Farebox recovery ratio

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The farebox recovery ratio (also called fare recovery ratio) of a passenger transportation system is the fraction of operating expenses which are met by the fares paid by passengers. It is computed by dividing the system's total fare revenue by its total operating expenses.

Contents

Variable fare structures [edit]

Most systems aren't self-supporting, so advertising revenue and government subsidies are usually required to cover costs. However, a combination of more flexible fare structures and annual ridership figures play a big role in fare box ratios as outlined in the table below. Transit agencies that have instituted a more variable fare structure depending on distances or zones traveled have higher fare box ratios over those that rely on a flat rate model.[1] The downside is however, variable rate fares need heavy investment in ticketing technologies and are far more complicated to implement for the transit operator and to decipher the fare for the transit rider.

Variable vs. fixed fare models [edit]

 This section may contain original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research may be removed. (July 2012)
Agenda Variable fare model Fixed fare model
FBR ratio with high ridership figures 100%+ 50%+
FBR ratio with low ridership figures 60%+ 9%+
Most common system used Post-pay; fares are paid at the destination or upon disembarking at the end of each trip Pre-pay; fares are paid upon use of transit at start of each trip
Unlimited ride passes Uncommon Daily, weekly, or monthly unlimited ride passes
Incentives over cash Cheaper rates may be provided when using paperless contactless passes loaded with cash value Unlimited ride passes
Concessions Discounted variable rates for seniors, youths, disabled, or other groups as needed Discounted fixed rates for seniors, youths, disabled, or other groups as needed
Implementation costs Expensive as both entry and exit process has to be accounted for to calculate variable fares. Fare adjustment and change machines need to be installed. Cheap as fare is collected upon entry only. Since each rider is expected to have exact change, no fare adjustment or change machines are needed.
Reliance on subsidies Less dependent as each transit rider pays their share of distance traveled equally Heavily dependent as fixed fares does not cover operational costs without regard to how each rider contributed to their distance traveled needs
Benefits Fairer fare structure; cheaper for shorter riders, more for longer rides. Entry and exit processes can also be used for data collection to efficiently manage how transit riders travel, allowing transit agencies to coordinate transfer times, reduce or increase transit needs based on hard ridership data. Simplicity; everyone pays the same price regardless of distance traveled.
Risks Confusing for first time transit riders. Knowledge of the system requires an "acquired" skill Prone to higher rates and service cuts depending on subsidies received


Farebox ratios around the world [edit]

The following table lists farebox ratios for some public transportation systems around the world.

