Abstract
Waiting for a bus in Rockville, Maryland.
Pabak Sarkar, Flickr
Transportation planners like me are very comfortable discussing public transit as a means to an end. We know that transportation systems provide the essential link between people and opportunities. Good public transit can provide this link affordably and reliably while providing other material benefits to riders—physical activity, a reprieve from traffic, and a bit of time for oneself. 1 Our academic analyses of public transit systems can capture these narrowly defined benefits quite well. 2
But public transit also serves at least two other critical but underappreciated functions. First, public transit provides essential public space and critical opportunities for human connection that offer platforms for organizing. When riders struggle against fare hikes and service cuts, when they advocate for routes that meet their needs, and when they demand dignified service, they can organize on transit vehicles and at stops and stations. Transit rider unions across the country have chalked up many real wins using these strategies dating back to the 1990s. Second, public transit workers are heavily unionized, with workers enjoying some measure of job security, possibilities for advancement, and good wages. One estimate puts the industry’s union density at 74 percent. 3
Finding common ground between riders and operators can be challenging, but uniting these two groups around the common goals of improving service and growing ridership would go a long way toward achieving mobility justice—a world in which everyone has access to the transportation resources they need to live a meaningful and fulfilling life and where no one is displaced or forced to move when they would rather stay in place. 4
Public transit systems bring working-class people together across lines of race/ethnicity, gender, and occupation. Growing rider unions and finding common cause with operators could facilitate broader movement building and mass politics using whole-worker organizing—connecting struggles around transit to others related to housing, immigration, labor, and other critical issues.
In the early months of the second Trump administration—amid growing threats to civil society—transit riders and workers represent powerful, if often overlooked, constituencies. They can and should be mobilized in the broader struggle for mobility justice. Unlocking this potential demands a clear-eyed understanding of the current dynamics shaping the transit industry, an honest reckoning with the challenges ahead, and a vision for building more just and democratic transportation futures.
The Car, Suburbanization, and the Decline of Public Transit
Before elaborating on public transit’s potential, it is helpful to outline its history. Prior to widespread automobile adoption, beginning in the early twentieth century, transit was ascendant. Private developers partnered with municipal governments to provide largely streetcar-based systems connecting suburbs to city centers. Transit ridership peaked in the United States in 1946 before beginning a sustained decline. 5
Following World War II, the automobile rapidly became dominant. Despite the widespread allure of conspiracy theories that claim the automobile, rubber, and oil industries colluded to destroy public transit in America, 6 the industry itself was rife with mismanagement and poor decision-making that hastened its decline. As the immediate crisis of the war abated, streetcar systems confronted a backlog of deferred maintenance due to wartime restrictions and a labor force demanding long-promised wage increases. 7 The heavily unionized private labor force ultimately won these battles, but with the consequence that the dominant transit technology shifted to bus from streetcar. Ultimately, public transit could not compete with the objective dominance of the automobile for point-to-point travel and state-sponsored roadbuilding and suburbanization that accelerated throughout the twentieth century.
Suburbanization truly undermined public transit’s viability. Transit systems work best when they connect large numbers of people to large numbers of destinations. Both people and destinations must be within relatively easy walking or cycling distance of stops and stations and the journey to public transit must feel safe and pleasant. Ample academic work conducted over decades demonstrates a strong link between residential density (among other factors) and public transit use. 8 Accordingly, transportation infrastructure decisions should never be considered apart from the land-use context into which they are placed.
As suburbanization continued apace throughout the 1950s, 9 public transit systems failed in large numbers. Recognizing the inherent value of public transit and responding to pressure from a newly formed alliance of downtown business interests, the banking industry, and local politicians, the federal government stepped in to stanch the bleeding with the 1964 Urban Mass Transportation Act (UMTA). 10 That act provided funds that could be used to transfer transit systems from private to public ownership. In part because unionization was widespread in the transit industry prior to state ownership, organized labor played a role in the negotiations leading up to passage of the UMTA. 11 Specifically, robust labor protections were enshrined in the act under Section 13(c). 12 These protections have remained in force even for new public transit systems, leading to much higher union density in the transit industry than in the economy as a whole. As of late 2022, about 74 percent of the 448,000 public transit employees in the United States were represented by two unions—the Transport Workers Union of America (TWU) and the Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU). 13 Various policy changes and financing models have been tested in the industry since the 1960s, but public transit ridership has remained stagnant.
