If what you said was true then it would be the inverse - operating costs would be mostly paid out of government subsidies in the areas with most ridership. But in fact, it is (and predictably so) the case that good transit systems have high farebox recovery - the HK MTR, Taipei MRT, and the Tube are those I’m familiar with and they’re all much nicer and more frequent and have high farebox recovery.
In fact, I find the whole thing confusing. Do people actually believe public transit is meant to be some kind of giveaway to a small number of riders? It’s clear from looking worldwide that where it is useful riders pay high enough fares because it is so useful.
I can understand some sort of bootstrap capital investment (or one-off interventions like for COVID-19) but the idea that operating costs should be predominantly covered from general taxation doesn’t really hold up if you look at which places are effective at this.
This is why most transport systems fail, they only see short term local costs and not the big picture.
If all public transport were free the state would actually save money. TIcket sales are not free, all those machines and servicing costs big money, but thats a drop in the bucket.
Public transport is a lower cost than roads, All them roads the gov runs for free costs far more than the ticket sales. Hospitals are also not free, people driving cars results in lots more accidents, more cars more vegetables. Guess who pays for the later ?
State and local roads are notoriously inefficient and we should be reducing spending on them, and improving guidance so that municipalities stop taking on projects that have unsustainable maintenance costs. Just like white elephant transit projects, these should also be curtailed.
Some states add this for plug-in hybrid cars and even hybrid cars.
Not unreasonable, but low farebox recovery (or "subsidies") may still be less expensive than building out roads/highways to handle various situations:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commuter_rail
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxWjtpzCIfA
The idea that roads are subsidized for commuters should also be considered:
Yes. Absolutely yes. I mean I don't know what "people" "believe", but that's how public benefits are supposed to work in an equitable system.
"An advanced city is not one where even the poor use cars, but rather one where even the rich use public transport." In my opinion, that idea extends to anything that we know makes a society better: libraries, public education, etc. It shouldn't even be controversial to a sensible person that those are not revenue generators, let alone profit centers.
It's analogous to "handicapped parking" (as it's called in the US) and similar accommodations: people will balk at the costs or other arguments used when compared to a relatively large population who don't need them, until they suddenly require those accommodations for themselves or a loved one.
Be a poor, physically-disabled human being in a small, underfunded town, then come at me with "farebox recovery" BS. We need to stop pretending like we don't live in a post-scarcity world, but we just choose to allow terrible people to run things and make bad faith arguments to keep ignorant people ignorant.
The benefits of public transit derive to all of society not necessarily those immediately riding it. That's true of a multitude of state spending, education, social services and so-forth.
The US doesn't directly charge for many of the costs of roads, certainly it doesn't charge for the drawback in the form of pollution and urban sprawl. But when you get to buses, suddenly "you're not a charitable problem..."
Theorycrafting is all well and good but if you claim that some metric X (farebox recovery) is negatively correlated with some outcome Y (frequent good transit) then you do have to explain why all the good outcome Ys actually have high X. Reality has to meet the theory.
Perhaps drivers/commuters should also be better charged for the resources they use:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congestion_pricing
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_High_Cost_of_Free_Parking
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_price
We can let The Market™ decide what the alleged convenience of driving is worth.
I sudoect that airports can be far more portable than airlines, actually, since shopping, eating and drinking are much cheaper to deliver on the ground. And there’s parking too.
One might have instead believed that because SFO is so valuable to the region it should be heavily subsidized, but the property repeated worldwide is that valuable things are things people don't mind paying to use. Because they're valuable.
A train service only earning 50% of its costs through ticket sales is okay if it provides a useful transportation network. But because we are so dependent on cars, people fight removing parking spots for a dedicated right of way. So public transit get stuck in traffic, and funding is kept at skeleton/welfare service levels resulting in 30 min to an hour between vehicles. The useful public transit network can't even get off the ground because no one believes there will be a critical mass of support to fund and build a useful network.
Is that true? In Portland, to use an example familiar with me, the fares are nearly pointless. They probably exist primarily as a behavior enhancement than any fiscal reason. The transit system is paid for with taxes.
AFAIK the MTA (New York City) has the highest ratio, and it's still like 1/3 fares and 2/3 taxes. Second place is under 20% and it just goes down from there.