California’s Transportation Dilemma

Gavin Newsom’s much-maligned high-speed rail project isn’t the only instance of a “train to nowhere” in California. The state seems to house numerous underused “ghost” trains and buses as part of its public transportation network.

Despite this, California is actively seeking more federal funding for public transit. Congress is working on a new five-year transportation bill that promises to inject billions into urban transit initiatives.

All kinds of groups, from city mayors to construction firms to transit unions and chambers of commerce, are lobbying hard for this increased funding. It’s, you know, a pretty typical scene in the push for more transportation dollars.

However, a closer look reveals a troubling truth: decades of significant investment in transportation haven’t really enhanced urban mobility in California.

A recent study examined mobility trends using data up through 2024 and found that the share of public transit users has plummeted across nearly all major U.S. cities, even as expenditures rise.

Adjusted for inflation, national spending on transportation has skyrocketed nearly sixfold since the 1960s, yet the percentage of commuters relying on buses and trains has dropped by about two-thirds.

California’s situation mirrors this national decline, despite the fact that it invests more per capita in transportation than almost any other state. It’s what they might call a negative efficiency scenario.

The next time you spot a bus or streetcar, take a moment to notice how many people are onboard—it’s often just a handful. Currently, only about 4% of commuters utilize public transportation.

Interestingly, urban planners are promoting the concept of “15-minute cities,” where public transit options are easily accessible. It sounds great in theory, but outside of densely populated areas, transit agencies seem to be falling short of that vision.

In fact, in the largest 50 metropolitan regions of the country, almost 60 times more jobs can be reached within 30 minutes by car than by public transit. And this disparity is even accentuated in California’s expansive urban landscapes.

The Commute Dilemma

Despite discussions about implementing high gas taxes and congestion pricing, many Americans who drive solo manage to get to work in under 30 minutes on average. This is largely because driving allows for a direct, door-to-door commute, whether via car, bike, or even on foot.

In contrast, public transport options like buses and trains rarely offer that kind of convenience; transit often entails multiple transfers, lengthy walks, and unpredictable schedules, which can be daunting for working families.

Improving mobility and reducing commute times in California likely doesn’t hinge on pouring more cash into complex transit systems. Instead, the focus should shift to enhancing and modernizing road infrastructure.

For instance, implementing smart traffic light technologies can help optimize stops and traffic flows while modern highway management can relieve bottlenecks.

This might seem obvious. A staggering 20 times more Americans choose to drive to work or work from home compared to those who opt for public transport. Remarkably, the number of people working from home now exceeds those taking the bus or train, a trend fast-tracked by the pandemic and seemingly set to continue.

Advocates for public transport maintain that increased spending will alleviate congestion and lower pollution levels. Interestingly, many drivers support these initiatives, thinking that such measures will remove more cars from the roads.

But here’s the catch: transit usage is currently so low it hardly registers as a factor in congestion across America’s urban centers.

As cities brace for a future filled with cost-effective, driverless ridesharing options, some are even starting to subsidize these pickups, sidelining public transit altogether. This could prove to be a more economical solution than relying on costly, underutilized buses or subways.

Ultimately, federal transportation funds might be better allocated towards enhancing and expanding roadway capacities rather than funneling more cash into a system that increasingly resembles a “ghost” from the past.