The Covid-19 pandemic and its aftermath have shaken public transit to its core. As stay-at-home orders proliferated and telecommuting became more common in early 2020, public transit’s primary market—peak-period commuters—was decimated. The Federal Transit Administration reported that ridership across the country dropped 82 percent from October 2019 to April 2020. 14 As of March 2024, the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) reported that ridership was still down about 20 percent from its pre-pandemic high. 15
While Covid-era relief flowed from the federal government as agencies struggled with the loss of fare revenue, those funds have all but dried up. Federal support for public transit within the second Trump administration is also precarious. U.S. Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy has referred to the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the nation’s most heavily patronized system, as a “shithole.” And former Special Government Employee Elon Musk’s disdain for public transit has been evident for some time. In 2017, he stated publicly that . . . public transport is painful. It sucks. Why do you want to get on something with a lot of other people, that doesn’t leave where you want it to leave, doesn’t start where you want it to start, doesn’t end where you want it to end? It’s a pain in the ass. That’s why everyone doesn’t like it. And there’s like a bunch of random strangers, one of who [sic] might be a serial killer.
16
To the extent that these feelings are widely shared by the motoring public, advocating for improved public transit will be an uphill battle. With federal support in doubt, agencies may be able to turn to local voters, municipal governments, or states for additional resources. But providing service that people want to use must be the core goal of a transit agency. Determining how best to deliver this service will require working with operator unions to understand how labor practices can be adjusted to support more frequent, reliable, and dignified service—without compromising worker rights or safety.
Organized Labor in the Transit Industry
The effects of unionization on public transit’s overall productivity and efficiency have been heavily studied. Public transit’s anemic performance outside the New York metropolitan region is often blamed entirely on the industry’s high union density and associated high labor costs. A veritable cottage industry of critique has emerged, spanning conservative think tanks and academic researchers alike. 17
These types of analyses often ignore broader structural factors that also drive up costs, including privatized healthcare and unaffordable housing. Increasing worker precarity by eliminating labor protections should not be the prerequisite for providing better public transit service. But reflexively supporting all public transit labor actions would also be a mistake. For example, the post-Covid transit industry is still experiencing labor shortages that are affecting service delivery and reliability. 18 A report commissioned by APTA in late 2022 provides evidence that one of the major factors driving the shortage is the seniority rules enshrined in contracts that govern shift allocations. New employees simply do not want to be saddled with the burden of taking on tough or otherwise undesirable shifts for an extended period. Drug and alcohol testing as well as complex licensure requirements also contribute to hiring barriers.
Another structural challenge in delivering consistent service is the nature of daily travel demand, which still peaks in the morning and afternoon with a long gap in between. These peaks create a need for split shifts. Yet, union contracts often limit the length of mid-day breaks and restrict the use of part-time labor, forcing agencies to employ more full-time operators than operationally necessary. In this context, contracting out service can be a tool for improving efficiency.
