 |
Re:Fares versus Free Transit? Cost recovery and budget lines, versus "road pricing" cost recovery...
Author: BOB2
Date: 12-09-2019 - 02:23
Big systems like LACMTA collect way more in costs recovery than the cost of fare collection.
Historically, this farebox recovery rate has often been in a range between 20 and 35 per cent, of a majority of operating budgets for most of the more mature transit operations I was familiar with the Sou Cal.
Commuter rail systems like ML have typically generated between 30 and 60 percent fare box recovery. Immature systems like SMART are at the bottom of those charts Mike Arnold was waving around, is due to low ridership, and thus low fare revenue generation. It's an economies of scale business, choo-choo's need to be designed and be able to operate sufficient service levels to attract those numbers, and SMART (nor Perris) have sufficient service levels to attract more riders, at present levels of service.
Fare free local transit services without major funding to maintain that level of service would result in significant cuts in service, in the face of increased demand. And, to be an effective mitigation of regional traffic congestion, such "free" transit would also have to offer more service to offer sufficient capacity to prevent overcrowding, increased bus delay, and slower service.
Now, if you want to ask me about "cost recovery" in excess of "toll collection" costs, for "road pricing" projects, that's another matter. A number of these "HOT" lane (High Occupancy/Toll Lanes)demonstration projects seem to have had very lucrative fare collection system and enforcement contracts, and seem to lack good audited results on actual "cost recovery" in excess of some of those costs.
Also, none of studies I've seen of these "HOT" lane pricing demonstration have looked at the added travel time costs, from the "forcing out" of half of the HOV (multi-occupant) vehicle trips (like occurred on the Harbor Freeway in LA, back into the adjacent congestion "saturated" mixed flow lanes.
"Road Pricing" and things like "HOT" lane "demonstrations" are currently a very popular "flavor of the week" and viewed as a revenue "panacea" in some transportation planning agencies, these days.
Apparently, like with much of today's "faith based" transportation planning (as with "road diets"...) we apparently don't seem to need to "measure" things like that cost recovery, or congestion cost "feedback" loop impact, to see if the purported operational and/or financial benefits are "real", or how "real", since that might "break" the "magic spell", and cause folks to question the "allure" of this latest popular congestion "panacea".
Historically, this farebox recovery rate has often been in a range between 20 and 35 per cent, of a majority of operating budgets for most of the more mature transit operations I was familiar with the Sou Cal.
Commuter rail systems like ML have typically generated between 30 and 60 percent fare box recovery. Immature systems like SMART are at the bottom of those charts Mike Arnold was waving around, is due to low ridership, and thus low fare revenue generation. It's an economies of scale business, choo-choo's need to be designed and be able to operate sufficient service levels to attract those numbers, and SMART (nor Perris) have sufficient service levels to attract more riders, at present levels of service.
Fare free local transit services without major funding to maintain that level of service would result in significant cuts in service, in the face of increased demand. And, to be an effective mitigation of regional traffic congestion, such "free" transit would also have to offer more service to offer sufficient capacity to prevent overcrowding, increased bus delay, and slower service.
Now, if you want to ask me about "cost recovery" in excess of "toll collection" costs, for "road pricing" projects, that's another matter. A number of these "HOT" lane (High Occupancy/Toll Lanes)demonstration projects seem to have had very lucrative fare collection system and enforcement contracts, and seem to lack good audited results on actual "cost recovery" in excess of some of those costs.
Also, none of studies I've seen of these "HOT" lane pricing demonstration have looked at the added travel time costs, from the "forcing out" of half of the HOV (multi-occupant) vehicle trips (like occurred on the Harbor Freeway in LA, back into the adjacent congestion "saturated" mixed flow lanes.
"Road Pricing" and things like "HOT" lane "demonstrations" are currently a very popular "flavor of the week" and viewed as a revenue "panacea" in some transportation planning agencies, these days.
Apparently, like with much of today's "faith based" transportation planning (as with "road diets"...) we apparently don't seem to need to "measure" things like that cost recovery, or congestion cost "feedback" loop impact, to see if the purported operational and/or financial benefits are "real", or how "real", since that might "break" the "magic spell", and cause folks to question the "allure" of this latest popular congestion "panacea".
