U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-09-2014, 07:08 PM
 
Location: In the heights
22,142 posts, read 23,668,851 times
Reputation: 11622

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by choo_choo_train_lol View Post
Nearly empty buses are a lot more common than full ones, at least in the cities I've lived in.
Well, if the calculation has it being ten times more cost-effective in terms of just fuel used, then a bus with an average of 5 people would be the break-even point which would feel pretty empty.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
Define walking distance.

I would say that most Americans live in places where their daily needs could not be met by a convenient walking distance of 1/4 mile or even 1/2 a mile. While It's true that I could go to the convenience store, there's nothing else within 1/2 a mile. The nearest shopping center is just outside that distance and has nothing I ever go to in it. Nearest regular supermarket is over a mile. You could walk there, but not conveniently. I do my shopping at Winco which is over four miles away. I save more money driving there than I would walking to the Raley's that's just over a mile away.
Sounds about right. For things to be walking distance, it'd probably require some retooling of where we place retail, jobs, and residences in a lot of places in the US. If we do get to the point where fuel does become prohibitively expensive, then there will probably be more impetus for municipalities to do a bit of rezoning.

For the topic at hand, it's important to note that all of those profitable systems are in places that have high population densities near their stations and are very large cities (Singapore being the smallest of them at 5 million something people). Other similarities are the systems being all fairly extensive, though that was obviously not always the case, and the cost of car ownership in pretty much every facet is quite expensive.

Another similarity among them, but not directly related to farebox recovery, is that they are generally done through development corporations that often own the development rights on top of the stations. This allows them to directly feed off the profits that developing a major amenity gives--something that is far less common outside of East Asia. It's odd because having a rapid transit station greatly increases property values and subsequently the amount of property (and even sales) taxes that get generated, but these are almost never fed directly back into the system for most cities. Instead, most systems must wheedle out more money due to this or that budget shortfall where it has to plead for more money when that system basically doesn't directly get the fruits of its work. The East Asian systems don't go as far as having legislation where they automatically get a cut from taxes gained, but they seem to do fine without it anyhow.

The distance-based fare also seems to be a common string, though I'm not sure it's strictly necessary. I think TTC in Toronto will likely reach at least 100% farebox recovery ratio within our lifetimes despite being flat fare.

I'm curious as to whether or not pension payments are included within operating expenses for US systems.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-09-2014, 07:13 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,989 posts, read 41,979,923 times
Reputation: 14805
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler View Post
The distance-based fare also seems to be a common string, though I'm not sure it's strictly necessary. I think TTC in Toronto will likely reach at least 100% farebox recovery ratio within our lifetimes despite being flat fare.
Just rail or bus? Toronto gets a lot of riders from bus to subway transfers, so it's hard to exclude one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2014, 07:32 PM
 
Location: In the heights
22,142 posts, read 23,668,851 times
Reputation: 11622
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Just rail or bus? Toronto gets a lot of riders from bus to subway transfers, so it's hard to exclude one.
Both, it's TTC. Doesn't include commuter rail and a few bus lines operated by GO transit which does do distance-based and has a slightly higher farebox recovery ratio. Toronto seems to be experiencing a large population growth and much of it is vertical and near existing transit lines so it looks like things are in the up and up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top