I think it's completely justifiable to subsidise public transport if we believe that it delivers wider economic benefits that make it worthwhile (e.g. access to jobs + productivity). Indeed the UK is somewhat unusual in comparison to the rest of the Europe in the level of funding it expects rail (and the underground) to receive from farepayers as distinct from taxpayers (which as noted means that ridership falls have bigger financial impacts - e.g. the delay/cancellation of big chunks of capital investment by TfL). Provided you have evidence of the wider benefits of public transport (e.g. watch what happens to land values when you open a station in a town with a regular 45 minute train to central London) then I think public subsidy can be VfM.
While Japan's public transport is sometimes said to be 'profitable' plenty of people more knowledgeable than I have suggested this masks opaque interactions between state and private entities and conglomerations of rail companies with property & retail developers. Indeed I would generally be sceptical as to whether any mass transit system could be profitable once all capital, maintenance and operation costs are properly accounted for (assuming only fares offsetting them and not other sources of revenue such as e.g. station retail/oversite rents).
I completely agree it's justifiable to subsidise it! But as essential infrastructure, not as welfare. The irony of America is that the public transport systems that get the most subsidy per use are the least used ones, in cities where cars are subsidised far far more by land use decisions. I agree though that fares alone are never going to be able to cover capital and operations. They can cover operations, if cars are less subsidised, but you absolutely need public transport operators (or the government) to also be able to capture some of the land value uplift they create from expanding service to pay for the capital costs.
I think it's completely justifiable to subsidise public transport if we believe that it delivers wider economic benefits that make it worthwhile (e.g. access to jobs + productivity). Indeed the UK is somewhat unusual in comparison to the rest of the Europe in the level of funding it expects rail (and the underground) to receive from farepayers as distinct from taxpayers (which as noted means that ridership falls have bigger financial impacts - e.g. the delay/cancellation of big chunks of capital investment by TfL). Provided you have evidence of the wider benefits of public transport (e.g. watch what happens to land values when you open a station in a town with a regular 45 minute train to central London) then I think public subsidy can be VfM.
While Japan's public transport is sometimes said to be 'profitable' plenty of people more knowledgeable than I have suggested this masks opaque interactions between state and private entities and conglomerations of rail companies with property & retail developers. Indeed I would generally be sceptical as to whether any mass transit system could be profitable once all capital, maintenance and operation costs are properly accounted for (assuming only fares offsetting them and not other sources of revenue such as e.g. station retail/oversite rents).
I completely agree it's justifiable to subsidise it! But as essential infrastructure, not as welfare. The irony of America is that the public transport systems that get the most subsidy per use are the least used ones, in cities where cars are subsidised far far more by land use decisions. I agree though that fares alone are never going to be able to cover capital and operations. They can cover operations, if cars are less subsidised, but you absolutely need public transport operators (or the government) to also be able to capture some of the land value uplift they create from expanding service to pay for the capital costs.
Fair point about Japan though.