Are people really interested in using rail when gas prices are relatively low and/or when it’s not heavily subsidized so they’re not paying the true cost of the service? Some are willing, but is a commitment from a few enough to justify an astronomically expensive rail system? From azcentral.com comes this story about fare hikes set to go into effect July 1 in Phoenix. The key point about rail transit is this:
Fiscal conservatives have long criticized public transit for not being self-sufficient. The federal government considers a transit system to be cost-efficient if it recovers a quarter of its operating expenses from fares.
Metro’s rail system, for example, plans to recover 25 percent of its $34 million operating budget next year from increased fares.
To reach the 25 percent goal and to help a region meet federal clean-air standards, transit agencies have tried to broaden their market. Historically, transit was seen as a social service for people too poor or infirm to drive a car. In recent years, agencies have tried to lure people who have a choice of driving. In the Valley, that effort comes in the form of Express and Rapid buses and light rail.
But transit planners face a conflict: Fares need to be low enough to retain core riders and attract new ones yet high enough to cover 25 percent of costs.
That’s where employers fit in. They have to be coaxed into offering a fare subsidy to employees. The inducement is a federal-tax deduction for the subsidies they pay.
Is there any reason to think the Triangle -with substantially fewer residents than the Valley of the Sun — would see a different pattern of behavior should a rail system be built? More reasonable answers to our transportation challenges are detailed here.
