10 Transit Services That Do Huge Numbers At the Farebox
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 сен 2024
- Farebox Recovery Ratio is the proportion of operating costs that transit agencies recoup from fares alone. Today we're looking at the ten US transit services (by mode) that perform the best -- and also, the one that does the very worst!
----------
Get a Lifetime Nebula Membership for $300 in September 2023 only! It's an amazing way to support what I'm doing: go.nebula.tv/l...
Or, use my link for 40% off an annual subscription: go.nebula.tv/c...
----------
Patreon - a way to directly support continuing CityNerd output! Thanks to all who have signed up so far.
/ citynerd
----------
Instagram: @nerd4cities
BlueSky: @nerd4cities
Mastodon: @nerd4cities@mstdn.social
Threads: @nerd4cities
Twitter: @nerd4cities
----------
Previous CityNerd Videos Referenced:
- The 10 Busiest Ferry Services in North America! • Transit On the Water: ...
----------
Resources:
- 2019 National Transit Database data: www.transit.do...
----------
Images
- DC Metro Gallery Place station By Dr. Blazer - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, commons.wikime...
- Chi Loop By Daniel Schwen - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, commons.wikime...
- Loop Junction By I, Daniel Schwen, CC BY-SA 3.0, commons.wikime...
- NJ Transit By AEMoreira042281 - self-made (all photos), CC BY-SA 3.0, commons.wikime...
- PATH train By Trevor Logan.Fan Railer at English Wikipedia.Later version(s) were uploaded by Beao at English Wikipedia. - "Photos by Trevor Logan/www.ttmg.org", CC BY-SA 3.0, commons.wikime...
- SEPTA heavy rail By Ben Schumin - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, commons.wikime...
- SEPTA regional rail By Dough4872 - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, commons.wikime...
- SEPTA streetcar By studio34 from Philadelphia - Flickr, CC BY 2.0, commons.wikime...
- SEPTA bus By GK tramrunner RU - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, commons.wikime...
- NJ T commuter rail By Michael Barera, CC BY-SA 4.0, commons.wikime...
- MBTA loco By Lexcie - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, commons.wikime...
- Caltrain By DF4D-0070 - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, commons.wikime...
- BART in southern SF By Pi.1415926535 - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, commons.wikime...
- BART at 19th St By Pi.1415926535 - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, commons.wikime...
- BART viaduct near Walnut Creek By Pi.1415926535 - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, commons.wikime...
- BART at SFO By Stilfehler - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, commons.wikime...
- MBTA Green Line By Adam E. Moreira - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, commons.wikime...
- MBTA Silver Line By Jason Lawrence from New York - MBTA New Flyer XDE60, CC BY 2.0, commons.wikime...
- MBTA Line 77 By Pi.1415926535 - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, commons.wikime...
- PATH turnstiles By TFSyndicate - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, commons.wikime...
----------
Music:
CityNerd background: Caipirinha in Hawaii by Carmen María and Edu Espinal (RUclips music library)
----------
Business Inquiries: thecitynerd@nebula.tv
Hey! Look no further, because this is the comment you've been looking for, the one that will CHANGE YOUR LIFE (well, probably not): the Nebula Lifetime Membership is an extremely helpful way to support what I do with the channel, if you care about such things, and you can get it for $300 IN SEPTEMBER 2023 ONLY! go.nebula.tv/lifetime?ref=citynerd
Or, use my link for 40% off an annual subscription -- it's still a good deal too! go.nebula.tv/citynerd
I've noticed a huge increase in fare evasion since the pandemic in NYC. People now open the emergency exit door and riders just stream in by the dozens. Some people hold the door open asking for spare change, which they usually don't get. At my station, someone keeps breaking the door closer and one of the doors stayed wide open for over two weeks. Stupid me keeps buying the monthly card and swiping.
Indifference and corruption is why New Yorkers can't have anything nice.
Only Hong Kong metro managed to make a profit. and there is a reason for that. 99.9% of metros in the world are subsidized or can only afford the costs of running them. even though it has allowed advertisers to advertise products on walls and inside trains. Metro construction costs cannot be covered.
Hong Kong metro is supported by a cage house in Hong Kong. the impact on population density 2km from the station is very high
I'd be interested in seeing a video comparing the costs of maintaining highways to maintaining various forms of transit networks
That's incomparable.
@@yaroslavkobezskyi Why? They could be compared on a cost per person-mile per year or something.
There is a lot of material online showing the real cost of highway construction and maintenance, and those numbers are not even nearly close to public transportation costs of any kind. The yearly cost of maintaining a highway network in a metro area is usually much higher than a decade-long rail development construction plan. We are talking about transit paying for itself, but there is barely even an option like that for roads. That sort of video will become obvious from the first minute. It's sad that society still needs an education on that.
I agree, we need more honesty in this not less
I'd be interested to see a video or article comparing the maintenance cost of roadways vs. the money brought in by gas taxes, which are meant to cover those costs. Does it come close?
The MBTA being number one here is a great illustration of the fact that a high recovery rate does not necessarily result in a well run or maintained transit system...
I might be biased because I've never had to ride the Red Line (...well, I tried once, but the train was parked at the station for 10 minutes with no ETA on leaving) but I do feel like Bostonians could benefit from trying out the transit offerings out west, particularly the Midwest.
My first adult commute involved a twice-an-hour-at-weekday-rush-hour bus that arrived at my stop 10 minutes early or 15 minutes late more often than it was within 5 minutes of "on time". I've set a low bar, sure, but the MBTA handily clears it.
The one problem with high farebox recovery ratio is that it makes ridership death spirals worse. When the amount of service you can run depends on the number of passengers you're getting, transit systems end up in situations where the number of passengers decreases, so they cut service, so the passengers leave, so they cut service, ... until the service sucks. That's definitely changed my opinion on whether high farebox recovery is a good thing or not. It's not really a simple answer.
Yep, that's exactly what's happening with BART. Since downtown SF has been so slow to recover from the pandemic and office workers switching to remote work, ridership is way down and thus BART has been extremely strapped for cash.
That only happens if the agency is incompetent though, so only in north america
I'm a DC transplant living in Boston and wow...The T making number 1 on this list just shows how much money they could put into the entire system. Comparing the DC metro and the T is even farther than night and day, if that's possible. Thanks, love the video!
As a current DC resident, this video hurt a bit. Both the fare cost and operating costs for the T are half that of DC.
The problem is that the state legislature decided to make the T pay off the debts for the Big Dig project that put I-93 underground through Downtown Boston 20 years ago. That's right, they're using mass transit to subsidize highways.
Is the DC metro bad?
