View source for Finance:Farebox recovery ratio

{{Short description|Fares collected versus operating expenses in public transport}}
The '''farebox recovery ratio''' (also called '''fare recovery ratio''', '''fare recovery rate''' or other terms) of a passenger transportation system is the fraction of operating expenses which are met by the [[Finance:Fare|fare]]s paid by passengers. It is computed by dividing the system's total fare [[Finance:Revenue|revenue]] by its total operating expenses.<ref name="def">{{cite news|title=State audit finds Md. transit agency didn't verify Purple Line design firm payments|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2015/02/25/state-audit-finds-md-transit-agency-didnt-verify-purple-line-design-firm-payments/|newspaper=Washington Post|access-date=25 April 2017}}</ref>

==Fare structures==
There are generally two types of fare structures: 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). A variable fare structure is typically associated with a higher recovery ratio, though it may simply be the case that such systems are implemented only on more profitable networks or modes such as commuter rail. Variable-rate fares require a higher initial investment in fare ticketing technologies such as the use of [[Contactless smart card|contactless smart card]]s, [[Finance:Turnstile|turnstile]]s or fare gates, automated ticket machines, as well as IT infrastructure.<ref>Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, ''The Geography of Transport Systems, Third Edition'', 2013</ref>

==Farebox ratios around the world==
The farebox recovery ratio is the ratio of fare revenue to total transport expenses for a given system.<ref name="def" /> These two figures can be found in the financial statements of the operators. Oftentimes the operator runs multiple modes of transport (e.g. subway and bus), and there is no data for individual modes (segment analysis). In this case the operator is considered as one system, or a group of modes are collectively considered one system.

Fare revenue is not the same as "transport" or "operational" revenue, as there are often secondary sources of revenue such as lockers and paid restrooms and advertisement revenue. Fare revenue is a subset of transport revenue, which is in turn part of total revenue along with "non-transport" or "non-operational" revenue.

Total "transport" or "operational" expenses are a part of total expenses along with "non-transport" or "non-operational" expenses. Total transport expenses may include expansion projects if they are paid for by the operator.

