I’m surprised by this article. Most people seem to agree that the the metro systems of NYC, Philadelphia, and DC are much better than those of the west coast. LA’s is unusable for most people because there aren’t enough stops. Seattle’s light rail is definitely gaining steam as it adds more stops.
Well one part they don't discuss is ridership numbers increased as the number of in town jobs increased, not because they built out their systems. Plus when factoring in increased rail ridership much can be found in decreased bus usage. In some cities they reduce routes to force the issue. Plus none of these systems brings in enough in fares to cover a majority of their expenses let alone put a dent in their deferred…
none of these systems brings in
enough in fares to cover a majority
of their expenses
For example, if trains to the financial district save each rider 1 hour per day, and the riders are 70% stockbrokers on $150/hour and 30% janitors on $15/hour, a fare of $40/day might maximise revenue but be unpopular with voters as it excludes all the janitors.
Or if a new public transport system means for the same commute time I can travel further, and that means I can buy a family home for $300,000 instead of $450,000 it's going to be difficult for the public transport to capture much of the value created in fares.