My home state of Queensland recently cut a wide range of transit fares to 50 cents (about $US 0.30). The proposal was originally put forward by the Greens, then adopted by the centre-left Labor party and retained by the conservative LNP after an election win. Congestion pricing still a bridge too far.
Free transportation in a major metropolis is not a bad idea; in fact it is a good idea---I think. 1) Emissions per passenger can be tightly controlled. Safety can be enhanced, more real estate can be available for building human domiciles and supporting enterprises
Most of what you say here is valuable and important. However, the questions of how much and at what price are far from separate. More frequent service cuts the time cost, which is the big disadvantage of the bus. Looking at it from the other direction, cutting time cost increases ridership, which can actually bring down the production cost.
I think we agree here. If the provision of an extra bus on one line generates enough value to cover the cost of running the extra bus, then the bus should be provided. Of course, measuring value is 'tough' (assumptions on valuing time) and the cost is linked to where the funding comes (for example, the cost increasing an income tax could be larger than the value from the bus).
My home state of Queensland recently cut a wide range of transit fares to 50 cents (about $US 0.30). The proposal was originally put forward by the Greens, then adopted by the centre-left Labor party and retained by the conservative LNP after an election win. Congestion pricing still a bridge too far.
Free transportation in a major metropolis is not a bad idea; in fact it is a good idea---I think. 1) Emissions per passenger can be tightly controlled. Safety can be enhanced, more real estate can be available for building human domiciles and supporting enterprises
Most of what you say here is valuable and important. However, the questions of how much and at what price are far from separate. More frequent service cuts the time cost, which is the big disadvantage of the bus. Looking at it from the other direction, cutting time cost increases ridership, which can actually bring down the production cost.
I think we agree here. If the provision of an extra bus on one line generates enough value to cover the cost of running the extra bus, then the bus should be provided. Of course, measuring value is 'tough' (assumptions on valuing time) and the cost is linked to where the funding comes (for example, the cost increasing an income tax could be larger than the value from the bus).