Of course, the rub is that at least some of the cost savings that emerge will be due to reduced labor standards on the part of the contracted entity. 19 Agencies have also used contracting to experiment with new services, and in these cases, they contract out not to save money but to gain expertise. 20
Importantly, while Section 13(c) protections still apply to public agency employees, contracted-out staff only enjoy whatever protections are negotiated ad hoc with the vendor. A 2013 U.S. Government Accountability Office report sought operator union perspectives on contracting. They found that union officials cited reduced safety, degraded service quality, and hidden costs related to management and oversight as potential downsides of contracting. 21 At the same time, riders interviewed for the report experienced no difference in service quality or customer satisfaction based on whether service was operated in-house or contracted out. 22
There is other evidence that contracting arrangements and labor need not be antagonistic. CapMetro, which operates public transit service in Austin, TX, contracts out all of its operations and maintenance labor but those workers have full union representation. During a recent transition between vendors, the newly contracted entity agreed to fully honor the previously ratified contract. 23
While agencies often hope for cost savings, overall evidence is mixed. Two transit-supportive nonprofit organizations, TransitCenter and the Eno Center for Transportation, have both released reports about the potential for contracting out to improve service quality. 24 The reports caution that contracting out should never be undertaken solely to reduce costs and that its impacts in any agency context depend on a myriad of factors. But they also note potential benefits for both riders and workers. TransitCenter, for example, states, “To the extent that contracting out improves service and/or reduces agency operating costs, it can also enable agencies to add new service and hire more staff—outcomes that may not be possible [otherwise].” 25
Even if funding were no object, situations would still exist where contracting is desirable to access a skilled workforce, new expertise, or rolling stock. To increase public transit use, service needs to run more frequently and more reliably. 26 People need to feel safe and secure. Historically, transit productivity has been on the decline. If this trend does not reverse, agencies would do well to search for efforts to enhance efficiency while keeping labor protections in place. But there exists an inherent tension between rider needs (more and better service) and operator needs as articulated in labor contracts. Resolving this tension will be key to increasing transit ridership moving forward.
Tensions Between Rider and Operator Unions
In part because of the structure of travel demand and pre-existing labor contracts, rider unions and operator unions do not always operate in lockstep. In addition to matters related to scheduling and overall levels of service, safety is also an area of conflict. In a letter sent to U.S. Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy on April 4, 2025, the International President of the TWU, John Samuelsen, made two related points: (1) public transit’s long-term viability depends upon federal operations funding and, (2) ensuring safety on public transit requires a robust law enforcement response.
27
He noted further that operations funding can be used on safety-related measures, stating that All of the most effective criminal deterrents depend on operations funding. Federal transit funds cannot be spent on policing, monitoring security cameras, installing and maintaining barriers, fare enforcement personnel, or any other public safety project that relies on human activity.
28
This statement evidences a profound failure of imagination on the part of one of the largest transport worker unions in the United States. The literature is replete with evidence of disparate policing in transport on a societal scale, 29 and the individual stories of Black, brown, and Indigenous people killed as they were simply trying to transport themselves are legion and include Oscar Grant, Sandra Bland, Philando Castile, Eric Cantu, and Jonathan Tubby, among others. To increase police presence on public transit is to invite more police interactions and indeed more violence.
A more sensible approach to ensuring public transit safety could involve using unarmed safety ambassadors and crisis response teams combined with service enhancements that make public transit more attractive to everyone. Drawing more riders into the system provides subtle pressure to maintain prosocial behavior. 30
More broadly, issues with personal discomfort that sometimes end in violence emerge from societal-level problems that are the inevitable consequences of housing unaffordability and a shredded social safety net. Public transit and public libraries provide some of the only remaining public spaces that are open, accessible, climate controlled, and welcoming to all people. The nonexistence of affordable mental health and substance abuse treatment options pushes people in crisis into these public spaces. Solving the issue with increased policing simply criminalizes homelessness and mental illness and fails to address the underlying drivers.
At the end of the day, public transit has to attract riders to function. If productivity declines along with stagnant operating budgets, less service will be delivered, leading to a downward spiral in which service declines precipitate reduced ridership and higher fares. Transit operator unions would do well to understand rider needs and determine where they can find common cause to create systems that reflect the inherent diversity of the places they serve.
Challenges to Civil Rights Enforcement Affect Both Riders and Operators
Early actions taken by the second Trump administration’s executive agencies signal major challenges on the horizon that will affect both riders and operators. These are being felt most immediately in the domain of civil rights enforcement. Civil rights laws and regulations have historically ensured that agencies receiving federal funding do not discriminate in their distribution of those funds. 31 These laws and regulations have ensured that public transit systems are designed to serve those most likely to patronize the systems. Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) and low-income people are more likely to use public transit than the general population and they tend to use local buses at higher rates than rail-based transit. 32
Major public transit wins that better align service with rider needs have historically resulted from the application of federal civil rights law, specifically Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. 33 Until early 2025, that law was uncontroversially applied to prohibit both intentional and disparate impact discrimination among agencies receiving federal funds. Typically, the legal theory of disparate impact was applied to argue that a facially neutral policy would disproportionately affect groups that have experienced historical and ongoing discrimination. 34 Practically, this has meant comparing outcomes for BIPOC riders against the white population.
