[dave8721]

2 Miami Commissioner's are proposing a voter referendum to eliminate all fares for riding mass transit (busses & trains). The cost would be paid for by a 0.5 Cent sales tax.

Any thoughts on how a similar system would work in other cities?


Article on proposal:
http://www.miamiherald.com/519/story/549281.html

Dade may push sales tax hike to fund free transit

Higher fares or higher taxes? Two county commissioners want to make mass transit free in Miami-Dade by again raising the sales tax.

BY LARRY LEBOWITZ AND MATTHEW I. PINZUR
llebowitz@MiamiHerald.com

Buses and trains would be free to all Miami-Dade residents if voters approve another half-penny sales tax in November to bolster finances of the county's perpetually cash-strapped transit agency.

The long-shot gambit -- which would raise the sales tax in Miami-Dade from 7 to 7.5 percent -- was sprung unexpectedly Tuesday by County Commissioners Bruno Barreiro and Barbara Jordan. It would make Miami-Dade the only major American transit system to eliminate fares.

Barreiro and Jordan face several uphill fights, starting with their fellow commissioners, who are being asked to support a tax increase when the economy is tanking and elections are coming.

If they can convince their colleagues to put it on the ballot, they will have to make their case to voters. Recent debates about hiking fares have left many keenly aware that promises from the People's Transportation Plan -- the original half-penny sales tax, approved by voters in 2002 -- remain unfulfilled or might be broken to balance the budget.

''We know we over-promised what the half-cent could do,'' said Jordan, echoing recent statements from Mayor Carlos Alvarez's administration.

She and Barreiro said a free-fare system would entice voters and riders, especially as gas prices vault past the once-unthinkable mark of $4 a gallon.

The alternatives, while less radical, are hardly attractive: Commissioners can boost revenues by raising fares and parking fees, cutting free rides for seniors and nudging up the local gas tax, or they can drastically cut back service and perhaps abandon the long-promised Metrorail expansion.

''I think you've got to put fire under people's bellies to pass this,'' Barreiro said of the second half-penny tax idea.

Opposition spread quickly Tuesday, among both influential commissioners and local auto magnate and government-spending critic Norman Braman.

''I can't vote for that. No way,'' said Commissioner Carlos Gimenez, one of seven commissioners facing reelection in August. ``How can we go and ask the people to give us another half-penny when we haven't given them what we promised the first time?''

Braman said an efficient mass transit system is critical for Miami-Dade's future, but commissioners cannot be trusted to manage more money.

''They're admitting they squandered'' the first half-cent, said Braman, who financed the 1999 campaign to defeat an earlier transit-tax proposal. ``And now they're asking the public to trust them and pass another half cent? Unbelievable. Do they think people are stupid?''

Commissioner Joe Martinez, facing challengers this summer, said he is unwilling to gamble the mass-transit system on the notoriously unstable sales tax.

`I'LL BE AGAINST IT'

''I was against the half-penny [in 2002] and I'll be against it this time,'' he said.

Looming over the entire debate is the planned Metrorail expansion, first through the black communities in the north-central part of the county and later out to the predominantly Hispanic western suburbs.

Those projects call for $1.4 billion in federal funds, but Washington regulators have expressed grave concerns about whether Miami-Dade can afford to run both its current system and the planned extensions. To have a shot at the money, Miami-Dade needs to quickly show a plan for long-term solvency.

Jordan has led the recent charge to reassure Washington by boosting revenues; she proposed raising fares from $1.50 to $2 and increasing monthly passes from $75 to $100. A commission vote on those plans is scheduled for next month.

She also has proposed breaking some of the promises made during the 2002 campaign for the first half-penny: reinstating the 25-cent fare on the downtown Metromover and eliminating free rides for the elderly.

The additional half-penny would generate $100 million more per year than fares, according to rough estimates from the county's transit and budget departments.

It would also mean that Miami-Dade's sales tax would tie with five other counties for the highest in Florida. That could be a difficult sell as the economy sputters.

