HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted May 7, 2021, 10:12 PM
LosAngelesSportsFan's Avatar
LosAngelesSportsFan LosAngelesSportsFan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,838
Quote:
Originally Posted by woodrow View Post
Kansas City did this in December 2019. Biggest city to date to do so. I know others are looking at the possibility, but had no idea a system as big as SF was considering it.
LA is seriously considering it too and i hope they dont for reasons stated above.

People dont appreciate anything thats free and the system will be full of homeless, crazy people and would basically stop most people from using the system. Reduce the fare to 50 cents or something nominal, but dont make it free
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted May 7, 2021, 11:52 PM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is online now
Dryer lint inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston/ SF Bay Area
Posts: 37,789
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedestrian View Post
I think the argument that we should ever give people things because they want or claim to need them with no other justification is ludicrous and I treated it as such. Unlike 10023, I drive a 17 year old car and am perfectly satisfied with it (but I'd love to drive a Bentley just once--there's actually a dealer just up the street. Maybe I should take one for a spin).
That's your choice that you drive an old car where as low income folks relying on public transportation don't have much of a choice. Surely it could be based on a sliding scale depending on income. Make under a certain threshold, fairs could be reduced or even free in certain cases.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted May 8, 2021, 12:06 AM
accord1999 accord1999 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,028
I believe this is the operating budget for the bus system:


The farebox recovery ratio is higher than I expected though still not great at about 25%. The ultimate question is would it be more useful to spend $4M/year to go fareless or to increase service?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted May 8, 2021, 4:16 AM
jtown,man jtown,man is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,144
Quote:
Originally Posted by JManc View Post
I think you're a little out of touch. 2 bucks twice a day/ 5 days a week is $80 a month...which to you or I might not seem like much but is to someone making minimum wage living from paycheck to paycheck. I don't think they should let anyone on unchecked for free but hand out passes to weed out the bums looking for a mobile toilet.
He has a good point though, and this thing in Virginia is a SJ initiative.

If we want to give poor people better access, we can have them apply online for a free or extremely low cost yearly pass (that is paid monthly). We do this in Chicago for the DIVVY bike system (I think they pay 5 dollars a year!).

Besides things that could be fixed with money, like more routes and more buses, the biggest issue in America and public transit is the idea that it just for the poor. This only makes that idea concrete.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted May 8, 2021, 7:33 AM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 24,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtown,man View Post
He has a good point though, and this thing in Virginia is a SJ initiative.

If we want to give poor people better access, we can have them apply online for a free or extremely low cost yearly pass (that is paid monthly). We do this in Chicago for the DIVVY bike system (I think they pay 5 dollars a year!).

Besides things that could be fixed with money, like more routes and more buses, the biggest issue in America and public transit is the idea that it just for the poor. This only makes that idea concrete.
The idea of advocates is that free service for all increases ridership.

My argument is it's likely just the opposite, at least in terms of ridership for the intended purposes. If you want to drive the middle class away from transit, what you do is make it less safe, less comfortable, less efficient and reliable and stress-free. That's exactly what a totally free system would do in a big city. Transit vehicles would become full of the sleeping unwashed, taking up extra seats with their possessions. I would also expect increased numbers of rowdy teens fighting and rough-housing with each other as already happens when school lets out (because they already get low cost rides to and from school). And the panhandlers, scam artists (I have watched "sheep games" in progress on busses) and drug salesman touting their wares.

If you lose middle class ridership, you lose the support of the taxpayers and if that happens public funding--not just firebox revenue--will deteriorate because people and their representatives will not support what they don't use.

Successful systems charge fares that approximate in value what the service provides and they use multiple revenue sources to provide reliable, frequent and safe service. I don't think a service that's free system-wide would be any of those things.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted May 8, 2021, 7:41 AM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 24,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by JManc View Post
That's your choice that you drive an old car where as low income folks relying on public transportation don't have much of a choice. Surely it could be based on a sliding scale depending on income. Make under a certain threshold, fairs could be reduced or even free in certain cases.
That's the way it is now, at least in my town. No change required then and no "news" here.


https://www.sfmta.com/how-access-low...nd-fee-waivers

The "lifeline" pass provides a 50% discount. There are similar discounts for students and seniors.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted May 8, 2021, 12:16 PM
jtown,man jtown,man is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedestrian View Post
The idea of advocates is that free service for all increases ridership.

My argument is it's likely just the opposite, at least in terms of ridership for the intended purposes. If you want to drive the middle class away from transit, what you do is make it less safe, less comfortable, less efficient and reliable and stress-free. That's exactly what a totally free system would do in a big city. Transit vehicles would become full of the sleeping unwashed, taking up extra seats with their possessions. I would also expect increased numbers of rowdy teens fighting and rough-housing with each other as already happens when school lets out (because they already get low cost rides to and from school). And the panhandlers, scam artists (I have watched "sheep games" in progress on busses) and drug salesman touting their wares.

If you lose middle class ridership, you lose the support of the taxpayers and if that happens public funding--not just firebox revenue--will deteriorate because people and their representatives will not support what they don't use.