@@jackanapes1492 much better that the T, fare costs and operating costs are higher than Boston and it really shows. Stations are much larger and cleaner. The cars are much nicer, and the frequency of service is also much better. I'd say, the thing the T has going for it is the extensive light rail and regional rail network that DC lacks.
@@tylerjump2409 thanks! I’m moving to DC within the next year, so this is good to hear. I debated between Boston and DC and worried I picked wrong lol
You have Robert Moses to thank for dependence on the Ferry (and the automobile) for commuting, to and from Staten Island as he nixed a plan to carry the SIRT tracks over the Verrazano Bridge he was constructing
IKR, but then again who the heck would stomach a 90 minute one way ride on a typical NYC subway car twice every damn work day?
@@trainluvrliterally everyone from the Bronx does that. Even those in South Brooklyn and Far Rockaway do that. It’s not that serious
@@trainluvrliterally middle and high schoolers do it everyday they would have been ok
I always wondered why MTA never built tracks with that bridge to get too Staten island easier. Also, I feel a lotw hanging fruit would be connecting Staten Island to NJ and Newark Airport with a bus
i hope you’ve read that gargantuan book (if not, it will take you so long, but it’s a good read)
Such a good video, nothing gets me excited like farebox recovery ratio discussions!
Least nerdy Public Transit affectionate
Or cross-platform transfers!
LOL for always good north America RM transit channel
Even the fact that transit could recover expenses or even bring profit compared to highways.
Just need to throw in a Vancouver skytrain automation comparison to make it a classic RMTransit video!
Speaking of subscriber recovery ratio, congrats on 200k! 🎉
I’m unsurprised that the MBTA’s heavy rail topped the list. Now if only the MBTA wasn’t saddled with the debt from the Big Dig that put I-90 underground maybe it could actually improve other services and expand…
The T has a lot of problems right now
@@ecurewitzMBTA heavy rail isn't the T though
@@truedarklander Yes it is. The MBTA's light rail, tram and trolley services are the 'T' too. I used to live from Boston and grew up there so I should know.
you're not from boston. the big dig put 93 under ground not the pike.(90). also the mass pike tolls were installed to "cover the big dig costs" but obviously left in place as the big dig was an absolute sham. mbta debt has nothing to do with the big dig, but everything to do with shit leadership (liberals) and the fact that passenger railroads are not profitable in this country, hence why every passenger rail system is government funded.
The Massachusetts legislature, to its lasting shame, decided to cripple the public transit system and use it to subsidize a highway through downtown Boston. Low-income urban residents are paying to make it easier for suburbanites to drive their SUVs through the city.
It’s interesting to see how high fare box recovery is in systems with “rampant fare dodging.” Really shows money should be invested in improving service and attracting more riders than making sure a few hundred extra people out of hundred of thousands to millions pay their $2 each day
You're absolutely right. Transit is so highly politicized that it can't avoid these issues just by hiring new leadership, either. The moral panic over transit being profitable will always be there.
People want to talk about fare dodging, so better to redirect their attention to the fare dodging that motorists are engaging in by obscuring their license plates in order to avoid paying for automated tolls and traffic offenses.
The irony is that at least in some cities, New York is supposedly one of them, they spend more in fare enforcement than the team brings in in unpaid fares. I could be wrong, but I think San Francisco is the same.
So true. DC is dealing with that right now, with WMATA redesigning Metro faregates and having transit police in most stations to discourage fare evasion. Meanwhile our buses have become defacto shuttles with only about 10% of riders actually paying their fare. WMATA staff (station managers, bus drivers) have been explicitly told not to confront fare evaders because of the possibility of assault, which has happened.
@@anthonydelfino6171 You're right about San Francisco as well. Even when considering fines for not paying a fare, the 10-12 fare enforcement officers cost much more than they bring in.
However, San Francisco's SFMTA/Muni is "weak" example because it has been mostly funded with public tax revenues / grants for decades. The share of revenue from farebox has been 13-18% for the past several decades.
That being said, it's much higher than all other Bay Area county transit agencies. Pre-pandemic, Caltrain and BART "boasted" excellent farebox recovery.
I always thought it was funny how public services that charge money will have their profitability questioned, while "free" public services remain unquestioned. Should public transit and USPS, which charge you each time you use it, turn a profit? I don't know, should your local library, park, public school, and freeway, which are all "free", also turn a profit?
EDIT: I see my wording confused a lot of people. I was asking these questions rhetorically, because the answer is clearly *No, public services shouldn't be expected to turn a profit.* But there is this weird societal phenomenon where services that charge a fare or fee, like public transit and the postal service, always have their "profitability" questioned. In contrast, services that are free at the point of use, like freeways and parks, are never questioned. It just shows a deep misunderstanding of what a public service is, and a culture so focused on making profits that we can't have nice things.
For profit schools? The jury came back on that decades ago, they're no better than free schools and oftentimes worse. It's just easier to hide their failures on paper.
I would guess it works in a similar way.
But I pay 3 different types of taxes for using the streets.
So I at least wouldn'T call it free serviceses.
I think in the USA it should make a profit.
In my imagination you are very anti social.
It can't be that something is paid for by the general public.
Just like health care, the users of streets or rail ways should pay for all costs.
There’s a difference between paying general taxes for something and a direct user fee for something. General taxes pay for the libraries, they don’t always pay for transit.
Please stop the free roads BS. It only shows there’s no point in talking to you.
You have a point but conservatives have been trying to gut USPS for years and with the attention libraries have been getting about "woke" books I'm sure their lack of profitability will be the next talking point.
New City Nerd video = instant like.
The City of New York owes the residents of Staten Island free service on the Ferry as compensation for as you pointed out lack of connection to the subway and as part of the "One City, One Fare" System it had to go.
Maybe to encourage certain minorities to get out of Manhattan 😏
But the thing is many Staten Islanders particularly those who don’t want certain people in Staten Island, don’t want any direct transit connecting Brooklyn which would be easier. Some go as far as saying they don’t want it connected to Manhattan either. They chose to instead clog the bqe everyday and give all of us in Brooklyn and Manhattan lung cancer with their Ford explorer suvs.
Related to the issue of transit paying for itself, I'd love to see a video on the economic stimulus of certain transit projects. I know projections get thrown around a lot for various projects, but a deep dive into how those estimates are calculated and how accurate they are would be amazing.
There's a whole consulting industry devoted to analyzing the economic development benefits of highway projects, or some EXTREMELY CYNICAL people would say, inventing economic stimulus estimates that support whatever it is the car-dependency cartel had already decided it wanted to do in the first place
@@CityNerd Ohh even better: a comparison of the economic stimulus of highway vs. rail projects! I'm sure there are inherent flaws with comparing something that was created to something that was never created, but I have infinite faith in your CSV-based abilities.