A spokeswoman for Mayor Carlos Alvarez issued a cautious statement Tuesday afternoon.

''The proposal is preliminary,'' read the statement from spokeswoman Victoria Mallette.

``We want to hear board discussion regarding the issue and see the numbers in black and white before we even begin to consider the idea.''

Despite the 2002 half-penny -- which was promised for new projects -- the transit agency has been unable to keep pace with escalating costs for the existing system.

Rising diesel costs have contributed to a $16 million operating deficit this year, and the budget is constantly hamstrung by the 76 million free or reduced-fare rides that the agency hands out each year. Only 25 percent of customers pay full price.

AUGUST BALLOT

Technically, the commission has enough time to put the new tax on the August ballot. But commissioners decided last week to put other public votes on the November ticket, and Barreiro seemed inclined to stay that course.

Barreiro, one of the few elected officials who publicly argued for a full penny tax back in 2002, said he was tempted to pursue a more explosive proposal: repeal the half-penny and then ask voters for a full penny.

Because the transit budget would essentially collapse without the current half-penny, he said voters would basically be forced into approving the full cent.

''It throws you in a huge hole,'' said Barreiro, who would be reelected automatically unless a challenger appears by June 17. ``But you put fire on everyone.''

[VivaLFuego]

Austin, TX tried this some years ago and it turned into a rowdy bum hotel.

Further, once fares are lowered past a certain threshold, there are negligble marginal returns on increased ridership. Ridership increases as fares decrease only up to a certain point. The price elasticity curve varies from region to region, route to route, and among different times of day, but generally there will be very little worthwhile return to lowering the fare below about $1, so you might as well charge it and have the extra money available to operate a larger and more frequent system. On certain services, you might as well charge much more than $1, as all youre doing by charging less is hurting your budget without attracting a significant number of new riders or improving regional mobility.

Case in point: last weekend I took a $1 bus from downtown Houston to Intercontinental Airport, which is about a 20 mile trip. This is already dramatically underpriced relative to all other forms of airport transport: a taxi would be near $50, a shared shuttle/van around $30, and driving would be at least ~$10 using $.50/mile vehicle operating cost. But the hourly bus had loads of maybe 15 people per trip, per direction: definitely a small fraction of the total number of people making a trip from Houston to the airport. Lowering the fare to $0 would not have induced any more riders ($1 already being relatively free given 20 miles of transport to an airport), nor would raising the fare to $2 have likely discouraged any of the people who did use the service.

[Crawford]

Yeah, this would drive me away from transit. It would be a haven for bums.

[urbanactivist]

^^LOL glad to see someone else has discovered how cheap METRO is!!! I just did this on my way back from the airport to downtown, and it may take a bit longer, but it's great to have such a cheap transit alternative.

[mersar]

Calgary currently has a fare-free zone in the downtown core for the LRT. It does have a few negative side effects, such as homeless who ride back and forth all day (especially during the winter months as a way to stay warm), and the expected issues with drunks who board downtown, and pass out and stay there until protective services finally pulls them off, or the train goes out of service and the driver has to call for protective services to come and remove them.

If our entire system became free I could see ridership drop somewhat, though thanks to policies here regarding parking in the downtown it wouldn't drop that far.

[arkhitektor]

Calgary currently has a fare-free zone in the downtown core for the LRT. It does have a few negative side effects, such as homeless who ride back and forth all day (especially during the winter months as a way to stay warm), and the expected issues with drunks who board downtown, and pass out and stay there until protective services finally pulls them off, or the train goes out of service and the driver has to call for protective services to come and remove them.

If our entire system became free I could see ridership drop somewhat, though thanks to policies here regarding parking in the downtown it wouldn't drop that far.

Same here in Salt Lake. We have a free fare zone downtown. Its nice because tourists and other people visiting the city can get around downtown without having to fuss with purchasing tickets, but it also attracts homeless people, especially since an extension of the light rail system (and free fare zone) was recently completed that runs by a shelter. Overall, the downtown free zone works all right, but a fare-free system would be a bad idea. Many people that ride systemwide already have Eco-passes or Ed-passes from their employers or schools that provide free or reduced fares. Eliminating fares altogether would attract the kind of crowd that would drive away current system users.

