Highest Bus Fares In US
Mike Gallant
$1.75. Which transit system charges such a fare? Answer: San Diego
Transit. Better to buy the $5.00 unlimited daypass if you plan to ride
for just one day. The pass is also valid for unlimited travel on
suburban NCTD buses to the north. Not a bad deal.
If we really take a look at things- bus fares should start going
up....not down. We should not expect the federal government to pump
anymore dollars into transit systems (federal subsidies continue to
decline each year- not that I totally agree with this practice but it
*is* happening). Transit must now re-invent itself and one of the best
ways to do this is to raise fares to a more appropriate level. There
are so many bus systems around the country in which you could still get
a bus ride for a mere 75 cents to $1.00. This just doesn't make sense
in 1999. These bus fares have not changed much in the past 20 years.
Anyone with me on this?
Cheers,
MIKE
Aaron M. Renn
>If we really take a look at things- bus fares should start going
>up....not down. We should not expect the federal government to pump
>anymore dollars into transit systems (federal subsidies continue to
>decline each year- not that I totally agree with this practice but it
>*is* happening). Transit must now re-invent itself and one of the best
>ways to do this is to raise fares to a more appropriate level. There
>are so many bus systems around the country in which you could still get
>a bus ride for a mere 75 cents to $1.00. This just doesn't make sense
>in 1999. These bus fares have not changed much in the past 20 years.
Fares should probably be set higher in some instances. For example, I've
long been a believer in congestion pricing for transit. Rush hour
surcharges would clear the peak period overcrowding on major urban systems
as well as raise revenue. Off peak fares should be cut to fill empty seats
where they exist. There's little hope of this being done rationally by
government owned monopoly transit systems though. An across the board fare
increase is probably not a good idea.
--
Aaron M. Renn (ar...@urbanophile.com) http://www.urbanophile.com/arenn/
lwin
> $1.75. Which transit system charges such a fare? Answer: San Diego
> Transit. Better to buy the $5.00 unlimited daypass if you plan to ride
It is difficult to make simple comparisons of base transit fares.
First, as mentioned, many systems have multi ride discounts that are
substantially cheaper than the single base fare. For example, SEPTA
charges $1.60 base fare but only $1.15 for two rides (using tokens)
and even less for unlimited ride commutation passes.
Secondly, distance run can travel on a base fare varies tremendously.
In New York City, you can ride the subway 30 miles and connecting buses,
all on a single $1.50 fare. Other cities have cheaper base fares, but
quickly throw in zone fares that can really add up.
Third, fares are only one part of the equation. Service quality counts
too. I'd rather pay a higher pay to support more frequent service.
(When a court lawsuit denied SEPTA a fare decrease, it had to cut service
back.) Many cities charge a premium for an express bus ride.
> If we really take a look at things- bus fares should start going
> up....not down. We should not expect the federal government to pump
> anymore dollars into transit systems (federal subsidies continue to
> decline each year- not that I totally agree with this practice but it
> *is* happening).
Yes it is happening, but that doesn't make it right. Is it good
social poliy for the Feds to pour money into more highways that
only get congested and get people killed and encourage suburban
sprawl? Where I am, a rail line was shut down and now they have
to build a huge cloverleaf to serve the area. I don't think that's
good economics.
> Transit must now re-invent itself and one of the best
> ways to do this is to raise fares to a more appropriate level.
Unfortunately, in the competitive environment, many potential
riders look at the cost of driving their car solely in terms of
gasoline and parking. A gallon of gas will carry someone 25
miles--about a round trip, and half the cost, roughly, of a transit
trip. That's all people see. They don't include the higher cost
of insurance, depreciation, oil, tires, brakes, etc., and these
costs are significant. Increased transit fares will hurt more.
I think the real "re-invention" necessary is better service to
attract riders, at the cost of the efficiency. Instead of striving
to fill up a 40 foot bus with 65 people (15 of them standing), they
need to operate smaller buses more frequently. Suburban routes
that run only once an hour, as many do, are virtually worthless.
Henry Fung
> The highest base fare for a one-seat bus ride in the United States is
> $1.75. Which transit system charges such a fare? Answer: San Diego
> Transit. Better to buy the $5.00 unlimited daypass if you plan to ride
> for just one day. The pass is also valid for unlimited travel on
> suburban NCTD buses to the north. Not a bad deal.
>
Actually, that $1.75 also provides unlimited rides from 2 hours from the
end of the bus line, or for three hours from when the ticket is purchased
from a ticket machine. Day passes are not sold on buses, which is stupid
and discourages ridership. San Francisco Muni charges $2.00 for a cable
car ride (with no transfers), and they still can't clear the 40 minute
lines for it. They also sell a day pass for $6, which includes rides of
cable cars, but for "normal" tourists who just want to get around, they
can pay $9 for a weekly pass without free cable car privileges.
> If we really take a look at things- bus fares should start going
> up....not down. We should not expect the federal government to pump
> anymore dollars into transit systems (federal subsidies continue to
> decline each year- not that I totally agree with this practice but it
> *is* happening). Transit must now re-invent itself and one of the best
> ways to do this is to raise fares to a more appropriate level. There
> are so many bus systems around the country in which you could still get
> a bus ride for a mere 75 cents to $1.00. This just doesn't make sense
> in 1999. These bus fares have not changed much in the past 20 years.
>
> Anyone with me on this?
>
No.
Local subsidies will always continue. While the feds are devolving
responsibility for transit (which I agree with, at least operationally),
local and state subsidies are continuing. California pumps millions of
dollars into Amtrak California so they don't have to expand I-5, I-80, and
SR-99, for instance. Cities like Santa Monica, with its 50 cent fare,
decide that good transit access is necessary in order to attract quality
business. Citizens continually elect to tax themselves 0.25% to 1% of each
sale to fund transit activities. Also, court decisions have made it very
difficult to raise fares without giving justification.
Much of this has to do with the "is public transportation a social service
or a public service" question. With the population getting older, and what
I foresee to be a dramatic tightening of driver standards coming, good,
cheap public transit will be necessary. Based on past elections, many
citizens support it, even if they aren't going to ride. Look at
Montgomery, Alabama. The place where Rosa Parks fought for civil rights
barely has a shred of a transit system left, charging $1.50, and still
can't even cover half of its costs. With higher fares also means an effect
on those without cars, and while they currently don't vote in high
numbers, a significant fare increase would mobilize this population such
that they would vote and force solutions on the table, solutions which may
not be in the overall best interest of the entire population.
**
Hank Fung "Commentary for the way we live (tm)"
hf...@csupomona.edu
Hank Eisenstein
are working to get people out of their cars?
-Hank
http://www.quuxuum.org/~nixon Amateur Photographer
ni...@quuxuum.org Fire-Emergency Services
Hank Eisenstein Transit-NY Metro
Staten Island, NY AOL IM: Hank21k ICQ UIN# 1579309
Let's Go Mets!!
----- Original Message -----
From: Aaron M. Renn <ar...@urbanophile.com>
To: <tran...@cc.UManitoba.CA>
Sent: Friday, April 23, 1999 4:20 PM
Subject: Re: Highest Bus Fares In US
> Mike Gallant wrote in message <3720CDCB...@mailexcite.com>...
> >If we really take a look at things- bus fares should start going
> >up....not down. We should not expect the federal government to pump
> >anymore dollars into transit systems (federal subsidies continue to
> >decline each year- not that I totally agree with this practice but it
> >*is* happening). Transit must now re-invent itself and one of the best
> >ways to do this is to raise fares to a more appropriate level. There
> >are so many bus systems around the country in which you could still get
> >a bus ride for a mere 75 cents to $1.00. This just doesn't make sense
> >in 1999. These bus fares have not changed much in the past 20 years.
>
John R Cambron
>
> Mike Gallant wrote in message <3720CDCB...@mailexcite.com>...
> >If we really take a look at things- bus fares should start going
> >up....not down. We should not expect the federal government to pump
> >anymore dollars into transit systems (federal subsidies continue to
> >decline each year- not that I totally agree with this practice but it
> >*is* happening). Transit must now re-invent itself and one of the best
> >ways to do this is to raise fares to a more appropriate level. There
> >are so many bus systems around the country in which you could still get
> >a bus ride for a mere 75 cents to $1.00. This just doesn't make sense
> >in 1999. These bus fares have not changed much in the past 20 years.
>
> Fares should probably be set higher in some instances. For example, I've
> long been a believer in congestion pricing for transit. Rush hour
> surcharges would clear the peak period overcrowding on major urban systems
> as well as raise revenue. Off peak fares should be cut to fill empty seats
> where they exist. There's little hope of this being done rationally by
> government owned monopoly transit systems though. An across the board fare
> increase is probably not a good idea.
>
is $1.10 peek $1.15 max fair off peek 2.10, peek 3.25. The fair
structure on Metrorail is based on composite miles between stations
starting after the I think first 3 miles. Metrobus fair structure is
based on a zone system with all of DC being one zone and two zones in
each MD suburban county and 3 zones in northern VA. base non peek
$1.10, peek varies between DC, MD, and VA. WMATA is in the process of
simplifying its zone system. There are some bus routes that have
special fairs that do not fall in to the zone system.
--
======================================================================
Contract Courier 250 + miles a day in Metro Washington DC
NT Geek, MCP
Transit Geek John R Cambron
Railroad Geek North Beach MD USA
Model Railroader HO N camb...@chesapeake.net
======================================================================
Cathryn Mataga http://junglevision.com
> Actually, that $1.75 also provides unlimited rides from 2 hours from the
> end of the bus line, or for three hours from when the ticket is purchased
> from a ticket machine. Day passes are not sold on buses, which is stupid
> and discourages ridership. San Francisco Muni charges $2.00 for a cable
> car ride (with no transfers), and they still can't clear the 40 minute
> lines for it. They also sell a day pass for $6, which includes rides of
> cable cars, but for "normal" tourists who just want to get around, they
> can pay $9 for a weekly pass without free cable car privileges.
Hmm, do cable cars make a profit? Could MUNI reduce its subsidies
by EXPANDING the cable car system?
Soylent Green -- it's made out of PEOPLE!
Paul Matus
off-hours) in New York might help accomplish the goal of fewer drivers.
Consider that drivers already have a disincentive to drive in rush hours if
there is an alternative--roadway congestion.
Of course, an opposite economic argument could be made--since many subway
lines run under crush conditions at rush hours the incremental cost of
carring any individual passenger is lower. In the early days of the NY
elevated lines, the line were required to charge a LOWER fare during rush
hours.
The rest is politics.
Hank Eisenstein wrote in message
<007101be8dcd$40e64f00$d009...@earthcom.net>...
>How would congestion pricing for transit work in areas like New York that
>are working to get people out of their cars?
>-Hank
>http://www.quuxuum.org/~nixon Amateur Photographer
>ni...@quuxuum.org Fire-Emergency Services
>Hank Eisenstein Transit-NY Metro
>Staten Island, NY AOL IM: Hank21k ICQ UIN# 1579309
> Let's Go Mets!!
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Aaron M. Renn <ar...@urbanophile.com>
>To: <tran...@cc.UManitoba.CA>
>Sent: Friday, April 23, 1999 4:20 PM
>Subject: Re: Highest Bus Fares In US
>
>
>> Mike Gallant wrote in message <3720CDCB...@mailexcite.com>...
>> >If we really take a look at things- bus fares should start going
>> >up....not down. We should not expect the federal government to pump
>> >anymore dollars into transit systems (federal subsidies continue to
>> >decline each year- not that I totally agree with this practice but it
>> >*is* happening). Transit must now re-invent itself and one of the best
>> >ways to do this is to raise fares to a more appropriate level. There
>> >are so many bus systems around the country in which you could still get
>> >a bus ride for a mere 75 cents to $1.00. This just doesn't make sense
>> >in 1999. These bus fares have not changed much in the past 20 years.
>>
>> Fares should probably be set higher in some instances. For example, I've
>> long been a believer in congestion pricing for transit. Rush hour
>> surcharges would clear the peak period overcrowding on major urban
systems
>> as well as raise revenue. Off peak fares should be cut to fill empty
>seats
>> where they exist. There's little hope of this being done rationally by
>> government owned monopoly transit systems though. An across the board
>fare
>> increase is probably not a good idea.
>>
No-Tuna
without any subsidies at all? How would the fares compare to driving? Would
it still be cheaper to take a bus or train?
Aaron M. Renn <ar...@urbanophile.com> wrote in message
news:kD4U2.276$jo3...@news.megsinet.net...
Aaron M. Renn
>How would congestion pricing for transit work in areas like New York that
>are working to get people out of their cars?
I don't believe getting people out of cars should be the goal of transit.
In fact, that is doubly true in a place like New York. I say that public
transit is about, gee, public transportation. One of the big problems
with our transit systems in America today is that they have been hijacked
by environmental interests who are seeking to use transit to accomplish
their political goal of getting people out of their cars instead of
focusing on the needs of riders.
Jym Dyer
> going up....not down. We should not expect the federal
=o= The money pumped into transit systems is but a fraction of
the money pumped into the highway system and into various oil
and other automobile subsidies.
> Transit must now re-invent itself and one of the best ways
> to do this is to raise fares to a more appropriate level.
=o= Outside the U.S., where transit works well, it is subsidized
to a higher degree. There is no monetarist nonsense about "a
more appropriate level."
=o= However, if you simply must have something "re-invent
itself," how about automobile transportation? It is, after
all, the most heavily-subsidized and environmentally-damaging
means of transportation ever devised.
<_Jym_>
No-Tuna
company from operating in Southern California? Would such a bus company be
able to use existing bus stops? (btw... who OWNS the bus stops? The cities,
counties or the bus companies themselves?)
I'd like to see the taxi companies operate larger shuttle buses (kind of
like today's dial-a-ride, but perhaps slightly larger buses). Each shelter
would have a kiosk where you would enter your destination. A dispatch office
would coordinate the shuttle buses and arrange transfer spots. If a kiosk
isn't practical, then perhaps each intersection could have a unique ID
number. Enter the codes for starting point and destination into a pay phone.
The codes could be printed in phone books. The codes could also be issued to
certain popular businesses as well (malls, amusement parks, libraries, etc.)
Colin R. Leech <ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:7frf1o$o...@freenet-news.carleton.ca...
