Big transit/sustainable mobility stories of 2025
Obviously this isn't everything. But what sticks out to me.
=========
Congestion pricing in NYC. In January I wrote that the introduction of congestion pricing in NYC was already the biggest ground transportation story of the year ("The most momentous transportation story of 2025 has already occurred: imposition of NYC's congestion zone"). Basically the results are in ("New York's Congestion Pricing Is Working. Five Charts Show Hows," Bloomberg). It's working exactly the way it's supposed to.
As far as business effect goes, I worried about business relocation. That may or may not be an issue. But visitation to the core of Manhattan is up, and so are sales tax revenues, and reduction in storefront vacancies. Plus MTA has $500+ million to invest in transit.
Protesters demonstrate outside New York Gov. Kathy Hochul's Manhattan office. Yuki Iwamura/APWe have to remember that the Trump Administration is still fighting the congestion zone in court ("New York’s Congestion Pricing Succeeds as Trump Fights to End It," Newsweek).
That Gov. Hochul cancelled it ("The Politics That Derailed Congestion Pricing in New York," New Yorker), then reversed course, in part because of sustained public opposition to her decision ("‘Slap in the face’: outrage after New York governor halts congestion pricing," Guardian). In the end, the price dropped from $15 to $9.
The second biggest story is ongoing financial crises for most transit systems, whose business models were crushed by covid and the shift to work from home. Many systems have half or fewer the number of riders pre-2020. And special federal funds for transit were increased under Biden, and not under Trump.
-- "San Diego transit at a crossroads? MTS boasts robust ridership recovery — but faces financial crisis," San Diego Union Tribune
In the SF Bay area, a referendum campaign is underway for two ballot measures to provide additional funding to all types of transit in the region.Chicago area systems are getting a $1.5 billion payment from the state for the next few years ("Illinois enacts $1.5 billion plan to stabilize Transit and Avoid Service Reductions," Governing).
Philadelphia still needs a long term solution for SEPTA funding, as the Republican dominated State Legislature isn't particularly interested ("SEPTA got stopgap relief, but still needs a sustainable long-term solution," Philadelphia Inquirer, "Credit Shapiro for more SEPTA funds, but still need long-term fix," Philadelphia Tribune). Etc.
Trump Administration uses crime incidents to demean and defund transit. Using one-off terrible crimes to say transit is unsafe ("US threatens to withhold funds from Boston, Chicago transit agencies," Reuters, "Trump administration threatens to pull New York transit funds as it questions anti-crime efforts," AP, "Deadly stabbing on Charlotte train highlights America's transit safety challenges," ABC11), the Trump Administration used this event as an excuse to suggest defunding transit ("Trump Admin Issues New Threat After Charlotte Train Killing," Newsweek).
Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said, “Safety needs to be the top priority of elected officials. Citizens don’t want federal dollars going to public transportation that local leaders refuse to keep safe!”
The fact is, transit is safer than driving ("We Need a Reality Check on Crime, Safety and Transit," "New York City’s Subway Is Actually Safer Than Your Car," Bloomberg).
As one of the implementers of broken windows policing in NYC said, "there are always going to be high profile one-off incidents, regardless of the overall program of crime suppression."
Unforgiving Places: The Unexpected Origins of American Gun Violence, University of Chicago Press.
The big thing is the availability of guns ("A fighting chance: A new book challenges conventional wisdom on gun violence and suggests new approaches to solving the problem." University of Chicago Magazine), such as in LA ("Person fatally shot on L.A. Metro bus in Exposition Park," LA Times), where a fight between young adults erupted in gun violence and death on a bus.DC has a problem on the Metrorail system. NYC has a problem with people who have extreme mental health issues. SEPTA a problem with gun violence.
Problems in Minneapolis ("Metro Transit boosts uniformed security presence on light-rail trains," "What a week’s worth of rider text messages reveals about Metro Transit’s problems," Minneapolis Star-Tribune) and Seattle ("How Seattle-area transit is pushing back against crime," ), etc.
