Hacker News Reader

Comment by Escapado | Hacker News Reader

You are right, however if it would have been made free and kept free indefinitely this would have been a one-time cost.

Farebox recovery ratios in Germany before Covid were around 75 %, so abolishing all fares would mean quadrupling the budget for operating subsidies [1]. While I am not opposed to some moderate fare reductions, you could pay for quite a large bit of service improvements with that amount of money instead, and I believe that would be rather more effective in increasing passenger numbers (and especially in getting car drivers to switch).

[1] Some of the big cities are actually even closer to break-even as far as day-to-day operating costs are concerned, so in those cases the budget would have to be increased by an even larger factor in percentage terms.

> Farebox recovery ratios in Germany before Covid were around 75 %, so abolishing all fares would mean quadrupling the budget for operating subsidies

You aren't taking into account the money saved from eliminating all the infrastructure needed for collecting and enforcing the fares like OP mentioned..

Unless farebox recovery ratio already subtracts the money spent to collect fares? That's not my understanding though.

You're right, eliminating the infrastructure for fares would save some amount of money, but I'd be surprised if it was really that much of a substantial fraction compared with the actual operation of the vehicles.

I think it's significant, there must be tons of full time employees who are checking tickets, selling tickets, doing maintenance on machines, administering subsidized fare programs etc. I don't think it's 25% or anything, but I wouldn't be surprised it it was in the double digits.

Aside from that, though, it's not as if the money not collected in fares is lost. That's money that people get to keep. It's a direct economic benefit to people using transit, and a smaller indirect benefit to everyone else.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com