[canucklehead2]

To me the problem isn't the homeless who ride back and forth all day, it's the issue of homelessness itself. Where else are you going to go for free that is heated in winter and where you rarely get hastled? There aren't too many places...

As for the idea itself, I am all for it. Anything that can encourage people to ride transit rather than drive is a good idea. Plus since taxes arleady pay for public transit, it would be good to eliminate yet another barrier for people into getting around. Even if it's seems like a small one, handling money is a major administration cost for transit authorities and eliminating it would actually save a good amount of the change needed to make systems fare free...

[SlickFranky]

I've long thought this was great idea.

The fares taken in by any transit authority don't even come close to covering their operating expenses, so what's the point? Remove that barrier already. I know $1.50 doesn't seem like much of a barrier, but in the age of plastic I often don't carry any change whatsoever. Also, the people that can least afford that daily/monthly fares are the people that are most likely to be taking transit.

On a side note..$1.50 fare seems crazy-low. Is that normal for transit in the states?

[initiald]

I've long thought this was great idea.

The fares taken in by any transit authority don't even come close to covering their operating expenses, so what's the point? Remove that barrier already. I know $1.50 doesn't seem like much of a barrier, but in the age of plastic I often don't carry any change whatsoever. Also, the people that can least afford that daily/monthly fares are the people that are most likely to be taking transit.

On a side note..$1.50 fare seems crazy-low. Is that normal for transit in the states?

Yeah, the new light rail line here in Charlotte is $1.30. The machines now take debit/credit cards. I'd say offer bigger discounts on monthly fares and have an Octopus-type card system.

[seaskyfan]

^ In Seattle the one-zone bus fare (covering the entire City of Seattle) is $1.50 off peak and $1.75 peak (rush hour).

We have a ride-free zone as well Downtown and the service is used by a lot of homeless folks - especially on 1st or 3rd Aves. It can make for a really unpleasant ride.

[VivaLFuego]

it would be good to eliminate yet another barrier for people into getting around. Even if it's seems like a small one, handling money is a major administration cost for transit authorities and eliminating it would actually save a good amount of the change needed to make systems fare free...

....this has been dealt with by RFID smart cards tied to credit card accounts, or in the case of tourists, pre-paid unlimited ride passes included with their airfare, hotel room, etc. No need to open the floodgates to stinky bums.

On a side note..$1.50 fare seems crazy-low. Is that normal for transit in the states?
Yeah $1.50 is probably about "average." Some large cities are even far below that like Houston with its $1 fares. Most of the larger cities have fares at about $2.

[canucklehead2]

Like I said see my comments. It's not the stinky bums themselves that is the problem. It's where are they going to go during the day... Don't cities have like homeless drop-in centres? Damn... Give 'em an X-box, a flat screen and some Lazboy's and they'd stay the hell of the trains me thinks...

[brickell]

As a local I think this is a terrible solution and it has nothing to do with wanting to let people ride free. We passed a 1/2 cent sales tax increase a few years ago to fund numerous metro expansions. They also included other promises such as making metrorail 24hrs, free metromover rides downtown, etc.

Well, it's some years down the road, we've run out of money, are cutting routes and can't get the feds to agree to fund expansion because we can't pay for what we got. The 1/2 % funds are increasingly going towards upkeep instead of expansion. So instead of running things correctly they want to run out another 1/2 cent sales tax option. But they have nothing left to promise except "free rides". I can almost guarantee that if it passes it won't last longer then 3-4 years before they run out of money again and start charging.

I'd vote for it because I don't see many other options for keeping transit here viable, but I doubt many others will after what happened last time.

[SpongeG]

what if instead of a sales tax they added the tax to gas so it hits car drivers who than in turn decide to use transit?

[Echo Park]

Doesn't Portland's MAX have a free fare zone?

