4 ms·

Even if it's free to use they should keep monitoring 'profitability' of every lines, e.g. by assigning a value to each passenger to pay for the upkeep of the li

Even if it's free to use they should keep monitoring 'profitability' of every lines, e.g. by assigning a value to each passenger to pay for the upkeep of the line.

bko 8y ago
And then what? In NYC at least the subway and ferry service is very inefficient by pretty much any measure, and that's why they're constantly running in the red. The problem is there is no real feedback, instead they just lobby for more subsidies and higher prices. If there were some kind of feedback, they would prob improve efficiency like reducing service to outer boroughs or charging more for those, stopping ferry service as that's a huge money sink, reduce head count and maybe restructure pension obligations. Instead they're putting usb ports in trains
- entity345 8y ago
  You're missing the point. There is feedback: usage stats. Public transport is already heavily subsidised in most European cities. One of the aim is to cut car use, not to specifically balance the books of just public transports. The issue is thus to avoid using taxpayers' money to finance lines that run mostly empty.
  - bobthepanda 8y ago
    If people are driving in, is cost what’s stopping them? At least in the US public transport riders have lower incomes than those who do not.
    - y4mi 8y ago
      I can only speak for myself, but I would've used the train if it hadn't been just as expensive and less convenient than the car 3 yrs ago. Now I'm living in biking distance from work and sold my car entirely. This is coming from Germany though, so ymmv
    - vladvasiliu 8y ago
      Probably not. However, having free public transportation will actually reduce operating costs: no need to maintain all the infrastructure (and people) needed for selling and checking transit passes. This can improve passenger flow (I live in Paris, and turnstyles are a major pain during rush hour) and passenger convenience. In the case of Paris, traffic is positively horrible, and parking is even worse of a joke. Yet there are people who still prefer driving and who don't even come from the suburbs (where public transit may be somewhat lacking). The reason is clearly one of convenience which means that this should be taken into account by the authorities if they really want people to drive less (which is the official policy here).
      - bobthepanda 8y ago
        I agree that passenger convenience is extremely important. Part of passenger convenience is the ability to be able to use the train for its base purpose, to get on the vehicle that gets you from A to B. My concern is that free transit would lead to an insatiable amount of travel demand, which we already see with free roads that magically fill up the moment expansions open. A free train is useless if you can't board it. And even with Paris's ambitious plans to expand transit there probably wouldn't be enough capacity, and even that new capacity is only scheduled to come online in a few years' time, since you can't increase buses and trains available instantly.
        vladvasiliu 8y ago
        It's true that new capacity generates new demand, however I think there are some limits. When the monthly pass pricing became flat, it was way cheaper for people living far in the suburbs to come to Paris proper. I don't have any numbers, but I don't have the impression that people started coming in in much greater numbers. In the case of Paris, public transit is already insufficient during peak times. I'm sure most people who don't already take it have reasons other than the price, meaning that if it were free there wouldn't be a significant rise in traffic. However, I think that all the money spent on the ticketing system could help improve the general reliability which in turn would help provide more capacity. This would probable incite more people to take public transport which could help the transport authority obtain more funding from the region government. As in Paris the transport authority is already heavily subsidized, I think it would be interesting to have to some numbers on how much tickets bring in vs how much the whole ticketing infrastructure costs.
- tormeh 8y ago
  If I remember correctly, the reason they're not profitable is that their budget is regularly requisitioned to pay for political boondoggles not really related to the metro service at all. It's not that public transport is a bad idea, it's that assholes will be assholes, and the public purse is annoyingly easy to spend on obvious bullshit and political bacon. I wonder if there's a way to structure these things so they're more resistant to these shenanigans.
  - Scipio_Afri 8y ago
    Relevant article: 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-... "[...] the problems plaguing the subway did not suddenly sweep over the city like a tornado or a flood. They were years in the making, and they might have been avoided if decision makers had put the interests of train riders and daily operations ahead of flashy projects and financial gimmicks. An examination by The New York Times reveals in stark terms how the needs of the aging, overburdened system have grown while city and state politicians have consistently steered money away from addressing them." "Century-old tunnels and track routes are crumbling, but The Times found that the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s budget for subway maintenance has barely changed, when adjusted for inflation, from what it was 25 years ago. Signal problems and car equipment failures occur twice as frequently as a decade ago, but hundreds of mechanic positions have been cut because there is not enough money to pay them — even though the average total compensation for subway managers has grown to well over $200,000 a year." "None of this happened on its own. It was the result of a series of decisions by both Republican and Democratic politicians — governors from George E. Pataki to Mr. Cuomo and mayors from Rudolph W. Giuliani to Bill de Blasio. Each of them cut the subway’s budget or co-opted it for their own priorities. They stripped a combined $1.5 billion from the M.T.A. by repeatedly diverting tax revenues earmarked for the subways and also by demanding large payments for financial advice, I.T. help and other services that transit leaders say the authority could have done without. They pressured the M.T.A. to spend billions of dollars on opulent station makeovers and other projects that did nothing to boost service or reliability, while leaving the actual movement of trains to rely on a 1930s-era signal system with fraying, cloth-covered cables. They saddled the M.T.A. with debt and engineered a deal with creditors that brought in quick cash but locked the authority into paying $5 billion in interest that it otherwise never would have had to pay."