== Asia ==
Please note that, the "[[Finance:Operating ratio|operating ratio]]" ({{lang-ja|営業係数}} {{lang-ko|영업계수}}) commonly published by some Asian systems is different from farebox recovery ratio even after inverting the number to turn cost per unit revenue into revenue per unit cost, as that figure includes all operating revenue instead of only the fare revenue.<ref>"JR&私鉄全路線の収支 「営業係数」計算式を大公開", 週刊東洋経済臨時増刊 鉄道完全解明2014, p.61-62, February 20, 2014</ref>
{| class="sortable wikitable toccolours"
|-
! Country or Region
! System
! style="text-align: center" | Fare system
! style="text-align: center" data-sort-type="number" | Ratio
! style="text-align: center" | Year
|-
| style="text-align: center" | Hong Kong
| Mass Transit Railway (MTR)
| style="text-align: center" | Mostly Distance based
| style="text-align: center" | 106.76%
| style="text-align: center" | 2021<ref name="mtr">{{cite web |title=2021 Annual Report – Consolidated Profit and Loss Account |url=https://www.mtr.com.hk/archive/corporate/en/investor/annual2021/E34.pdf |access-date=12 February 2023 |website=MTR Corporation}}</ref>
|-
| style="text-align: center" | Hong Kong
| Hong Kong Tramway
| style="text-align: center" | Flat rate
| style="text-align: center" | 48.80%
| style="text-align: center" | 2021<ref>{{Cite web |date=20 May 2022 |title=立法會交通事務委員會香港電車有限公司加價申請 |url=https://www.legco.gov.hk/yr2022/chinese/panels/tp/papers/tp20220520cb4-372-2-c.pdf |access-date=12 February 2023 |website=Hong Kong Legislative Council Panel on Transport}}</ref>
|-
| rowspan="2" style="text-align: center" | Hong Kong
| Kowloon Motor Bus
| style="text-align: center" | Route-specific
| style="text-align: center" | 100.05%
| style="text-align: center" | 2021<ref name=":3">{{cite web |title=Transport International Holdings Limited - Annual Reports 2021 |url=https://doc.irasia.com/listco/hk/transport/annual/2021/ar2021_024.pdf |access-date=12 February 2023 |website=Transport International Holdings Limited}}</ref>
|-
|Long Win Bus
| style="text-align: center" | Route-specific
| style="text-align: center" | 77.91%
| style="text-align: center" | 2021<ref name=":3" />
|-
| rowspan="2" style="text-align: center" | Hong Kong
| Citybus
| style="text-align: center" | Route-specific
| style="text-align: center" | 72.98%<ref>''Combined both Franchise 1 & and Franchise 2.''</ref>
| style="text-align: center" | 2021<ref name=":16">{{Cite web |title=Citybus & NWFB Fuller Disclosure 2021 |url=https://www.bravobus.com.hk/_common/pdf/Citybus_NWFB_Fuller2021.pdf |access-date=12 February 2023 |website=Bravo Transport Services Limited}}</ref>
|-
| New World First Bus
| style="text-align: center" | Route-specific
| style="text-align: center" | 76.73%
| style="text-align: center" | 2021<ref name=":16" />
|-
| style="text-align: center" | Japan
| Tokyo Metro
| style="text-align: center" | Distance based
| style="text-align: center" | 119%<ref name=":4">{{cite web |title=Tokyo Metro Corporate Profile 2016 |url=http://www.tokyometro.jp/corporate/profile/pdf/corporateprofile.pdf |access-date=24 April 2017 |website=tokyometro.jp}}</ref>
| style="text-align: center" | 2016
|-
| style="text-align: center" | Japan
| JR Central Rail
| style="text-align: center" | Distance based
| style="text-align: center" | 245.95%
| style="text-align: center" | FY2018<ref name="MLITstatFY2018">[https://www.mlit.go.jp/tetudo/tetudo_tk2_000051.html 鉄道統計年報［平成30年度］]：（５）－２　鉄・軌道業営業損益：((旅客収入 + 貨物収入) / 営業費合計(諸税･減価償却費を除く) ) * 100% (((Passenger revenue + Freight revenue)/(Operation cost before taxes and depreciation))*100%)</ref>
|-
| style="text-align: center" | Japan
| JR East Rail
| style="text-align: center" | Distance based
| style="text-align: center" | 142.44%
| style="text-align: center" | FY2018<ref name="MLITstatFY2018" />
|-
| style="text-align: center" | Japan
| JR West Rail
| style="text-align: center" | Distance based
| style="text-align: center" | 132.38%
| style="text-align: center" | FY2018<ref name="MLITstatFY2018" />
|-
| style="text-align: center" | Japan
| JR Kyushu Rail
| style="text-align: center" | Distance based
| style="text-align: center" | 111.34%
| style="text-align: center" | FY2018<ref name="MLITstatFY2018" />
|-
| style="text-align: center" | Japan
| JR Shikoku Rail
| style="text-align: center" | Distance based
| style="text-align: center" | 69.84%
| style="text-align: center" | FY2018<ref name="MLITstatFY2018" />
|-
| style="text-align: center" | Japan
| JR Hokkaido Rail
| style="text-align: center" | Distance based
| style="text-align: center" | 59.18%
| style="text-align: center" | FY2018<ref name="MLITstatFY2018" />
|-
| style="text-align: center" | Japan
| JR Freight Freight rail
| style="text-align: center" | Distance based
| style="text-align: center" | 96.25%
| style="text-align: center" | FY2018<ref name="MLITstatFY2018" />
|-
| rowspan="2" style="text-align: center" | Japan
| Sapporo Municipal Subway
| style="text-align: center" | Distance based
| style="text-align: center" | 220.79%
| style="text-align: center" | FY2018<ref name="MLITstatFY2018" />
|-
| Sapporo Streetcar
| style="text-align: center" | Flat rate
| style="text-align: center" | 104.31%
| style="text-align: center" | FY2018<ref name="MLITstatFY2018" />
|-
| style="text-align: center" | Japan
| Hakodate Streetcar
| style="text-align: center" | Distance based
| style="text-align: center" | 82.87%
| style="text-align: center" | FY2018<ref name="MLITstatFY2018" />
|-
| style="text-align: center" | Japan
| Sendai Subway
| style="text-align: center" | Mixed zonal and distance based
| style="text-align: center" | 159.68%
| style="text-align: center" | FY2018<ref name="MLITstatFY2018" />
|-
| style="text-align: center" | Japan
| Tokyo Metro
| style="text-align: center" | Distance based
| style="text-align: center" | 161.55%
| style="text-align: center" | FY2018<ref name="MLITstatFY2018" />
|-
| rowspan="5" style="text-align: center" | Japan
| Tokyo Toei rail services
| style="text-align: center" | Distance based
| style="text-align: center" | 74%<ref name=":5">{{cite web |title=Budget |url=https://www.kotsu.metro.tokyo.jp/about/information/closing/pdf/27_closing02.pdf |access-date=25 April 2017 |website=kotsu.metro.tokyo.jp |language=ja}}</ref>{{Failed verification|date=April 2022}}
| style="text-align: center" | 2015
|-
| Tokyo Toei Subway
| style="text-align: center" | Distance based
| style="text-align: center" | 171.46%
| style="text-align: center" | FY2018<ref name="MLITstatFY2018" />
|-
| Tokyo Toei Streetcar
| style="text-align: center" | Flat rate
| style="text-align: center" | 83.39%
| style="text-align: center" | FY2018<ref name="MLITstatFY2018" />
|-
| Tokyo Toei elevated rail<!--As of FY2018 includes Ueno Zoo Monorail-->
| style="text-align: center" | Flat rate
| style="text-align: center" | 109.84%
| style="text-align: center" | FY2018<ref name="MLITstatFY2018" />
|-
| Tokyo Toei other rails
| style="text-align: center" | Distance based
| style="text-align: center" | 136.81%
| style="text-align: center" | FY2018<ref name="MLITstatFY2018" />
|-
| style="text-align: center" | Japan
| Yokohama Municipal Subway
| style="text-align: center" | Distance based
| style="text-align: center" | 232.28%
| style="text-align: center" | FY2018<ref name="MLITstatFY2018" />
|-
| rowspan="2" style="text-align: center" | Japan
| Meitetsu Railway
| style="text-align: center" | Distance based
| style="text-align: center" | 155.99%
| style="text-align: center" | FY2018<ref name="MLITstatFY2018" />
|-
| Meitetsu Tramway
| style="text-align: center" | Distance based
| style="text-align: center" | 90.70%
| style="text-align: center" | FY2018<ref name="MLITstatFY2018" />
|-