[SpongeG]

yeah the downtowna to lloyd centre area is free

[vid]

Canada requires transit companies to make more of their revenue from fares. In Thunder Bay, 50% of the transit company's budget is covered by passenger fares. In the US, transit companies receive much larger government subsidies to keep fares down.

[Matty]

I don't know. It's not very politically palatable, for one thing, and I think there would be quite a few people taking unnecessary trips. There's a lot to be said for going with a "balanced" approach between low enough fares to get riders, but not too low as to potentially degrade service. Ever notice how crowded buses tend to stop at every stop? The ride is unbearably slow.

People need to walk those short trips. Hell, it's actually greener that way.

[champdemars]

Like I said see my comments. It's not the stinky bums themselves that is the problem. It's where are they going to go during the day... Don't cities have like homeless drop-in centres? Damn... Give 'em an X-box, a flat screen and some Lazboy's and they'd stay the hell of the trains me thinks...

:) I think you are right. Here in Montreal, a single ticket for taking the metro is $2.75... and we can see a lot of homeless in stations. They are not necessary in the train itself, I agree... but they are very visibles.

[aaron38]

I was thinking on this as I rode to work this morning, as it relates to baby boomers. The boomers are used to getting whatever they want, and they're a big enough block to demand it.

As the boomers age, they're going to reach the point where they're too old to drive. At that point a huge population that is used to being extremely mobile is going to sit at home and knit?

I don't think so. I have a feeling that when the boomers can't drive anymore that mass transit will suddenly be "discovered" as an entitlement and civil right, an absolute necessity.

Gov. Blagojevich has already done this in Chicago, and I expect it to spread to other cities. And then as gasoline prices continue to rise, more and more will demand the entitlement the boomers are getting.

I'm not saying it will definitely happen, but I wouldn't be surprised

[robhut]

I don't think Miami would do that, they are already cutting service starting on the 15th of June, of which I am super pissed,
But I agree with the increase of bums, it is already bad down here in miami, specially during the summer, yesterday a friend of mine has one peeing on the bus. Sorry, I rather pay!!!

[canucklehead2]

Even if they saw public transit as a right, why not? It's the most efficient way of moving masses of people. Period. So why not encourage it? Besides just think of how better traffic will be without old people on the roads going 30 km/h in the left lane with the blinker on...

[jamesinclair]

Why not mix both?

Tax plus cheap fare. 50 cents sounds good.

[quobobo]

Decoupling profit from ridership even further seems like a pretty bad idea to me, unless you want transit authorities with minimal incentive to improve service.

Also, agreed with VivaLFuego. Price generally isn't what keeps North Americans away from transit (it's already far cheaper than driving), it's service and convenience...

[canucklehead2]

I think there is already a decoupling between revenue and improving service. Most of those decisions are made purely on route traffic densities so I really don't see how this would be an issue...

But picking up on the second string of this thread, the only way to improve service and convenience is to get more people using transit. I know it's really the chicken and the egg thing, but I think free transit would certainly help. After all there is a certain point where free vs. gas/capital costs/parking kicks in and this could only provide more of an incentive for people to take transit and for cities to improve transit service...

[quobobo]

I think there is already a decoupling between revenue and improving service.


Hence the "even further" qualification.


But picking up on the second string of this thread, the only way to improve service and convenience is to get more people using transit. I know it's really the chicken and the egg thing, but I think free transit would certainly help.

More people using the same system and contributing less money to it, how could this go wrong? Taxes would have to rise enough to compensate for both the loss of fare revenue and the increased number of passengers... and that's before any service improvements. I can think of lots of ways to improve ridership (zoning improvements allowing greater density and parking reform come to mind) that wouldn't leave us with significantly higher taxes or cash-strapped transit authorities.

After all there is a certain point where free vs. gas/capital costs/parking kicks in and this could only provide more of an incentive for people to take transit and for cities to improve transit service...