I still haven't gotten around to opining about how the BART system in San Francisco is using urban design interventions to improve safety at transit stations ("Can BART bring a Civic Center-style revival to another dilapidated S.F. station?," SF Chronicle).
Fare evasion countermeasures. NYC, DC, and SF are installing much more difficult to evade emergency exit systems.
USDOT: all in for roads but not road safety. Changing the funding criteria and basically eliminating transit infrastructure funding going forward ("T4America statement on USDOT proposal to eliminate federal transit funding"), same with sustainable mobility ("Trump Cancels Trail, Bike-Lane Grants Deemed ‘Hostile’ to Cars," Bloomberg) in favor of roads.
Lots of road safety projects were cancelled because they think safety and diversity of users meaning not just automobile operators, are "woke."
Bike share growth in Toronto.
Bike share use in NYC, Washington, DC, Toronto ("How Bike Share Toronto got big — and what it will take to keep rolling," Toronto Today, "How Bike Share went from death’s door to one of Toronto’s fastest-growing ways to travel," Toronto Star) and Boston ("Bluebikes’ popularity has skyrocketed. This map shows where they are used most and where they lag," Boston Globe) is exploding.DC's system launched in 2010, so it seems to me that it takes a long time to reach critical mass (see Diffusion of Innovation, ("Bikeshare Beat: Capital Bikeshare records over 6.1 million rides in 2024, fastest growing system in US," Greater Greater Washington and "Citi Bike, 10 Years Old and Part of New York’s Street Life," New York Times).
-- "Shared Mobility's Role in Sustainable Mobility: Past, Present, and Future," Annual Review in Environment and Resources
Sadly, in many places, systems are minimally used or have shuttered operations, including high profile cities like Minneapolis ("Nice Ride shuts down pioneering Minneapolis bike share program," Minnesota Public Radio).
It's important to figure out what separates successful places from the unsuccessful ones, to increase biking uptake.
Bike Share Toronto 2024 Business ReviewOne factor obviously is infrastructure along with urban form. Scale too.
Plus, E-bikes have made a big difference too. Although in response, cost per trip is higher. I was always critical about e-bikes in the flat core of a city ("(Still) tired of mis-understanding of the potential for e-bikes," 2015) but it's not for me to say how people "should be using" bikes.
And of course, whether or not there is public subsidy as part of an overall transportation planning program. Systems relying on sponsorship, like Minneapolis, fall apart when they can't replace sponsors.
-- Better Bike Share Partnership
Matt Elliott, a columnist for the Toronto Star warns us that as systems are successful, depending on the operator, they can focus more on extracting more revenue from riders, rather than improving the system ("Why dark clouds loom over Bike Share Toronto, despite its undeniable success," 2030 Bike Share Toronto Growth Strategy - Ride More, Connect More, Toronto Parking Authority, Presentation).
A swarm of Lime Bikes in London.Here’s the problem. The TPA report, after justifiably bragging about its recent success, spends much of the rest of the document laying out ways to extract more money from the Bike Share riders who have contributed to that success. That includes “new revenue streams” like “loyalty programs, digital advertising networks, feature upsells, and advanced reservations.” It reads like a road map that could easily lead to what the tech writer Cory Doctorow has colourfully called “enshittification” — the process whereby online platforms and services decline over time as they change from focusing on what benefits users to what benefits their bottom line.
You know it when you see it. It usually starts when a service that previously offered a reasonable price and a good user experience begins constantly trying to sell you on their Premium Extra VIP Plus program while also showing unskippable ads for weight-loss drugs.
This decline can be an insidious process that starts with good intentions. For instance, Bike Share has had problems with dock and bike availability, especially at peak times of day. From the TPA’s perspective, allowing people to reserve a bike in advance for a small fee might seem like a good way to ease frustration. For users, however, a much better approach would be to add more bikes and docks in areas with high demand.
They argue that London is a cycling city now because of dockless bike share.).
If one secret is making the bikes really electric, the other seems to be making them really dockless. Previously, bike-hire schemes offered a patchy service: it was often hard to find a bike and it could take ages to find a designated parking space. Today, London’s operators have more bikes. But critically they have negotiated relaxed parking rules, including on residential streets, meaning their fleets fan out widely. Lime claims that 97% of Londoners in its service area live within a two-minute walk of one of their bikes. As with Uber, it thinks users open the app if they know convenience is only a few minutes away.
