29 ms·

Free buses would likely attract more riders, so the cost of providing the service would increase at the same time the 25% fare revenue disappeared. This does n

Free buses would likely attract more riders, so the cost of providing the service would increase at the same time the 25% fare revenue disappeared. This does not counter your point, it just strikes me as a confounding issue.

VLM 13y ago
The std deviation of utilization is pretty spectacular. You could play games with pricing where its free at 2pm when the bus usually only has 2 people, but it costs money at 5pm rush hour, or if there's an open seat its free but if you have to stand it costs, or something like that. Now that I think about it, I'm not a big drinker so I don't pay much attention, but a local brewer pays the fares on new years eve to keep the drunks off the roads, and despite claims that free fare = 20 times utilization, I'm just not seeing it.
- loceng 13y ago
  You could assume that high traffic areas, at least during peak hours, would be considered healthy and productive environments - and whereby those people involved / using those services would be economic producers - which are needed - and therefore you would / should cover their costs overall with the tax base, as their activities are helping everyone in the society.
- wutbrodo 13y ago
  I'm not sure about those claims, but I don't think your examples is really a counterexample. The free fare --> drastically higher utilization argument seems like something that would apply more in the steady state; nobody is going to sell their car for the one day a year that fares are free, and one of the main advantages of taking a bus is erased if you already have a car.
- danielweber 13y ago
  its free at 2pm when the bus usually only has 2 people, but it costs money at 5pm rush hour If the goal is to pull people off the roads, you want to charge people a lot to be on the bus at 2pm, and nothing at 5pm. And a bus with 2 people probably shouldn't even be running. Get them two taxis.
  - lmm 13y ago
    The bus is already paid for and needed at rush hour; the driver needs a full-time job not two three-hour shifts at opposite ends of the day. It's probably better to run the bus. Longer-term what we need is more flexible working to spread out the rush hours, but for some reason that's a hard sell to american businesses.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
notatoad 13y ago
that would be the point though, wouldn't it? This whole essay is based on the assumption that transit is cheaper overall than personal cars. the cost of providing transit service would increase, but the city's overall transportation budget should be neutral or improved.

VLM 13y ago

The std deviation of utilization is pretty spectacular. You could play games with pricing where its free at 2pm when the bus usually only has 2 people, but it costs money at 5pm rush hour, or if there's an open seat its free but if you have to stand it costs, or something like that. Now that I think about it, I'm not a big drinker so I don't pay much attention, but a local brewer pays the fares on new years eve to keep the drunks off the roads, and despite claims that free fare = 20 times utilization, I'm just not seeing it.

loceng 13y ago
You could assume that high traffic areas, at least during peak hours, would be considered healthy and productive environments - and whereby those people involved / using those services would be economic producers - which are needed - and therefore you would / should cover their costs overall with the tax base, as their activities are helping everyone in the society.
wutbrodo 13y ago
I'm not sure about those claims, but I don't think your examples is really a counterexample. The free fare --> drastically higher utilization argument seems like something that would apply more in the steady state; nobody is going to sell their car for the one day a year that fares are free, and one of the main advantages of taking a bus is erased if you already have a car.
danielweber 13y ago
its free at 2pm when the bus usually only has 2 people, but it costs money at 5pm rush hour If the goal is to pull people off the roads, you want to charge people a lot to be on the bus at 2pm, and nothing at 5pm. And a bus with 2 people probably shouldn't even be running. Get them two taxis.
- lmm 13y ago
  The bus is already paid for and needed at rush hour; the driver needs a full-time job not two three-hour shifts at opposite ends of the day. It's probably better to run the bus. Longer-term what we need is more flexible working to spread out the rush hours, but for some reason that's a hard sell to american businesses.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

notatoad 13y ago

that would be the point though, wouldn't it? This whole essay is based on the assumption that transit is cheaper overall than personal cars. the cost of providing transit service would increase, but the city's overall transportation budget should be neutral or improved.