Report a Comment

hmmm ... well, that's a better reason to keep it running late ...

Actually, I really think the whole 'problem' could be solved if Metro had the stomach to make the early/late riders just pay the incremental costs it takes to open it early and keep it running late. It shouldn't be that difficult to figure out how much more it costs to keep it running the additional hours. Just take that number and divide it by the number of riders expected to use it then ... and make that the fare amount. That's how private enterprise would handle it. You want a special service, you pay a special price. And if there are alternatives ... such as cab rides ... that are cheaper, then we'll quickly see those being used instead ... and can then cut the hours then. Like kk implies in his post, people have choices. I know we'll hear the argument from the bleeding hearts about the restaurant worker who can't afford to live near where they work AND can't afford to pay a high fare home. What we won't hear, but is actually the truth, is that that restaurant (or bar or whatever) has to have workers. And if their pay isn't enough to bring in workers who have to pay for an expensive cab late night, or horror of horrors, has to pay for a parking space for their car, then that restaurant (or bar or whatever) will have a shortage of workers ... and will quickly raise the wages they pay out to get people in to work for them. (I.e., Subsidizing fares at odd hours isn't subsidizing the workers using the Metro, it's subsidizing their employers.)

by Lance on Feb 11, 2011 8:41 am • link • report