| style="text-align: center" | Japan
| Nagoya Municipal Subway
| style="text-align: center" | Distance based
| style="text-align: center" | 167.24%
| style="text-align: center" | FY2018<ref name="MLITstatFY2018" />
|-
| rowspan="2" style="text-align: center" | Japan
| Kintetsu Railway Rail
| style="text-align: center" | Distance based
| style="text-align: center" | 152.77%
| style="text-align: center" | FY2018<ref name="MLITstatFY2018" />
|-
| Kintetsu Railway Cable
| style="text-align: center" | Various
| style="text-align: center" | 36.70%
| style="text-align: center" | FY2018<ref name="MLITstatFY2018" />
|-
| rowspan="2" style="text-align: center" | Japan
| Nankai Electric Railway Rail
| style="text-align: center" | Distance based
| style="text-align: center" | 161.26%
| style="text-align: center" | FY2018<ref name="MLITstatFY2018" />
|-
| Nankai Electric Railway Cable
| style="text-align: center" | Flat rate
| style="text-align: center" | 31.12%
| style="text-align: center" | FY2018<ref name="MLITstatFY2018" />
|-
| rowspan="2" style="text-align: center" | Japan
| Keihan Electric Railway Rail
| style="text-align: center" | Distance based
| style="text-align: center" | 166.51%
| style="text-align: center" | FY2018<ref name="MLITstatFY2018" />
|-
| Keihan Electric Railway Subway
| style="text-align: center" | Distance based
| style="text-align: center" | 29.05%
| style="text-align: center" | FY2018<ref name="MLITstatFY2018" />
|-
| rowspan="2" style="text-align: center" | Japan
| Keihan Electric Railway Streetcar
| style="text-align: center" | Distance based
| style="text-align: center" | 73.08%
| style="text-align: center" | FY2018<ref name="MLITstatFY2018" />
|-
| Keihan Electric Railway Cable
| style="text-align: center" | Flat rate
| style="text-align: center" | 71.73%
| style="text-align: center" | FY2018<ref name="MLITstatFY2018" />
|-
| rowspan="2" style="text-align: center" | Japan
| rowspan="2" | Hankyu Railway
| rowspan="2" style="text-align: center" | Distance based
| style="text-align: center" | 123%
| style="text-align: center" | 1991<ref name="jrtr.net">Dr. Kenichi Shoji, [http://www.jrtr.net/jrtr29/pdf/f12_sho.pdf "Lessons from Japanese Experiences of Roles of Public and Private Sectors in Urban Transport"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061008005640/http://www.jrtr.net/jrtr29/pdf/f12_sho.pdf|date=8 October 2006}}, ''Japan Railway & Transport Review'', December 2001</ref>
|-
| style="text-align: center" | 169.74%
| style="text-align: center" | FY2018<ref name="MLITstatFY2018" />
|-
| style="text-align: center" | Japan
| Hanshin Electric Railway
| style="text-align: center" | Distance based
| style="text-align: center" | 146.75%
| style="text-align: center" | FY2018<ref name="MLITstatFY2018" />
|-
| rowspan="3" style="text-align: center" | Japan
| Osaka Municipal Transportation Bureau
| style="text-align: center" | Distance based
| style="text-align: center" | 137%
| style="text-align: center" | 1991<ref name="jrtr.net" />
|-
| Osaka Metro Subway
| style="text-align: center" | Distance based
| style="text-align: center" | 208.51%
| style="text-align: center" | FY2018<ref name="MLITstatFY2018" />
|-
| Osaka Metro APM/AGT
| style="text-align: center" | Distance based
| style="text-align: center" | 105.35%
| style="text-align: center" | FY2018<ref name="MLITstatFY2018" />
|-
| style="text-align: center" | Japan
| Kyoto Municipal Subway
| style="text-align: center" | Distance based
| style="text-align: center" | 201.04%
| style="text-align: center" | FY2018<ref name="MLITstatFY2018" />
|-
| style="text-align: center" | Japan
| Kobe Municipal Subway
| style="text-align: center" | Distance based
| style="text-align: center" | 169.52%
| style="text-align: center" | FY2018<ref name="MLITstatFY2018" />
|-
| style="text-align: center" | Japan
| Nishi-Nippon Railroad Rail
| style="text-align: center" | Distance based
| style="text-align: center" | 149.92%
| style="text-align: center" | FY2018<ref name="MLITstatFY2018" />
|-
| style="text-align: center" | Japan
| Fukuoka City Subway
| style="text-align: center" | Distance based
| style="text-align: center" | 205.38%
| style="text-align: center" | FY2018<ref name="MLITstatFY2018" />
|-
| style="text-align: center" | Japan
| Kitakyushu Monorail
| style="text-align: center" | Tabular
| style="text-align: center" | 144.15%
| style="text-align: center" | FY2018<ref name="MLITstatFY2018" />
|-
| style="text-align: center" | Japan
| Nagasaki Electric Tramway
| style="text-align: center" | Flat rate
| style="text-align: center" | 105.11%
| style="text-align: center" | FY2018<ref name="MLITstatFY2018" />
|-
| style="text-align: center" | Japan
| Kumamoto Tram
| style="text-align: center" | Flat rate
| style="text-align: center" | 102.60%
| style="text-align: center" | FY2018<ref name="MLITstatFY2018" />
|-
| style="text-align: center" | Japan
| Kagoshima Tram
| style="text-align: center" | Flat rate
| style="text-align: center" | 98.36%
| style="text-align: center" | FY2018<ref name="MLITstatFY2018" />
|-
| style="text-align: center" | Japan
| Okinawa Urban Monorail
| style="text-align: center" | Distance based
| style="text-align: center" | 187.55%
| style="text-align: center" | FY2018<ref name="MLITstatFY2018" />
|-
| style="text-align: center" | Pakistan
|Lahore Metrobus
| style="text-align: center" | Flat rate
| style="text-align: center" | 37.2% <ref>{{Cite news |last=Saeed |first=Shahid |date=2014-11-06 |title=Why we need more Metro Buses |language=en-US |work=DAWN.COM |url=https://www.dawn.com/news/1142688 |access-date=2018-11-06}}</ref>
| style="text-align: center" | 2014
|-
| style="text-align: center" | Taiwan
| Taipei Mass Rapid Transit
| style="text-align: center" | Distance based
| style="text-align: center" | 87.64%
| style="text-align: center" | 2021<ref>{{Cite web |title=台北捷運公司 2021年年報 |url=https://www-ws.gov.taipei/001/Upload/405/relfile/18288/7592/dc48e495-ba22-4448-8f57-dbb4f779a4af.pdf |access-date=12 February 2023 |website=Taipei MRT}}</ref>
|-
| style="text-align: center" | Taiwan
| Kaohsiung Mass Rapid Transit
| style="text-align: center" | Distance based
| style="text-align: center" | 52.57%
| style="text-align: center" | 2020<ref name="KMRT">{{cite web |title=KMRT Annual Report |url=https://corp.krtc.com.tw/eng/News/annual_report |access-date=12 February 2023 |website=krtco.com.tw}}</ref>
|-
| style="text-align: center" | Singapore
| SMRT Corporation (Singapore)
| style="text-align: center" | Distance based
| style="text-align: center" | 101%
| style="text-align: center" | 2018<ref name="SMRT Fares & Claims">{{cite web |title=SMRT Fares & Claims |url=https://www.smrt.com.sg/Journey-with-Us/SMRT-Buses/Fares-Claims |access-date=29 July 2019}}</ref>
|-
| style="text-align: center" | China
| Beijing Subway
| style="text-align: center" | Distance based
| style="text-align: center" | 60%{{citation needed|date=June 2013}}
| style="text-align: center" | 2012<ref name="fare-comparison">[http://www.zj.xinhuanet.com/newscenter/2012-07/20/c_112487081.htm "杭州地铁拟定票价 “贵”为全国前三 市民喊吃不消" 钱江晚报] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120723140823/http://www.zj.xinhuanet.com/newscenter/2012-07/20/c_112487081.htm|date=23 July 2012}} (in Chinese) 20 July 2012</ref>{{Failed verification|date=April 2022}}
|-
| style="text-align: center" | China
|Shenzhen Metro
| style="text-align: center" | Distance based
|82.20%<ref>Total expenses to fare revenue ratio ⁻¹ (成本费用占营业收入的比重)</ref>
|2021<ref>{{Cite web |date=5 July 2022 |title=2021年年度报告 |url=https://www.szmc.net/SMARTC/upload/file/20220705/1656985920567056072.pdf |access-date=12 February 2023 |website=Shenzhen Metro Group}}</ref>
|}

