Transit Doesn't Need to Profit

[@1978dkelly]

Weird how subsidized (and free at point-of-use!) highways and roads are seen as "good" despite being massively expensive and not turning a profit whereas transit is just seen as an economic detriment even if farebox recovery is high. Neoliberalism can do weird things to thought processes.

[@darkwoodmovies]

@The Nudge But that doesn't make sense. The government's entire purpose for existence is to enforce laws and allocate tax money. Where do you draw the line on what should and shouldn't be funded? No funding means everything is private and anarchy.

[@neolithictransitrevolution427]

@The Nudge If all subsidies were eliminated, then what would tax money be used for?

[@GilmerJohn]

Well, "transit" routinely takes money from highway funds generated by fuel taxes. It's often a major local expense and should be evaluated often to determine whether it's worth the cost and even how much alternatives would cost the users or the local governments.

[@darkwoodmovies]

@The Nudge But like, there HAS to be something beyond the fundamentals. This might work in a totally rural area where everyone has their own land and just survives on their own, but once you start putting people closer together and expecting a functional society, there has to be common shared spaces and services. Just look at our healthcare or prison systems as prime examples of what happens when the government leaves things to the private sector.

[@_human_1946]

Highways are not neoliberal. Land expropriation, property restrictions, and untaxed externalities aren't neoliberal, they're the opposite of it.

[@jan-lukas]

Here in Germany all local public transit is subsidized by the state. The only exception are the Intercity and ICE trains as well as the few other comparable services by other companies. This is deemed normal here, and new projects aren't assessed on profitability for the transit agency, but in profitability for the whole economy! Germany obviously has its own problems, but at least this is something we do have figured out. And the 49€ ticket is obviously another great way to push ticket prices down with more subsidizing

[@MarioFanGamer659]

I was about to write that. I'd also explain that this is a big factor on why tickets are universal (when compared to ticket prices on cities in other countries) i.e. why it's fine to take the metro with a bus ticket since tickets for regional transportation are valid for the region you bought no matter the operator and mode of transportation.

[@namenamename390]

We are moving in the right direction and I completely agree that the 49€ ticket is a great step, but I still hear way too much about the "losses" DB makes. Yes DB loses money, lots of it, but this should be considered the price to pay for decent high speed public transportation, which the IC/ICE network is. But since the Bahnreform, there has always been the expectation that DB is supposed to make money and I really hope this will change sooner rather than later.

[@91djdj]

Interessanterweise sprechen dennoch viele Leute darüber, "wie viel Geld die Öffis doch schlucken" und fragen sich jedes Mal wo das Geld hingeht, wenn Busse uns Bahnen zu spät kommen. :D

[@leDespicable]

@@MarioFanGamer659 That's not because of the subsidies though, but because of the tariff associations that were founded to standardise ticket systems in specific areas.

[@edwardmiessner6502]

The US used to base projects on profitability for the whole economy too until the Republican Revolutions which ushered in neoliberalism. Now everything is based on what the politicians in power prefer.

[@Jason-gq8fo]

So much this, it’s so annoying that people expect it to make direct profit. Do you expect roads to make profit? It’s been proven that good infrastructure boosts the economy in so many other ways

[@electric7487]

It's easier to fool someone than to convince them they've been fooled.

[@MarioYoshi4723]

“B-bUt fUEl TaXEs!!!” Meanwhile, at least in the US, we need yearly billion dollar bills to fix our crumbling roads. I remind everyone, gas taxes don’t cover Jack.

[@sea80vicvan]

You'd be surprised at the large number of people that think roads cost nothing to build and maintain. They have no clue about the huge government subsidies required for both, making them less cost efficient than public transit.

[@mohammedsarker5756]

@@MarioYoshi4723 the problem here is that we claim to have a user fee model but then don't even raise the user fees to the users to fund the infrastructure cus we're scared of losing votes and then the roads are dogshit and everyone know has to foot the bill through general funds. Brilliant. Juuuust brilliant

[@realquadmoo]

@@sea80vicvan Many cities are too much in debt due to road infrastructure to work on a big public transit network!

[@neolithictransitrevolution427]

Big externality you missed, the time lost to congestion. Also, the mental health effects of being in road rage mode for hours a day. Edit: Adding injuries and death, and the medical and legal bills associated

[@fallenshallrise]

This is very real. I am one of those people who doesn't want to start every work day in a rage because of all the dumb people half asleep on the roads on autopilot between home and work.

[@edwardmiessner6502]

And the repercussions on society due to the atomisation that is enforced by the automotive suburban lifestyle foisted on the public to benefit big businesses.

[@RMTransit]

The list of externalities is very long!

[@Poorgeniu5]

Not only that, you don't have to fight with dealerships to take off their markups when buying a car.

[@barryrobbins7694]

@@RMTransit Occasionally, I hear people complain about their fear of taking public transportation due to crime. While this does happen on occasion, I think it is a red herring.

[@mot.schutzen9079]

Well public transit should be considered as a utility like water and electricity, and not some kind of luxury. The money spent on a well-designed transit system can be earned back mostly by taxes and not fares.

[@RMTransit]

I hope you enjoyed the very last line of the video then!

[@laurie7689]

In the US, water and electricity have to be paid for or the citizens don't get them. Low-income people can get assistance with their bills, but they still have to pay their utility bills. No-income people go without.

[@jasonriddell]

@@laurie7689 your water/electricity bill is FAR from covering the TOTAL COST of the infrastructure to deliver it and maintain it it ONLY covers the production / purchase and at time transport costs when the city approves a NEW development the water and power lines are all paid for by the developer and TAX PAYERS it is like "paying" for the BUS FUEL and NOT the BUS + the garage + the staff to make it all work if measured that way MOST transit operations WOULD be profitable

[@barryrobbins7694]

Healthy drinking water is a luxury for cities such as Flint, Michigan in the United States. This happened when industry interests took priority over public health.

[@udishomer5852]

@@laurie7689 Water and electricity have to be paid for everywhere, but in most placed they are subsidized for lower income people. I've lived in Israel, Thailand and the Philippines and all subsidize electricity and water.

[@martinjanu9977]

I like to imagine just how much better transit could be overall, if we divided the money used for car infrastructure more fairly towards public transit that can serve a lot more people more efficiently 🤔

[@RMTransit]

Or charged people to use expensive Road infrastructure!

[@deadaccount2048]

As a Londoner (where ee have congestion charge, basically what you just described) I agree, but they can’t charge people to get around using car unless they create alternative methods. And we know how the US is like about spending their money on stuff that won’t generate massive profits

[@user-xsn5ozskwg]

It's always been a silly requirement because roads are never expected to make money and no sane government would allow for cars if their maintenance and fuel was meant to be covered by taxes.I'm also glad you mentioned we still would have some roads because seemingly on every transit video ever someone seems to think pointing out how much better almost any other mode of transit is means we want to dump every car in the ocean and tear up the roads for dirt bike trails.

