Mass transit in the 19th century, such as animal-powered omnibuses and street cars, was primarily a private enterprise. It played a big role in urbanization.
Mass transit appears in Greek mythology in the form of Charon, who ferries the souls of the dead to the Hades — for a price.
After their invention around the turn of the century, motorized buses became popular in the US and overtook streetcars by the 1920s. Ridership peaked in 1927, fell during the Great Depression, and then reached a second peak in 1946 (presumably as a result of the rationing of gas and materials needed for making cars). Since then, buses have declined in popularity, despite a resurgence in the early 1970s (perhaps due to the oil crisis), replaced by the private automobile.
Surprisingly (to Westerners), mass transit is the main way of getting around in the world. Though private cars dominate in the West, the majority of the world’s population resides in countries where transit is more widely used. By transit, I mean everything from trains to buses to jitneys.
The farebox recovery ratio is the proportion of operating expenses covered by fares. Most systems are funded through a mix of fare revenue and government subsidy, though some systems are completely subsidized and others are completely financed by fares. My interest, naturally, is in the systems that are supported by fares. Not surprisingly, profitable private systems can be found in very dense areas, like Japan and Hong Kong. The MTR in Hong Kong, which operates subways, is one such system.
More good info here.
Extra: great summary of these issues. Also, a somewhat dated paper here.
3 comments
Comments feed for this article
April 27, 2007 at 9:58 am
Anonymous
I’m interested in road systems that are entirely supported by private fares.
April 27, 2007 at 10:10 am
john
Interesting stuff here, I actually wish I knew more about the theory discussed; I know my grandparents believe the conspiracy theory but they only mention it in passing if you ever whine about transportation in the Twin Cities.
http://www.jstor.org/view/00220507/di975656/97p0562q/0
April 29, 2007 at 3:59 pm
cdfox
Wow, thanks John! Great article. I hadn’t heard about this. It sounds like GM and some other companies may have played a role in the decline of public transit. I have a couple comments:
1. I’m surprised — I always thought motorized buses were more profitable. Maybe they are — now. This study looked at the period 1935-50, so the economics of the different technologies are probably different today. If motorized buses were only adopted so widely because of a conspiracy among a few American companies, why are buses the primary means of transit throughout the world? In addition, the conspiracy’s effects seemed to have worn off, since electric vehicles are present in many transit systems. Seattle’s Metro has some of what I think are the modern equivalents of the electric trolley coach.
1. Even if GM, et. al., made transit companies less profitable through motorization, it is not clear how significant motorization was in the decline. It could have been that transit was already doomed, or at least doomed in most places, due to competition from the private automobile.
2. I would tend to lay the blame on the regulatory environment more than the scheming corporations involved. The corporations were just doing their usual, trying to make profit however they could. The author of the article mentioned that the foreclosure strategy would not have worked in a more competitive environment. The problem was the system of monopoly franchises granted by local governments to transit companies. Although I wonder how feasible it would be to have parallel sets of electric overhead? Maybe there’s another option.