Nearly all North American cities have really cheap transit already. In Vancouver I pay about half of what I used to pay in Hiroshima and Osaka, and about 3 times less than I would to drive a car here, not including capital/maintenance costs. When transit is that much cheaper than cars and yet cars are overwhelmingly more popular, I think it's time to look at other improvements before fare reductions.

[sciguy0504]

"Free" mass transit is the same type of oxymoron that "free" healthcare is.

[canucklehead2]

And yet "free" health care is still probably better than YOUR health care...

[quobobo]

Bringing this thread back on topic: most (not all, but most) research I've read seems to indicate that transit use is significantly more elastic with regards to service than fares. Both of these papers are pretty interesting and worth reading:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/l1851m5v3286861l/
http://www.vtpi.org/tranelas.pdf

[emathias]

Even if they saw public transit as a right, why not? It's the most efficient way of moving masses of people. Period. So why not encourage it? Besides just think of how better traffic will be without old people on the roads going 30 km/h in the left lane with the blinker on...

No, not "period," not by any means.

Larger vehicles are more efficient than smaller vehicles at transporting large numbers of people between any two given points. That much I'll grant you. After that, though, your proclamation is far from a given in many situations.

Distributed populations with distributed destinations are more efficiently moved with distributed solutions. The more distributed the people, the smaller, more distributed the solution is that is optimal. For densities found in almost all U.S. suburbs, cars will always be the most efficient in terms of time and cost and even, most likely, energy usage.

Even in certain high-density circumstances, cars may be more efficient than mass transit - for example, late-nights in most cities where only a relative few people need to go anywhere outside of walking distance, and maintaining working transit to support them would be far less efficient than a few taxis - that's part of the reason Paris can get by without 24-hour service on the Metro.

I'm all for more transit, but we can't put the cart before the horse, encouraging transit use starts not with throwing away money on "service enhancements" that cost 10 times (or more) what people are willing to pay for them, but with fostering lifestyles that can be supported efficiently with mass transit.

[MolsonExport]

Keep it very reasonable, but not free. Otherwise the creeps and bums take over.

[Justin10000]

And yet "free" health care is still probably better than YOUR health care...

BA-ZING!!

I still do not understand how some Americans still think their way of doing healthcare works.

It's nuts...

There is nothing worse then being denied a life-saving operation because you cannot afford the insurance, or that you are denied because of some distant relatives disease! Crazy!

[downtownpdx]

Doesn't Portland's MAX have a free fare zone?

Yeah, the MAX line and buses are free downtown and into the Lloyd District across the river. There has been talk lately of ending the free zone, due to safety concerns at some of the MAX stops -- but these crimes have taken place at the stops far from downtown, where supposedly riders pay. I think the city has decided to keep 'Fareless Square.'

The real issue with rowdy passengers and station crime stems from the open MAX system, where you can just jump on, no turnstile (sp?) and hope a transit official isn't on board to check your ticket. In a perfect world, there would be one of these officials on every MAX car. But I have a feeling the free downtown rides just might come to an end to pay for this. :) It's sad b/c I know this could be feasible if we had leaders that had their priorities straight. Public transit should be safe and affordable - maybe it'll head towards reality come November? ;)

[VivaLFuego]

BA-ZING!!

I still do not understand how some Americans still think their way of doing healthcare works.

It's nuts...

There is nothing worse then being denied a life-saving operation because you cannot afford the insurance, or that you are denied because of some distant relatives disease! Crazy!
You foreigners must see alot of bogus agit-propaganda about the US health system.

Back on topic...

[champdemars]

BA-ZING!!

I still do not understand how some Americans still think their way of doing healthcare works.

It's nuts...

There is nothing worse then being denied a life-saving operation because you cannot afford the insurance, or that you are denied because of some distant relatives disease! Crazy!

I still do not understand, too. For me, our healthcare is not perfect, but it works well... and overall, some studies showed that Canadians pays much less for their health system than Americans do.

