Muni does seem to have one of the lowest fares for major urban transit
systems in the US. Is this good? Is this bad? I don't know. It depends
on what you want...If you want the transit system to be a social
subsidy, this is good, if you want it to pay (part of) its own way, this
is bad. If you want to speed boarding, $1 is better than $1.35 (not
that dollar bills are good for speedy boarding under the best of
circumstances). As a driver, I don't look forward to a fare increase
either for the flack or the slowdown, but at the same time, I see a
certain correlation between what people pay and how much they respect
the service ('nuff said on that subject, email me privately if you want
details).
In the realm of `would you be willing to pay more for better service' I
think it is a reasonable proposal. At the current time, Muni is at or
near capacity at peak and off peak hours, so increasing ridership is not
necessarily desirable. Also, peak hour service is heavily provided by
part-timers, often not at full pay and sometimes non-civiil service, so
without full benefits.
Personally, as a rider, if significant benefits were linked to the fare
increase, I woudl be willing to do my part with an increased fare (say
$1.25) or fast pass ($40 or $45). Of course, I would also be more
likely to walk on short trips, except that I always used to buy a
FastPass, since not dealing with fares was worth well over $35/month for
me.
A fare increase on its own will not address Muni's fundamental problems,
but as part of a workable package, I believe it is acceptable.
Robert Parks
7-Haight tmw
>At one time in the "dim" past, didn't Muni attempt to charge extra for "express" buses?
Not quite so distant past, also involved the premium pass, etc. and
some years before that, Muni routinely charged extra for express
service.