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.
-
Show 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
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
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @bensh__ @humantransit
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...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
...which is why I think the marginal increase in fare "accuracy" is not worth the trouble for riders.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @380kmh @humantransit
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
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @bensh__ @humantransit
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!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
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
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.