3 ms·

This is just putting them on a similar model (user pays). Currently, a train ticket has to cover the capital and operating costs of both the vehicle (train, dri

This is just putting them on a similar model (user pays). Currently, a train ticket has to cover the capital and operating costs of both the vehicle (train, driver) and tracks. For driving, the driver pays the operating and capital cost of the vehicle only - the road budget comes out of general revenue (of the city, state, etc). Your suggestion of dropping the cost just means the transit agency would have to make up the cost elsewhere - any suggestions? General revenues backed by a tax hike? Shifting burden of track construction and maintenance fully to tax-funded?

Powdering7082 3y ago
I agree directionally, but fares only make up 23% of MTA's operating budget https://new.mta.info/budget/MTA-operating-budget-basics https://new.mta.info/budget/MTA-operating-budget-basics
- Eisenstein 3y ago
  Does that mean that reducing fares will not impact them?
  - bitvoid 3y ago
    No? They said they agreed. They were just clarifying that tickets don't fully cover the costs as implied by the parent comment.
- londons_explore 3y ago
  It is common worldwide for governments to subsidize public transit. - in this case a ~300% subsidy on the fare. However, in 'failed states', where the government presumably doesn't subsidize anything, you often find independent minibus operators zooming around town, carrying ~20 passengers each, offering in aggregate a very good public transit service, charging a few coins adding up to barely more than the fuel cost for the bus. How come poor nations and failed states can manage to provide good public transit so so much cheaper than anyone else?
  - fodkodrasz 3y ago
    > How come poor nations and failed states can manage to provide good public transit so so much cheaper than anyone else? By using badly maintained, very old vehicles, with low to no enforced standards of operations for safety. By operators exploiting themselves because of only coarsely tracked costs and low level of reserves. By not having to conform to strict schedules and not providing service in off hours, only when good business is expected. This makes the infrastructure virtually nonexistent, hurting the general economy by limiting the possibilities of those having to take these forms of public transport. By applying demand based pricing, for example when working off hours charging more to cover the running costs which are split among less users. By not working for peanuts, it is your false perception because you have far more income (and disposable income) than those who have to live on incomes local to that area. If PPP adjusted it is often quite a sum. Just to name a few factors. In general well run welfare states, or at least moderately well run authoritarian states (also having some welfare aspects many Americans would probably call communism) tend to have good public transport, for different reasons, and share taxis are generally not considered a good public transit.
    - TheCapeGreek 3y ago
      >By operators exploiting themselves because of only coarsely tracked costs and low level of reserves. Let's also not ignore outright gang/mob style affiliation of minibus transit organisations that will then also actively sabotage government public transport on their post profitable routes. These private entities in the third world fill a role, but often are also rent-seeking and carve it out for themselves from a government without the willpower to A) build proper public transit infrastructure and B) defend it from bad actors.
  - throwaway11460 3y ago
    Because their labor costs nothing. I took these minibuses a lot in Ukraine, Georgia (the country), Armenia, Russian Far East and Kazakhstan. The cars work and aren't entirely unsafe, but I bet none of them would pass western technical and emission inspection. They fix it themselves using scrap and they keep it running for 1M+ km.
- SECProto 3y ago
  Yeah, it was a huge simplification to be sure. The comment was talking about cutting his train ticket by $15, so I assumed it was more of a long distance thing - amtrack has farebox recovery of 95%
hunter2_ 3y ago
Drivers pick up some portion of the road budget through fuel tax, and NJ even recently invented a way to make EV owners pay for same in lieu of fuel tax.
- Beldin 3y ago
  Except that road maintenance is a bit more expensive than you'd think. From memory, a politician claimed a few years ago that 40 km of highway was about as much as 1 JSF (~$110mln). Let's pretend that that is a rough proxy for what maintenance of NYC's streets & public parking would cost. How often do you have to fillerup before you've spent about $100mln in fuel taxes?

Powdering7082 3y ago

I agree directionally, but fares only make up 23% of MTA's operating budget https://new.mta.info/budget/MTA-operating-budget-basics https://new.mta.info/budget/MTA-operating-budget-basics

Eisenstein 3y ago
Does that mean that reducing fares will not impact them?
- bitvoid 3y ago
  No? They said they agreed. They were just clarifying that tickets don't fully cover the costs as implied by the parent comment.
londons_explore 3y ago
It is common worldwide for governments to subsidize public transit. - in this case a ~300% subsidy on the fare. However, in 'failed states', where the government presumably doesn't subsidize anything, you often find independent minibus operators zooming around town, carrying ~20 passengers each, offering in aggregate a very good public transit service, charging a few coins adding up to barely more than the fuel cost for the bus. How come poor nations and failed states can manage to provide good public transit so so much cheaper than anyone else?
- fodkodrasz 3y ago
  > How come poor nations and failed states can manage to provide good public transit so so much cheaper than anyone else? By using badly maintained, very old vehicles, with low to no enforced standards of operations for safety. By operators exploiting themselves because of only coarsely tracked costs and low level of reserves. By not having to conform to strict schedules and not providing service in off hours, only when good business is expected. This makes the infrastructure virtually nonexistent, hurting the general economy by limiting the possibilities of those having to take these forms of public transport. By applying demand based pricing, for example when working off hours charging more to cover the running costs which are split among less users. By not working for peanuts, it is your false perception because you have far more income (and disposable income) than those who have to live on incomes local to that area. If PPP adjusted it is often quite a sum. Just to name a few factors. In general well run welfare states, or at least moderately well run authoritarian states (also having some welfare aspects many Americans would probably call communism) tend to have good public transport, for different reasons, and share taxis are generally not considered a good public transit.
  - TheCapeGreek 3y ago
    >By operators exploiting themselves because of only coarsely tracked costs and low level of reserves. Let's also not ignore outright gang/mob style affiliation of minibus transit organisations that will then also actively sabotage government public transport on their post profitable routes. These private entities in the third world fill a role, but often are also rent-seeking and carve it out for themselves from a government without the willpower to A) build proper public transit infrastructure and B) defend it from bad actors.
- throwaway11460 3y ago
  Because their labor costs nothing. I took these minibuses a lot in Ukraine, Georgia (the country), Armenia, Russian Far East and Kazakhstan. The cars work and aren't entirely unsafe, but I bet none of them would pass western technical and emission inspection. They fix it themselves using scrap and they keep it running for 1M+ km.
SECProto 3y ago
Yeah, it was a huge simplification to be sure. The comment was talking about cutting his train ticket by $15, so I assumed it was more of a long distance thing - amtrack has farebox recovery of 95%

hunter2_ 3y ago

Drivers pick up some portion of the road budget through fuel tax, and NJ even recently invented a way to make EV owners pay for same in lieu of fuel tax.

Beldin 3y ago
Except that road maintenance is a bit more expensive than you'd think. From memory, a politician claimed a few years ago that 40 km of highway was about as much as 1 JSF (~$110mln). Let's pretend that that is a rough proxy for what maintenance of NYC's streets & public parking would cost. How often do you have to fillerup before you've spent about $100mln in fuel taxes?