But if I come back to the main subject... free transit. In Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada, all student of Université de Sherbrooke now have free access to transit. The responsible of the university did a deal with the transit company. At the core of the problem, they were facing need to build new parking lots for students and teachers. They discovered that for the same price of the construction of new parkings, they were able to pay monthly passes for all their students. I don't know all details, unfortnuately. Maybe you can search Google for more details.

[quobobo]

I still do not understand, too. For me, our healthcare is not perfect, but it works well... and overall, some studies showed that Canadians pays much less for their health system than Americans do.

THIS THREAD IS ABOUT TRANSIT. If you guys want to debate the merits of health care systems, I'm sure there's another place you can do it.

[twoNeurons]

Vancouver has instituted a couple of successful U-Pass programs. They're essentially a $20 tax per student per month and unlimited transit. It worked out so well that those routes are now bursting at the seams. There was a promise to maintain a certain level of service for that price as well.

As is already mentioned, PRICE is not what keeps people away from transit. Ever wonder why Japan has such extremely high ridership (despite cost) that transit turns a profit? It's service. There was an initial investment to get service levels up and make it convenient. And it's a misnomer to say that no one owns a car in Japan too. LOTS of people own cars... even in major cities like Osaka (less so downtown of course). The train is just simple more convenient and less hassle, even when the trains are PACKED. Mind you, homelessness is a FAR smaller problem in Japan.

Anyhow, despite the fact that to ride the bullet train from Osaka to Tokyo is just as much or MORE expensive than the plane it is responsible for the bulk of passengers and has great ridership. Why? Well, 300km/h helps. It also takes about 2.5 hours to travel the distance. Combine that with a train that leaves every 6 minutes during the rush, toll highways, and not having to go through security and you've got a winner.

I know bullet trains are generally not mass transit, around Tokyo a few lines DO cater to commuters. In addition, their subways are fixed to a TIGHT schedule so much so that in the rare case that a train is late or delayed more than a few minutes ( due to a "human incident" usually ) they will give out notes to disembarking passengers to take to work... because "the train was late" isn't a believable excuse.

Cars are also expensive to run. And I don't just mean gas prices. I am also talking about tolls. All highways are tolled. So, every time you travel on one you SEE what it is costing you. It's not a hidden cost like a gas tax which doesn't have the same impact on the psyche. For example, if even if a gas tax costed you $40 / month extra on fuel, a $2 toll is gonna have more impact. Every time you pass the booth you're gonna think about that $2. You'll add that to your gas cost and compare it with Transit.

You have to make transit attractive, not just affordable. That's a small part of the puzzle.

[miketoronto]

That is what I was going to say. Make transit free all you want, but if the service is not attractive people will not use it.
Our development patterns and service levels have to be changed, or people will not use transit.
The majority of people who do not use transit at the moment, don't use it, because the transit service does not provide good service.
Invest the money you would use to offer free transit, and use it to run the buses every 5 minutes.

[quobobo]

As is already mentioned, PRICE is not what keeps people away from transit. Ever wonder why Japan has such extremely high ridership (despite cost) that transit turns a profit? It's service. There was an initial investment to get service levels up and make it convenient. And it's a misnomer to say that no one owns a car in Japan too. LOTS of people own cars... even in major cities like Osaka (less so downtown of course). The train is just simple more convenient and less hassle, even when the trains are PACKED. Mind you, homelessness is a FAR smaller problem in Japan.

Agreed, but density is a big part of it too. We tend to concentrate density in very tall downtown buildings then sprawl all over the place everywhere else, whereas the Japanese suburbs I've lived in were much more dense. For some reason the Japanese seem to understand that 4-10 story apartment buildings don't "destroy neighbourhood character", even near freestanding houses. Definitely not the case here, where a lot of our residential communities are simply spread too far out to justify good transit.

Honestly, North American-style zoning for single-family housing makes me wonder about the usefulness of urban planners some days.

