Transit Doesn't Need to Profit

Watch this video ad-free on Nebula: nebula.tv/videos/rmtransit-yo...
Detractors often bring up the profitability of public transit as a point against spending money on transit projects, but does transit actually need to make money? Let's talk about that.
As always, leave a comment down below if you have ideas for our future videos. Like, subscribe, and hit the bell icon so you won't miss my next video!
=PATREON=
If you'd like to help me make more videos & get exclusive behind the scenes access and early video releases, consider supporting my Patreon! Every dollar goes towards helping my channel grow & reach more people.
Patreon: / rmtransit
=ATTRIBUTION=
Epidemic Sound (Affiliate Link): share.epidemicsound.com/nptgfg
Nexa from Fontfabric.com
Map Data © OpenStreetMap contributors: www.openstreetmap.org/copyright
=COMMUNITY DISCORD SERVER=
Discord Server: / discord
(Not officially affiliated with the channel)
=MY SOCIAL MEDIA=
Twitter: / rm_transit
Instagram: / rm_transit
Website: rmtransit.com
Substack: reecemartin.substack.com
=ABOUT ME=
Ever wondered why your city's transit just doesn't seem quite up to snuff? RMTransit is here to answer that, and help you open your eyes to all of the different public transportation systems around the world!
Reece (the RM in RMTransit) is an urbanist and public transport critic residing in Toronto, Canada, with the goal of helping the world become more connected through metros, trams, buses, high-speed trains, and all other transport modes.

[@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.

[@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!

[@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.

[@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.

[@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

[@lamitron]

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

[@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.

[@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

[@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.

[@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!

[@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

[@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

[@user-lz3om9qc2u]

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.

[@user-lz3om9qc2u]

@@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]

@@user-lz3om9qc2u Nonsense! You can see your taxes at work on the evening news, making craters and corpses overseas.

[@barryrobbins7694]

@@user-lz3om9qc2u 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

[@Kaebuki]

1:20 That guy is in for a surprise XD

[@RMTransit]

Lol not sure I’ve ever noticed that

[@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

[@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!

[@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”

[@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

[@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

[@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.

[@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

[@QuantumScratcher]

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.

[@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!

[@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!

[@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!

[@Jon-hx7pe]

during off-peak periods, transit busses can be really inefficient especially on low density suburban routes. most people will not give up the car completely still needing to pay for it.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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...

[@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.

[@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

[@conservitarian1737]

Many say transit doesn't "need" to be profitable. Yet the NYC subway system used to be massively profitable prior to the government taking over it, was affordable to even the lower income people, and provided good service. Same thing with the L.A transit system, and Chicago, and San Francisco. Then the government either instituted so many regulations the companies were forced to sell or go bankrupt, or the governments took over the companies. Transit can be profitable and affordable, and well maintained, just not at the hands of government. I argue transit does need to be profitable, profit is the best measure of a good service being provided that fits the needs of people. Also, to note, over 55% of New Yorker's don't own a car, they walk to work, take a taxi or use the subway and bus systems. Over 4.5 million people use these services every day and yet they can't turn a profit. That tells you there is a problem with money management and service, not that transit is simply impossible to make a profit on. Brightline is providing a great service and is now a major commuter in the Miami-Palm Beach area, it's becoming profitable along the Miami line and that line is only servicing 170,000 people a month, imagine when that increases to 500,000 or a million.

[@fcuquet]

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

[@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.

[@KenMcCann]

Did anyone catch the dude about to go up the *down* escalator at 1:20?

[@nickhiscock8948]

In Australia public transport is generally subsidised sometimes by over 90% of operating costs. But yet it is considered an essential part of infrastructure in Australian cities. This side of the equation is not questioned as cheap transport encourages more public transport use.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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

[@Koguma_ei]

Does the interstate make money? No? End of story

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@HalfDoughnut]

never heard such a perfect breakdown of this topic!!

[@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.