== Europe ==
{| class="sortable wikitable toccolours"
|-
! style="text-align: center" | Country
!Region / City
! style="text-align: center" | System
! style="text-align: center" | Ratio
! style="text-align: center" | Fare system
! style="text-align: center" | Year
|-
| Austria
|Vienna
| Vienna U-Bahn
| style="text-align: center" | 49%
| style="text-align: center" | Flat rate
| style="text-align: center" |2008<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Hale |first=Chris and Phil Charles |date=2008 |title=Visions for a sustainable transport future – a comparative analysis of transport planning approaches in Singapore, Vienna and Brisbane |url=http://atrf.info/papers/2008/2008_Hale_Charles.pdf |journal=Australasian Transport Research Forum}}</ref>
|-
| Germany
|Berlin
| Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe
| style="text-align: center" | 70%
| style="text-align: center" | Zone based
| style="text-align: center" | 2010<ref name="BVG2010">{{cite web |title=Fahrinfo |url=http://www.bvg.de/index.php/de/binaries/asset/download/900847/file/1-1 |access-date=20 November 2014 |publisher=Bvg.de}}</ref>
|-
| Belgium
|Brussels
| Brussels Intercommunal Transport Company
| style="text-align: center" | 35%
| style="text-align: center" |
| style="text-align: center" | 2007<ref name="CC2010">{{cite web |year=2010 |title=Les transports ferroviaires régionaux en Ile-de-france |url=http://www.ccomptes.fr/fr/CC/documents/RPT/Rapport_transports_ferroviaires_regionaux_ile_de_france_Novembere_2010.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111009105728/http://www.ccomptes.fr/fr/CC/documents/RPT/Rapport_transports_ferroviaires_regionaux_ile_de_france_Novembere_2010.pdf |archive-date=9 October 2011 |access-date=12 September 2011 |publisher=Cour des Comptes |page=128}}</ref>
|-
| Czechia
|Prague
| Prague Integrated Transport
| style="text-align: center" | 53%
| style="text-align: center" | Flat rate
| style="text-align: center" | 2013<ref>{{cite web |title=Výroční zpráva 2013 |url=http://www.dpp.cz/download-file/8046/vyrocni_zprava_dpp_2013-cz.pdf |publisher=DPP |pages=124, 126 |quote=Total fares revenue 4 446 808 CZK ... Operating expenditure (excluding cost of transport path) 8 365 447 CZK}}</ref>
|-
| Denmark
|Copenhagen
| Copenhagen Metro
| style="text-align: center" | 52%
| style="text-align: center" | Zone based
| style="text-align: center" | 1991<ref name="shoji">{{cite web |last=ATM Servizi S.p.A. |date=2016 |title=Bilancio 2016 |url=https://www.atm.it/it/IlGruppo/ComeLavoriamo/Documents/2017/ATM%20SERVIZI%20_%20BILANCIO%202016.pdf |access-date=9 August 2020 |publisher=ATM Servizi S.p.A.}}</ref>
|-
| France
|Paris
| Île-de-France Mobilités
| style="text-align: center" | 29%
| style="text-align: center" | Flat rate for passes<br />Distance based for tickets
| style="text-align: center" | 2018<ref name="IDFM2018">{{Citation |title=Financements, IDFM |url=https://www.iledefrance-mobilites.fr/decouvrir/financements |year=2018 |publisher=IDFM}}</ref>
|-
| Germany
|Munich
| Munich Transport and Tariff Association
| style="text-align: center" | 70%
| style="text-align: center" | Zone based
| style="text-align: center" | 2010<ref>{{Cite web |last=Hale |first=Chris and Phil Charles |date=11 July 2010 |title=PRACTICE REVIEWS IN PEAK PERIOD RAIL NETWORK MANAGEMENT: MUNICH & WASHINGTON DC |url=http://www.wctrs-society.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/abstracts/lisbon/selected/01585.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180202190138/http://www.wctrs-society.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/abstracts/lisbon/selected/01585.pdf |archive-date=2018-02-02 |access-date=1 February 2018 |website=World Conference on Transport Research Society}}</ref>
|-
| Italy
|Milan
| Milan Transportation System
| style="text-align: center" | 49%
| style="text-align: center" |
| style="text-align: center" | 2016<ref name="shoji" />
|-
| Italy
|Rome
| Rome Metro
| style="text-align: center" | 36%
| style="text-align: center" |
| style="text-align: center" | 2007<ref name="CC2010" />
|-
|Netherlands
|Amsterdam
| Gemeentelijk Vervoerbedrijf Amsterdam
| style="text-align: center" | 88%
| style="text-align: center" | Distance based
| style="text-align: center" | 2018<ref name="GVB2017">{{cite web |year=2016 |title=GVB Annual Report |url=http://fliphtml5.com/ikoj/blbl |publisher=GVB |page=19 |access-date=31 August 2017 |archive-date=18 January 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220118022601/https://fliphtml5.com/ikoj/blbl |url-status=dead }}</ref>
|-
|Netherlands
|Rotterdam
| Rotterdamse Elektrische Tram 
| style="text-align: center" | 99%
| style="text-align: center" | Distance based
| style="text-align: center" | 2018<ref name="RET2018">{{cite web |title=RET Annual Report |url=https://retjaarverslag.nl/jaarrekening/geconsolideerde-winst-en-verliesrekening-over-2018 |access-date=15 October 2019 |website=retjaarverslag.nl |publisher=ret.nl}}</ref>
|-
| Poland
|Warsaw
| ZTM
| style="text-align: center" | 37%
|
| style="text-align: center" | 2019<ref>{{Cite web |date=2019 |title=Raport Roczny Zarządu Transportu Miejskiego w Warszawie |url=https://www.ztm.waw.pl/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Raport-Roczny-ZTM-2019.pdf }}</ref>
|-
| Spain
|Catalonia
| Metropolitan lines of Ferrocarrils de la Generalitat de Catalunya (Catalonia)
| style="text-align: center" | 93%
| style="text-align: center" | Zone based
| style="text-align: center" | 2014<ref>{{cite journal |date=11 March 2015 |title=Presentació de resultats 2014 |trans-title=2014 Presentation of Results |url=http://premsa.gencat.cat/pres_fsvp/docs/2015/03/11/11/12/ffd2a0aa-4c16-4125-811d-e2afbcfb13b9.pdf |language=ca |publisher=Ferrocarrils de la Generalitat de Catalunya; Government of Catalonia. |pages=12–13 |access-date=4 July 2015}}</ref>
|-
| Spain
|Madrid
| Madrid Metro
| style="text-align: center" | 41%
| style="text-align: center" |
| style="text-align: center" | 2007<ref name="CC2010" />
|-
| Sweden
|[[Place:Stockholm|Stockholm]]
| Storstockholms Lokaltrafik 
| style="text-align: center" | 52%
| style="text-align: center" | Flat rate
| style="text-align: center" | 2017<ref name="SLL2017">{{Citation |title=Fakta om SL och länet 2017 |url=https://www.sll.se/globalassets/2.-kollektivtrafik/fakta-om-sl-och-lanet/sl_och_lanet_2017.pdf |page=57 |year=2017 |publisher=SLL}}</ref>
|-
| Switzerland
|Zurich
| Zürich S-Bahn
| style="text-align: center" | 60%
| style="text-align: center" | Zone based
| style="text-align: center" | 2014<ref name="shoji" />
|-
| Finland
|Helsinki
| Helsinki Regional Transport Authority
| style="text-align: center" | 49%<ref name="Helsinki">{{cite web |date=28 March 2012 |title=HSL's passenger numbers and ticket revenue increased in 2011 |url=https://www.hsl.fi/en/news/2012/hsls-passenger-numbers-and-ticket-revenue-increased-2011-3326 |access-date=30 June 2015 |publisher=HSL}}</ref> 
| style="text-align: center" | Zone based
| style="text-align: center" | 2019
|-
| Turkey
|Istanbul
| Metro Istanbul A.S.
| style="text-align: center" | 90%
| style="text-align: center" | Flat rate
| style="text-align: center" | 2019<ref>{{Cite web |title=Hakkımızda |url=https://www.metro.istanbul/icerik/hakkimizda |access-date=2020-10-05 |website=metro.istanbul}}</ref>
|-
| rowspan="2" style="text-align: center" | United Kingdom
| rowspan="2" |London
|London Underground
| style="text-align: center" | 134%<ref name=":6">{{Cite web |last= |date=December 2019 |title=Transport for London Business Plan 2020/21 to 2024/25 |url=http://content.tfl.gov.uk/tfl-business-plan-2019.pdf |website=Transport for London |pages=126–142}}</ref>
| style="text-align: center" | Zone based
| style="text-align: center" | 2018–19<ref name=":6" />
|-
|London Overground and Docklands Light Railway
| style="text-align: center" |94%<ref name=":6" />
| style="text-align: center" | Zone based
| style="text-align: center" | 2018–19<ref name=":6" />
|}

