Vision Zero Cities: Fund Transit - Or Lose It - Streetsblog USA

"In most American cities, even the best public transit administrators face untenable choices, ranging from deferred maintenance to service cuts. With few exceptions, underfunded and underperforming transit is a feature, not a bug, of American life. It doesn't have to be this way. Quality public transit, with steady subsidy and supportive land use, can thrive in an auto-centric society as it has in cities like New York, Boston, and San Francisco."

"However, riders in the late 19th and early 20th centuries enjoyed access to the world's largest privately developed and operated transit systems. Private transit companies initially attracted capital because streetcars and elevated lines enabled the profitable development of peripheral land. Developers built residential neighborhoods and transit lines connected them to the heart of the city, drawing new residents who would then pay fares to ride the transit line."

"Although land development generated initial revenue, fare boxes were soon expected to sustain the transit service. Transit companies that survived the land development phase only remained profitable through monopolistic consolidation, fare increases, labor exploitation, and maximizing the use of aging equipment. Taking transit wasn't pleasant - one result was reformer outrage and the establishment of public service commissions that attempted to regulate private companies' fares, routes, and service levels - but it was fast, frequent, affordable, and well-connected."

Most American cities face chronic underfunding of public transit, forcing administrators into choices like deferred maintenance and service cuts. Quality transit can succeed even in auto-centric environments if sustained public subsidy and supportive land use enable frequent, connected service. Historically, privately developed streetcar and elevated networks financed urban expansion by linking peripheral residential development to city centers, creating so-called streetcar suburbs. Private operators shifted reliance from land-development revenue to fareboxes and survived through consolidation, fare hikes, labor exploitation, and aging equipment. Those conditions prompted regulatory reforms, yet private-era transit remained fast, frequent, affordable, and well-connected.

Read at Streetsblog