by ne plus ultra
The Metropolitan wrote:The EB doesn't have an 80% cost recovery rate. It covers 80% of its direct costs. We can all squabble about what share of the system costs to assign to a given train, but clearly some large share has to be allocated. You can't just wish the costs of ticketing, terminals, etc. away.wigwagfan wrote: But the train still operates at a significant loss. Does that justify the perpetual governmental subsidy of any business that operates at a loss, even though it can supposedly justify itself by having an increase in the number of customers? I know my local transit agency doesn't play that game; it still will chop a bus route for losing too much money per passenger, even if ridership goes up (but not enough).Mr. Toy wrote:Based on your own figures, the Empire Builder had a farebox recovery of 80.7% for FY '06, which was up from 74.8% in FY '05. That's a significant improvement. Yet you seem to believe that the train should be dumped because better isn't good enough. What I see is potential for further improvement, while you would prefer to give up.Most transit agencies typically operate at a 50% (+/- 10%) standard for Farebox recovery. If the EB is in fact running at over an 80% recovery rate, then I would attest it is doing quite handsomely, and as Mr. Toy mentioned, could conceivably find a break even point as well with some minor tweaking.
Where I live, out of 51 bus lines, *maybe* THREE have at least an 80% recovery rate, and there are a number in the 20-40% segment. A bus line with an 80% recovery is one you monitor to see if you need to add service to avoid overcrowding.