Jump to content

Farebox recovery ratio: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Farebox ratios around the world: move GO transit to alphabetically suitable place
Randito (talk | contribs)
11 edits
Line 196: Line 196:
| style="text-align: center" | 89.4%
| style="text-align: center" | 89.4%
| style="text-align: center" | 2007 <ref>http://www.gotransit.com/PUBLIC/en/publications/0607_YinR_Web.pdf</ref>
| style="text-align: center" | 2007 <ref>http://www.gotransit.com/PUBLIC/en/publications/0607_YinR_Web.pdf</ref>
|-
| [[TransLink_(British_Columbia)|Vancouver, Canada (Translink)]]
| style="text-align: center" | 54.1%
| style="text-align: center" | 2008 <ref>http://www.translink.ca/~/media/Documents/About%20TransLink/Statuatory%20Annual%20Report/2008%20Statutory%20Annual%20Report.ashx</ref>
|-
|-
| [[Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority|Washington, DC (WMATA)]]
| [[Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority|Washington, DC (WMATA)]]

Revision as of 01:03, 21 September 2009

The farebox recovery ratio of a passenger transportation system is the proportion of the amount of revenue generated through fares by its paying customers as a fraction of the cost of its total operating expenses. Most systems aren't self-supporting, so advertising revenue and government subsidies are usually required to cover costs. The Hong Kong MTR Corporation is one of the few self-supporting transit systems in the world.

Need for government subsidy

There are several practical reasons for government subsidies of public transit. By subsidizing mass transit, it encourages ridership and subsequently lowers traffic congestion. Another benefit is lowering pollution from single occupant vehicles that are no longer on the roads. The third benefit is reducing infrastructure costs needed to build and maintain more street, highway, and freeway lanes associated with increased traffic congestion. These factors considered together also contribute to a better quality of life as defined by global quality of living measurements. [1]

Some[who?] argue that there would be no need to subsidize mass transit in the United State if gasoline (petroleum) were not also subsidized. In 1965, the book, The Urban Transportation Problem by John Meyers, argued that the urban transportation problem was actually a pricing problem.[citation needed] Consumers do not pay the actual cost for congestion and the government subsidizes all modes. This creates a modal imbalance between all modes but particularly between subsidized urban highways and transit. A study by the International Center for Technology Assessment found that after accounting for government subsidies, pollution cleanup and other costs, the real price of gasoline is estimated to be somewhere between US$5.60 and US$15.37 per gallon.[2] Were gasoline sold within this range of prices, people might voluntarily drive less, choose more fuel-efficient vehicles, and use mass transit.

Farebox ratios around the world

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

Ratio of fares to operating costs for public transport systems (%)
System Ratio Year
Asia
Hong Kong MTR 149% 2007[3]
Osaka (Hankyu Railway) 123% 1991[4]
Osaka (OMTB) 137% 1991[4]
Taipei Rapid Transit System 119% 2006[5]
Teito RTA (now Tokyo Metro) 170% 1991[4]
Europe
Brussels 28% 1991[4]
Copenhagen 52% 1991[4]
London Underground ~100% 2004[6]
Milan 28% 1991[4]
Munich 42% 1991[4]
RATP (Paris) 43% 1991[4]
Stockholm Transit 44% 1996[7]
Vienna 50% 1991[4]
Zurich 66% 1991[4]
North America
Atlanta (MARTA) 31.8% 2007[8]
Austin (CMTA) 9% 2007[9]
Bay Area (BART) 45% 2007[10]
Bay Area (Caltrain) 41% 2006[11]
Chicago (CTA) 44.3% 2002[12]
Edmonton, Canada (ETS) 39.4% 2007 [13]
Cleveland (GCRTA) 21.5% 2002[12]
Detroit (DDOT) 13.9% 2002[14]
Los Angeles (LACMTA) 30.6% 2004[15]
Las Vegas Monorail 56.0% 2006[16]
Long Island (MTA) 26.6% 2009 Q1[17]
Maryland (MTA) 26.3% 2002[12]
Metro North Area (MTA) 36.2% 2009 Q1[18]
Massachusetts Bay (MBTA) 43.7% 2002[12]
Miami-Dade Transit 16.1% 2002[12]
Montreal (STM) 57.1% 2006 [19]
New York (MTA) 36% 2009 Q1[20]
New Jersey Transit 56% 2001[21]
Orlando (Lynx) 26% 2006[22]
Ottawa(OC) 43.2% 2007 [23]
New York/New Jersey (PATH) 41.0% 2002[12]
Philadelphia (SEPTA) 58.6% 2002[12]
Pierce County, Washington (Pierce Transit) 13.0% 2009[24]
Philadelphia/New Jersey (PATCO) 61.4% 2002[12]
Puget Sound Region (King County Metro Transit) 19.1% 2006[25]
Puget Sound Region (Sound Transit) 22.2% 2007[26]
Staten Island Railway 15.2% 2002[12]
Toronto Transit Commission 74.5% 2005 [27]
Toronto, Canada (GO Transit) 89.4% 2007 [28]
Vancouver, Canada (Translink) 54.1% 2008 [29]
Washington, DC (WMATA) 61.6% 2002[12]
Capitol Area Transit, Harrisburg, PA (CAT) 35.0% 2005

