It’s not ZERO fare, it’s being paid for unless all the buses are free, the drivers are free, the fuel is free, the maintenance is free, the staff is free, humm who is giving this to wake county for zero.
2 Likes
No, that doesn’t matter. “Fare-free” and “zero-fare” just means you’re not taking money from passengers (aka “fares”).
GoTriangle, GoRaleigh etc. would obviously still be paying money to run and maintain the buses, pay for drivers etc., but the money would come from sales taxes, motor registration fees, and the other funding sources approved by voters in the Wake Transit Plan. Transit agencies would just get their revenue using ways other than fares.
7 Likes
call it whatever cute little name you want [transit insecurity] it still cost money to run it, it’s not zero. I don’t really care as we throw tax money at all kinds of useless stuff around the globe, in the grand scheme of things this is nothing, it gets citizens to where they need to be so they can live their lives. The FARE is being paid by the citizens that pay tax, not zero. However, I would pay good money and actually ride the bus if it was more of a premium service, came more often, recliner seats, wi-fi, drink service, clean and with the company trying to compete for my business. I remember when my immigrant father came here and opened a bodega, neighborhood folks in need would want something for free, he would not just give it away, he would ask them to stock a box on shelf and then give them something. He would then tell them, you earned it! Good for everyone’s heart and soul.
3 Likes
Maybe you prefer the term ‘fareless’?
3 Likes
I say give credit where credit is due. “Cost Free Transit, Taxpayer Provided”. Paint that right on the side, full transparency. I am not against it, I think it will empower some people. But that is the smoke screen, what is really happening behind the nice gesture is what we need to know.
There are several factors in play and it’s not fearless fares, lol.
-
politics, it’s nice to provide free fares with other people’s money, that is what politicians do and someone is building a resume.
-
Force mass transit, if it’s free then you have to take it. If you use your car you will pay even more for the free fares, we will pass laws to make you pay dearly for using that combustion engine.
I could go on and on but you get the picture. Why not free grocery stores, that will surely be something we all could use, it’s a requirement to live, ya gotta eat. But it would be wiped in in 10 minutes, you could not keep up with it.
The bus, nope, it will not fill up even for free, why, because it does not serve the needs of its current users or future forced users.
Why, because we are too small, we can get around faster and cheaper with a used car, less hassle, less intrusion and efficient on your time, which is valuable to everyone.
If this was Atlanta ok, we are not and most likely never will be.
It’s a case of kicking in an open door. Trying to create a demand that is not there. Not big enough, not enough employment downtown, not enough humans need it. It frustrates the transit crowd I know. Good intentions by most but the end game is what is in the mix, it’s several steps down the road, but first, the shiny object!
1 Like
I think you’ve done a decent job of showing that there are costs, visible and hidden, of transit. There are hidden costs with all mobility options. Should we charge fares for walking down a sidewalk then? I don’t pay a toll as soon as I leave my driveway (owned by me) and then roll onto the street (owned by the public) in front of my house. Should we change that now?
Why do buses have to be singled out and need to have fares?
8 Likes
Paying people to walk on a sidewalk seems kind of silly.
As would paying to drive on a road that’s already been paid for.
But if kitty is correct, If we start throwing a bunch of other people’s money confiscated involuntarily by more taxes to subsidize buses so that a tiny fraction of the population can pay “zero fare”, then I think it’s correct to ask if that’s the right way thing to do.
In my opinion it’s a terrible thing to do. My hunch is people aren’t riding a buses because it’s inconvenient, Not because it costs too much money. Taking our money at gunpoint to make it free for people who already think it’s not convenient, doesn’t make it more convenient. That’s just redistribution of wealth.
1 Like
I don’t have a hard on for buses, the whole point is that free bus rides is not a strategic transit plan, it a scheme.
BTW, you do pay a lot for that car that will help the free bus ride.
- Property tax on car
- Registration and license tax
- Gas tax
- Parking includes tax
So on and so forth, your car is not free but it’s your choice.
1 Like
Just a heads up but there are only a handful of transit systems in the world where fares pay for the cost of the whole system
(fares in Atlanta pay 30% of operating cost, 42% in DC, I would suspect it’s much lower in Raleigh due to our ridership)
5 Likes
We know this already, so what. Still not a plan, just a scheme that fits an agenda, it’s clear to see.
1 Like
You are correct. Ridership is not the best. The free ride around downtown bus is empty a great percentage of the time. goRaleigh is basically already free, it does not or will it ever make a profit, just like Amtrak.
I was surprised at how dang close Amtrak was at 95% (considering all of the long distance routes they run)
2 Likes
I’m starting to question our transit agency they just can’t get there act together on expansion. There needs to be like a board, with People transit agencies in the country who’ve been through this before.
1 Like
And a “free fare policy” would have 0% recovery.of costs.
No. Don’t want this. No freebies.
1 Like
It’s almost impressive that 20 of the 23 lowest recovery ratio are American systems. And by that I mean the opposite of impressive.
Incidentally, from this document, it looks like GoRaleigh’s farebox recovery rate as of 2016 was around 14% with GoTriangle being around 11%. Which is in the Austin-San Antonio-Dallas range which seems to make sense.
What is to be done? Well on one hand, we shouldn’t be looking at public transit to pay for itself. But then we also can’t give it an open check. There is a happy middle somewhere in there that seems to be eluding us.
3 Likes
I have family in Hong Kong which has a 124% farebox recovery ratio and the only way they have such an impressive number is because they own the real estate around the stations and gain revenue through their real estate investments (I think the same is true in Japan)
6 Likes
You already have an example of no fare transit in the area. Chapel Hill transit has been no fare for probably over 15 years. I remember that ridership went up when they went no fare. I also know that local property taxes pay a good portion of it along with UNC (state taxpayers, bet you didn’t know). The no fares are also why Chapel Hill transit did not join the Go brand. The system also has the highest ridership in the state. Granted most of that is due to college students.
9 Likes
I’m looking forward to the 15 minute frequency from Crabtree Valley Mall. Just wish crossing over Glenwood avenue was safer. I’ve made the crossing and haven’t been hit yet (knock on wood).
2 Likes
It’s not totally no fare as they charge a healthy fee to transport park and ride sports fans to and from football and basketball games.
“Freebies” is just shorthand for government spending that you don’t like. Everyone receives benefits from some government in some shape or form, and all of those benefits advance some sort of policy objective.
Anyways, looking at transit as a handout program is economically illiterate. A robust transit system supports growth. Investing in services that grow tax base is smart. Refusing to make those investments because someone else might benefit is dumb.
13 Likes