“Just One-Seventh of Capacity”

The San Francisco Chronicle is aghast that new 140-seat ferry boats between South San Francisco and Oakland/Alameda are filling an average of just 20 of their seats (scroll down to “On the line”). The service, which cost $42 million to start up, was expensive enough at projected ridership rates, but actual ridership so far is just a third of those projections. Even before such low ridership was known, the paper opined that the ferry service may not be “prudent.”

It’s too bad Bay Area papers don’t put their analytical skills to work on other transit systems. If the ferries are just one-seventh (14.3 percent) full, how full are other transit lines?

According to the 2010 National Transit Database (summary Excel file here), San Jose’s light-rail line is pathetic at 11.1 percent (one-ninth full). San Francisco Muni’s light rail is not much better at 11.6 percent. By comparison, the BART system is doing relatively well, operating at a healthy (?) 15.3 percent of capacity.

The Chronicle estimates that subsidies to the ferry service average $133 per trip, while subsidies to BART average just $6 per trip. That’s a little less than the Antiplanner’s 2010 calculation of $10.68 per trip on BART. But either of these calculations are for BART as a whole. The subsidies for the BART line to San Jose, which is in early construction phases, were estimated to be on the order of $100 per new transit rider. San Francisco’s Central Subway (which is really just a glorified tunnel for light-rail trains) is likely to be as expensive.
And last, the method and usage of the herbal remedy. viagra no prescription http://new.castillodeprincesas.com/directorio/seccion/catering/?wpbdp_sort=field-1 Before/while taking this medicine, a person must inform to doctor before eating kamagra jelly, if he has diseases such as- angina pectoris; retinitis pigmentosa; leukemia; sickle cell anemia; hypertension; and levitra generic cialis health problems like low libido, low energy, weak orgasm, fatigue, weak bones, low endurance, depression, mood swings, and poor focus. It causes vaginal pain during intercourse (dyspareunia) or inability to experience pleasure – Sexual purchase levitra view this link now dysfunction Well-known SSRIs used for treatment of premature ejaculation. Benefits of using vacuum pump selling here generic levitra device- The device is also known as vacuum erection device, an invasive form of treatment for erection-related issues.
The agency running the South San Francisco ferry service says, “We don’t think it is useful to talk about [ridership] targets,” and hopes that ridership will grow in a couple of years. Maybe it will, but even if it fills every seat it will never recover its costs.

Are such investments prudent? Once you decide it is okay to lose $6 (or $10) per trip on BART, or $15 for the Sausalito ferry, or $100 per new trip on BART to San Jose, then why draw the line at (or below) $133 for a ferry ride? The Obama administration wants to rewrite the rules to make cost-effectiveness irrelevant in transit funding. If that happens, it won’t be long before we see projects costing $500 or more per trip. After all, most of that will probably be capital costs, and capital costs don’t count.

On the other hand, if you think that capital costs–not to mention maintenance, which transit agencies (and Amtrak) pretend is a capital cost–do count, then you have to wonder why any losses are tolerated. Why not just invest in transit (and other transportation) that pays for itself? Stop spending sales taxes and other general funds on highways. Stop spending federal income taxes and other general funds on airports. Stop spending gasoline taxes and other highway user fees on transit.

New York Waterway began a private ferry service between Manhattan and New Jersey and, despite some financial troubles, is still going strong. There is no reason why transit everywhere shouldn’t operate the same basis: private and profitable.

Tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

About The Antiplanner

The Antiplanner is a forester and economist with more than fifty years of experience critiquing government land-use and transportation plans.

25 Responses to “Just One-Seventh of Capacity”

  1. metrosucks says:

    They don’t care about costs, or profits. The fools running (into the ground) transit agencies think the free federal money will last forever. The Great Default will prove them all wrong.

  2. aloysius9999 says:

    Think salaries, benefits, and pensions for the non-operating employees that never ever put their hands anything but keyboards and paper.

  3. bennett says:

    What about the ferry in Seattle and Anacortes? Those are the only ones I’ve used multiple times. They always seem to be relatively full. Are they privately operated?

    • MJ says:

      I think those are operated by Washington State Ferries, which is a division of Washington DOT. The 2010 NTD data indicates that they had operating expenses of $208 million, which seems consistent with a fairly large scale of operation, probably statewide (or Sound-wide, as the case may be). For comparison, they reported fare revenues of $36.4 million.

      • Frank says:

        The Washington State Ferries system is the largest in the country. Fares are underpriced as evidenced by the hours long delay at places like Mukilteo/Clinton to/from Whidbey Island.

        WSF published a study on how to deal with its “funding crisis”; fares don’t even come close to meeting operating costs let alone capital improvements. ($213 million operational gap and $3.1 billion shortfall for capital improvements.)

        The massive gap between what users pay and operating costs/capital improvements has been supplemented with the following:

        WSF receives state subsidies from fuel tax revenues and licenses, permits, and fees.
        Administrative transfers.
        Federal grants and bond sales.

        • Dan says:

          Raising the fees might slow some of the suburbanization of Bainbridge, surely, but it would make weekend bike trips less interesting around Whidbey/Island Co. The ferry service is one of the amenities that make WA State tolerable and a good destination in the summer. That is: it depends what you want to measure and what you are delivering.

