For decades, transit planners have divided their ridership into two groups: transit-dependent and transit-choice. Transit-dependent riders rely on transit because they don’t really have other transportation options, and transit-choice riders use it because it serves them better than driving or other modes that they could switch to if they wanted.
Given that many transit-dependent riders cannot easily access employment, shopping, or a doctor’s appointment, they should be the first priority for transit agencies. Further, transit-dependent riders are more likely to use transit every day, multiple times a day, while many choice riders are occasional users.
Unfortunately, agencies often prioritize transit-choice riders who are more likely to pay full fare and are more politically powerful (because they tend to be wealthier and more likely to vote). That’s not to say transit agencies shouldn’t try to serve choice customers; rather, dependent riders should be recognized as the core customer group for most transit agencies.
The good news is that there are many ways for transit agencies to better serve dependent riders.
The first focus for agencies is on network design, service hours, and headway. Rather than radial networks feeding all trips into and out of downtown, crosstown routes that intersect at frequent service nodes serve dependent riders better. Reverse-commute service, with bidirectional service at peak, opens suburban jobs to transit-dependent workers who can currently only get there in one direction. What is required is a region-wide grid, rather than a radial system focused on downtown. And that grid will be much larger (in route-miles) than any affordable rail system. Hence, the grid structure depends on buses.
When transit service is focused largely on the peak, it fails the transit-dependent workforce that rides largely off-peak. Hospitality, retail, and transportation workers are frequently employed outside conventional office hours. Frequency at peak is not the right metric for these riders.
But headways and on-time performance are also important. A bus scheduled to arrive every 15 minutes but is regularly late, or only arrives every 25 minutes, is failing the rider who needs to be on time for work or an appointment.
Rider surveys have shown that it is not just the wait time between vehicles that’s so important, but also the perception of that time. Real-time arrival information, which shows riders on their phones or at the stop when the next bus will arrive, helps.
Technology has a role to play as well. Transit-signal priority lets approaching buses hold green lights or shorten red lights at intersections; and dedicated bus lanes (in corridors with 20 or more buses per hour) give buses their own lane to circumvent car traffic. Together, these tools keep service on time and consistent.
In 2015, Houston’s Metropolitan Transit Authority (METRO) replaced a peak-oriented network with a high-frequency grid without increasing operating costs and saw a 13% rise in Saturday ridership and a 34% rise on Sundays. Better still, Houston’s METRO ridership recovered faster after COVID than any other U.S. metro area. By February 2024, METRO’s local bus ridership was back to 95% of its pre-COVID level. Network redesigns like this can be politically difficult, because route changes can galvanize opposition from current riders, but the Houston case shows that the planning template exists and can work—even following major disruptions.
The second focus for a modern transit agency should be reliable and consistent funding. Transit systems currently charge fares that are too low for those who are able to pay, and the resulting revenue gap forces service cuts that hurt dependent riders more than fare increases would. San Francisco’s Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) raised fares by 5.5% for an additional $30 million per year to put towards transit services. BART still has a structural deficit, but the alternative to raising fares is cutting service. U.S. farebox recovery ratios (fare revenue divided by operating expenses) are low across modes, as shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Farebox Recovery by Mode
| Mode | Farebox Recovery |
| Commuter Bus | 27% |
| Heavy Rail | 18% |
| Commuter Rail | 17% |
| Light Rail | 9% |
| Bus | 8% |
Source: “Transit Passenger Fares – 2024,” Department of Transportation, transportation.gov. (Accessed May 1, 2026)
Table 1 shows that transit agencies are not making enough at the farebox to cover even operating costs. This leads agencies to depend on subsidies that are politically vulnerable, including federal dollars that were given as a temporary response to the COVID-19 pandemic and have now expired. Without these subsidies, agencies face tough choices; the riders who are dependent on these systems are hurt most. Offering means-tested vouchers to allow discounted rates for transit-dependent riders and pricing fares at market rate for choice-riders will help increase farebox recovery across agencies and modes.
That’s only the first step. Agencies also should look to other sources of revenue to help pay for transit services. Bus exteriors, shelters, station naming rights, and digital displays inside vehicles can be monetized through private vendors at minimal cost to the agency. In 2020, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) signed a 10-year, $336 million advertising concession contract with OUTFRONT Media, averaging $33.6 million per year in guaranteed revenue. Likewise, New York’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) forecast $175 million in ad revenue in 2025. These revenue streams do not fully cover transit operating costs, but they help bridge the gap.
The reforms detailed here don’t require federal action, new taxing authority, or unprecedented funding levels. Houston redesigned its network without raising operating costs. WMATA and the MTA are already turning station displays and bus exteriors into revenue streams through partnerships. Different agencies have implemented means-tested fare programs to help the truly low-income use the transit they rely on to get to their job. But the strongest reform package includes all of those elements, and agencies ought to take a blank-slate approach to evaluating their existing networks to ensure they adequately serve transit-dependent riders.