These approaches are consistent with civil rights jurisprudence and common sense. But on April 23, 2025, the president signed an executive order entitled Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy. The order states its goal to “eliminate the use of disparate-impact liability in all contexts . . .” Surely this order will shut down all executive-level action on disparate impact claims, which was typical behavior during prior Republican presidential administrations. But unlike the past, civil rights offices across the executive branch are being hollowed out as career employees leave, putting their future in doubt. 35
One bright spot in the federal government’s unabashed attack on civil rights could be a reinvigoration of more direct action and organizing efforts to advance justice. As the late environmental justice attorney Luke W. Cole noted along with his co-author Sheila R. Foster, “Tactically, taking environmental problems out of the streets and into the courts has proven, in many instances, to be a mistake.” 36 Legal and administrative challenges often take years to litigate, require substantial resources to hire and mobilize experts, and the outcomes are far from certain. An unsympathetic court or federal administration can easily doom a case. These same resources could instead be devoted to direct action and organizing.
Public Transit’s Future
I have previously enumerated six strategies that can be pursued to advance mobility justice goals, ranging from those that rely almost entirely on various arms of the state (known as state-centric approaches) to those that rely more on civil society and everyday residents facilitating change (known as society-centric approaches). 37 While I was already lukewarm on the potential for the common state-centric strategies to lead to positive changes, it is rapidly becoming clear that these approaches are truly a dead end for advancing broader mobility justice goals. Agencies that receive federal funds will certainly be prohibited from assessing and addressing disparate impacts going forward.
The society-centric approaches of community-led data analysis and community mobilizing/organizing now hold the most promise for building power and making concrete change. The late organizer, scholar, and activist Jane McAlevey spoke of whole-worker organizing as a strategy that could be used to build real power among the working class. 38 For her, considering the whole worker meant understanding their inherent ties to their community and helping them leverage those ties to other civil society organizations to create a broader base of support.
We have strong examples of everyday transit riders partnering with advocates and activists from a broad array of sectors to pressure local governments and transportation agencies to make decisions that would benefit a broad class of transit riders. In Austin, TX, the $7 billion transit expansion known as Project Connect was approved by voters during the general election in November 2020. Mobility justice activists made ultimately successful demands for representation and inclusion including establishing a community advisory committee, anti-displacement protections, community benefits, and labor protections. 39 In the early 2010s in Clayton County, GA, a heavily Black suburban county in the southern Atlanta metropolitan region, the local public transit operator was abruptly defunded by the county. The community—encompassing faith-based organizations, traditional environmental groups, and mobility justice advocates—engaged in a sustained, multiyear campaign to put a ballot measure before the voters to join the regional transit system. Voters ultimately supported the measure by a nearly three to one margin. 40
In other cases, operator unions are leading the way. A transit sales tax measure known as Issue 47 passed in late 2024 with strong backing from labor and transit advocates in Columbus, Ohio. The new sales tax measure will fund an overall 45 percent service increase for the Central Ohio Transit Authority, including the construction of five new bus rapid transit corridors and expanded on-demand zones. 41 By organizing in support of the measure, operator unions helped secure long-term operational funding and better transit for riders.
In none of these cases did the wins depend upon applying civil rights law or disparate impact theory. They resulted from those who rely most on public transit (riders and operators) linking their struggles and goals to those of others. To date, the focus has been on public transportation service. Going forward, the challenge for both labor and rider organizers will be to understand how to connect these local transit struggles to broader issues that can build a durable mass movement across lines of race, ethnicity, gender, class, and political ideology—around immigration, health care, housing, affordability, and employment.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
