4 ms·
>”Are the fees there to actually provide a meaningful portion of the funding, or just to make rich people who don’t use public transit feel like it’s more fair
by BuyMyBitcoins 4y ago
>”Are the fees there to actually provide a meaningful portion of the funding, or just to make rich people who don’t use public transit feel like it’s more fair because the poor people don’t get to ride for free?”
It is entirely the first reason - mass transit is not cheap and fares help alleviate the burden of the subsidy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farebox_recovery_ratio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farebox_recovery_ratio
- tshaddox 4y agoRecovery rates are almost all under 20% in the US, and these numbers don’t even incorporate the cost of selling tickets and ticket enforcement or the costs of the initial builds and expansions (which are almost entirely paid for by the taxpayer).
- BuyMyBitcoins 4y agoThat’s still a significant amount of money, even though it’s under 20% of the total operating cost. For most of the entries in that article it covers tens of millions of dollars. I don’t think the cost of issuing tickets and enforcement is that significant compared to how much money collecting fares brings in. It certainly doesn’t seem like something that is done at a loss or something that barely breaks even.
- tshaddox 4y agoIt's not nothing, but if the goal is to turn a profit it's nowhere close. On the other hand, if the goal is to get more people riding public transit, I'd want to look into how removing fees might help that goal.