Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Bb-i don't like the $3 base fare. That would make travelling from lawrenceville to downtown and back $6 which is as much as it costs to park. Perhaps $3 at peak and $1 off peak might induce more riders off peak when pat has extra assets.
But then that same 3$ you can travel from Monroeville to Robinson which now would cost well over 6$....We're going to 3$ fares whether you like it or not...Just do it already, but give incentives...3$ Fares eliminate Zones and you get 2 free transfers....3$ is a nice round number everyone can remember, and it also makes Pay Enter and Rear Door exits much easier to implement because now drivers don't have to worry about how far people are traveling and if they're paying correct fare.
I don't much like the idea of riders on shorter routes cross-subsidizing riders on longer routes. That creates some perverse long-term incentives that make it likely your system will become less efficient.
But then that same 3$ you can travel from Monroeville to Robinson which now would cost well over 6$....We're going to 3$ fares whether you like it or not...Just do it already, but give incentives...3$ Fares eliminate Zones and you get 2 free transfers....3$ is a nice round number everyone can remember, and it also makes Pay Enter and Rear Door exits much easier to implement because now drivers don't have to worry about how far people are traveling and if they're paying correct fare.
I'd venture to say it costs a good bit less to serve lville to downtown. Flat fares should go the way of the dodo since they completely ignore the price of substitutes and the cost to provide the service
I'd venture to say it costs a good bit less to serve lville to downtown. Flat fares should go the way of the dodo since they completely ignore the price of substitutes.
And with a Smartcard system you can enable more sophisticated fare systems.
I don't much like the idea of riders on shorter routes cross-subsidizing riders on longer routes. That creates some perverse long-term incentives that make it likely your system will become less efficient.
Of course you have to consider the political ramifications, when you're talking about public funded transport.
Most of the voters and the taxpayers live in the extended area which the longer routes serve.
But what I'm thinking about is to include routes which serve a lot of shorter trips from various city neighborhoods and suburban areas to malls, medical complexes and office parks, and keep the riders out of the inner city area altogether. Maybe a route, for example, which connects Cranberry with Wexford, Passavant, Hampton, Shaler and Route 8.
Of course you have to consider the political ramifications, when you're talking about public funded transport. Most of the voters and the taxpayers live in the extended area which the longer routes serve.
But even with such cross-subsidies most of the people in those areas won't be taking transit. And ultimately this path leads to higher public costs per rider, which isn't necessarily good politics.
Quote:
Maybe a route, for example, which connects Cranberry with Wexford, Passavant, Hampton, Shaler and Route 8.
Cranberry isn't in Allegheny County.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