Ratio of fares to operating costs for public transport systems (%)
Continent Country System Ratio Fare system Fare rate Annual ridership Year
Asia Hong Kong SAR Hong Kong (MTR) 149% Distance based HKD 4.00+ (cash) / HKD 3.80+ (Octopus Card) 2007[2]
Asia Japan Osaka (Hankyu Railway) 123% Distance based JPY 150+ 1991[3]
Asia Japan Osaka (OMTB) 137% Distance based JPY 200+ 1991[3]
Asia Taiwan Taipei (MRT) 119% Distance based TWD 20+ (cash) / TWD 16+ (EasyCard) 2006[4]
Asia Japan Tokyo Metro 170% Distance based JPY 160+ 1991[3]
Asia Singapore Singapore (SMRT) 125% Distance based SGD 1.10+ (cash) / SGD 0.73+ (EZ-Link Card) 2008[5]
Asia Beijing Beijing Subway 59.5% Flat rate 2.00 RMB 2012[6]
Europe The Netherlands Amsterdam 41.3% Zone based 2007[7]
Europe Germany Berlin 70.3% 2010[8]
Europe Belgium Brussels 35.2% 2007[7]
Europe Denmark Copenhagen 52% 1991[3]
Europe Great Britain London Underground 50% Zone based 2004[9]
Europe Spain Madrid 41.3% 2007[7]
Europe Italy Milan 28% 1991[3]
Europe Germany Munich 42% 1991[3]
Europe France Paris (RATP) 40% 2007[7]
Europe Sweden Stockholm 37% 2007[7]
Europe Italy Rome 36% 2007[7]
Europe Austria Vienna 50% Flat rate EUR 2.00 1991[3]
Europe Switzerland Zurich 66% 1991[3]
North America USA Amtrak 71% Distance & demand based 2009[10]
North America USA Atlanta (MARTA) 31.8% Flat rate USD 2.50 2007[11]
North America USA Austin (CMTA) 9% Flat rate USD 1.00 2007[12]
North America Canada Brampton (BT) 46% Flat rate CAD 3.25 (cash) / CAD 2.65 (Presto Card) 2012[13]
North America USA Boston (MBTA) 43.7% Flat rate USD 2.50 (cash) / USD 2.00 (CharlieCard) 2002[13]
North America Canada Calgary 50% Flat rate CAD 3.00 2011[14]
North America USA Chicago (CTA) 55.2% Flat rate USD 2.25 (cash) / USD 2.00 (ChicagoCard) 2010[15]
North America USA Cleveland (GCRTA) 21.5% Flat rate USD 2.25 2002[13]
North America USA Dallas (DART) 28.4% Flat rate USD 1.75 2008[16]
North America USA Detroit (DDOT) 13.9% Flat rate USD 1.50 2002[17]
North America Canada Edmonton (ETS) 39.4% Flat rate USD 3.00 2007[18]
North America USA Harrisburg, PA (CAT) 35.0% Flat rate USD 1.75 2005
North America USA Las Vegas Monorail 56.0% Flat rate USD 5.00 2006[19]
North America USA Long Island (MTA) 26.6% Zone based USD 5.00+ 2009 Q1[20]
North America USA Los Angeles (LACMTA) 30.6% Flat Rate USD 1.50 2004[21]
North America USA Maryland 26.3% 2002[13]
North America USA Miami 16.1% 2002[13]
North America USA Minneapolis - St. Paul 31.4% Flat rate with rush hour and express surcharges USD 1.75 to USD 3.00 81,074,000 2008[22]
North America Canada Mississauga (MiWay) 46% Flat rate CAD 3.25 2011[14]
North America Canada Montreal (STM) 57.1% Flat rate CAD 3.00 2006[23]
North America USA New York City (MTA) 55.5% Flat rate USD 2.25 2009 Q1[24]
North America USA New York/Connecticut (MTA) 36.2% Distance based USD 2.25+ 2009 Q1[25]
North America USA New York/New Jersey (PATH) 41.0% Flat rate USD 2.00 2002[13]
North America USA New Jersey (NJT) 56% Distance based USD 2.25 2001[26]
North America USA Orlando (Lynx) 26% Flat rate USD 2.00 2006[27]
North America Canada Ottawa (OC Transpo) 52% Flat rate CAD 3.30 (Cash) / CAD 2.60 (Tickets/Presto Card) 2011[28]
North America USA Philadelphia (SEPTA) 58.6% Flat rate USD 2.00 (cash) / USD 1.55 (Token) / USD 1.00 (Transfer) 2002[13]
North America USA Pierce County, WA 13.0% Flat rate USD 2.00 2009[29]
North America USA Philadelphia/New Jersey (PATCO) 61.4% Distance based USD 1.40+ 2002[13]
North America USA Portland Metro Area (TriMet) 22% Flat rate USD 2.50 2010[30] 2012[31]
North America USA Puget Sound Region (King County Metro) 19.1% Zone based USD 2.25+ 2006[32]
North America USA Puget Sound Region (Sound Transit) 22.2% Zone & Distance based USD 1.50+ 2007[33]
North America Canada Quebec City (RTC) 39% Flat rate CAD 3.00 2011[14]
North America USA San Francisco Bay Area (BART) 64.5% Distance based USD 1.75+ 2008[34]
North America USA San Francisco Bay Area (Caltrain) 51.3% Zone based USD 2.75+ 2011[35]
North America USA Staten Island (MTA) 15.2% Flat rate USD 2.25 2002[13]
North America Canada Toronto (TTC) 63.2% Flat rate CAD 3.00 2010[36]
North America Canada Toronto, Hamilton and area (GO Transit) 82.2% Distance based CAD 4.85+ 2011[37]
North America Canada Vancouver (TransLink) 51.9% Zone based CAD 2.50+ 2010[38]
North America USA Washington, DC (WMATA) 62.1% Distance based USD 1.95+ 2010[39]
North America Canada Winnipeg 60% Flat rate CAD 2.50 2011[14]

Notes [edit]