>
>Aaron M. Renn (ar...@urbanophile.com) wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 Apr 1999 16:45:47 -0700, No-Tuna <no-...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
>>>
>>>Where would prices be today if a totally private bus company were to
operate
>>>without any subsidies at all? How would the fares compare to driving?
Would
>>>it still be cheaper to take a bus or train?
>
>A first approximation is fairly simple. If your transit system recovers
>33% of its operating costs from the farebox, then tripling fares would be
>required to break even, in theory. Of course, this would drive away many
>passengers, meaning that even higher fares would be required, and so
>you're into a downward spiral of increasing fares, shrinking ridership,
>and service reductions.
>
>> BTW: Cars will almost always be cheaper than transit on a marginal basis.
>> The cost of cars are largely fixed. The costs of transit are all
variable.
>> Unless you have a transit system that convinces someone to forego auto
>> ownership entirely (such as me), it will only rarely be the case that
>> the cost of transit is less than the cost of driving. Particularly
>> when you consider that the average commute time by car is far less than
>> the average commute time by rail or bus.
>
>Cars: high capital and fixed costs, low marginal costs
>Transit: low inital costs (to the user), high marginal costs
>
>This is a fundamental difference, and a fundamental problem to overcome.
>
>--
>#### |\^/| Colin R. Leech ag414 or crl...@freenet.carleton.ca
>#### _|\| |/|_ Civil engineer by training, transport planner by choice.
>#### > < Opinions are my own. You may consider them shareware.
>#### >_./|\._< "If you can't return a favour, pass it on." - A.L. Brown
Joshuah Mello
> are so many bus systems around the country in which you could still get
> a bus ride for a mere 75 cents to $1.00.
Boston is 60 cents...ha...ha...ha...:)
--
Joshuah D. Mello
5885...@umbsky.cc.umb.edu
The Real Boston Transit/ Planning Site at http://members.aol.com/transpag
"The way a lot of suburbs have been built has led to a sense of isolation.
There's a loss of
the community support network that we used to have. Every single trip has
to be done in the car, and traffic congestion has
increased. All of this had led to a real decline in community life."
-Congressional Quarterly 10/3/97-
Aaron M. Renn
>Where would prices be today if a totally private bus company were to operate
>without any subsidies at all? How would the fares compare to driving? Would
>it still be cheaper to take a bus or train?
Did I say that transit shouldn't receive any subsidies? I don't recall
that. I don't recall saying anything about fares in relation to driving
either.
You seem to be yet another person who thinks transit should be
oriented around getting people out of their cars. The needs of people
who actually ride transit today don't seem to have entered into your
equation.
BTW: Cars will almost always be cheaper than transit on a marginal basis.
The cost of cars are largely fixed. The costs of transit are all variable.
Unless you have a transit system that convinces someone to forego auto
ownership entirely (such as me), it will only rarely be the case that
the cost of transit is less than the cost of driving. Particularly
when you consider that the average commute time by car is far less than
the average commute time by rail or bus.
--
JOHN MARA
John R Cambron <*camberonj*@chesapeake.net> wrote
> >
> WMATA has bean doing that from day 1. Base non peek fare metrorail
> is $1.10 peek $1.15 max fair off peek 2.10, peek 3.25. The fair
> structure on Metrorail is based on composite miles between stations
> starting after the I think first 3 miles.
What are the hours for peak and off-peak. ISTR that the peak hours are
such that even with flex-time very few people can avoid them for travel to
work.
John Mara
J. K. Drummond
Palos Verdes Transit has had a $2.00 base fare for some time, although:
in a previous article, gall...@mailexcite.com (Mike Gallant) states,
asks, and "answers":
lwin
Yes, it should be one of the goals, and achieve it by offering a quality
alternative.
lwin
> such that even with flex-time very few people can avoid them for travel to
> work.
Normal flex time won't work to get off peak transit fares unless they
are very generous, such as starting work after 10 am.
Historically, peak/offpeak fares are intended to encourage riders
to travel _well_ outside the rush hour (not just the shoulders).
Basically, they want the the few discretionary riders, shoppers, and senior
citizens to avoid the rush hour. In that aspect, they are very successful.
lwin
> without any subsidies at all? How would the fares compare to driving? Would
> it still be cheaper to take a bus or train?
Not a simple question. If private companies were continuing to
operate, in the present environment, services would have become radically
restructured. Basiically, only the highest density profitable services
would be offered, such as perhaps once-twice a day express runs for
commuters.
Robert Coté
Luckily la.transportation isn't the onlt ng on the internet. Our
friend Ray Mullins just posted this to m.t.r:
In article <FAnC6...@lerami.lerctr.org>, m...@lerami.lerctr.org (Ray
Mullins) wrote:
> Just a couple of comments...
>
> In article <7fp65g$h84$1...@mark.ucdavis.edu>,
> Ronald Roy Kappesser Unovald <rrka...@garbanzo.engr.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
> >For what it's worth, I looked at California's highway funding numbers and
> >found some interesting things:
> >
> >1) Gasoline and auto excise taxes more than cover CA's highway
> >construction and maintaince expenses:
> >
> >State gas tax revenues: $3.0 Billion
> >Federal gas tax revenues: $2.9 Billion
> >DMV Fees: $1.1 Billion
> >Other Fees: $0.4 Billion
> >--------------------------------------
> >Total: $6.4 Billion
> >
> >However, this understates the total taxes raised on gasoline because CA
> >charges sales tax not on the cost of gasoline, but on the cost of gas
> >PLUS the excise tax. This doesn't seem like much, but on the sales tax
> >on the $0.364/gal comes out to $0.029/gal or $0.5 Billion dollars to the
> >general fund that comes from the bizare practice of taxing the excise tax.
> >
> >Adjusted Total: $6.9 Billion
>
> Legislation was recently introduced that would eliminate this, and charge
> sales tax on the cost only. It was introduced by a Republican Assemblyman,
> but there is some Democratic support as well, and I think it's something
> that Gov. Davis would go for.
>
> >Highway spending:
> >
> >$6.4 Billion
> >
> >Includes:
> >
> >Road and highway construction and maintaince: $4.5 Billion
> >Traffic enforcement, DMV operation etc: $1.2 Billion
> >Seismic retrofit $0.7 Billion
> >---------------------------------------------------------------
> >Total $6.4 Billion
> >
> >It's worth noting that some of the gas tax money is actually directed
> >elsewhere and that other tax revenues make up for the diversion of
> >funds. Also, this doesn't include external costs, such as air pollution,
> >but does include operation of the DMV, a big hunk of the CHP and other
> >(unspecified in the LAO summary) departments. Traffic fines do not seem
> >to appear in the revenue totals for the road system (however, I could be
> >wrong on this count as I'm only looking at a summary).
> >
> >A suprising side note: Included in the highway construction and
> >maintaince numbers is $306 million for Landscaping, litter removal,
> >drainage and rest stops and only $106 million for pavement maintaince.
>
> I think Prop 2 in the 1998 election changed this, such that now funds in the
> Transportation Fund will only go for transportation; however, funds can
> be borrowed, but must be repaid within 18 months with interest. I know
> you have a 1995 report - has the LAO published anything this year? (I
> can find out from the dad of a friend of mine who works at the LAO.)
>
> >2) Californians don't drive all that much
> >
> >California has fewer lane miles of roads, fewer motor vehicles, fewer
> >drivers licence holders, and fewer miles driven per capita than does the
> >average U.S. state. It is, however, near the top in miles driven per
> >lane mile.
>
> This surprises me. Really.
>
> >3) California essentially stopped building state highways in 1966.
> >
> >see http://www.lao.ca.gov/cgtrans2.html
>
> Kind of an interesting way to phrase it. :-) But this makes sense since
> Div. of Highways created an entire statewide network of highways from nothing
> in 55 years (1911-1966). Also, though, some freeway construction replaced
> surface street routes (e.g., CA-118 freeway replaces Los Angeles Av.,
> Santa Susana Pass Rd., Devonshire St., Brand/Maclay, and I-210 covers
> the rest), so there was a transfer from city to freeway with a pretty
> much zero net (or slightly negative) change.
>
> >4) CA spends alot on Public transit.
> >
> >The total spending on Mass transit in CA in 1993-94 was $3.9 Billion. This
> >is roughly equal to the total amount of transportation funding
> >contributed by local taxes + transit fares.
>
> This is because the feds have stopped contributing to operating costs.
> I belive the majority of this figure is operations, not capital expenses.
> Construction of rapid transit projects (including the Harbor Freeway
> Transitway) gets most of its money from the feds.
>
> >5) Conclusions:
> >
> >If the gas tax is considered to be a use fee for roads, then it
> >appears that CA's road system is not, on the whole, subsudized by
> >non-road users. In fact, if anything, it appears that CA's road system
> >generates a surplus for the state.
> >
> >No attempt was made to account for external costs such as air pollution
> >(although traffic enforcement and DMV operations were included). Because
> >the state needs to reduce air pollution levels, increasing gasoline taxes
> >as a TCM and to fund less poluting modes of transportation or to achieve
> >social goals may be desirable, however, a higher gas tax doesn't seem to be
> >needed to fund the direct cost of CA's road network.
>
> I think this is the report that led to Prop 2, because surpluses from the
> Transportation Fund were used to cover other losses during the hard times
> in the early 1990's. But also remember that gas taxes also are used for
> transit operations.
>
> >Several elements of highway funding have changed (such as the reduction
> >of DMV fees) in the last few years. If I get around to it, I'll look at new
> >data and see what they say.
> >
> >I'm not an accountant. Just a procrastinator. I didn't go line by line
> >through the CA state budget, All this data is from a summary published by
> >the LAO.
>
> Slacker. :-)
>
> >Source: 1995 Cal Guide -- A Profile of State Programs and Finances
> >published by the California Legislative Analysts' Office.
What was that about subsidies again? Thot not.
Colin R. Leech
> long been a believer in congestion pricing for transit. Rush hour
> surcharges would clear the peak period overcrowding on major urban systems
> as well as raise revenue. Off peak fares should be cut to fill empty seats
> where they exist. There's little hope of this being done rationally by
> government owned monopoly transit systems though.
This all makes perfect economic sense, but in the real world creates
problems. Most notably, it creates confrontations between bus drivers and
passengers as to whose watch is correct, and hence what fare must be paid
when the passenger boards.
> An across the board fare increase is probably not a good idea.
Agreed.
Colin R. Leech
"JOHN MARA" (JOHN...@prodigy.net) wrote:
> John R Cambron <*camberonj*@chesapeake.net> wrote
>>
>> WMATA has bean doing that from day 1. Base non peek fare metrorail
>> is $1.10 peek $1.15 max fair off peek 2.10, peek 3.25. The fair
>> structure on Metrorail is based on composite miles between stations
>> starting after the I think first 3 miles.
>
> such that even with flex-time very few people can avoid them for travel to
> work.
In which case the different fares are pretty much useless for encouraging
the peak demand to spread out, and their main purpose is to raise more
revenue. When Ottawa had peak fares, they ended at 8:30 am and 5:30 pm, in
an attempt to encourage some discretionary or marginal riders to shift
their trips after the worst of the peak.
Colin R. Leech
>>without any subsidies at all? How would the fares compare to driving? Would
>>it still be cheaper to take a bus or train?
A first approximation is fairly simple. If your transit system recovers
33% of its operating costs from the farebox, then tripling fares would be
required to break even, in theory. Of course, this would drive away many
passengers, meaning that even higher fares would be required, and so
you're into a downward spiral of increasing fares, shrinking ridership,
and service reductions.
> BTW: Cars will almost always be cheaper than transit on a marginal basis.
> The cost of cars are largely fixed. The costs of transit are all variable.
> Unless you have a transit system that convinces someone to forego auto
> ownership entirely (such as me), it will only rarely be the case that
> the cost of transit is less than the cost of driving. Particularly
> when you consider that the average commute time by car is far less than
> the average commute time by rail or bus.
Cars: high capital and fixed costs, low marginal costs
Transit: low inital costs (to the user), high marginal costs
This is a fundamental difference, and a fundamental problem to overcome.
--
Tim Kynerd
>
>
>John R Cambron <*camberonj*@chesapeake.net> wrote
>> >
>> WMATA has bean doing that from day 1. Base non peek fare metrorail
>> is $1.10 peek $1.15 max fair off peek 2.10, peek 3.25. The fair
>> structure on Metrorail is based on composite miles between stations
>> starting after the I think first 3 miles.
>
>What are the hours for peak and off-peak. ISTR that the peak hours are
>such that even with flex-time very few people can avoid them for travel to
>work.
Worse, WMATA keeps extending the peak hour (the times during which the
higher fares are charged) *without* offering more frequent service during
the extended times.
Say what you will, but asking people to pay $3.00 for a subway ride and then
having them wait 10 minutes or more for a train is no way to provide value
for money, or to attract people to transit.
--
Tim Kynerd Sundbyberg (småstan i storstan), Sweden tksw...@newsguy.com
"My idea of hell is a very large party in a cold room, where everybody has
to play hockey properly." -- Stella Gibbons
Tim Kynerd
>On Fri, 23 Apr 1999 16:45:47 -0700, No-Tuna <no-...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>Where would prices be today if a totally private bus company were to operate
>>without any subsidies at all? How would the fares compare to driving? Would
>>it still be cheaper to take a bus or train?
>
>that. I don't recall saying anything about fares in relation to driving
>either.
Did No-Tuna say that you said this? I don't recall that.
>
>You seem to be yet another person who thinks transit should be
>oriented around getting people out of their cars. The needs of people
>who actually ride transit today don't seem to have entered into your
>equation.
Like it or not, Aaron, one of the goals of public transit is, and will
remain, providing an alternative to the automobile -- not only for people
like you and me who don't own cars, but also for people who have cars but
can be induced not to use them when they're not suitable for the journey,
particularly in peak periods.
As for "the needs of people who actually ride transit today," *you're* the
one who's on record now as supporting general fare increases on principle.
Do you think that meets "the needs of people who actually ride transit
today"?
>
>BTW: Cars will almost always be cheaper than transit on a marginal basis.
>The cost of cars are largely fixed. The costs of transit are all variable.
>Unless you have a transit system that convinces someone to forego auto
>ownership entirely (such as me), it will only rarely be the case that
>the cost of transit is less than the cost of driving. Particularly
>when you consider that the average commute time by car is far less than
>the average commute time by rail or bus.