Makes political freinds rich
An anti car person
Mile of road makes more money the 10 miles of public transit
Here in Los Angeles (LA Metro specifically), our farebox recovery ratio is very low. We charge low fares relative to other US cities and have a lot of programs to incentivize ridership through low/no fare. The agency is actually totally cool with that, though. During the pandemic our budget ran into far fewer issues than BART, with a very high farebox recovery ratio, because ridership dipped across the board. There's something to be said for not relying on ridership for funding, at least.
this is the big upside to the "if we build it, they will ride" mindset, which is how all public transit should be
Yeah I was going to say something like this. Transit should be ran as a public service, not a traditional business. Farebox revenue is way too fickle to rely on, not to mention equity issues
That's true. It still has to have some mimimal fare rate to protect itself from poor government decisions.
@@yaroslavkobezskyi a poor government decision is relying on the farebox to determine how you build your system.
@@MrTaxiRob
Can't argue that. Public transit should not be designed to be profitable, but to solve as many commute and logistics challenges as possible. My point was that it should not be completely free and it should not be profitable at the same time, small fare won't hurt. It's an investment for drivers. And if it's something you pay for you will be a more careful user. Certain group of people like children, elderly, disabled, veterans, single parents should use it for free or at least with discount, of course.
Shared transit should “pay for itself” as soon as roads, power lines, water and sewer lines, public schools, the FDA, USDA, FAA, the military, and every legislative body “pay for itself”.
Power lines, water lines, and sewer lines do pay for themselves. Some roads pay for themselves through gas taxes or tolls.
The FDA, USDA, and FAA largely pay for themselves by charging fees to people who use their services.
We haven't gotten around to charging other countries fees to use our military so unfortunately that doesn't work
Power lines, water and sewer lines, FAA are paid for by users. And also toll roads.
@@robertewalt7789 But shared transit is held to a different standard of user fares as opposed to roads.
People who use roads benefit from shared transit even if they never use it because it reduces congestion. Every developed country except the US understands this.
@@jmlinden7While it varies by state, gas taxes, tolls, and other user fees typically don’t even make up the majority of spending that goes towards road maintenance. And as cars become increasingly fuel efficient, those taxes continue to contribute less and less to the overall costs.
@@jmlinden7 To be fair, in my country you've only recently been lucky enough for people to more or less forget that you have military bases here at all. Just up the road from me is a building with "U.S.A. murderers" still neatly lettered in white paint against the black basalt of the foundations.
Takeaway, it’s crazy that boston hasn’t invested more in its heavy and light rail even though it’s one of the most profitable in the nation. The slow zones over the past few months are ridiculous
lol, it's "profitable" because they neglect to continually invest in the system. I believe the red line still has cars from the 1960s in its fleet?
A lot of this is going to change with the new wage increases they just passed down last month. Drivers and inspectors are going to be getting like a 20% pay increase or something like that, which I'm sure will eat a lot into this.
They really need to invest more though. So many opportunities to expand the red/orange lines, but instead they chose a green line expansion, and are electrifying bus fleets instead of adding additional heavy rail. Capital costs are obviously higher, but they need to think about the long term: heavy rail is faster, cheaper (to operate) and has more demand than bus and light rail.
Seriously. Even the Red Line is one long slow zone these days. In the spring, CBS did a story about the Red Line averaging 35 minutes for 7 stops (6 miles), and it's gotten a lot worse since then. Most people can bike 6 miles in under 35 minutes.
I think I read once that Hong Kong's subway turns a profit. A lot of it has to do with ridership. They zone things to have density at the stations, and so it's much more convenient to ride transit than drive. Additionally, everything works (elevators, escalators, the rolling stock, etc), and it super clean and well maintained.
MTR is more of a real estate company than a transit operator, which is why it turns a profit
It specifically doesn't come from FBRR that's the whole point
Only Hong Kong metro managed to make a profit. and there is a reason for that. 99.9% of metros in the world are subsidized or can only afford the costs of running them. even though it has allowed advertisers to advertise products on walls and inside trains. Metro construction costs cannot be covered.
Hong Kong metro is supported by a cage house in Hong Kong. the impact on population density 2km from the station is very high
@@carkawalakhatulistiwa A lot of of metros around the world have a farebox recovery above one, especially in Asia but also e.g. London. But yes, capital expenses are usually subsidized.
4:21 RE are fares regressive since they're the same - yes, HOWEVER I'd argue that in the US they're less regressive than other countries because they're typically the same price no matter how far you ride. In Australia for example, if you take the train one stop it's much cheaper than if you take the train 10 stops. This sounds great in theory, but in reality it punishes poor people who typically live further from the center of town and have longer commutes.
What you're saying is true, unless you have a good welfare system that helps those who cannot afford it.
If you add to it a healthy urban structure that instead of low density sprawls there are actual higher density mixed use cities and towns less people commute long distances as they have plenty of of opportunities nearby.
If you're going to have public transit compete with vehicles, it should be free to users. Here in Oakland, CA everyone is waiting for the next shoe to drop with BART's fare deficit threatening to crater their operations. Caltrans never said all roads and freeways to be shut down because pandemic meant fewer cars on the road.
Well then it would need to be fully tax subsidized to make a fair comparison, not run by subcontractors etc. I mean, eventually I use all the gas in my tank, I don't pocket the value of unburned gas which is what transit subcontractors like Veolia are essentially doing.
I agree. A fareless transit system would help entice people to choose transit over driving. There have been whispers and rumors of making the LA Metro free to all passengers. I don't know how accurate the number is, but I heard that fares only account for about 10% of their operating costs.
@@MrTaxiRobthe only reason subcontractors are needed in the first place is we demand it be run like a business
@@BastiatC you can leave me out of that "we" thank you very much. And frankly I don't agree, I think it's politicians specifically; and they're not just telling their base what they want to hear, but telling their base what they should want to begin with. The masses are fairly spineless.
if you want to be left out of that "we" it's your local rep you need to be talking to, not me.@@MrTaxiRob
The city comparison at the end is absolutely worth watching every minute of this video.
While it does help that a transit agency can recover most of its operating costs through fares, it can lead to issues when ridership decreases, like we have seen post-COVID. One example is BART and CalTrain, which have not come close to pre-COVID levels as many businesses moved out of San Francisco during COVID (or at least had a higher percentage of remote workers), and some other factors too. The agencies needed extra funding from the State of California as COVID relief money expired and they were not able to recoup their costs through fare revenue compared to pre-COVID, and without it they were in danger of having to reduce service significantly. I'm not sure if other agencies in California (like LA Metro and Metrolink) were facing similar dangers since they are not as dependent on fare revenue.
