...and that whatever budget they're willing to put together might not line up with the needs of an actually useful transit system. If the system they pay for is subpar, anyone with an option will avoid it, cutting off even more possible revenue.
-
Show this thread
-
The result of trying to operate transit as a sort of charity transport of last resort ends up fucking over the people who DO use it (because it doesn't go as frequently as they need, or to half the destinations they want, and they STILL struggle to pay) *and* the people who DON'T
1 reply 2 retweets 11 likesShow this thread -
Imagine if we applied the same reasoning we use in transport to, say, food distribution: if grocery stores charged, say, $5 per item (any item) instead of charging market rate for most and letting those who need it use gov aid.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likesShow this thread -
Rather than subject grocery stores to the insane logic of public transit, I'm interested in doing the reverse: base transit fares on the ACTUAL COST of providing the service, and offer discounted or free passes as a welfare benefit for those who need it.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likesShow this thread -
I contend that the result would be a much more extensive transit network, used by a much broader range of the population, largely independent of shifts in the whims of taxpayers. Admittedly we have a very low bar to clear in these respects.
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @380kmh
Well, to do it really fairly, it would be based on operating cost per rider, so empty buses would be more expensive to ride than full ones. See Ch 11 of my book. That would result in the collapse of most coverage services and retreat to the high-ridership network.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @humantransit
I recall--but I also contend that this goes beyond what's practical for the sake of what's fair in theory. The arcane fare system for trains in UK charges more or less based on how full a train is, but this ends up being much more confusing than the Japanese approach...
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @380kmh @humantransit
...which charges based on distance (with surcharges for seat reservations, etc, where available), but the same rate for the same distance regardless of level of crowding or time of day.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @380kmh @humantransit
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.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @380kmh @humantransit
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
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.
-
-
Replying to @380kmh @humantransit
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?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @bensh__ @humantransit
Not sure how the handoff/transition would go. Nothing wrong with a one-route agency though, in principle
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
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.