This is run by operators separate from the TfL operated bike share system. But parking and storage can be a big mess.
Slow as molasses new transit lines in Toronto ("Why does Toronto insist on taking the ‘rapid’ out of rapid transit?," Toronto Star), "City, TTC taking steps to improve service speed of Finch West LRT, Chow says," CBC). They won't give streetcars priority over cars.
... But any Torontonian will tell you that just because the line is there on the map doesn’t mean it will get you where you need to be in any kind of hurry. Toronto has the distinction of running the slowest streetcar system in the world.
This is because the city and the TTC don’t consider it any kind of priority to make rapid transit rapid. They design these lines and choose how to operate them to ensure they are slow. On purpose. If that wasn’t clear before, it has become so in the debates at the TTC board and city council that have followed Torontonians’ astonished rage at the sloth-like performance of our new $3.5 billion LRT line.
Authorities decided to put 18 stops on an 11-kilometre route. They decided the vehicles should travel below 25 km/h (less than half the speed of the traffic beside them) through intersections and when approaching stations, assuring they will never get up to a decent speed. They decided the vehicles should stop endlessly at red lights and also be forced to wait for single-occupant vehicles make left turns or U-turns. They decided, quietly, that instead of the promised 33 minutes for a trip across the line, 48 minutes was a reasonable stretch goal — something to aim for after the slower “soft launch.”
Note that this is an issue for bus systems in most places as well. Cars get the priority. That should change. Transit vehicles move far more people.
Montreal REM expansion in Canada. The REM is what some people call "light metro," and is a new complement ("Montreal’s New Rail Line Is the Future" Canada has forgotten how to build fast, cheap transit. A new megaproject has the fix," Maclean's), to the famed Montreal subway system, built and funded by the provincial pension system as an investment.
But the thing is that it is above ground in most places. Montreal's subway is 100% underground, so it can operate during terrible snowstorms. Not the REM.
Although to me, REM is a ripoff of government. They get paid 75 cents per kilometer per passenger traveled per ride for 99 years. That seems like a lot of money to me. A 10km trip costs $7.50 Canadian ($5.45 US) to the government. A good deal for the Pension Fund. It would have been cheaper for local government to pay. Financing through third parties is always more expensive.
DC dumping the streetcar ("DC makes yet another bad decision about streetcars: will replace the one line with a so called "fancy" bus | The Vision Thing," "Budget cut means D.C. Streetcar will shut down in March," Washington Post).
This is the endgame for a poor planning process from "start" (not the initial planning) to finish. I joke that DC and Seattle started streetcar planning in 2003. Seattle got the first line in 2007. DC in 2014.
Also, the city received an unsolicited offer from the private sector to run and grow the system (that's how it's done in Portland, Oregon, home in the US to the first modern streetcar). But they blew it off.
What could have been: "The DC Streetcar May Run to Benning Road Metro in 2026," DC Urban Turf.As DC plans to build a new stadium for the NFL football team, the current streetcar alignment is adjacent, and could have been leveraged to provide service within the campus as a complement to bus and subway service, and link to more subway stations as another mobility alternative.
Relatedly, Minnesota's pathetic Northstar commuter railroad is closing--by not extending it to St. Cloud it wasn't particularly useful ("Minnesota's Northstar Commuter Rail to Be Replaced by Expanded Bus Service Network," Hoodline), cities in the Dallas Area Rapid Transit system are trying to opt out--an anti-transit State Government doesn't have DART's back ("So You Want to Leave DART?," D Magazine), and plenty of communities, like Illinois, refuse transit extension to their communities ("Huntley backs out of planned Metra station for new passenger train service between Rockford and Chicago," Lake County Scanner).