Exactly right, and one of the biggest problems transit has IMO. Not in the
sense that it's hard to get people out of their cars, but in the sense that,
particularly in the US, there's a shortage of environments in which it's
possible to live entirely without a car.
Tim Kynerd
http://junglevision.com wrote:
The answer to both questions is probably "no." The cable car system is
extraordinarily expensive to operate and maintain, and MUNI might well
abandon the system if it weren't protected by the city charter (IIRC).
Paul Matus
Colin R. Leech wrote in message <7freqp$o...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>...
>> long been a believer in congestion pricing for transit. Rush hour
>> surcharges would clear the peak period overcrowding on major urban
systems
>> as well as raise revenue. Off peak fares should be cut to fill empty
seats
>> where they exist. There's little hope of this being done rationally by
>> government owned monopoly transit systems though.
>
>This all makes perfect economic sense, but in the real world creates
>problems. Most notably, it creates confrontations between bus drivers and
>passengers as to whose watch is correct, and hence what fare must be paid
>when the passenger boards.
>
>> An across the board fare increase is probably not a good idea.
>
>Agreed.
>
Paul Matus
>
>"Aaron M. Renn" (ar...@urbanophile.com) wrote:
>>
>> Fares should probably be set higher in some instances. For example, I've
>> long been a believer in congestion pricing for transit. Rush hour
>> surcharges would clear the peak period overcrowding on major urban
systems
>> as well as raise revenue. Off peak fares should be cut to fill empty
seats
>> where they exist. There's little hope of this being done rationally by
>> government owned monopoly transit systems though.
>
>This all makes perfect economic sense, but in the real world creates
>problems. Most notably, it creates confrontations between bus drivers and
>passengers as to whose watch is correct, and hence what fare must be paid
>when the passenger boards.
I guess I was under the impression there is more time-of-day than actually
exists, or you would have mentioned how this works in the real world.
On the Long Island Rail Road, trains SCHEDULED to arrive western terminals 6
a.m. to 10 a.m. and scheduled to leave 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. are peak. There are
rare exceptions. All others are off-peak. So the time _you_ actually board
is immaterial.
Steve Geller
It's not a free market. It's all politics.
Some rational approaches would be:
o Increase fares (3 times) to cover true operating costs
-- rejected because it would drive away too many riders
and hit poor people too hard
o Make transit free, and require a transportation sales tax to be
adjusted annually, to cover true costs.
-- rejected because tax would be "too high" and
besides people oughta pay for riding.
o Determine how much transit is required to support transportation
needs, get a cost for it, and either pay that cost (taxes + fares)
or scale the requirements back.
-- this scheme may be in use somewhere,
but not in the San Francisco Bay area
It's futile to argue that public transit could be made preferable
to driving a car. Cars, once purchased and maintained, cost less
per ride than nearly any transit.
I think the only rational reasons to ride transit are either
because one wishes to help reduce cars on the road,
or one prefers reduced-stress riding. Transit could have a price
advantage only if taxes and fees on cars were increased sufficiently.
It's a grim political reality that the goal of reducing car
traffic requires BOTH an increase in transit funding and measures
which make driving more unpleasant and expensive. The transit part
is neccessary, as many people forget, to give displaced drivers
an alternative to using their cars. Ideally, extra taxes and fees
on cars should be used to pay for the transit, but not enough voters
are ready for this at the moment.
Jon Bell
>> surcharges would clear the peak period overcrowding on major urban systems
>> as well as raise revenue. Off peak fares should be cut to fill empty seats
>> where they exist.
>
>problems. Most notably, it creates confrontations between bus drivers and
>passengers as to whose watch is correct, and hence what fare must be paid
>when the passenger boards.
How about designating specific runs as "peak-hour runs" and putting a sign
in the window designating them as such, before leaving the terminal? At
different points along the route, the change between normal fare to peak
fare would effectively take place at different times, but regular riders
would soon learn what time applies to them (or they can look it up in a
schedule).
--
Jon Bell <jtb...@presby.edu>
http://web.presby.edu/~jtbell/transit/
Alan Kline
>
> In article <3720F243...@junglevision.com>, Cathryn Mataga
> http://junglevision.com wrote:
> >Hmm, do cable cars make a profit? Could MUNI reduce its subsidies
> >by EXPANDING the cable car system?
>
> The answer to both questions is probably "no." The cable car system is
> extraordinarily expensive to operate and maintain, and MUNI might well
> abandon the system if it weren't protected by the city charter (IIRC).
In another era, very possibly. Today, I don't think there's a
snowball's chance in h*** that the city would try to abandon the
cable lines. As anyone who's ever waited in line can attest, in
addition to being viable transit in those neighborhoods, they are
one of the most, if not the most, popular tourist attractions in
the city. Any effort to abandon the lines would be met with
political opposition like no one has seen in years. IIRC, one of
the reasons for the higher fare is so that the cables can cover
their expenses without taking $$ away from the rest of the system.
The fare, however, should include a transfer. The reconstruction of
1982-84 was funded, in large part, with mass-transit funding, on the
pretense that the cable lines were simply part of the whole Muni
system using different propulsion. Not offering transfers takes
away from that and heightens the perception that it's just a City-
operated tourist trap.
And don't forget the minor (!) point that the entire system is on
the National Register of Historic Places. Just on that point alone,
abandonment would be rather difficult, IMHO.
Access Systems
g: In article <7freqp$o...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
: Colin R. Leech <ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
: >"Aaron M. Renn" (ar...@urbanophile.com) wrote:
: >>
: >> [...] Rush hour
: >> surcharges would clear the peak period overcrowding on major urban systems
: >> as well as raise revenue. Off peak fares should be cut to fill empty seats
: >This all makes perfect economic sense, but in the real world creates
: >problems. Most notably, it creates confrontations between bus drivers and
: >passengers as to whose watch is correct, and hence what fare must be paid
: >when the passenger boards.
Baltimore Mass Transit Administration tried this some years ago, and had a
flip sign on the fare box, a Signal was sent over the radio to change the
fare sign before the next stop (no changes during a pickup)
still caused problems, they now have a "flat" fare
Bob
: How about designating specific runs as "peak-hour runs" and putting a sign
: in the window designating them as such, before leaving the terminal? At
: different points along the route, the change between normal fare to peak
: fare would effectively take place at different times, but regular riders
: would soon learn what time applies to them (or they can look it up in a
: schedule).
: --
: Jon Bell <jtb...@presby.edu>
: http://web.presby.edu/~jtbell/transit/
--
Cathryn Mataga http://junglevision.com
Cable car system so that tourists pay more -- because I bet you could
go up to $5 or $10 for those tourists -- it'd still be a much
better deal than the Wax Museum. The locals could
be payed off by selling a ticket book for Cable Cars where you had to
prove you're a resident or something, at a much lower rate.
Cable cars a tourist trap? Oh, I don't know if that's the worst
thing in the world. San Francisco just has to face up to
its destiny -- and that is as a quaint little tourist dive.
MUNI seems to need money anyway, and atthe current ticket price, I can't
believe full potential of the cable car system to generate cash
has been exploited.
Soylent Green -- it's made out of PEOPLE!
Aaron M. Renn
>>Did I say that transit shouldn't receive any subsidies? I don't recall
>>that. I don't recall saying anything about fares in relation to driving
>>either.
>
>Did No-Tuna say that you said this? I don't recall that.
He posted it in response to one of my messages.
>>You seem to be yet another person who thinks transit should be
>>oriented around getting people out of their cars. The needs of people
>>who actually ride transit today don't seem to have entered into your
>>equation.
>
>Like it or not, Aaron, one of the goals of public transit is, and will
>remain, providing an alternative to the automobile -- not only for people
>like you and me who don't own cars, but also for people who have cars but
>can be induced not to use them when they're not suitable for the journey,
>particularly in peak periods.
The problems with this are:
-- An emphasis on peak period commuter needs versus the needs of people
who use the system off peak. The enviros want to reduce rush hour
auto usage. They are less concerned about whether or not someone can
make it to church on Sunday morning.
-- Sinking massive amounts of capital funding into light rail lines
into the suburbs at the expense of high quality bus service that would
actually serve the needs of riders much better. (The double whammy
is when the bus lines are redirected to feed rail stations instead
of actually going someplace).
It may be true that the goal of the people running the transit system
is to get people out of cars, but that doesn't mean I have to like it.
>As for "the needs of people who actually ride transit today," *you're* the
>one who's on record now as supporting general fare increases on principle.
>Do you think that meets "the needs of people who actually ride transit
>today"?
I support peak period fare increases where there is overcrowding. I
also support cutting off peak fares to fill empty seats. In general,
I do not support across the board fare increases. I do think prices
should be set rationally. The problem is that other activists who
see transit as essential transportation for the poor instead of a
general public service will complain about it. (I suggest setting
prices appropriately, then giving direct subsidies to the poor a la
food stamps).
It is in my best interest to ride on buses and trains that are not
packed to overflowing. It is also in my best interest to have a
transit system which has sufficient funds to operate and to maintain
its capital stock. Artificially low fares at peak periods don't help
with either of these.
BTW: Fares are typically lower at peak versus off peak, exactly the
opposite of the way it should be. People who hold discounted monthly
passes disproportionately ride during peak periods. The occasional
transit user riding off peak pays the full amount.
Here's one other example of where I think fares structures are ludicrous:
charging for transfers. In essence, this results in a higher charge
for a lower quality of service (ie, one without a direct route). I
think the transit agency should be rebating me money if I have have
to transfer!
Aaron M. Renn
>cable lines. As anyone who's ever waited in line can attest, in
>addition to being viable transit in those neighborhoods, they are
>one of the most, if not the most, popular tourist attractions in
>the city. Any effort to abandon the lines would be met with
It's surprising how useful the cable cars can actually be for getting
around. Particuarly if you board at California and Van Ness. Saves you
the long walk up Nob Hill!
Tim Kynerd
>Colin R. Leech wrote in message <7freqp$o...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>...
>>
>>> surcharges would clear the peak period overcrowding on major urban
>systems
>>> as well as raise revenue. Off peak fares should be cut to fill empty
>seats
>>> government owned monopoly transit systems though.
>>
>>problems. Most notably, it creates confrontations between bus drivers and
>>passengers as to whose watch is correct, and hence what fare must be paid
>>when the passenger boards.
>
>exists, or you would have mentioned how this works in the real world.
>
>On the Long Island Rail Road, trains SCHEDULED to arrive western terminals 6
>a.m. to 10 a.m. and scheduled to leave 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. are peak. There are
>rare exceptions. All others are off-peak. So the time _you_ actually board
>is immaterial.
OTOH, not every transit system is the Long Island Rail Road.
Since Colin was referring to "confrontations between bus drivers and
passengers," it seems reasonable to assume that (1) he was thinking of
bus-based systems, and (2) that he was thinking that in that situation,
fares would be based on the time the traveler begins his or her trip. Which
if you think about it is really the only reasonable way for the transit
agency to treat a passenger, what the LIRR does notwithstanding.
Paul Matus
Tim Kynerd wrote in message ...
Yet having the same pricing for an entire run seems to me to be the only
practical way to structure differential fares, unless you have a
computerized fare collection where the fareboxes could be remotely set for
time-of-day fares. Then there is no discussion as to the appropriate fare.
(Blame it on the computer.)
John R Cambron
>
> John R Cambron <*camberonj*@chesapeake.net> wrote
> > >
> > WMATA has bean doing that from day 1. Base non peek fare metrorail
> > is $1.10 peek $1.15 max fair off peek 2.10, peek 3.25. The fair
> > structure on Metrorail is based on composite miles between stations
> > starting after the I think first 3 miles.
>
> What are the hours for peak and off-peak. ISTR that the peak hours are
> such that even with flex-time very few people can avoid them for travel to
> work.
>
--
======================================================================
Contract Courier 250 + miles a day in Metro Washington DC
NT Geek, MCP
Transit Geek John R Cambron
Railroad Geek North Beach MD USA
Model Railroader HO N camb...@chesapeake.net
======================================================================
John R Cambron
>
> In article <01be8de6$596f1840$a63e2581@default>, JOHN MARA wrote:
> >
> >
> >John R Cambron <*camberonj*@chesapeake.net> wrote
> >> >
> >> WMATA has bean doing that from day 1. Base non peek fare metrorail
> >> is $1.10 peek $1.15 max fair off peek 2.10, peek 3.25. The fair
> >> structure on Metrorail is based on composite miles between stations
> >> starting after the I think first 3 miles.
> >
> >What are the hours for peak and off-peak. ISTR that the peak hours are
> >such that even with flex-time very few people can avoid them for travel to
> >work.
>
> higher fares are charged) *without* offering more frequent service during
> the extended times.
>
> Say what you will, but asking people to pay $3.00 for a subway ride and then
> having them wait 10 minutes or more for a train is no way to provide value
> for money, or to attract people to transit.
>
WMATA has added more trains after 18:00 on all lines in part to
relieve some of the over crowding from record daily rider ship
numbers by the tourists, MCI center events, and after 18:00 commuters.
Aaron M. Renn
>>BTW: Cars will almost always be cheaper than transit on a marginal basis.
>>The cost of cars are largely fixed. The costs of transit are all variable.
>
>Buy a car and it is yours for as long as you want it and you only pay the
>tiny costs associated with actual usage. Use transit and the government
>bleeds you dry every time you go from here to there...
You've got it backwards. Buy a car and it bleeds you whether you drive
it or not. Ride transit and you only have to pay if and when you
actually derive some transportation benefit from it.
Tim Kynerd
>> http://junglevision.com wrote:
>> >Hmm, do cable cars make a profit? Could MUNI reduce its subsidies
>> >by EXPANDING the cable car system?
>>
>> The answer to both questions is probably "no." The cable car system is
>> extraordinarily expensive to operate and maintain, and MUNI might well
>> abandon the system if it weren't protected by the city charter (IIRC).
-snip other valid reasons why abandonment wouldn't be possible-
>And don't forget the minor (!) point that the entire system is on
>the National Register of Historic Places. Just on that point alone,
>abandonment would be rather difficult, IMHO.
You're right. AIUI, the RTA in New Orleans can't modify their Perley A.
Thomas cars to meet ADA standards because the St. Charles line is on the
National Register. If they can't even do that, then I'm sure Muni wouldn't
be able to abandon the cable cars outright.