[@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 😉

[@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.

[@faolitaruna]

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

[@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.

[@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.

[@vinnylaw]

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

[@RMTransit]

Wow, thank you for that very kind comment!

[@conradharcourt8263]

Some will recall that in England a few years ago we had a typically incompetent transport minister (Steven something I think, I don't remember) who expressed the opinion that 'the problem with public transport is the people you have to share it with'. While this remains the opinion of those who insist on hanging onto power at all costs there can be little hope of improvement in anything.

[@fenlinescouser4105]

Steven Norris?

[@davidty2006]

There was many a incompitent transport minister produced by the tories.... Atleast one was corrupt.

[@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.

[@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!

[@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.

[@KornBirdOne]

Great video!

[@RMTransit]

Glad you enjoyed it

[@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.

[@Adam-bh4zp]

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

[@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!

[@TundeEszlari]

Great content.

[@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!

[@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.

[@ch98hb]

Thank you so much!

[@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…)

[@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!

[@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.

[@mixi171]

All great points!

[@RMTransit]

Thank you Martin!

[@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.

[@justmeajah]

Pls discuss the bus vs rail economics! I've always wanted to know the math behind these choices

[@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.

[@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.

[@TMD3453]

It’s good to reframe the topic in terms of economic efficiency- thanks Reese, something people on both sides of the debate could get behind. I can’t imagine public transit with its shared service would be very inefficient once all the costs and income streams, public and private, are figured in. But who knows. Complex but good topic. And, I suppose it’s good to have the choice to spend more for private transportation if you are able and it’s appropriate. For public transit, quality and frequent service seem like they would drive “profitability.” Thanks for Chicago footage at the end. ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

[@davidstone408]

Something happing in London - living outside London I travel to London normally via GWR and on a Travelcard (which includes access to TFL services once in London) which is a great system. TFL is looking to scrap this system to force people to use Oyster Card

[@stanhry]

Profit usually means more demand then supply and find ways to be more efficient. Public transportation systems are theoretically more efficient , if you have lots of full vehicles and routes between only major population centers. The reality is the systems are very inefficient needing to run nearly empty vehicles and having routes to remote and less populated areas. The need for special infrastructure and specific vehicles just add to the limited use. Critics of PTS , stating it can’t make a profit to support itself are simplifying pointing the high costs of operations to the users funding. All transport is partially funded through taxes and fees, yet PTS is the only system so heavily dependent on that funding, today and historically. Aircraft and personal motor vehicle systems are paying for themselves, through fares , taxes, fuel taxes, and licensing fees. If PTS can find a way to be more efficient ,flexible, and profitable it will grow and stop being a debt burden.

[@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.

[@johnchambers8528]

Why should public transit me money? This is because not that many years ago most public transit systems were owned and operated by private companies. They generally made a profit till the late 1950’s to early 1960’s. What changed? More people decided to own cars or buy a second car thus reducing the ridership on the existing transit lines. Also around that time many manufacturing jobs began to disappear in the United States. So again demand for transit service began to decline. Many local governments at that time also were against fare increases to help support the existing service. So profit making companies did what most would do, cut service or even eliminate service on less used lines. That also caused many transit systems not have enough money to modernize their equipment. So that eventually caused most if not all transit service become a government run service. But that old fashion thoughts that transit service should at least break even or operate at a surplus did not die with the transition to government operation. As you mentioned in the video government does not expect other services to make money or roads other than toll road or bridges to break even or have a surplus. So the thinking needs to change to take into account the many good points you made to evaluate the true value and cost of public transit service. Good service will be used by many people. Sub par service is why many transit services get a bad reputation for usefulness!

