PAT should really have a "rush hour" rate? (Pittsburgh: rent, neighborhood)

[Hopes]

I love how they're trying to increase the price of driving. Why are they obsessed with what other people do? They're like communists trying to force people to live their way of life.

[doo dah]

Originally Posted by Goinback2011

It's hilarious to see the anti-car people arguing for higher mass transit fares.

What posters in this thread are anti-car?

[SlurmsMcKenzie]

I guess I'd only be OK with a rush-hour surcharge in certain routes (busways and flyers primarily) if it means that the extra money collected goes to add more buses to those routes ONLY. Those routes would need to be fairly crowded during rush hour to really justify this option. But, then at least those riders are seeing a direct benefit for the extra $$$.

[Hopes]

Originally Posted by ctoocheck

I mean, if crowding is really an issue...

It would make sense for anti-transit people to argue for making driving more expensive too (congestion pricing for cars at peak hours for example). Limit the number of cars on the roads at one time, and traffic decreases exponentially.

Eventually you'll start losing more employers to the suburbs.

[I_Like_Spam]

Originally Posted by SlurmsMcKenzie

I guess I'd only be OK with a rush-hour surcharge in certain routes (busways and flyers primarily) if it means that the extra money collected goes to add more buses to those routes ONLY.

The amount of extra money a massive increase in fares would generate, if any, isn't known.


Adding buses probably wouldn't be advisable, the increased fares just aren't going to increase the need for new trips on any route.

[Hopes]

Originally Posted by SlurmsMcKenzie

I guess I'd only be OK with a rush-hour surcharge in certain routes (busways and flyers primarily) if it means that the extra money collected goes to add more buses to those routes ONLY. Those routes would need to be fairly crowded during rush hour to really justify this option. But, then at least those riders are seeing a direct benefit for the extra $$$.

That's not what the OP proposes. He wants the extra money to go towards funding less popular routes.

[FreightTrainRunning]

According to AAA, it costs 57 cents a mile on average to drive. A parking lease in the city costs anywhere from $100 to $300 a month. Lets say that you have a 10 mile trip to work each day or a 20 mile round trip. If you work the standard 20 days a month, that gives you a 400 mile monthly commute and at AAA's cost estimate, that would be $228 a month for driving expenses.

So to add that all up: Parking + Driving = $328 to $528 a month.

On the PAT side a monthly pass is about $100 for a Zone 1 and $150 for a Zone 2.

So for one person, riding the bus it probably always going to be cheaper. It you can manage to double up on the commute as my wife and I do, then it might be cheaper to drive. She gets free parking so we don't have that expense and our drive is about 15 miles round trip so that's about $170 a month for car expenses.

The big issue for taking transit is time, not money for me. It takes us 30 minutes to get from the North Side to Larimer but takes as long as an hour on the bus and/or train.

[ctoocheck]

Originally Posted by Hopes

I love how they're trying to increase the price of driving. Why are they obsessed with what other people do? They're like communists trying to force people to live their way of life.

What? Not at all.

The fact it driving is really expensive, and many costs aren't borne directly by drivers.
On top of that, roadways operate most efficiently at a certain point, and with each car past that point, congestion increases exponentially, causing a greater amount of time delays to everyone, including you, not to mention pollution, etc. Let's not even get into parking issues and other externalities.

Say your neighborhood has a 12" water main, and all of a sudden, more people want to use that water than the main can handle. You'll either have a drip from your faucet, or you can charge more for the limited water supply, lowering demand, and hopefully ensure a basic supply for everyone. Alternatively, you can also get a bigger main, but then more people actually end up using more water until you're back where you back where you are today. If you want to be even less "communist", you can just charge more to those who can afford it (and too bad for the people who can't, I guess)

So actually, those who want basically free, unmanaged access to roads are more like the "communists" if that's the argument you really want to make.

[Kippy]

People are willing to shell out big bucks for convenience and privacy. I am constantly amazed by how common backyard pools are here.

I know people who have built pools with all the bells and whistles, only to use it a handful of times over the summer. Between the cost of building it, maintenance, and increased home insurance premium, I shudder to think what the cost per use turns out to be.

Where I grew up, even though it was an affluent suburb, backyard pools were relatively uncommon; however, everyone belonged to a country club and/or went regularly to the community pool.

[PghYinzer]

I’m not anti-car (I own one that I drive weekly) but more anti-waste and pro-sustainability. Mass transit is a better option when people take a moment to think in terms of best for “us” versus best for “me”, which very rarely happens.