Support CleanTechnica’s work through a Substack subscription or on Stripe.
Transit death spirals do not start with a single dramatic event. They begin when operating gaps push agencies to trim frequency, defer maintenance, and raise fares, which in turn push riders away and deepen the hole. It is not inevitable. It is, however, on a short clock. Preventing service collapse requires rapid state action because federal operating support is unlikely for years and emergency relief is over.
Several agencies are already describing a trajectory that matches the classic pattern even if the word “death spiral” is not always on the page. Philadelphia’s SEPTA flagged a structu…
Support CleanTechnica’s work through a Substack subscription or on Stripe.
Transit death spirals do not start with a single dramatic event. They begin when operating gaps push agencies to trim frequency, defer maintenance, and raise fares, which in turn push riders away and deepen the hole. It is not inevitable. It is, however, on a short clock. Preventing service collapse requires rapid state action because federal operating support is unlikely for years and emergency relief is over.
Several agencies are already describing a trajectory that matches the classic pattern even if the word “death spiral” is not always on the page. Philadelphia’s SEPTA flagged a structural gap and began cutting service while raising fares, a pairing that usually drives riders away.
BART in the Bay Area has warned that cuts will not fix its budget and could lock in lower demand, which is the loop everyone recognizes. Washington’s WMATA published doomsday plans with deep frequency reductions and station closures if new state revenue does not arrive, a clear signal of where the math leads. San Francisco’s Muni has trimmed routes and headways to balance near-term budgets, which risks losing discretionary riders who will not wait longer buses out.
Chicago’s regional network has a documented cliff starting in 2026 that cannot be bridged with one-offs, which means service or fares will carry the load unless Springfield acts. Boston’s MBTA is juggling safety fixes, hiring gaps, and a looming deficit that encourages frequency cuts when reliability needs the opposite. New Jersey Transit raised fares and set automatic increases while warning of continuing shortfalls, which is another early marker. None of these systems are past the point of no return, but each is signaling that without fast state action the feedback loop will tighten and recovery will get harder.
The shape of recovery since 2020 explains why some cities are exposed. Europe’s major systems are near or at 2019 ridership, with policy choices that made returning to transit easy. China’s megacities recovered to full trains once restrictions lifted, supported by dense land use, limited car access, and strong public commitment to transit. The United States has climbed back unevenly. Bus networks with all-day riders did better. Commuter rail tied to downtown offices did worse. Weekends and off-peak periods are healthier than peak hours. Downtown office occupancy is still below pre-COVID levels. The result is a gap between service that is funded and service that is used, and that gap shows up as operating deficits that local budgets must cover.
Funding mechanics drive the risk. Federal programs are built for capital, not operations. Temporary COVID aid masked that reality for three years. Those dollars plugged operating holes, paid for preventive maintenance, and kept payrolls intact. That money is gone or expiring. Federal rescissions and freezes in 2025 made the outlook clearer, and the Trump Administration’s recent claw back of previously committed funding for major transit systems upgrades in New York and New Jersey makes the federal government’s position crystal clear, even if it reopens. Agencies that leaned on emergency cash without securing new local revenues now face recurring gaps as large as a fifth of their operating budgets. In that condition, small cuts do not save the day. They reduce the product riders experience and trigger the feedback loop that defines a death spiral.
Work patterns play a role. The strongest pre-2020 riders for many U.S. systems were five-day office commuters going to dense central business districts. Hybrid work cut that market. Agencies that pivoted toward all-day frequency and reliable weekend service preserved more riders. Agencies that kept peak-only patterns stranded revenue. In Europe the policy stack moved in the other direction. Germany’s nationwide pass simplified fares and reduced price barriers. Austria and Spain cut costs for frequent riders. Paris and Berlin restored service quickly and added capacity where demand returned. China had fewer alternatives to transit and strong constraints on driving. The lesson is that riders respond to frequency, reliability, and simple fares. They are not coming back just because trains exist.
Operational decisions matter because they compound financially. Cutting frequency to save labor hours looks prudent in a spreadsheet. On the street it means longer waits, missed transfers, and lower reliability. That pushes discretionary riders into cars. It also harms captive riders by extending commutes and making connections risky. Fare hikes meant to close gaps can have a similar effect. They raise revenue on paper, but if the service is worse, the elasticity can erase the gain. The cheaper and faster way to stabilize demand is to deliver what riders value most: predictable headways, clean vehicles and stops, working elevators, visible staff, and safe platforms. Using all-door boarding on buses, signal priority, and bus lanes to protect schedules reduces operating costs per boarding and increases the value riders perceive.