[@nikolausbautista8925]

Public Transit "should" be able to be profitable- in terms of being able to comfortably cover Day-to-Day costs, with Capital Expenditures funded by the Public [I.E.: Facility Upgrades, general Infrastructure Upgrades & Fleet Upgrades = Public Funding. Maintenance, Employee Wages and Benefits & Fuel = Farebox and Auxiliary Revenues (Merchandising, Advertising, and even Charters and special Seasonal Services- regulations and laws permitting).]. It's not unrealistic to expect that much; a model like this, would be more palatable to the public- on the topic of Public Transit and Public Transit Expansion.

[@vcostaval]

the metro here in São Paulo has been financially self-sufficient since it began operation 50 years ago (except for construction and expansion, of course), with a fare of less than 1 usd, because it wasn't supposed to profit, but to pay for itself with the lowest fare possible... until the state government started to privatize the newest lines that were just finishing construction, beginning with the line 4-yellow. now the state owned metro has to pay compensation to the private lines for every passenger that transfers to the private lines because, unlike the state metro, the private lines are expected to profit, and that profit is guaranteed at the privatization contract. that means that if the fare is r$4.40, the state metro pays the private lines r$6.80 for every passenger that transfers from state to private line, and if even that doesn't guarantee the private line to hit the targeted profit of the month due to less than expected ridership or whatever, the state metro has to give them money until that target is fulfilled. in that way, a state metro that was self-sufficient for over 50 years is now in financial chaos because it has been operating at a massive loss for over 10 years. and worst, it began with only one line, than a few years later another line was passed to the private sector (curiously the same company of the first line), and in a few years another one will go when it finishes construction. not to mention that these companies get the newest lines, so the ones with the least maintenence to do, so the cheapest to operate, and use this as a platform to make propaganda for more privatization, saying they are the best lines, when they're just the newest. now the state has started doing the same thing with the regional rail state company, and last year the first two lines were sent to the private sector (again, curiously the same company as the other ones)... but now, since the railways from the regional rail are literally centuries old, these lines have been thrown into absolute chaos, because the private company who said they were the best with the brand new metro lines have no idea how to operate an old infrastructure, and is not willing to spend money at maintenence because it wants profit. result: derailments every other week, extremely low speed operations, low frequency, doors opening at the wrong side of the train, etc. and the worst: the state government is defending the regional rail private chaos and has already set in motion the privatization of the remaining lines. and that raises the question: how will the state guarantee the private lines profit as the contract demands when there's no more state lines to take the loss? two options: they will risk mass protests and riots by doubling the fares price, or the state will literally send money to a private company so they have their profit assured, the ultimate public subsidy of the private sector. all of that when we had a perfectly funcioning self-sufficient low fare system and an improving to metro-level regional rail.

[@AndersonPEM]

Lisbon metro is expanding right now. Part of the lines are closed until July. You could make a video about the Portuguese Capital Metro Transport system 😊 it integrates with buses, trains, trams and even BOATS 😊

[@Trainviking]

Absolutely agree with you.

[@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.

[@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.

[@antoninschmit2304]

You're totally right !

[@user-ul5yh4sw7w]

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

[@RMTransit]

Wow, thanks!🎉

[@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.

[@RIPTIDE-wg8jp]

you should talk about the metro that is coming too Hawaii

[@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.

[@supa_star]

I think transit should be profitable, or at least have the potential because it has lots of benefits if it is. One, being it's easier to tell a city board that the project can pay itself off later on down the road and it just needs to be started. Two, less tax burden on the working class. Three, it isn't as subject to budget cuts when the city is low on funds because why would you remove a revenue source? The benefits of profitable transit are tangible. In my eyes, subsidizing transit allows a company to downsize its service to the money given to them and it is much more easier to be stagnant and stay afloat then thrown cold turkey and actually improve your service to make people want to ride it.

[@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.

[@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 :))

[@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).😀

[@ameliaarrows2790]

Ey rocking the u of t sweater 😂 love it

[@1737sd40]

Great video. Now how do we work on tolls for cars vs the more extensive tolls of public transit users, do transit users pay a double tax to use the roads?. Thanks for doing this video.

[@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.