6 ms·

I wonder if it is actually possible to make money in the commoditized transportation business. Virtually all government transportation organizations lose money

by tabeth 9y ago

I wonder if it is actually possible to make money in the commoditized transportation business. Virtually all government transportation organizations lose money -- luckily for them they're governmentally funded (MBTA loses money [1], which is relevant since there was recently a bus service in Boston that shut down). [1] https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/02/28/mbta-shrinks-its-deficit/ROdjjtVNuS1L81f7qdsOXK/story.html https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/02/28/mbta-shrinks-it...

martinald 9y ago
There are quite a few exceptions to this. Sort the second table on this page by %age: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farebox_recovery_ratio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farebox_recovery_ratio FWIW TfL in London has to break even across all modes (operationally, at least) by 2018. You'll notice there is an exceptionally high correlation between operational returns and city density.
- askvictor 9y ago
  I wonder if they factor in the broader economic benefits of public transport (or costs of a lack thereof) into 'breaking even'. Cut bus services, more people drive, take longer to get to work, are now stressed, walk less, put more strain on the health care system. I'm guessing they don't, being politicians and all...
  - martinald 9y ago
    No, they don't. This is purely financial.
ZeroGravitas 9y ago
The more interesting question is if they provide greater value to the taxpayer than they cost.
- thatfrenchguy 9y ago
  If you live in any first world city (aka not the US), you know that's the case.
  - kcorbitt 9y ago
    I realize you're trying to be snarky, but it's worth pointing out that the original definition of "First World" was the set of countries economically/politically aligned with the USA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_World https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_World
    - H4CK3RM4N 9y ago
      I love that the second world is implicitly the soviet countries, but it's disappeared from common use.
      - mmahemoff 9y ago
        Even better, a lot of those countries in central Europe went ahead and leapfrogged the "first world" in terms of infrastructure and digital services.
  - oh_sigh 9y ago
    First world is literally defined as aligning with the US. I have to guess you've never been to NYC, Chicago, San Fran, LA, etc if you want to snarkily dismiss them as "not first world"
    - TillE 9y ago
      Everywhere in the US outside of the borough of Manhattan has fairly awful public transit options. Feel free to sub in "developed country" to make the joke work better.
      - oh_sigh 9y ago
acdha 9y ago
> Virtually all government transportation organizations lose money So do highways — they're all investments which make things better for private citizens and businesses. You have to look at the total economic impact — i.e. not having public transit would entail either trillion-dollar freeway construction projects, the economic hit of massive traffic jams, or some combination of the two.

by tabeth 9y ago

martinald 9y ago

There are quite a few exceptions to this. Sort the second table on this page by %age: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farebox_recovery_ratio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farebox_recovery_ratio FWIW TfL in London has to break even across all modes (operationally, at least) by 2018. You'll notice there is an exceptionally high correlation between operational returns and city density.

askvictor 9y ago
I wonder if they factor in the broader economic benefits of public transport (or costs of a lack thereof) into 'breaking even'. Cut bus services, more people drive, take longer to get to work, are now stressed, walk less, put more strain on the health care system. I'm guessing they don't, being politicians and all...
- martinald 9y ago
  No, they don't. This is purely financial.

ZeroGravitas 9y ago

The more interesting question is if they provide greater value to the taxpayer than they cost.

thatfrenchguy 9y ago
If you live in any first world city (aka not the US), you know that's the case.
- kcorbitt 9y ago
  I realize you're trying to be snarky, but it's worth pointing out that the original definition of "First World" was the set of countries economically/politically aligned with the USA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_World https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_World
  - H4CK3RM4N 9y ago
    I love that the second world is implicitly the soviet countries, but it's disappeared from common use.
    - mmahemoff 9y ago
      Even better, a lot of those countries in central Europe went ahead and leapfrogged the "first world" in terms of infrastructure and digital services.
- oh_sigh 9y ago
  First world is literally defined as aligning with the US. I have to guess you've never been to NYC, Chicago, San Fran, LA, etc if you want to snarkily dismiss them as "not first world"
  - TillE 9y ago
    Everywhere in the US outside of the borough of Manhattan has fairly awful public transit options. Feel free to sub in "developed country" to make the joke work better.
    - oh_sigh 9y ago

acdha 9y ago

> Virtually all government transportation organizations lose money So do highways — they're all investments which make things better for private citizens and businesses. You have to look at the total economic impact — i.e. not having public transit would entail either trillion-dollar freeway construction projects, the economic hit of massive traffic jams, or some combination of the two.