Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a 100% taxpayer subsidized bus network will be more prone to service reductions and route cancellations.

This is correct.

What seems to be happening is free bus service being offered as an offset for criminal enforcement for metrorail fare evasion. They are creating a separate-but-equal transport system where the poor people will be forced to use what will inevitably be a lower quality bus service while the rich will use metrorail - free from having to experience poor people.

This is the future that they are creating.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Downtown is dying. Vacancy rates are throw the roof, which are driving down property values which will mean radically lower property tax revenues, which will blow a giant hole in the city's budget. But, sure, let's focus on...[checks notes]...making buses free?

This is what it's like to be ruled by children.

What is the city government supposed to do to get workers back in empty offices, exactly?

Isn't that kind of their job to figure these things out?

They have to make it attractive for employers to end the work from home model. Free bus is one of many steps in that direction.

Right. People are abandoning downtown because the buses are too expensive.

I love how your definition of people only includes high income people. Like your barista, waiter, street cleaner, etc. don't also need to get to work.

Is there a single person in this entire city who did not ride the bus because it was too expensive? If the answer is no there is not, then making it free it a stupid way to spend money. If you're going to create incentives, the idea is usually to get people to do something they would not have done otherwise. If you're just subsidizing people to do something they were going to do anyway, that is just a waste of money.

Not collecting fares make the bus run faster, which makes it more convenient. Lots of people don't ride the bus because it's not convenient.

Even fewer people are going to ride the bus when they're filled with homeless people.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Downtown is dying. Vacancy rates are throw the roof, which are driving down property values which will mean radically lower property tax revenues, which will blow a giant hole in the city's budget. But, sure, let's focus on...[checks notes]...making buses free?

This is what it's like to be ruled by children.

What is the city government supposed to do to get workers back in empty offices, exactly?

Isn't that kind of their job to figure these things out?

They have to make it attractive for employers to end the work from home model. Free bus is one of many steps in that direction.

Right. People are abandoning downtown because the buses are too expensive.

I love how your definition of people only includes high income people. Like your barista, waiter, street cleaner, etc. don't also need to get to work.

Is there a single person in this entire city who did not ride the bus because it was too expensive? If the answer is no there is not, then making it free it a stupid way to spend money. If you're going to create incentives, the idea is usually to get people to do something they would not have done otherwise. If you're just subsidizing people to do something they were going to do anyway, that is just a waste of money.

Not collecting fares make the bus run faster, which makes it more convenient. Lots of people don't ride the bus because it's not convenient.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're going to love it when the buses are full of homeless people.

I've been on buses with homeless people and I'm ok with it.

not buses with homeless people. buses FULL of homeless people. they would become de facto homeless shelters.

Then maybe we need to do better with our homeless shelters if they're choosing a bus over the shelter.

But I also don't believe your hyperbole.

Have you visited DC public libraries lately?

Yes? With my kids. They're great.

And homeless people have a right to use them and buses. If you don't like homeless people using public services then maybe we could get them homes?

Build a shipping container camp with small rooms on the vacant land at RFK. Provide services on site, including skills building and security. But then no more living on the streets and no more camping in the parks!

And good bus service to the camp so they can get where they need? Plus services so the people at the camp can thrive and make their way out of it?

Make it so good that people don't choose the street over the camp, unlike the current roster of shelters.

The D.C. government hates homeless people. It would rather spend a gazillion dollars on bike lanes for rich white dudes from Ward 3 than spend a dollar on giving homeless people a place to sleep. They just want homeless people to go away.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a 100% taxpayer subsidized bus network will be more prone to service reductions and route cancellations.

Something that, oddly enough, never happens to the 100% taxpayer subsidized roads-for-cars network.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're going to love it when the buses are full of homeless people.

I've been on buses with homeless people and I'm ok with it.

not buses with homeless people. buses FULL of homeless people. they would become de facto homeless shelters.

I like this better than people freezing to death or dying of heatstroke.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Not collecting fares make the bus run faster, which makes it more convenient. Lots of people don't ride the bus because it's not convenient.

Bus improvement from not collecting fares will be marginal, as it is now. The problem is we have existing bus lanes in DC and more planned and they're virtually worthless because drivers insist on parking in them and our intrepid pols are too afraid to enforce the bus lanes. Simple as that. The bus lanes on 14th St NW are virtually worthless.

Not collecting fares won't change that.

Sure, do that too. What I'd like to see is priority signal timing for buses -- the bus always gets a green light. That would do a lot more for bus speed than bus lanes. But the point is the way you make buses attractive is you make them competitive in terms of speed with other choices. In cities that have tried getting rid of fares it has sped up buses significantly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a 100% taxpayer subsidized bus network will be more prone to service reductions and route cancellations.

Something that, oddly enough, never happens to the 100% taxpayer subsidized roads-for-cars network.

You clearly have never been to South Carolina or NY State.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm for reduced bus fares, but there should be some charge for it. People doesn't always value something that is free (and trash it, actually). Given that DC is facing a fiscal challenge (see Williams, Anthony), I'd rather see DC use scarce transit resources to expand Circulator and Metrobus routes rather than make substandard service free to all.

Should we charge some tuition for public schools? Public parks? Public sidewalks and roads?

You pay property and income tax.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm for reduced bus fares, but there should be some charge for it. People doesn't always value something that is free (and trash it, actually). Given that DC is facing a fiscal challenge (see Williams, Anthony), I'd rather see DC use scarce transit resources to expand Circulator and Metrobus routes rather than make substandard service free to all.

Should we charge some tuition for public schools? Public parks? Public sidewalks and roads?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a 100% taxpayer subsidized bus network will be more prone to service reductions and route cancellations.

This is correct.

What seems to be happening is free bus service being offered as an offset for criminal enforcement for metrorail fare evasion. They are creating a separate-but-equal transport system where the poor people will be forced to use what will inevitably be a lower quality bus service while the rich will use metrorail - free from having to experience poor people.

This is the future that they are creating.

Incorrect. I can choose to ride either bus or rail everyday for work. I choose bus because it comes more frequently than rail. The rail service is so bad these days that it’s not worth riding.

Anonymous wrote:I'm for reduced bus fares, but there should be some charge for it. People doesn't always value something that is free (and trash it, actually). Given that DC is facing a fiscal challenge (see Williams, Anthony), I'd rather see DC use scarce transit resources to expand Circulator and Metrobus routes rather than make substandard service free to all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a 100% taxpayer subsidized bus network will be more prone to service reductions and route cancellations.

This is correct.

What seems to be happening is free bus service being offered as an offset for criminal enforcement for metrorail fare evasion. They are creating a separate-but-equal transport system where the poor people will be forced to use what will inevitably be a lower quality bus service while the rich will use metrorail - free from having to experience poor people.

This is the future that they are creating.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a 100% taxpayer subsidized bus network will be more prone to service reductions and route cancellations.

Something that, oddly enough, never happens to the 100% taxpayer subsidized roads-for-cars network.

Anonymous wrote:I think a 100% taxpayer subsidized bus network will be more prone to service reductions and route cancellations.