|
The farebox recovery ratio (also called fare recovery ratio) of a passenger transportation system is the fraction of operating expenses which are met by the fares paid by passengers. It is computed by dividing the system's total fare revenue by its total operating expenses. ==Fare structures== There are two schools of thought in fare collections: a simple, flat rate fare structure (pay a fixed fare regardless of time of day and/or travel distance) or a complex, variable rate fare structure (pay a variable fare depending on time of day and/or travel distance). In North America, South America, and Africa, the majority of the cities use simple, flat rate fare structures due to budgetary constraints. With the majority of North America, most of South America, and almost all of Africa being heavily reliant on the automobile for both short and long distance travel, majority of the transit budgets are allocated toward construction and maintenance of freeways and roads, with very little funding making way to investments in new mass transit technologies. Inadvertently however, the reliance on simpler fare structures due to their cheaper costs ends up increasing the tax burden on the agencies as flat rate fare structures have lower farebox recovery ratios, placing more pressure to the transit agencies to increase taxes, pursue higher fare hikes, or to cut services to maintain the transit system. In sharp contrast, majority of the cities in Europe and Asia are heavily dependent on mass transit. Therefore, the majority of their transit budgets are used extensively on mass transit technologies, which enables these countries to install and maintain self-supporting and profitable variable pricing structures. Transit agencies that have instituted a more variable fare structure depending on distances or zones traveled have higher farebox ratios over those that rely on a flat-rate model.〔Teik-Soon Looi, Kim-Hong Tan , ("Singapore’s case of institutional arrangement for fare affordability" ), ''11th Conference on Competition and Ownership in Land Transport'', 2009-08-27〕 In addition, recent urban transit scholars agree that variable pricing methods on public transit would actually be a profitable business which can alleviate many municipal agencies' budget problems.〔Allison Yoh, Brian D. Taylor, and John Gahbauer, ("Does Transit Mean Business? Reconciling academic, organizational, and political perspectives on Reforming Transit Fare Policies" ), '' UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs, Institute of Transportation Studies '', June 2012〕 For example, transit riders will be discouraged to travel longer distance due to increasing price as one travels further, reducing human congestion of mass transit riders who ride lengthier trips. On the other hand, an increased number of riders will opt to frequently use the transit system for multiple short and quick hop-on and hop-off trips as prices would be cheaper for shorter trips, which mass transit is better suited for. The downside however is that institution of variable-rate fares requires a high value initial investment in fare ticketing technologies such as the use of contactless smart cards, turnstiles or fare gates, automated ticket machines, as well as the IT infrastructure in which the return on investment may take years depending on the expected transit ridership volumes.〔Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, "The Geography of Transport Systems, Third Edition'', 2013〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「farebox recovery ratio」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|