tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5862444008740250372.post6115155008438111228..comments2024-02-01T04:37:41.878-05:00Comments on Cap'n Transit Rides Again: The empty promise of Gridlock Sam's dollar busesCap'n Transithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17057887736728828646noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5862444008740250372.post-3688061007591903242012-06-17T19:51:31.788-04:002012-06-17T19:51:31.788-04:00Come to think about it, how would such a surcharge...Come to think about it, how would such a surcharge even work? I mean, most buses pass through an area where the subway is hard to reach at one point or another, even in Manhattan. And for that matter, some areas have subways, but they don't serve the needs of a portion of the commuters (Harlem has a bunch of subway lines, but if you want to go crosstown, you have to take a bus).<br /><br />But getting back to the bus lines in subwayless neighborhoods, what's to stop somebody from getting on at say, Nostrand & Church and getting off at Nostrand & Flatbush, instead of continuing down to one of the "subwayless neighborhoods" further down.<br /><br />For that matter, what's the criteria for "subwayless"? A half mile from the subway? A mile from the subway? <br /><br />This plan has more holes than Swiss cheese.George Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15288033149559815848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5862444008740250372.post-49134419697882765742012-06-03T18:16:18.074-04:002012-06-03T18:16:18.074-04:00If you have spare money, it would be better to add...If you have spare money, it would be better to add service than reduce fares. Changing a route from ever 15 minutes to every 7.5 minutes would encourage fare more riders.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08255709757074026969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5862444008740250372.post-29468862461100114232012-06-02T20:32:00.414-04:002012-06-02T20:32:00.414-04:00Mark, Economics 101 usually provides a chart which...Mark, Economics 101 usually provides a chart which shows what happens when you price a product lower than the cost to produce it. Low fares make transit agencies reluctant to add new service. This is why I advocate a much higher fare. Remember that in the beginning, bus lines PAID the city to operate.<br /><br />The problem with congestion pricing is that it is going to be used as a way for the government to avoid funding transit. If both cars and transit had to pay their way, I would be ok with that.jazumahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00890764412679388559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5862444008740250372.post-38146068069997062642012-06-01T23:54:08.247-04:002012-06-01T23:54:08.247-04:00Mark, you wouldn't be related to the Simpson o...Mark, you wouldn't be related to the Simpson of <a href="http://capntransit.blogspot.com/2009/08/man-behind-simpson-curtain.html" rel="nofollow">Simpson and Curtin</a>, by any chance? In this case, we need to move into Econ 102 at least.<br /><br />Three (Alexander), this proposal is being taken very seriously by Streetsblog and Brian Lehrer, at least. Some people seem to be suspending their critical faculties when it comes to getting congestion pricing passed.<br /><br />Michael, I understand that that's why Schwartz is doing this, but <a href="http://capntransit.blogspot.com/2012/05/something-for-drivers.html" rel="nofollow">it's not going to create enough political will</a>, and he's giving away too much.Cap'n Transithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17057887736728828646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5862444008740250372.post-17969677822263065702012-06-01T08:44:15.858-04:002012-06-01T08:44:15.858-04:00The real reason for Gridlock's inclusion of re...The real reason for Gridlock's inclusion of reduced bus fares is simple: politics. The last plan was partially crushed by the collective uproar from the outer boroughs (and suburbs). If you are correct and the majority of these "discounted" rides will be with unlimited cards, and thus, not discounted at all, then this "concession" is a small price to pay for the overall goal of creating political will behind his plan.Michael Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05996955194848882258noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5862444008740250372.post-38803490040114198712012-06-01T03:23:14.610-04:002012-06-01T03:23:14.610-04:00Err, I meant the Q5. The Q10's operating rati...Err, I meant the Q5. The Q10's operating ratio is actually 96% (though I'm not sure whether it counts as "far from the subway").threestationsquarehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02211550407397056258noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5862444008740250372.post-48691587413151791152012-06-01T03:21:17.927-04:002012-06-01T03:21:17.927-04:00@Mark Simpson: The price elasticity of transit dem...@Mark Simpson: The price elasticity of transit demand is generally quite low, since most transit trips are not really discretionary and transit is already <i>vastly</i> cheaper than its competition. And as Cap'n noted, this particular proposal would only result in lower fares for a tiny proportion of trips.<br /><br />Cap'n has discussed farebox operating ratios here <a href="http://capntransit.blogspot.com/2010/02/habits-of-highly-efficient-bus-routes.html" rel="nofollow">before</a>. A bus like the Q10 has a farebox recovery ratio of about 66%, so a plan that did decrease fares for a significant number of riders would have a non-negligible impact on funding. (Halving revenue on the Q5 would double net operating cost.)<br /><br />Routes with farebox recovery as low as the 20-30% you suggest generally did not survive the most recent service cuts - which were in fact determined largely on the basis of farebox ratios, not politics. It's true that capital costs like bus bulbs are generally a separate account, but given that the MTA is often under pressure from politicians and the TWU to raid its capital budget for operating funds, I think it's a bit disingenuous to suggest there is "ZERO" connection there either.<br /><br />@Cap'n, everything I've read about this Schwartz Proposal makes it sound like some sort of bad joke that is sure to be politically DOA. Do we really need to be worried about it seriously, or are you just harping on it to illustrate broader points?threestationsquarehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02211550407397056258noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5862444008740250372.post-15824013246546833132012-06-01T01:55:17.748-04:002012-06-01T01:55:17.748-04:00I found this post to be really perplexing. Two qui...I found this post to be really perplexing. Two quick comments.<br /><br />First, I think you're making some unrealistic assumptions about transit funding. In general, only 20%-30% of operating expenses are covered by farebox revenues. Capital or maintenance costs usually come from gov't subsidies. So whether the buses charge $2.50 or $1.25 or $.75, will have ZERO impact on bulb outs or service cuts. These are questions largely left up to gov't officials, not the transit operator.<br /><br />At the base of it, you seem to be questioning the inherent value of decreasing transit fares. Yes, people are price sensitive. Yes, demand will increase if price decreases. This is Econ 101. Any economist will tell you that price elasticity will influence demand. A lower price WILL increase ridership. That's undeniable. I find it really bizarre that you could be against that. Isn't part of supporting transit ensuring that prices stay low??Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01469104764622050756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5862444008740250372.post-42262383700568988662012-06-01T01:41:35.028-04:002012-06-01T01:41:35.028-04:00Not that it really matters for the purposes of thi...Not that it really matters for the purposes of this post, but Apollo Computer was a separate company, a manufacturer of workstations, that was purchased by HP in 1989. They already owned the trademark even though they hadn't used it for a while, so it was an easy name to choose.Eric Fischerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17717107532168518915noreply@blogger.com