Farebox recovery ratio
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The farebox recovery ratio of a passenger transportation system is the proportion of the amount of revenue generated through fares by its paying customers as a fraction of the cost of its total operating expenses. Most systems aren't self-supporting, so advertising revenue and government subsidies are usually required to cover costs. The Hong Kong MTR Corporation is one of the few self-supporting transit systems in the world.
[edit] Need for Government Subsidy
There are several practical reasons for government subsidies of public transit. By subsidizing mass transit, it encourages ridership and subsequently lowers traffic congestion. Another benefit is lowering pollution from single occupant vehicles that are no longer on the roads. The third benefit is reducing infrastructure costs needed to build and maintain more street, highway, and freeway lanes associated with increased traffic congestion. These factors considered together also contribute to a better quality of life as defined by global quality of living measurements.<ref>http://www.mercerhr.com/summary.jhtml?idContent=1173370>Mercer Human Resources Consulting QOL Reports c2005</ref>
[edit] Farebox ratios around the world
The following table lists farebox ratios for some public transportation systems around the world.
| System | Ratio | Year |
|---|---|---|
| Europe | ||
| Brussels | 28% | 1991<ref name="shoji">http://www.jrtr.net/jrtr29/pdf/f12_sho.pdf</ref> |
| Copenhagen | 52% | 1991<ref name="shoji" /> |
| London Underground | 84% | 1991<ref name="shoji" /> |
| Milan | 28% | 1991<ref name="shoji" /> |
| Munich | 42% | 1991<ref name="shoji" /> |
| RATP (Paris) | 43% | 1991<ref name="shoji" /> |
| Stockholm | 30% | 1991<ref name="shoji" /> |
| Vienna | 50% | 1991<ref name="shoji" /> |
| Zurich | 66% | 1991<ref name="shoji" /> |
| Japan | ||
| Osaka (Hankyu Railway) | 123% | 1991<ref name="shoji" /> |
| Osaka (OMTB) | 137% | 1991<ref name="shoji" /> |
| Teito RTA (now Tokyo Metro) | 170% | 1991<ref name="shoji" /> |
| North America | ||
| Atlanta (MARTA) | 39.2% | 2002<ref name="railway_age">http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1215/is_7_205/ai_n6150069</ref> |
| Bay Area (BART) | 56% | 2005<ref name="bart_ar">http://www.bart.gov/docs/AR2005.txt BART 2005 Annual Report</ref> |
| Chicago (CTA) | 44.3% | 2002<ref name="railway_age" /> |
| Cleveland (GCRTA) | 21.5% | 2002<ref name="railway_age" /> |
| Los Angeles (LACMTA) | 30.6% | 2004<ref name="Standard_&_Poors">http://www.mta.net/about_us/finance/pdf/sandp2004.htm Standard & Poors Credit Rating 2004</ref> |
| Maryland (MTA) | 26.3% | 2002<ref name="railway_age" /> |
| Massachusetts Bay (MBTA) | 43.7% | 2002<ref name="railway_age" /> |
| Miami-Dade Transit | 16.1% | 2002<ref name="railway_age" /> |
| New York City subway | 67.3% | 2002<ref name="railway_age" /> |
| New York/New Jersey (PATH) | 41.0% | 2002<ref name="railway_age" /> |
| Philadelphia (SEPTA) | 58.6% | 2002<ref name="railway_age" /> |
| Philadelphia/New Jersey (PATCO) | 61.4% | 2002<ref name="railway_age" /> |
| Staten Island Railway | 15.2% | 2002<ref name="railway_age" /> |
| Toronto Subway and RT | 68% | 1991<ref name="shoji" /> |
| Washington, DC (WMATA) | 61.6% | 2002<ref name="railway_age" /> |
[edit] Notes
<references />
</div>
