4 ms·

It is expensive because it pays for itself through fares, as I understand it this is quite rare at a global level, recovering the most of all of Europe, and muc

by reedf1 3y ago

It is expensive because it pays for itself through fares, as I understand it this is quite rare at a global level, recovering the most of all of Europe, and much more than anywhere in NA.(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farebox_recovery_ratio https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farebox_recovery_ratio)

rtkwe 3y ago
Seems like there's room for a fee cut there since they're net positive. Also public transit is a universal benefit service so IMO it makes sense for it to not be fully funded by fares alone. That structure is also a regressive tax unless fares are prorated for poorer users.
- jaymzcampbell 3y ago
  I wouldn't count on it, the current government have been giving Tfl a kicking on arguably ideological grounds (referring to our mayor, who I think on past statements would broadly agree with you). Bit hard to make such cuts and push improvements when you're on the rack. > TfL is unique compared to other transport authorities in the world in that it is mostly dependent on fares for its income. This is largely down to the fact that the Government took the decision, in 2015, to remove TfL's £700 million annual operating grant from April 2018 onwards... The Government’s punitive approach to TfL’s financial future not only jeopardises London’s economic recovery, but that of the country. Ministers know that investment in London’s transport system creates jobs and generates dividends for the rest of the country [1] https://www.london.gov.uk/tfl/tfl-funding-settlement-another-short-term-sticking-plaster https://www.london.gov.uk/tfl/tfl-funding-settlement-another...
  - rtkwe 3y ago
    UK politics astound me, you've got one of the better subways in the western world and the government is actively trying to kill it. Feels like everything since the Brexit referendum has been like a poorly coordinated orchestra trying to stop playing but it's going on for years.
    - switch007 3y ago
      Tories hate poor people. People think that’s hyperbole and inflammatory but it’s really not. Public transport is for “poor” people. Ergo, public transport isn’t important Plus at the moment they’re trying their best to leave the country in a state that for which they can spend years heavily criticising the next government (which will likely be the opposition) They’re reallocating funds to improve motoring in a vote buying spree too
      - rtkwe 3y ago
        That's a familiar pattern in the US, make problem complain about problem. The on off switch that happens with the US debt when Republicans take power and lose power is astounding.
- pasc1878 3y ago
  Well they were net positive before COVID. Then the fares crashed and needed bailing out by the central government who don't like public transport or the London mayor. The government are now much more car boosting than they were so anything that decreases the voters' perceived need to use cars or restricts their use is cut back.
- jdietrich 3y ago
  >public transit is a universal benefit service Myth. By nature of the routes they serve, trains and metro systems tend to be used disproportionately by office workers with above-average incomes. In most western countries, subsidies for trains and metros are highly regressive. Buses do tend to be used by people on below-average incomes, tend to deliver disproportionate social benefits and are richly deserving of subsidy.
  - rtkwe 3y ago
    By living in London at all you're pretty well off by default but there's still a lot of relatively low paying jobs in the city center that need to be done and I'm betting most people use whatever the London equivalent of park and ride is to get there.
  - vidarh 3y ago
    > Myth. By nature of the routes they serve, trains and metro systems tend to be used disproportionately by office workers with above-average incomes. Even if this was all there was to public transit, if you shifted all of the train and metro use onto the roads - even in buses - in a city like London it'd mean traffic would grind to a total halt. Those who don't use these systems still benefit from how they shift demand away from the roads. > Buses do tend to be used by people on below-average incomes, tend to deliver disproportionate social benefits and are richly deserving of subsidy. So in other words public transit is a universal benefit. Transit includes buses. You've delivered a good argument for considering which types of transit we subsidise at what level, not against the notion that public transit is a universal benefit. At the same time I think you're also missing something: In London at least, a not insignificant reason why the bus is used more by lower paid people is not down to routes but cost. That may not account for all of the difference, but even with the hub and spoke nature of London transport that does favour those with higher paid jobs in the centre, a large portion of routes between places not ideally placed for it will still be faster by train. As such, the problem often isn't subsidies for trains and the underground, but that the subsidies are too low to make these services financially viable for lower paid people. E.g. I live in zone 5. I know people who commute by bus from here to zone 1 because a monthly travelcard costs 267.30 for zones 1-5, while a monthly bus and tram pass costs 94.90. The effect is often a significant "time tax" on poorer people. One woman I know used to spend two hours each way on a commute that'd take her via zone 1 on the train but only take one hour each way because she couldn't afford the travel card. There are many people in that position. So by all means subsidise buses more, but that is not a reason to not consider that higher subsidies of trains and metro systems would also significantly benefit poorer people.
Lammy 3y ago
Freedom of movement provides so many personal and societal benefits that IMO it's absurd to expect transit systems to break even much less be profitable
- pasc1878 3y ago
  Unfortunately our right wing ruling party totally disagrees and has so for 60+ years. They do not want to subsidise anything.