Electric bicycles. E-bikes, unlike electric cars, do actually shift environmental metrics by reducing car trips ("For some parents, minivans are out and e-bikes are in," Boston Globe, "The best bike gets you out of your car," Bicycling, "How electric bikes reduce car use," Transportation Research: Part D), whereas EVs replace gasoline car trips, still creating traffic congestion and maintaining automobile dominance in the transportation planning paradigm. But the lack of standards for equipment, safety, weight etc. create problems.
Safety/We need national standards. Many communities are beginning to regulate electric bikes more closely in the face of deaths and accidents ("Molly’s Last Ride Twelve-year-old Molly Steinsapir crashed onto the pavement from a Rad Power e-bike and never woke up. With a poorly regulated e-bike industry, who is responsible when a child dies?," Bicycling).
And complaints of reckless riding by pedestrians and motor vehicles operators. Many in the micromobility world criticize this regulatory action, saying that accidents and deaths are still worse when it comes to motor vehicles. Sure.
True. But working to reduce needless deaths wrt road safety (e.g., Vision Zero) should be the priority. E bikes don't get a pass ("14 year old riding an ebike on the sidewalk AT 25MPH, hits woman, she gets traumatic brain injury," Minneapolis Star-Tribune, "Santee poised to ban e-bikes for children under 12 City will work with schools, community to educate them about the tougher regulations," San Diego Union-Tribune, "Toronto is looking at licences for e-bikes. Here’s why that may be better for delivery riders — and pedestrians," Toronto Star, "It’s getting hard to ignore e-bikes’ dangers: If drivers of cars are responsible for their crashes, drivers of e-bikes are responsible for theirs," Boston Globe).
Plus, because of the weight of an e-bike (too much for me right now), brakes need frequent adjustment.
So should standardization of rules across the US. Many types of electric "bikes" are more akin to motorcycles, capable of speeds much higher than a typical "analog" bicycle, say the super riders can do 20mph. Duffers like me, more like 12 mph. There are even electric "bikes" that go faster than 28mph. Those aren't bikes, they are mopeds/motorcycles.
Bankruptcy. Not unlike the beginnings of the auto industry, the new technology of electricity powered bikes leads to lots of new entrants. But there are far more entrants than there is demand.
A few years ago a technology leading e bike company, Van Moof, went out of business, stranding users. Although it was acquired and restarted by a firm specializing in sports equipment.
Rad Power Bikes, a company which has set up stores around the country, but is based in Seattle, just declared bankruptcy ("Seattle e-bike pioneer files bankruptcy, owes millions," Seattle Times). And I'd been looking at that company for a bike, because I like the design.
Gondolas in Paris: the Transit City paradigm. Paris, which continues to expand its system of train, subway, and tram (light rail) transit ("Map of the Grand Paris Express, Europe’s Larctgest Transit Expansion Project," The Urbanist), has added gondolas to the mix ("Europe’s longest urban cable car is unveiled over dazzling capital city," Metro UK, "In the Île-de-France region, a cable car to reduce urban inequalities," Le Monde).
The new line, the first of its kind in the French capital, has been designed to connect the city’s isolated outskirts, poorly served by trains and buses, to the Métro network. At 4.5 kilometres long, the route links Métro Line 8 in Créteil to Villa Nova in Villeneuve-Saint-Georges, and passes through Limeil-Brevannes and Valenton on the way.
The cable car system — which features 105 gondolas with 10 seats each — is expected to carry around 11,000 passengers per day above Parisian streets. While the new cable car is the longest in Europe, it still lags behind the longest in the world, which connects the Bolivian cities of La Paz and El Alto over 20 miles.
Although to be fair, projected ridership is equivalent to a medium usage bus line. OTOH, offering much faster trips and greater access and connectedness on "social urbanism" grounds.
The Le Monde article makes clear it took a long time, about 20 years, from idea to fruition. But it was also implemented. It's an example of the idea that to be a "Transit City" you have to keep investing in and where practical and needed, building new infrastructure.
Meanwhile proposals in DC for connection between the Rosslyn Metrorail station and Georgetown, Staten Island to New Jersey ("Bayonne mayor gives aerial gondola plan a thumbs up," Staten Island Advance) and Los Angeles ("Metro votes to approve Dodger Stadium gondola project despite protests," Los Angeles Times) languish.
