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.
Doesn't the gas tax already serve as a highway toll?
I think that as well but am kind of tired of trying to drive the point home.
I kind of still wonder what exactly do you want to we want spend taxes on? Taxes are not a levy on citizenship and should be spent on something worthwhile.
Well......that's kind of missing the point of raising fares to begin with. Let's be totally frank here-- it will help deter the lingering and trespassing that so many poor and/or mentally unstable do now to public transit. It will help fund increased security measures. A lot of people just don't seem to feel safe on MARTA because of those elements.
Oh please a higher fare across the board will do three things. Increase fare evasion, lower ridership, and disenfranchise the poor. And no one should feel unsafe. My gods they've got a police force equal to Gwinnett County. I generally find that increasing ridership and having a bigger crowd around deters some crime as there's less opportunity to commit it.
Oh please a higher fare across the board will do three things. Increase fare evasion, lower ridership, and disenfranchise the poor. And no one should feel unsafe. My gods they've got a police force equal to Gwinnett County. I generally find that increasing ridership and having a bigger crowd around deters some crime as there's less opportunity to commit it.
This logic has been shown to be false. The lower the fare, the more crime and poorer service delivered by a transit system.
Also, "gas tax" has been responded to well. Only things I will repeat: It is not enough (about 33% in GA) and the rest comes from the general fund. And the growing market of 100% electric and other alt-fuel cars do not pay it but use roads.
Well I've long been against the single low-fare system for a long time.
Historically the reason we are here is when MARTA was first created the populace believed they shouldn't have to pay a larger fare, because of the sales tax they already paid into the system. Not to mention it helped bridge the gap on any potential racial divide that existed in the late 60s and early 70s.
This is also what brought about the silly 50-50% spending rule (capital costs vs. operations costs). That 50% was originally meant to be a means to keep fares low for all (and would help pull in more yes votes on the referendum), while the system was meant to be built on a 1/2 cent sales tax.
The one thing I would amend from the article and previous comments... and the one thing I've been a proponent of....
We really need variable -market- pricing.
All of these sides arguments about scaring away all the riders is a distraction. We need to price at a profit-maximizing market price between two different points. If the price gets so high, too many riders go away.... it is priced too high and the market price should be lower. Too many riders going away is a money losing venture.
If it is priced too low, then you lose a huge amount of revenue for only light to moderate gains in ridership.
I also see this as an important tool at attracting more riders. For example... imagine a potential $1 fare to go one stop in Midtown. The distance is short some people will walk or go ahead and pay a little more and get a cab. If in a group currently, the cab is equally expensive or potentially more inexpensive. If we can lower the price and attract many more riders, it should be done.
I also like the idea of extreme price breaks for very uncommon routes. There are not going to be too many people that ride rail from Doraville to Chamblee. It is easier to drive and there are limited destinations. Chamblee has a growing TOD residential area, they call Mid-City in their planning. Doraville has a huge redevelopment site. It would good to encourage area residents, with growing TOD development, use rail for everyday/non-commuting uses locally where someone likely won't pay $5 round trip.
I see many ways to raise and lower prices for many different markets (each market being the demand to travel from a specific point to another specific point).
There are 3 main caveats to consider overcome with this system:
- It is more confusing, especially to outsiders. Daily commuters will learn their costs, like the back of their hand. Singapore has an interesting system where the ticket machines at each station have an interactive map and all you have to do is touch your destination station and it tells you the price.
- There might be some groups that are worth finding a way to give a price break. Sometimes profit maximization is differentiating the market and it can serve a public benefit. Example... Airport as the destination... The market for hourly wage workers commuting to work vs. travelers/visitors is very different. If you can separate the groups, the best market approach to each group is different. It should also be considered their needs and demands for quality of service will be different and if more revenue comes into the system, that should be considered (ie. the airport station should be very bright, friendly, open, well-designed aesthetics, and have excellent signage, first cars on the trains should have have luggage racks that span the distance of 4 to 6 seats and can open up more standing room for other uses)
-Lastly, There should be an importance in analyzing the market. There should also be a subsidy price on keeping a rider... given the cost subsidy required if they used another transportation mode that already (ie. What is the monetary value for the road system by removing one user?). An analyst needs to look at each market and apply common sense. Maybe we can charge double for one route, we lose 40% of riders. Technically, we make more money.... but not much more and we drastically reduce ridership. If the benefit is fairly flat.... we should error on the side of more riders.