== North America ==

=== Canada ===
{| class="wikitable sortable"
|+Canada Farebox recovery rate
!Region
!Operator
!Fare Revenue
!Operating Expenses
!Ratio
!Fare System
!Year
|-
|Nationwide
|VIA Rail
|
|
|51%
|Distance & demand based
|2016<ref>{{cite web |title=VIA Rail Annual Report 2016 |url=http://www.viarail.ca/sites/all/files/media/pdfs/About_VIA/our-company/annual-reports/2016/2016_Annual%20Report_EN.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171220000155/http://www.viarail.ca/sites/all/files/media/pdfs/About_VIA/our-company/annual-reports/2016/2016_Annual%20Report_EN.pdf |archive-date=20 December 2017 |access-date=19 December 2017 |publisher=VIA Rail |df=dmy-all}}</ref>
|-
|Brampton
|Brampton Transit
|
|
|50%
|Flat rate
|2019<ref name="Brampton">{{cite web |date=19 March 2019 |title=City of Brampton Budget Committee Document |url=http://www.brampton.ca/EN/City-Hall/meetings-agendas/Budget%20Committee/20190319bu_Agenda.pdf |access-date=19 March 2019 |publisher=p. 82}}</ref>
|-
|Calgary
|Calgary Transit
|
|
|50%
|Flat rate
|2012<ref>{{cite web |title=City of Calgary Transportation Approved 2015-2018 Action Plan |url=http://www.calgary.ca/cfod/finance/Documents/Action-Plan/Approved/Transportation-Action-Plan-2015-2018-Approved.pdf |access-date=13 January 2018 |publisher=City of Calgary |ref=Calgary2012}}</ref>
|-
|Edmonton
|Edmonton Transit System
|
|
|39%
|Flat rate
|
|-
|Mississauga
|MiWay
|
|
|46%
|Flat rate
|2011<ref name="Canada2011">{{cite web |title= |url=http://www.mississauga.ca/file/COM/F2014-2016.Presentation_for_Transit.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150630225055/http://www.mississauga.ca/file/COM/F2014-2016.Presentation_for_Transit.pdf |archive-date=30 June 2015 |website=www.mississauga.ca}}</ref>
|-
|Montreal
|Société de transport de Montréal
|
|
|46%
|Flat rate
|2016<ref>[http://www.stm.info/sites/default/files/affairespubliques/Communiques/stm_rapport_annuel_2016_final.pdf Annual report 2016] stm.info</ref>
|-
|Ottawa
|OC Transpo
|
|
|45%
|Flat rate
|2019<ref>{{Cite web |title=Fares &#124; OC Transpo |url=https://www.octranspo.com/en/fares/}}</ref>
|-
|Quebec City
|Réseau de transport de la Capitale
|
|
|39%
|Flat rate
|2011<ref name="Canada2011" />
|-
| rowspan="2" |Toronto and Hamilton
|Toronto Transit Commission
|
|
|26.2%
|Flat rate
|2021<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |title=TTC 2021 Annual Report |url=https://ttc-cdn.azureedge.net/-/media/Project/TTC/DevProto/Documents/Home/Transparency-and-accountability/Reports/Annual-Reports/TTC_AnnualReport_2021_accessible_v2.pdf |access-date=1 November 2022}}</ref>
|-
|GO Transit
|
|
|50.37%<ref>The ratio has been calculated by the article editor using the provided operating cost of $1,139,982 000 and the provided fare revenue of $574,160,000</ref>
|Distance based
|2020-21<ref>[https://www.metrolinx.com/en/aboutus/publications/Annual-Report-2020-21-English.pdf Annual report 2020-21] metrolinx.com</ref>
|-
|Vancouver
|TransLink
|
|
|43.7%
|Zone based; transition to distance based upcoming
|2022<ref>{{cite web |title=TransLink Accountability Report 2022 |url=https://www.translink.ca/-/media/translink/documents/about-translink/corporate-reports/accountability_reports/2022/accountability_report_2022.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230618034326/https://www.translink.ca/-/media/translink/documents/about-translink/corporate-reports/accountability_reports/2022/accountability_report_2022.pdf |archive-date=18 June 2023 |access-date=5 October 2023 |page=56}}</ref>
|-
|Victoria
|BC Transit (Victoria regional transit system)
|
|
| 28.4%
|Flat rate
|2022<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.bctransit.com/documents/1529722679869 | title=#4 - Financial & Performance Report | date=June 13, 2023 | access-date=October 26, 2023 | publisher=BC Transit}}</ref>
|-
|Winnipeg
|Winnipeg Transit
|
|
|60%
|Flat rate
|2011<ref name="Canada2011" />
|-
|York
|York Region Transit
|
|
|40%
|Flat rate
|2015<ref>{{cite web |date=February 18, 2015 |title=Background |url=https://www.york.ca/wps/wcm/connect/yorkpublic/7e287b35-8d09-40eb-b806-c986092d4eb8/mar+5+fare+ex.pdf?MOD=AJPERES |access-date=September 23, 2019 |work=York Region Transit (YRT/Viva) Fare Adjustments and Fare Policy Update |publisher=Regional Municipality of York |page=2}}</ref>
|}