Perhaps I should have said that Muni might well *try to* abandon the system
etc.
Do you know for a fact that the cable cars pay for themselves (which you
said in the material I snipped)? Even with the high ridership, I have
doubts about whether a $2 fare is enough to cover the expenses.
Henry Fung
> Does anyone know if there are any laws that would prevent a private bus
> company from operating in Southern California? Would such a bus company be
> able to use existing bus stops? (btw... who OWNS the bus stops? The cities,
> counties or the bus companies themselves?)
>
Certainly, you can always start an agency. Many of the laws passed in the
20's that were pushed by the trolley companies have since been repealed.
However, you have the issues of insurance and ADA compliance.
> I'd like to see the taxi companies operate larger shuttle buses (kind of
> like today's dial-a-ride, but perhaps slightly larger buses). Each shelter
> would have a kiosk where you would enter your destination. A dispatch office
> would coordinate the shuttle buses and arrange transfer spots. If a kiosk
> isn't practical, then perhaps each intersection could have a unique ID
> number. Enter the codes for starting point and destination into a pay phone.
> The codes could be printed in phone books. The codes could also be issued to
> certain popular businesses as well (malls, amusement parks, libraries, etc.)
>
They do this for vanpools today. Currently, in a taxi, you can take 5-6
people and pay van rate (which is about 33% higher than regular rate), and
split it up amongst the members of your group. The cost is likely to be
lower than public transit. However, you must coordinate with that group.
And, people generally have an aversion of being in a clustered space with
strangers, especially those in a cramped environment (which would what it
would entail).
I have an old article for San Francisco Crock-nicle that talks about this,
and "the last jitney". I toss it at the jitney folks sometimes, and while
I don't fight those battles anymore, it might be useful to post it again.
**
Hank Fung "Commentary for the way we live (tm)"
hf...@csupomona.edu
Aaron Priven
tksw...@newsguy.com wrote:
>In article <3720F243...@junglevision.com>, Cathryn Mataga
>http://junglevision.com wrote:
>>Hmm, do cable cars make a profit? Could MUNI reduce its subsidies
>>by EXPANDING the cable car system?
>
>The answer to both questions is probably "no." The cable car system is
>extraordinarily expensive to operate and maintain, and MUNI might well
>abandon the system if it weren't protected by the city charter (IIRC).
Even if there were no additional costs to expanding the cable car
system, it's likely that most people who ride them are tourists who
are mainly interested in riding *a* cable car, not in exploring the
whole cable car system.
--
Aaron Priven, Oakland, California, USA
aa...@priven.sf.ca.us, http://www.priven.sf.ca.us/
Wasting time on Usenet since 1989
Stephen Arrants
see the line of people waiting to ride the cable car. Perhaps SF should
sell the lines to Disney? (only partially serious)
Tim Kynerd <tksw...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:slrn7i2ote....@timothy.kynerd.se...
> In article <3720F243...@junglevision.com>, Cathryn Mataga
> http://junglevision.com wrote:
>
> >Henry Fung wrote:
> >Hmm, do cable cars make a profit? Could MUNI reduce its subsidies
> >by EXPANDING the cable car system?
>
> The answer to both questions is probably "no." The cable car system is
> extraordinarily expensive to operate and maintain, and MUNI might well
> abandon the system if it weren't protected by the city charter (IIRC).
>
Charles P. Hobbs
>
> On Sat, 24 Apr 1999 19:13:30 PST, Henry Fung <hf...@csupomona.edu> wrote:
> >Certainly, you can always start an agency. Many of the laws passed in the
> >20's that were pushed by the trolley companies have since been repealed.
> >However, you have the issues of insurance and ADA compliance.
>
> private operators? In particular, does a private operator have to
> offer paratransit service. That's the real show stopper. No other
> public service or business has nearly the ADA burden that transit does.
I think it's a lesser requirement. The buses might be required to
have lifts, but I think that's it.
Bill Bolton
> You've got it backwards. Buy a car and it bleeds you whether you drive
> it or not. Ride transit and you only have to pay if and when you
> actually derive some transportation benefit from it.
Since very little public transit anywhere in the world operates
without some form of (usually substantial) public subsidy, it ends up
with some standing cost on tax payers, collected through taxes...
though a lot less that the standing cost of maintaining an automobile.
Cheers,
Bill
Steve Geller
>-- An emphasis on peak period commuter needs versus the needs of people
>who use the system off peak. The enviros want to reduce rush hour
>auto usage. They are less concerned about whether or not someone can
>make it to church on Sunday morning.
Right, but that's just the enviro emphasis -- where enviros overlap
with transit advocates. It's not a bad attitude.
Ideally, public transit should be available for getting where people
want to go, whenever they want. Practically, it is available where
and when, as determined by money and politics.
>-- Sinking massive amounts of capital funding into light rail lines
>into the suburbs at the expense of high quality bus service that would
>actually serve the needs of riders much better. (The double whammy
>is when the bus lines are redirected to feed rail stations instead
>of actually going someplace).
BART suburban stations do not have very good "feeder" bus service.
If they did, there'd be no need for those vast parking lots.
Business people would very much like bus service which connects from
a BART or lite rail station, to where people work. Then, there'd be
a complete transit system. This includes buses which run after
8:00PM, so Joe Hitech can work late in his Silicon Valley job,
and still have a way to get to the BART to take him to his suburban
station, where his car is parked. If he had a bus to get home from
the BART station, then the whole transit system would be truly
complete.
>I support peak period fare increases where there is overcrowding. I
>also support cutting off peak fares to fill empty seats. In general,
>I do not support across the board fare increases. I do think prices
>should be set rationally. The problem is that other activists who
>see transit as essential transportation for the poor instead of a
>general public service will complain about it. (I suggest setting
>prices appropriately, then giving direct subsidies to the poor a la
>food stamps).
The needs of the needy are being allowed to determine transit fares.
If the poor are so important, why not make transit free, and pay for
all of it from taxes?
If it's politically unacceptable to make transit free, then fares
really should be a lot closer to costs, instead of the 30% which
is typical now. I'd favor distributing transit passes along with
welfare, and other forms of public assistance. Make the passes free,
or discounted; this is done now for seniors.
>BTW: Fares are typically lower at peak versus off peak, exactly the
>opposite of the way it should be. People who hold discounted monthly
>passes disproportionately ride during peak periods. The occasional
>transit user riding off peak pays the full amount.
True. It might be a good idea to issue "peak" passes, which cost
a bit more. Ordinary passes would be good at peak times, but
with an extra cash payment. AC Transit transbay buses allow ordinary
AC passes with an extra payment.
>Here's one other example of where I think fares structures are ludicrous:
>charging for transfers. In essence, this results in a higher charge
>for a lower quality of service (ie, one without a direct route). I
>think the transit agency should be rebating me money if I have have
>to transfer!
Transfers are a major annoyance to drivers.
I'd just get rid of transfers entirely. Let people either have a
monthly pass or a day-pass, if they want a deal. Let the
occasional riders pay a full fare for each leg of their trip.
Peak and off-peak fares are only good for distributing riders more
evenly over the day. I like riding transit, but not when it's packed
full. Transit is rather nice when you can have a seat, and not be
jammed in with a bunch of other people.
Aaron M. Renn
>Certainly, you can always start an agency. Many of the laws passed in the
>20's that were pushed by the trolley companies have since been repealed.
>However, you have the issues of insurance and ADA compliance.
Do the same ADA requirement apply to both public transit agencies and
private operators? In particular, does a private operator have to
offer paratransit service. That's the real show stopper. No other
public service or business has nearly the ADA burden that transit does.
--
Michael Malak
tksw...@newsguy.com wrote:
> In article <01be8de6$596f1840$a63e2581@default>, JOHN MARA wrote:
> >
> >
> >John R Cambron <*camberonj*@chesapeake.net> wrote
> >> >
> >> WMATA has bean doing that from day 1. Base non peek fare metrorail
> >> is $1.10 peek $1.15 max fair off peek 2.10, peek 3.25. The fair
> >> structure on Metrorail is based on composite miles between stations
> >> starting after the I think first 3 miles.
> >
> >What are the hours for peak and off-peak. ISTR that the peak hours are
> >such that even with flex-time very few people can avoid them for travel to
> >work.
>
> Worse, WMATA keeps extending the peak hour (the times during which the
> higher fares are charged) *without* offering more frequent service during
> the extended times.
>
> Say what you will, but asking people to pay $3.00 for a subway ride and then
> having them wait 10 minutes or more for a train is no way to provide value
> for money, or to attract people to transit.
WMATA (Washington, DC) is changing its tune. Not only is it changing
peak time to end at 7pm instead of 8pm, it is lowering bus fares.
Starting July 1, all bus fares will be the base $1.10 (except for
express buses, which will be $2.00), regardless of distance
traveled and numnber of transfers. Full text:
http://www.wmata.com/MET_NEWS/smartdeals.htm
Now that the subway system is nearly complete, WMATA is working to
encourage bus ridership. The recent "SmartMover" bus is another
example of this.
--
Michael Malak
ma...@claygency.com
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Access Systems
: Tim Kynerd wrote in message ...
: >In article <V0iU2.43014$BZ6.16...@news.optonline.net>, Paul Matus wrote:
: >>Colin R. Leech wrote in message <7freqp$o...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>...
: >>>"Aaron M. Renn" (ar...@urbanophile.com) wrote:
: >>>>
: >>>> Fares should probably be set higher in some instances. For example,
: >>>> long been a believer in congestion pricing for transit. Rush hour
: >>>> surcharges would clear the peak period overcrowding on major urban
: >>>This all makes perfect economic sense, but in the real world creates
: >>>problems. Most notably, it creates confrontations between bus drivers and
: >>>passengers as to whose watch is correct, and hence what fare must be paid
: >>>when the passenger boards.
: >>I guess I was under the impression there is more time-of-day than actually
: >>exists, or you would have mentioned how this works in the real world.
: >fares would be based on the time the traveler begins his or her trip.
: Yet having the same pricing for an entire run seems to me to be the only
: practical way to structure differential fares, unless you have a
: computerized fare collection where the fareboxes could be remotely set for
: time-of-day fares. Then there is no discussion as to the appropriate fare.
some years ago when I lived in Germany some systems used a time based
system in that you bought a particular amount of time on the transit
system, one could buy a strip of tickets and there were cancelers on the
bus, you would stick the strip or ticket into the canceler and it would
stamp a time about 20 minutes into the future, if your trip took longer,
you would stamp it again. if your trip was shorter it was used as a
transfer. (kids used to see how many buses they could ride on one stamp)
roving inspectors would board the bus (cancelers were imediately turned
off) and would inspect tickets much as is done on current light rail
systems.
I had heard but did not notice that the time granted was shorter during
rush hour, and it took two stamps of the same time for express service.
one way to congestion base price
don't know if the system is still used anywhere
Bob
--
Colin R. Leech
"No-Tuna" (no-...@earthlink.net) wrote:
>
> Would [a private] bus company be
> able to use existing bus stops? (btw... who OWNS the bus stops? The cities,
> counties or the bus companies themselves?)
Most of the time there isn't an actual entity as a "bus stop", unless you
have an off-street terminal, in which case it is the property of whoever
owns it (usually the transit authority or the municipality, or somebody
like Greyhound). All a bus stop is,
is a designated section of the public road right of way, usually
part of the sidewalk, or a designated area along the shoulder if there is
no sidewalk. So it is owned by whoever owns the road. Of course, the
transit authority would own the sign at the bus stop, and the shelter or
bench placed at the stop (if these aren't owned by the municipality or by
a company under contract with the TA to provide the shelters in exchange
for advertising revenue - there are also privately-owned shelter and
benches out there as well).
> I'd like to see the taxi companies operate larger shuttle buses (kind of
> like today's dial-a-ride, but perhaps slightly larger buses). Each shelter
> would have a kiosk where you would enter your destination. A dispatch office
> would coordinate the shuttle buses and arrange transfer spots.
There are some systems like this around - basically the Dial-a-Ride offered
by some transit companies. It can work well under certain conditions, and
not work at all under other conditions. LA has some things like this
called "Smart Shuttles" which are great in theory, but the implementation
seems to be lacking a bit.
Colin R. Leech
Jon Bell (jtb...@presby.edu) wrote:
>
> [In order to charge different fares by time of day:]
> How about designating specific runs as "peak-hour runs" and putting a sign
> in the window designating them as such, before leaving the terminal?
See my reply to Paul for details of how Ottawa actually operated a peak
fare system from 1987 until about 1995 or so in an urban setting.
Your method is fine for low frequency service such as commuter buses
or rail, since these runs can be highlighted in the timetables. In an
urban setting with buses operating every few minutes it won't work well.
You might have a route that is over an hour long, so (to use an NYC example)
somebody boarding a bus in Manhattan at 9:30 would be trying to figure out
whether the bus left its terminal in the Bronx before 8:30 (if 8:30 is the
cutoff time). It's far easier to be able to just look at your watch and
say "It's now after 8:30, so I won't have to pay the extra fare".
If the buses are frequent enough and traffic congested, they will often
bunch up. It could get pretty crazy if a couple of non-peak buses passed
one of the peak buses partway along the route.
A subway like Washington DC can get away with peak fares more easily than
an urban bus system because it's a lot harder to argue with a turnstile
about the correct time than face-to-face with the driver. :-) It will
still annoy the customer if he thinks he should be charged the lower fare
and "the system" (the faceless, inhuman, bureaucratic computer system)
decides to charge him peak fare instead.
Colin R. Leech
"Paul Matus" (pa...@rapidtransit.net) wrote:
> Colin R. Leech wrote in message <7freqp$o...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>...
>>
>>problems. Most notably, it creates confrontations between bus drivers and
>>passengers as to whose watch is correct, and hence what fare must be paid
>>when the passenger boards.
>
> I guess I was under the impression there is more time-of-day than actually
> exists, or you would have mentioned how this works in the real world.
>
> a.m. to 10 a.m. and scheduled to leave 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. are peak. There are
> rare exceptions. All others are off-peak. So the time _you_ actually board
> is immaterial.
