4 ms·
That's because you're comparing only the cost paid directly by the passenger. Not the total cost of operating a train line that gets heavily subsidized by tax p
by dkopi 11y ago
That's because you're comparing only the cost paid directly by the passenger. Not the total cost of operating a train line that gets heavily subsidized by tax payers.
Mass transit makes a lot of sense. It can even be profitable when you have a lot of people going in the same direction at the same time.
But whenever you're on a really empty bus or train - someone else is footing the bill for your very expensive ride home.
- lukeschlather 11y agoWhen properly supported mass transit is much cheaper than individual cars. BART is under $5/passenger trip. http://www.vitalsigns.mtc.ca.gov/transit-system-efficiency http://www.vitalsigns.mtc.ca.gov/transit-system-efficiency
- barney54 11y agoMass transit can make sense, but it isn't profitable. Very few public transit systems in the world are profitable. Bus systems are more likely to be profitable. https://www.quora.com/Which-public-transportation-systems-make-a-profit https://www.quora.com/Which-public-transportation-systems-ma...
- jahewson 11y agoInterestingly this is the exact same argument which was made when most of the San Francisco cable cars were ripped out. But it wasn't true.
- soyiuz 11y agoNor should they be profitable. Public goods are an expenditure, like clean air or public libraries. We want to spend money on them, that is the point.
- SilasX 11y agoNot profitable by fares charged, sure. Definitely profitable if they were credited with the gain in property taxes/values that their presence facilitates.
- jahewson 11y agoI think you're forgetting the cost of operating a road, and in particular, freeway network, which is entirely paid for by tax payers.
- bluecalm 11y agoYou need the road anyway. Keeping it open during the night doesn't add up to the costs. Having an empty train running during the night does.
- rtpg 11y agoYou might not need the road anyways. If a major fraction of the population doesn't need to drive, you can make human-sized (instead of car-sized) roads and have higher density and lower upkeep. And you can have trains that come much less often (like, say, once an hour) to collect the stragglers. Less wagons in the trains. Hello, Tokyo has no trains from 1-5AM. So you can simply plan around it (either going home before 1 or knowing you'll be out til 5).
- raverbashing 11y agoNo, it's not going to go back to human-sized roads There are deliveries to be made, buses to ride (even with a good train infrastructure), people who can't take public transport, etc It's simply naive to think otherwise
- rtpg 11y agoHuman sized roads can still have cars, just not as many as a 4-lane road Plus if you can shrink parking lots to 1/2 of what they are you'll reclaim so much space downtown
- snowwrestler 11y agoElectric trains are really efficient. I don't have the numbers in front of me but the per-passenger-mile cost is almost certainly lower than Uber.
- vacri 11y ago> Not the total cost of operating a train line that gets heavily subsidized by tax payers. A few extra late-night runs don't particularly move the budget. It's a bit like manufacturing - once you've designed your product and set up the production line, doing a run of 4000 items isn't much different to doing a run of 5000 items.