Even if it's free to use they should keep monitoring 'profitability' of every lines, e.g. by assigning a value to each passenger to pay for the upkeep of the line.

bko 8y ago

And then what? In NYC at least the subway and ferry service is very inefficient by pretty much any measure, and that's why they're constantly running in the red. The problem is there is no real feedback, instead they just lobby for more subsidies and higher prices. If there were some kind of feedback, they would prob improve efficiency like reducing service to outer boroughs or charging more for those, stopping ferry service as that's a huge money sink, reduce head count and maybe restructure pension obligations. Instead they're putting usb ports in trains

entity345 8y ago
You're missing the point. There is feedback: usage stats. Public transport is already heavily subsidised in most European cities. One of the aim is to cut car use, not to specifically balance the books of just public transports. The issue is thus to avoid using taxpayers' money to finance lines that run mostly empty.
- bobthepanda 8y ago
  If people are driving in, is cost what’s stopping them? At least in the US public transport riders have lower incomes than those who do not.
  - y4mi 8y ago
    I can only speak for myself, but I would've used the train if it hadn't been just as expensive and less convenient than the car 3 yrs ago. Now I'm living in biking distance from work and sold my car entirely. This is coming from Germany though, so ymmv
  - vladvasiliu 8y ago
    Probably not. However, having free public transportation will actually reduce operating costs: no need to maintain all the infrastructure (and people) needed for selling and checking transit passes. This can improve passenger flow (I live in Paris, and turnstyles are a major pain during rush hour) and passenger convenience. In the case of Paris, traffic is positively horrible, and parking is even worse of a joke. Yet there are people who still prefer driving and who don't even come from the suburbs (where public transit may be somewhat lacking). The reason is clearly one of convenience which means that this should be taken into account by the authorities if they really want people to drive less (which is the official policy here).
    - bobthepanda 8y ago
      I agree that passenger convenience is extremely important. Part of passenger convenience is the ability to be able to use the train for its base purpose, to get on the vehicle that gets you from A to B. My concern is that free transit would lead to an insatiable amount of travel demand, which we already see with free roads that magically fill up the moment expansions open. A free train is useless if you can't board it. And even with Paris's ambitious plans to expand transit there probably wouldn't be enough capacity, and even that new capacity is only scheduled to come online in a few years' time, since you can't increase buses and trains available instantly.
      - vladvasiliu 8y ago
        It's true that new capacity generates new demand, however I think there are some limits. When the monthly pass pricing became flat, it was way cheaper for people living far in the suburbs to come to Paris proper. I don't have any numbers, but I don't have the impression that people started coming in in much greater numbers. In the case of Paris, public transit is already insufficient during peak times. I'm sure most people who don't already take it have reasons other than the price, meaning that if it were free there wouldn't be a significant rise in traffic. However, I think that all the money spent on the ticketing system could help improve the general reliability which in turn would help provide more capacity. This would probable incite more people to take public transport which could help the transport authority obtain more funding from the region government. As in Paris the transport authority is already heavily subsidized, I think it would be interesting to have to some numbers on how much tickets bring in vs how much the whole ticketing infrastructure costs.
tormeh 8y ago
If I remember correctly, the reason they're not profitable is that their budget is regularly requisitioned to pay for political boondoggles not really related to the metro service at all. It's not that public transport is a bad idea, it's that assholes will be assholes, and the public purse is annoyingly easy to spend on obvious bullshit and political bacon. I wonder if there's a way to structure these things so they're more resistant to these shenanigans.
- Scipio_Afri 8y ago
  Relevant article: 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-... "[...] the problems plaguing the subway did not suddenly sweep over the city like a tornado or a flood. They were years in the making, and they might have been avoided if decision makers had put the interests of train riders and daily operations ahead of flashy projects and financial gimmicks. An examination by The New York Times reveals in stark terms how the needs of the aging, overburdened system have grown while city and state politicians have consistently steered money away from addressing them." "Century-old tunnels and track routes are crumbling, but The Times found that the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s budget for subway maintenance has barely changed, when adjusted for inflation, from what it was 25 years ago. Signal problems and car equipment failures occur twice as frequently as a decade ago, but hundreds of mechanic positions have been cut because there is not enough money to pay them — even though the average total compensation for subway managers has grown to well over $200,000 a year." "None of this happened on its own. It was the result of a series of decisions by both Republican and Democratic politicians — governors from George E. Pataki to Mr. Cuomo and mayors from Rudolph W. Giuliani to Bill de Blasio. Each of them cut the subway’s budget or co-opted it for their own priorities. They stripped a combined $1.5 billion from the M.T.A. by repeatedly diverting tax revenues earmarked for the subways and also by demanding large payments for financial advice, I.T. help and other services that transit leaders say the authority could have done without. They pressured the M.T.A. to spend billions of dollars on opulent station makeovers and other projects that did nothing to boost service or reliability, while leaving the actual movement of trains to rely on a 1930s-era signal system with fraying, cloth-covered cables. They saddled the M.T.A. with debt and engineered a deal with creditors that brought in quick cash but locked the authority into paying $5 billion in interest that it otherwise never would have had to pay."