Public transit in the U.S. is in a sorry state – aging, underfunded and losing riders. Many proposed solutions focus on new technologies, such as self-driving cars and flying taxis. But as a researcher in urban policy and planning, I see more near-term promise in a mode that’s been around for a century: the city bus.
Today, buses in many parts of the U.S. are old and don’t run often enough or serve all the places where people need to go. But this doesn’t reflect the bus’s true capability. Instead, as I see it, it’s the result of cities, states and federal leaders failing to subsidize a quality public service.
Few U.S. politicians have focused on bus riders’ experiences over the past half-century. And many executives have lavished precious federal capital dollars on building new light, rapid and commuter rail lines, in hope of attracting suburban riders back to city centers and mass transit.
This was never a great strategy to begin with, and the pandemic-era flight of knowledge workers to home offices and hybrid schedules has left little to show for decades of rail-centric efforts. Meanwhile, countries in Europe and Latin America have out-innovated the U.S. in providing quality bus service.
But it doesn’t have to be this way. Many U.S. cities are coming around to the idea that buses are the future of public transit. And the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law enacted in 2021 is providing billions of dollars for new buses and related facilities.
A century ago, motorized buses were the technological wonder of their day. Rolling fast on tires over newly paved streets, buses upended urban rail transit by freeing riders from aging, crowded, screeching streetcars.
At that time, transit lines were mostly privately owned. But this model was failing as riders became car drivers and new zoning laws prioritized car-friendly single-family housing.
Transit executives trying to eke out a profit saw buses as a way to reduce spending on track maintenance and labor costs for “two-man” operated streetcars. City leaders and planners also embraced buses, which helped them justify removing streetcar tracks to make streets more navigable for cars.
Across Europe, cities relied on buses to support and complement their modernizing tram or subway networks. Political leaders provided deep subsidies to deliver better bus and rail
In the U.S., however, federal investments in the same time frame focused on building a national highway system to serve private automobiles. Lacking tax subsidies, bus networks could not compete with cheap cars and government-funded highways. Aging buses and infrequent service became the default postwar reality – and buses had to travel on local streets crowded with cars.
Between 1945 and 1960, U.S. transit companies typically lost half or more of their riders as white Americans moved to urban fringes or suburbs and became car commuters.
Only a few cities that were willing to provide significant operating subsidies, including San Francisco and Boston, were able to maintain better bus networks and some trolleybuses.
Today, there’s renewed interest in improving bus service in the U.S., inspired by innovations around the globe, such as bus rapid transit – buses that run in dedicated lanes, with streamlined boarding systems and priority at traffic signals.
Advanced bus systems and new technologies flourish in regions where politicians strongly support transit as a public service.
In my view, buses are the most likely option for substantially expanding public transit ridership in the U.S. Millions of Americans need affordable public mobility for work, study, recreation and shopping. Car ownership is a financial burden that can be as serious for low-income families as the shortage of affordable housing.
Rapidly extending bus networks would be the speediest and most economical way to serve these families and grow transit ridership. U.S. roads and highways are already maintained by the government, eliminating the need to build expensive rail lines.
Innovations will only succeed long term with sufficient subsidies to maintain innovative services at reliable levels. The history of bus transit is littered with pilot programs that were abandoned on cost grounds just as they were gaining popularity. As I see it, buses don’t need to be faster or more convenient than cars to attract and retain riders – but they need to be, and can be, much better transit options than they are today.
Nicholas Dagen Bloom is a professor of urban policy and planning at Hunter College. Distributed by The Associated Press.
