Having been to the developing world a few times, it's interesting to see how the problem is managed* there. in some areas, "public transit" is essentially a private business... vehicles run on set routes, but the schedule is "the trip starts when there are enough people on board to make it worthwhile for the driver to start the trip". I remember once taking a bus from Allenby Bridge (border between Jordan and the occupied West Bank) to Jerusalem. Six or seven of us sat and sat on a shuttle bus until finally a passenger in exasperation pulled out the equivalent of three or four more fares and gave them to the driver... now the bus was "full" and we could get going.
*I originally used the word "solved" but that's not much of a solution is it?
The answer is actually not as complicated as you think. You said it yourself that the economies of many cities wouldn't work without public transportation. What that means in geographical terms is that the land around public transportation access points is more valuable do to it's proximity to public transportation. Therefore, a tax on land values near public transportation is entirely justified to support it. Why should private landlords capture value generated by public investment? This is why fares can't cover the cost of the system, part of the value created by the system is being diverted. Furthermore, the land becomes more valuable if the public transportation system starts having better service and cheaper fares. With a dedicated Land Value Tax a virtuous cycle would start where better service with lower fares would actually result in more revenue for the system. Furthermore, bonds could be underwritten in anticipation of greater LVT revenue from Capital improvements. A requirement that transits Unions buy these bonds would put them on the hook to ensure the system was solvent.
This has some point, but puts too much of the blame on (unsolvable) geometry and not enough on solvable issues (as you point out, NYC has poor farebox recovery compared to less-dense cities, which suggests there's more than just density going on here; we also know that North American cities generally have worse costs and more expensive operations per mile compared to Asian and European cities, not just per passenger).
Also, it's yet another point in favor of doing more to support scalable transportation methods that don't rely on operating subsidies (specifically, bikes and lime scooters), instead of actively obstructing them.
Keep reading... I think these issues are indeed solvable, as I will explore in the next few numbers here.
I WISH it were the cast that shared micro-mobility solutions didn't require operating subsidies. It appears that they do! But perhaps you meant privately-owned micromobility, in which case, I (as a cycle commuter) absolutely agree that we should stop actively obstructing them.
What would "progress" in public transit look like is such a great question! Eagerly anticipating the rest of the series.
Having been to the developing world a few times, it's interesting to see how the problem is managed* there. in some areas, "public transit" is essentially a private business... vehicles run on set routes, but the schedule is "the trip starts when there are enough people on board to make it worthwhile for the driver to start the trip". I remember once taking a bus from Allenby Bridge (border between Jordan and the occupied West Bank) to Jerusalem. Six or seven of us sat and sat on a shuttle bus until finally a passenger in exasperation pulled out the equivalent of three or four more fares and gave them to the driver... now the bus was "full" and we could get going.
*I originally used the word "solved" but that's not much of a solution is it?
This is a rough-and-ready approach to dynamic fare pricing, which I think is on the way to a solution, at least!
The answer is actually not as complicated as you think. You said it yourself that the economies of many cities wouldn't work without public transportation. What that means in geographical terms is that the land around public transportation access points is more valuable do to it's proximity to public transportation. Therefore, a tax on land values near public transportation is entirely justified to support it. Why should private landlords capture value generated by public investment? This is why fares can't cover the cost of the system, part of the value created by the system is being diverted. Furthermore, the land becomes more valuable if the public transportation system starts having better service and cheaper fares. With a dedicated Land Value Tax a virtuous cycle would start where better service with lower fares would actually result in more revenue for the system. Furthermore, bonds could be underwritten in anticipation of greater LVT revenue from Capital improvements. A requirement that transits Unions buy these bonds would put them on the hook to ensure the system was solvent.
Come back for part three of this series; you'll see we're thinking along similar lines!
I can't take credit for original thinking. Cribbed the whole thing from Henry George, of course.
By George, we all did
This has some point, but puts too much of the blame on (unsolvable) geometry and not enough on solvable issues (as you point out, NYC has poor farebox recovery compared to less-dense cities, which suggests there's more than just density going on here; we also know that North American cities generally have worse costs and more expensive operations per mile compared to Asian and European cities, not just per passenger).
Also, it's yet another point in favor of doing more to support scalable transportation methods that don't rely on operating subsidies (specifically, bikes and lime scooters), instead of actively obstructing them.
Keep reading... I think these issues are indeed solvable, as I will explore in the next few numbers here.
I WISH it were the cast that shared micro-mobility solutions didn't require operating subsidies. It appears that they do! But perhaps you meant privately-owned micromobility, in which case, I (as a cycle commuter) absolutely agree that we should stop actively obstructing them.