Successful systems charge fares that approximate in value what the service provides and they use multiple revenue sources to provide reliable, frequent and safe service. I don't think a service that's free system-wide would be any of those things.

Oh, I agree.

Many who are blind to this fact. All they think about is social "justice" and never think of the negative consequences to their ideas. In fact, most people never even consider the pros and cons to an idea, they only see the pros and run with it. Public policy should not be dictated in this way.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted May 8, 2021, 1:52 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtown,man View Post
Besides things that could be fixed with money, like more routes and more buses, the biggest issue in America and public transit is the idea that it just for the poor. This only makes that idea concrete.
Exactly. If there is truly a transit affordability problem, target the demographic rather than making transit free for everyone. We don't make food or housing free for everyone because some have trouble affording such goods.

NYC has half-price transit for low income residents, as well as heavily subsidized CitiBike membership. Most employers subsidize monthly transit passes, and there are federal pretax benefits.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted May 8, 2021, 2:11 PM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is online now
Dryer lint inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston/ SF Bay Area
Posts: 37,789
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtown,man View Post
He has a good point though, and this thing in Virginia is a SJ initiative.

If we want to give poor people better access, we can have them apply online for a free or extremely low cost yearly pass (that is paid monthly). We do this in Chicago for the DIVVY bike system (I think they pay 5 dollars a year!).

Besides things that could be fixed with money, like more routes and more buses, the biggest issue in America and public transit is the idea that it just for the poor. This only makes that idea concrete.
Free for everyone is bad business model...totally agree but if something like this is even in the table, they are better off letting lower income folks ride for free and keep fairs as they are for everyone else. I just dismiss the notion that something which might seem negligible to us also applies to someone making minimum wage as well.

Outside our densest cities, cars will remain the preferred mode of transportation as well as the stigma of not having one.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted May 8, 2021, 4:04 PM
Doady's Avatar
Doady Doady is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 4,701
Transit is going to cheaper than cars no matter what, so reducing or eliminating fares is not going to attract many new riders. The mmount of service, the number of service hours, reducing the distances between routes, reducing the waiting times between buses and trains, that is what attracts most riders. And what determines the amount of service is the amount of funding, and for successful systems, that funding mostly comes from fares.

For example, in Toronto, in 2019, the TTC budget was $1.9 billion, and almost $1.3 billion of that came from fares. $1.3 billion. Imagine how much ridership would be lost if they slashed $1.3 billion worth of service. Do you want a transit system like Toronto, or one like Alexandria, VA?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted May 8, 2021, 4:43 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 9,787
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtown,man View Post
Besides things that could be fixed with money, like more routes and more buses, the biggest issue in America and public transit is the idea that it just for the poor. This only makes that idea concrete.
I agree that transit is stigmatized as a service for the poor, but I don't think making transit free would worsen that perception. I could see a scenario where the opposite happens, tbh. In fact, when buses in NYC were free last year because of the pandemic, I'm pretty sure they had much higher ridership than the subway system.

Personally, I don't use the buses in NYC a lot, but I might use them more if there were no fare. One reason I don't use buses is because it's not that easy to use them. Until this past year, there were two ways to pay for most bus rides in NYC: you could either pay by MetroCard, or you could pay your fare by using exact change. This should be easy, but the MetroCard system was designed to be convenient in the subway system, not the bus system. You can get a MetroCard at literally any subway station in the system, but MetroCards aren't readily available near most bus stops in the city.

After like 30 years, the MTA finally started to somewhat resolve this paradox with the Select Bus Service routes. Those routes have kiosks set up at each stop to allow riders to purchase/refill MetroCards. But most regular bus routes are still just as inconvenient.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted May 8, 2021, 6:25 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 24,177
^^New York is one of a tiny number of American cities with such extensive rail transit systems that busses are an adjunct, like feeder airlines, not the backbone of the system. Since we’ve already established that San Francisco is America’s second densest city, it’s maybe the best example of one where busses are the critical part of the system and rail (light rail mainly) is nice when it takes you where you want to go but for most trips, some part is going to be on a bus.

You can live carless and mostly avoid busses in NYC but not in SF.

But this talk of free transit wouldn’t just apply to busses. It would be the whole system. In NYC that would be the subways too.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted May 8, 2021, 6:50 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 9,787
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedestrian View Post
^^New York is one of a tiny number of American cities with such extensive rail transit systems that busses are an adjunct, like feeder airlines, not the backbone of the system. Since we’ve already established that San Francisco is America’s second densest city, it’s maybe the best example of one where busses are the critical part of the system and rail (light rail mainly) is nice when it takes you where you want to go but for most trips, some part is going to be on a bus.

You can live carless and mostly avoid busses in NYC but not in SF.

But this talk of free transit wouldn’t just apply to busses. It would be the whole system. In NYC that would be the subways too.
I don't think free transit would diminish the perceived status of transit regardless of the city, whether bus or rail. That's the only point I was making. I think having a no fare system is a bad idea for other reasons, like making it way too easy for politicians to starve the budget on a whim.