Obviously, we shouldn't expect them to make a profit since they are a public good, and there should be funding from the local governments anyway. But that is one downside of depending heavily on fare revenue to support your operations.
To be fair here, the businesses that moved out of the Bay Area weren't San Francisco based, many were further south in Silicon Valley, so Muni Metro wasn't AS impacted by it. What did impact us here was the change of many jobs to permanent work from home, the reduction of service (leading more people to rely on ridesharing) and that one of the major light rail into subway lines being taken offline for renovation in 2020, and isn't scheduled to resume service until 2025.
That said, though, I think last I saw San Francisco spends more on fare enforcement than the department brings in in revenue, and their efforts seem to be mostly centralized around only a few blocks of the city. So making Muni free to ride and paid for through other means, such as business taxation (since the businesses definitely benefit from having mass transit bring customers to them) and maybe a small tax on residents would be better for the system overall.
I was really surprised San Diego is on this list because of a topic that wasn't really covered in this video, fare evasion. In my experience living in SD, most light rail stations don't have fare gates or people enforcing people swiping on to the trolley, so tons of people just ride for free. I'd be curious as to your thoughts on fare evasion and enforcement in general, although that might need a whole separate video
IRRC pre-pandemic the unpaid fare rate was around 3%.
The vast majority of light rail systems in the US do not have faregates, so yes, San Diego struggles with fare evasion, but it's not alone in this regard.
Fare enforcement is a tricky one since the "solutions" don't fully stop it, slow down service, and cost money. For stops without a full station, the only real option is having everyone scan/pay on entry at the door, which means the train has to stop while people fumble through their pockets and wallets. For rail networks with dedicated stations, turnstyles and cameras do a decent job and getting the majority of people to pay without slowing down the train's schedule, but for street service you have to weigh the pros and cons.
Fare beating is a non issue. It generally costs more to police and enforce fares than to do nothing. And involving the cops necessarily leads to unnecessary violence, so just no
I agree. Fare evasion is a big problem. Maybe that's why bart is so high on the list because they have a really good system to pay before you board and the system requires you to verify your destination as you leave the station. Los Angeles "on your honor" system just encourage fare evasion. Homeless and mental patients are riding the system just to get out of the weather.
As others have noted, it would be really interesting for you to also do the ratio of user fees (gas tax, registration, tolls) to operating expenses for automobile infrastructure. I assume it's under .50 in most cases, but I have no idea really. Maybe divide total VMT by 10 to get an estimate for # of trips to compare the per-trip cost with transit?
You can't compare that. In the public transport numbers all costs are added up. The train cars/busses, maintenance, drivers wages. You would have to compare uber/taxi fairs + road costs, to make them equal. Or at least all costs that come with owning a car, like depreciation, insurance, maintenance, fees + taxes.
Cost 20 a day to run a car
5 to use public transit
Lmao love BART ranked #2 on the list with the $0.72 recoup but still being perpetually on the edge of financial crisis
For politicians trying to fully privatize it, everything is a crisis.
@@dylanwinn3 Makes sense, but in a better world that shouldn't have to be an issue for public transit. As a wise commenter on this video said, "The best farebox recovery ratio is the one that produces the highest ridership"!
This also reminds me again of the Hong Kong Metro and their funding method. They just get to be landlords. Which I know is kind of a contentious issue, but the fact that they get to charge rent for all of the prime real estate they create by existing in their own stations is a pretty clever way to make your transit agency profitable, even if it is basically just feudalism again. Honestly, I'd rather have feudalism paying for trains than knights, but what do I know?
Honestly, I’d love for NY to experiment with this policy. But knowing the grip landlords have on this city, that’ll never happen.
a) not feudalism.
b) it's largely commercial developments not residential.
c) I'd rather have a long time metro service landlord that will give you a 5-10 year lease on a set inflation linked index to increase rents than some dodgy buy to let chancer who will price gouge you or chuck you out.
@@mytimetravellingdog Right, rather than stores paying rent to the landlord who owns the mall, and landlord paying property taxes to the government, you have stores paying rent to the government agency who owns the mall. Not feudalism.
Which means unpopular fares and taxes for transit can be lower, and the voters don't even think about the funding. Seems great. We should do it everywhere.
I did get a YT video suggested to me from Bianca Graulau looking at how the same US car centrism took over Puerto Rico, and touching on a little bit of bike and transit service. Well worth a watch.
Her video was fantastic but some of the comments are awful!
@@discocycle I am not surprised, but it's still always disappointing when people leave terrible comments
The best farebox recovery ratio is the one that produces the highest ridership. It's hard to know what that is, though.
Low-income riders who truly need it can get subsidies, as they do in NYC, the Bay, and (I assume) other cities as well.
It also seems to be higher with higher rider capacity. In Boston and Philadelphia he showed that heavy rail > light rail > bus, which makes sense because you're able to take more and more people per trip.
In a rational world it would be free at the point of service, because it would be clean, efficient, safe, frequent, timely, well maintained, and go to most of the places that most of the people want to go most of the time. In addition to all the money it would save, more money would be saved by not having to collecting transit fares.
It would also give many people the dignity of not having to receive a government subsidy to meet their daily transportation needs.
@@barryrobbins7694 Cutting fares to zero means you get less service, lower quality service, and smaller networks than you would with some farebox recovery. Arguing that fare revenue can be replaced with subsidy misses the point. If you can get the local government(s) to subsidize transit to the tune of $x per year, then your choice is to either set the fare at zero and provide exactly as much service and network expansion as $x per year will buy you, or set the fare above zero, collect $y per year at the farebox, and provide as much service as $x+$y per year will buy you.
This is why the best, most expansive networks in the world (London, NY, Paris, Seoul, Tokyo, Moscow, Mexico City) all charge fares, while the Kansas City streetcar is free.
You SHOULD make a video about outliers of farebox recovery, especially of routes or agencies that have valuable lessons they can teach larger agencies.
Hey Mr Nerd,
I recently saw your tweet comparing the size of the Midwest/ Great Lakes region to Spain and arguing for HSR within that region. As a Chicagoan and Spanish-American, I would be really interested in seeing a series that compares Spain HSR city pair scores to the Midwest. I know you did a video already on Chicago's HSR scores with other Midwest cities, but I would be interested to see how they compare to Spain's city pairs.
Also congrats on 200K! Keep up the good work, you're one of my favorite content creators.
