 |
BusTalk
A Community Discussing Buses and Bus Operations Worldwide!
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
RailBus63
Moderator
Joined: 16 Apr 2007
Posts: 1063
|
 Posted: Tue Apr 07, 2009 10:06 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| ripta42 wrote: | | We recently went through the same thing in Rhode Island with our "doomsday budget" - number one on the list of cuts was the park & ride express buses, because they always operate light in one direction (read: no revenue) and they run for 20 or 30 miles with no stops (read: no passenger turnover, a.k.a. no revenue). What do people pay for this premium service? Same $1.75 as the guy going a mile (unless, of course, the guy going a mile has to transfer), plus free parking to boot. Instead of charging close to what the service is actually worth and running it more than once or twice a day so people would actually be able to ride it, the knee-jerk reaction is to just end the service. |
RIPTA seems to be too invested in the idea of offering the $1.75 fare for a ride anywhere in the state. It's been suggested that transit agencies too often fall in love with their marketing ideas because it's the one aspect of their business they can actually control. Politics, not management, dictates where the buses and trains will run, how often, how much they can charge, etc., hence the heavy emphasis on slogans, paint schemes, marketing plans, and the like. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
timecruncher
Age: 73
Joined: 23 Dec 2008
Posts: 456
Location: Louisville, Kentucky
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 7:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Prior to public ownership, private transit was regulated to death.
Here in Louisville, the transit company refused to purchase new equipment until they got an agreeable franchise from the city. We went from 1951 to 1961 with no new equipment (save 15 TGH3201s for feeder routes in 1953) because of this. Those years the TD4006, TDH4007, TDH4507 and TDH5103 coaches soldiered on along with some big gasoline Whites.
The city of Louisville, like many other cities, viewed transit as a cash cow of a utility, like the gas and electric utilities.
The municipal attitude was: "Everyone uses transit, so they have to making lots of money, right?"
We know better, of course.
Since public takeover, there has been a big shift from municipal um, cost-shifting to political meddling, just as bad and very wasteful, either way.
In a way, we are far more regulated now than we were in private-ownership days.
timecruncher |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HwyHaulier
Joined: 16 Dec 2007
Posts: 932
Location: Harford County, MD
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 8:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ripta42 wrote: | | ...I don't understand why cutting service is always thought of as more politically palatable than raising fares... |
ripta42 -
Because them's with hands on the controls are largely spineless! They take the rather haughty view that it is bad taste to discuss money. In addition,
most of them are just no good in any of their half hearted attempts at working "public input" (so called) meetings. They want to play this little charade
where all the "Big Deal" types want to sit at a table, and treat the audience like third graders! Tacky questions from the floor will not be entertained!
You note the visceral, knee jerk, "just cut the service" option. Wait a second here! In the bad, old days, a carrier could not do this absent a bit of a
"show cause" hearing before the PUC or PSC! The carrier did have the burden of overcoming the presumption of existing, "public convenience and
necessity" credo.
These days, who does a rider complain to, so as to get a legitimately handled grievance? We lost that process, too, with de-regulation, and publicly
financed operations. Presently, it raises questions whether the entire matter is out of touch and out of control.
Related note. You mention the one flat fare, applying all over the place nonsense. That is a known, sure symptom of possible brain death. The clowns
that do it just want to be perceived as "nice guys"! The conduct is moronic, of course. The result is successful, shorter routes carry the burdens of ill
advised, other adventurism...
..................Vern.............. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ripta42
Site Admin
Age: 45
Joined: 15 Apr 2007
Posts: 1035
Location: Pawtucket, RI / Woburn, MA
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 8:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RailBus63 wrote: | | RIPTA seems to be too invested in the idea of offering the $1.75 fare for a ride anywhere in the state. It's been suggested that transit agencies too often fall in love with their marketing ideas because it's the one aspect of their business they can actually control. Politics, not management, dictates where the buses and trains will run, how often, how much they can charge, etc., hence the heavy emphasis on slogans, paint schemes, marketing plans, and the like. |
I'm OK with "one state, one fare" for regularly scheduled local bus service, but to apply it to once- or twice-a-day express commuter service is absurd. As a comparison, Peter Pan's commuter service between Fall River and Providence covers two-fifths of the distance as RIPTA's 90W express to Westerly, runs three times the number of trips, and costs $14 one way.
We do have a nice paint scheme, but I haven't heard "Catch the Wave" in a while...  . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dieseljim
Deceased
Joined: 26 Jun 2008
Posts: 548
Location: Perry, NY
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 10, 2009 6:11 am Post subject: Service Cuts and other Fun Stuff |
|
|
| This brings me to the question, What do politicians and cows have in common? THEY ARE FULL OF MANURE AND SPREAD IT AROUND. You can tell by the smell, the way some transit systems are run. You might call this the STINKER of the day. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dieseljim
Deceased
Joined: 26 Jun 2008
Posts: 548
Location: Perry, NY
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 24, 2009 10:45 am Post subject: Transfer Fees and eliminating Wasted |
|
|
They DO charge a fee for transfers in Buffalo,NY and have done so for many years.Usually it is payable when you board the second bus and good for connecting two parallel lines or combination of lines in one direction only. Niagara Frontier Transit did this for years, Rochester Transit Corporation/Regional Transit Service did it too, until they decided to go for a single fare for the entire system and get rid of the transfers completely. Under this set up, if you need a second bus to reach your destination, you pay a second fare on that bus. | Bill D wrote: | From my perspective, the industry and government needs to get its act together and eliminate the wasteful spending, especially on expensive projects which are designed to boost the politicians' egos more than actually expand service in a meaningful way.
On the subject of transfers, any thoughts on charging a nominal fee for a transfer, as some systems do? I have seen our operators issue blocks of transfers before arriving at busy stops, and then hand them out to passengers as they pay their fare, regardless of whether the person actually needs a transfer. This practice encourages abuse of the system. Charging, even a small amount, for the transfer would cause passengers to think twice before requesting one, and discourage operators from handing them out like candy.
Unless those of us in the industry show that we are serious about eliminating waste, how can we expect the riders to pick up more of the cost?
Bill |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JA
Joined: 16 Apr 2007
Posts: 30
Location: Brooklyn, NY
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 22, 2009 3:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fiscal discipline is unnecessary when it is someone else's money. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
BusTalk Main
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
BusTalk Galleries
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
