The Brown version, as I understand it, provides an incentive for higher
fares in the form of matching funds. The Rescue Muni version does not.
I think most riders could support a fare increase *if* it were tied to
specific improvements in service, but they're very skeptical about how
the money will be spent. Additional money with no strings attached is
very stupid. Muni received large increases in its budget for the last
couple of years. It hasn't really improved service on the street.
I don't think Muni's ridership is terribly price sensitive. Operating a
car in the city is quite expensive; a fare increase up to, say, 50%
probably wouldn't drive many people into cars. That's $17.50/month,
which doesn't buy much parking in this city, let alone the usual car
operating expenses (gas, maintenence, insurance, etc.).
I think Muni's lousy reliability is driving more riders off the system
than a fare increase ever could. If reliability increases, passengers
will return to the system. I don't think a passenger making
$200,000/year is deciding on transit vs. car based on whether the fare
is $1.00 or $1.35. I think s/he is choosing the mode that best suits
his/her needs. If Muni is grossly unreliable, they'll choose something
else, and only those too poor to buy and operate a car will be left on
Muni.
I think a case can be made for peak pricing, since that's generally the
service with the highest marginal cost, though I am wary of making
Muni's fare schedule too complicated. Schemes with lots of zones and
pricing periods can be very confusing and intimidating, especially to
the occasional or tourist user.
-- Daniel
>
> Thanks, Tom, for the analysis. My comment is that $1.00
> fare is a nice, round number. One piece of paper for someone
> to slide into the fare box. The moment you get odd values
> (i.e. your example of $1.35), you get a lot of fumbling at
> the fare box and slower boarding. I see this when I ride
> A.C. Transit, SamTrans, and especially Golden Gate Transit
> (with its complicated fare zones). And different fares for
> different times could also complicate things (I can see
> the arguments now, especially at "border" times, when
> someone's watch is slow or fast!)
>
> At one time in the "dim" past, didn't Muni attempt to
> charge extra for "express" buses?