The cost of operating our buses works out to around $2.60 per trip--not an ideal measure, since "trip" makes no reference to travel time or distance, but oh well. Not everyone can pay this, so our base fare is $1.25 per trip. You pay less if you buy transfers, passes, etc.
-
-
Nonetheless--it would mean ending most coverage service in its current form. But coverage service is that which is specifically for small numbers of people dispersed over large areas...better suited to cars (or, in transit mode, taxis) than fixed route transit.
-
So, for people who can't drive but who don't live somewhere that's practical to serve with fixed routes, a subsidized taxi service makes more sense. Maybe with dedicated pickup/dropoff points to streamline operations, but not with dedicated routes or timetables.
-
An on-demand service somewhere between existing paratransit and Uber; subsidized by taxpayers as part of the social safety net. Operated independently of any fixed-route transit, which has very different needs and strategies, and can (at least potentially) make profit.
-
The makeup of ridership vs coverage varies wildly between agencies, smaller agencies may have a majority of coverage-only routes. Should agencies be left only with a few routes to serve, and how does the handoff of routes happen between entities?
-
Not sure how the handoff/transition would go. Nothing wrong with a one-route agency though, in principle
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Part of the point of a modern stored-value fare system is that "confusing" differential fares can be baked into the system without confusion for the rider
-
They have stored value fare in Japan (I half expect they had it first) too--shifting fares based on crowding can be processed easily that way, but it still means the possibility of not being able to afford a trip you normally make with little warning...
-
...which is why I think the marginal increase in fare "accuracy" is not worth the trouble for riders.
-
Best-practice farecards have negative balance and autoload capabilities...theoretically no one should be denied at a faregate with a valid product. The point is more about incentivizing off-peak ridership more than the "accurate" compensation
-
I'm familiar with that justification too, and to address it I only point out that cities which do this still experience heavy crowding at peak hours. But even if it worked I'd object to charging people extra to ensure trains go underutilized during peak demand!
-
I think crowding on trains is its own disincentive, rather like traffic congestion--people who can travel at other times will already prefer to; charging extra just means hosing the poorest
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.