I think if transit were free, you'd likely see transit usage increase because everybody likes free stuff. But, how would the system support itself? Could a city/state fund a system completely through taxes like they do for roads? Could a transit system go the freemium tech model and lean on things like ads?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted May 8, 2021, 7:41 PM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is online now
Dryer lint inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston/ SF Bay Area
Posts: 37,789
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
I don't think free transit would diminish the perceived status of transit regardless of the city, whether bus or rail.
I do. In New York, millionaires take the subway. Here in Houston, riding the rail or the bus means you can't afford a car. There are very few cities where mass transit is the default/ ideal mode of transport; cities like NY, DC and SF are among them. I still think it should be subsidized based on income but not free.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted May 8, 2021, 7:56 PM
accord1999 accord1999 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,028
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
Could a city/state fund a system completely through taxes like they do for roads?
For the typical American system outside of a few cities, their operating costs already are almost completely funded by taxes. Dallas for example has a terrible farebox recovery ratio:



But frankly, I don't think the question is whether transit systems should go free. The real question is why do so many American systems spend so much money to get so little ridership. Is it just that Americans will do almost anything not to take transit or is there systematic flaws in how routes and services are setup?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted May 8, 2021, 8:00 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 9,787
Quote:
Originally Posted by JManc View Post
I do. In New York, millionaires take the subway. Here in Houston, riding the rail or the bus means you can't afford a car. There are very few cities where mass transit is the default/ ideal mode of transport; cities like NY, DC and SF are among them. I still think it should be subsidized based on income but not free.
Right, but in either city, if transit suddenly became free it wouldn't make the perception of using public transit worse.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted May 8, 2021, 8:33 PM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is online now
Dryer lint inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston/ SF Bay Area
Posts: 37,789
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
Right, but in either city, if transit suddenly became free it wouldn't make the perception of using public transit worse.
Depends on how it was implemented. Issuing passes and maintain control of access probably wouldn't affect perception but no limits at all where half the vagrants in the city would be able to squat certainly would.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted May 8, 2021, 9:09 PM
Doady's Avatar
Doady Doady is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 4,701
Quote:
Originally Posted by accord1999 View Post
For the typical American system outside of a few cities, their operating costs already are almost completely funded by taxes. Dallas for example has a terrible farebox recovery ratio:



But frankly, I don't think the question is whether transit systems should go free. The real question is why do so many American systems spend so much money to get so little ridership. Is it just that Americans will do almost anything not to take transit or is there systematic flaws in how routes and services are setup?
Cost recovery ratio doesn't tell the whole story. The $741M subsidy that DART gets might be the same or even lower per capita than what other systems get. In Toronto, the TTC's cost recovery ratio of 67% is one of the highest in US and Canada, but that remaining 33% means a $622M CAD subsidy, and for a system serving less than half the population that DART does, that means higher spending per capita than DART. $741M subsidy is probably not unusual for a system serving such a large population. The question is how that $741M is spent.

DART ridership did see a major increase in 2019 after they expanded the bus service. I think that highlights the real problem with transit in the US: it is based too much on the idea that people are unwilling to use buses, or that rail systems can be successful without buses (Dallas has the largest light rail system in the USA). The idea that high ridership is the result of building lots of rail, instead of large rail networks being the result of high ridership, is too common the USA, and so often rail becomes the focus and bus systems become neglected, and do those rail lines become isolated. That is what distinguishes US transit from Canadian transit: US cities build rail to solve the problem of too low ridership, while Canadian cities build rail to solve the problem of too high ridership.

Even just looking at the USA, you can see successful transit systems with little or no rail such as Seattle, Las Vegas, Pittsburgh, Baltimore. Even in Portland, the poster child for successful light rail in the USA, most of the ridership is actually on buses, not light rail.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted May 9, 2021, 2:22 AM
SIGSEGV's Avatar
SIGSEGV SIGSEGV is offline
He/his/him. >~<, QED!
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Loop, Chicago
Posts: 5,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by JManc View Post
Depends on how it was implemented. Issuing passes and maintain control of access probably wouldn't affect perception but no limits at all where half the vagrants in the city would be able to squat certainly would.
vagrants rarely pay fares anyway, they just hop the fare gates or refuse to pay on the bus.

That said, better policy would be to require all employers providing subsidized parking to provide subsidized transit passes for their employees. I believe that's what Cambridge, Mass. does.
__________________
And here the air that I breathe isn't dead.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted May 9, 2021, 1:36 PM
Camelback Camelback is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2021
Posts: 1,231
Free doesn't improve transit, it would keep the status quo of terrible service, vagrants and long travel times.

We could steer money from transit to subsidize ride share (school/work commutes only) for those that make, I don't know, under $30,000, under $50,000? That would include all children, college kids, fixed-income retirees, elderly, disabled. Less overhead, less pensions to fund, less infrastructure to maintain, more efficient for commuters, more time with the family, better household conditions.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:33 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.