Well, wouldn't you know it: it turns out not everyone can pay $1.25, either. So we have an "Elderly and Disabled" fare (where "disabled" just means "receiving SSDI"), which is just $0.60 per trip. The discount applies to all our passes too. And guess what...
-
-
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 -
-
-
Yes. Coverage service exists for non-ridership purposes.http://humantransit.org/2018/02/basics-the-ridership-coverage-tradeoff.html …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.