Woah this is a really good idea!
So there are a couple of old videos from him that are similar to this concept still! Also holy cow his recording quality has gotten so much better... Good work @City Nerd. In descending relevance to your idea:
Comparing rail in US vs Spain in general: ruclips.net/video/wfxJhX8Y4QI/видео.html
Comparing various transportation options between city pairs in the US and in a variety of other countries: ruclips.net/video/HKcWCV9WbYI/видео.html
Best pairs for HSR in the US: ruclips.net/video/pwgZfZxzuQU/видео.html
Agree that it would be a cool video, just highlighting ones I remember watching that were variations on that theme!
I really wish you covered Canada (but it makes sense given your dataset). We have some impressive lines like the vancouver skytrain (which is heavily automated) and the TTC (which purportedly recovers 80% of it's expenses system wide) and I think they deserve mention, or at least I'd like to see how they stack up.
Great Video!
Toronto's TTC and (particularly!) Montreal's Metro were wonderful during my trips to those cities.
Yeah I was missing that too, apparently system wide Translink managed 47-54% fare recovery before the pandemic, pretty reasonable overall and likely substantially propped up by Skytrain. I suspect that by the time the broadway and langley extensions open we'll push past 60%.
As of this week, BART is attempting to only run 6 car trains for efficiency.
Would have loved to have seen a discussion of what is happening to different high fare box ratio agencies with the mass move to work from home, and a larger discussion of the future of transit funding. Outside a few examples, states are largely refusing to step in and fill operating gaps, and the US faces a mass loss of public transit unless something changes.
Caltrain is kinda crazy because it completes the ring around the SF Bay area vs. BART, but there are some pretty significant differences though. If you ask any regular Caltrain rider, they much prefer it to BART (and with the new electric train sets coming next year, it will be even nicer) because it isn't filled with people defecating/urinating on the seats or who look like they'll mug you. A big difference though is that it costs significantly more to go an equivalent amount of distance, which is why its farebox recovery is so high.
The question then becomes: who are you actually building transit for, and why are you building it? Is it for mobility of people who couldn't normally afford a car? Is it to alleviate congestion on the freeways? Both points of view are pretty car-centric.
Farebox Recovery Ratio is *politically* good for sure, as in much of the country most arguments against transit are really just yells of "socialism" and a high farebox ratio will quell that a bit, but I'd say it is even more good to set fares so as to maximize, or at least optimize, ridership. I'm sure Ayn Rand with spin in her grave for me saying it, but turning a profit shouldn't be the goal of everything in the world.
Your Philly/Boston fan comparison killed me, great video as always!
I think one important part is the fare system i.e. flat rate, distance-based, zone-based, demand based, or some combination
People bring up Tokyo, Hong Kong, London, and even Rotterdam but forget to mention that those are either distance or zone based
A lot of the flat rate fares systems tend to have lower FbRR than the zone or distance based ones
I'd add a few observations to your post. (Note that I'm not disagreeing--just adding to the conversation.) Flat-rate systems have the advantage of faster/easier egress since riders do not have to "punch out" when leaving the system. That's an enormous advantage of the New York City subway, for example. When hundreds of people get off of a train in Manhattan, they simply leave without queuing up to calculate their distance/fare. Also of note, the same NYC subway is one of the highest FbRR ratios on this list even though they are flat-rate.
Again, you make excellent points, and I'm raising these additional points here in furtherance of the discussion, not to push back on you.
London is zone based when it comes to oyster, stay out of zone 1 and your fine.
Up here in rest of UK there is schemes of flat rates currently with a cap of 2 quid.
Can you do a video talking about the urbanism of the few car-free/mostly car free areas of the US and how they can act as blueprints for other US towns and cities? (Mackinac Island, Fire Island, Catalina, etc.)
This is sort of an obvious idea that...I didn't have on my topic list at all. Wild. Thanks!
@@CityNerd I took a vacation on Mackinac Island just to get away from cars and ride a bicycle and walk. Everywhere on Mackinac Island Its is very expensive so I stayed in a hotel on the mainland and just walked to where I took the ferry to the island since I didn’t want the expense to rent a car, most people don’t do that though, but I value my health to walk and it’s less stressful for me to figure out.
Pretty interesting list! Was not expecting the MBTA to make the list not only once, but twice! Seeing the Green Line split off makes it make a lot more sense though, as it has the shortest trains and the easiest to "accidentally" miss fare collection (looking at you GLX...)
The comment you made at 5:50 with respect to capital costs not being included makes me wonder what the best ROI transit systems are. I mostly agree with the point that turning a profit isn't the point for public transit, but being able to compare all-in costs for bus vs street/light/heavy rail over time would make for a pretty interesting comparison that could go a long way in understanding if city decisions for where to focus expansion efforts make any sort of sense.
I was surprised too, given all the problems it has. Maybe if they spent money on those problems, they wouldn’t be number one on this list
I wonder where Canadian systems would fare on this list? They tend to have higher ridership per capita and I thought GO and TTC were the least subsidized transit agencies in North America.
I live in Boston area, and yeah, MBTA is falling apart. They are putting way more money into it this year with a new tax, and more transportation oriented state government. But yeah the system was probably affordable under last administration (Charlie Baker) but it also fell into incredible disrepair. The data from this year would probably show a lot more money being put into the system, even though it is still slow and ugly from past decisions
I think a lot of systems across the country could be accused of the same things. For the past several decades, our society has been loath to spend money on infrastructure or public works. Transit agencies are notoriously underfunded. Sure, we can get into the debate out mismanagement of funds, but it's disingenuous not to consider both sides of that equation.
What's your opinion on distance-based fares? I would love to see you make a video about this.
not a big fan tbh. They complicate things for passengers.
could work though complicated.
more so for short distance trips like with busses and trams.
Just a tad off-topic but I live in the DC region and grew up in Boston. What amazes me about the DC metro is how extravagant it is. Huge long trains with few riders in beautiful and lavish specialized subway stations, a far cry from, for instance, Boston's C line with center street stops, shorter trains with more riders. DC must be so inefficient. I'd like to see a comparison of the "fairbox" efficiency of various subway systems.
worlds are colliding! CityNerd and RMTransit are my two fav channels
NY is a surprise! A public service shouldn't be necessarily profitable mostly if it has other benefits to the public like transit clearly has, in addition to the environmental benefits.
Given the amount of complaining regarding fare evasion in NYC, I would’ve expected it to be lower on the least.
