|
|
| NJT Farebox recovery by every route (306165) | |
 |
|
| Home > BusChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
|
| (306167) | |
Re: NJT Farebox recovery by every route |
|
|
Posted by kcram3500 on Fri Jun 26 10:58:44 2015, in response to NJT Farebox recovery by every route, posted by Joe V on Fri Jun 26 07:47:03 2015. That shouldn't be a surprise. In order to run in the black, a bus or train has to be packed solid every trip in order to cover the costs of the trip and overcome the subsidies. The 13 is heavily used, but the subsidies that keep the base fare at $1.50 aren't fully covered. |
|
|
| (306170) | |
Re: NJT Farebox recovery by every route |
|
|
Posted by busdude2 on Fri Jun 26 11:52:41 2015, in response to NJT Farebox recovery by every route, posted by Joe V on Fri Jun 26 07:47:03 2015. How can any route be more then 100 percent? I'm surprised that the jersey city route 87 is higher then other JC routes considering the high crime area it runs on. |
|
|
| (306171) | |
Re: NJT Farebox recovery by every route |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Fri Jun 26 12:35:25 2015, in response to Re: NJT Farebox recovery by every route, posted by busdude2 on Fri Jun 26 11:52:41 2015. Why not ? It brings in more revenue than it costs.It seems to be the denser and longer and faster routes from South Jersey seem to do best. The 126 from Hoboken, not so much, even though it can be packed and run every 2 minutes. For some reason, the 111 does fine despite competition from the NEC and its coveted "one seat ride". 126 does not have many fare zones, yet has the same PA Toll and Gate fees to cover as a Toms River bus. They would be a high proportion of revenue. The 87 does not have those expenses. How they allocate common costs, like bus shelters shared by multiple routes and maintenance on a common fleet, or credit transfers, I have no idea. |
|
|
| (306172) | |
Re: NJT Farebox recovery by every route |
|
|
Posted by r33/r36 mainline on Fri Jun 26 13:52:49 2015, in response to Re: NJT Farebox recovery by every route, posted by Joe V on Fri Jun 26 12:35:25 2015. Isn't the 111 the PABT - Jersey Gardens mall route? I don't see how it competes with the NEC considering the mall is nowhere near the NEC and is in the middle of nowhere. From the NEC you had to take a train to Newark Penn and transfer to a bus there, if you're coming from NY the 111 seems much more convenient. |
|
|
| (306173) | |
Re: NJT Farebox recovery by every route |
|
|
Posted by jasonbellamy on Fri Jun 26 14:18:44 2015, in response to Re: NJT Farebox recovery by every route, posted by Joe V on Fri Jun 26 12:35:25 2015. The toll for buses is $12.25 round trip. That's not very significant compared to labor, fuel, and maintenance costs.Anyone know how much NJT pays to use the Port Authority terminal? |
|
|
| (306174) | |
Re: NJT Farebox recovery by every route |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Fri Jun 26 14:23:28 2015, in response to Re: NJT Farebox recovery by every route, posted by r33/r36 mainline on Fri Jun 26 13:52:49 2015. I know it went to Elizabeth somwehere - didn't see where |
|
|
| (306194) | |
Re: NJT Farebox recovery by every route |
|
|
Posted by checkmatechamp13 on Sun Jun 28 09:14:34 2015, in response to Re: NJT Farebox recovery by every route, posted by r33/r36 mainline on Fri Jun 26 13:52:49 2015. Well, technically, Elizabeth would probably be a bit faster, but still, good point. Plus, on top of it, you're dealing with commuter rail frequencies rather than subway frequencies, and you're dealing with shoppers carrying bags, who are more transfer-sensitive. |
|
|
| (306196) | |
Re: NJT Farebox recovery by every route |
|
|
Posted by checkmatechamp13 on Sun Jun 28 09:39:36 2015, in response to Re: NJT Farebox recovery by every route, posted by jasonbellamy on Fri Jun 26 14:18:44 2015. http://www.subchat.com/buschat/read.asp?Id=306166$1 a year, to be raised to $875K per year. |
|
|
| (306197) | |
Re: NJT Farebox recovery by every route |
|
|