Notes

  1. ^ http://www.mercerhr.com/summary.jhtml?idContent=1173370>Mercer Human Resources Consulting QOL Reports c2005
  2. ^ http://www.icta.org/doc/Real%20Price%20of%20Gasoline.pdf
  3. ^ http://www.mtr.com.hk/eng/investrelation/annualresult2007/MTR_annual_2007_final_web.pdf#page=21
  4. ^ a b c d e f g h i j http://www.jrtr.net/jrtr29/pdf/f12_sho.pdf
  5. ^ http://www.trtc.com.tw/img/all/A61/report2006.pdf#page=45
  6. ^ House of Commons Public Accounts 2005
  7. ^ International Transit Studies Program
  8. ^ MARTA FY2007 annual report
  9. ^ http://204.68.195.57/ntdprogram/pubs/profiles/2007/agency_profiles/6048.pdf NTD agency profile 2007
  10. ^ http://www.bart.gov/docs/FY2007_financials.pdf BART 2007 Audited Financial Report. Page 12.
  11. ^ http://www.caltrain.org/srtp/pdf/2008-2017/06_FINAL_CaltrainSRTP_022008_Ch3.pdf Caltrain Short Range Transit Plan FY2008-FY2017
  12. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Farebox recovery: how 14 systems compare | Railway Age | Find Articles at BNET.com
  13. ^ City of Edmonton
  14. ^ http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram/pubs/dt/2002/PDF_files/2002_Table_26.pdf
  15. ^ http://www.mta.net/about_us/finance/pdf/sandp2004.htm Standard & Poors Credit Rating 2004
  16. ^ 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.
  17. ^ Long Island Rail Road Financial Ratios Mar 2009
  18. ^ Metro-North Railroad Financial Ratios Mar 2009
  19. ^ http://www.stcum.qc.ca/English/en-bref/a-rapfin06.pdf
  20. ^ New York City Transit Financial Ratios March 2009
  21. ^ 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
  22. ^ Transit Performance Measures Matrix 09-October-1997
  23. ^ Facts - Funding
  24. ^ [1]
  25. ^ King County Metro System Snapshot
  26. ^ Q4 2007 Financial Report
  27. ^ Microsoft Word - 05 Annual Report revised_GS-10.doc
  28. ^ http://www.gotransit.com/PUBLIC/en/publications/0607_YinR_Web.pdf
  29. ^ http://www.translink.ca/~/media/Documents/About%20TransLink/Statuatory%20Annual%20Report/2008%20Statutory%20Annual%20Report.ashx


Stub icon

This economics-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Farebox_recovery_ratio&oldid=315207114"