=== United States ===
{| class="wikitable sortable"
|+
!Region
!System Operator 
!Fare Revenue
!Operating Expenses
!Ratio
!Fare System
!Year
|-
|Nationwide
|Amtrak
|
|
|95%
|Distance & demand based
|2017<ref>{{cite web |date=16 November 2017 |title=Amtrak Sets Ridership, Revenue and Earnings Records |url=https://media.amtrak.com/2017/11/amtrak-sets-ridership-revenue-and-earnings-records/ |access-date=3 April 2018 |website=Amtrak}}</ref>
|-
|Boston, MA-NH-RI
|MBTA
|$545,414,783.00
|$1,556,792,859.00
|35.03%
|Flat rate<ref name="Boston">{{cite web |title=2018 Transit Agency Profile |url=https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/transit_agency_profile_doc/2018/10003.pdf |access-date=15 March 2020 |publisher=FTA}}</ref>
|2020<ref name=":7" />
|-
| rowspan="10" |New York-Newark, NY-NJ-CT
|NYC Ferry
|
|
|29%
|Flat Rate
|2017<ref name=":1">{{Cite news |date=2017-04-17 |title=All Aboard: Mayor de Blasio Welcomes NYC Ferry Boats to New York Harbor |work=The official website of the City of New York |url=http://www1.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/234-17/all-aboard-mayor-de-blasio-welcomes-nyc-ferry-boats-new-york-harbor/#/0 |access-date=2017-04-21}}</ref>
|-
|MTA Bus
|$95,403,036.00
|$712,036,903.00
|13.40%
|
|2020<ref name=":7" />
|-
|MTA Long Island Rail Road
|$272,532,791.00
|$1,464,445,571.00
|18.61%
|Zone based<ref name="nycmta2019" />
|2020<ref name=":7" />
|-
|MTA Metro-North
|$243,671,760.00
|$1,207,182,081.00
|20.19%
|Distance based<ref name="nycmta2019" />
|2020<ref name=":7" />
|-
|MTA New York City Transit
|$2,018,495,902.00
|$8,258,335,723.00
|24.44%
|Flat rate<ref name="nycmta2019">{{Cite web |date=December 2019 |title=Farebox Recovery and Farebox Operating Ratios: 2019 Adopted Budget / Final Estimate and Preliminary Actuals |url=https://new.mta.info/document/13731 |access-date=12 February 2022 |publisher=Metropolitan Transportation Authority |format=XLS}}</ref>
|2020<ref name=":7">{{Cite web |date=September 2021 |title=Transit Profiles: 2020 Top 50 Reporters |url=https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/2021-11/2020%20Top%2050%20Profiles%20Report_0.pdf |website=Federal Transit Administration}}</ref>
|-
|MTA Staten Island Railway
|
|
|11%
|Flat rate
|2019<ref name="nycmta2019" />
|-
|PATH
|$73,263,022.00
|$448,244,536.00
|16.34%
|Flat rate<ref name=":11" />
|2020<ref name=":7" />
|-
|NYCDOT
|$1,342,638.00
|$144,618,026.00
|0.93%
|Free (Staten Island Ferry)
|2020<ref name=":7" />
|-
|NJTransit
|$743,742,067.00
|$2,325,547,904.00
|31.98%
|Zone based on most Buses and all commuter trains<br />Flat Rate on some buses and all light rails<ref name=":11">{{Cite web |last=Federal Transportation Administration |date=September 2017 |title=National Transit Database Transit Profiles: 2016 |url=https://cms.fta.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/ntd/66026/top-50-summary-and-complete-profile-set_1.pdf |access-date=1 February 2018 |website=fta.dot.gov}}</ref>
|2020<ref name=":7" />
|-
|Bee-Line Bus System
|$18,698,988.00
|$161,250,867.00
|11.60%
|
|2020<ref name=":7" />
|-
| rowspan="2" |Chicago, IL-IN
|CTA
|$236,301,686.00
|$1,436,453,698.00
|16.45%
|Flat rate<ref name=":8">{{cite web |title=Chicago Transit Authority 2018 Budget Recommendations |url=http://www.transitchicago.com/assets/1/finance_budget/2018_Budget_Book_2017-11-21_FINAL_web_version.pdf |access-date=13 January 2018 |publisher=Chicago Transit Authority |ref=Chicago2016}}</ref>
|2020<ref name=":7" />
|-
|METRA
|$102,350,491.00
|$710,195,494.00
|14.41%
|Zone based<ref name=":11" />
|2020<ref name=":7" />
|-
|Atlanta, GA
|Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority
|$100,300,226.00
|$492,839,897.00
|20.35%
|Flat rate<ref name=":11" />
|2020<ref name=":7" />
|-
|Portland, OR-WA
|TriMET
|$94,456,931.00
|$518,451,362.00
|18.22%
|Flat rate<ref name=":11" />
|2020<ref name=":7" />
|-
|Baltimore, MD
|MTA
|$102,029,183.00
|$805,145,982.00
|12.67%
|Variable<ref name="ntdprogram1">{{cite web |url=http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram/pubs/top_profiles/2012/Transit%20Profiles%20Top%2050%20Agencies.pdf |title= |website=www.ntdprogram.gov |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150501083330/http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram/pubs/top_profiles/2012/Transit%20Profiles%20Top%2050%20Agencies.pdf |archive-date=1 May 2015}}</ref>
|2020<ref name=":7" />
|-
|San Diego, CA
|SDMTS 
|$78,709,562.00
|$291,553,478.00
|27.00%
|Flat rate<ref name=":11" />
|2020<ref name=":7" />
|-
|Houston, TX
|Houston Metro
|$37,305,222.00
|$587,595,095.00
|6.35%
|
|2020<ref name=":7" />
|-
|Miami, FL
|County of Miami-Dade (Transportation & Public Work)
|$47,456,089.00
|$553,336,216.00
|8.58%
|Flat rate<ref name=":11" />
|2020<ref name=":7" />
|-
|Denver-Aurora, CO
|RTD
|$76,264,572.00
|$623,982,843.00
|12.22%
|Zone Based<ref name=":13">{{cite news |last1=Curley |first1=Caitlin |date=26 September 2019 |title=RTD says its costs far exceed revenue |agency=Colorado Politics |url=https://www.coloradopolitics.com/quick-hits/rtd-says-its-costs-far-exceed-revenue/article_8d25f930-e061-11e9-b0d4-cbc7de67f776.html |access-date=27 September 2019}}</ref>
|2020<ref name=":7" />
|-
|Pittsburgh, PA
|PRT
|$79,071,495.00
|$434,687,600.00
|18.19%
|
|2020<ref name=":7" />
|-
|Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX
|DART
|$43,547,629.00
|$569,628,198.00
|7.64%
|Flat rate<ref name="dartreferencebookmar17">{{cite web |title=Dallas Area Rapid Transit Reference Book |url=https://www.dart.org/about/dartreferencebookmar17.pdf |access-date=25 May 2017}}</ref>
|2020<ref name=":7" />
|-
|Honolulu, HI
|City and County of Honolulu (Department of Transportation Services)
|$46,815,334.00
|$278,447,442.00
|16.81%
|
|2020<ref name=":7" />
|-
| rowspan="4" |San Francisco-Oakland, CA
|SFMTA
|$153,699,058.00
|$903,485,983.00
|17.01%
|Flat rate<ref name=":14">{{cite web |title=Muni farebox recovery ratio |date=20 May 2019 |url=https://www.sfmta.com/reports/muni-farebox-recovery-ratio |access-date=16 September 2020 |publisher=San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency}}</ref>
|2020<ref name=":7" />
|-
|BART
|$341,586,797.00
|$681,983,690.00
|50.09%
|Distance based<ref name=":10">{{Cite web |title=Financial Statements 2016 |url=https://40p8jznnbth2x4kjqy2wvfb3-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/2016-and-2015-FINAL-LV-Monorail.pdf |access-date=10 February 2018}}</ref>
|2020<ref name=":7" />
|-
|AC Transit
|$66,561,904.00
|$501,047,399.00
|13.28%
|
|2020<ref name=":7" />
|-
|Oakland Airport Connector
|
|
|96%
|Flat rate
