3 ms·
Yeah, of course if you build coverage everywhere it is not cost effective. There is definitely a point where cost effectiveness peaks. What I mean is that when
by opportune 7y ago
Yeah, of course if you build coverage everywhere it is not cost effective. There is definitely a point where cost effectiveness peaks. What I mean is that when you get there, it is much cheaper. It very rarely gets to that point in most of the world
- xyzzyz 7y agoIt almost always gets much farther beyond that point. In Seattle, where I live, farebox recovery is just 27%, which, given that fare is $2.75, means that riding a bus is much less cost effective than driving.
- selectodude 7y agoSound Transit has an FRR of 42 percent now.
- xyzzyz 7y agoYeah, because Sound Transit only covers a handful of the most popular routes. The agency that actually tries to have good coverage of the city is Metro Transit.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- AstralStorm 7y agoDid you calculate in the greenhouse gas? Cost is not the whole story. Electric buses are starting to become a thing too.
- xyzzyz 7y agoNo, because greenhouse emissions are free. When we do start paying for carbon emissions, it might be worthwhile to revisit this question, but right now I’m talking about actual costs, not some hypothetical value assigned to externalities.
- foota 7y agoIf you're discussing "ought tos" I think it makes sense to include in that talk of externalities.
- xyzzyz 7y agoThe estimates of externalities related to CO2 emissions range between $0.10-0.50 per gallon, so they can hardly make much of a difference here. Cars cause more congestion, but the cost of congestion is mostly in time wasted in traffic, and if we actually grade cars vs public transit on time wasted, cars win easily because public transit is slow.