Well I've long been against the single low-fare system for a long time.
Historically the reason we are here is when MARTA was first created the populace believed they shouldn't have to pay a larger fare, because of the sales tax they already paid into the system. Not to mention it helped bridge the gap on any potential racial divide that existed in the late 60s and early 70s.
This is also what brought about the silly 50-50% spending rule (capital costs vs. operations costs). That 50% was originally meant to be a means to keep fares low for all (and would help pull in more yes votes on the referendum), while the system was meant to be built on a 1/2 cent sales tax.
The one thing I would amend from the article and previous comments... and the one thing I've been a proponent of....
We really need variable -market- pricing.
All of these sides arguments about scaring away all the riders is a distraction. We need to price at a profit-maximizing market price between two different points. If the price gets so high, too many riders go away.... it is priced too high and the market price should be lower. Too many riders going away is a money losing venture.
If it is priced too low, then you lose a huge amount of revenue for only light to moderate gains in ridership.
I also see this as an important tool at attracting more riders. For example... imagine a potential $1 fare to go one stop in Midtown. The distance is short some people will walk or go ahead and pay a little more and get a cab. If in a group currently, the cab is equally expensive or potentially more inexpensive. If we can lower the price and attract many more riders, it should be done.
I also like the idea of extreme price breaks for very uncommon routes. There are not going to be too many people that ride rail from Doraville to Chamblee. It is easier to drive and there are limited destinations. Chamblee has a growing TOD residential area, they call Mid-City in their planning. Doraville has a huge redevelopment site. It would good to encourage area residents, with growing TOD development, use rail for everyday/non-commuting uses locally where someone likely won't pay $5 round trip.
I see many ways to raise and lower prices for many different markets (each market being the demand to travel from a specific point to another specific point).
There are 3 main caveats to consider overcome with this system:
- It is more confusing, especially to outsiders. Daily commuters will learn their costs, like the back of their hand. Singapore has an interesting system where the ticket machines at each station have an interactive map and all you have to do is touch your destination station and it tells you the price.
- There might be some groups that are worth finding a way to give a price break. Sometimes profit maximization is differentiating the market and it can serve a public benefit. Example... Airport as the destination... The market for hourly wage workers commuting to work vs. travelers/visitors is very different. If you can separate the groups, the best market approach to each group is different. It should also be considered their needs and demands for quality of service will be different and if more revenue comes into the system, that should be considered (ie. the airport station should be very bright, friendly, open, well-designed aesthetics, and have excellent signage, first cars on the trains should have have luggage racks that span the distance of 4 to 6 seats and can open up more standing room for other uses)
-Lastly, There should be an importance in analyzing the market. There should also be a subsidy price on keeping a rider... given the cost subsidy required if they used another transportation mode that already (ie. What is the monetary value for the road system by removing one user?). An analyst needs to look at each market and apply common sense. Maybe we can charge double for one route, we lose 40% of riders. Technically, we make more money.... but not much more and we drastically reduce ridership. If the benefit is fairly flat.... we should error on the side of more riders.
Many markets do distance based fares. Atlanta is really the less common with its flat fare.
One method systems have used to deal with commuters/visitors is monthly or weekly passes at a discounted rate. The ones who buy in advance and use it frequently pay less per trip. Of course, the poorer sometimes have trouble paying in advance.
Distance based fares would be a huge boost for MARTA. It would also give them motivation to extend the lines further out since those riders would likely be taking longer trips thus paying more. Otherwise it is harder to justify the longer lines financially.
Distance based fares would be a huge boost for MARTA. It would also give them motivation to extend the lines further out since those riders would likely be taking longer trips thus paying more. Otherwise it is harder to justify the longer lines financially.
How would a distance based fare work and who would monitor it? I am being serious and not striking down the idea because I actually agree that it's not a horrible idea that shorter distances should cost less.