[@alex2143]

Well, some roads might best be converted to dirt bike trails, but it's stupid to assume that people saying "hey we should prioritize transit in some situations" are saying "let the firefighters ride the bus instead of taking their big truck down the road". Like, no. Roads are essential too. But there can be too much of them.

[@davidty2006]

busses need to go somewhere.

[@sciencecw]

I'm not sure about that. A lot of public transit in north america is funded by tolls. And while gas tax currently does not cover all of road infrastructure. It's not hard to bring it to a level where it would (which it once did)

[@alex2143]

@@sciencecw A lot of public transit everywhere is funded in no small part by taxes (tolls are an example of a tax). And that is fine. Public transit has big socioeconomic benefits for everyone, regardless of whether you use it or not. It reduces congestion, increases air quality, increases social mobility, and it gives you a way of moving around if you don't have access to a car for whatever reason. If public transit didn't exist in some areas, there'd have to be a lot more roads and parking spaces, which would also cost money and only lead to more congestion and delays. Better to spend that money on public transit instead, and make it a good alternative to driving.

[@112313]

Roads will always be essential. Essential for construction access, maintenance access, emergency services access, municipal services, logistics services, security services... So, roads will still need to be built to allow access to buildings and facilities...but their use by private vehicles can be reduced by building public transportation options. Ppl drives to go places. If there is another way to get there without driving, or a cheaper way, ppl will use it.

[@michaelvavala3088]

Well said, Reece. I drive most places because I live in the outskirts of the GTHA but I also know that money will have to get spent anyway. Rather than spending $9B on a highway that will only serve a portion of the area if we used that money to build more and better transit we actually take drivers off the road and generate income to help maintain that infrastructure. You don’t get that same luxury when building new highways. Plus like I said, transit expansions help the whole area its connected to whereas a new highway does not.

[@RMTransit]

Well, we need to have a serious conversation about tolls on highways in Ontario. The 407 is a red herring.

[@elijahjbennett]

I used to live in the GTHA and I have been on the 407 a few times and (it's been dramatically expanded since I moved out) but it always felt like such an odd thing to build. It's very wide at some points yet uses tolling as a means to never have congestion by design. You should do a video about how such a road like the 407 has on Greater Toronto's highways with it's unique (for the region) billing system and how that plays with induced demand and congestion and whatnot. I haven't seen it talked about elsewhere and I'd be curious.

[@Nico_M.]

One thing to consider, is that a good public transport system can save the community a lot of money and time, by forcing public and private projects to study where to be located, which in turn makes the public transport system more efficient. And here's the thing: if you only consider car trips, with just being connected to a highway the developer may think it's enough, but if you take into account public transport trips, you need to consider how the system behaves (capacity, frequency, reliability, etc). And if we're talking about a public project, such as a public university, or a change in zoning regulations to allow for housing projects in a new area, they need to coordinate with transport officials to make sure the system will behave properly.

[@RMTransit]

Of course, this is why I kept emphasizing the scope of what you’re discussing in the video

[@wilsistermans1118]

Public transportation may make money on some lines, but making money as a whole should not be the goal. That will mean less profitable lines will disappear. A good public transport system may reduce the use of cars in the city. That means less pollution and a more livable city where people can live without even owning a car. Less cars in the city reduces costs of road maintenance, so the city can benefit from good public transport, even it does not make any money.

[@neolithictransitrevolution427]

Should fares make enough to opperate a transit system? Maybe. But, your transit should be increasing land values where it is built, and property taxes should be increasing because of this. You don't charge per use in an elevator, you make more from rent on the nth floor units. Also, Transit is lower cost than car infrastructure. So frequently, to compete with subsidies given to cars and increase ridership, you should be Subsidizing transit. This might not be profitable in a vacuum, but when you account for infrastructure funding the balance changes.

[@mohammedsarker5756]

you also need to ensure that the zoning of land near stations allows for construction so we can have transit-oriented developments that both boost ridership, expand housing supply and bolster local economies

[@slam5]

that's what is happening in Vancouver.

[@neolithictransitrevolution427]

@@slam5 What do you mean?

[@slam5]

@@neolithictransitrevolution427 I mean transit increase the house prices.

[@jsrodman]

​​@@slam5 I don't buy it. transit may alter the balance of which neighborhood is most desirable, changing values at the very local level, but the regional market is not altered by transit. it is instead driven by population, housing stock availability, pricing regulations or lack thereof, and income levels. if anything, strong transit should reduce the space required for car infrastructure leading to more housing stock per area which should help prices fall. but that does require an integrated and executed plan.

[@Итън]

Great video as always. One thing I would be really interested in you talking about is the EU helping fund transit projects across Europe. As someone from Bulgaria, they have helped fund our Sofia metro which has had a tremendous impact on our city. This is why you see many poorer countries liek Bulgaria have relatively decent transit infrastructure. Especially in the main cities.

[@jsrodman]

I'm looking forward to paying taxes in europe. it's still imperial core (coming from the us) but so much more is spent on improving lives.

[@Итън]

@@jsrodman Yeah I find that's really the big difference between the EU (for the most part) and US. In America your taxes are nowhere to be seen.

[@RMTransit]

It’s good! This, spreading of the wealth helps reduce global emissions, and improve quality of life for everyone!

[@robertcartwright4374]

@@Итън Nonsense! You can see your taxes at work on the evening news, making craters and corpses overseas.

[@barryrobbins7694]

@@Итън Yes, about half of the discretionary spending is on the military budget.

[@AverytheCubanAmerican]

MTR not only operates or sells in other countries like Sweden, the UK, and Australia, but also just across the Pearl River Delta in Macau! There, they're building a LRT. During Portuguese rule, Macau didn't have a mass transit system, and so in 2002, the SAR government proposed a LRT and entrusted the MTR in doing a study, building, and operating it. The original proposal was criticized for not being cost-effective and obstructing views, and so it was temporarily shelved in 2003 before being revived in 2005 when a second study by MTR recommended a mixed underground and elevated system with three lines: an Airport Line, Macau-Taipa Line, and a peninsula encirclement line. Construction work for it began in 2012, starting with the Taipa Line opening in December 2019 (which also serves the airport). The Macau Peninsula will have two lines circling it, one for the western side (Porto Interior Line) and one for the east side (Macau Peninsula Line). The Taipa Line extends to Barra station on the peninsula so it would connect with these two lines. There will also be a line to Coloane from Hospital das Ilhas station on the Taipa Line, a line that will go over to Hengqin in Mainland China from Lotus Bridge station on the Taipa Line, a line connecting the Macau Outer Ferry Terminal to the HKZM Bridge Checkpoint (to serve bus passengers to or from HK), and an East Line that goes through the New Urban Zone.