Capital choices can support operating health instead of undermining it. The next five years should prioritize projects that lower unit operating costs or unlock reliability. That includes depots that cut deadhead time, charging and fueling infrastructure that improves fleet uptime, interlocking and junction fixes that remove chronic delay, and turnbacks that enable higher frequencies where demand is highest. Where corridors need rapid upgrades, bus priority and BRT can move now while rail designs are refined. Megaprojects with long lead times and uncertain schedules should be gated with reference-class benchmarking and clear payback logic. The goal is to improve the rider experience inside the current budget envelope and avoid adding opex that cannot be supported.
State action is the lever that can prevent failure. Dedicated operating revenue is the difference between managing a downturn and spiraling. Payroll mobility taxes, regional sales taxes, employer mobility contributions, value capture around stations, and congestion pricing are all tools that have delivered stable funding elsewhere. These are state-enabled or state-approved choices in most U.S. regions. Waiting for federal operating help is not a strategy. Bonding against future promises without a new revenue stream is also not a strategy. The right path is to match recurring costs with recurring revenue and to tie that revenue to performance targets riders can see.
Governance and integration determine how far those dollars go. Fragmented regions with separate fare systems and uncoordinated schedules waste service. Integrated authorities that manage bus and rail together, with fare capping across modes and agencies, make every dollar buy more trips. Through-running commuter rail, timed transfers, and clockface schedules reduce the complexity riders face and raise effective frequency without adding vehicles. These are management choices as much as funding choices. They can be implemented in months, not years, if leaders focus on them.
Equity is not in conflict with fiscal stability. Protecting frequent service in transit-dependent corridors preserves the riders who never left and builds a floor of demand that does not vanish during shocks. Discounted products targeted to low-income riders grow trips with modest revenue tradeoffs. Clean stations, working lighting, and visible staff increase perceived safety, which matters for every rider group. The agencies that protected these basics during the pandemic recovered faster. The ones that did not are still trying to rebuild trust.
Climate and air quality arguments support decisive moves now. Mode shift from cars to transit reduces congestion, emissions, and particulate exposure. Replacing diesel with electric buses cuts local pollution and can cut lifetime costs if charging and scheduling are done well. The cheapest way to reduce transport emissions in cities is to carry more people on reliable buses and trains. That is not a long-term aspiration. It is a near-term operating plan that asks riders to take one more trip each week by making that trip obvious, safe, and on time.
The decision window is short. A base case with flat real funding, slow operator hiring, and modest ridership growth keeps many agencies below 2019 levels through the decade and forces rolling cuts. A reform case that pairs new state revenue with frequency first, integrated fares, and targeted capex produces a visible recovery curve in one to two years. A spiral case that balances budgets with cuts and fare hikes drives ridership down, raises unit costs, and makes later recovery expensive. The first signs that a system is tipping are missed headways, thinning evening service, rising crowding variance, vacancy rates that stall service restoration, and growing customer complaints. Once these stack up, riders make different choices and the numbers worsen.
There is no mystery about what riders want or what stabilizes agency finances. Frequency, reliability, cleanliness, and simple fares build trips. Dedicated, recurring state revenue builds budgets that can deliver those things. Europe did not beat the United States on transit recovery because of culture. It did it by making concrete decisions that matched funding, fares, and service to the world as it is now. Chinese megacities did it by making transit the practical choice and limiting substitutes. US states can avoid a transit death spiral in their largest cities by moving on the same levers, with the same clarity of purpose, and by doing it quickly.
Sign up for CleanTechnica’s Weekly Substack for Zach and Scott’s in-depth analyses and high level summaries, sign up for our daily newsletter, and follow us on Google News!
Advertisement — Have a tip for CleanTechnica? Want to advertise? Want to suggest a guest for our CleanTech Talk podcast? Contact us here.
Sign up for our daily newsletter for 15 new cleantech stories a day. Or sign up for our weekly one on top stories of the week if daily is too frequent.
CleanTechnica uses affiliate links. See our policy here.
CleanTechnica’s Comment Policy