Yeah but "free" is pretty much the only price of public transportation likely to make sense. The very act of any type of fare levied on it makes it more of a hassle to potential riders simply because you have to, you know, have money on you.
The only times this doesn't apply is when I'm absolutely sure traffic will be horrendous or there'll be no parking at my destination, and those are about the only options.
this is the hardest I've ever laughed at anything in D&D, thanks guys. Also to add something to the conversation going on, many bigger cities have inconvenient at best public transportation, and many smaller cities don't have any at all. Public transportation is great for the world, but probably won't be in full use for quite some time.
Yeah but "free" is pretty much the only price of public transportation likely to make sense. The very act of any type of fare levied on it makes it more of a hassle to potential riders simply because you have to, you know, have money on you.
The only times this doesn't apply is when I'm absolutely sure traffic will be horrendous or there'll be no parking at my destination, and those are about the only options.
Well, no. It does make sense to charge people for the gas/electricity that their trip is using plus all the wages that its maintenance and operation confers &c. just like it makes sense to be charged for a taxi ride. The argument is simply that the crucial mass of people necessary to justify a continued and well funded (via taxes) public transit system requires just about every factor that will increase ridership to that level. Including the elimination of fares. It's hard to argue for closing a rail line in NYC given the millions of people who use it every year, but if it were only hundreds of thousands due to any variety of reasons (it only went 4 blocks, cost $6 bucks, and smelled like bad cheese) then you can cut service and yatta yatta.
Essentially the problem is a spiralling one and the city gets to choose whether it's an upward spiral, or downward.
It would help if they focused on balancing issues rather than the usual all or nothing kind of garbage.
You want people to drive less? Give them a financial incentive to drive less. Don't make them give up their cars, just make it cheaper for them to only drive their cars when it is essential to do so.
Because, seriously, sometimes you want to just get the hell out of the city and go for a drive somewhere else that isn't going to have the exact same setup.
Yeah but "free" is pretty much the only price of public transportation likely to make sense. The very act of any type of fare levied on it makes it more of a hassle to potential riders simply because you have to, you know, have money on you.
The only times this doesn't apply is when I'm absolutely sure traffic will be horrendous or there'll be no parking at my destination, and those are about the only options.
Well, no. It does make sense to charge people for the gas/electricity that their trip is using plus all the wages that its maintenance and operation confers &c. just like it makes sense to be charged for a taxi ride. The argument is simply that the crucial mass of people necessary to justify a continued and well funded (via taxes) public transit system requires just about every factor that will increase ridership to that level. Including the elimination of fares. It's hard to argue for closing a rail line in NYC given the millions of people who use it every year, but if it were only hundreds of thousands due to any variety of reasons (it only went 4 blocks, cost $6 bucks, and smelled like bad cheese) then you can cut service and yatta yatta.
Essentially the problem is a spiralling one and the city gets to choose whether it's an upward spiral, or downward.
What I meant was that public transport in competition with "the car" generally loses - i.e. what you just said now. However the best and most efficient way for it to run is generally for it to be treated as a full government service and subsidized by everyone's taxes, since at minimum the city as a whole is going to benefit from less congestion in terms of pollution, safety etc.
My guess is that the reason they bother making you pay for it is to keep it from being used as a mobile home by poor people.
No, it's because they generally collect more (although not a whole hell of a lot) money than it costs to make people go around and get the money, maintain the turnstiles, etc. and acts as a justification to the critics that it isn't purely a money pit, it can make some funds on its own. The problem is, those critics won't be happy until it is able to work at a profit (which is impossible if you're going to provide the needed coverage) or implodes. Sadly most politicians won't stand up and tell them to fuck off. Mainly because doing so would eventually lead to raising taxes, which makes you less likable than a puppy killing rapist.
moniker on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratorMod Emeritus
Boston has a great example of this in that it would make the city lose money by going after fare hoppers in one of the stations without turnstiles, and the number of already paying customers in there who would just say fuck it by having turnstiles installed doesn't justify the cost. So what I'm saying is that Will should be a vigilante.
