Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The bus ride in of itself is very rarely the problem. The problem is waiting for the darn bus in the cold/rain/heat/snow and they're not on time. Or running after the bus but the driver drives off. Or a car passes by you, and splashes you with rain or snow.
The difficulty with light rail is that a fixed route of tracks is being overlain onto an existing fragmented metropolitan area. Heavy rail, including light rail, works not only when there's the population density to support it but if it's constructed so that it can move high volumes of people from point A to point B (usually home to the office and vice versa). But with work places scattered across the region instead of in a handful of concentrated employment centers and people living just about anywhere they can, light rail isn't as useful as buses can be. Other countries do have smaller cities with successful light rail systems but they also have much more powerful planning and zoning regulations that channel workplaces into concentrated employment districts, which makes it easier to have a light rail serving as many people as possible.
[snipped..]
To top it the light rail isn't necessarily quicker. It's quicker to drive from the furthermost stop on the Baltimore light rail route to downtown than it is to take the light rail, even in rush hour.
Automobiles will be more convenient, no argument there. But their costs are starting to become unbearable.
Barring a technological breakthrough, the future of land transport is electric rail.
Yes - Rail based transportation needs optimized urban planning.
For higher average speeds, distances between stops must be greater.
But that is inconvenient for all riders.
One solution, currently used by some elevators, is for the prospective passenger to select his destination beforehand. The car dispatcher can thus selectively pick which cars pick up the passengers. Thus "express" trains can be formed to better serve their passengers' needs.
Another idea is for rebates or refunds when a car reaches near maximum capacity. Thus the passengers share in the benefit from the reduction in cost per passenger - and offset some of the discomfort. That allows a rail company to charge a nominal high fare, that can better reflect costs, yet still attract more riders. On lines and times where ridership is high, the passengers enjoy a substantial discount for their patronage, at minimal cost to the operator. It also allows for any group to get "charter rates" by selecting off-peak use.
Finally, a complex of slow "local" train routes and a network of "express" routes can come close to the convenience of the automobile, providing that new construction adjusts accordingly.
So you're going to encourage people to ride at peak times by charging less prices when the trains are full past the breaking point and you're employing "pushers" to shove the cattle in? Seems... silly. Charge more at peak times, not less. It's not like you save any money by shifting an elective trip at a non-peak time to a peak time. The non-peak train is still running, whether it has 7 people on it or 8. Actually, the opposite, you lose even more money since the peak-fare is lower than the off-peak.
Obviously bad idea, but intercity bus companies usually charge a lower rate for routes that they know they can nearly fill up a bus compared to ones where they can't (for example, my town to NYC is cheaper than my town to Albany even though the distance is longer). Boston to NYC is cheaper still. The cost of running one bus is the same regardless of how much it fills up, so the companies can charge less while running a competitive business.
So you're going to encourage people to ride at peak times by charging less prices when the trains are full past the breaking point and you're employing "pushers" to shove the cattle in? Seems... silly. Charge more at peak times, not less. It's not like you save any money by shifting an elective trip at a non-peak time to a peak time. The non-peak train is still running, whether it has 7 people on it or 8. Actually, the opposite, you lose even more money since the peak-fare is lower than the off-peak.
Silly?
The whole point is to increase ridership by giving an incentive to prospective riders.
"What if"
Nominal Fare = cost / ten riders (0.1 x cost)
Discount Fare = cost / forty riders (0.025 x cost)
Super Discount Fare = cost / eighty riders (0.0125 x cost)
The operator doesn't "lose money" - just doesn't get as much profit.
But he's not stuck with subsidizing marginal routes at a loss.
And he doesn't have to waste resources on luring more riders - the fare structure does that for him.
I see white people on that bus. Actually nothing but white people.
People on buses should wear helmets.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
