I noticed in this story that Luxembourg plans to eliminate all fares for public transit inside it borders:
https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/luxembourg-free-public-transport/index.html
It's actually a relatively small concession on their part considering that present fares cover less than 9% of their operating costs.
Playing with numbers, their total annual operating cost is reported as $562 million, of which $46 million is covered by revenues...for a net loss of $516 million per year.
Luxembourg is a country of roughly 1000 sq miles in area, so they are covering all their public transportation needs at a net annual loss of $516,000 per square mile.
Could the United States ever hope to match such a figure, and if we could, would we be willing to?
Definitely not willing. There are a lot of people in this country who complain mightily that public transit does not cover all of its expenses out of the farebox.
How many square miles is the US? But anyway, I've been to Luxembourg City- it's a very nice place and trams go everywhere. Right across from the main station are two rather small old fully-circular roundhouses, one is used as a bus garage and the other is storage for the road department.
Its population appearantly is just over 602,000 so that means per person it costs $933 whatever the currency (I presume Euros). Considering its a rather wealthy country that appears not to be too much of a burden unless there are a lot of 4 or more member families. Of course, if no fare results in a much higher demand, it will cost more. Its an interesting experiment and I hope someone keeps us updated over the years as to how it works out.
The loss of revenue will be partially offset by eliminting the expence of fare collection.
[quote user="daveklepper"]
But only if related jobs are eliminated. Past experiences tends to show that (a) it doesn't happen in governments or (b) if it does eventually happen its done very slowly.
alphasdaveklepperThe loss of revenue will be partially offset by eliminating the expense of fare collection. But only if related jobs are eliminated.
daveklepperThe loss of revenue will be partially offset by eliminating the expense of fare collection.
But only if related jobs are eliminated.
Expenses and 'jobs' are two different things. There's likely a whole infrastructure involving handling and sorting cash from ticket machines or kiosks, registering bank deposits, schlepping change to the machines and unclogging them when they're jammed, etc. Likely a similar expense if cash or physical tickets are accepted on board transit vehicles. There is a significant cost associated with finding, catching, and prosecuting 'farebeaters' -- including fare inspectors and the police power involved in enforcement.
To the extent jobs are 'lost', I'd expect the people involved would be given other tasks or employment, perhaps with preference in government hiring or other government-based advantage (like tax privileges of some kind for private employers), rather than abruptly just 'let go' as no longer needed. It will certainly be interesting to see what actually happens over there in this regard.
Unsaid on here is a major driving force in "no farebox" transportation: a quick way of removing more cars from the roads and, depending on power source, a reduction in carbon emissions.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.