit Productivity Crisis,” analyzes the historical and current challenges facing public transit and proposes strategies to enhance efficiency and sustainability.
Their key finding: “…while conditions have substantially worsened in recent years, public transit productivity has trended downward since the end of World War II, largely due to increasing household incomes, growing private automobile ownership, and the dispersal of households and then workplaces into the suburbs.”
In fact, the report goes further arguing, “Public transit ridership is unlikely to recover to pre-pandemic levels within the next decade.”
While these facts are undoubtedly disturbing to advocates for public transit, it is important to recognize that the decline in transit productivity is not a recent phenomenon. Post-World War II, several socio-economic factors contributed to this downturn, including rising household incomes, increased private automobile ownership, and the suburbanization of both residences and workplaces.
Some of the factors that led to the rise in automobile ownership include the increase in household incomes, enabling more Americans to afford private automobiles. Further, as cars became more affordable, their ownership surged and offered individuals great flexibility and convenience compared to public transit.
Finally, the suburbanization of the population and their migration away from urban centers resulted in dispersed residential and employment locations.
Such dispersion made public transit less practical.
These shifts led to a decreased demand for public transit, culminating in numerous transit company bankruptcies. In response, Congress enacted the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, facilitating state and local government takeovers of these failing private transit entities. Initially, federal assistance was limited to capital support but soon expanded to include operating subsidies.
However, increased government assistance did not reverse the declining productivity trends.
The policy brief highlights that in the 15 years preceding the 1964 Act, transit productivity decreased by an average of 1.4% annually across all systems and 1.3% for larger systems. Post-1964, these declines accelerated, averaging 2.1% per year for all systems and 3.1% for large systems between 1964 and 1972. The period from 1975 to 1985 saw even sharper declines, with productivity dropping 3.1% annually across all systems and 3.8% for large systems.
The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 exacerbated existing challenges. Public transit ridership plummeted as people stayed home and avoided crowded spaces. As of 2023, nationwide ridership had only rebounded to approximately 71% of 2019 levels. This decline is largely attributed to changes in work travel patterns, with remote work becoming more prevalent. Transit systems, traditionally designed to cater to peak-hour commuting to central business districts, faced reduced demand as working from home remained two to five times higher than pre-pandemic levels.
To counteract the financial strain from diminished ridership, Congress authorized unprecedented federal subsidies. Supplemental COVID-19 appropriations during fiscal years 2020 and 2021 provided $69.5 billion in emergency support to transit agencies, equating to nearly five years of pre-pandemic federal transit funding. Additionally, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of fiscal year 2022 increased federal transit funding by 67% over levels previously authorized by the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act of 2015.
These substantial federal funds enabled transit agencies to maintain service levels close to pre-pandemic standards. Between 2019 and 2023, transit service provision decreased by only 10.3% (measured in vehicle revenue-miles), despite a 29.3% drop in ridership. This imbalance led to notable declines in transit labor productivity, primarily driven by decreased ridership.
The persistent decline in transit productivity necessitates a multifaceted approach to reform. Key recommendations include:
- Reevaluating Funding Structures: Shifting from federal operating subsidies to performance-based funding can incentivize efficiency and align financial support with measurable improvements in service delivery.
- Embracing Technological Innovations: Integrating advanced technologies, such as real-time data analytics and automated systems, can enhance operational efficiency and improve the rider experience.
- Promoting Public-Private Partnerships: Collaborations between public agencies and private companies can introduce innovative solutions and investment, fostering a more dynamic and responsive transit system.
- Implementing Demand-Responsive Services: Adopting flexible, on-demand transit services in areas with low or scattered ridership can optimize resource allocation and better meet the needs of these communities.
- Enhancing Accountability and Transparency: Establishing robust oversight mechanisms can ensure that funds are utilized effectively, reducing wasteful expenditures and building public trust in transit agencies.
The report does not explicitly address housing policies or the need for increased residential density in relation to public transit productivity.
However, the Reason Foundation has explored the intersection of housing policies and urban density in other publications. For instance, discussions on “missing middle housing” highlight the challenges posed by zoning laws that limit housing density, which can drive up housing prices and restrict affordable housing options.