[@kalle5548]

And MTR service, at least in Sweden absolutely sucks

[@TheRuralUrbanist]

Sometimes a profit to society is loss for a specific transit agency, firm, or company... When your region grows because of transit, the taxes generated should often be enough to show an overall 'profit' for the region. In other words, the transit system is the cost, taxes are the revenue. (Sorry for making a neo-liberal argument😅)

[@mohammedsarker5756]

it's not neoliberal at all, this is kinda the point of public goods to a point, to make tax revenues that then help pay for the services and for service expansion and etc

[@Afronautsays]

You made a socialist argument...

[@nyx7937]

I totally agree with your take, but that's not a neoliberal take, if anything it looks more like a left-wing/socialist take to me.

[@illiiilli24601]

Nice fiscally conservative and responsible take. Sounds like something that could be in Strong Towns.

[@williamerazo3921]

@@illiiilli24601 not a fiscal conservative approach bruh

[@lamitron]

1:20 that poor guy was about to walk up the down escalator at canary wharf 😭

[@SupremeLeaderKimJong-un]

Transit externalizes its "profit" to the community. A good example of this is real estate values. When a rapid transit station pops up, development and prices go up around the stations! Look at Bay Ridge in Brooklyn for example. Before it had a subway, Bay Ridge had nothing...the surrounding area of the R stations exploded because of the subway. Not to mention making the jump to make transit free is very much possible. That's what Luxembourg did, where it's ALL (buses, trains, trams) been free since 2020! In 2020, Luxembourg had the highest car density in the EU, 696 per 1,000 people versus the average 560. The country has suffered from bad traffic and high levels of climate-heating emissions as a result. And it's paid for through their taxes! By eliminating a mode of transit because it's not profitable, then you're isolating so many people. When a government puts profit over people, that tells me everything I need to know about how much they actually care. And of course it wouldn't be profitable if the government isn't doing enough to provide not only convenient transit that takes people where they wanna go but also pedestrian infrastructure, because adding a simple sidewalk and shelters can go a long way.

[@nerd2544]

Thank you Supreme Leader Kim, very based!

[@HrHaakon]

that's terrible for the owners though, as property taxes would rise! :p

[@peter7936]

The same forces means transit will lower property values in city centers. Transit in the form of of a highway led to hollowing out of center centers, and the destruction of their tax bases. My own family moved from a garden arpartment in New Haven to a 1/4 acre lot on a former farm in an adjoining town when the new Turnpike meant my father could commute to work in the same time, with more elbow room. The BMT etc. to nowhere similarly allowed folks to escape tenements in Manhattan for farm fields in Queens and the Bronx.

[@humanecities]

The most important video I’ve seen this week. This is what I’m constantly telling people. It’s worth it from the perspective of health, cost, transportation efficiency…

[@RMTransit]

Thanks for the kind words!

[@dosa2990]

Here in Mumbai, one simply can't imagine life without public transport systems

[@nehcooahnait7827]

And geez it needs some work honestly. Life is good, but it can be better

[@jfungsf882]

As long as car-centric infrastructure *doesn't* make a profit, then *nobody including me* should give one F about public transit making a profit either...

[@jasonlescalleet5611]

“My skyscrapers sure are making me a lot of money, from the rent that people and businesses pay me to locate there. But you know what’s not making money? The elevators! Maybe I don’t need elevators in my skyscrapers after all…”. Flip the skyscrapers on their sides so that the elevators run horizontally, and make them even bigger than they were, and you’ve got transit and transit oriented development. The “elevators” don’t make money, but if they weren’t there, the “skyscrapers” wouldn’t.

[@barryrobbins7694]

Don’t give people too many ideas. They have already realized that additional profit can be made with automation. Now even more profit can be made without customers.

[@yjp20]

I think this is one thing South Korean transit systems get right -- all the payment stuff is integrated and extremely cheap. You can get from one end of Seoul to the other end with 4 transfers from buses to subways and back for quite literally a total of 1-2 dollars, and it makes a huge difference compared to other systems I've experience even in places with amazing (and otherwise much better) transit systems like Japan.

[@haydenlee8332]

that is very true, but the “conservative” politicians of South Korea are also currently going crazy with trying to privatize public infrastructure like electricity. The argument they are bringing up to push for privatization? Yup, it’s also “it’s not profitable”

[@sciencecw]

I think when Pro-transit people talk about profit, they are lamenting extreme inefficiencies often found in north america. This is especially bad after covid, when a drop in ridership means a inverse increase in subsidies. A lot of people who shout "transit is service, and shouldn't make a profit" simply don't understand how big that hole is - and how a system under economy of scale doesn't really bring any benefits a public transit system is supposed to bring

[@Ryuko15]

Public transit should be supported by the government if mostly, it brings most benefits to society and the environment. If encouraged, our public transit can improve because of its demand.

[@user-pe7gf9rv4m]

I like when transit systems sell commercial space in order to raise money like in Hong Kong and it also means we get nice restaurants for quick food, that is very convenient

[@Schobbish]

Love the Elizabeth line bag guy going up the down escalator at 1:20

[@haweater1555]

He should be running an app on his phone that will guide him through the station without taking his eyes off the screen.

[@alexhaowenwong6122]

It's a free stairmaster!

[@davidty2006]

average day in london.

[@RMTransit]

Liz line merch gives you special powers

[@willardSpirit]

Highways are public transportation projects, yet when tolls are raised by $1 or just a hint of raising the gas tax (which is low in the US), people go apesh*t over it

[@johnmccarthy6749]

I generally agree with all your points, and argue with friends to no end about how roads (and suburbia in general) are heavily subsidized....but...I think too often the word "profit" is given a wholly negative connotation about deriving surplus for surplus sake (which you argue would be better spent reinvested expanding service or lowering fares). I don't know that that's necessarily true though, and my one real plug for at least attempting to move towards profitability is predictability. Look at any city with a metro system in North America, but particularly the U.S., even ones where an expansive metro system (i.e. NYC) is necessary, and every single one will reduce service during recessions because of a dip in tax revenues. We can say "well they just shouldn't do that", but when revenues become scarce and all spending becomes squeezed, I think many people would find it difficult to say that maybe housing services, mental health, etc. should be subject to cuts instead of just reducing train frequency. And yet that recessionary period is precisely when all other factors in society should be pushing more people to transit, because it will be cheaper. A transit system that holistically makes money would be better positioned to be counter-cyclical with the economic cycle and garner more long term riders if it was less reliant on tax revenue, because it could over a long time period maintain steady, predictable service. I just think the route to get there is a more holistic approach to deploying public dollars. For example, every major city has a public housing arm that needs to be bringing online more public housing units, while every transit agency actively supports transit oriented development. Why have those two things be siloed when the money could be allocated to achieve both results at once? Moreover, surplus banked for later can smooth over dips in revenue to maintain steady service. Yes, more service is always better, but for long term effectiveness I would argue that the sustainability and predictability of service is more important for maintaining and growing a ridership base. A rider suddenly having more service will enjoy it but quickly take it for granted. A rider that suddenly has less service frequently turns to other forms of transportation. Sorry for the essay!