@@Jorge-lh6px the irony is, at least the last time I looked into it, NYC fare enforcement brings in less revenue than it takes to run the department. So making the transit free, or free for residents of the city, would be better than trying to force people to pay. The system could easily be supported on a small tax on businesses who benefit the most from having customers brought to them, or maybe a small income tax on the residents.
Seeing how it ended up all rail, it might be interesting to see what a fare might be if the trip cost were adjusted down to match the ratio something like a bus by the same agency. Maybe that would induce more demand for passenger rail?
For the curious, the ad on the Santa Monica Metro E Line was for a mobile game called Fate/Grand Order, a spin off from the Fate/Stay Night series.
I learned something today that is video-adjacent. I had no idea the Staten Island Ferry stopped carrying cars after 9/11. I went to college in the 1970s in NYC, where I had never been before, after growing up in a rural area in the south. My parents were eager for me to like it in the big city, so we spent the night in Staten Island and first thing in the morning took our car over on the ferry to lower Manhattan. It was a brilliant idea, having the magical entry into the city, seeing that beautiful view from on deck. I've never forgotten it. What was ferry cost recovery like when they did carry cars?. I have no idea what we were charged that day being an oblivious college student-to-be. We did pay walk on fares when I was in college--I think it was a nickel?
I think pedestrian was more like $0.25 in the 1970’s, when I used it.
@@robertewalt7789 I guess I was being nostalgic! I think maybe 25 cents RT? Anyway, cheap! Do you have any idea what the car fare was?
Your usual great posting. But kudos for the "paw de deux" at the end.
I saw where you compared all modes of transit in other cities like New York. However, Chicago's El is the only one on this list when you have CTA for city bus, Pace for Suburban Bus, and Metra for regional rail. I am curious as to the Farebox Recovery Ratio for Metra and Pace. With Metra, I know certain lines get more traffic than others.
Metra Ridership Data: metra.com/sites/default/files/inline-files/July%202023%20Ridership%20Trends%20Memo.pdf
CTA, Metra and Pace all have to adhere to the 50% ratio or higher because of state law
As other comments have pointed out I would've loved to see how these numbers compare with farebox recovery ratios of transit systems in other parts of the world. Perhaps another video where you do a ranking of the biggest transit systems globally? I say this because in Toronto where I'm from I hardly see people pay fares on streetcars or buses but in Seoul where I visited I haven't seen a single person not pay the fares. I even saw a stumbling drunk person who didn't know where they were still remember to pay the bus fare. I suspect a mix of cultural pressures and fare pricing ($3.00+ vs. $1.00+) make up some of the differences between the number of fare dodgers in East Asia and NA.
but Toronto also has the strongest farebox recovery ratio of any city in NA
I’m seeing a growing number of people against 15 minutes cities and high density, high walkability area. I’d like to see a video on why that might be
BART is a heavy rail system with commuter rail pricing. Unfortunately, it does not accept transfers from the other transit systems in the Bay Area while those systems absorb discounts for passengers which are transferring from BART.
The MBTA Commuter Rail is also stupidly expensive to ride. A trip from Boston's South Station to Providence on the Commuter Rail is $12.25 one-way. Amtrak travels along the same route and you can get Northeast Regional tickets often under $10 if you book ahead. NER is much faster too.
Yeah it really sucks that it's so expensive AND it doesn't run late. I can't tell you the # of times I went to a concert in Boston and HAD to drive because round trip for 4 people costs $100 AND the last train leaves at 11:30!! Of course we'd all rather take the train and be able to drink, etc but we get shoehorned into driving.
Love the video! I'd love to see a video with similar metrics but with post-covid data. I know BART / Caltrain have seen huge declines in farebox recovery ratio due to remote work (as well as most other agencies in the US). It would be interesting to see a top 10 list comparing ridership recovery metrics from pre to post covid, to see which agencies are recovering the best / how they've been able to do that.
BART has suffered a lot for several reasons. Yes, of course, remote work is taking its toll on all systems nationwide. However, BART is also fighting the public perception that the only ones riding are troublemakers and folks are legitimately fearful to be in an enclosed space without access to help or to escape. It doesn't seem like BART is hearing those concerns--or at least they're not doing anything about it as the problem escalates.
@@ajs11201 it really does not help BART that you can't board a train without having to hear someone having a public freakout
@@ajs11201the proposed solution to the problem (short term) is stronger fare gates to, at the very least dissuade rampant fare evasion. Many question the effectiveness of this approach.
The long term, less punitive solution is ideally improve mental healthcare and drug epidemic problems in this country so much that these incidents rarely occur.... which, you know, would be wonderful 🙃 the polar ice caps will be long gone by then at this rate
Rail/transit to me is one of those things you buy for the utility, rather than to treat it as a sellable commodity that you constantly and anxiously hope to "flip" for a profit (Chicago's parking meters anyone?) or see as a must-be-a-cash-cow; a public service if you must. It would be nice if it could make a profit, but as long as it's not dying everyday it is valuable. Conversely it might be difficult to quantify the value that transit provides; certain things like saved car trips or related investments stemming from transit (development, commercial activity) could be something that can be estimated, but in terms of additional mobility, improvement in quality of life, that seems to be a difficult number to pin down. I know my mom keeps talking about how the Taipei metro system is losing money every year, although it is a robust system that has been expanding, and the benefits are difficult to pin down as aforementioned.
Whether anyone else recognized this is irrelevant to my comment, because seeing Sir Mix-a-Lot Beepers in the background was so Swass. When I moved to Seattle in 2005, went to Broadway, and realized I was at the spot, Dick’s Drive-in. Anyway, enjoying your videos!
Ok, I LOLed at "just asking questions" about the MBTA Red Line.
If you included Japan on the list, you'd be looking at >2x recovery ratios. Meaning they make double in fares compared to their costs, and it works well and is affordable.
Wow, 200.000 subs! Congrats!
This is a great topic and well executed. I'd be interested in how these numbers compare internationally. That might provide some insight on cultural perspectives -- how, for example, the history of more concentrated population centers of Europe and more available mass-transit have historically made trains a go-to choice within and between cities and government subsidies for ongoing operations less unpopular. But back in the US, the table is seriously tilted until we get honest about subsidies to oil companies, which distorts the true costs of delivering a gallon of gas to a car, and if translated to what we pay at the pump (more in line with per-gallon prices in Europe -- or per liter as the case may be), would trigger a huge shift in popularity for alternative mass-transit options. Or would it? Perhaps you have some more informed insight.
