Quote:
Originally Posted by electricron
As for tying public funding with performance, you run across scenarios where poor public funding guarantees poor performance. Like Amtrak's poor performance has been tied to poor funding over many decades.
|
Right... Measuring coverage as well as ridership might help with that somewhat, and there should still be some base level of funding, and ability to fund expansions (bonds against the expected gain in ridership or coverage linked revenue?). My concern is that with just a fixed sales tax rate and limited ability to raise fares (lest the demand disappear), there's a ceiling on how much service can be provided even if demand is there.
And sure, it's not likely to happen any time soon with an anti-transit legislature.
Quote:
Originally Posted by electricron
I'm not against giving DISCOUNTS to the needy, but I'm against giving FREE rides to one third of CapMetro's riders. Not every veteran, just one example presently getting FREE rides, is poor and needy.
|
I'm OK with means-testing discounts if it's expected to bring in enough additional revenue to be worth the hassle of verifying incomes -- but in that case, we should offer the discount to everyone whose income qualifies (which should reduce some pressure against raising standard fares, but still can't raise them too much if you want to keep getting cars off the road).
Are there any estimates on what percentage of that one third of riders don't actually need the free ride?
Threaded Mode