[@adambroughton6548]

Hey, speaking as someone who lives a long way from a major city *not* by choice, please please please don't advocate for the removal of parking access at the last station on the line. I love to take transit when it's available. I love the subway. But unless the Ontario Northlander comes back the only way I can reach downtown Toronto without driving all the way is to park at the end of the TYSSE.

[@szurketaltos2693]

A better solution would be a bus that takes you to that station.

[@kalle5548]

​@@szurketaltos2693If it's maybe 40 minutes by car, that would be over an hour by buss, and that buss would maybe run once an hour at best, cars do make sense when you get further out from cities

[@szurketaltos2693]

@@kalle5548 I get the benefits of park and ride, I've even commuted for a bit using one. But the amount of space you need to dedicate near the station for a small number of people isn't great. If I were a dictator designing the system, I would have the parking a couple miles further out and either connect by a frequent shuttle or skip the station entirely using moderately frequent express buses.

[@erdbeerschokolade622]

In Japan, it really hurts to see many local train lines getting abandoned in rural areas, because they don't make any money.

[@shreychaudhary4477]

yall have LOCAL TRAIN LINES in RURAL AREAS??

[@erdbeerschokolade622]

@shreychaudhary4477 yes there are, actually also in countries like the US there are many local train lines, although many are abandoned or only in use for freight

[@shreychaudhary4477]

@@erdbeerschokolade622 yeah in my parts the train lines are usually freight pruposes

[@shauncameron8390]

They don't make any money, because there's not enough people in the rural areas to support it.

[@trainjedi9651]

Another example of transit profitability would be TrentBarton, a *bus* company that operates around Nottingham & Derby in the UK. A majority of their routes are what are known as commercial routes, meaning they receive no subsidy from the government to operate the service, its purely profit, although this does mean they can cut said bus services if they become unprofitable, there are alternates available in most places and such events are fairly infrequent. And this is all done while they provide comfortable seats, USB ports and WiFi on most buses, all while also following the £2 regular fare cap that has been recently introduced across the UK. Nevermind the fact they provide a really friendly and often really frequent (as low as 7-8mins, might seem low to some but its really good for UK standards, even London buses don't operate at such high frequencies) and that they brand almost every route uniquely.

[@DAG924]

Out of all the things that the government subsidies, subsidized public transport sounds the best to me. I can get to work easily, that in itself is a big plus to anyone working.

[@Paul_inDC]

Love your enthusiasm, Reece - you lay out so clearly why transit is a public good that 5:40 should not have "making money" as its prime goal. Thank you for pointing out the hypocrisy of fiscal conservatives who insist transit must be profitable, but never insist that our interstate highways, for example, "make money". Sometimes arguments that transit must be profitable by conservatives are canards for opposition to transit because of a view that transit is for poor people, and thus welfare. All this said, some transit agencies here in the US could still do a better job on monetizing land around stations, albeit with the caveats you point out.

[@Kaebuki]

1:20 That guy is in for a surprise XD

[@RMTransit]

Lol not sure I’ve ever noticed that

[@maxeany]

Also in my city (Milan) the transportation system is really good and it still makes money

[@Felix-nz7lq]

Here at least when something like a new bike lane is planned, the cost of construction is usually weighed up in comparison to the positive economics it has on public health. It's not dumb to measure things using profitability, it's just that the calculations should include things other than direct profits (and ideally predictions for induced demand).

[@davidty2006]

and bike lanes are really cheap... it's only a 3ft wide path.

[@MarioFanGamer659]

@@davidty2006 And also used by lightweight vehicles so maintenance is much cheaper compared to a car road.

[@davidstone408]

Just had this debate - work is 8 miles away takes between 22 and 30 minutes to drive - transit option 1:20 - but to be in work for start of the day I need to get on the bus 2 hours before work, and getting home likewise I lose another 40 minutes. The walk between home and office and nearest stops is not excessive. But sometimes time and convenience of stopping to see a family member on the way home is better than transit. Don’t get me wrong I love transit solutions, but in certain situations they do not work.

[@Geotpf]

Personally, transit is so slow that I could almost walk to work faster than try to take it. It would require me to take a bus in the wrong direction and then transfer to another. This for a commute of only a few miles. And there never would be demand for anything better. If you provided enough service so that it would be a reasonable commute for me personally, the buses would run at like 1% capacity. That's what you get with a weird road network and fairly low density. Going from anywhere other than down the main traffic corridor simply cannot be served practically.

[@georgeg7259]

I don't want an expensive electric car to replace my aging gasoline car in the near future. I just want fast and reliable public transportation. That's my dream. P.S. You have dreamy eyes

[@1978dkelly]

Electric vehicles are coming whether or not transit gets expanded. Most major vehicle manufacturers have agreed to the year 2035 as a point at which they will no longer be manufacturing new ICE cars. Whether or not you (or we) get fast and reliable public transportation in the future probably depends on where you live. If you live in the US, you may be waiting a while. We've shown a profound reluctance to give up low-density sprawl and the auto-centric transportation model. If electric vehicles end up as cheaper to operate than ICE cars, that may just accelerate sprawl...it's hard to say. Of course, electric rates could go way up if everyone is using electric cars, so they may not be much cheaper to operate in the long run. Time will tell.

[@slam5]

@@1978dkelly car = waste of time. You sit in a box for hours everyday and you need to devote 100% of your attention and energy to operate it or you get into accident. You cannot read, text, browse the internet or SLEEP!

[@RMTransit]

Definetly take transit when you can then! Ideally exclusively!

[@RealCadde]

Ok, 15 seconds into the video and i already have a few answers on this. 1) Public transit removes cars from the roads, thus lessening the need to build roads and more importantly, lessening the need to maintain roads. Which costs a massive amount of money. So much in fact that many towns/cities/metropolitan areas are constantly on the brink of going bankrupt. And so they sell more land to suburban developments that give a relatively small injection of money to survive another year or two and then just adds to the ever growing maintenance cost. At some point, they won't be able to inject more money into the system and a city will implode on itself, making roads a death trap. Public transit losing a million dollars in a year is NOTHING compared to the bills to maintain roads in and around a major city. 2) The mere existence of public transit attracts more people to everywhere that transit system connects to, meaning the city gains more tax income. So even if the transit is losing money by its own books, it's still a net gain for the city or whatever the transit connects through or to. It also attracts businesses that produces jobs that makes more taxes happen. 3) Another benefit is that of health, less exhaust gasses float around as less people sit in their own little box moving slowly through congested highways. It might not matter to the US where public healthcare practically doesn't exist. Even if you have a gunshot wound that almost tore your heart to shreds, they might not even operate on you unless they can ascertain you can afford the medical bill... Anyways, healthier people pay more taxes and consume more goods. Making the economy stronger, making better living standards, making it possible for more highly educated people, making innovations that fuel the economy even more. An unhealthy, slow to move, costly to maintain and volatile (as in moving out) population on the other hand produces nothing but expenses and lost opportunities. And cities that should thrive instead slowly suffocate themselves.

