I agree with a lot of what you're saying here -- I can never understand why people in LA constantly complain about traffic while at the same time the MTA has to raise fares because it is so underfunded. Make transit FREE and it could have a lot more impact on traffic.

I lived in Austin Texas when they did a 1 year no fare experiment. generally considered a failure. Homeless rode to get free a/c and heat and napped in the back. Gangs of kids rode just to do something and were rowdy. "Choice" riders (those that owned a car) dropped.

Miami's gadgetbahn, the MetroMover, went fare free a few years ago with minimal problems. Perhaps because it is an elevated system connecting downtown office buildings.

Portland has a "fareless square" that seems to work OK, (some conflict with rowdy kids etc. riding and some related crime).

DC Metro does not have an unlimited ride pass because it would encourage more ridership and they are capacity limited. They want to allocate that capacity to the highest use (off peak fares are cheap, peak expensive).

My priorities would be a well built, well maintained and clean system first, and subsidized fares second. Targeted DEEP discounts for handicapped, elderly (off hours at least), children, disabled, those on food stamps, etc. is a better approach IMHO than broad based cheap to everyone.

New Orleans has free rides to all handicapped residents and school children going to school, and 60% discounts for elderly for example.

Alan

If the goal is taking vehicles off the road (and reducing car ownership), then having every bus/train full (in order to maximize fares etc) is a failure. In order to be as convenient as a car, you have to run the nearly-empty seats at 3AM.

When push comes to shove and people have no choice, lives will be re-arranged to accommodate what the transport industry is capable of offering.

I have heard so many times the refrain, "Oh, but people are not going to be willing to give up their cars."

When having a car is simply no longer viable, they will be given up in spite of the inconvenience of using whatever the locally prevailing best option is.

Subsidies are bad. The effect here in Sweden from subsidized mass transit and heavily taxed gasoline is that as oil has risen in price, the ticket price for mass transit has risen a lot faster than the gasoline at the pump, due to the leverage.

Assume fuel costs being 33%, wages 33% and capital costs (the buses and stations etc) 33%. Close enough to reality.

If the bus company get 75 SEK for every customer, and 25 SEK from the customer (roughly correct figures) and the price of diesel at the pump increases by 10%, but not the subsidy, then the bus company need to increase the ticket price by 3.3 SEK or 13.2%.

But the driver of a car has costs where fuel is only 20-25% of the total cost of the car per mile. A 10% increase in the cost of diesel (or gasoline) will only increase what he pays per mile by 2%.

So what has happened in Sweden as the fuel price has risen, is that the cost of mass transit has risen more than the price of gasoline. If a driver only looks at the cost of fuel, and ignores service, insurance, capital costs etc (which many do), they immediately see that mass transit has risen more than car fuel, so they stick to their cars.

Subsidized mass transit is doomed.

And anyway, the politicians does not want to pay more to mass transit. Sometimes they have "free mass transit day" here in Sweden, but they won't increase the number of busses, so you end up with a full bus and people being left at the bus stop, cursing. If it even stops, might just drive past unless someone is getting off.

I really don't see any solution, unless we see oil in four figures, which I belive we will eventually. But then the solution won't be mass transit, it will be massive unemployment so fewer people will go to work.

You have touched on reasons why both government and corporate ownership and operation of toll goods does not work very well. The corporations just want to maximize profits, which means jam-packed mass transit during peak hours and no service at all when and where the riders are few. Governments tend to either pour in subsidies to the systems (resulting in better service when and where riders are few) but creating a black hole in their budgets, or they end up having to starve their systems in order to milk them for revenues to subsidize other projects and programs.

There is a better alternative, but to my knowledge it has rarely if ever been tried anywhere: public ownership of toll goods.

By public ownership, I mean that the toll good (mass transit system in this case) is owned and operated by a board of trustees, directly elected by the population of the service district and NOT appointed by the government. This point is crucial. Only by having the trustees b eing directly elected do you establish an effective feedback loop to assure that the right balance is maintained between fare prices and service extent and quality. If fares are rising too high, people have another alterntive than just driving their cars - they can vote for trustees that will run the system more efficiently and lower fares. If service quality is getting too poor and inconvenient, people have another alternative than just driving their cars - they can vote for trustees that will improve service quality, extend lines out to serve more people, and extend service schedules.

This is the only sure answer I know of to the problems you raise. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how to make it happen. Obviously, corporations hate this and want everyone to think it is the most evil thing in the world. Less obviously, governments and politicians also hate this, because it reduces their power a little. The only ones that might like this are the ordinary people that have to continue to suffer, but we all know how much THEY (we) count.

I have limited knowledge of San Diego geography (never been there).

Going from Los Angeles to Phoenix was problematic, and San Diego has enough people to justify a link.

Union Pacific has an unused, but not abandoned, ROW from Yuma (CA border) to Phoenix. There is also (from memory) an abandoned RR ROW just north of the border (it may go south ?) out of San Diego.

Overall, I have budgeted over $100 billion (about $120) for about 8,500 miles. Thus the pressure to cut (a real world issue BTW).

I think that 60 to 79 mph transport through most of the West is doable (even when 100 mph freight service is available, many container shippers would prefer cheaper 60 mph service).

This is also true of many veggies and fruits that keep well. Onions and apples should not be expressed IMHO.

Would savings in time sensitives veggies pay the cost for 98% express travel vs. 75% express ? The passenger loads from LA to Houston and beyond would not be large, as long as flying is a higher cost option. So the economics would have to come from freight.

Would loads from California to Chicago go south or just head towards Kansas City at slower speeds ? Given the reduced miles from a direct route and the higher costs of higher speed (even @ 100 mph from LA to Chicago via San Antonio), most would take the shorter, slower route IMVHO. The fewer miles would reduce the time penalty.

Difficult questions, and perhaps delayed until Phase II.

Alan