Posted by kcram3500 on Sun Jun 28 09:55:16 2015, in response to Re: NJT Farebox recovery by every route, posted by checkmatechamp13 on Sun Jun 28 09:39:36 2015. That's for the park-and-ride lot in North Bergen, not the PABT. |
|
|
| (306202) | |
Re: NJT Farebox recovery by every route |
|
|
Posted by Q23 on Sun Jun 28 22:29:30 2015, in response to NJT Farebox recovery by every route, posted by Joe V on Fri Jun 26 07:47:03 2015. Interesting how the only route with more than 100% if costs covered is the 308. Thought there would've been at least some more routes at or near that percentage. The 655's farebox recovery is a joke. |
|
|
| (306205) | |
Re: NJT Farebox recovery by every route |
|
|
Posted by JAzumah on Mon Jun 29 02:34:35 2015, in response to Re: NJT Farebox recovery by every route, posted by checkmatechamp13 on Sun Jun 28 09:39:36 2015. There is a platform fee plus a per bus fee. I have heard that it averages out to around $15/bus at PABT. |
|
|
| (306210) | |
Re: NJT Farebox recovery by every route |
|
|
Posted by fishball on Mon Jun 29 12:07:15 2015, in response to Re: NJT Farebox recovery by every route, posted by JAzumah on Mon Jun 29 02:34:35 2015. As for the 308, I believe the bus fare may be packaged with admission to 6 flags. There must be some kind of revenue split deal NJT has with 6 flags |
|
|
| (306215) | |
Re: NJT Farebox recovery by every route |
|
|
Posted by JAzumah on Mon Jun 29 17:39:14 2015, in response to Re: NJT Farebox recovery by every route, posted by fishball on Mon Jun 29 12:07:15 2015. The ticket price is definitely included. |
|
|
| (306232) | |
Re: NJT Farebox recovery by every route |
|
|
Posted by checkmatechamp13 on Tue Jun 30 18:33:39 2015, in response to Re: NJT Farebox recovery by every route, posted by busdude2 on Fri Jun 26 11:52:41 2015. For starters, you have the whole route north of JSQ that isn't in a high-crime area.But in any case, low-income people tend to use the bus more. And on top of that, there's three routes along Ocean Avenue (the 4, 6, and 81), so chances are the 87 gets more riders within that neighborhood because it has the whole MLK corridor to itself. |
|
|
| (306235) | |
Re: NJT Farebox recovery by every route |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Tue Jun 30 21:59:38 2015, in response to NJT Farebox recovery by every route, posted by Joe V on Fri Jun 26 07:47:03 2015. So much for the oft-repeated myth that "most" of the PABT routes turn a profit. Hell, at least the NEC comes somewhat close, those express routes into NYC aren't even in the ballpark. |
|
|
| (306238) | |
Re: NJT Farebox recovery by every route |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Wed Jul 1 07:51:49 2015, in response to Re: NJT Farebox recovery by every route, posted by WillD on Tue Jun 30 21:59:38 2015. Which lead to the fantasy that these "profitable" routes cross-subsidize the locals, and so any replacement of these bus trips with the #7 subway to reduce congestion on the bus conveyor belt to XBL and PABT would kill off the locals, even though that concept has been carried out with some Philly bound buses at Camden with PATCO a few years ago. The World didn't crack.I guess we need to run more buses to Great Adventure. They concocted their accounting to make the 308 "profitable". |
|
|
| (306244) | |
Re: NJT Farebox recovery by every route |
|
|
Posted by JAzumah on Thu Jul 2 07:24:59 2015, in response to Re: NJT Farebox recovery by every route, posted by Joe V on Wed Jul 1 07:51:49 2015. You can be "cash positive" while recording an operating loss. I suspect everything above 60-70% generates cash for NJT. |
|
|
| (306245) | |
Re: NJT Farebox recovery by every route |
|
|
Posted by ctrabs74 on Thu Jul 2 17:19:21 2015, in response to Re: NJT Farebox recovery by every route, posted by jasonbellamy on Fri Jun 26 14:18:44 2015. I'm sure that $12.25 toll adds up over a course of a year... |
|
|
| (306246) | |
Re: NJT Farebox recovery by every route |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Thu Jul 2 17:37:23 2015, in response to Re: NJT Farebox recovery by every route, posted by JAzumah on Thu Jul 2 07:24:59 2015. I suspect not. |
