Transit agencies have been warning for years that the twin problems of diminished ridership and rising costs could send entire public transportation systems into a tailspin.
Now, some worry that day has come.
The most drastic cuts have unfolded across metro Philadelphia, where the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority nixed 20 percent of its service as Democratic and Republican lawmakers wrangled over a deal to close the system’s $213 million budget. In response to a court order, officials Monday approved tapping into the system’s budget for capital improvements to reverse the cuts — but they warn that without a durable fix, more cuts will come.
Philadelphia is hardly alone. Dallas Area Rapid Transit is considering the most drastic service cuts in its 40-year history. The Chicago Transit Authority warns it faces a 40 percent service cut unless state lawmakers pass new funding. Portland, Oregon’s TriMet system is phasing in a 10 percent service cut through August 2027.
Rhode Island’s transit agency this month will reduce service on most of its bus lines, after officials last week clinched a deal to stave off even deeper cuts. And service cuts are under discussion for Bay Area Rapid Transit and Pittsburgh Regional Transit.
The result is that millions of Americans will have fewer options for getting around next year — and that threatens far-reaching consequences for transportation, the biggest source of U.S. emissions.
“This feels like potentially a major turning point in transit history in North America,” said Matthew Palm, a transportation planning researcher and professor at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Cutting bus and rail service to balance budgets, he said, is like a “very, very risky amputation, one that may permanently hinder the patient’s capabilities.”
Transit agencies warn they’re at risk of a “death spiral” of ridership declines and service cuts reinforcing one another. Officials also argue service cuts are an inefficient way to balance budgets when systems have such high fixed costs.
For instance, BART officials say they would have to cut service 65 percent in order to lower expenses by 20 percent.
“Even with belt-tightening, we can’t cut our way out of the crisis,” the transit agency says on its website.
Transit agencies across the country are facing a similar set of problems: Ridership has not fully returned to pre-pandemic levels, even as costs have risen for labor, fuel, maintenance and other expenses. State transportation funding, meanwhile, is coming under pressure as gasoline tax revenues plateau.
In state capitals, some lawmakers — especially those from rural areas — have balked at spending state money on what they frame as local or regional projects.
That rural-vs.-urban dynamic shadows all the transit agencies grappling with service cuts, said Corrigan Salerno, policy manager for Transportation for America, which supports increasing transit funding.
“You have people that don’t feel that they’ll directly benefit from these services [who are] unwilling to pay into it,” he said. “Even though, when these regions do well, they pay into state coffers, which in net will benefit their [rural] communities.”
In Pennsylvania, Republican Sen. Joe Pittman, the Senate majority leader, argued that rural communities pay for transit systems in big cities without getting much in return.
“Human nature would suggest, why should I do anything to help? I don’t ever get any help for my region,” Pittman said on the Senate floor in August. “Why should I do anything to help the southeast part of the state?”
Republicans argue the cleanliness and safety of transit systems have become existentially dire, even as the costs of systems continue to climb. GOP officials have pointed to that dynamic as evidence of fiscal mismanagement, along with routes that have low ridership.
Budget shortfalls might justify cuts on the least-used routes, some experts said. But they cautioned that transit systems also serve a social purpose — mobility for the poor, elderly, disabled and others who can’t drive — that isn’t captured by aggregate ridership statistics.
“Transit is never supposed to make money,” said Yanfeng Ouyang, a professor at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, and associate director for mobility at the school’s Illinois Center for Transportation. He said systems in major cities abroad, such as Barcelona, had lowered costs without cutting service.
Experts also cautioned that transit cuts are difficult to reverse. Staff and equipment can take months or years to acquire. And even when systems are back in place, it takes even longer for would-be riders to start using the system.
“It takes time for people to trust or rely on this service,” said Junfeng Jiao, the founding director of the Urban Information Lab at the University of Texas, Austin.
Some bright spots do remain for transit. Congestion pricing in New York City has shored up the finances of the country’s biggest transit system.
And in November’s election, 51 jurisdictions voted to increase local transit funding, according to the American Public Transportation Association. That included 32 jurisdictions that simultaneously voted for President Donald Trump.
That’s an important demonstration of public support for transit’s future, said Paul P. Skoutelas, president and CEO of the American Public Transportation Association.
More ballot measures are coming, too. In November, voters in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, will vote on a new sales tax to help expand Charlotte’s rail and bus system.
“When you ask about the health of the [transit] industry — yeah, we’ve got issues. … It’s like any other business, to be honest, in the sense that there’s always challenges,” Skoutelas said.
“But at the same time, there’s a lot of growth happening as well.”
