At this coming Thursday’s board meeting, the Caltrain board will consider increasing the expected farebox contribution to the operating budget from a range of 38 to 50 percent, adopted in 2008, to a range of 45 to 65 percent, starting in 2014. This will enable Caltrain to contribute more rider revenues (and require lower public contribution) in the next fiscal year’s budget.
Driven by increasing ridership, Caltrain’s farebox recovery has nearly doubled since 2004, climbing from 30.2% to 58.6% in FY 2012, the last full fiscal year. Â Farebox recovery this fiscal year so far is over 60%, helped by the Giants season. Â For comparison, BART’s farebox recovery was 68% in FY 2012. Â Most transit systems require some public subsidy, as do most roads and freeways whose maintenance is paid for by taxes.
Caltrain still lacks stable operating funding, but the improvement in farebox recovery will make the gap easier to close. Â And the future looks brighter.
Electrification is expected to improve Caltrain’s top line by boosting ridership due to faster and more frequent service (the last electrification study predicted an increase of 80%), and to improve the bottom line by reducing costs of fuel and maintenance.  The Downtown Extension to Transbay Terminal could double ridership again by bringing riders to a center with 3x the number of jobs.
I assume the reason farebox recovery is increasing is simply because ridership is increasing. Is that correct, or are there other reasons?
Baby bullets and limited trains are cheaper to operate. To give you an idea, here’s their quote about the 3-month trial for the weekend baby bullet service: “According to Dunn, the total cost for the pilot project is estimated at $107,000; however, Caltrain expects ticket sales to offset this amount by $82,620, leaving a total net cost of $24,380, which it will shoulder using savings in fuel costs accrued in the first six months of the 2010-2011 fiscal year.” This makes for a yearly cost to add such service about $100K (although I recall Caltrain quoting $200K).
[…] Increased Ridership Nearly Doubles Farebox Recovery Since 2004Â (Green Caltrain, SM […]
Andrew it’s mostly ridership, but also fare increases and the reduced cost of running baby bullets as Martin mentions.
Wasn’t at the meeting and maybe I’m missing the point, but doesn’t this decision merely give PJPB “air cover” to raise fares without any effort to solve the long term funding problem?
What’s the celebration for?
Caltrain’s farebox recovery rate is already in the middle of the new range, because of ridership increases. If they didn’t do this, Caltrain would be unable to apply the new rider revenue to their operating budget. They have said they are not raising fares in the coming year, see: http://www.gilroydispatch.com/news/community/caltrain-no-plans-to-raise-fees-in-the-coming-year/article_68e771b8-5c2c-11e2-918e-0019bb30f31a.html