On lower frequency service like commuter rail, it is much easier to
implement differential fares by time of day, using rules such as you
describe above. (And the railroad can intentionally schedule a train to
leave at 3:55 or 4:05 instead of exactly 4:00 in order to fit its
philosophy of the day for that particular train.) On urban bus systems
with frequent service it creates confrontations. What happens when the
customer's (I prefer that word to "passenger" - think about it ...) watch
disagrees with the bus driver's? What happens if the bus is running late
or early?
The LIRR's is a simple rule, but it does create other inequities: somebody
travelling between two points on LI at 9:00 pm may be charged a peak fare.
Here's a thought: If I'm waiting for a train due into Penn Station at
10:30, but there were massive delays to service that morning and all
service is operating an hour behind schedule, would they force me to pay
the higher fare when the 9:30 train shows up at my stop, or force me to
wait another hour for my "real" train?
Here's how we used to do it in Ottawa: At the start and end of peak fare
times, an announcement would go out over the radio system to all the buses
indicating that the change occurs at that moment. This was supposed to
resolve disputes with the passenger claiming that the driver's watch was
wrong, because there was an official time that governed everything. Each
driver had a label on his schedule that indicated the exact bus stop at
which the changeover was to occur. Any disputes caused by off-schedule
buses were supposed to be settled in favour of the customer. For example,
with the peak fare period being 3:00 to 5:30 pm, the following would apply:
- If the bus arrived at a stop at 5:29 but was scheduled for 5:31, the
passengers would pay the lower fare.
- If the bus arrived at the stop at 3:01 but was supposed to be there at
2:59, the passengers paid the lower fare.
Having passengers get halfway on your bus and ask "Is it 5:30 yet?" and
then get off again slows down the service.
The bus drivers were all very happy when the time-of-day fares were
abolished a couple of years ago in favour of a flat fare for all trips
(with a premium fare on some designated express routes). No more arguing
with passengers over the exact time.
Colin R. Leech
A bit more on peak fares:
In Ottawa for many years, the cost of the trip was based on the time when
you started your trip. There were also local routes in the suburbs that
maintained the lower offpeak fares all day - the peak fares were only
charged on the mainline routes travelling to downtown (which discriminates
against inner-city residents making short trips on these routes, but
that's a separate issue). If you boarded a local bus at 8:29 am (peak
ended at 8:30) paying a local fare, and then transferred to a mainline bus
at 9:15, you would have to pay a top-up even though it was well past 8:30.
This was later changed so that the peak fare charge depended on the time
that you actually boarded an individual bus. Much less confrontation with
passengers, and each passenger would only have to worry about the
changeover time once per trip.
Colin R. Leech
Alan Kline (akl...@netins.net) wrote:
> Tim Kynerd wrote:
>> In article <3720F243...@junglevision.com>, Cathryn Mataga
>> http://junglevision.com wrote:
>>
>> >Hmm, do cable cars make a profit? Could MUNI reduce its subsidies
>> >by EXPANDING the cable car system?
>>
>> The answer to both questions is probably "no." The cable car system is
>> extraordinarily expensive to operate and maintain, and MUNI might well
>> abandon the system if it weren't protected by the city charter (IIRC).
Not to mention their designation as a historic site.
> In another era, very possibly. Today, I don't think there's a
> snowball's chance in h*** that the city would try to abandon the
> cable lines. As anyone who's ever waited in line can attest, in
> addition to being viable transit in those neighborhoods, they are
> one of the most, if not the most, popular tourist attractions in
> the city. Any effort to abandon the lines would be met with
> political opposition like no one has seen in years.
The cable cars are one of the defining characteristics of SF's tourist
image. It would be like replacing the Golden Gate Bridge with a tunnel,
or tearing down Toronto's CN Tower or St. Louis' arch.
> IIRC, one of
> the reasons for the higher fare is so that the cables can cover
> their expenses without taking $$ away from the rest of the system.
The tourists are "soaked" for the higher cash fares, whereas SF residents
can use a regular monthly pass on the cable cars. Not a bad setup to
accomodate their status as both a tourist attraction and as a practical
part of an integrated transit network.
> The fare, however, should include a transfer. The reconstruction of
> 1982-84 was funded, in large part, with mass-transit funding, on the
> pretense that the cable lines were simply part of the whole Muni
> system using different propulsion. Not offering transfers takes
> away from that and heightens the perception that it's just a City-
> operated tourist trap.
They should offer free transfers from the cable cars to buses and
streetcars, and transfers in the other direction should require topping
up the fare differential.
> And don't forget the minor (!) point that the entire system is on
> the National Register of Historic Places. Just on that point alone,
> abandonment would be rather difficult, IMHO.
Colin R. Leech
>
>>>You seem to be yet another person who thinks transit should be
>>>oriented around getting people out of their cars. The needs of people
>>>who actually ride transit today don't seem to have entered into your
>>>equation.
>>
>>Like it or not, Aaron, one of the goals of public transit is, and will
>>remain, providing an alternative to the automobile -- not only for people
>>like you and me who don't own cars, but also for people who have cars but
>>can be induced not to use them when they're not suitable for the journey,
>>particularly in peak periods.
One of the major justifications for investing in transit service is to
reduce the costs of the road/highway infrastructure. Otherwise it's hard
to justify spending that kind of money on transit. That is where the
"profits" come from (along with environmental concerns), since transit
does not make a profit based on just its own balance sheet.
> The problems with this are:
>
> -- An emphasis on peak period commuter needs versus the needs of people
> who use the system off peak. The enviros want to reduce rush hour
> auto usage. They are less concerned about whether or not someone can
> make it to church on Sunday morning.
If you're going to promote transit only on the basis of being a social
service for people who can't afford to buy a car, you're going to be
fighting a losing battle politically in the USA.
Attracting "choice" riders benefits the "captive" riders as well, since
more frequent service to more locations means better service for everybody
(it's called "synergy", and I don't mean that dork who used to try to get
our goat with his Usenet posts).
> -- Sinking massive amounts of capital funding into light rail lines
> into the suburbs at the expense of high quality bus service that would
> actually serve the needs of riders much better. (The double whammy
> is when the bus lines are redirected to feed rail stations instead
> of actually going someplace).
Indeed, Denver had a problem when direct express buses were rerouted to
feed the LRT because it was a longer ride, plus the transfer, plus they
didn't have the capacity on opening day to handle the crowds. Somewhere
there has to be a balance found among different service requirements and
modes. LA got into trouble with lawsuits when it was perceived that the
crowded inner city bus services were being cut to pay for the rail lines.
If unproductive bus routes were being cut, I wouldn't have a problem with
it - but you don't go cutting the full buses just for the heck of it.
> I support peak period fare increases where there is overcrowding.
Better yet is to increase service to reduce overcrowding, which has a
positive synergistic effect of encouraging even more riders. Increasing
fares to drive away passengers results in more revenue, but overall is
counterproductive to the goals of increasing ridership.
> I also support cutting off peak fares to fill empty seats.
This makes good economic sense, but see the rest of the discussion on
peak/offpeak fare systems for some of the drawbacks.
> (I suggest setting
> prices appropriately, then giving direct subsidies to the poor a la
> food stamps).
Agreed. Transit budgets should not be subsidising social service
functions. That should be done via the social service budgets.
> BTW: Fares are typically lower at peak versus off peak, exactly the
> opposite of the way it should be. People who hold discounted monthly
> passes disproportionately ride during peak periods. The occasional
> transit user riding off peak pays the full amount.
Um, I'm a bit unsure on this one. I see what you're driving at, however ...
Monthly pass discounts are a form of rewarding frequent customers to
ensure that they keep coming back, same as "frequent flier miles", the
"buy 5 coffees, get one free" cards, and so forth. This is quite different
from (say) a reduced fare for students or seniors, which is more of a
social service type subsidy. The fact that most of the people who buy the
passes travel in peak periods just happens to be a coincidence.
(Statistically this would be true anyway, since most riders of all types
travel during the peaks.)
Actually, I don't think that I buy into your base assumptions completely.
Commuters will pretty much be on the system every day anyway. Monthly
passes not only result in customer loyalty (as described above), but they
do encourage those people to make offpeak trips as well, since the cost of
the extra trip has already been paid for (it's "free" to them). Without
the passes, offpeak discretionary travel falls. Indeed, many of the
occasional (cash) riders do occur in peaks because that's when the best
service is offered, and rapid transit is most competitive with driving.
Most places offer such lousy service on Sundays that they don't attract
many of the occasional travellers.
> Here's one other example of where I think fares structures are ludicrous:
> charging for transfers. In essence, this results in a higher charge
> for a lower quality of service (ie, one without a direct route). I
> think the transit agency should be rebating me money if I have have
> to transfer!
Agreed. It makes it very difficult to ever change a bus route. It is hard
enough justifying to passengers that they will lose a direct ride and be
forced to transfer - but now we're going to charge them extra for the
"privilege" of doing this?
Colin R. Leech
>> it or not. Ride transit and you only have to pay if and when you
>> actually derive some transportation benefit from it.
>
> Since very little public transit anywhere in the world operates
> without some form of (usually substantial) public subsidy, it ends up
> with some standing cost on tax payers, collected through taxes...
> though a lot less that the standing cost of maintaining an automobile.
necessary to accommodate the travel.
Tim Kynerd
>On 24 Apr 1999 07:31:09 GMT, Tim Kynerd <tksw...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>that. I don't recall saying anything about fares in relation to driving
>>>either.
>>
>>Did No-Tuna say that you said this? I don't recall that.
>
>He posted it in response to one of my messages.
He didn't, at least, post it in the message you responded to. By that, I
mean that he asked a question about the relationship between transit fares
and driving, without necessarily implying that you had brought up the
subject. He gets to do that, you know.
>
>>>You seem to be yet another person who thinks transit should be
>>>oriented around getting people out of their cars. The needs of people
>>>who actually ride transit today don't seem to have entered into your
>>>equation.
>>
>>Like it or not, Aaron, one of the goals of public transit is, and will
>>remain, providing an alternative to the automobile -- not only for people
>>like you and me who don't own cars, but also for people who have cars but
>>can be induced not to use them when they're not suitable for the journey,
>>particularly in peak periods.
>
>The problems with this are:
>
>-- An emphasis on peak period commuter needs versus the needs of people
>who use the system off peak. The enviros want to reduce rush hour
>auto usage. They are less concerned about whether or not someone can
>make it to church on Sunday morning.
>
>-- Sinking massive amounts of capital funding into light rail lines
>into the suburbs at the expense of high quality bus service that would
>actually serve the needs of riders much better. (The double whammy
>is when the bus lines are redirected to feed rail stations instead
>of actually going someplace).
>
>It may be true that the goal of the people running the transit system
>is to get people out of cars, but that doesn't mean I have to like it.
Would you please re-read what I wrote, with careful attention to the words
"one of the goals" -- i.e., not "the goal"? I agree that high-quality
off-peak service is necessary in order to make it possible for people to
choose to live without cars; indeed, in debates over the termination of
overnight subway service here in Stockholm, I made this exact point. (Not
here, but in local forums.)
>
>>As for "the needs of people who actually ride transit today," *you're* the
>>one who's on record now as supporting general fare increases on principle.
>>Do you think that meets "the needs of people who actually ride transit
>>today"?
>
>I support peak period fare increases where there is overcrowding. I
>also support cutting off peak fares to fill empty seats. In general,
>I do not support across the board fare increases. I do think prices
>should be set rationally. The problem is that other activists who
>see transit as essential transportation for the poor instead of a
>general public service will complain about it. (I suggest setting
>prices appropriately, then giving direct subsidies to the poor a la
>food stamps).
>
>It is in my best interest to ride on buses and trains that are not
>packed to overflowing. It is also in my best interest to have a
>transit system which has sufficient funds to operate and to maintain
>its capital stock. Artificially low fares at peak periods don't help
>with either of these.
I agree with you on all of this.
>
>BTW: Fares are typically lower at peak versus off peak, exactly the
>opposite of the way it should be. People who hold discounted monthly
>passes disproportionately ride during peak periods. The occasional
>transit user riding off peak pays the full amount.
It isn't necessarily true that occasional riders only ride during peak
periods, and in any case this is not a matter of fare policy. The transit
agency has provided discounted passes, and it's up to the users to decide
when to use them.
Furthermore, the occasional user is not likely to be one who is dependent on
transit; people who are dependent on transit generally ride more, obviously
(and consequently tend to have passes). (I realize that peak vs. off-peak
and transit-dependent vs. non-transit-dependent are two separate issues, but
you've brought up both of them in this thread.)
There isn't anything particularly evil about people who ride in the peak
that justifies soaking them. The only justification for higher fares in the
peak is to shift some of the riding outside the peak. It's an open question
whether or not this actually works. In Washington, for example, it doesn't
seem to work too well.
>
>Here's one other example of where I think fares structures are ludicrous:
>charging for transfers. In essence, this results in a higher charge
>for a lower quality of service (ie, one without a direct route). I
>think the transit agency should be rebating me money if I have have
>to transfer!
Of course. When I was being trained as a conductor on a light-rail line
here last week, we had training in the fare system, among other things. One
point that was made was that if you travel, say, from zone 2 on the north
side of the region to zone 3 on the same side, you're charged a two-zone
fare even if you travel into zone 1 to make your trip. One of the reasons
for this is that we shouldn't penalize the passenger just because we're not
providing a direct service -- the very fact of needing to go into zone 1 to
make the trip is bad enough. (Another reason is that with the current
ticketing system, we have no way to know whether or not the trip went
through zone 1, which would also make it difficult to discount those trips,
as you suggest.)
Access Systems
: Aaron M. Renn wrote:
: > >20's that were pushed by the trolley companies have since been repealed.
: > >However, you have the issues of insurance and ADA compliance.
: >
: > Do the same ADA requirement apply to both public transit agencies and
: > private operators? In particular, does a private operator have to
: > offer paratransit service. That's the real show stopper. No other
: > public service or business has nearly the ADA burden that transit does.
there are a couple different levels of service that private operators have
to provide.
