In the context of making comparisons, capital costs are less meaningful.
Lump sums gloss over the extent to which debt has been liquidated,
when costs are incurred, what is counted as capital (i.e., just the
tracks, or the cars too?).
On another issue, if I'm coming from Baltimore to Silver Spring (where I live),
I want the train straight into D.C., then hop on the Red Line (metro).
Don't need the Marc. Getting from New Carrollton to SS is much
more of a hassle, even if you have a car at the station.
Regarding credibility, I am second to none in my appreciation for
externalities (I haven't had time to read the Tragedy of the Commons
thread but it seemed whacked to me), but 40 - 60% of just operating
as external benefits seems way high to me. I meant the portion of
total costs of rail systems not defrayed by riders (and related operating
revenues, like advertising) is an implied external benefit to others,
justifying its finance from general revenue. But the implied level
seems high. I guess you could say if a metro system in city X shut
down, you'd have daily chaos, nothing could function, ergo the
subsidy is justified. I guess. Though with no metro, people would
have adjusted their behavior and found some way to cope, albeit
with less efficiency and higher costs.
By the way, I wouldn't be so sure that outside finance is more
progressive than fares. Don't forget, someone paying a fare is getting
something back directly. Someone paying a tax, not so much. Moreover,
regional/metropolitan systems are financed predominantly by state and local
revenues as far as taxes go, and as everyone knows those are not as progressive
as Federal taxes.
By the way, I got to using GMX web mail at work and I haven't figured
out how to get it to send a message that displays properly. I may have
to give it up, though it's faster than Verizon webmail.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jordan Hayes
> Sent: 08/28/08 05:31 pm
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Congestion pricing may not hurt the poor, study
> finds
>
> Max writes:
>
> > 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
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>