          DS

        • metrosucks says:

          I’ve used the WA state ferry system many times, and have found it to be a good service with professional operators and accurate schedules. As a tax-paying WA resident, I have to say that the ferry system is worth every penny and should not be a target of budget cutters when there’s huge boondoggles like multi-billion dollar elevated light rail systems in the Seattle area.

        • The Black Ball Ferry Company, which used to operate much of what is now WSF or the larger BC Ferries, still operates one run with one ship – the Coho which runs from Victoria to Port Angeles, this route has no subsidy.

          BC Ferries, the largest car ferry operator in North America is a government owned corporation and gets about 25% of its revenues from government.

          The three major routes provide 58% of the customer revenues and seem to well enough to subsides the runs to all the small islands.

          The northern routes take in $19 million and need a $55 million subsidy

          The gulf island routes take in $131 million and require a $100 subsidy

      • msetty says:

        MJ is presenting just a portion of the situation with the Washington State Ferries (WSF). The same NTD report he cites also lists $116 million in “other funds” which are mainly vehicle tolls. The “fares” reported are apparently just for the walk-on trade. Adding the two together results in 82% cost recovery for operations. Eventually covering all operating expenses should be possible with gradual increases ahead of inflation over several years, subject to the wild card of fluctuating fuel prices.

        As noted in the study cited by Frank, the real problem for WSF is capital, particularly for replacing the ferryboat fleet when required, docks and related facilities. A strong case can be made for using various kinds of gas tax and other vehicle “user fees” for a portion of the WSF capital shortfall since the system provides essential links in the Washington state highway network.

        I also note that WSF performs somewhat better than many roadways, which sometimes recover less than 50% of their direct costs as various sources have documented (including the Texas DOT, on a web page that disappeared fairly quickly after this revelation…but I digress).

        Now what was the issue in this thread, again?

        I’m currently developing an argument–which will take a few more weeks since more reading is required–that The Antiplanner is something of an “hedgehog”–in the Isiah Berlin sense–in his defense of automobility, sprawl and the various other things CATO and others pay him for.

        This seems evident in the way he calculates transit utilization rates by using full standing capacity rather than seated capacity in his estimates of utilization. If one uses seated capacity, one gets 25%-35% for most Bay Area transit systems. This is comparable to most motor vehicles assuming a capacity of 5 persons with 1.6 average occupancy, e.g., 32%. Technically his calculations using full seated and standing capacity are accurate, but do they convey the full picture? Not exactly…

    • Frank says:

      I just looked out the window and was reminded of the Victoria Clipper, a passenger ferry which is “the first and only marine transportation carrier in modern history to operate year round service on [the Seattle/Victoria, BC] route without a subsidy.”

  4. Frank says:

    Preemptive strike: The road in front of your house doesn’t exist on a profit or loss basis so why should trains?

  5. paul says:

    I completely agree with the working towards the most cost effective transit solutions. However I still feel there is a place for providing some type of transit for those who are unable to drive. This may under certain circumstances require some subsidy. Ironically it is the expensive rail and ferry operations that frequently take money from the bus service that provides service for the poor and elderly.

    I would advocate licensing independent car and van owners to run their vehicle as a bus/taxi combination which would probably provide a much more cost effective solution to mobility for the poor and elderly.

  6. Craigh says:

    Preemptive strike: The road in front of your house doesn’t exist on a profit or loss basis so why should trains?

    The road in front of my house was supposed to be paid for from gasoline taxes [i.e., a user’s fee.] That politicians diverted those funds to other uses doesn’t change that. And then, of course, there’s the fact that I pay for and maintain my own vehicle to use on that road instead of depending on tax money to pay for it. Full disclosure: I can say that because I don’t own a Chevy Volt.

    • Sandy Teal says:

      The road in front of my house was paid for by the School District for school buses. And then paid for by the sewer and water district. And then paid for by the electric company. And then paid for by the cable company. And then paid for by the phone company. And then paid for by the fire department. And then paid for by the police department. Etc.

  7. the highwayman says:

    Frank; Both SHOULD exist on a profit/loss basis and BOTH should be private.

    THWM: That’s impossible. Frank you’re sick!

  8. the highwayman says:

    Frank; I just looked out the window and was reminded of the Victoria Clipper, a passenger ferry which is “the first and only marine transportation carrier in modern history to operate year round service on [the Seattle/Victoria, BC] route without a subsidy.”

    THWM: The Strait of Juan de Fuca doesn’t existon a profit or loss basis.

    Roads don’t exist on a profit or loss basis.

    Parks don’t exist on a profit or loss basis.

    Sidewalks don’t exist on a profit or loss basis.

    Fire hydrants don’t exist on a profit or loss basis.

    Bike paths don’t exist on profit or loss basis, etc.

    You complain about others getting tax breaks, but your think tanks are mostly funded by tax breaks.

    You’re nothing but, a bunch of evil charlatans!

  9. prk166 says:

    “Roads don’t exist on a profit or loss basis.” -The Highwayman

    You do understand that you are denying the existence of private toll roads?

    “Sidewalks don’t exist on a profit or loss basis.”

    Yes, they do. Not in the sense that someone builds a sidewalk and charges a toll. They exist because they increase the value of property being sold., among a slew of other reasons.

Leave a Reply