Comments on: Connecticut Fare Hike Fight Continues

By: Alvin Douglas

Alvin Douglas — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 20:55:26 +0000

How can the Governor of the State of CT propose a 40% bus fare hikes.

People can hardly pay the fare now, this would be a extreme burden on the riders and harship.

By: Connecticut Passes a Budget, But Fate of Transit Fares is Unclear | Mobilizing the Region

Wed, 09 Sep 2009 14:25:23 +0000

[...] Connecticut’s history. The budget has received plenty of criticism from around the state, but strong opposition to proposed 40% bus fare hikes and 10% train fare hikes from earlier this summer seems to have paid [...]

By: Clark Morris

Clark Morris — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 03:03:17 +0000

Thomas Marchwinski – The costs you attribute to the automobile are also not paid by the buses using the road system and most accident costs of the type in your posting are not borne by the transit system. I doubt that WMATA will get a bill from any level of government for the costs incurred by those levels in responding to the Washington Metro accident. I also by specifically stating fuel (which for transit buses is excluded from state taxes in many jurisdictions), vehicle maintenance cost, and labor (and here I should have excluded rail maintenance labor), I included only those costs that are definitely borne by the motorist. I excluded parking, any terminal and station facilities, any roadway, busway and track costs which are the costs equivalent to those you list. I should have included insurance costs which may indirectly pay for some of the costs you list. The buses also are roughly the equivalent of an 18 wheel truck in terms of road wear costs. Transit buses with only 1 rear axle when fully loaded are probably over the axle load limit for interstate highway due to load distribution. That is why intercity buses have 2 rear axles.

I want transit to succeed. However when the costs I have listed can’t be covered by the fare box, there is a real problem in tough times. Some of it is because much of the transit area is so sprawled that the load factor is guaranteed to be to low to break even on variable costs. The planning of the past 50 years has made it difficult to serve many of the major traffic generators with any degree of efficiency,

Many people have said that people drive because the only costs they really count in deciding to make a trip are gas, tolls and parking. They don’t count insurance unless they are on a low mileage plan. That and the fact that those costs are definitely borne by the motorist are why I made my original selection. I’m adding insurance because it again is definitely borne by the motorist. The costs also should be somewhat related to the number of passengers carried except where the bus, etc. is run to provide access and isn’t full even in peak period, peak direction.

While you can make a case for urban transit (the old New York City Transit Authority, et al) having operating costs being subsidized, I find it hard to justify subsidizing commuters from Westchester, Fairfield County and Far Hills Bedminster.

By: Thomas Marchwinski

Thomas Marchwinski — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 19:06:26 +0000

Clark- You present a false argument, typical of people who want to frame the argument that transit should pay its operating costs, but car usesrs should not. In fact, the costs of labor to maintain roads, the cost to plow, sand, and repair potholes, and the cost to remove accidents, etc. are not charged to highway users. They recieve a government subsidy, which is much larger then any subsidy transit gets. Also, typically about 2/3 of local bus riders do not have a car, and use transit to get to jobs, medical, etc. So why should they pay to subsidize roads they don’t use. Yes, buses use roads, but they represent less then 1% of the volume of cars and trucks. Without that bus services, many riders would not be able to get to work, increasing other costs like unemployment insurance, hospital care, etc.

Unfortunatly many states are cutting back existing subsidies to transit, typically, the cost of fuel, labor, maintenance goes up about 4% per year, the reason a 40% increase is asked for is because of state cuts to existing subsides, and no fare increases for a few years. We have the same issues in NJ, we have been able to put off a fare increase by using some of the stimulus money for capital maintenance costs and cutbacks in staff and furloughs.

By: Clark Morris

Clark Morris — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 21:42:26 +0000

Note the costs I listed: fuel, vehicle maintenance and labor. These costs are paid for by the motor vehicle user. The other road costs incurred by BOTH automobiles and buses are NOT included. I believe that a transit system should be able to add riders without increasing a deficit. That in turn probably implies a higher fare than currently charged. Note that in many states, transit does not pay a motor fuel tax.

By: Citizen Concerned

Citizen Concerned — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 18:16:48 +0000

Clark, no transportation user covers all of the costs associated with that system. This is true for drivers and transit users.

If drivers covered all of the costs of road, for example, our gas taxes, tolls, and other fees would be much much higher than they are today.

By: Viv

Viv — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 18:00:20 +0000

I thought I left all this behind in NYC.

By: Clark Morris

Clark Morris — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 00:54:40 +0000

Why? If the cost of providing the service is going up, why shouldn’t the price go up? What would happen if transit systems were required to cover labor, fuel and vehicle maintenance costs from the farebox?

By: NewHavenSafeStreets

NewHavenSafeStreets — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 17:18:44 +0000

Raising bus fares is unacceptable.