[lrt's friend]

I agree that good service is more important than low fares in generating idership, and there needs to be a financial incentive to improve service when buses and trains become overcrowded. In other words, fares need to set at a level so that crowded buses and trains generate a profit, and then there is every incentive in the world to actually improve service. Free transit or very low fares mean that each new passenger is a drain on taxes and transit finances, and therefore we see pressures that as ridership grows, that service must actually be cut. It is ironic that the same city that is considering free transit is about to implement service cuts. And this all at time with skyrocketing gas prices, where more and more people are looking for an alternative, and yet we are making the transit alternative less and less attractive. If I was deciding for Miami, raise fares to cover increases in diesel costs and to at least maintain service levels, and use a sales tax increase to build new transit infrastructure and improve service. Here in Ottawa, transit fares are rising at a pace far exceeding inflation, yet ridership is at record levels and increasing monthly. People are realizing that the cost of filling their gas tank is also rising. It is also time to seriously reconsider how our cities are being planned. Transit needs to be part of the planning process and cities with successful transit generally have parking restrictions in the downtown area.

[Justin10000]

THIS THREAD IS ABOUT TRANSIT. If you guys want to debate the merits of health care systems, I'm sure there's another place you can do it.

Socialized Healthcare is the way to go. That way, people can pay to take transit to their free doctors.

[miketoronto]

Even in certain high-density circumstances, cars may be more efficient than mass transit - for example, late-nights in most cities where only a relative few people need to go anywhere outside of walking distance, and maintaining working transit to support them would be far less efficient than a few taxis - that's part of the reason Paris can get by without 24-hour service on the Metro.

Actually Paris operates an extensive night bus network, as do most world cities
I agree that we have to foster lifestyle change.

[canucklehead2]

Yes, getting back on topic. I agree nobody will use public transit (even for free) if the service sucks, however these two things (improved service and the elimination of fares) need to take place hand in hand so that public transit has the winning combination of both economic and environmental efficiency compared to private vehicular traffic which is wasteful on both those points...

[VivaLFuego]

Yeah, service quality, particularly when measured relative to alternatives (driving, taxi, walking), has a much bigger impact on demand and elasticity than pricing. Houston's downtown-IAH express bus is practically free ($1) but almost no one takes it.

I'll reiterate that I think it's foolish to eliminate fares altogether or even reduce them to a very low level. The reason is that below a certain point, the lower fares will lead to effectively zero marginal additional transit riders. So in effect, all you are doing is reducing the size of the operating budget the transit agency has to provide service. To put it simply: Even with a very high subsidy and very low fare, as in Houston or Los Angeles, still charging that fare will give you say 20% more money for operations, and thus allows you to operate a 20% larger network or 20% more frequent service (or some combination thereof). Not charging the fare wouldn't increase your ridership anyway, and charging the fare wouldn't decrease your ridership from the free-fare scenario.

[twoNeurons]

Agreed, but density is a big part of it too. We tend to concentrate density in very tall downtown buildings then sprawl all over the place everywhere else, whereas the Japanese suburbs I've lived in were much more dense. For some reason the Japanese seem to understand that 4-10 story apartment buildings don't "destroy neighbourhood character", even near freestanding houses. Definitely not the case here, where a lot of our residential communities are simply spread too far out to justify good transit.

Honestly, North American-style zoning for single-family housing makes me wonder about the usefulness of urban planners some days.

Very true... I was trying to find a good picture of residential JApan, but the best examples I could find was just going on google earth (4.3) and turning on buildings. I always feel far LESS claustrophobic in Japan than I do in downtown Vancouver.

[Fugacious]

Agreed, but density is a big part of it too. We tend to concentrate density in very tall downtown buildings then sprawl all over the place everywhere else, whereas the Japanese suburbs I've lived in were much more dense. For some reason the Japanese seem to understand that 4-10 story apartment buildings don't "destroy neighbourhood character", even near freestanding houses. Definitely not the case here, where a lot of our residential communities are simply spread too far out to justify good transit.

