http://www.ntdprogram.gov/

which has uniform reporting from all transit systems receiving federal support in the county.

I guess that must be per bus? So that means on average 31 people board each bus in an hour?

Some people will ride the bus more because it’s free. This might actually end up being quite a few people, if only because the difference between free and $0.25 is huge as far as deciding what to do, and people who can ride for free will take more shorter rides without concern for cost.

Some people can’t ride the regular bus service at any price, and will take fixed ride regardless, to the limit of their ability to pay for it; they will be hurt by this.

Some people will ride the bus as much as they did before, and use the money they didn’t spend on the same amount of fixed ride service, and be unaffected overall. Indeed they might save so much money that they have more for taxi service too and have more demand for that than before.

The comments I heard on the bus yesterday were from people who rode the bus regularly who were going to be late for an appointment because their bus was going to be more than 15 minutes late on the route. Sometimes that’s OK, but sometimes it isn’t.

Door to door service at $2 is not a perfect substitute for fixed ride service at any price. Some people will move some trips from one to the other based on price, but convenience, availability of routes, and timeliness of the services so that you can meet appointments are going to make a difference too. And some people will have to take $2 fixed ride services instead of free bus rides even if they could make it to where they are going on time because they can’t figure out the bus schedule to do what they need to do.

The proposal is based on the assumption that customers would switch from using the taxi service to riding the bus in response to the proposed rate changes. Is there any basis for that assumption? If so, what percentage are expected to make the shift? The proposal would give discounts to some who can afford to pay full price and some who wouldn’t shift to an inadequate alternative service. The (apparently) unknown value is the magnitude of “some”.

Regardless of that value, if those individuals can afford $2 for door-to-door service, and AATA believes that they would be adequately served by the bus instead, they can clearly afford the standard fare. If, on the other hand, they wouldn’t be adequately served by the bus service, then AATA would not be meeting their needs even with a free ride.

Therefore, the logical policy (“to save money”) would be to charge customers a higher rate for the taxi service, in order to (better) cover costs, and standard fare for bus service, unless they can demonstrate a financial need for a reduced fare for either service. Under such a policy the customer would get the appropriate level of service that they require for a “fair” price, according to their ability to pay, and the system would be fiscally responsible.

It’s also not clear why the taxi service is offered for a fixed rate rather than by the mile, which is a similarly illogical exception.

As more of the population reach 65 years of age, the best way for them/us to have efficient mobility is to live close to necessary services and on transit lines. It’s also in everyone’s interest to support increased bus service (i.e., both higher frequency and new routes) to meet demand as it arises. Speaking of which…

“If demand increases to a point where an additional bus needs to be added to a route, for example, the increased revenue from fares is balanced against the increased expense of adding an extra bus.”

That’s only one possibility and an extreme example of an unnecessary response. Demand could increase at a higher rate on lower-ridership routes or service periods without requiring the addition of buses. To whatever extent ridership increased on buses that weren’t already full, no significant increase in expenses would result. To whatever extent that full buses had increased (unmet) demand, no increased expense would be incurred until the decision was made to increase service frequency (i.e., “add a bus”.) This would presumably be decided in response to customer/public request for increased service, which would likely correspond with a greater willingness to pay for the added service. Alternatively, riders might be content to live with the level of service for the current fare, knowing that, eventually, the bus “is going to come.” If demand then decreases as a result, an increase in service wouldn’t be “needed”.

Not raising (and perhaps decreasing) the standard fare deserves more consideration. (And I haven’t even gotten into externalities of SOV driving or subsidies for roads and parking.)

I think there is already some very good math, which I don’t know, to explain the need for some voids in any system and suspect it is related to fluid dynamics. Nothing can operate at full capacity at any time, let alone most of the time. It becomes a gridlock. I recall that for parking structures, 80% capacity is considered full. Otherwise you are continually circling to find that last parking spot. Or you have to be pushed onto the bus.

I am completely kidding, but in major cities in other countries – Japan stands out in my memory – they have transit employees called pushers. Their job is to stand on the platform and push people into the trains. I think this is hilarious and wonderful in the abstract, but probably less than pleasant in reality.

I would urge you to ask the AATA about their statistics (which they must gather, I would hope) about buses that do not stop at stops where there are passengers because the bus is full. I would love to get the time of day and route information for every time over the year that this happens, so that the schedule I produce can have a red star by those time points saying “bus may be full”.

I’ve never seen it on the 5, which I usually get on downtown, but I’ve heard stories of the inbound 2 leaving people behind in Lower Town coming in full of people from the stops it picks up on Plymouth Road.

The point of my observation is that we often hear complaints about empty buses. However, we rarely hear complaints about empty roads and parking lots. With both roads and buses, you need them only when you need them and the art of predicting and serving those needs is important and complicated. I think AATA does an excellent job in this area.

As a society, we subsidize all sorts of transportation infrastructure. Mostly, these subsidies come in the form of roads. These investments connect people and goods, making all sorts of merriment possible. Bus routes are similar investments, although much less supported by our tax dollars.

On a more mundane note, it is also important to remember that on a well used bus route, the bus is usually empty at the beginning/end of its run.

I often ride the 4 and 5. These routes are VERY well used. Mostly, this is because these routes are critical connections between Ann Arbor and eastern Washtenaw County. I have seen people left at stops because the bus is literally jammed full with passengers. The point is, we need more routes, more buses and more public transit connecting Ann Arbor and the region.