Well, first of all, 'subsidies for oil companies' isn't why gasoline is so cheap in the U.S. -- it's the lack of extremely high fuel taxes. In France, for example, the per gallon taxes are something like $2.75/gallon. Second, when fuel gets really expensive (as it has at times in the past), Americans have shown that they are willing to switch to higher efficiency vehicles rather than giving up driving. And of course now there are hybrid and EV options. The problem for mass-transit advocates in the US is convincing enough of their fellow Americans to *want* to travel this way. That's a heavy lift -- one that's made heavier by widespread work-from-home (far less of the commuting that transit does best) and also by ever-smarter autopilot/smart cruise control systems that make driving less annoying (if I get stuck in stop and go traffic now -- which is thankfully rare for me -- the car basically does everything. It follows the car in front of me, starting and stopping as needed and stays in the lane).
I seem to remember that in the 1980s, the TTC (Toronto Transit Commission) used to publicly pride itself on how much of its money came from the fare box. They stopped trumpeting that claim by the late 1990s.
10:53 “MBTA light rail” presumably also includes the Red Line Mattapan trolley in addition to the green line. Interesting to see that get differentiated since, locally, people group them together as the “T” (and they use the same fare system), and the commuter rail is the only rail service that gets properly differentiated.
The Newark City Subway (NJ) used to be the only US passenger line to sustain costs. This was before Warrington's attempts with Amtrak, for which he was fired - but the NEC emerged strong. Lumped in with the Hudson Bergen Light Rail Line, it's hard to tell which service provides the bulk of that 15% return, but expect it's "Newark Light Rail" because it used to be quite busy when it was called a subway. (The bed of the Morris Canal was used for its right-of-way, starting in 1936.) When NJ Transit took over they decided to revive it, by adding five big grade grade crossings to the 3.4-mile line which had only one to begin with - located right by a station with a synchronized traffic light. They added some mileage too - about one mile at the north end, if you don't count the massive number of now disused tracks for storage, testing, whatever, accessed by way of an acute-angle curve all located in the middle of a 60-foot-wide street, whence it sidles through a 3.5 percent grade up an embankment to the otherwise disused tracks - a BEAUTIFUL two-track line, with high-arch styliized bridges through and English-style park. The line's running to seed, and you can't make the Lackawanna Cutoff to Scranton work at all without that line. And of course, with it, you could get to downtown Montclair in less than twenty minutes, rather than the current fastest time, 45 minutes, which leaves you at a more out-of-the-way station. The Cutoff's bridges are less beautiful than the ones through this park acreage, and falling apart. I don't care if i ever runs again, but I'm tellin' 'em about it, to no avail. The humorous part is descending from this rail embankment. NJ Transit's Princeton-schooled engineers have a sense of humor, but you can't tell if they're joking or not, especially when it's etched in stone and steel. The entire construction and expansion ran about a $Billion in 1994 dollars - and when they built the downtown part - in the middle of the main street - they went through a grade crossing elimination district, which they considered notable enough to include in their 4(f) musings. (The FONSI appeared shortly after.) They did finally get their wheel lathe though, though I think they stopped using it pretty early on - at least it sounds like it. Could be the square wheels make for better traction. It used to cost a dollar before this... revision of NJ Transit's. The one in Jersey City's worse - they have a lot of fatalities, and no one rides the thing in the city - it's more a regional rail service now. They should bury the part in the city. Both cities.
I'm interested on the calculations on the fare per trip values. Every transportation option in Boston besides the commuter rail is $2.40 per trip (and you barely save anything with monthly passes). This would bring them well above their operating costs for heavy rail.
I mean it's just total fares divided by number of trips. I guess different modes have different levels of free and reduced fare riders (ex $1.10 for subway reduced fare, which can be obtained by the elderly, disabled, some students, and low income youth). Though it's curious that the BRT has a lower average fare than the normal bus (guess it's close enough to be explained by random variation).
I thought about that too but even if 50% of people were paying the reduced fair it would still be around $1.75 per trip? idk the numbers just aren't adding up to me@@findmeinthefuture.
@@findmeinthefuture. probably the Silver Line going to the airport where there are no fares imposed because IIRC Massport provides funding to the T to run it there
mind. boggled. It takes the red line 22 minutes to go 4 miles with a frequency of 11 minutes at rush hour (next trains being 20 and 22 minutes away). To see it at the top of this makes it look and feel even more hopeless. Thanks for another great video!
What municipalities need to understand is that you have to look at the output from an individual’s trip. Riders spend money or make money at their destination which is way more than the amount of a single fair.
LOL on "MBTA could spend some of this extremely high fare recovery on Red Line maintenance?". That could apply to Orange line too.
Would love to see my metro trains not catch on fire.
The Staten Island Ferry fare was 5c until 1975, long after the subway fare had risen several times. It was 25c round trip until 1990, then 50c round trip until 1997, then free to this day.
I was on the NJ Transit bus today and, man, there are SO MANY BUSES all day and all night. They really cover almost every inch of most towns to get them to NYC.
What a difference a century makes! Toronto's plans for a Subway started as early as 1900's but due to the Great Depression & WWII. The TTC's profits largely allowed Toronto to pay for the first leg of the Yonge St. subway with a small amount from Ontario & nothing from the Canadian Government. It was the fare box that largely paid for the subway.
Congratulations on your RUclips award. Thank you for the engaging topics.
Honestly pretty surprising. I would think NYC metro area systems would all be dishonorable mentions since fare evasion and operating costs are such political flashpoints, but I guess half a billion to run the PATH, for example, is barely anything compared to such a huge revenue.
That said, low farebox recovery on the MBTA and NJT light rails makes so much sense. There is basically no collection mechanism at any street level stops to the point where you might be forgiven for thinking theyre free services at first glance. I'm surprised the Green Line isn't even lower tbh.
Same with Cleveland RTA Rapid Transit. I now ride it regularly to the airport after living in San Diego for 20+ years, and there is basically zero fare enforcement to the point that it is a de facto free service.
Watching your videos continues to be a great use of MY time! Thanks for all your hard work. A PR trip is definitely in order.
If you had planned the Google street view slightly more during that shot of he Armitage station, you would have seen the Chicago Bagel Authority. I highly recommend it and it’s one of the things I miss most about living in Chicago
Congrats on 200K!
It should be noted that, as of this week, Bart will be reducing its train car lengths to 6, and it’s time table from 30 minutes to 20 minutes.
I noticed you had Boston light rail (Green Line) as 2x the operating cost of heavy. I'm not sure how many staff ride a T train, but even 3 (which I'd heard) would be one person per 2 cars; 2 (1 per 3) would be more reasonable (driver and door conductor.)
The Green Line runs with one staff per car! Even when it's two cars linked together, each one has someone sitting in front to collect fares and open the doors.