Passengers wait Saturday at the new Star Lake Station. (Karen Ducey / The Seattle Times)Transit expansions. Are still happening, with projects that predate the Trump Administration. One notable is Seattle ("New light rail stations open with South King County party," Seattle Times). Each expansion generates a lot of new ridership, much more than say the Silver Line did for Metrorail in Suburban Virginia.
Last year’s extension to Lynnwood opened up the northern suburbs; this year’s stretch into Redmond welded together the tech-heavy Eastside; and now the jump to Federal Way is anticipated to be a boon for workers and students in South King County.
Up to 23,000 riders a day are expected to board or exit a train at the three new stations, boosting ridership along that 1 Line spine from the current 110,000 daily average. The Eastside’s 2 Line carries about 10,000 passengers a day, but its popularity is expected to grow once it connects with the 1 Line next year.
It's an example of how I say that transit infrastructure, done right, can have the speediest return on public investment, so it should be seen as an economic development measure.
Vision Zero/Road Safety. For another entry, this is too long as it is.
Labels: bicycle and pedestrian planning, congestion pricing, electric bicycles, gondolas/aerial trams, micromobility, transit














4 Comments:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-12-18/how-oslo-built-out-its-electric-vehicle-charging-network
How a Synth-Pop Band Supercharged the World’s EV Capital
Oslo invested government funds to build out its electric vehicle infrastructure. The city's charging czar explains how it's paid off.
Norway’s drivers can rely on over 28,000 chargers across its vast road system, which has made charging convenient, fast and dependable. Oslo boasts one of the highest charger densities in Europe, and is often referred to as the world’s “EV Capital,” Sture Portvik, the city’s manager for electromobility, told BloombergNEF in an interview.
“It’s been quite a journey,” says the charging czar. “When I started in 2014, around 12% of all new cars were electric in Oslo. Now it’s around 95%.”
While many cities have relied on private sector players to build out their networks, Oslo has taken a different approach. The city has invested in rolling out its own network, even designing a bespoke charging app. Not only are its chargers heavily used – with a utilization rate of up to 50% – they’re also surprisingly economical for the city.
What drove Oslo to launch a municipally managed EV charging program?
The journey actually started in 2006 – before my time here. It was part of a 10-point plan to cut CO2 emissions.
At that time, 61% of all CO2 emissions produced in Oslo came from transport. So, the only way to substantially decrease emissions was to start with this sector. We thought that seeing was believing, so we put up chargers in downtown Oslo in front of the City Hall and some other good locations.
It was really the early days, because there were more chargers than EVs. But we wanted to show people the alternative to internal combustion vehicles.
We started with around 200 chargers in the first couple of years. And of course, charging at that time was free and so was the parking. That was really a nice treat for EV drivers.
For instance, around 30% of Oslo’s inhabitants live in multi-family housing with access to private parking. We’ve now subsidized thousands of wall boxes on multi-family sites.
This is actually far cheaper for the city – one wall box costs around $1,500. Curbside chargers, with cabling, excavation and new asphalt, cost about 10 times as much.
The city has a scheme where all housing cooperatives or associations can apply for a subsidy and the city covers around 30% of the cost. We now have around 70,000 wall boxes, and a total stock of 140,000 EVs. So, it’s a good number.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-01-05/nyc-taxis-and-buses-pick-up-speed-with-congestion-pricing-toll
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/01/05/upshot/congestion-pricing-one-year.html
27 Million Fewer Car Trips: Life After a Year of Congestion Pricing
One year after the start of congestion pricing, traffic jams are less severe, streets are safer, and commute times are improving for travelers from well beyond Manhattan. Though these changes aren’t noticeable to many, and others feel the tolls are a financial burden, the fees have generated hundreds of millions of dollars for public transportation projects. And it has probably contributed to rising transit ridership.
All other consequences of congestion pricing flow from this one — that fewer people are choosing to enter the area by private vehicle.
By influencing that one decision, the policy can also affect commute times, transit reliability, road safety, street life and more (as we’ll get to below).
