4 ms·
> meaning it needs to ask for less from the taxpayer Or they could align their charges to their costs, and have the users pay for the service.
by mbrookes 10y ago
> meaning it needs to ask for less from the taxpayer
Or they could align their charges to their costs, and have the users pay for the service.
- chowells 10y agoDo things play out that way though? Every time you raise prices, fewer people use it, resulting in requiring another price increase. Demand for public transit is actually pretty price-sensitive. Look at what's currently going on with the New York subway system, for instance. Now, consider the case where the current prices could actually cover costs if utilization was high enough. (I don't know if that's true for BART, but it's certainly possible for a public transit system.) Wouldn't it make much more sense to increase ridership than prices? This strategy is hardly unique to publicly-funded projects. Lots of businesses sell a new product at a loss, expecting to grow their sales of it until they can use economies of scale to make the product profitable. A policy of naively basing prices solely on recent demand and current costs misses a lot of possibilities. It's very worth considering how increased demand changes economies and pricing with a long-term plan in mind.
- bluejekyll 10y ago> Wouldn't it make much more sense to increase ridership than prices? In peak hours, BART seems pretty close to capacity. My favorite is that while fewer people travel south of the city, rather than east, because of all the "back-trackers" looking for seats (but adding 10 minutes to their commute), even the other direction is pretty crowded.
- ensignavenger 10y agoIn order for it to work, they would have to eliminate subsidies to alternate forms of transportation, like private cars. Once all costs are properly aligned and not externalized, it should work fairly well.