Thread by @aaronpaquette

@estolte *Fun facts:

1. We have a capacity issue. We don’t have enough physical space for an increase in the number of transit vehicles.

*the facts likely aren’t fun.

@estolte 2. When building the new Kathleen Andrews Transit Garage, virtually no extra capacity was created. It can handle about as many vehicles as the old Westwood location that it’s replacing.

@estolte 3. City leadership has been encouraging more transit use to a growing population for years but has not increased capacity. Logistically, capacity can’t be increased for many more years. We have to build new garages.

@estolte 4. Having said that, our ridership is not at capacity yet. So there’s a little more room, but not enough for a substantial swing in ridership numbers.

@estolte 5. Which leads to fares and elasticity and cost recovery.

We know it’s true:

Raise fares, ridership decreases.
Lower fares, ridership increases.

This is the elasticity of fares and there’s even a formula for it.

@estolte 6. Cost recovery is the idea that since transit costs a city to provide, the city should recover some of that cost through fares - 30% - 50%

But where did that idea even come from? Why is that considered a best practice? Why not full recovery? Why not no recovery?

Well...

@estolte 7. We don’t actually know. It was likely an ideological decision. Maybe a practical one at some point.

But there are questions.

How do calculate the value of an incredible asset like a municipal transit system.

What is the true value it provides to a city? How do we benefit?

@estolte 8. We can say fares is one way, but let’s put that aside.

What economic activity do we generate with publicly accessible transit? People going shopping, going to work, applying for jobs, meeting and bumping into friends, snippets of conversation sparking ideas, etc.

@estolte 9. Transit is an economic driver. Public mobility is a hallmark of a thriving community.

There are potential health benefits, too. I don’t just mean reduced pollution and more exercise.

When ppl can go to the doctor, keep appointments, when seniors can keep social, etc...we win

@estolte 10. What about savings? Reduced wear and tear on infrastructure, reduced need for more infrastructure, freeing up the road for ppl who need to drive making roadways more efficient (less snow clearing, repairs, less congestion, etc).

There are numerous ways to calculate value

@estolte 11. I didn’t even get to safety and reduced collisions.

In 2015 the city estimated the economic benefit of transit to be approx $700m/year.

What would it be now, especially if we factored everything in?

And then, what if we designed this in a way that increased the benefits?

@estolte 12. Could transit, if designed more intentionally to capture multiple benefits, become a multi billion dollar value proposition?

Does that make cost recovery through fares realtively inconsequential aside from the elasticity effect (reduce ridership by increasing fares)?

Yes.

@estolte 13. So that means design a system that is:

Safe
Accessible & Affordable
Efficient & Comprehensive
Clean

And more. What if we could sweep the deck and start from scratch. What would we design?

Those are the very broad strokes of my transit efforts.

@estolte This is a very simplified overview, we can expand, add detail, and basically write a book - an encyclopedia- about it. And we should.

Our population is growing. Congestion will get worse.

We’re behind.

The good news:

The details of my transit motion have been adopted.

@estolte So we will get a report back in November that answers these questions (assuming it doesn’t get bumped and the work is comprehensive).

Until then, I don’t see the point in discussing fares. We need to better understand the potential impacts of this move on the community.