|
|
| (306247) | |
Re: NJT Farebox recovery by every route |
|
|
Posted by ctrabs74 on Thu Jul 2 17:49:42 2015, in response to Re: NJT Farebox recovery by every route, posted by Q23 on Sun Jun 28 22:29:30 2015. When you factor in the "premium" fare that is charged on the 308, then that cost recovery doesn't seem as outlandish. |
|
|
| (306249) | |
Re: NJT Farebox recovery by every route |
|
|
Posted by jasonbellamy on Thu Jul 2 18:45:57 2015, in response to Re: NJT Farebox recovery by every route, posted by ctrabs74 on Thu Jul 2 17:19:21 2015. Well, so do labor, fuel, and maintenance costs. And fare revenue. |
|
|
| (306252) | |
Re: NJT Farebox recovery by every route |
|
|
Posted by JAzumah on Thu Jul 2 22:54:57 2015, in response to Re: NJT Farebox recovery by every route, posted by Joe V on Thu Jul 2 17:37:23 2015. NJT is increasing 139 service because the ridership is growing off-peak. Off-peak ridership gains make the route cheaper to operate. If NJT wasn't making money on routes like the 139, Academy would have purchased the service already. |
|
|
| (306253) | |
Re: NJT Farebox recovery by every route |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Fri Jul 3 07:02:20 2015, in response to Re: NJT Farebox recovery by every route, posted by JAzumah on Thu Jul 2 22:54:57 2015. They adjust bus service all the time, as does the TA, to respond to ridership. It does not mean it makes an operating profit. Academy has no desire to purchase routes that lose money unless NJT subsidizes them. |
|
|
| (306255) | |
Re: NJT Farebox recovery by every route |
|
|
Posted by kcram3500 on Fri Jul 3 10:55:29 2015, in response to Re: NJT Farebox recovery by every route, posted by Joe V on Fri Jul 3 07:02:20 2015. The farebox recovery statistic is not about overall profit or loss.The only figure that NJT uses to calculate the subsidy it needs is the system-wide farebox recovery percentage. That, plus its other known revenue streams (advertising, property/equipment leases, and such) calculates the amount that must be offset by state subsidies against their overall operating expenses. Any bus or rail line that takes in a higher farebox rate than the system average is making money that assists the routes that are below the average farebox rate. NJT's system average is generally in the mid to upper 40s. The proposed FY2016 budget estimates 48% for the upcoming year. By the chart (which is FY2014), the 139 has a farebox recovery of 85.4%. That means the subsidy allocated for the route based on 48% can be transferred to a route that doesn't do as well, like the River Line light rail which is heavily subsidized at $1.50 per trip regardless of length and has a poor 10% recovery rate. That is why NJT says their NY commuter routes "make money". All of the 130s and most of the 160s and 190s are above the system average, thus their unused subsidies help pay for the 80s and 90s routes. |
|
|
| (306256) | |
Re: NJT Farebox recovery by every route |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Fri Jul 3 11:01:36 2015, in response to Re: NJT Farebox recovery by every route, posted by kcram3500 on Fri Jul 3 10:55:29 2015. Never heard NJT say their NY routes make money.An 85% farebox recovery means it loses less money percentage wise than many others. It still operates at a deficit and the concept of cross subsidy does not exist. Sugar coat it all you like, |
|
|
| (306257) | |
Re: NJT Farebox recovery by every route |
|
|
Posted by kcram3500 on Fri Jul 3 11:13:02 2015, in response to Re: NJT Farebox recovery by every route, posted by Joe V on Fri Jul 3 11:01:36 2015. If you don't believe the concept of cross-subsidy exists, then you likely don't run a business. Virtually every company will have a product/service that loses money compared to the ones where revenue breaks even or exceed costs. The better-performing products and service cross-subsidize those that lose the most - even if the entire operation has a net deficit. How do you think a car dealership can have $19.95 oil changes when the labor rate for the service department is $120/hour and the parts costs are extra? |