Additionally, Reason has examined how land-use regulations contribute to housing shortages, noting that such regulations often limit the supply of developable land or restrict higher-density housing options necessary to meet urban housing demand.
Overall, Reason acknowledges in its broader body of work that land-use policies and housing density are integral to urban planning and can influence public transit systems.
Seems strange that the response to declining ridership is to increase funding for public transit, in order to maintain existing service levels.
Seems like the “opposite” should occur (decrease funding AND service levels). That’s how things work for just about everything else.
I used to live next to a neighborhood bus line, and routinely witnessed it driving by during the night with no passengers (or maybe 1-2). And that was decades ago, at this point. For sure, it was creating a lot of unnecessary greenhouse gasses per “passenger mile”.
Turns out that (given a choice), most people don’t want to live in a dense environment (other than perhaps young people, who view that type of environment as stimulating).
It seems like Don Shor and I agree on this one point at least. That is, you can’t force people into doing what they don’t want to do (especially if they have other options).
“Seems strange that the response to declining ridership ”
It doesn’t seem strange at all if the goal is to increase ridership.
If the existing product is losing its appeal in an already-dense environment, perhaps the goal itself is flawed.
You said it yourself – “if the existing product is losing its appeal” – then the answer is to find ways to improve its appeal IF the goal is to get more people out of their vehicles.
“IF the goals is to get more people out of their vehicles”.
I believe the goal is to get OTHER people out of their vehicles.
RO say: “I believe the goal is to get OTHER people out of their vehicles.”
So true RO. So true. And it’s usually ‘get the poor people out of their vehicles’. Because people have *choice* up to the limits of the time and money, and the rich have more money. Though this is usually unsaid or probably not done consciously. But how many people who post here on the *luxury issue* of expanded local transit in Davis would actually take the bus around do their daily chores. And let me stress this point people: there is NO magic local bus that happens to go from your house to where you are going. That’s called an Uber, and it comes with a price, and doesn’t reduce VMTs.
Unless you purposefully live where you can take public transit from a nearby transit stop to work and many other places you go, which is how I built the very base structure of my life. But how many people can or would do that?
A *luxury value*, by the way, is one that people hold because they can afford to foister the consequences of their value on to other people. Davis is loaded with people with luxury values. It’s sort of the other end of so-called “nimbyism” — people with luxury values force those with less money and political power to suffer the consequences of forcing their ideals upon others, and then label them ‘nimbys’ when they complain. The true arseholes are not the so-called nimbys, it’s those who force their values upon others and then live in a gated community with a security guard, or at least a safe suburb.
Reminds me of how some claim that the way to solve a declining retail environment is to cram more people into a given area.
They never seem to want to address the underlying cause. Or perhaps, they just “fear change”, so to speak.
If on the other hand, your goal is not to solve anything then keep blocking all ideas, it’s working brilliantly.
I tend to question whether or not there’s a problem to be solved in the first place.
Other than continued sprawl in the region and beyond, which actually IS a problem.
Sprawl is an obstructionist term that is only used to stop new housing from being built!
Sprawl is not an obstructionist term. It also does not refer to infill.
But if you want to call me someone that tries to obstruct sprawl, is that news to you?
There is no shortage of fertile farmland in the United States thus there is no such thing as “sprawl” except in the minds of obstructionists.
WS say: “Sprawl is an obstructionist term that is only used to stop new housing from being built!”
Of what value is using a term like ‘obstructionist’ (could be a pejorative in this context, and therefore would not be published in the The Vanguard) and then smearing someone with the term?
The purpose of comments is to share one’s values and ideas, and either come to an agreement or compromise, or not. But simply calling someone a name only says that their values have no value, because yours are so perfectly right. Could not one be concerned about traffic, economic viability, quality of life, town character, loss of farmland, poor planning, poor infrastructure, water use and limits, and a host of other issues, and even if you disagree, the points are from valid perspective for discussion?
We have seen what happens when the pro-housing energy goes amok, and it is called Los Angeles. Many of us will fight any such fate for this region, and Folsom and Vacaville both took big leaps in that direction.
