The Decline of Public Transport in the U.S., 1945-1975

Introduction thumb|Graph representing American Public Transport Association historical ridership data between 1890 and 1975. Public transportation moved many Americans throughout cities in the early part of the 20th century. Ridership of these systems declined sharply in the period following World War 2, when the automobile became the primary method of transport throughout the United States. This chapter explains some of the background and historical context of public transit in the U.S., investigates several social groups that participated in this decline, and shows the effects of their efforts as shown in Baltimore, MD. The graph shows ridership numbers through 1975, but ridership since that time has remained fairly steadily between 8 and 10 billion trips per year. Background Large-scale public transport in the United States traces its roots to omnibus systems in New York City in the later half of the 19th century. The implementation of these systems throughout the country was greatly accelerated after the first electrified streetcar system was proven successful in Richmond, VA in 1888 1975–1976 Transit Fact Book American Public Transportation Association American Public Transportation Association 1976 https://www.apta.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/APTA_1975-1976_Transit_Fact_Book.pdf. Intra-city rail systems and streetcars moved the majority of riders until 1947, when the bus became the primary mode of public transit. These transport systems were entirely owned and funded by private companies until 1964, when the federal government passed the Urban Mass Transit Act. This piece of legislation set aside federal funds to help build new transit infrastructure that would be run by state or local governments 1964-07-09 Text - S.6 - 88th Congress (1963-1964): Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 https://www.congress.gov/bill/88th-congress/senate-bill/6/text 2026-04-28 www.congress.gov. Federal involvement increased in 1974 when federal dollars were apportioned to help subsidize operating costs of these transit systems through the National Mass Transportation Assistance Act Sen. Williams Harrison A. 1974-11-26 All Info - S.386 - 93rd Congress (1973-1974): National Mass Transportation Assistance Act of 1974 https://www.congress.gov/bill/93rd-congress/senate-bill/386/all-info 2026-04-28 www.congress.gov. Why Did Public Transit Decline? Industry influence and market control: One cause of the decline of public transit was the influence of private industry, including automakers, oil companies, and tire manufacturers. Companies like General Motors, Standard Oil, and Firestone Tire and Rubber had big interest in increasing car usage. The more that people relied on cars as their form of transportation, the more profit these industries made, and not just by selling vehicles, but also fuel, tires, and road construction. They helped promote highway expansion and car-based infrastructure by aligning with government priorities and suburban development patterns. So instead of public transit being improved, the system was slowly shaped to favor automobiles, making car ownership more necessary for everyday life.St. Clair David J. 1981-09 The Motorization and Decline of Urban Public Transit, 1935–1950 https://doi.org/10.1017/s002205070004434x The Journal of Economic History 41 3 579–600 10.1017/s002205070004434x 0022-0507 An example of industry influence is the case United States v. National City Lines (NCL), which happened in 1951. NCL was a holding company with funding from General Motors, Standard Oil of California, Firestone Tire and Rubber, and a few other companies that operated transit systems in many cities. They were found guilty of conspiring to monopolize the sale of buses, tires, and fuel to these systems, but they were not convicted of directly destroying streetcar systems.United States v. National City Lines, Inc., et al, 186 F.2d 562 (7th Cir. 1951) https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/186/562/162881/ 2026-04-22 Justia Law en This case shows that the market was shaped in ways that benefited automobiles and increased car dependency over other forms of transportation. This industry influence led to a gradual decline in public transit. thumb|Highway vs. Transit Spending 1945-1975Office of Management and Budget Executive Office of the President 2024-03-11 Budget FY 2025 - Table 6.1 - Composition of Outlays: 1940-2029 https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/BUDGET-2025-TAB/BUDGET-2025-TAB-7-1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.govinfo.gov%2Fapp%2Fdetails%2FBUDGET-2025-TAB%2FBUDGET-2025-TAB-7-1 2026-05-02 govinfo.gov Government policy and highway funding: Another major cause of the decline of public transit was the role of federal, state, and local governments in prioritizing highway construction over transit investment. After World War II, the federal government invested heavily in highway development to build the nation's road infrastructure, particularly through the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, which created the Interstate Highway System.2021-09-29 National Interstate and Defense Highways Act (1956) https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/national-interstate-and-defense-highways-act 2026-05-02 National Archives en Federal spending data shows that from 1945-1975, $71.9 billion was spent on highway infrastructure, compared to only $2.4 billion on urban mass transit systems. City and state governments also made urban planning decisions that further disadvantaged transit in favor of the automobile. Local streets were turned into high-speed routes, with timed stoplights and one-way traffic, and parking was heavily expanded.Bloom Nicholas Dagen The Great American Transit Disaster The University of Chicago Press May 3, 2023 978-0226824413 70-71 Before 1965, public transit was provided solely by privately owned companies. Transit ridership declined as investments in highways surged and American automobile ownership rose.St. Clair David J. 1981 The Motorization and Decline of Urban Public Transit, 1935-1950 https://www.jstor.org/stable/2119941 The Journal of Economic History 41 3 579–600 0022-0507 Without government assistance, transit companies relied solely on rider fares, which decreased