[@notthatntg]

in the UK outside of London (aka a deregulated anarchy), bus operators are so obsessed with profit that they literally create a "survival of the -fittest- most profitable": they completely cut the unprofitable routes causing outrage for lots of people who suddenly lose (possibly their only) bus services

[@davidty2006]

Hmmm then many villages that need the bus service end up getting cut off. Compared under nationalised model them money loosing lines would be subsidised by the money making lines.

[@jsrodman]

yeah, starving transit is a USA pattern as well. and to a lesser extent on continental Europe.

[@ianhomerpura8937]

They learned from Marples.

[@udishomer5852]

The UK is the most "American" country in Europe (at least seems that way). Just stop your silly obsession with the USA and follow what mainland European countries do: subsidize and improve your public transportation.

[@davidty2006]

@@udishomer5852 With tories in power it's really bloody difficult. With them being basically the equivilent to republicans.

[@phillippatryndal4255]

So many people really don't seem to understand infrastructure properly, especially when it starts to exist on a nation/society/civilization level, (or even just city level, sometimes). The job of infrastructure is to ENABLE and SUPPORT life and productive activity, rather than replace it. But if you siphon too much from society for it, usually in terms or additional profit, that's exactly what you get. Healthcare, education, aswell as utilities etc. are also all infrastructure!

[@o_s-24]

People who use cars when they can easily use public transport, walk or bike are a menace to society.

[@RMTransit]

I certainly think people have to consider their decisions carefully, especially with regard to mobility

[@useodyseeorbitchute9450]

It's fascinating how you are allowed this time to call someone as "menace to society" without at least risking ban for violating yt guidelines or even facing more severe legal consequences. Without double standards, you could theoretically defend it as free speech, but it would imply that in all other cases the free speech is being trampled.

[@manofculture584]

Okay moral busybody

[@kalle5548]

I own 2 vehicles, one has a 20 year old petrol engine, the other an electric motor and is several times more efficient than an electric car, both goes over 70kph, one is illegal and one isn't... Jupp, it's the ultra efficient EUC that's illegal

[@Kschychooo]

I will dare to day that if a system is making some money, or even breaks even then awesome, but it's more of the cherry on top of the cake. The main goal is different.

[@vinnylaw]

One of your best videos - thank you for making this kind of content.

[@RMTransit]

Wow, thank you for that very kind comment!

[@senseforsale]

I noticed you mentioned the cost per passenger moved. I'd love to see this broken down more to see how scale and other factors affect this cost and see this carried out over different transit modes. Thinking about upfront costs and maintenance costs also sounds cool, including externalities. Your videos are super awesome. Love the technical nature. It would be super cool to see some more focus on metrics as this can help make convincing arguments. Thanks for your work!

[@Korn-176]

Great video!

[@RMTransit]

Glad you enjoyed it

[@rebeccawinter472]

The paper that recently came out on Car Harm would be really topical to a lot of the discussion here, when talking about the negative externalities of cars.

[@NickBurman]

Reece mentioned Japanese commuter railways as examples of profitable operations. Well, sort of... in the case of many/most major metropolitan private operators their rail lines run at a loss or at par. However the groups these railways belong to are profitable and many are quoted on the Tokyo Stock Exchange. This happens because the companies have activities which are parallel and synergic to the railway operations - real estate, retail, buses, taxis, gas stations, stadiums (even baseball teams!), amusement parks, even swimming schools - which help round up revenues. The best analogy is that to a boned fish - the spine is the railway and the flesh are the subsidiary businesses. Take the flesh away and the fish dies, as the spine (railway ops) is not self-supporting; take the spine away and you are left with a bunch of businesses without synergy between them.

[@fe5ks]

Exactly, and the key is those rail companies had the tracks and stations with offices and hotels and department stores and resorts and stadium and oprea houses built before wwii, now it's all running on legacy real estate decades if not a century ago. No acquisition cost wasted

[@benjaminmelese3545]

I find trains are usually quite effective, but my experience with buses is mixed. Buses usually arrive massively late, get stuck in the same traffic as cars, and cost more per kilometre than a train for the user. I do use the bus from time to time, but wouldn’t get rid of my car if I only had access to a bus service

[@szurketaltos2693]

It's hard to downgrade trains as much as busses can be. For grade separated trains, only thing you can really do is reduce frequency. Buses can lose signal priority, separate lanes, frequency, etc.

[@adambanas6365]

The lack of profitability complaint is ironic given all of the hyper-capitalist startup companies that are famously unprofitable at launch. And the reasoning given for lack of profits actually supports the argument for investing in better public transportation services. Companies will say they are losing money in order to gain customers and market share and eventually that growth will become profitable. The same can be true for public transportation. No it might not make financial sense on face value for a city to build out the transportation network to lower-density areas. But if the network can reach everyone then it encourages ridership volume at the level where the system might be profitable. The busiest routes offsetting the cost of those that serve fewer people.

[@SkaN2412]

I "love" these arguments so much. Public transit should make money! - Should all roads be tolled by miles traveled? Or like you said with sewers, should we charge your for the poop volume you produce? Our cities aren't built for public transit! - Instead of adding a lane to you highway, add at least a bus line, or better yet a rail line, along the same route that's already established. Bam, your city is now built for transit. It's all the people that just wanna argue.

[@jasonriddell]

my CITY does CHARGE a sewer fee and is based on the WATER going into the property

[@SkaN2412]

@@jasonriddell interesting, what city is that? Sounds like a libertarian dream 🤣

[@shinodinhaa]

Public transport should be a boost for economics, not a pillar for it

[@RMTransit]

Well, I mean public transport and infrastructure is a critical component in the economy

[@ianhomerpura8937]

It can be a pillar when mobility and logistics mostly revolve around them. This is why transport strikes are painful when they happen in Europe and Asia, like the most recent ones in the UK, France, and the Philippines. Because their main purpose is to bring workers from pointA to point B.

[@RickJaeger]

As a conservative myself, I couldn't agree more. I do not think RWers in the liberal West understand the *_proper role_*_ of government_ these days. There is also the fact that the government, and any public service, is actually morally obligated NOT to consistently make a profit. Profit is the difference between what you take in and what you expend. A profitable government is thus, by definition, a government that TAKES more from its citizens than it GIVES back. Whether you think the economy is a zero-sum game or not, this is obviously not the purpose of government. *Anyone* ought be morally outraged at a government that rakes in much much more money from its citizens in the forms of fees, tariffs, and taxes than it expends for them in the forms of services, goods, capital, and infrastructure. I believe this fact goes for any political stripe and creed. The only two kinds of people who say differently are (1) those laymen who use this kind of rhetoric thoughtlessly, as an excuse for this or that denial of expenditure for programs they personally don't like, and (2) that political elite class who run the government and thus profit from keeping expenditures low and taxes high to line their own pockets (you can see this in corrupt governments and dictatorships worldwide, where the "public sector" of these nations is a constant, uninterrupted cash-flow directly from the source of industry into the coffers of the court bureaucrats, industrial oligopolists, and the thugs in their police forces and militaries). A public service CAN run at a profit temporarily and remain moral, of course. You can never guarantee that you won't accidentally take in more than you spend year-by-year. Surpluses happen. It can also do so contextually, i.e. "Public Service X runs at a profit, and we allow it to, because it subsidizes the less profitable Public Services A, B, C... Y, and Z which we continue to provide." Or "We are cutting services to reduce expenditures/raising fees (or taxes) to increase revenues, because our deficits are unsustainably high, we need to pay down debt" etc. etc. In spite of being a fiscal hawk much of this latter mind, personally, I still think investment in rail is the way to go. Rail investment has the potential to pay itself back economically in the form of future tax revenues, I believe, equal to or greater than our (the USA's) investment in the Eisenhower Interstate Highway system. There is no excuse to continue spending it on things that will never make any money back, like entitlements and military spending, and in the meanwhile ignore infrastructure which DOES make its money back in the form of spurred economic activity (and better quality-of-life in all those externalities, as you and others have pointed out).

