
Is public transport meant to turn a profit? Five countries show it's not that simple
The assertion again sparked a debate about who will fund these projects.
Public transportation systems in Malaysia have long depended on government subsidies.
But over the years, the discourse around public transit has included support for privatisation, the thinking being profitability — or at least break even — would make operators innovate and become more financially independent.
Experiences of other countries, however, show that the issue around public transport funding is usually more complicated. Some countries have tried privatisation, but not all have enjoyed positive outcomes.
'Public transport is a social service'
In Malaysia, policymakers are divided, although many are inclined to view public transport as a social service that should be financially backed by taxpayers.
'In my experience, return on investment is not the issue. The issue of efficiency and funds for expansion of services normally arises,' said Rajiv Risyakaran, the pro-public transport Bukit Gasing state assemblyman who had been involved in Selangor's city and town planning.
'I don't expect public transport to break even or be profitable. It's a social service the government provides for the people, and it's a net cost to the government.
So, are there countries where public transport operators make money?
Malay Mail looks at five countries with arguably the best public transportation systems, and analyses open-source information to see if operators there are financially self-reliant or subsidy-dependent.
People walk past signs for the Tokyo Metro underground system inside Shimbashi Station in central Tokyo in this file photo taken on October 21, 2024. — AFP pic
Japan
Japan's public transport systems, particularly its rail networks, are known to be among the most efficient in the world.
The train operations, including the famous Shinkansen (bullet train), are incredibly punctual with minimal delays.
Japan's rail networks, among the world's most complex, were initially operated by public and private companies, but in the 1980s, policy favouring car ownership plunged the government-run entity Japanese Railways (JR) into heavy debt. This pushed JR to privatise by splitting into regional-based companies (JR East, JR West, JR Central and JR Kyushu) that gave it flexibility to tailor the unique needs of the service areas.
Today, the Japanese privatisation programme is the exception in terms of profitability. But ticket sales are not the only income source.
A key to its success is diversification into real estate and retail businesses around its stations, according to the World Bank.
A file photograph shows public busses in Singapore. — TODAY pic
Singapore
Singapore's public transport system is internationally renowned, and public transport operators like SBS Transit in Singapore have shown to make profits according to media reports citing financial records.
But Singapore operates through a unique model where the government often owns the infrastructure, such as tracks and stations, and the operators lease or run services on it.
This helps manage the massive capital expenditure.
Switzerland
The Swiss public transport network, which includes rail systems, taxis, and buses has a total length of 24,500 kilometres and has more than 2,600 stations and stops, some even cutting across the Swiss Alps.
The Swiss Federal Railways (SBB), the national railway operator, has seen a return to profit in recent years after pandemic-related losses, according to official statements published on a government website, but like Japan, much of the profit comes from diversification of income sources like rentals from real estate and its energy divisions.
Generally, public transport operators there still rely on government subsidies to stay afloat, with half of their operating costs funded by taxpayers.
Germany
Germany's public transport system is a mix of public and private ownership, with the federal government, state governments, and private companies all playing a role.
Local public transport, including buses, trams, and some regional trains, is primarily managed by state governments and municipalities.
Deutsche Bahn (DB) is the main railway provider, a state-owned company, but it operates as a private entity and faces competition from other private companies such as SWEG, ODEG, and Flixtrain.
Still, many of the operators rely heavily on federal subsidies.
In 2021, at least 11.6 billion euros in federal funds were reported to have been invested in public transport, with more promised annually starting in 2025.
Over the years, there has been growing criticism over the funding model.
Travellers wait at the Eindhoven Airport. — AFP pic
Netherlands
Dutch public transport is frequently ranked among the best in the world for being well-organised, efficient, reliable, and covers the entire country.
Its transport system is known for its integration of trains, buses, trams, and metros, making it easy to travel between cities and within urban areas.
Like Germany and Switzerland, Dutch public transport operators rely heavily on government subsidies.
But unlike Germany, there is strong public support for financial assistance of public transit systems because they view it as a social service first.
Public transport in the Netherlands is funded through a combination of ticket revenue, government subsidies, and sometimes regional or local government contributions.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Malaysiakini
13 minutes ago
- Malaysiakini
OPR cut to 2.75pct prudent, proactive measure
Bank Negara Malaysia's decision to lower the Overnight Policy Rate (OPR) by 25 basis points to 2.75 percent is a prudent and proactive measure amid global economic uncertainties. Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim said the Monetary Policy Committee's (MPC) move was based on careful assessments of current economic and inflation forecasts.