Seriously, dude. At Fenway I couldn't even find a place to put my card and the T driver just waved everyone inside.
Next time I'm showing up in a trenchcoat and mask.
My brother has an American girlfriend - they met each other while he was studying in the US. She visited him in Europe and stayed there for two months. When she returned, however, she was 'kidnapped' by the TSA (Transportation Security Administration) and interrogated for two hours straight; what she had been doing there, who she had been meeting with, and what she had bought. I understand that America is paranoid when it comes to foreigners, but their own citizens? She has decided to file a formal complaint, and I don't blame her.
My brother has an American girlfriend - they met each other while he was studying in the US. She visited him in Europe and stayed there for two months. When she returned, however, she was 'kidnapped' by the TSA (Transportation Security Administration) and interrogated for two hours straight; what she had been doing there, who she had been meeting with, and what she had bought. I understand that America is paranoid when it comes to foreigners, but their own citizens? She has decided to file a formal complaint, and I don't blame her.
My brother has an American girlfriend - they met each other while he was studying in the US. She visited him in Europe and stayed there for two months. When she returned, however, she was 'kidnapped' by the TSA (Transportation Security Administration) and interrogated for two hours straight; what she had been doing there, who she had been meeting with, and what she had bought. I understand that America is paranoid when it comes to foreigners, but their own citizens? She has decided to file a formal complaint, and I don't blame her.
For a while I was trying to work out what the hell this had to do with busses, imagining that she was being interrogated by the department of transport for all she had learnt about public transport.
Posts
The only times this doesn't apply is when I'm absolutely sure traffic will be horrendous or there'll be no parking at my destination, and those are about the only options.
this is the hardest I've ever laughed at anything in D&D, thanks guys. Also to add something to the conversation going on, many bigger cities have inconvenient at best public transportation, and many smaller cities don't have any at all. Public transportation is great for the world, but probably won't be in full use for quite some time.
Well, no. It does make sense to charge people for the gas/electricity that their trip is using plus all the wages that its maintenance and operation confers &c. just like it makes sense to be charged for a taxi ride. The argument is simply that the crucial mass of people necessary to justify a continued and well funded (via taxes) public transit system requires just about every factor that will increase ridership to that level. Including the elimination of fares. It's hard to argue for closing a rail line in NYC given the millions of people who use it every year, but if it were only hundreds of thousands due to any variety of reasons (it only went 4 blocks, cost $6 bucks, and smelled like bad cheese) then you can cut service and yatta yatta.
Essentially the problem is a spiralling one and the city gets to choose whether it's an upward spiral, or downward.
You want people to drive less? Give them a financial incentive to drive less. Don't make them give up their cars, just make it cheaper for them to only drive their cars when it is essential to do so.
Because, seriously, sometimes you want to just get the hell out of the city and go for a drive somewhere else that isn't going to have the exact same setup.
No, it's because they generally collect more (although not a whole hell of a lot) money than it costs to make people go around and get the money, maintain the turnstiles, etc. and acts as a justification to the critics that it isn't purely a money pit, it can make some funds on its own. The problem is, those critics won't be happy until it is able to work at a profit (which is impossible if you're going to provide the needed coverage) or implodes. Sadly most politicians won't stand up and tell them to fuck off. Mainly because doing so would eventually lead to raising taxes, which makes you less likable than a puppy killing rapist.
Seriously, dude. At Fenway I couldn't even find a place to put my card and the T driver just waved everyone inside.
Next time I'm showing up in a trenchcoat and mask.
Well, we're talking about the folks who allowed one little NIC to crash the entire grid.
For a while I was trying to work out what the hell this had to do with busses, imagining that she was being interrogated by the department of transport for all she had learnt about public transport.
Still, a bit wierd nonetheless