|
Post by nickv on Mar 6, 2008 21:18:11 GMT -8
Without increasing fares (except due to inflation) or reducing service, how would you increase income and/or reduce expenses for your transit agency?I tried to brainstorm a few ideas, but I bet you have some better ideas too. Vote. 1. Increase fare evasion fine 2. Work with communties to improve bus productivity 3. Transfer 'low ridership' lines to muni/cities. 4. Sell ad-space on buses/bus stops/stations 5. Offer food/drink vending machines at station exits 6. Sell ad/coupon space in bus books/timetables 7. Sell t-shirts/toy buses/etc with agency logo 8. Rent out agency meeting room space after hours 9. Work w/ cities for more TOD - Get developer fees 10. Rent out equipment for commercial film production 11. Offer charter service 12. Your Ideas too? This bus probably has three ad panels on the outside and plenty of ad space inside. Most bus stops with shelters can have 1-2 ads.Routes that don't perform so well can be modified to better serve the public. Other options include transferring the route to another agency, the host city, or a muni operator. Service runs with lower ridership levels can use smaller equipment. That beats cancelling a bus line all together.Vote for more than one if you would like to. If I didn't include your answer, feel free to post. (Edit - The thread will only let you vote for one. If you agree to more than one, vote for your favorite and then post your other favorites on the thread. Sorry about that.)
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Mar 6, 2008 22:05:54 GMT -8
How about instead of having developers give money for road developments (i.e. new left turn lanes, widened roads), this money goes to the MTA for public transit enhancements. Look at the new project proposed in Culver City (13 story with a 9 STORY PARKING GARAGE! (2 floors underground), and the property owners are saying they will encourage public transit use. However, the City is asking them to pay for ROAD improvements. Give this money to the MTA to ask for TRANSIT improvements within a certain radius of the building.
Why would a reasonable person use public transit when there is a 9 STORY PARKING GARAGE available?
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Mar 13, 2008 11:24:59 GMT -8
heh. I didn't see the part where it says it's okay to vote for more than one option until after I had voted. once I've voted, the poll won't let me vote for more than one, or else I would have voted for most of the suggested ideas. instead, I voted for more ads.
my attitude towards ads has matured considerably over the years. I used to think that they were the most annoying things in the world, and I still find many of them to be annoying. but I recognize the value that ads might have for transit agencies.
and for some reason, I find "wraparound" ads to be much more pleasant than the traditional rectangle ad panels.
maybe that's because I haven't seen a wraparound ad featuring bail bonds salesmen, cheap lawyers or payday advance loan places. if you can tell a man's character by the company he keeps, then what do bus ads say about our transit agencies?
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Mar 13, 2008 11:42:36 GMT -8
How about instead of having developers give money for road developments (i.e. new left turn lanes, widened roads), this money goes to the MTA for public transit enhancements. Look at the new project proposed in Culver City (13 story with a 9 STORY PARKING GARAGE! (2 floors underground), and the property owners are saying they will encourage public transit use. However, the City is asking them to pay for ROAD improvements. Give this money to the MTA to ask for TRANSIT improvements within a certain radius of the building. Why would a reasonable person use public transit when there is a 9 STORY PARKING GARAGE available? that's an excellent idea! to be honest though, making developers pay road improvement fees isn't entirely unwarranted. even after our efforts at improving transit, millions of people still drive to work, and we can't ignore the reality of the situation. however, too many communities are still not forward-thinking enough when it comes to transit. a developer comes to town proposing a project that includes both condos and shops, and they react like he's just suggested building downtown Manhattan in the suburbs. or, their zoning codes aren't designed for anything other than traditional, 1950's-style growth. (or, even if the city government is ready for transit-ready, dense growth, the NIMBY residents aren't) getting local planning departments to "think outside the box" and getting cities to establish "road AND TRANSIT improvement fees" may ultimately turn out to be as important as getting the state and federal governments to spend more on transit...
|
|
|
Post by nickv on Mar 13, 2008 18:56:04 GMT -8
I guess the board is only permitting one vote per user. If you have more than one favorite, post them in the message area. Sorry about that!
|
|