  1. ^ http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/bitstream/2123/5876/1/5-02-056-2009-08-27-Looi-Singapores-case-of-institutiona-arrangement-for-fare-affordability.pdf
  2. ^ http://www.mtr.com.hk/eng/investrelation/annualresult2007/MTR_annual_2007_final_web.pdf#page=21
  3. ^ a b c d e f g h http://www.jrtr.net/jrtr29/pdf/f12_sho.pdf
  4. ^ http://www.trtc.com.tw/img/all/A61/report2006.pdf#page=45
  5. ^ http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/eserv/UQ:159164/ATRF_2008_Hale___Charles.pdf
  6. ^ (Chinese) "杭州地铁拟定票价 “贵”为全国前三 市民喊吃不消" 钱江晚报 2012-07-20
  7. ^ a b c d e f Cour des Comptes (2010), Les transports ferroviaires régionaux en Ile-de-france (PDF), p. 128 
  8. ^ http://www.bvg.de/index.php/de/binaries/asset/download/900847/file/1-1
  9. ^ House of Commons Public Accounts 2005
  10. ^ [1]
  11. ^ MARTA FY2007 annual report
  12. ^ http://204.68.195.57/ntdprogram/pubs/profiles/2007/agency_profiles/6048.pdf NTD agency profile 2007
  13. ^ a b c d e f g h i http://www.bramptonguardian.com/news/article/1591836--bus-fares-increase-april-1.  Missing or empty |title= (help)
  14. ^ a b c d http://www.mississauga.ca/file/COM/F2014-2016.Presentation_for_Transit.pdf
  15. ^ http://www.transitchicago.com/assets/1/finance_budget/2011_CTA_Budget_Book_Web_optimized.pdf
  16. ^ http://www.dart.org/about/aboutdart.asp
  17. ^ http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram/pubs/dt/2002/PDF_files/2002_Table_26.pdf
  18. ^ City of Edmonton
  19. ^ Calculation based on figures of "$159,000 needed daily to cover operating costs and debt service" and "falling as much as $70,000 a day short". Sofradzija, Omar (2006-02-11). "Monorail rating, ridership go down: Bleak outlook puts bond sale at risk". Retrieved 2007-06-30. 
  20. ^ Long Island Rail Road Financial Ratios Mar 2009
  21. ^ http://www.mta.net/about_us/finance/pdf/sandp2004.htm Standard & Poors Credit Rating 2004
  22. ^ "2009 Twin Cities Transit System Performance Evaluation: Chapter 4. Regional Transit Ridership and Operating Statistics". Metropolitan Council. 2009. Retrieved 2013-03-20. 
  23. ^ http://www.stcum.qc.ca/English/en-bref/a-rapfin06.pdf
  24. ^ New York City Transit Financial Ratios March 2009
  25. ^ Metro-North Railroad Financial Ratios Mar 2009
  26. ^ http://www.ct.gov/dotinfo/lib/dotinfo/nhr/docs/Chapter-7-Ridership_Fare_Revenue_and_Cost_Database.pdf CT Ridership Fare Revenue and Cost Database
  27. ^ Transit Performance Measures Matrix 09-October-1997
  28. ^ http://www.octranspo1.com/images/files/reports/2011annual_performance_report.pdf
  29. ^ [2]
  30. ^ http://trimet.org/about/funding.htm Retrieved 3 June 2011
  31. ^ http://trimet.org/alerts/farechanges.htm Retrieved 12 Nov 2012
  32. ^ King County Metro System Snapshot
  33. ^ Q4 2007 Financial Report
  34. ^ http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Pages/NTDDataTables.aspx APTA 2008 Data Tables. Table 26.
  35. ^ http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/_Finance/Comprehensive+Annual+Financial+Reports/JPB+CAFR+2011.pdf
  36. ^ TTC Annual Report, 2010
  37. ^ Metrolinx Annual Report 2010-2011
  38. ^ http://www.translink.ca/~/media/documents/about_translink/governance_and_board/board%202011/year_end_report_2010.ashx
  39. ^ http://www.wmata.com/about_metro/scorecard/documents/Metro%20Jurisdictional%20Measures.pdf
Bus
Rail
Vehicles for hire
Carpooling
Other transport
Ship
Locations
Scheduling
Other topics
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Farebox_recovery_ratio&oldid=553119841"