|2015–2016<ref name="Oakland Airport Connector">{{cite news |last1=Baldassari |first1=Erin |date=27 November 2016 |title=BART's Oakland Airport Connector losing money; Uber, Lyft to blame? |newspaper=East Bay Times |url=http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2016/11/27/barts-oakland-airport-connector-losing-money-uber-lyft-to-blame/ |access-date=29 November 2016}}</ref>
|-
|Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI
|Metro Transit
|$40,804,932.00
|$413,038,880.00
|9.88%
|Flat rate with rush hour and express surcharges<ref name=":11" />
|2020<ref name=":7" />
|-
| rowspan="3" |Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA
|Orange County Transportation Authority
|$42,450,631.00
|$268,394,220.00
|15.82%
|
|2020<ref name=":7" />
|-
|LA Metro
|$199,728,314.00
|$1,841,473,552.00
|10.85%
|Flat rate<ref name=":11" />
|2020<ref name=":7" />
|-
|Long Beach Transit
|$10,201,475.00
|$92,339,794.00
|11.05%
|
|2020<ref name=":7" />
|-
|Phoenix-Mesa, AZ
|Valley Metro
|$21,292,051.00
|$208,489,994.00
|10.21%
|
|2020<ref name=":7" />
|-
|San Antonio, TX
|VIA Metropolitan Transit
|$15,033,510.00
|$222,032,078.00
|6.77%
|Flat rate<ref name=":11" />
|2020<ref name=":7" />
|-
|St. Louis, MO-IL
|St. Louis Metro
|$30,986,092.00
|$282,175,101.00
|10.98%
|
|2020<ref name=":7" />
|-
|San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA
|VTA
|$28,886,823.00
|$403,260,461.00
|7.16%
|
|2020<ref name=":7" />
|-
|Buffalo, NY
|NFTA
|$34,814,699.00
|$141,163,925.00
|24.66%
|
|2020<ref name=":7" />
|-
|Salt Lake City-West Valley City, UT
|UTA
|$32,521,480.00
|$319,885,004.00
|10.17%
|
|2020<ref name=":7" />
|-
|Austin-Round Rock- San Marcos, TX
|CapMetro
|$15,298,332.00
|$229,551,099.00
|6.66%
|Flat rate<ref name=":11" />
|2020<ref name=":7" />
|-
|Charlotte, NC-SC
|CATS
|$21,018,416.00
|$162,317,729.00
|12.95%
|
|2020<ref name=":7" />
|-
|Detroit–Warren–Dearborn, MI
|DDOT
|$13,954,074.00
|$101,100,585.00
|13.80%
|Flat rate<ref name=":11" />
|2020<ref name=":7" />
|-
|Miami–Fort Lauderdale–West Palm Beach, FL
|BCT
|$13,814,362.00
|$158,832,625.00
|8.70%
|
|2020<ref name=":7" />
|-
|Milwaukee–Waukesha, WI
|MCTS
|$16,739,398.00
|$141,752,155.00
|11.81%
|
|2020<ref name=":7" />
|-
|Orlando–Kissimmee–Sanford, FL
|Lynx
|$13,596,128.00
|$139,097,081.00
|9.77%
|Flat rate<ref name=":11" />
|2020<ref name=":7" />
|-
|Sacramento, CA
|SacRT
|$21,517,225.00
|$173,873,225.00
|12.38%
|
|2020<ref name=":7" />
|-
|Cleveland–Elyria, OH 
|RTA
|$26,194,783.00
|$259,797,759.00
|10.08%
|Flat rate<ref name=":11" />
|2020<ref name=":7" />
|-
| rowspan="2" |Washington, DC-VA-MD
|Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
|$492,953,775.00
|$2,028,885,121.00
|24.30%
|Distance and time of day based<ref name=":12">{{Cite web |title=30030 - 2016 Agency Profile |url=https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/transit_agency_profile_doc/2016/30030.pdf |access-date=20 June 2018 |website=Federal Transit Administration}}</ref>
|2020<ref name=":7" />
|-
|Montgomery County, Maryland
|$13,387,860.00
|$127,225,668.00
|10.52%
|
|2020<ref name=":7" />
|-
| rowspan="5" |Seattle, WA
|King County Metro
|$72,180,466.00
|$802,227,614.00
|9.00%
|Zone and peak based<ref name=":15">{{Cite web |title=What to pay - Fares & ORCA passes - Metro Transit - King County |url=http://kingcounty.gov/depts/transportation/metro/fares-orca/what-to-pay.aspx |access-date=2017-06-24 |website=kingcounty.gov |language=en}}</ref>
|2020<ref name=":7" />
|-
|Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority
|$30,788,666.00
|$349,797,231.00
|8.80%
|
|2020<ref name=":7" />
|-
|Washington State Ferries
|$62,242,674.00
|$270,557,025.00
|23.01%
|
|2020<ref name=":7" />
|-
|Sound Transit ''Formally: Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority''
|
|
|42%<!-- 2017 budget: $88 million in farebox revenue, $299,348,000 in transit operating -->
|Zone & distance based
|2017<ref>[https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/sound-transit-adopted-2017-budget.pdf Sound Transit 2017 Adopted Budget]</ref>
|-
|Pierce Transit
|$54,164,161
|$127,654,974
|42%
|Flat rate
|2021<ref name=":9">{{Cite web |title=2021 Annual Financial Report |url=https://www.piercetransit.org/file_viewer.php?id=6362 |access-date=17 November 2023 |website=Federal Transit Administration}}</ref>
|-
|Albany-Schenectady, NY
|CDTA
|$20,804,704.00
|$93,755,632.00
|22.19%
|
|2020<ref name=":7" />
|-
|Harrisburg, PA
|Capital Area Transit
|$2,398,430
|$20,278,765
|17%
|Flat rate
|2022<ref>{{Cite web |date=2022 |title=FTA Transit Profiles |url=https://www.drpa.org/pdfs/Budget_Operating_PATCO_2023.pdf |access-date=17 November 2023}}</ref>
|-
| rowspan="2" |Las Vegas-Henderson, NV
|Las Vegas Monorail
|
|
|56%
|Flat rate
|2016<ref name=":10" />
|-
|RTC
|$51,823,479.00
|$227,523,119.00
|22.78%
|
|2020<ref name=":7" />
|-
| rowspan="2" |Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE-MD
|SEPTA
|$353,276,517.00
|$1,301,894,928.00
|27.14%
|Flat rate<ref name=":11" />
|2020<ref name=":7" />
|-
|PATCO
|$15,542,809
|$63,349,398
|25%
|Distance based
|2023<ref>{{Cite web |date=2023 |title=PATCO Operating Budget |url=https://www.drpa.org/pdfs/Budget_Operating_PATCO_2023.pdf}}</ref>
|-
|Orlando, FL
|SunRail
|
|
|7%
|Distance based
|2018<ref>{{Cite web |last=SunRail |title=Central Florida Rail Commission Quarterly Update |url=https://corporate.sunrail.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/01-31-19-CFCRC-Meeting-Materials.pdf |publisher=Central Florida Rail Commission}}</ref>
|-
|
|Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (Caltrain)
|
|
|70%
|Zone based
|2019<ref>{{cite web |title=Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Fiscal Years Ended June 30, 2020 and 2019 |url=https://www.caltrain.com/Assets/_Finance/CAFR/CT/Peninsula+Corridor+Joint+Powers+Board+CAFR+2020.pdf |access-date=12 February 2022 |publisher=Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Boeard}}</ref>
|-
|
|Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
|
|
|10%
|Express surcharges
|2016<ref>{{cite news |last1=Richards |first1=Gary |date=30 November 2016 |title=VTA bus routes due for a shakeup in 2017 |newspaper=The Mercury News |url=http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/11/30/vta-bus-routes-due-for-a-shakeup-in-2017/ |access-date=10 December 2016}}</ref>
|-
|
|Southern California Regional Rail Authority (Metrolink)
|
|
|34%
|Distance based
|2019<ref>{{cite web |date=31 December 2020 |title=Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for Fiscal Years Ended June 30 2020 & 2019 |url=https://metrolinktrains.com/globalassets/about/financial-reports/comprehensive-annual-financial-report---fiscal-year-ended-june-30-2020.pdf |access-date=12 February 2022 |website=Metrolink}}</ref>
|}