[@user-ul5yh4sw7w]

11:03 you have a reaction channel? Where can i find it?

[@RMTransit]

I did a reaction video! It isn’t a channel tho haha

[@shadeblackwolf1508]

I strongly believe in public transport being publically owned, no profit goal, if the net on the whole breaks even, that's good enough. any further gains should be reinvested to make it better, or slash the prices.

[@NorthHollywood]

In Calgary, the main reason no one takes transit is because of the homeless and how they have free reign (outside of the east/west ends of the free fare zone where they are taken out by transit police). They simply walk on and do as they please. Harassing riders, smelling up the whole car, smoking crack/meth (yes, this actually happens), and disrupting transit by overdosing and causing the train/bus to stop so paramedics can arrive and resuscitate them. Have you made a video on this MAJOR issue? Cause I cant find it.

[@shauncameron8390]

UGH!

[@ajstransportawptv]

I live in a regional city in Australia called Albury/Wodonga which is the second most car dependant region in the country. It basically has bus services but also has regional train services Linking Melbourne and Sydney as well as a few intertown bus services that operate a few times a day. Some people (family members and relatives included) tell me that the system needs to be profitable. I'd argue that it doesn't have to be as services are subsidised by the state governments. Many services in the city i live in often run empty. And the network is in a need of a major overhaul. Many locals I know are very well aware that our bus network needs upgrading. I often try to tell people to use public transport if they can, problem with that is, many trips can't be done by bus because its too inconvenient for most people to use, it only just caters for 9-5 workers and people who go shopping during the day. Still, it fails to do what it was designed for and there has been no major changes to Wodonga for several decades, Albury only had changes just recently in January 2023, where routes were simplified as well as a brand new route Linking the Airport and the suburb of Thurgoona. The two routes to Thurgoona are timetabled really well. and Thurgoona effectively gets one bus every half an hour. Albury's frequencies of its routes and operating hours are so much better than what Wodonga has. Albury still has improvements needed, If im in charge, I would have added a loop service around Lavington and Massive overhaul for Wodonga, Id also improve on Services connecting the smaller towns such as Beechworth, Corowa, and Tallangatta and introduce new services to the towns of Tangambalanga, Jindera and Bellbridge. I'd love to see your perspective on bus services in Albury/Wodonga. We really need to see more bus services in our region. We also need major modifications to infrastructure too to put more people on buses too and make it safer for everyone, not just those who drive a car. Albury/Wodonga as a region has around 100K people, there are cities similar in size to Albury/Wodonga that have better Public Transport systems.

[@isaiah123456wp7]

Not even Uber makes money, and yet those are still everywhere...

[@RMTransit]

Well, that’s an entirely different story😅

[@erkinalp]

​@@RMTransit The fact Uber, supposedly a taxi company, owns zero taxicabs ought to tell something 😉

[@fcuquet]

Great video with great points. The last sentence says it all.

[@dan_tr4pd00r]

Alright Reece, let's hear that country pop music album.

[@alexhaowenwong6122]

Saw a busker in Downtown Toronto playing Sweet Home Alabama...was that Reece?

[@barryrobbins7694]

By definition, good public transportation is always profitable, even if there are no fees at the point of service. It is about how it is funded. It is never free. Profit 1. An advantageous gain or return; benefit. 2. Financial gain from a transaction or from a period of investment or business activity, usually calculated as income in excess of costs or as the final value of an asset in excess of its initial value. 3. Advancement; improvement.

[@placeholder1462]

This is such a great video. I agree fully. I was so happy to see it. A few weeks ago I made a video on why it's perfectly fine (sometimes even beneficial) for passager trains to "lose" money. I get only a couple hundred views per video, so I am so happy to see a similar (even border) topic covered by a large KZbinr I watch. Thanks for being one of the people that got me interested and inspired about transit :))

[@suprPHREAK]

Bus driver here. My bus consumes 3-5x more fuel than the average car and carry’s 55-85 people (seated, 72-100 standing). Much, much more efficient!

[@mixi171]

All great points!

[@RMTransit]

Thank you Martin!

[@thomasgittings5413]

My only issue with this is that the bigger the government subsidy the more the transit is subject to the whims of the government. This is a big problem in the UK where projects get cut back or cancelled altogether due to the short-sightedness of the national government. Wouldn’t this be less of an issue if projects could be funded independently of the government?

[@Gfynbcyiokbg8710]

That would mean very little or bad service in all but the most profitable areas

[@user-ul5yh4sw7w]

Uploaded 1 min ago and I can already say it's great video.

[@RMTransit]

Wow, thanks!🎉

[@denelson83]

That is the whole point. _Not everything can or should be run for profit._ And a good example of a transit system that absolutely should not be run for profit is actually _BC Ferries._

[@jasonriddell]

20 +/- years ago BC ferries was switched up to run like a "private company" and low profit runs were reduced and even the Vic to VAN ferries time tables were screwed with and pre booking fees were added have not bean on it since 2008 or so and was SHOCKED at the prices

[@denelson83]

@@jasonriddell I now refuse to pay more than $30 to drive aboard any BC Ferry sailing, and I live on Vancouver Island.

[@Adam-bh4zp]

Why is that person trying to walk up the down escalator at 1:20

[@Trainviking]

Absolutely agree with you.

[@fallenshallrise]

The sidewalk and road out front of my building doesn't make money either. Ignoring maintenance it would take decades for the parking meters to collect enough to pay for building it in the first place.

[@faolitaruna]

5:30 That's the wildest segue ever. I will use it every time I can.

[@unreliablenarrator6649]

You really need to visit China, Every point you make is a principle Chinese mass-transit planner follow. It was not always this way, in the early 00's some cities went the wrong way with highways, but country is on track now.

[@wendellcoleman1137]

The same argument applies to the issue of Amtrak "making money". Passenger rail advocates make the point that Amtrak is a "service" provided by government and not a business entity, just like the National Weather Service or FEMA is a service by your government for the betterment of its' people. No one ever questions why those two Federal agencies don't turn a profit, so they shouldn't question the profitability of Amtrak either!

