6 ms·
How are they paying for everything?
by Fej 9y ago
How are they paying for everything?
- mc32 9y agoFarebox rev is ~40% the rest of funding comes from a variety of taxes (RE, payroll, etc) and a few state and local subsidies.
- TuringNYC 9y agoSounds like they take the prevailing wage and multiply it by two! https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/18/nyregion/new-york-subway-system-failure-delays.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/18/nyregion/new-york-subway-... "...average total compensation for subway managers has grown to nearly $300,000 a year."
- djsumdog 9y agoIt's important to note that no train system in the world is covered by fairs. They are always subsidized by the state. In most cities, fairs make up 20% ~ 30% of costs (tolls are about the same for toll roads). Cities with expensive transit typically have mandates that x% of costs must be paid by fairs. In Wellington, NZ and Chicago, US, this is 50%, leading to some pretty high fares or low service. Just having transit makes revenue though, in taxes from the increased commerce. Access to transport is also the single largest factor in escaping poverty. It's difficult to measure those numbers in revenue though. But transport always must be subsidized by the State, going back to the roads of Rome.
- gozur88 9y agoPrivate railway operators in Tokyo aren't subsidized by the state, though I think they get a not-insignificant portion of their income from property rents around stations.
- omegaworks 9y agoThis would make sense. If the real estate could be owned by the operators of the subway, the subway could capture that value created* and distribute it to upkeep of the whole system. Since this is not the case in NYC and Chicago - private individuals / the city owns the property adjacent to transit, there needs to be some other way to capture that value. Enter a sane, necessary taxation / subsidization mechanism. * The value is real. Property adjacent to transit was insulated from the 2008 crash: https://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/03/22/study-homes-near-transit-were-insulated-from-the-housing-crash/ https://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/03/22/study-homes-near-tran...
- ascagnel_ 9y agoSimple: factor the distance and access to public transit into the taxable valuation of property. If the state is subsidizing transit, and transit makes the land more desirable, it stands to reason that the land is more valuable and should pay higher property taxes.
- clort 9y agoDid the private railway operators purchase the land and build the railway too?
- saosebastiao 9y agoThey purchased the assets (including land) from the government who purchased the land and built the railway.
- saosebastiao 9y agoThe word is fare, and you’re wrong. There are quite a few agencies that cover >100% of their costs with fares, and 20-30% is only “typical” in the US. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farebox_recovery_ratio https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farebox_recovery_ratio
- inferiorhuman 9y agoWhat? A recovery ratio of over 100% is rare worldwide (your link shows 7, with the Las Vegas, USA monorail at 100% even).
- vonmoltke 9y agoWhy was this comment downvoted? It's factually accurate.
- sliverstorm 9y agoBut transport always must be subsidized by the State, going back to the roads of Rome. Ironically many car drivers object to the public subsidy of rail, arguing transit should never be publicly subsidized.
- thriftwy 9y agoCar drivers are subsidized by the entirety of population. The roads they run on are built by public.
- jdpedrie 9y agoNot really. While it varies, in most states the majority of the costs of roads are borne by users in the form of gax tax, tolls, and user fees. [0] In my state, (MI), the legislature recently substantially increased the annual vehicle registration fees to pay for infrastructure upkeep. [0] https://taxfoundation.org/state-road-funding-2017 https://taxfoundation.org/state-road-funding-2017
- TheCoelacanth 9y ago> in most states the majority of the costs of roads are borne by users in the form of gax tax, tolls, and user fees Your link seems to prove the opposite. It says that Colorado has the 24th largest share of roads paid for by gas tax, tolls and user fees with 49.9% paid for in that manner. That means that only 23 states have a majority of road spending paid for by gas tax, tolls and user fees, so most states (>50%) have less than half of road spending paid for by gas tax, tolls and user fees.
- sliverstorm 9y ago(Yes, I was alluding to exactly this irony)
- nostromo 9y agoMany Tokyo rail systems are privately run, profitable, and world-class. https://www.citylab.com/amp/article/370337/ https://www.citylab.com/amp/article/370337/
- fiblye 9y agoTheir daily ridership is also many times higher than the average of pretty much any city.
- jopsen 9y agoKind of why I wish public transit was just made free.. Once the rail lines are paid for, the cost per passenger is very low. Hence, we should maximize value by making it free.
- icebraining 9y agoNow I'm wondering what a Freemium transit system would look like.
- marksomnian 9y agoCars that you have to pay to enter, which take high-speed premium routes, get given priority by signalling systems, or just plain show up more frequently?
- closeparen 9y agoEasy: sell seats to commuters who want to get work done (currently seats are allocated to those who board closest to the beginning of the line).
- thriftwy 9y agoYou could pay for Wi-Fi on trains! The system exists in Moscow and Saint Petersburg metros, you can either watch long ads or pay $2-3 monthly for ad-less Wi-Fi.
- TheCoelacanth 9y agoCharge property owners for the ability to own property near the transit stations.
- CaptainZapp 9y agoOnce the rail lines are paid for, the cost per passenger is very low This statement is patently wrong. You can't just build a rail line (plus signaling, plus other necessary infrasatructure) and then just forget about it. You also need massive capital investments into the rolling stock and all this requires significant maintenance. An argument can certainly be made if public transport should be free, but stating that the costs are low and essentially paid for once the (very expensive) infrastructure stands is just ludicrous.
- notyourday 9y agoIf a transit system is paid for or subsidized by the state then the transit system workers cannot be covered by the union. Otherwise, there's this fantastic game a union can play "We take X% of your revenue for our wages. No negotiation" and there's nothing that the other side can do.
- tomarr 9y agoAgree with the spirit but this isn't strictly true. Some in Japan do, even London will be paid for fully by fares in next couple of years as the government pulls the grant.
- chimeracoder 9y ago> It's important to note that no train system in the world is covered by fairs. They are always subsidized by the state. In most cities, fairs make up 20% ~ 30% of costs (tolls are about the same for toll roads). This is demonstrably false. There are plenty of systems where fares make up close to 100% (or even exceed 100%) of their costs with fares: https://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/gallery/Map_World%20Farebox%20Ratio.pdf https://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/gallery/Map_World%20...
- gnopgnip 9y agoThey are subsidized by the local government mostly and get some from fares. You have to consider the alternative when talking about the fare ratio though. It would either mean building more roads, or another form of public transit. So even if fares were free and the subway cost a billion a year, if it would cost more than a billion a year for roads it saves money