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/editorials/2026/01/03/editorial-hybrids-return-auto-industry-to-practicality/87952209007/
Editorial: Hybrids return auto industry to practicality
The auto industry is headed back to where it should have stayed in the quest to put a cleaner fleet on the road: hybrids.
Automakers are rapidly backing away from plans to fully electrify their offerings, due to an easing of fuel economy and emissions mandates by the Trump administration and continued resistance from consumers.
But that doesn’t mean they are totally abandoning their green ambitions. Rather, most manufacturers are making the common sense decision to expand the hybrid market. They are putting more hybrid models in showrooms and continuing to perfect the technology to achieve greater fuel efficiency.
That’s what they should have done in the first place. But government regulators bowed to the demand from environmentalists for a 100% switch to zero-emissions vehicles, and on a pace that ignored consumer wariness and the practical challenges to going all electric.
Hybrids were the first step away from traditional ICEs. They enjoyed consumer confidence and did not require a complete remake of the vehicles motorists were used to driving.
And best of all, they didn’t need a new national charging network. Because they have both a gasoline engine and electric motor, they can fuel up, and quickly, at existing gas stations.
Perhaps they made too much sense. But the industry, with Washington’s hand on its back, largely blew past hybrids and committed billions to developing and building EVs.
Practicality is now prevailing. Sales of hybrids were up 20% in the third quarter of 2025, according to the analytics firm PwC, and the surge is expected to continue this year. In Europe, hybrids account for 35% of all vehicle sales.
Most automakers have revamped their strategy to get as many hybrids as possible in showrooms, as soon as possible.
And you can drive them wherever you want, whenever you want, and as far as you want, without the charging anxiety that haunts EV drivers.
Some motorists prefer EVs, and they aren’t going away. But America has always needed a vehicle for the masses, and hybrids adequately fill that role in today’s transportation mix.
The key difference between hybrids and EVs is that the decision to build them is market driven. Consumers prefer them because of their convenience and greater affordability, and because they still carry a significant environmental benefit.
Automakers should hurry to make hybrids the inevitable future transportation technology before the power pendulum in Washington swings to bring back the zero-emissions crowd.
https://www.crainsnewyork.com/editorials/editorial-congestion-pricing-year-makes-case-staying-course
Congestion pricing at a year makes the case for staying the course
1/9/2026
One year after congestion pricing took effect in Manhattan’s core, early evidence suggests the policy is doing what it promised — even as legitimate questions remain about cost, equity and long-term execution.
Since tolling began south of 60th Street, traffic entering the zone has dropped by roughly 10% to 11%, according to data from the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. That decline has translated into faster travel times, fewer crashes and improved air quality in one of the most congested business districts in the country.
For employers and workers alike, those gains matter. Gridlock carries real economic costs: lost productivity, unreliable deliveries and longer commutes that sap time and energy. Early reporting suggests that buses and taxis are moving faster, and subway ridership has ticked up modestly — signs that congestion pricing is nudging behavior in ways that support the city’s transit-dependent workforce.
Just as important, business activity in the congestion zone has not collapsed under the weight of tolls. Crain’s has reported year-over-year increases in foot traffic in parts of the zone, countering fears that fewer cars would mean fewer customers. If anything, a less chaotic street environment may make Manhattan more attractive to shoppers, diners and office workers — a point worth remembering as the city continues its post-pandemic recovery.
The fiscal case for congestion pricing is also becoming clearer. The tolls are generating hundreds of millions of dollars annually — revenue the MTA has already committed to long-planned capital investments, including subway signal upgrades, accessibility improvements and work on the Second Avenue subway. In a city where infrastructure needs far exceed available funding, congestion pricing represents a rare example of a user-based revenue stream tied directly to system improvements.
That connection underscores the importance of regulatory stability. Federal attempts to revisit or revoke approval of the program have created uncertainty that threatens long-term planning. Businesses and commuters alike benefit when rules are predictable. If congestion pricing is to succeed — or be fairly judged — it must be allowed to operate without political interference.
Post a Comment
<< Home