== Oceania ==
{| class="sortable wikitable toccolours"
|-
! Country 
!Region
! System
! style="text-align: center" data-sort-type="number" | Ratio
! style="text-align: center" | Fare system
! style="text-align: center" | Year
|-
|Australia
|Canberra
|ACTION
|7.7%
|Flat rate
|2021<ref>{{cite web |title=Productivity report shows ACT ranks among worst in public transport costs {{!}} The Canberra Times {{!}} Canberra, ACT | date=14 December 2021 |url=https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/7551296/act-public-transport-costs-outweigh-ticket-revenue/?cs=14225}}</ref>
|-
|Australia
|Melbourne
|Melbourne
|30%
|Zone and time based
|2014<ref name=":2">{{cite web |url=http://www.bitre.gov.au/publications/2014/files/is_059.pdf |title= |website=www.bitre.gov.au |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150329095354/http://www.bitre.gov.au/publications/2014/files/is_059.pdf |archive-date=29 March 2015}}</ref>
|-
|Australia
|Sydney
|CityRail
|27%
|Distance based
|2014<ref>{{cite web |title=The cost of transport and fare setting &#124; Transport Sydney |date=9 January 2014 |url=http://transportsydney.wordpress.com/2014/01/10/the-cost-of-transport-and-fare-setting/ |access-date=20 May 2015 |publisher=Transportsydney.wordpress.com}}</ref>
|-
|Australia
|Sydney
|Metropolitan Bus System
|32%
|
|2011<ref name=":2" />
|-
|New Zealand
|
|Auckland
|44%
|Zone Based
|2012–13<ref name="NZ Min of Transport - Accessibility of PT Indicator">{{cite web |title=Access to the transport system : Accessibility of public transport |url=http://www.transport.govt.nz/ourwork/tmif/accesstothetransportsystem/am023/ |access-date=20 November 2014 |publisher=Transport.govt.nz}}</ref>
|-
|New Zealand
|
|Christchurch
|35%
|Zone Based
|2012–13<ref name="NZ Min of Transport - Accessibility of PT Indicator" />
|-
|New Zealand
|
|Dunedin
|60%
|Zone Based
|2015–16<ref name="NZ Min of Transport - Accessibility of PT Indicator" />
|-
|New Zealand
|
|Hamilton
|34%
|Flat rate
|2012–13<ref name="NZ Min of Transport - Accessibility of PT Indicator" />
|-
|New Zealand
|
|Wellington
|57%
|Zone Based
|2012–13<ref name="NZ Min of Transport - Accessibility of PT Indicator" />
|}

== South America ==


==References==
{{Reflist}}


{{DEFAULTSORT:Farebox Recovery Ratio}}
[[Category:Transport economics]]

{{Sourceattribution|Farebox recovery ratio}}