[@jeronearristan5184]

Perfect Vid

[@10thdoctor15]

No public or personal transport can really make money, so best to go with the ones that lose the least. The problem is, it's cheaper for one person to drive than to get a train, even more so for 4 people taking one car.

[@conradthy]

As a person living in Hong Kong that spent some years living in Toronto, I've brought up the topic with friends on the TTC some years ago, such as selling the huge parking lot space ( that is/was half empty) at Finch station. The MTR gets land around the stations that is granted to them by the government. Thanks for bringing this topic up！(sorry, I have'n t been back to Toronto for a while, so I don't know how things are nowadays)

[@Vlasov45]

The irony of comparing buses to local sewers highlights the downside of accessibility. Public transit is a public space, and we seem to as a society have decided that accessibility takes precedence over user experience and turned it into rolling homeless shelters and insane asylums, driving away users.

[@mihastih]

Here in Slovenia, the national railway makes profit each year, not from passenger traffic, but cargo. The tickets are reasonably priced (with unlimited all transit free for retired people and 200€ yearly price for students)and most of the money is coming from cargo, while the country is paying for infrastructure.

[@laurie7689]

Cargo trains in the USA are not public, but private or corporate enterprise. They own most of the tracks nationwide. Most of our trains are for cargo, not people.

[@davidty2006]

British rail made good chunk of it's money from freight traffic. Though there was times that it did sometimes loose money and that was used by tories as excuses to privatise it... That made trains even worse since there subsidised more than BR.

[@eges72]

Unfortunately the Car and Oil-dependent infrastructure lobby keeps the government from making accessible pt among any other essential service like healthcare and education.

[@Ifinevereeodkeksidkeisidisks]

Whos said transport shouldn’t be free?

[@SieurBrabantio]

that was the main discussion during the last municipal elections in my town. The pro free public transport coalition won, and buses will be entirely free next september.

[@humanecities]

Depending where you live, it could be baked into the way we talk about it. People will sometimes say, “Transit X amount of dollars last year.” or “The city is money on this.” Though, we don’t often use the same tone or words with parks, roads, healthcare, education, etc.

[@ianhomerpura8937]

Libertarians.

[@Ifinevereeodkeksidkeisidisks]

@@ianhomerpura8937 like they have a brain. 👍

[@Ifinevereeodkeksidkeisidisks]

@@humanecities just use the same argument for road. 👍👍👍

[@barryrobbins7694]

Perhaps the term “profit” (in a monetary sense) is more appropriate for private companies that collect surplus revenue for company owners/investors. Governments, through the political process, determine public needs and tax accordingly. The only surpluses are for emergency contingencies and longterm needs. In a sense, governments are an extended family. No one talks about families being “profitable”. They have budgets, and some quarrel about how the money is spent. One is transactional, the other is social.

[@Koguma_ei]

Does the interstate make money? No? End of story

[@Lafv]

I think there’s a lot more to be said about the cultural double standard between roads and public transit, especially in North America. People will make a big deal about the cost of a new transit project, but nobody really bats an eye at road expansion projects that cost millions or billions of dollars. And nobody expects roads or highways to be profitable, either. Even transit systems with pretty low cost recovery are going to be far more “profitable” than road systems, simply because they charge a fare, which society has come to expect as normal. The expectation of free parking in cities is also a huge double standard. Here in Halifax, the city recently started charging for downtown parking on Saturdays (it was previously free on weekends). There’s been no shortage of public backlash, of course, from folks who expect to store their private property (cars) on valuable public land for free. And yet, transit users have always had to pay a fare 7 days a week to get downtown… which is fine, but why should we have to pay to get on a bus if they don’t have to pay to park their car? (Side note: parking is still free on Sundays so far, so it would sure be nice if transit was free on Sundays too, just saying…)

[@Meower68]

No one wants to talk about how private automobiles are always a net loss. Yes, you can get to / from work in that vehicle, see your friends / family, run errands, etc. But ... private vehicles only go one way in valuation: down. By the time you: * buy a vehicle (including the interest from financing it) * insure it * maintain / repair it the amount of money you cough up over the course of, say, a decade (average lifetime of a vehicle is over 10 years) is huge. That's not counting gasoline; add that it gets truly eye-watering. Seriously. How many people have actually crunched the numbers on this? You spend $20k acquiring a decent, mid-sized vehicle (not counting some luxury SUV or pickup which runs $50k+). Financing it means you spend > $20k actually acquiring it. Full insurance coverage, which the financing company will require so long as they have the title, is multiple $k / year. As the vehicle ages, the number of things which need to be replaced will go up (oil changes, brake jobs and alignments aren't too bad but $deity help you if you need to rebuild the transmission; tires don't last forever and they can easily run $1k for all four, installed). Gasoline is > $3 / gallon; if you get 30 MPG and rack up 12k miles per year, that's 4k gallons and over $12k for gasoline PER YEAR. Over the course of 10 years, you're looking at over $100k JUST FOR FUEL. And no, we will NOT be seeing gasoline getting back down under $2 / gallon again. And all that is not counting the parking spaces which said vehicle need to occupy, whether at home (more $$ needed for your home, especially if you want to "protect your investment" by putting your car in a garage), at work or while running errands. That's definitely not counting the cost of the roads you need to use because, quite frankly, those need to exist even if you don't have a personal vehicle. Debatable as to whether we'd need 6- or 8-lane interstates through cities if few people had personal vehicles but the roads would still need to exist. A great many Millennials have chosen to live in places where they can bike / use public transit and avoid acquiring a vehicle because, quite frankly, they can't earn enough money to afford the expense of a private vehicle. They've crunched the numbers and decided it's just not worth it. They pay more to live in higher-population-density areas (where biking and public transit are genuine options) but, since they don't have to pay for a vehicle, it's a net positive overall. Unfortunately, for too many people living in North America, the idea of not having a private vehicle ... they just can't imagine that kind of life. I can't ride a bike to work; I'd be all sweaty when I got to the office, during the summer, and the bike just wouldn't be practical during the winter. I can't ride a bus to work; the buses are all full of THOSE people and it would take over and hour, each way, on the bus for something I can drive in 10 minutes.

[@fallenshallrise]

The root of many problems that people cause themselves is that a big percentage of the population avoided math and has no ability to "run the numbers". Many people who use a car to get to work are mainly working to service the debt on their credit cards and cover the payments and running expenses on their new car. That money could be a big trip every year, or retirement savings, or if the majority of people could avoid those expenses we could all work 20% less per week.

[@ricladouceur6202]

You're absolutely right! When has a road or bridge that vehicles operate on made money! There are many ways to measure the value of something including the reduced need to augment vehicular infrastructure!

[@TundeEszlari]

Great content.

