• DreamerofDays@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    10 months ago

    Is the ad revenue on mass transit actually high enough to support its operation?(ignoring even maintenance or expansion, or the replacement of unrepairable vehicles)

    • LufyCZ@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      It’s not, and I don’t even need to go look it up.

      Operating a subway is expensive. Maintenance, new lines, new trains, you name it, it costs shitloads

      • Aurelius@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        10 months ago

        It’s so expensive that the NYC subway used to be multiple private railroad companies but the business just wasn’t feasible (at a reasonable price) when the market had a downturn - which is why the city eventually took it over.

        This is why the track geographies are so odd in NYC

      • dumpsterlid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        10 months ago

        Operating a subway is expensive only when you don’t compare it to operating a city on cars shrugs

        • SkepticalButOpenMinded@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          Yes exactly this. Car infrastructure is the most expensive transportation infrastructure per capita possible. It’s why the US spends tons of public money on transportation and has just crumbling highways to show for it.

          • LufyCZ@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            Might also be because of how massive the US is with relatively big distances between big cities

            • SkepticalButOpenMinded@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              Most commutes are not between major cities, they are within metro regions, so the size of the US doesn’t explain the terrible infrastructure. Besides, for decades now, most of Europe has no political impediments to travel, same as the US. People can commute from Berlin to Madrid as if it were one country. Density matters, but not the size of the country.

              As for density, there are many US regions that are of similar density and distance apart as European cities, such as DC-NY-Boston, or Portland-Seattle-Vancouver, SF-LA, etc.

    • psud@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      It varies. Usually fares are just there to ration use of the mass transit, providing less than a third of its cost (ignoring capital)

      Also: why would you ration transit? You want as many people as possible to use it

      No one’s so cheap they cycle instead. Those who cycle do so for health. We could free up there roads for the die hard drivers

      • dumpsterlid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        For bus systems at least the amount fares cover is typically on the order of 5% give or take in the US. The fact that bus fares exist at this point in the US has got everything to do with emotions, narratives and a political stance against providing a social safety net and nothing to do with cold hard economics.

    • BowtiesAreCool@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      The fares themselves usually account for a tiny portion of the overall revenue. For example, in 2021 the MTA had $7.8 Billion in revenue. And they are fighting for $100k of lost fares