06-01-2017, 08:47 PM
(06-01-2017, 07:18 PM)tomh009 Wrote:(06-01-2017, 06:13 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: If you took that same 250 dollar per household tax bill and instead invested it in enhanced service rather than free transit, would that gain more ridership? There's a good chance it would.
I do agree that it would gain substantial ridership. $250 would provide a 50% increase in the regional transit budget; the free-transit-equivalent (see below) $150 would add about 30% to the transit budget. There doesn't appear to be a lot of appetite for increasing the transit budget, though. (The free-transit is a whole different beast, and might also be unacceptable.)
NOTE: Free transit would cost about $150/household, not $250. My apologies for sloppy math in the earlier post. ($32M passenger revenue vs $54M regional subsidy.
I didn't see any data how these numbers will be impacted by the LRT when it starts operating.
I'm not sure about that, hasn't the transit budget been increasing pretty steadily? Service hours certainly have.
The real problem I see is there seem to be some individuals who are seeking to reduce the subsidy rate, and have argued for increasing fares to reach that, which of course, doesn't work very well, it only drives away ridership, and disadvantage those who need the system.
I of course would be willing to negotiate my position on this issue in return for similar provisions for roadways paying for themselves. [/snark]