as transit ridership declined, resulting in a feedback loop. From 1945-1964, public transit received $0 in federal grants; the federal government did not invest in public transit until 1965, after the Urban Mass Transit Act was passed, which created the federal transit program.July 21, 2014 The Federal Transit Program: 60 Years of Improving Communities https://www.transit.dot.gov/about/news/federal-transit-program-60-years-improving-communities Suburbanization: The rapid growth of American suburbs after World War II further weakened public transit, as populations spread across low-density areas that were better served by highways. Suburban development boomed as soldiers returned home from Word War II, and started families. The Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944 and funding to the Federal Housing Administration subsidized mortgages for veterans, allowing them to buy homes in the suburbs.Browner Seth The Post-World War II Suburb in the United States https://jstor.org/stable/community.38593817 Trinity Student Scholarship. Trinity College Digital Repository Suburban developments such as Levittown (in New York, and later in Pennsylvania and New Jersey) built mass-produced, low-priced, single-family homes, that not only served as homes, but as a community image of the ideal American life. The lifestyle of single generation nuclear families in private suburban homes was a dream that American aspired to, and suburban life provided that life.KCI Technologies November 1999 Suburbanization Historic Context and Survey Methodology https://www.roads.maryland.gov/OPPEN/1999_Suburbanization_Historic_Context_and_Survey_Methodology.pdf Suburban residents voted for politicians who would advance their interests, which led to the large government subsidies for highway development, which was crucial for connecting suburban areas. Public transit would not receive similar political support until seats in the House of Representatives began to shift towards urban representation as a result of Wesberry v. Sanders in 1964, which ruled that congressional districts must be drawn to evenly distribute population. Afterwards, federal aid for public transit was able to be passed, but the trend towards suburbanization and automobile dominance had already been well established. 2026-05-01 How the House Went from Anti-Urban to Pro-Urban in 8 Years https://enotrans.org/article/how-the-house-went-from-anti-urban-to-pro-urban-in-8-years/ 2026-05-02 The Eno Center for Transportation en-US Baltimore Case Study Baltimore is an example of how each of these four factors played out. Before World War II, Baltimore had a strong streetcar system with high ridership and low fares. Public transit was widely used and a popular form of transportation across the city, which supported suburban development. After the war, government policies and planning decisions began to prioritize highway expansion and suburban growth. Streetcar systems were replaced with buses, and roads were redesigned to move cars more efficiently, like adding one-way streets.Bloom Nicholas Dagen 2024-08-09 A packed Baltimore trolley illustrates the ups and downs of US public transit https://theconversation.com/a-packed-baltimore-trolley-illustrates-the-ups-and-downs-of-us-public-transit-234627 2026-04-22 The Conversation en-US However, buses were less reliable, slower, and the service quality declined. People began to stop using transit as fares increased and the quality of service declined. This led to even more cuts to public transit, and the Baltimore Transit Company started to financially struggle. These factors created a downward spiral that made public transit less viable over time.Gale Dennis E. 2023-09-19 The great American transit disaster, by Nicholas Dagen Bloom https://doi.org/10.1080/07352166.2023.2245307 Journal of Urban Affairs 46 9 1947–1950 10.1080/07352166.2023.2245307 0735-2166 Entire neighborhoods in Baltimore were destroyed by highway construction projects, especially in Black communities. 971 homes and 62 businesses were demolished, reinforcing racial segregation. At the same time, suburban residents gained more political influence, which further shifted priorities away from public transit. There was resistance, including a group called the Movement Against Destruction (MAD), which successfully stopped some highway projects, like the "Highway to Nowhere." The "Highway to Nowhere" is a 1.39 mile stretch of U.S. Route 40 in West Baltimore that was meant to connect I-70 to I-95 and I-83 to speed up car travel, but instead it divided a primarily Black community.2023-04-24 Baltimore's notorious "Highway to Nowhere" could soon be history - CBS Baltimore https://www.cbsnews.com/baltimore/news/baltimores-notorious-highway-to-nowhere-could-soon-be-history/ 2026-04-23 www.cbsnews.com en-US Overall, Baltimore shows how industry influence, government decisions, and suburban priorities combined to weaken public transit and increase inequality. Conclusion The trends and agendas represented in this chapter resulted in a feedback loop where a decreasing number of riders utilized existing transit systems, causing fares to rise for those who still used them. The increase in fares was not enough to cover the lost revenue from lower ridership, so these companies were operating in a deficit and could not improve or maintain existing infrastructure. This further drove riders away from these systems, compounding the effects of the feedback loop. This makes sense when looking at the high value Americans place on independence and personal space, felt especially in the reinforcement of the nuclear family. These values manifested themselves in the idea that the car provided individualized transport, especially for wealthier suburbanites. Automobile manufacturers and related companies then moved to protect their material interests by lobbying for federal funding of highways instead of alternative means of transportation. Future Research This chapter primarily investigated trends at a national scale. Because public transport was primarily managed by local independent organizations, future research looking deeper into multiple cities to compare the relative strengths and weaknesses of their transport during this time frame would be helpful reaching a fuller understanding of the public transportation during this time frame. References