1. if it is the local transit authority it must provide the same service
2. if it is a contract operator it must "stand in the shoes" and follow
the same rules that the contractor would have to follow if they provided
the service
3. commuter type service does not have to provide paratransit except when
there is no accessible bus
4. rail links must comply with the commuter bus rules
5. private not primarly transportation must meet equivalant facilitation
service level
6. fixed route service no matter who provides the service MUST be
accessible (different compliance dates for different services)
7. Suburban service must provide paratransit 3/4 miles on either side of
the route or 3/4 diameter around stops
private rail has different rules but basically the "one car" rule applies
think that is most of it, obviously there are many "details"
Bob
Aaron M. Renn
>> -- An emphasis on peak period commuter needs versus the needs of people
>> who use the system off peak. The enviros want to reduce rush hour
>> auto usage. They are less concerned about whether or not someone can
>> make it to church on Sunday morning.
>
>If you're going to promote transit only on the basis of being a social
>service for people who can't afford to buy a car, you're going to be
>fighting a losing battle politically in the USA.
>
>Attracting "choice" riders benefits the "captive" riders as well, since
>more frequent service to more locations means better service for everybody
>(it's called "synergy", and I don't mean that dork who used to try to get
>our goat with his Usenet posts).
Actually, I think that a lot of the people riding transit systems today
are choice riders. The fact that I have chosen to ride the bus to church
doesn't mean I'm dependent on transit as a social service.
Charles P. Hobbs
>
> There isn't anything particularly evil about people who ride in the peak
> that justifies soaking them. The only justification for higher fares in the
> peak is to shift some of the riding outside the peak.
Since most people ride to work in the morning, and go home in the
evening, that's where your peak is going to be (assuming most of the
trips on the system are work trips).
Off-peak pricing has the potential to encourage less time-sensitive
trips (e.g. shopping, etc) to be made outside less busy hours. I
remember
one old bus schedule that implored passengers to "Please shop between
10 am and 3 pm. (I don't recall if that particular agency offered
peak/offpeak fares or not)
> It's an open question
> whether or not this actually works. In Washington, for example, it doesn't
> seem to work too well.
>
That's probably telling you that most of the people on in the peak
hours,
don't have much choice as to when to travel; some other strategy for
increasing capacity is needed in that case.
Tim Kynerd
I'm very glad to hear this. These were two things (the peak-hour surcharges
on the Metro that were unjustified by shoulder service levels, and the
complicated fare system on the buses) that really bothered me about the
transit system when I lived in DC.
Tim Kynerd
>In misc.transport.urban-transit Paul Matus <pa...@rapidtransit.net> wrote:
>
>: Tim Kynerd wrote in message ...
>: >>Colin R. Leech wrote in message <7freqp$o...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>...
>: >>>>
>: >>>> Fares should probably be set higher in some instances. For example,
>: >>>> long been a believer in congestion pricing for transit. Rush hour
>: >>>> surcharges would clear the peak period overcrowding on major urban
>: >>>problems. Most notably, it creates confrontations between bus drivers and
>: >>>passengers as to whose watch is correct, and hence what fare must be paid
>: >>>when the passenger boards.
>: >>I guess I was under the impression there is more time-of-day than actually
>: >>exists, or you would have mentioned how this works in the real world.
>: Yet having the same pricing for an entire run seems to me to be the only
>: practical way to structure differential fares, unless you have a
>: computerized fare collection where the fareboxes could be remotely set for
>: time-of-day fares. Then there is no discussion as to the appropriate fare.
>
>some years ago when I lived in Germany some systems used a time based
>system in that you bought a particular amount of time on the transit
>system, one could buy a strip of tickets and there were cancelers on the
>bus, you would stick the strip or ticket into the canceler and it would
>stamp a time about 20 minutes into the future, if your trip took longer,
>you would stamp it again. if your trip was shorter it was used as a
>transfer. (kids used to see how many buses they could ride on one stamp)
>roving inspectors would board the bus (cancelers were imediately turned
>off) and would inspect tickets much as is done on current light rail
>systems.
> I had heard but did not notice that the time granted was shorter during
>rush hour, and it took two stamps of the same time for express service.
>
>one way to congestion base price
>
>don't know if the system is still used anywhere
Stockholm uses a similar system except that there are no surcharges for peak
hours. Tickets and strips are stamped with the current time, and are valid
for travel within one hour. The number of tickets sold, or the number of
coupons stamped on a strip, depends on the number of zones you're traveling
through.
I suppose that theoretically it would be possible to, say, charge one extra
coupon or ticket for journeys begun during the rush-hour period, but I'm
not sure that that would be justified, effective, or reasonably cheap (I'm
thinking of all the extra training that would be required, and the reduced
efficiency of those who sell and check tickets).
JOHN MARA
Tim Kynerd <tksw...@newsguy.com> wrote
> Since Colin was referring to "confrontations between bus drivers and
> passengers," it seems reasonable to assume that (1) he was thinking of
> bus-based systems, and (2) that he was thinking that in that situation,
> fares would be based on the time the traveler begins his or her trip.
Which
> if you think about it is really the only reasonable way for the transit
> agency to treat a passenger, what the LIRR does notwithstanding.
But in the morning, arrival time is what determines whether a trip is rush
hour or not if two people have to be at work at 9:00 a.m., the person who
lives one hour away will leave about 8:00 a.m. and the person who is 15
minutes away will leave about 8:45. They may both end up on the same
train. This works better on a system like the LIRR where everyone is
riding to a few points in the city.
John Mara
JOHN MARA
Aaron M. Renn <ar...@urbanophile.com> wrote
>
> You've got it backwards. Buy a car and it bleeds you whether you drive
> it or not. Ride transit and you only have to pay if and when you
> actually derive some transportation benefit from it.
Once you own a car you might as well use it. Unless the transit service is
good enough that you don't own a car at all, you will wind up using the car
for most trips.
John Mara
Charles P. Hobbs
If you live and work near good transit service (e.g. faster than
the congested roads) why not use it, if you don't need your car at
work?
On the other hand, local trips (shopping, etc.) are a pain in the
neck with buses, generally because you have to carry all your goods
around with you. And if you have to stop at more than one store, it
gets really annoying. Maybe the public transit answer to that type of
trip would be a taxi/dial-a-ride type service, but those are expensive
to run (typically $10-15 per boarding as opposed to the $2-3 of a
suburban fixed route bus).
Kymberleigh Richards
Leech) wrote:
>Better yet is to increase service to reduce overcrowding, which has a
>positive synergistic effect of encouraging even more riders. Increasing
>fares to drive away passengers results in more revenue, but overall is
>counterproductive to the goals of increasing ridership.
What's your opinion of the MTA staff proposal -- which, in the face of
Bus Riders Union opposition has been overridden by the board of
directors -- to have four freeway "express" lines (which more often
than not get stuck in freeway traffic, causing off-schedule operation)
eliminate the freeway segment of their routes and make connections to
the Red Line subway?
Kymberleigh Richards
Executive Committee Member, Southern California Transit Advocates
Member, MTA Passenger Advisory Committee, Metro Bus West Valley
========================================================================
My Valley Transit Web Page has moved! <http://members.xoom.com/MTAKym/>
========================================================================
Paul Matus
Colin R. Leech wrote in message <7funpk$c...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>...
>
>"Paul Matus" (pa...@rapidtransit.net) wrote:
>> Colin R. Leech wrote in message <7freqp$o...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>...
>>>
>>>passengers as to whose watch is correct, and hence what fare must be paid
>>>when the passenger boards.
>>
>> I guess I was under the impression there is more time-of-day than
actually
>> exists, or you would have mentioned how this works in the real world.
>>
terminals 6
>> a.m. to 10 a.m. and scheduled to leave 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. are peak. There
are
>> rare exceptions. All others are off-peak. So the time _you_ actually
board
>> is immaterial.
>
>On lower frequency service like commuter rail, it is much easier to
>implement differential fares by time of day, using rules such as you
>describe above. (And the railroad can intentionally schedule a train to
>leave at 3:55 or 4:05 instead of exactly 4:00 in order to fit its
>philosophy of the day for that particular train.) On urban bus systems
>with frequent service it creates confrontations. What happens when the
>customer's (I prefer that word to "passenger" - think about it ...) watch
>disagrees with the bus driver's? What happens if the bus is running late
>or early?
>
>The LIRR's is a simple rule, but it does create other inequities: somebody
>travelling between two points on LI at 9:00 pm may be charged a peak fare.
This takes a bit of sorting out.
"Peak fares" are actually the standard fares. "Off-peak fares" are
discounted fares, and are ONLY for people traveling to, from or within New
York City (which is the vast majority of users). People traveling
point-to-point on Long Island _always_ pay the "peak" (standard) fare.
However, these fares are way lower than if you're going to New York CIty, in
order to encourage riding where all the excess capacity exists.
>Here's a thought: If I'm waiting for a train due into Penn Station at
>10:30, but there were massive delays to service that morning and all
>service is operating an hour behind schedule, would they force me to pay
>the higher fare when the 9:30 train shows up at my stop, or force me to
>wait another hour for my "real" train?
Even if the trips take way longer than should (2 hours for a 1 hour ride,
say) the LIRR trains usually leave their origin points pretty close to
schedule. Any lateness in leaving times is usually resolved before the
off-peak fares kick in. If the system were running so late that the 7:39
Penn-Babylon (peak) wasn't ready until leaving time for the 8:06 (off-peak)
the 7:39 would likely be cancelled, and you would pay off-peak fares on the
train leaving at 8:06.
OTOH, if you are on a train scheduled to arrive before 10 am and it arrives
after 10 am, you won't get a discount.
>Here's how we used to do it in Ottawa: At the start and end of peak fare
>times, an announcement would go out over the radio system to all the buses
>indicating that the change occurs at that moment. This was supposed to
>resolve disputes with the passenger claiming that the driver's watch was
>wrong, because there was an official time that governed everything. Each
>driver had a label on his schedule that indicated the exact bus stop at
>which the changeover was to occur. Any disputes caused by off-schedule
>buses were supposed to be settled in favour of the customer. For example,
>with the peak fare period being 3:00 to 5:30 pm, the following would apply:
>
>- If the bus arrived at a stop at 5:29 but was scheduled for 5:31, the
>passengers would pay the lower fare.
>
>- If the bus arrived at the stop at 3:01 but was supposed to be there at
>2:59, the passengers paid the lower fare.
>
>Having passengers get halfway on your bus and ask "Is it 5:30 yet?" and
>then get off again slows down the service.
>
>The bus drivers were all very happy when the time-of-day fares were
>abolished a couple of years ago in favour of a flat fare for all trips
>(with a premium fare on some designated express routes). No more arguing
>with passengers over the exact time.
>
KC Jackson
<gall...@mailexcite.com> writes:
>
>The highest base fare for a one-seat bus ride in the United States is
>$1.75. Which transit system charges such a fare? Answer: San Diego
>Transit. Better to buy the $5.00 unlimited daypass if you plan to
>ride for just one day. The pass is also valid for unlimited travel on
>suburban NCTD buses to the north. Not a bad deal.
>
>If we really take a look at things- bus fares should start going
>up....not down. We should not expect the federal government to pump
>anymore dollars into transit systems (federal subsidies continue to
>decline each year- not that I totally agree with this practice but it
>*is* happening). Transit must now re-invent itself and one of the best
>ways to do this is to raise fares to a more appropriate level. There
>are so many bus systems around the country in which you could still
>get a bus ride for a mere 75 cents to $1.00. This just doesn't make
>sense in 1999. These bus fares have not changed much in the past 20
>years.
>
>Anyone with me on this?
Give credit to those systems that have figured out how to reduce or
avoid subsidies. NJ Transit has not had a fare increase in 8 years,
and will not have one under this year's proposed budget, despite the
complete removal of federal operating subsidies. They have made
themselves more efficient in terms of operation, marketing has
increased ridership, and new routes and schedules are making them more
convenient. Thus, the base (bus) fare has been $1.00 since 1991.
While NJT still gets capital assistance from Washington for rolling
stock and structures, they have managed to bring farebox recovery to
nearly 50% in the face of operating subsidy elimination.
Matthew Mitchell
tksw...@newsguy.com (Tim Kynerd) wrote:
>Worse, WMATA keeps extending the peak hour (the times during which the
>higher fares are charged) *without* offering more frequent service during
>the extended times.
They rolled back some of those extended hours a little while ago.
Joe Versaggi
WMATA PM peak is to be 3-7pm, effective June 20. There is also other
simplifications in passes and transfers on that date. I have their
brochure.
Henry Fung
>
> I think it's a lesser requirement. The buses might be required to
> have lifts, but I think that's it.
I think taxicabs and what not have to make "reasonable" accomodations to
those who are disabled. This may include having a wheelchair accessible
vehicle. Bob from Access Systems probably would know the most about this.
**
Hank Fung "Commentary for the way we live (tm)"
hf...@csupomona.edu
Henry Fung
> > The fare, however, should include a transfer. The reconstruction of
> > 1982-84 was funded, in large part, with mass-transit funding, on the
> > pretense that the cable lines were simply part of the whole Muni
> > system using different propulsion. Not offering transfers takes
> > away from that and heightens the perception that it's just a City-
> > operated tourist trap.
>
> They should offer free transfers from the cable cars to buses and
> streetcars, and transfers in the other direction should require topping
> up the fare differential.
>
On the other hand, there is parallel bus service within a quarter of a
mile, and I think there is even a bus route that directly runs on the
street that the cable cars use to pick up "real" people who don't feel
like standing around holding on the bars like a bunch of, well, tourists.
So, either way, people using the route for transportation, not tourist,
purposes are accomodated.
ufo muse
oregon its free to ride in this subsidized area of the city....but
someone is going to pay....the real cost of each ride is probably more
like 7 dollars per person when you include all of the state and federal
subsidies and the transit taxes paid as income taxes that flow into the
pot....very efficieint and fareless square adds to overall cost-or is it
a benefit? Also contributing to the real high costs are the empty
buses that run constantly for the sake of convience on demand.....
Access Systems
: On Sat, 24 Apr 1999, Charles P. Hobbs wrote:
: >
: > I think it's a lesser requirement. The buses might be required to
: > have lifts, but I think that's it.
: I think taxicabs and what not have to make "reasonable" accomodations to
taxis using an automobile do not have to make them accessible, But do have
to provide resonable accomodations, such as loading a folding chair into
the trunk, it is also illegal to charge extra.
if vehicles other than automobiles are used they must follow the rules for
"primarly in the business of transporting people which provide demand
responsive service"
49CFR37.29
some states have local laws which are more restrictive, the most
restrictive law applies.