I ran WS’s statement through the “Fish Supreme with Cheese” and learned the following:
Alan C. Miller said: Examine the following statement for truth in a fact check: “There is no shortage of fertile farmland in the United States thus there is no such thing as “sprawl” except in the minds of obstructionists.”
ChatGPT said: The statement contains two key claims that can be examined for truth:
“There is no shortage of fertile farmland in the United States.”
The U.S. has a vast amount of farmland, but the availability of fertile farmland is more complex. While the U.S. is one of the world’s largest agricultural producers, farmland loss is a documented issue. According to the American Farmland Trust (AFT), millions of acres of agricultural land have been converted to development over the past few decades. Additionally, soil depletion, climate change, and water shortages (especially in the West) can impact the productivity of remaining farmland.
While it is true that the U.S. is not currently facing an absolute shortage of farmland, the quality and sustainability of agricultural land are ongoing concerns.
“Thus, there is no such thing as ‘sprawl’ except in the minds of obstructionists.”
Urban sprawl is a well-documented phenomenon in urban planning and land use studies. It refers to the spread of low-density, car-dependent development outward from cities, often consuming farmland, forests, and open spaces. Sprawl can lead to environmental, economic, and infrastructure challenges, such as increased traffic, higher public service costs, and loss of rural land.
The idea that sprawl exists only “in the minds of obstructionists” is incorrect. While people debate the extent of its negative effects and how to address them, sprawl itself is a measurable and studied phenomenon.
The first claim is partially true but lacks context about farmland loss and sustainability concerns. The second claim is false, as urban sprawl is a well-documented and studied occurrence, not just an idea held by “obstructionists.”
Another issue related to sprawl is the U.S.’ growing reliance on imported food – as well as the loss of sensitive environmental habitat (like rainforests) in other countries.
Not to mention the environmental cost of shipping that food.
I’ve seen arguments on here that if we “don’t build housing here, they’ll build it somewhere else”. Well, if that’s true, then it’s also true of “growing food somewhere else” as a result of local sprawl.
The Bay Area used to have a lot more farms, sometimes growing what we now call “heirloom” fruits. (For example, the type of tomato that doesn’t bounce when it falls out of trucks. Blenheim apricots, Gravenstein apples also come to mind.)
I’ve witnessed the loss of fruit orchards in places like the Delta region, Sonoma county, etc.
Of course, you can still get some local, heirloom-quality organic products, but those used to be the “norm” (rather than an expensive specialty item).
Modern (factory) farming is also highly-dependent upon fossil fuels at this point, as well (both for processing and fertilizer).
Overall, there is no substitute for a stable (non-growing) human population. Point to ANY environmental problem – and it’s exacerbated if a population is still growing. Fortunately, young people (nationwide) aren’t having kids at anywhere near replacement levels these days.
RO say: “Overall, there is no substitute for a stable (non-growing) human population. Point to ANY environmental problem – and it’s exacerbated if a population is still growing. Fortunately, young people (nationwide) aren’t having kids at anywhere near replacement levels these days.”
Not nearly good enough, stability. What we need is a massive reduction in population to heal the hearth. Covid-19 was assigned by the Donkey Headed Adversary of Humanity to take revenge upon humans for what we have done to the Earth, but it didn’t even begin to finish the job. Side benefit to massive population reduction: no more housing crisis! 😐
The United States, despite being a major agricultural producer, imports a significant amount of food for several key reasons:
* Consumer Demand and Variety:
* U.S. consumers have diverse and evolving tastes, seeking a wide range of foods, including those not easily grown domestically. This includes tropical fruits, spices, and other specialty items.
* Increased ethnic diversity in the U.S. population contributes to demand for foods from various cultures.
* Seasonal Availability:
* Importing food allows access to fresh produce year-round, regardless of domestic growing seasons.
* Different climates in other countries enable the production of certain foods when they are out of season in the U.S.
* Economic Factors:
* In some cases, it is more cost-effective to import certain foods than to produce them domestically.
* Global trade and market forces influence the prices of various food products.
* Specialty Products:
* Certain products, such as coffee, cocoa, and some spices, are primarily grown in tropical climates and must be imported.
