How to Fund Transit Without Raising Fares.. Read this article yesterday and seems like a potential solution to the mess in GVRD. It's an alternative to http://www.revscene.net/forums/68648...-problems.html Thoughts? Quote:
|
So....he does this by cutting routes that are not used in high capacity and routes that have lower ridership but are needed, he has the school districts, colleges/universities, and private businesses subsidize. I am not sure how well this would be applied to the Lower Mainland as no other city that has massive transit is set up like ours.... |
Just on the apartment complex item there. At enough buildings with enough people, we do our subsidizing by having a good 2 or 3 people at every building that have lived there for enough years to be locked a cheap lease, but aren't bad enough to warrant getting them out. My hoarder is a prime example. He even rides his bike everywhere, so he's also a liberal wetdream. Posted via RS Mobile |
privatize that bitch so I can start my bus company with sprinters that have free wifi wifi idea from nicotine /thread |
Transit supervisors make $40 an hour..so fucking useless |
His next highest achievement.. get hired by Translink for $100mill a year. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
The metric equally weighs ridership and fare recovery. The routes that have high ridership, are keepers. The routes that do well at the farebox, are keepers. However, I would expect the routes that have high ridership to be the routes that do well at the farebox, because, of course, an increase in riders generates an increase in fares. The poor writing of the article is a potential explanation, because it notes farebox revenue but not total revenue (farebox, advertising, community subsidy). Nevertheless, I'm would expect the community subsidy approach to be ineffectual in the Lower Mainland. The low ridership routes serve residential communities, which have few institutions to offer to pay a subsidy. The high ridership routes serve business oriented communities, which have institutions to offer to pay a subsidy but already do well at the farebox. I can see UBC and SFU contributing to a fund to bring rapid transit to their main campuses, as it benefits students significantly, but they're the only ones. I'm disappointed by this thread, nothing brilliant, like Tranlink's use of Community Shuttles. A focus on densification and effective city planning contributes more highly to the sustainability of transit than anything else. Quote:
|
^ curious, how did you conclude to $5-$6 as the true cost? |
Interesting article. Bear with me as I do love business-related articles: -------------------------- The article is rehashing the old adage of privatization or bringing in a consultant or consulting company to solve things. Obviously, if profits or reduction of costs is the aim, the article is correct. But, it is not that simple. You can't just cut routes that are unprofitable. The whole point of public transit is..... being public. It should cover a wide area for the vast majority of rider ships, EVEN if it is unprofitable. That is the entire point of public transit. However, I do agree with providing incentives to bus drivers and employees to produce better results. Conclusion: 1-Do not cut unprofitable routes. 2-Compensate according to results instead of an "across the board same wage for all bus drivers (even the unproductive ones)". 3-Lower fuel costs which I believe Vancouver is doing very well with utilizing newer buses, more fuel efficient techs (diesel and natural gas), etc. 4-Buy-out long-time employees who get paid a lot more than newer, young ones. 5-Get rid of the dreaded interest expense which stands at 13% of $1.43 billion https://buzzer.translink.ca/2013/03/...o-we-spend-it/ Translink is very close to breaking even. If they somehow raise enough funds (like a one-time cash/capital infusion) to reduce the interest expense, Translink would be making money. As it is, through a minute of a calculations, Translink paid $208.7 million in interest costs to cover $3.6 billion worth of total debt. http://www.translink.ca/~/media/docu...al_report.ashx To raise money, the company can do this: 1- Sell unwanted assets or old inefficient assets 2- Lobby for Federal help to get lower interest rates (borrowing from the Gov't is cheaper than borrowing from the capital markets) 3- Auction off profitable tolls to large companies. For example, the Golden Ears Bridge cost $800 million to build and collects tolls. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Ears_BridgeConservatively, if this is auctioned off, it could well sell for $800 million or more. Lets say it sells for $800 million. This could be used to reduce debt. Reducing $800 million from $3.6 billion will cut 20%+ of interest costs, which would put Translink into the black with $100 million to $200 million in the future net-fiscal year profits. For future expansion: 4- A lot of expenses are for expanding the current infrastructure. To avoid this cost: for future projects, finance them by having large companies build them at THEIR cost, and have them collect tolls for 10 to 20 years and the bridges/toll-infrastructure will revert back to Translink assets. This is done in many countries where big conglomerates build the infrastructure, collect tolls for 20 years, maintain the roads, etc., then give them back to the government. |
The thing that people need to start understanding is the difference between a public company/crown corporation and privatizing a company. People look at privatization as an answer. Why? Because we think that a profit motive will drive efficiency. Sometimes it works. If its a bloated industry filled with bureaucracy, then making it a profit-centric organization will streamline it. The public gets a cash infusion from the sale, and it carries on. There is a different technique. Maintain ownership, but de-politicize an organization. The way I see it, we run into trouble because decisions aren't being made in a manner consistent with profit for anyone. Decisions can be made for a political end. We continually tie translinks hands behind their back, and then tell them, "go, be fruitful and multiply" Maintain the following service, at the following rates and the following roads without the supporting revenue and every so often, we're going to build some shit for you and tell you to run that too. No. Hire a CEO. Tell the mayors to FO. Assemble a board of directors from across different industries to form a best in class council and leave the tax payer as shareholder. The mayors council cannot and WILL NOT be able to sort out the needs of translink, from the needs of their constituents and the needs of their donors and supporters. Nope, never gonna happen. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The Golden Ears Bridge does not show a profit, rather it loses approximately $41 million annually, because Translink's pre-construction projections overestimated traffic levels. Quote:
|
maybe if people who jumped on for free, actually PAID for their ride.. and those who get caught PAID for their fines. |
Quote:
Didn't know them until now. |
I am in support of reducing buses and manpower and hope that they start on the UBC-broadway skytrain line asap, I really hope they push through with it despite all the nimbyism. If I recall correctly, during peak hours of the 99 B-Line there is a bus every 5 minutes? And besides students I heard people just jump on it for free as all the doors open. The evergreen line and the UBC line will dramatically change Translink's finances while reducing costs (long-term) and pollution. Thankfully Translink is fortunate enough to have automated trains, NYC and San Franscisco can't implement them due to unions. |
Quote:
People always look at the small picture when it comes to cost savings. Faregates are going to cost over 100 million to the taxpayer. Are those costs justified? Maybe over 40 years, but certainly not over 10. |
wait a minute.. those guy with green jackets working on the canada line make $40 an hour?? :suspicious: |
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:04 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Revscene.net cannot be held accountable for the actions of its members nor does the opinions of the members represent that of Revscene.net