Trains, trams, buses — oh my! While some of us might geek out on maps of metro lines or heated debates on ticket pricing, at the end of the day, we know that public transport (or “public transit” or “public transportation” as it’s referred to in North America) is about more than just getting around town or the vehicles involved. For over a century, these systems have shaped cities and entire metropolitan networks, in a wholly different way than private cars, influencing qualitative aspects, like placemaking and quality of life, as well as quantitative ones, like efficiency and budgets. But how exactly?
To help us wrap our heads around this huge topic in urban mobility, UMX spoke with [Paul Barter](https://www.linkedin.com/in/paul-barter-6911b2a/), an urban transport researcher, policy advisor, and trainer who has taught at the National University of Singapore (NUS) and consulted with international organisations such as the World Bank and German International Cooperation Society (GIZ). In addition to being featured in a handful of [UMX videos](https://www.youtube.com/@urbanmobilityexplained/search?query=paul%20barter), he authored our free online course [“Fundamentals of Public Transport: Key Components for Success”](https://urbanmobilitycourses.eu/courses/fundamentals-of-public-transport/?utm_source=allthingsurban&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=blog), where you can learn all about public transport and how to improve it in your city with plenty of real-life examples from cities around the world.
<iframe width="960" height="540" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/pR1Lhvu4Sg8?si=ZQe07pcaPdAG6NR1" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
#Making space for our most beloved places
Whenever you visit a new city, chances are that riding public transport isn’t on your “must-see” list. Nor do you immediately think of public transport when you’re asked to list the favourite neighbourhoods of your own city. Yet as Paul explained, “the character of places is heavily shaped by how people get to those places and whether we allow transport modes to harm their value,” in terms of the qualities such as livability and public access to that space. And on the whole, he continued, “The places that are most lovable are the ones that are most accessible by public transport.”
Picture going to the Eiffel Tower or Sagrada Família and it's full of cars. ([Indeed, they used to be!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheWayWeWere/comments/o116cc/paris_in_1952_casually_parking_your_car_under_the/?rdt=59326)) When you factor in the space for road construction and parking, Paul commented that public transport is at least 10 times more space-efficient than cars, increasing to [up to 20](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.jtlu.org/index.php/jtlu/article/view/1526/1519&ved=2ahUKEwiGkqKP5P6JAxUbSvEDHV8lGpAQFnoECBcQAw&usg=AOvVaw1Gnfv3EgiNpg2F82ZfxMqi) for some modes of transport. "Places where most people arrive by public transport can devote more space to people and less to cars so people linger longer because it's more attractive," Paul said, “and it's even more critical that you have space-efficient urban transport in high-density cities.” This is not only the case in older European cities like Paris and Barcelona but also in newer Asian ones too, like [Singapore](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxTKcqtJA98) where cars are increasingly restricted in favour of public transport and active mobility.
{{Pic1}}
#The social glue that rides on rails and roads
Public transport is also critical for social cohesion. Paul paraphrased an allegory from policy consultant [Jarrett Walker](Jarrett Walker) (who is also featured in the [UMX course](https://urbanmobilitycourses.eu/courses/fundamentals-of-public-transport/?utm_source=allthingsurban&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=blog)) that, at its best, public transport is “like a moving sidewalk that you can just hop on, hop off, and move around without hardly having to think about it because it's part of the public realm.” In that sense, much like the oft-cited [“eyes on the street” quote from Jane Jacobs](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/193660-a-city-street-equipped-to-handle-strangers-and-to-make), people naturally extend that gaze to trains, trams, and buses to keep these spaces safe and comfortable.
It only pays off, however, in places where service is frequent and reliable because that results in a large and diverse ridership. “In cities with successful public transport, you will find a wide cross-section of people on the trains, on trains, buses, ferries, etc,” Paul said. “Not only low-income or the middle class but even some high-income people choose to ride because it is convenient.” ([Celebrity sightings](https://www.eonline.com/photos/6722/stars-on-the-subway) in London and New York have proven this to be true.) More users also means more voices to put pressure on administrators and politicians to make public transport a top priority.
On the flip side, if cities treat public transport as, what Paul called, “a welfare service for those who can’t afford anything else,” social cohesion and safety take a hit. A lack of ridership among large swaths of the population tends to result in people assuming that public transport must be uncouth and unsafe, perhaps a relic from the past when it was [notoriously unsafe](https://nypost.com/2024/10/19/opinion/public-safety-is-the-key-to-functioning-nyc-subways/) compared to the present day. The stigma is particularly strong in rich, car-dependent cities, where, because of low ridership, buses and trains are disproportionately filled with people who have fallen on hard times and might make other riders feel unsafe. But Paul pointed out, “You always have people with problems in the public realm.” For example, road ragers and distracted drivers can present a whole swath of other dangers to the public.