However, when I started using this Breeze Card last month, I wasn't up to speed on exactly how things worked. I tried to get back in the train stan and it kept coming up red because I didn't scan it on the way out. There was no one to stop me from just hopping over the security thing, and it stayed open long enough that I could have walked in after someone walked out which is how I ended up not tapping it upon leaving in the first place. The only reason I kept trying to make the card work is because I wanted a good understanding of why it wasn't working,
I understand that it would be different on a bus than the train, but I walked on many a bus and just sat down. I had nothing to gain financially, but exhaustion and lack of experience was the reason. Again, I bought the unlimited ride thing. Only when I sat near the front did the bus driver ask me if I was coming back up to pay. I'm sorry! My bad!
Imagine how creative I could be if properly motivated to get to an important destination. I'm only riding for recreation because I have to drive all around the metro for work so it's not like I truly depend on MARTA to get around. I think it's far better to continue subsidizing this for those who need it for transportation.
How would a distance based fare work and who would monitor it? I am being serious and not striking down the idea because I actually agree that it's not a horrible idea that shorter distances should cost less.
Distance based fares are already in place in most major successful transit systems around the world including DC, San Fran, Tokyo, Hong Kong. Many others have similar "zone-based" fares.
Breeze is already setup to handle it. You scan your card when you enter a station and scan again to leave. It deducts the appropriate amount based on distance traveled.
This is a sample of the fare chart posted in one station on the WMATA:
How would a distance based fare work and who would monitor it? I am being serious and not striking down the idea because I actually agree that it's not a horrible idea that shorter distances should cost less.
However, when I started using this Breeze Card last month, I wasn't up to speed on exactly how things worked. I tried to get back in the train stan and it kept coming up red because I didn't scan it on the way out. There was no one to stop me from just hopping over the security thing, and it stayed open long enough that I could have walked in after someone walked out which is how I ended up not tapping it upon leaving in the first place. The only reason I kept trying to make the card work is because I wanted a good understanding of why it wasn't working,
I understand that it would be different on a bus than the train, but I walked on many a bus and just sat down. I had nothing to gain financially, but exhaustion and lack of experience was the reason. Again, I bought the unlimited ride thing. Only when I sat near the front did the bus driver ask me if I was coming back up to pay. I'm sorry! My bad!
Imagine how creative I could be if properly motivated to get to an important destination. I'm only riding for recreation because I have to drive all around the metro for work so it's not like I truly depend on MARTA to get around. I think it's far better to continue subsidizing this for those who need it for transportation.
There are signs on the fare gates when exiting that inform riders to tap out.
The fare gates are harder to jump over than you think. First, they are about 6' tall and the consoles are slopped, so if someone tried to jump they would not be able to get a good push.
There is info on the website: http://www.breezecard.com/
There are signs on the fare gates when exiting that inform riders to tap out.
The fare gates are harder to jump over than you think. First, they are about 6' tall and the consoles are slopped, so if someone tried to jump they would not be able to get a good push.
There is info on the website: http://www.breezecard.com/
All of the gates aren't tall. I'm pretty sure at Lindbergh and the one 7 stops down next to Greyhound, it was a pretty doable feat. I'm only 5'-5' but I'm pretty sure I could have stepped over those (not denying I would have had to lift my leg up high). I could be mistaken people were coming and going and I maybe I was overwhelmed, but I remember thinking at one of those stations it was doable.
I really liked the train because it was so fast. I thought the buses were surprisingly clean and the drivers were always helpful.
It's so much that I was not able to get information about what to do, but when you're not familiar, sometimes it can be a bit confusing. For instance, I read the information about tapping out online, but I tried to tap out of a bus which made me a laughing stock and I tried to tap out of a train at the doors because I wasn't quite sure where I was supposed to tap (meaning I didn't understand it was the gate).
Now all my confusion about that is resolved except for Five Points. I've spent more time walking around there looking for what I'm supposed to get on than I have riding. Between the phones and help counters, it's all good though.
I still don't think I'd be trying this for $6.00 a ride, but I now realize the article was talking about the actual cost in NYC.
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.
a higher fare across the board will do three things. Increase fare evasion, lower ridership, and disenfranchise the poor. And no one should feel unsafe. My gods they've got a police force equal to Gwinnett County. I generally find that increasing ridership and having a bigger crowd around deters some crime as there's less opportunity to commit it.
