> The highest [farebox recovery] rate is about 60%.
In the US, true. BART is relatively high ~56% (though this is misleading; only ~30% of operations are paid for with tax money, since another 14% of their revenue is generated by advertising, etc.). As I think Wojtek would approve of, the commuter lines typically have higher recovery rates (and higher average incomes of riders). Urban bus routes are lowest; SF Muni (for instance), and Wojtek's own MTA hover around 25%.
This should make him happy, since a lower farebox recovery rate is "more progressive," given that the majority of tax money raised (and thus used) is progressive. This seems at odds with his earlier posting, but okay. For the record, I'm all for low farebox recovery rates because they are mostly an inefficient way to pay for things like infrastructure, but again I digress.
---
Other things I noticed:
In MTA's Media Guide, they say this about costs:
Operations: $506M Capital: $151M Total: $657M
And revenues:
Fares: $111M Federal: $123M State: $411M Misc: $ 5M
And then for Farebox Recovery:
Baltimore (bus, Metro, Light Rail): 32% Washington (commuter bus) 34% MARC Train 56%
... which seems quite a bit wrong. Their average recovery is one of:
a) 111/657 = 16.8% b) (111+5)/657 = 17.6% c) 111/506 = 21.9% d) (111+5)/506 = 22.9%
depending on whether you include non-fare revenue and whether you look at just operations or operations and capital expenditures. Where they got these other numbers is suspicious; I wonder if they subtracted out administrative overhead when calculating the costs for each of these modes ...
As for the color of the faces on the bus, they have survey data that says that 73% of their local bus riders are black. 18% white.
Another curiosity: the example route he gave was Baltimore to Silver Spring. These two stations are on different (commuter train, FWIW, the highest "white" mode) lines: Silver Spring is on the MARC "Brunswick" line which terminates in Washington, DC. Getting there first (by heading the opposite direction) is likely the cause of the higher transit cost. You could say the same with the trip from Paris/CDG to Goussainville, requiring a trip into Gare du Nord before heading back out to the suburbs again.
---
Just north of the border, Toronto's "GO" system accomplishes an astounding 90% farebox recovery these days. But it's Japan that really has it going on: Tokyo Metro recovers 170% :-)
Back to Max:
> That still leaves capital costs. The implied benefit to non-riders
> is ginormous
>
> and not credible.
Well, that's a loaded statement if I ever saw one; nice typography, too.
Can you talk a bit about why capital costs aren't a credible benefit?
/jordan