|
|
| (306258) | |
Re: NJT Farebox recovery by every route |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Fri Jul 3 12:40:25 2015, in response to Re: NJT Farebox recovery by every route, posted by kcram3500 on Fri Jul 3 11:13:02 2015. This is theoretical nonsense. One service that loses money does not cross-subsidize another that loses money, period. The concept does not exist there.That is like saying the Lake Shore Ltd cross-subsidizes the California Zephyr because its farebox recovery ratio is higher. It is ridiculous and no one says so, not in Amtrak, not in NARP, not in Trainorders.com, not anywhere. The Amtrak NEC makes an operating profit, which cross-subsidizes the long hauls. That is a fact, because one makes a profit on operation, but not on capital. |
|
|
| (306260) | |
Re: NJT Farebox recovery by every route |
|
|
Posted by kcram3500 on Fri Jul 3 19:11:19 2015, in response to Re: NJT Farebox recovery by every route, posted by Joe V on Fri Jul 3 12:40:25 2015. You're entitled to your opinion of "theoretical nonsense", but this is how large transit agencies create their budgets and subsidy requests. If public transportation was a profitable industry, the private operators never would have left - you'd still have Fifth Avenue Coach and Public Service operating large transit systems, and Penn-Central would still be hauling passengers. |
|
|
| (306265) | |
Re: NJT Farebox recovery by every route |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Sat Jul 4 01:50:35 2015, in response to Re: NJT Farebox recovery by every route, posted by kcram3500 on Fri Jul 3 19:11:19 2015. You're entitled to your opinion of "theoretical nonsense", but this is how large transit agencies create their budgets and subsidy requests.But you're not entitled to your own facts regarding what qualifies as profitability or cross subsidization. So long the routes are running a deficit there is no cross-subsidization amongst them. If public transportation was a profitable industry, the private operators never would have left - you'd still have Fifth Avenue Coach and Public Service operating large transit systems, and Penn-Central would still be hauling passengers. That might be true if the network as a whole made a profit. But that simply will not happen so long as automobile travel remains so thoroughly subsidized. OTOH, if a handful of individual routes turn a profit while the larger network requires subsidization then it's simply good public policy to retain those profitable lines within the network to provide actual cross-subsidization, thereby reducing the subsidy required by the transit agency as a whole. Selling off individual routes which may generate an operating surplus to private operators only introduces a third party's profit margin while providing a very marginal reduction in cost. IMHO that's not a worthwhile trade. |
|
|
| (306266) | |
Re: NJT Farebox recovery by every route |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Jul 4 11:14:15 2015, in response to Re: NJT Farebox recovery by every route, posted by kcram3500 on Fri Jul 3 19:11:19 2015. They create their subsidy and budget requirements because they run a deficit operation, and there are still no cross-subsidies don't matter how many times you say there is.NJ-DOT, of which NJT is a part, produced that document, and the facts speak for themselves. Maybe had NJT not been so stupid as to invest in loco-hauled trains rather than high performance MU's, the running times would be faster, equipment utilization would be better, and the NEC's farebox recovery might still be 100%, not 89%. |
|
|
| (306276) | |
Re: NJT Farebox recovery by every route |
|
|
Posted by ctrabs74 on Sun Jul 5 00:28:45 2015, in response to Re: NJT Farebox recovery by every route, posted by jasonbellamy on Thu Jul 2 18:45:57 2015. This is true. |
|
|