by reedf1 3y ago

rtkwe 3y ago

Seems like there's room for a fee cut there since they're net positive. Also public transit is a universal benefit service so IMO it makes sense for it to not be fully funded by fares alone. That structure is also a regressive tax unless fares are prorated for poorer users.

jaymzcampbell 3y ago
I wouldn't count on it, the current government have been giving Tfl a kicking on arguably ideological grounds (referring to our mayor, who I think on past statements would broadly agree with you). Bit hard to make such cuts and push improvements when you're on the rack. > TfL is unique compared to other transport authorities in the world in that it is mostly dependent on fares for its income. This is largely down to the fact that the Government took the decision, in 2015, to remove TfL's £700 million annual operating grant from April 2018 onwards... The Government’s punitive approach to TfL’s financial future not only jeopardises London’s economic recovery, but that of the country. Ministers know that investment in London’s transport system creates jobs and generates dividends for the rest of the country [1] https://www.london.gov.uk/tfl/tfl-funding-settlement-another-short-term-sticking-plaster https://www.london.gov.uk/tfl/tfl-funding-settlement-another...
- rtkwe 3y ago
  UK politics astound me, you've got one of the better subways in the western world and the government is actively trying to kill it. Feels like everything since the Brexit referendum has been like a poorly coordinated orchestra trying to stop playing but it's going on for years.
  - switch007 3y ago
    Tories hate poor people. People think that’s hyperbole and inflammatory but it’s really not. Public transport is for “poor” people. Ergo, public transport isn’t important Plus at the moment they’re trying their best to leave the country in a state that for which they can spend years heavily criticising the next government (which will likely be the opposition) They’re reallocating funds to improve motoring in a vote buying spree too
    - rtkwe 3y ago
      That's a familiar pattern in the US, make problem complain about problem. The on off switch that happens with the US debt when Republicans take power and lose power is astounding.
pasc1878 3y ago
Well they were net positive before COVID. Then the fares crashed and needed bailing out by the central government who don't like public transport or the London mayor. The government are now much more car boosting than they were so anything that decreases the voters' perceived need to use cars or restricts their use is cut back.
jdietrich 3y ago
>public transit is a universal benefit service Myth. By nature of the routes they serve, trains and metro systems tend to be used disproportionately by office workers with above-average incomes. In most western countries, subsidies for trains and metros are highly regressive. Buses do tend to be used by people on below-average incomes, tend to deliver disproportionate social benefits and are richly deserving of subsidy.
- rtkwe 3y ago
  By living in London at all you're pretty well off by default but there's still a lot of relatively low paying jobs in the city center that need to be done and I'm betting most people use whatever the London equivalent of park and ride is to get there.
- vidarh 3y ago
  > Myth. By nature of the routes they serve, trains and metro systems tend to be used disproportionately by office workers with above-average incomes. Even if this was all there was to public transit, if you shifted all of the train and metro use onto the roads - even in buses - in a city like London it'd mean traffic would grind to a total halt. Those who don't use these systems still benefit from how they shift demand away from the roads. > Buses do tend to be used by people on below-average incomes, tend to deliver disproportionate social benefits and are richly deserving of subsidy. So in other words public transit is a universal benefit. Transit includes buses. You've delivered a good argument for considering which types of transit we subsidise at what level, not against the notion that public transit is a universal benefit. At the same time I think you're also missing something: In London at least, a not insignificant reason why the bus is used more by lower paid people is not down to routes but cost. That may not account for all of the difference, but even with the hub and spoke nature of London transport that does favour those with higher paid jobs in the centre, a large portion of routes between places not ideally placed for it will still be faster by train. As such, the problem often isn't subsidies for trains and the underground, but that the subsidies are too low to make these services financially viable for lower paid people. E.g. I live in zone 5. I know people who commute by bus from here to zone 1 because a monthly travelcard costs 267.30 for zones 1-5, while a monthly bus and tram pass costs 94.90. The effect is often a significant "time tax" on poorer people. One woman I know used to spend two hours each way on a commute that'd take her via zone 1 on the train but only take one hour each way because she couldn't afford the travel card. There are many people in that position. So by all means subsidise buses more, but that is not a reason to not consider that higher subsidies of trains and metro systems would also significantly benefit poorer people.

Lammy 3y ago

Freedom of movement provides so many personal and societal benefits that IMO it's absurd to expect transit systems to break even much less be profitable

pasc1878 3y ago
Unfortunately our right wing ruling party totally disagrees and has so for 60+ years. They do not want to subsidise anything.