In terms of the state subsidy, NJ Transit doesn't have a permanent dedicated source of funding in the state budget.
It's a really messed-up situation. The governor prefers to waste billions of dollars on an unnecessary turnpike extension widening project, instead of funding public transit.
>Don't forget the subsidies on the other side of the equation: As the poster above mentioned, building larger roads to handle increased traffic is very expensive
And the users of those roads pay tens of billions of dollars per year by paying or the Federal Gas Tax on every gallon of gas they buy:
They also pay local and state tax that pay for the maintenance of local and state roads. They also pay tolls which make so much money that they pay for roads, bridges and a sizable portion of many state's general funds.
Car drivers are more than self-sufficient. Bus riders rely on subsidies or they wouldn't be able to afford bus travel.
I'm not passing a value judgement on this, but let's at least acknowledge reality.
I wasn’t intending to make a statement on whether or not public transit should be independently profitable, just providing context.
I didn’t even touch on ridiculous regulations like “buy America” (aka all buses have to be manufactured in the US) that drive up the cost of transit in a way that private drivers would never accept.
There's more reason for NJ residents to take issue with this. In central jersey, it costs at least $20/person for a round trip ticket. If you go with your family or a group of friends filling a 5 seat car, the train costs $100 just to get into the city and then get hit with whatever additional costs you have for the next few subway rides. Gas, parking, and
carpool bridge/tunnel toll prices don't add up to anywhere near that amount.
The reality is that this ends up being a regressive plan where high income earners benefit and everyone else just has to deal with increased burdens.
What I don’t get is why routes need to make money. This is a public service, sure it’s a good thing to have it pay for itself but the focus shouldn’t be on that.
Public transit isn't profitable either. It's heavily subsidized by the taxpayer, so the author's logic isn't intellectually honest. Look at Amtrak as a good example. Or the MTA in New York.
Uber is subsidized by private investors, public transport is subsidized by everyone -- whether they want, need or use it or not.
>* Users of the highway passenger transportation system paid significantly greater amounts of money to the federal government than their allocated costs in 1994-2000. <https://web.archive.org/web/20170628114204/http://www.rita.d...> This was a result of the increase in the deficit reduction motor fuel tax rates between October 1993 and September 1997, and the increase in Highway Trust Fund fuel tax rates starting in October 1997.
>* School and transit buses received positive net federal subsidies over the 1990-2002 period, but autos, motorcycles, pickups and vans, and intercity buses paid more than their allocated cost to the federal government.
>* On average, highway users paid $1.91 per thousand passenger-miles to the federal government over their highway allocated cost during 1990-2002.)
It's a public transit system. Is the goal to turn a profit or provide transit services? For comparison, how far in "debt" is the road system (which costs far more to operate and has zero "revenue")?
I'm always amazed at the libertarians who freak out at the idea of subsidized transit (which is clearly what this is, even if there's a nominal balance sheet attached) as they drive their cars to work on the road system provided entirely at taxpayer expense.
No mass transit system makes a profit, at least the last time I talked to someone who was heavily involved in the numbers. They require a subsidy of, what was it, 70%? That doesn’t make it wrong, but it has to be considered.
> 25 cent tax on gas would do it. If even 2 people average rode each bus, it'd break even on traffic density as well?
Busses accelerate, decelerate, and turn differently than cars, so even if in terms of steady-state flow the two-riders = break-even argument is correct, it's not in city traffic.
Moreover, I'd like to see your work on operating and capital costs, especially accounting for road wear for which the usual approximate rule of thumb is that it varies with the fourth power of vehicle weight.
Yup! And PA Turnpike drivers pay every day for buses in Philadelphia (or Pittsburgh, whichever is more distant to make the point) that they'll never ride.
But at least we have a status quo where both systems are subsidized, and both systems require you to buy in to use them. Why let one group go for free?
In any case, the New Jersey Turnpike’s revenue for 2022 was over $2.4 billion dollars.
reply