{{Pic2}}
# When it pays off and when it doesn’t
Even though public transport can move more people and more sustainably than private vehicles, Paul hesitated to say that it’s always the case. “Ironically,” he mentioned, “car-dependent cities that invest little in public transport end up with public transport that tends to be rather empty on average, making it not very cost-effective, space-efficient, or energy-efficient." Whereas areas with successful systems have enough ridership to benefit from [economies of scale](https://academic.oup.com/wbro/article-abstract/25/2/235/1674381?redirectedFrom=fulltext), “The politics of public transport is worse in the places where it needs to be improved the most. It’s a catch-22 and a vicious cycle.”
But let’s face it: People don’t really ride public transport because they want to improve the environment or social cohesion. They ride it only if it’s the most convenient, least stressful option, particularly in the face of congestion and parking challenges. “All big cities have some congestion,” Paul noted, “but when you've got a good public transport system that is immune to traffic through Type A segregated rights-of-way or Type B priority lanes” (terms that you can learn about in [the course](https://urbanmobilitycourses.eu/courses/fundamentals-of-public-transport/?utm_source=allthingsurban&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=blog%20_pubtrans)), “it’s like a safety valve.” Paul mentioned that cities such as Tokyo, Seoul, Zurich, and Vienna have terrific systems because they’re convenient and reliable for different kinds of trips throughout the day.
Moreover, in several relatively richer parts of the world, including Spain and South Korea, Paul stated that keeping construction costs down is another secret to public transport success. “Imagine if the highest cost countries learned the lessons from the thrifty ones, they could build several times more kilometers of line for the same budget!” The [Transit Costs project](https://transitcosts.com/about/) from New York University (NYC) explores this in further detail, and you can find Paul’s interview with [Marco Chitti](https://www.linkedin.com/in/marco-chitti-93b63264/), one of the programme’s lead researchers in the [UMX course](https://urbanmobilitycourses.eu/courses/fundamentals-of-public-transport/?utm_source=allthingsurban&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=blog).
#The tracks of time and driving urban growth
Lastly, public transport played a crucial role in how city limits grew — at different times in history depending on the region — to become the cities we know today. Paul explained that between 1880 and the early to mid-20th century, in an era before mass car and motorcycle ownership, urban expansions went hand-in-hand with public transport development. “If your city was lucky enough to grow rapidly in that era,” he elaborated, “then much of that growth would have become dense, walkable, and mixed-use neighbourhoods built around the stops and stations." In other words, these areas became more compact and energy-efficient as you could reach more things via walking, cycling, and public transport.
As car ownership surged in North America in the 1920s-1940s, these patterns changed. Paul described how real estate began developing independently, and often quite far, from public transport lines. “They could just build and build — more roads, more highways — because they had the space,” turning outer areas into sprawling, car-based areas. But Paul explained that “the older inner areas often survive as transit-oriented places. Cars brought pollution, congestion, and parking problems but at least the trains still worked to get people to jobs.” At the same time, many American cities let their existing public transport decay (like [Los Angeles, which had a great rail system in the 1920s](https://slate.com/human-interest/2014/07/transit-history-in-los-angeles-a-1906-map-of-the-city-s-streetcar-system.html)). Others grew primarily during the car era, as road construction enabled them to spread outward, yet the subsequent congestion and parking problems inevitably forced them to extend even further to make space for all the cars.
{{Pic3}}
It wasn’t until the 1960s that widespread car usage arrived in most other parts of the world, such as Western Europe. For various reasons, including less wealth, less road-building, and differences in planning systems, most cities sprawled outwards much less than in American cities. Yet cars quickly caused problems in this situation: “[When cars flood into a compact city](https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/cars-make-cities-less-compact), it only takes 10 years before they realise this isn't working and need to limit these cars.” Paul said that’s why by the mid-1970s, European cities began implementing policies to limit cars, price parking, and improve public transport.
The battle to limit car access and increase public transport hasn’t stopped since then. Despite how public transport, as Paul said, “naturally suppresses car use and car ownership, it’s not always a painless experience” for everyone involved. The decision to reclaim car-dominated streets for pedestrians and public transport — similar to the decision to demolish buildings to build a highway — is ultimately a product of the times and how much people love existing spots in their city in the first place. “It's an interesting cycle,” Paul remarked, “and a blessing in disguise, in some ways, for cities not to be rich at certain moments in history,” to shape their own future.
Now you have plenty to think about next time you take public transport, both in your city or anywhere else around the world. Continue learning about the [Fundamentals of Public Transport](https://urbanmobilitycourses.eu/courses/fundamentals-of-public-transport/?utm_source=allthingsurban&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=blog) in the free online course from Paul and UMX.
{{Pic4: This article is sponsored by EIT Urban Mobility — an initiative of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology working to encourage positive changes in the way people move around cities in order to make them more liveable places. All images featured in the article were supplied by UMX.}}