Bob
Colin R. Leech
Kymberleigh Richards (kric...@pacbell.net) wrote:
>
> What's your opinion of the MTA staff proposal -- which, in the face of
> Bus Riders Union opposition has been overridden by the board of
> directors -- to have four freeway "express" lines (which more often
> than not get stuck in freeway traffic, causing off-schedule operation)
> eliminate the freeway segment of their routes and make connections to
> the Red Line subway?
I can't comment on this specific proposal because I'm not familiar enough
with all the variables in that particular situation. However, some general
comments:
There isn't a single good answer to this type of question. It will depend
on the specifics of the situation. Sometimes the direct service will be
better, and sometimes the transfer to the subway will be better.
Of course, the first variable to consider is travel time. If the typical
travel time is comparable, people will generally prefer the single seat
ride. Variability of travel time will also play a factor, though. If the
bus+subway option will take an hour +/- 5 minutes every day of the year,
while the bus on freeway option takes 50 minutes most of the time, but
could take up to 85 minutes once a week, the transfer may be preferable to
the direct ride.
People will weight out-of-vehicle time more heavily relative to in-vehicle
time. The exact weights will depend on the people and the situation - for
example, here where our winters are very cold, passengers do not like
standing around waiting for a bus to arrive. This applies both to the
initial boarding and waiting around for a transfer, but if the service is
reliable, the transfer is more of an impediment because the passenger can
control his arrival time at the first bus stop to minimize the wait, but
cannot control the length of time spent making the transfer. OTOH most
transfers now occur at stations with amenities (heating, benches,
telephones, newspaper boxes, etc.) that make the wait much more pleasant
than on a random street corner.
If there are a very limited number of express trips per day and the
community is difficult to get to via alternate transit, then using the
express buses (vehicles) to make more trips on a feeder service to the
subway may be more attractive to more passengers than keeping a smaller
number of direct trips.
When considering the impacts of transfers, most people look at the wrong
end of the trip. Typically in the morning they are transferring from an
infrequent feeder bus to a frequent train, so people say "What's the big
deal about making a transfer?" The bigger problem is in the afternoon,
when attempting to transfer from the frequent train to the infrequent
feeder bus to go home. The downside of being delayed and missing the
transfer connection is much larger.
Compare two situations:
(1) A frequent subway line, and passengers have to make their own way to
an outlying station to catch an infrequent feeder bus
(2) An infrequent commuter train line, with guaranteed timed transfers to
the feeder buses (the buses will hold if the train is delayed, and vice
versa).
The second situation is actually better for the passenger who is worried
about missing the transfer going home. One of the few times that an
infrequent service is better than a frequent service! Ideally, the
frequency needs to be present on all segments of the passenger's trip, but
this is wishful thinking in many cases.
In your example, I assume that there's nothing that can be done to help
make the freeway bus service more reliable, such as using HOV lanes?
An interesting example is near Ottawa in Gatineau, where the STO has
rerouted some express buses off the freeway to take advantage of a bus/HOV
lane on a parallel arterial road. It's actually faster and more reliable
service than staying on the freeway, although sometimes it can be hard to
convince riders of this (at least, the riders who are new and didn't
experience the operations on the freeway as a basis of comparison to their
current trip).
Does unreliable service on these freeway trips spill over onto later trips
by these vehicles?
Lots of things to consider, but the obvious first question is: What would
be the travel times for passengers under each scenario?
Colin R. Leech
"Charles P. Hobbs" (tra...@primenet.com) wrote:
> JOHN MARA wrote:
>> Aaron M. Renn <ar...@urbanophile.com> wrote
>> >
>> > You've got it backwards. Buy a car and it bleeds you whether you drive
>> > it or not. Ride transit and you only have to pay if and when you
>> > actually derive some transportation benefit from it.
>>
>> Once you own a car you might as well use it. Unless the transit service is
>> good enough that you don't own a car at all, you will wind up using the car
>> for most trips.
>
> If you live and work near good transit service (e.g. faster than
> the congested roads) why not use it, if you don't need your car at
> work?
The incremental or marginal costs of a car trip are quite small, whereas
for a transit trip they are much larger. You pay for depreciation and
insurance anyway whether the car is used or not (perhaps a slight decrease
in insurance if you're a low mileage driver and have a godo company). Most
people perceive the incremental cost of a car trip to be a few cents'
worth of gas, plus parkign which is often free anyway. Even if you do
factor in maintenance costs into your per-trip calculation, many of the
largest cost factors don't fluctuate whether you use the car or not.
> On the other hand, local trips (shopping, etc.) are a pain in the
> neck with buses, generally because you have to carry all your goods
> around with you. And if you have to stop at more than one store, it
> gets really annoying. Maybe the public transit answer to that type of
> trip would be a taxi/dial-a-ride type service, but those are expensive
> to run (typically $10-15 per boarding as opposed to the $2-3 of a
> suburban fixed route bus).
The real market for weaning people off cars and into transit is not the
complete elimination of a car, but rather the elimination of the second or
third car in a household. If people can commute to work by transit, they
may only need one car instead of two or three to handle the shopping, the
children, vacations, etc.
Colin R. Leech
Tim Kynerd (tksw...@newsguy.com) wrote:
> In article <slrn7i41o7...@larissa.foo.com>, Aaron M. Renn wrote:
>
> There isn't anything particularly evil about people who ride in the peak
> that justifies soaking them.
The economic theory is that these trips have less elasticity. IOW, you can
obtain more revenue from them because most of them will still ride at the
same time, despite the higher fares.
> The only justification for higher fares in the
> peak is to shift some of the riding outside the peak.
> It's an open question
> whether or not this actually works. In Washington, for example, it doesn't
> seem to work too well.
The "peak hours" in DC are so long that it's unrealistic to expect many
trips to shift outside of them. Their peak fares seem to be set up to
maximize revenue, not to encourage temporal shifts.
Colin R. Leech
>>is when the bus lines are redirected to feed rail stations instead
>>of actually going someplace).
Ideally the rail stations are located someplace useful like a shopping
mall or employment complex, rather than standalone buildings in the middle
of a field (or a sea of parking).
> BART suburban stations do not have very good "feeder" bus service.
> If they did, there'd be no need for those vast parking lots.
It's a philosophic bias on the part of BART. IMHO it's a mistake - they'd
be better off integrating fares and service with the municpal bus agencies
to act as feeders, and build transit-oriented high density commercial
complexes at most stations instead of parking.
> Business people would very much like bus service which connects from
> a BART or lite rail station, to where people work. Then, there'd be
> a complete transit system. This includes buses which run after
> 8:00PM, so Joe Hitech can work late in his Silicon Valley job,
> and still have a way to get to the BART
The service should be tailored to the needs of the customers, rather than
assuming that everybody starts work at 8:00 or 9:00 am and finishes at
5:00 or 6:00 pm. Universities don't fit this model either, with people
coming and going at all times (but noticeably with a 7:45-9:30 AM peak
rather than a 7:00-9:00 peak, for example). Similarly, shopping areas
need service on the evenings when they're open, but may not need AM peak
period service.
> to take him to his suburban
> station, where his car is parked.
Ideally there would be a decent feeder bus to take him home as well.
> If he had a bus to get home from
> the BART station, then the whole transit system would be truly
> complete.
> [...]
> Transfers are a major annoyance to drivers.
> I'd just get rid of transfers entirely. Let people either have a
> monthly pass or a day-pass, if they want a deal. Let the
> occasional riders pay a full fare for each leg of their trip.
Then you penalize people for the route network design. I can construct
examples lcoally in which somebody could ride for an hour and a half right
across town on one bus, or require 3 buses to reach the major shopping
district a couple of miles away. It's not realistic to charge three times
as much for the latter trip.
Tim Kynerd
I previously posted that I was happy to hear they were doing this.
When I think about it, I recall being irritated, when I lived in DC, that
train frequency was markedly reduced after 6 p.m. (I was pretty consistent
about going to work late-ish and leaving late-ish.) I was paying the higher
peak fares, but not getting peak frequencies.
Another problem with this was not only the waiting time, but the fact that
because of the longer headways, the trains tended to be quite crowded.
Bill Bolton
> third car in a household. If people can commute to work by transit, they
> may only need one car instead of two or three to handle the shopping, the
> children, vacations, etc.
Speaking from personal experience, it seems to me in many Western
countries that children are the reason for multiple car ownership in
many families. Kids sports, music, hobbies etc are often a major pull
on family resources with different kids needing to be at different
places at the same time. Public transport tends to be oriented around
"to work" trips and is often inadequate for getting kids to and form
their activities.
In a family of five, four of who are now drivers, we survive (just)
with two cars. Most of the week this is not too much of a problem
with public transit being used fairly extensively for work and
university journeys, but come the weekends and the bargaining on
who-gets-which-car-when starts in earnest!
Cheers,
Bill
Joshuah Mello
Bill Bolton wrote:
> Speaking from personal experience, it seems to me in many Western
> countries that children are the reason for multiple car ownership in
> many families. Kids sports, music, hobbies etc are often a major pull
> on family resources with different kids needing to be at different
> places at the same time. Public transport tends to be oriented around
> "to work" trips and is often inadequate for getting kids to and form
> their activities.
When growing up, i used the skeletal public transit system in my city to get
around. I didn't need a car until 18, and I only had one for a year. This is
in part to the linear design of the city and the two bus routes which plied the
main streets through the town (with hourly service). If I missed my school bus
in the morning, I wouldn't get a ride, I would wait 10 minutes for the city
bus, this worked in the afternoon as well if I stayed late at school. Almost
all city facilities (little league fields, school, stores, etc.) were all
located on the street served by the bus routes.
> In a family of five, four of who are now drivers, we survive (just)
> with two cars. Most of the week this is not too much of a problem
> with public transit being used fairly extensively for work and
> university journeys, but come the weekends and the bargaining on
> who-gets-which-car-when starts in earnest!
This is more an issue of planning and land use than transportation.
--
Joshuah D. Mello
5885...@umbsky.cc.umb.edu
The Real Boston Transit/ Planning Site at http://members.aol.com/transpag
"The way a lot of suburbs have been built has led to a sense of isolation.
There's a loss of
the community support network that we used to have. Every single trip has to be
done in the car, and traffic congestion has
increased. All of this had led to a real decline in community life."
-Congressional Quarterly 10/3/97-
Robert Coté
ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Colin R. Leech) wrote:
> "Charles P. Hobbs" (tra...@primenet.com) wrote:
> > JOHN MARA wrote:
> >> Aaron M. Renn <ar...@urbanophile.com> wrote
> >> >
> >> > You've got it backwards. Buy a car and it bleeds you whether you drive
> >> > it or not. Ride transit and you only have to pay if and when you
> >> > actually derive some transportation benefit from it.
> >>
> >> Once you own a car you might as well use it. Unless the transit service is
> >> good enough that you don't own a car at all, you will wind up using the car
> >> for most trips.
> >
> > If you live and work near good transit service (e.g. faster than
> > the congested roads) why not use it, if you don't need your car at
> > work?
>
> The incremental or marginal costs of a car trip are quite small, whereas
> for a transit trip they are much larger.
What makes you say that? The incremental (marginal non depreciation
operating component) cost for an auto is between $0.12 and $0.30 cents
per mile. The cost to the transit rider in the urban corridor environment
where you want these types of comparisons to be made is roughly the
same. A $1.50 fare gets you 5-10 miles. I'm being very rough here but
my point is that the marginal cost is NOT much higher as you state. This
bodes very poorly for encouraging transit. Raising fares could easily
make marginal costs higher than autos.
> The real market for weaning people off cars and into transit is not the
> complete elimination of a car, but rather the elimination of the second or
> third car in a household. If people can commute to work by transit, they
> may only need one car instead of two or three to handle the shopping, the
> children, vacations, etc.
Leaving aside the assumption that people need to be weaned off cars and
that they need to be transitioned to transit...
You've got an old model of employment that you are trying to defend. The
trend is to flex hours, child friendly hours, errands durring the day, etc.
The idea of large employers m-f 9-5 are over. It is one reason why
transit captures a smaller percentage every year.
Dobrow Stephen
On Fri, 23 Apr 1999, Mike Gallant wrote:
> The highest base fare for a one-seat bus ride in the United States is
> $1.75. Which transit system charges such a fare? Answer: San Diego
> Transit. Better to buy the $5.00 unlimited daypass if you plan to ride
> for just one day. The pass is also valid for unlimited travel on
> suburban NCTD buses to the north. Not a bad deal.
>
> If we really take a look at things- bus fares should start going
> up....not down. We should not expect the federal government to pump
> anymore dollars into transit systems (federal subsidies continue to
> decline each year- not that I totally agree with this practice but it
> *is* happening). Transit must now re-invent itself and one of the best
> ways to do this is to raise fares to a more appropriate level. There
> are so many bus systems around the country in which you could still get
> a bus ride for a mere 75 cents to $1.00. This just doesn't make sense
> in 1999. These bus fares have not changed much in the past 20 years.
>
> Anyone with me on this?
>
All urban bus fares are subsidized from several levels of government.
The issue of what is an appropriate fare and, hence, appropriate subsidy
level, depends upon various social and economic goals. One answer does
not fit all.
Dobrow Stephen
Here's a new way to handle time of day fares. The basic fare ticket -
always same price - includes a lottery ticket with the winning odds
adjusted by time of day.
Dobrow Stephen
On Fri, 23 Apr 1999, Joshuah Mello wrote:
> > There
> > are so many bus systems around the country in which you could still get
> > a bus ride for a mere 75 cents to $1.00.
>
> Boston is 60 cents...ha...ha...ha...:)
>
But you can't transfer and most routes are short.
Exile on Market Street
<5885...@umbsky.cc.umb.edu> wrote:
> > There
> > are so many bus systems around the country in which you could still get
> > a bus ride for a mere 75 cents to $1.00.
>
> Boston is 60 cents...ha...ha...ha...:)
But if you don't hold the proper class of pass, bus-to-subway transfers
require a second full fare (However, at $1.20, that's still less than the
cost of a token and a transfer for a bus-and-subway trip [$1.55] on SEPTA.)
And the hub-and-spoke nature of many Boston transit routes means that you
are more likely to have this sort of ride than you might be in some other
large cities.
However, the MBTA does have one of the lowest farebox recovery ratios in
the country. That's partly because the state government has chosen to
subsidize operations to a greater degree than other jurisdictions have,
presumably to maintain the system's attractiveness.