* Globalized Food System:
* The modern food system is highly interconnected, with complex supply chains that involve both domestic and international sources.
In essence, food imports contribute to the availability, variety, and affordability of food for U.S. consumers.
Walter: Much of what you cite here is not necessarily in alignment with either the environment OR the concept of “fair trade”.
Here’s one such citation: “In some cases, it is more cost-effective to import certain foods than to produce them domestically.”
Well, maybe not after the tariffs – I guess we’ll see. (The ability to produce food within one’s own country can become a national security issue, and I recall this is one of the reasons for Russia’s interest in Ukraine.)
Or maybe “Frankenfoods” (GMOs) will save us.
Personally, I’d like to see tomatoes bounce more like super-balls, after they fall off trucks. I’m not quite satisfied with the level of height that they’re currently reaching. Another idea: see if factory farmers will contribute to UCD to create a tomato that is shaped in the form of a square – more efficient to pack that way.
Importing food literally has nothing to do with housing. My prior comment proves that.
Guys we need to move off this point, it’s definitely off topic for this article.
Is Davis urban? I thought it was suburban or rural.
“Is Davis urban? I thought it was suburban or rural.”
Yes, Davis is a lovely suburb with rural ambience and a world-class university.
That’s how I always viewed it – a suburb of Sacramento.
And so do most normal people from the Bay Area.
(I’m waiting for an earlier comment to be posted.)
Never thought I’d see anything from Reason in the Vanguard, especially considered in a respectful light.
This article is pretty accurate about the state of things. To summarize and expand on ‘how we got here’, we have built our cities based on the automobile for the last 80-ish years; building transit on top of such road patterns and land use patterns is difficult, if not an exercise in futility. In the 40’s-ish, National City Lines, a corporate conglomerate of oil, gas, bus and tire companies, bought up most of America’s trolley systems and scraped the cars and the track. Did you know Los Angeles had one of the greatest urban rail systems in the world at one time? Look up a map online. San Francisco is one of the few cities that did not sell their rail systems, and so today we most some key lines in a City that really needs them. Unfortunately, SFMTA is experiencing serious financial problems as the Biden money described above runs out.
What this article leaves out is the regional (between urban areas) rail travel has recovered well, unlike local transit. Local transit has also been highly affected by the emergence of Uber and Lyft. Two of the three intercity rail corridors are near pre-pandemic levels. The Capitol Corridor (Sac-Bay) is the one corridor that didn’t recover as fast. This is due to many riders who previously traveled Sac or Davis to the East Bay and San Francisco and San Jose for tech jobs. But those jobs are the very easiest converted to telework, and many did. However the CC ridership has recovered well over the last year with some increase in job-related travel as well as greater use of the service for leisure travel and visiting friends/relatives. With this, the CC is adding two and then three more round-trips in 2025 (pending approval and availability of equipment). This should add significantly to ridership as more trains become available at the times that people want to ride them.
In a few years, the Capitol Corridor should be near-hourly during the service day, with trains leaving regularly at the same time after each hour (this requires some capital improvement projects to add passing tracks). Once this takes place, local transit systems can be used for what they work best as in the modern day: feeder systems to the rail system. With regularized service, a bus can go out into the town for 45-minutes on a few key routes, dropping people off from the rail station, then picking people up to feed the next train. This pattern can be repeated all day with regularized train service. Other services can then be scheduled using a ‘ride-share’ on-call model such as YoloBus started in Woodland recently to replace some of their low-ridership routes. This used to work poorly, but with software available such as dispatches Uber and Lyft, it is now practical.
And the article mentions land use and transit. And again, the big boogey-man in Davis that must be addressed: WE MUST BUILD
What this
And again, the big boogey-man in Davis that must be addressed: WE MUST BUILD OUR NORTHEAST and EAST FUTURE SUBURBS ALONG A TRANSIT AND PED/BIKE ROUTE that all development is built around and connects between projects, with density focused along the transit route. This is BASIC planning to reverse decades of poor and automobile-centric building patterns. If this isn’t done, and starting with Village Farms or whatever it’s called, I’m voting against all Measure J votes going forward. We must take a stand.