Skip to Content
Streetsblog Chicago home
Log In
Streetsblog Network

When Does It Make Sense for Transit Planners to Change Existing Routes?

4:37 PM CDT on August 29, 2013

There's been some talk recently in Seattle about reorganizing the city's transit system to improve efficiency. But almost immediately, strong objections emerged to eliminating lesser-used routes that some people depend on.

Frank Chiachiere at Seattle Transit Blog argues that maximizing the social benefits of limited transit resources is more complicated than preventing harm to existing transit riders:

Resistance often has less to do with the substance of the change and more to do with fear of loss. An economist might call this loss aversion, where fear of loss has a much stronger emotional power than an anticipation of gains. Translated into advocacy, such aversion can quickly become moralistic — “You are taking away X!” — giving excessive deference to present conditions and placing the burden of proof on change itself.

When restructures are proposed, we hear emotional appeals from those benefiting from existing but inefficient service, but fewer such stories from those hurt by buses that run too slow, too indirectly, and that don’t come often enough. But these ‘invisible’ riders are people, too, and their humanity and their mobility rights are equal to everyone else’s. If you believe mobility is a human right, then maximizing mobility maximizes the exercise of this right.

It is naive to assume that a transit system can hurt no one; any fixed-route system with less than infinite frequency necessarily creates winners and losers; this is a geometric fact that is foolish to deny. Even the world’s best-funded transit systems have constraints on whom they can serve. The core mission of public transit must be to benefit as many as possible and hurt as few as possible, which makes operational efficiency imperative.

We should absolutely use a social justice lens to help us evaluate and reshape our transit network (and Metro’s service guidelines do), but that is not equivalent to making a virtue of inefficiency. The quest for efficiency need not make us ruthless and inflexible, but efficiency should be the rule, with exceptions made in deliberate and transparent ways for clear and defensible reasons such as network comprehensibility or geographic coverage. But exceptions they must be, and the burden of proof should be on inefficient service, not the other way around.

Transit consultant and blogger Jarrett Walker at Human Transit has looked extensively at the tradeoffs transit systems make between ridership and coverage.

Elsewhere on the Network today: City Block considers the implications of how much real estate city streets consume. The California High Speed Rail Blog examines how the new rail system can be a force against sprawl, rather than promoting it. And Milwaukee Rising reports that, after a lengthy public involvement process, the Wisconsin Department of Transportation is adding a big chunk of new road to the controversial I-94 highway expansion project.

Stay in touch

Sign up for our free newsletter

More from Streetsblog Chicago

During board meeting, CTAction cites service problems, South Siders push for youth employment as part of Red Line Extension

CTA service reliability issues and likely funding for the long-awaited Red Line Extension were major topics of discussion at the latest CTA board meeting.

September 30, 2023

Bicycle-friendly politicians showed up in force for Bike Lane Uprising’s packed 6th anniversary fundraiser

Lawmakers Kelly Cassidy, Andre Vasquez, and Kam Buckner, plus BLU founder Christina Whitehouse, thanked the advocates present for their efforts to make cycling safer.

September 29, 2023

CTA blues: Musician and ex-bus driver Toronzo Cannon, shares his views on the agency’s labor challenges

Like many CTA workers, difficulties in the early days of COVID influenced Cannon's decision to retire. He says the transit unions need to do more to support their members.

September 28, 2023
See all posts