It's a political decision, not an economic one, but presumably, if the
taxpayers of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts didn't like it, they would
have made their sentiments known by now.
--
Sandy Smith, University Relations / 215.898.1423 / smi...@pobox.upenn.edu
Associate Editor, _Pennsylvania Current_ cur...@pobox.upenn.edu
Penn Web Team -- Web Editor webm...@isc.upenn.edu
I speak for myself here, not Penn http://pobox.upenn.edu/~smiths/
--------------------Radcliffe College, RIP: 1879-1999--------------------
Paul Matus
Dobrow Stephen wrote in message ...
>
>Here's a new way to handle time of day fares. The basic fare ticket -
>always same price - includes a lottery ticket with the winning odds
>adjusted by time of day.
The scary thing is--there are people who would ride just to play the
lottery.
Tim Kynerd
>
>Tim Kynerd (tksw...@newsguy.com) wrote:
>> In article <slrn7i41o7...@larissa.foo.com>, Aaron M. Renn wrote:
>>> ...
>>
>> There isn't anything particularly evil about people who ride in the peak
>> that justifies soaking them.
>
>The economic theory is that these trips have less elasticity. IOW, you can
>obtain more revenue from them because most of them will still ride at the
>same time, despite the higher fares.
Of course -- ignoring the moral issues involved. Notice the tone of my
sentence, which was a reaction to what I perceived as the tone of Aaron's
post.
>
>> The only justification for higher fares in the
>> peak is to shift some of the riding outside the peak.
>> It's an open question
>> whether or not this actually works. In Washington, for example, it doesn't
>> seem to work too well.
>
>The "peak hours" in DC are so long that it's unrealistic to expect many
>trips to shift outside of them. Their peak fares seem to be set up to
>maximize revenue, not to encourage temporal shifts.
Which is exactly right, and I stand by what I said: The only justification
for higher fares in the peak is to shift some of the riding outside the
peak. Penalizing people with higher fares because they have to be at work
at specific times is unjust.
lwin
> insurance anyway whether the car is used or not (perhaps a slight decrease
> in insurance if you're a low mileage driver and have a godo company).
Insurance premiums are higher for those who drive to work.
While depreciation is a function of time, it is also a function of usage.
A year old car with 10,000 miles is worth a lot more than one with 100,000.
A car driven occassionally can be expected to last 15-20 years, esp if it
is garaged. But a car driven extensive will wear out well before that
time (maybe 150,000 miles), and will need to be replaced.
However, most people don't recognize this.
Maintenance costs more than people realize. While many items last a
long time, eventually they do have to be replaced and add up. Oil
change and lube. Tires. Brakes. Muffler. Battery. As you car gets up
in miles, there's always something to be replaced or fixed.
Cddman
Geller) writes:
>The transit part
>is neccessary, as many people forget, to give displaced drivers
>an alternative to using their cars. Ideally, extra taxes and fees
>on cars should be used to pay for the transit, but not enough voters
>are ready for this at the moment.
It is a shame that higher gas prices cannot be legislated-in. I suspect they
can, actually, on a limited basis, but if they were as high as in Europe, we
would see the streets clearer and transit better used, less pollution, less
crowding, etc.
---David
Dobrow Stephen
It's all for a good cause.
Jym Dyer
> family resources with different kids needing to be at
> different places at the same time. Public transport tends
> to be oriented around "to work" trips and is often inadequate
> for getting kids to and form their activities.
=o= It wouldn't be that way if these kids didn't live in places
that were planned around the automobile. In the past, kids
could walk or bike to their activities because (1) they were
nearby and (2) they stood a chance of not being run over by some
idiot in a car.
=o= So now we have kids dying left and right from auto accidents
and just about as many dying from auto exhaust-related conditions
such as leukemia, cancer, and respiratory illness.
<_Jym_>
Steve Geller
>Speaking from personal experience, it seems to me in many Western
>countries that children are the reason for multiple car ownership in
>many families. Kids sports, music, hobbies etc are often a major pull
>on family resources with different kids needing to be at different
>places at the same time. Public transport tends to be oriented around
>"to work" trips and is often inadequate for getting kids to and form
>their activities.
>... come the weekends and the bargaining on
>who-gets-which-car-when starts in earnest!
Weekend service gets lowest priority, when bus budgets are tight.
This affects more than kids. Some elderly and disabled people feel
like they are under "house arrest" on weekends.
If the destinations are concentrated, it is economical to run
good weekend bus service. But the suburbs are not concentrated.
That's the general principle of public transit: it makes sense only
where destinations are concentrated, and there are lots of people.
That's why public transit in rural areas is so limited, if there's any
at all.
<shrug> Below some population density, cars are the way to go,
presuming everyone has a car, or knows someone who does.
Public transit, I think, exists for only two significant purposes:
(1) Transport for people who don't have access to a car.
(2) Providing an alternative to using a car, when there are too
many cars on the road.
Steve Geller
>Leaving aside the assumption that people need to be weaned off cars and
>that they need to be transitioned to transit...
Right. The idea is that people should try to use transit when driving
would create congestion, and whenever it's convenient.
>You've got an old model of employment that you are trying to defend. The
>trend is to flex hours, child friendly hours, errands durring the day, etc.
>The idea of large employers m-f 9-5 are over. It is one reason why
>transit captures a smaller percentage every year.
I don't see why any of those trends should reduce transit usage,
except maybe in regions where such practices can smooth out traffic
sufficiently. This is not the situation for ba.transportation,
or la.transportation. It might be for misc.transport.urban-transit,
wherever that is. <grin>
Steve Geller
>> Transfers are a major annoyance to drivers.
>> I'd just get rid of transfers entirely. Let people either have a
>> monthly pass or a day-pass, if they want a deal. Let the
>> occasional riders pay a full fare for each leg of their trip.
>
>Then you penalize people for the route network design. I can construct
>examples locally in which somebody could ride for an hour and a half right
>across town on one bus, or require 3 buses to reach the major shopping
>district a couple of miles away. It's not realistic to charge three times
>as much for the latter trip.
I was talking about occasional riders. If the transfers are a problem
for a big group of cross-town riders, then it's time for some new
direct service.
Transfers are neccessary as long as there's a need to collect fares,
and there isn't direct bus service to everywhere. Transfers would not
be required in proof-of-payment systems, or where most riders use
a pass (monthly or day).
I have no problem "penalizing" a regular rider by requiring a
transfer, when the rider could just as well have bought a pass.
Colin R. Leech
Steve Geller (stge...@pacbell.net) wrote:
> Colin R. Leech wrote:
>
>>> Transfers are a major annoyance to drivers.
>>> I'd just get rid of transfers entirely. Let people either have a
>>> monthly pass or a day-pass, if they want a deal. Let the
>>> occasional riders pay a full fare for each leg of their trip.
>>
>>Then you penalize people for the route network design. I can construct
>>examples locally in which somebody could ride for an hour and a half right
>>across town on one bus, or require 3 buses to reach the major shopping
>>district a couple of miles away. It's not realistic to charge three times
>>as much for the latter trip.
>
> I was talking about occasional riders. If the transfers are a problem
> for a big group of cross-town riders, then it's time for some new
> direct service.
Problem is that there isn't enough demand for individual
origin-destination pairs like this, or there would already be direct
service.
> Transfers are neccessary as long as there's a need to collect fares,
> and there isn't direct bus service to everywhere. Transfers would not
> be required in proof-of-payment systems, or where most riders use
> a pass (monthly or day).
Ottawa has around 70% of passengers using passes. It's unthinkable (except
to a few of our bus drivers who are fed up with everything in life) to
eliminate transfers. We use transfers as the POP - it pretty much amounts
to the same thing: having to carry around a piece of paper with you either
as the transfer or as the POP.
> I have no problem "penalizing" a regular rider by requiring a
> transfer, when the rider could just as well have bought a pass.
That 30% of boardings that pays with cash or tickets amounts to a lot more
than 30% of the people, since these are not the daily riders who are
paying cash.
Sheldon Kovitz
>
>On Fri, 23 Apr 1999, Joshuah Mello wrote:
>
>> > There
>> > are so many bus systems around the country in which you could still get
>> > a bus ride for a mere 75 cents to $1.00.
>>
>> Boston is 60 cents...ha...ha...ha...:)
>>
>
>
The long bus routes have zoned or higher fares, in most cases.
Kymberleigh Richards
Leech) wrote:
>Kymberleigh Richards (kric...@pacbell.net) wrote:
>>
>> What's your opinion of the MTA staff proposal -- which, in the face of
>> Bus Riders Union opposition has been overridden by the board of
>> directors -- to have four freeway "express" lines (which more often
>> than not get stuck in freeway traffic, causing off-schedule operation)
>> eliminate the freeway segment of their routes and make connections to
>> the Red Line subway?
(Colin's reply edited to save on post length)
>Of course, the first variable to consider is travel time. If the typical
>travel time is comparable, people will generally prefer the single seat
>ride. Variability of travel time will also play a factor, though. If the
>bus+subway option will take an hour +/- 5 minutes every day of the year,
>while the bus on freeway option takes 50 minutes most of the time, but
>could take up to 85 minutes once a week, the transfer may be preferable to
>the direct ride.
It depends on where the passenger is actually traveling, in this case.
A passenger who would discharge at the Western Ave. freeway stop to
use the bus to continue south in that corridor would be the most
impacted by cutting this express line short at Hollywood, since there
would need to be a connection by either bus or subway to Western from
Hollywood/Vine Station. That's a three-seat ride, and the connection
is only about one mile in length.
A passenger who would have discharged at the Vermont Ave. freeway stop
would find the subway option faster if headed for one of the major
streets (Vermont/Sunset, Vermont/Santa Monica, Vermont/Beverly, or
Vermont/Wilshire Stations), but to get to one of the smaller streets
in-between it might be slower to go express bus-subway-local bus.
OTOH, passengers destined to a point south of Wilshire on that
corridor would have an improvement in travel time since the subway
could get them to a local bus one or two runs ahead of the one they
would have taken from the express transfer point at the freeway.
Those who presently discharge at Alvarado St. would ride the subway
all the way to Westlake/MacArthur Park Station and see an improvement
of at least ten minutes in travel time, presuming their final
destination was farther south on that corridor.
(I should point out that the vast majority of passengers who presently
discharge at the three express freeway stops *do* travel south from
there; the express -- and the subway -- travel generally eastward to
get to downtown from Hollywood.)
Passengers going all the way to downtown will find an improvement of
about five to ten minutes using the subway, presuming the bus doesn't
get gridlocked (which it frequently does).
>People will weight out-of-vehicle time more heavily relative to in-vehicle
>time. The exact weights will depend on the people and the situation - for
>example, here where our winters are very cold, passengers do not like
>standing around waiting for a bus to arrive. This applies both to the
>initial boarding and waiting around for a transfer, but if the service is
>reliable, the transfer is more of an impediment because the passenger can
>control his arrival time at the first bus stop to minimize the wait, but
>cannot control the length of time spent making the transfer. OTOH most
>transfers now occur at stations with amenities (heating, benches,
>telephones, newspaper boxes, etc.) that make the wait much more pleasant
>than on a random street corner.
The Hollywood/Vine Station has a "bus plaza" with the bus stops
located immediately adjacent to the subway entrance. I'm reasonably
certain there are benches, if not shelters, at the bus stops around
the other stations mentioned.
>If there are a very limited number of express trips per day and the
>community is difficult to get to via alternate transit, then using the
>express buses (vehicles) to make more trips on a feeder service to the
>subway may be more attractive to more passengers than keeping a smaller
>number of direct trips.
Two of the four lines provide all-day service on a scheduled frequency
of ten minutes off-peak; the third is a variation on one of the first
two, operating peak only with limited stops on the non-freeway
segment, and the fourth is a peak only line which has a long express
segment between the far west route segment and downtown. (This last
has extremely low ridership and likely won't survive past next summer
anyway.)
>When considering the impacts of transfers, most people look at the wrong
>end of the trip. Typically in the morning they are transferring from an
>infrequent feeder bus to a frequent train, so people say "What's the big
>deal about making a transfer?" The bigger problem is in the afternoon,
>when attempting to transfer from the frequent train to the infrequent
>feeder bus to go home. The downside of being delayed and missing the
>transfer connection is much larger.
The frequencies are comparable between the subway and the three main
lines in question. The fourth, as I said, is on the way out and has a
significantly lower amount of service already.
>In your example, I assume that there's nothing that can be done to help
>make the freeway bus service more reliable, such as using HOV lanes?
HOV lanes do not appear to be an option on this particular freeway.
>Does unreliable service on these freeway trips spill over onto later trips
>by these vehicles?
Absolutely. Return northbound service goes off-schedule when inbound
southbound trips get stuck in traffic, resulting in passenger bunching
for a significant period of time after whatever originally caused the
problem was resolved. (It can take three hours to recover fully from
the gridlock caused by a traffic accident on the freeway, even though
the accident itself may only take 10-15 minutes to clear.)
Kymberleigh Richards
Executive Committee Member, Southern California Transit Advocates
Member, MTA Passenger Advisory Committee, Metro Bus West Valley
========================================================================
My Valley Transit Web Page has moved! <http://members.xoom.com/MTAKym/>
========================================================================
Mark W. Schumann
In article <Jym.ybnhf...@igc.org>, Jym Dyer <j...@igc.org> wrote:
>> Kids sports, music, hobbies etc are often a major pull on
>> family resources with different kids needing to be at
>> different places at the same time. Public transport tends
>> to be oriented around "to work" trips and is often inadequate
>> for getting kids to and form their activities.
>
>=o= It wouldn't be that way if these kids didn't live in places
>that were planned around the automobile. In the past, kids
>could walk or bike to their activities because (1) they were
>nearby and (2) they stood a chance of not being run over by some
>idiot in a car.
So I raise my kids in an urban neighborhood where school, church,
Mickey D's, library, friends, and ice cream shop are all within a
two-block walk. Cool.
>=o= So now we have kids dying left and right from auto accidents
>and just about as many dying from auto exhaust-related conditions
>such as leukemia, cancer, and respiratory illness.
And guess where the exhaust concentrates? Yup, right where we
live. Somehow it doesn't seem fair that the people who live in
the least car-dependent places are the ones who breathe everyone
else's externalities.