3 ms·

So great. In Memphis, TN, I have tried for years to convince our transit authority MATA and our downtown commission DMC to make our light rail (ahem, historic t

So great. In Memphis, TN, I have tried for years to convince our transit authority MATA and our downtown commission DMC to make our light rail (ahem, historic trolley) free, on the following basis: MATA covers 1/7th of its overall opex from fare boxes revenue. The trolleys bring in approximately $700k in a good year. Why even bother with funds control and ticketing services at that point? The direct benefit of increased visitor and resident mobility far exceed the cost and could _easily_ be made up for from hotel occupancy tax or myriad other sources. Instead, the city focuses on a convoluted and expensive parking garage scheme that is mainly an inhibitor, while still losing money on the mass transit. My lobbying is always met with "heh, how are you planning to pay for that plan!" and all the mechanisms I point to will take some amount of work and political will to shift around, notwithstanding the same sources that currently pay for the remaining 6/7ths of opex. if anyone has constructive new ideas for me to sell the idea, I can be in the mayor's, MATA GM's, and DMC's Pres' office next week to pitch it. end rant.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
mmt 8y ago
When the revenue is that small a percentage of the operating expense, I have to wonder what the incremental cost is of that revenue. Do you happen to know? Modern fare collection systems can be expensive boondoggles in their own right. That likely doesn't apply to a historic trolley, but you mentioned ticketing services, and even one annual salary is a hefty proportion of that $700k.
- ethagknight 8y ago
  I’m an armchair transit specialist, and I do not know specifically, but generally, it would seem the cost for each additional passenger on a transit system follows a step function such that n + 1 < $0.01 until you hit ‘capacity’, a loosely defined term at which point the next passenger causes losses (congestion and delay boarding and disembarking). In a properly running system, the fixed costs dramatically outweigh the additional burden of each passenger, in the same way that the bus engine hardly noticed the additional weight of another 170 lb passenger relative to the 40,000 lb bus. Even with consumables like ticketing, the whole revenue system far outweighs the increment.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

mmt 8y ago

When the revenue is that small a percentage of the operating expense, I have to wonder what the incremental cost is of that revenue. Do you happen to know? Modern fare collection systems can be expensive boondoggles in their own right. That likely doesn't apply to a historic trolley, but you mentioned ticketing services, and even one annual salary is a hefty proportion of that $700k.

ethagknight 8y ago
I’m an armchair transit specialist, and I do not know specifically, but generally, it would seem the cost for each additional passenger on a transit system follows a step function such that n + 1 < $0.01 until you hit ‘capacity’, a loosely defined term at which point the next passenger causes losses (congestion and delay boarding and disembarking). In a properly running system, the fixed costs dramatically outweigh the additional burden of each passenger, in the same way that the bus engine hardly noticed the additional weight of another 170 lb passenger relative to the 40,000 lb bus. Even with consumables like ticketing, the whole revenue system far outweighs the increment.