Honestly, North American-style zoning for single-family housing makes me wonder about the usefulness of urban planners some days.
exactly, and even when there are single homes in places like europe or japan they use the space much more efficiently than the US suburbs do. the houses are usually more crowded together and there aren't large expanses of land around that house that just sit there waiting to be mowed and never being used

[champdemars]

THIS THREAD IS ABOUT TRANSIT. If you guys want to debate the merits of health care systems, I'm sure there's another place you can do it.

Did you read the rest of my post? It was about an example of a city where they tried some kind of free transit. Also, as long as we keep the focus on the main subject, I don't see why this is a bad thing to talk about something else. It gives some colors to the topic.

Back to the subject... a big debate in Sherbrooke now is also about putting the whole public transit network free. Not just university students. This is interesting, since this is a relatively small city.

[quobobo]

Did you read the rest of my post? It was about an example of a city where they tried some kind of free transit.

Yes. I posted before you edited your post to include that.

[J. Will]

That is what I was going to say. Make transit free all you want, but if the service is not attractive people will not use it.
Our development patterns and service levels have to be changed, or people will not use transit.
The majority of people who do not use transit at the moment, don't use it, because the transit service does not provide good service.
Invest the money you would use to offer free transit, and use it to run the buses every 5 minutes.

Unfortunately many cities consider one bus every 15-20 minutes to be "frequent service". :jester:

It's an absolute joke.

[Justin10000]

Unfortunately many cities consider one bus every 15-20 minutes to be "frequent service". :jester:

It's an absolute joke.

Yeah. It's pretty sad..

10 minutes should be the absolute minimum when it come to frequent service. Any service greater than 10 minutes is not frequent.

But 15 minutes at 11:30 at night is really good.

[tarapoto]

You foreigners must see alot of bogus agit-propaganda about the US health system.

Back on topic...

Why are you calling him a foreigner? Aren't you Canadian as well? If so those are some strong words from someone who lists their location as the Miami of Canada...

(unless you actually live in Miami, MB):shrug:

[champdemars]

Yes. I posted before you edited your post to include that.

:) You were fast. I realized that I clicked on "submit" instead of "Preview"... then I quickly modified the post to add my main comment. The time I took to review my post (because english is not my main language) and you had time to reply to the original message.

Regarding free transit, do you guys know some cities where some companies have a deal with public transit societies to get free access for their employees? I would be interested with this kind of programs.

[HeyHey]

The problem with funding anything entirely through taxes is that it effectively makes it entirely government run. Even if a private corporation takes over the day-to-day operations of the transit system for a fee, they have essentially become a government entity because they receive 100% of their revenue from government. This is deleterious when it comes to customer service, maintenance, and innovation because it completely takes the motivating factor (increased revenue) out of the equation. When government funds transit 100% with taxes the incentive to increase ridership disappears, and an incentive to decrease ridership actually appears.


BA-ZING!!
There is nothing worse then being denied a life-saving operation because you cannot afford the insurance, or that you are denied because of some distant relatives disease! Crazy!

It's odd, as a soon-to-be physician in a few months I have never (not even once) seen someone denied a surgery or hospitalization because of lack of insurance. It's one of those myths that materialized somehow.....

[twoNeurons]

It's odd, as a soon-to-be physician in a few months I have never (not even once) seen someone denied a surgery or hospitalization because of lack of insurance. It's one of those myths that materialized somehow.....

What's it cost for your average Cancer treatment now-a-days anyhow? If something wasn't life-threatening, can it be denied? (Appendix removal, for example)

Just curious. I think most of the "life-saving operation denied" rhetoric is exaggerated to hype universal health care.

A friend in California had to mortgage their house to pay for Cancer treatments. I don't think it's a question of "we won't accept you if you're dirt poor" but rather a matter of if you're not healthy and middle-class, you will pay through the nose, because you HAVE money.

Generally we want the best health care for our relatives, and if that means paying money for a better doctor, because they cost more (regardless of whether there is someone else that needs that doctor's specialty but can't afford it) people will do it.

You'd be a fool to say that $$$ is not equal to better health care... the question really is... SHOULD that be the case. Is equal access to health care a human rights issue, or a privilege?