[@ashleyhamman]

I don't even see it as being limited to specifically passenger service and relatively urban areas in the case of railways. The decline of rail both in the US railroads move towards operating ratios as their main metric, and the UK railways Beeching Cuts not only cut easy and cheap transportation in rural areas, but also meant that many companies that didn't move mass amounts of one or two sorts of product also lost their cheap and efficient transportation. We often treat rail travel and development as projects with individual metrics, but the full systems constitute efficient and cheap means of enhancing the economy's ability to work, and those contributions are much more difficult to measure. As such, it only makes sense to operate them via tax money IMO.

[@skchan2]

As in Hong Kong, it's totally normal to expect public transport making $$, while at the same time, peoples ALWAYS complains public transport for making lots of $$, while I think ordinary transport fee is not actually that high.

[@chiuwong4057]

Our fare is in global standard cheap, but the fare system is cumbersome with regard to distance traveled and operators used, and creates a feeling of unfairness, if someone has to transfer between operators and not covered by monthly pass.

[@zaphod4245]

The reason that the Underground lines in London needed government approval wasn't just so they could build a railway, but because they'd need compulsory purchase orders in order to buy the land and/or tunnelling rights to do so. If they could buy the land without then they could build a railway without approval, but only parliament can approve compulsory purchase so that's why these lines had to be approved.

[@adambuesser6264]

What Model is better for transit and Intercity rail? Hub and Spoke or a web model system?

[@mohammedsarker5756]

both

[@williamerazo3921]

Web model. Hub and spoke is good if you have a strong downtown but Americas downtown sucks besides Chicago and New York. Most jobs are now in the suburbs in Midwest and west coast cities

[@MarioFanGamer659]

Web over Hub and Spoke. H&S works to an extend if the service is fairly small one but at some point, you need to make some orbital connections and/or make multiple hubs to not overload the original hub and also give the users better freedom of travel.

[@davidty2006]

depends on situation. but both. Hub and spoke to get things started and web to fill in the gaps.

[@RMTransit]

That, of course, depends on the context

[@casper_christensen]

Fun thing, DSB, national operator of Denmark, is actually profitable. They made an annual profit of about 28 million USD in 2023. Already in the first quarter of 2024, that was now 15 million. They no longer rely on the government for funding. This is even after a huge contract with Alstom for new trains, and new Vectron locomotives

[@ianweniger6620]

Public transit is a social service. Profit undermines so many public goods. So people and societies need public transit like they need public education or public healthcare.

[@starventure]

It’s only a social service in the areas served. You can’t ask someone who lives way beyond last mile service to care about it.

[@xymaryai8283]

we see pipes, sewers, powerlines as public good, not requiring profit, but as soon as a person can use infrastructure directly to travel, it's seen as a privilege, a competition. we don't have alternative means of delivering electricity, but we constantly prioritize a less economically sensible way to travel over rail. prioritizing cars over rail is like insisting we transport electricity in batteries first, then consider whether it can be done better by transmission line after. cities should prioritize rail as soon as it's big enough to pay for it. a network of rails should be the primary network of transit.

[@erkinalp]

The only reason we have got transmission lines first is the battery technology of then was so bad and transmission lines have had already reached every home by the time good batteries emerged.

[@biber9979]

That is why i like Germany. They will invest 60 billion euros till 2030 in new trains, stations and railroad...and their rail network is already good enough(but there is always space for improvement)

[@davidty2006]

using us brits to subsidise them......

[@biber9979]

@@davidty2006 bro you should take care of your politicians and lawyers and find out how they made HS2 already 5 times more expensive then what they estimated at first(read...lawyers/politicans bought the land down the route and now asking way more money then anyone expected...4-5 times more). So it is all about your greedy politicians.

[@MarioFanGamer659]

I wouldn't say that the rail network is good enough given the lack capacity but that there are so many new HSL build in the near and far future is definitively necessary.

[@MarioFanGamer659]

@@davidty2006 Are you referring to Arriva i.e. a subsidiary of DB? First, new tracks are generally build with government money, not DB money (though maintenance cost will be handled by the owner), second, DB also partnered with CAHSR and Metrolinx, something which SNCF also attempted (but failed to do so), third, don't believe that Germany doesn't give money to other countries' national railways operators e.g. Ferrovie dello Stato Italiane (through Regentalbahn) who mostly operate some unelectrified lines in regions of Bavaria, Rhineland-Palatinate and Baden-Württemberg.

[@davidty2006]

@@MarioFanGamer659 Yes also DB shenker.

[@barryrobbins7694]

The neoliberal terminology of “public/private partnerships” is best put in the dustbin of history, an incinerator would be even better. Governments and private businesses are not partners. Partnerships suggests that two or more parties are on an equal level. Governments are the boss of the private companies that may be contracted to provide specific goods and/or services. The government’s role is on behalf of the general population. A company’s role is on behalf of its owners and investors. To call it a “partnership” is an attempt to concede public power to private interests. Because public transportation systems are a specialized endeavor, metropolitan areas typically do not have the staff and equipment within their institutions to construct such infrastructure. Although, it is theoretically possible to create a national institution for such projects. So, private companies are contracted. The profits for the private company are a sacrifice for the public good. These are infrastructure expenses. Much of the other ongoing expenses associated with public transportation systems can be done by the city, depending on the size of the city. Obviously a city would most likely not produce replacement buses or trains for example. The idea is limit the dependence on private companies as much as possible for the reasons previously mentioned. If a city can not generate enough tax income to pay for the infrastructure expenses they may require funding from state or national government sources.

[@Jytami]

1:20 can we talk about this one passenger who just goes up the wrong escalator?

[@humanecities]

🤣 Now I want to see the full clip.

[@WompWompWoooomp]

Glad I'm not the only one who noticed this. Don't phone and walk people!

[@RMTransit]

@@humanecities chaos ensues😂

[@barryrobbins7694]

It’s a topical metaphor for what happens when transit is not properly planned (and funded).😀

[@HalfDoughnut]

never heard such a perfect breakdown of this topic!!

[@EgnachHelton]

In general if your government agency is profitable, you have a problem... Citizens pay taxes to government for services and protection. If the government is making money, either they are not providing enough services or there's too much tax...

[@user-xsn5ozskwg]

Yeah, it's important your government has a "rainy day fund" but it shouldn't be hoarding wealth and ideally there's a balance thanks to things like pensions, childcare, and welfare for those who can't pay into said fund.

[@avgeekinfotainment7776]

Also in public trasport it is absolutelly necessary to have a propper controlling to prevent useless waste (and prevent tax money floating into private pockets...). But it is a difference between burning money and invest it in an useful manner, where everyone profits. Or let's say it the other way round: the profit of public transit is not of financial matter. No, public transport does not need to make money. It is a service - no one ever complained about the military making a loss or being in debt...

[@lonun67]

I think its important that some most used routes to earn money so that lines which has less traffic will not risk closure.

[@Revilok08]

Could you please do a video explainer on the Melbourne Trams, I heard you said you would do it in the Melbourne explained video, and I think it’s a great idea, as it is the largest in the world!