Malay Mail
18 minutes ago
- Malay Mail
Not a Penangite, but i believe in the Penang 3.0 dream — E Jia Xi
JULY 10 — I didn't grow up in Penang, but I ended up here. Like many young people from Kedah and other nearby states, we came to Penang for one simple reason: opportunity. I stayed because it felt like a place where things were moving, where industries were growing, where ideas were being tested, and where young people like me had at least a fighting chance to build something. Penang wasn't perfect, but it gave me space to imagine a future. Recently, that future has started to feel more defined. It's called Penang 3.0 — a vision to transform the state from a world-class production hub into a centre for innovation, technology, and design. For someone like me, who still wants to believe in Malaysia's potential, this isn't just exciting. It's deeply encouraging. A future that starts with ownership What makes Penang 3.0 feel different is that it's not just about building more infrastructure or attracting more foreign investment. It's about finally asking ourselves a deeper question: what can we create that is truly ours? For decades, Penang has helped power the global economy through manufacturing. But the rules of the game are changing now. File picture of the Second Penang Bridge. According to the author, Penang 3.0 envisions a future where young people don't just take part in the economy — they help shape it by designing their own products, companies, and ideas instead of merely executing others' visions. — Picture by KE Ooi Geopolitical tensions, particularly between the US and China, have redrawn the global semiconductor map. The US CHIPS Act, new export controls, and tariff realignments have made self-sufficiency in chip design and production a national priority for many economies. Countries are no longer just competing for factories, they are competing for control over intellectual property, talent, and technology ecosystems. If Malaysia wants to keep up, we can't just rely on cheap labour or global companies setting up plants here. And that's why Penang 3.0 matters. We need to build ecosystems that support our own talents — our own engineers, researchers, designers, and creators. Real progress, not just big promises What gives this vision more weight is that it's already beginning to take shape. Just weeks ago, the Penang Silicon Research and Incubation Space was launched in Bayan Lepas under the PSD@5KM+ initiative, a purpose-built hub for IC design startups. Two major announcements followed: 1. SkyeChip, a Malaysian company, unveiled two cutting-edge chip technologies: HBM3E and Network-on-Chip (NoC), both designed by Malaysian engineers in Penang. 2. Silicon X, another homegrown company, is developing its own proprietary Malaysian chip. These are not isolated success stories. They are proof that local talent, with the right support, can lead global innovation. More importantly, they reflect what Penang 3.0 is truly about. Not just attracting investment but empowering Malaysian companies to compete on their own terms, with their own technologies. This shift aligns with the federal government's National Semiconductor Strategy (NSS), which aims to elevate Malaysia from a backend manufacturing hub to a regional leader in advanced chip design. As Minister of Human Resources, Steven Sim, put it: 'Over the next 50 years, the goal is to transform from 'Made in Penang' to 'Made by Penang'.' Why this matters to young people like us Our generation grew up in uncertainty. We entered the workforce during economic downturns, political instability, and a time when many of us were told that 'real' opportunities were elsewhere — in Singapore, or overseas. Many of us still struggle to find jobs that match our skills. Some are underpaid. Others feel like they're constantly helping others foreign companies or brands succeed without building something of their own. But what if that's starting to change? Penang 3.0 is a blueprint for a different kind of future. One where young people don't just work in the economy, but help shape it. One where we're not just executing someone else's designs, but creating products, companies, and ideas of our own. It also reflects something deeper: belief in young talent. And that's something Malaysia has been missing for a long time. Challenges still exist, but so does momentum Of course, this vision won't be achieved overnight. Challenges remain. Young people still face high costs of living. Public transport is limited. Access to funding and mentorship for startups remains uneven. But the momentum is real. Infrastructure projects like the new LRT system, the airport expansion, and the construction of Silicon Island all signal that Penang is preparing for long-term growth. More importantly, this time, the growth is focused on value creation, not just cheap labour. What's more, the leadership behind this vision seems serious. Chief Minister Chow Kon Yeow's administration has taken a long-view approach. Steven Sim has consistently advocated for structural reform and local empowerment. This mix of political will, industrial maturity, and local ambition is rare, and should not be taken for granted. From Penang, for Malaysia Penang 3.0 may have started as a state vision, but its meaning goes far beyond that. If Penang proves that a Malaysian state can transition from backend to brainpower, then other places can too. This is especially important for northern Malaysia, where many young people feel they have to leave to succeed. A stronger Penang gives hope to those of us, that we do not always have to leave home to chase a future. I am not from Penang, but I believe in what it is trying to become. Because if Penang moves forward, so does the rest of the country. It reminds us that Malaysia can still be a place where we invest in people, in ideas, and in something that lasts. And maybe most of all, it reminds us that our future is still worth building. * This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.


Free Malaysia Today
an hour ago
- Free Malaysia Today
PD Bersatu defends proposed leadership change after backlash
Port Dickson Bersatu's motion proposed that Hamzah Zainudin (left) take over as the party's 'main leader', with party president Muhyiddin Yassin becoming an adviser and mentor instead. PETALING JAYA : Port Dickson Bersatu has doubled down on its motion for a change in the party leadership, after a backlash from multiple party colleagues, including a vice-chief of the division. Port Dickson Bersatu deputy chief Akkil Aizat Othman, who tabled the motion at the division's annual general meeting (AGM) over the weekend, said he would not withdraw the proposal. 'I will not withdraw the motion. The division will issue a statement today to explain the contents of the motion,' he told FMT. The division's vice-chief, Shuhazlan Ali, claimed that the motion brought to the AGM was Akkil's personal view and did not reflect the wishes of the grassroots in Port Dickson. Akkil fired back, accusing Shuhazlan of not attending division meetings, including its AGM over the weekend. 'He only issued a press statement without reading the actual motion and which branch tabled it,' he said, denying that Port Dickson Bersatu was divided because of the motion. Port Dickson Bersatu's motion proposed that Hamzah Zainudin take over as the party's 'main leader', with Muhyiddin Yassin becoming an adviser and mentor instead. It also proposed that Bersatu vice-president Radzi Jidin handle the party's administrative matters, currently managed by secretary-general Azmin Ali. The motion was unanimously approved. Bersatu information chief Tun Faisal Ismail Aziz however played it down, saying Muhyiddin still had the support of the majority of Bersatu's grassroots to remain as party president.