I went to that place in the first shot in Ft Lauderdale (unless its a similar place in Miami). Going on the canals is truly a lovely experience.
Ray I think your voice is helping my hangover.
That San Diego trolley is an unofficial venue for Comic-Con programming. I remember George RR Martin talking about a newly minted deal he made with HBO about his little book series in 2009. He had the entire car raising their hands asking questions lol.
I used to live in Staten Island and took the ferry every day. It's the only way I could get to work in the city without a car. There were also busses, but they had to go over the Verazano bridge to Brooklyn, rather than straight to Manhattan. The ferry is only 30 mins.
Little surprising to see the T at #1 here. It’s a mess. In fact, a few weeks ago I went to Cambridge with a friend and specifically avoided the red line because of not only the problems with the trains themselves but the ceiling has been falling from the Harvard T stop. Took the bus from the green street garage instead
Interesting to see that for q few of the cities (Boston and Philly, maybe others) the opex is above the nominal fare cost. Don’t know if the data exists but would be cool to analyze the factors the go into the actual fare per trip (transfers, evasion, discounts, monthly passes, etc.)
I'd love a video about US transit systems that have gone fare free! Personally I think transit should always be free, at least if you're staying within a city
I have to disagree. Transit is not free in any western European country (which are more progressive than the US), so I don't see why the US needs to have free transit. In fact, transit fares comprise a greater share of the average daily wage in western Europe than in most US cities. Unfortunately free transit (or any public resource) results in a tragedy of the commons.
@@prateekbhattacharya5067 Transit fares comprising a greater share of the average daily wage in W Europe than most US cities doesn't address the fact that for many people in those W European cities, car ownership is dramatically lower than in US cities. Cars are a financial anchor chained to the neck of most American city dwellers, as well as the cities they live in which must provide an outsized amount of parking and driving infrastructure to accommodate it.
What's the trajedy, that more people ride it? Then it's avoiding more car trips, which is exactly what it's intended for
I’m happy for poor and disabled and elderly people to ride the bus for free. The full fare is a bargain for me.
@@FameyFamous It isn't free for them here, but I disagree with the idea that some people can get anything cheaper or for free.
If staff costs are big part of operating costs how does the Vancouver Skytrain system (driverless cars) compare
Staff costs include line and car maintenance. Driverless doesn't mean labor-less..
I would be interested in seeing a comparison of costs for a high speed rail project in TX or CA compared to the highway projects / maintenance projects that state DOTs justify every year. It’s really crazy we don’t have HSR in the US and it can’t actually be that more expensive than the current system of car dependency.
Hey! Just wanted to add something to your video! I work for a transit agency in the Washington DC Metropolitan Region, so it was cool to see our area be mentioned in the video!
Washington DC is currently in the process of installing new anti-fare evasion gates. Gates are currently in testing at Fort Totten and Court House. If fully implemented, I would expect to see our farebox recovery ratio crack the top 10.
Another thing, Washington DC is currently facing a budget shortfall of $750 Million. They do not have a reliable source of funding for operations and maintenance expenses. (They have a separate fund for capital projects that is fully funded, but that money cannot legally be used for O&M). That is another reason they are looking to improve the farebox recovery ratio to be more in line with other systems like the CTA or MTA.
Bought Nebula Lifetime *purely* because of you. I watch all your videos on YT Premium on multiple accounts. And now Nebula.
You're great. Always want more!
Thanks for creating content.
Major changes coming to BART, including new gates to cut down on fare evasion. They have discontinued ten car trains as of this Monday 09/11/23. They also have discontinued the old cars that were responsible for the majority of breakdowns and expense to maintain. BART has also increased their hours and frequency. I got a video from last Sunday of one of the last trains with those old cars which I suddenly miss now with their dirty upholstery and unsettling smell, as I exited my train from the East Bay into the 16/ Mission station
Toronto Calling! TTC (bus, trolley, light rail and heavy rail clmbined) approx 80% and GO Transit regional rail 82%. And we’re the ones paying all the HiGh TaXeS.
Irrelevant, I really like your content, but love the glimpses into some of my cities LA & PDX. What's always surprised me is how your videos seem to come directly from the questions in my head. Thanks for doing all this work!!
I had #1 spoiled for me from a comment on Twitter, but it still surprises me. I haven't been back there for like 4 years, and I heard service has gotten a lot more unreliable, but in my time there I noted how the cars were awfully squeaky cars, and a lot of stations were dingy looking. Service was alright, there were occasional delays but it seemed to be operating normally 90% of the time. I always had the feeling that the fare was unusually expensive, but I had no comparison to make since I had never used another subway/metro before. So it surprises me that they can recover so much operating cost, yet it doesn't feel any more premium than other subways featured on your channel
Idea for a video: a full discussion on free public transit and when it might or might not work
When PATCO opened it had near 100 pct recovery. One person operation and unstaffed stations played a big role in that. I'll bet TTC had a pretty high ratio as well once upon.
I used to ride the Sprinter in San Diego down to Mexico all the time. The conductor would hang out the door and high five me as the train came out of the station every time. It is silly but we discussed it and decided to try it and I wasn't pulled on to the tracks so we started doing it all the time.
That guy was cool and it just goes to show that there are also pleasant experiences and memories people make on public transportation!
The final scene suspense... is overwhelming!
as a NYC tourist i went on the staten island ferry and it was very nice indeed.
I'm so suprised seeing NYC Subway in the top three let alone this list at all. It feels like only half the people actually pay the fare ever, complaining about how its not worth it but still using it because in their hearts they know its literally better than driving around or biking from across half the city.
5:44 it’s worth noting that the PATH is run by the Port Authority, not NJ Transit , although it doesn’t change the math at all.
Idea (and thanks for the shoutout in the last video):
A two-way top-10 video looking at three NTD fixed guideway statistics.
NTD has statics for fixed guideway miles for each system as well as "train hours" operated. So you don't get a bonus for operating longer trains: a 4-car train every 5 minutes is the same as an 8-car train every 10 in "vehicle hours" but twice as good in "train hours." So one metric is "train hours per fixed guideway mile" or "what agency uses its guideways most intensely." Since most costs are fixed, operating more shorter trains is just the cost of additional labor, the rest remains the same, but agencies definitely take different strategies here.
Then you can also take train miles per train hours to get an idea of average speed of services. There are some surprises here!
Both metrics are good to break out by mode, perhaps a top 10 overall and then three modal honorable mentions if applicable, or something. And there are definitely some dishonorable mentions! The slowest light rail systems would be a particularly depressing list.
I have crunched these numbers and happy to share, shoot me a PM somewhere (I even check twitter DMs every so often).