Pittsburgh cutting transit fares?

[left-of-center2012]

Port Authority panel wants to get public comment on a new fare proposal
Substantial improvements in the Port Authority’s finances have paved the way for the agency to propose reducing fares for more than a quarter of its riders.

The authority’s board is considering a proposal to set a flat $2.50 fare for riders who use the prepaid Connectcard instead of the two-tiered system that charges $2.50 for shorter trips and $3.75 for longer trips. Cash customers would pay $2.75.

(Here in Albuquerque it’s $1 to ride a bus, while seniors and disabled pay 35¢ per bus.
A day pass is only $2 for unlimited rides that day. Students, up through college, ride free with a curent school photo ID.)


http://www.post-gazette.com/local/south/2016/01/12/Port-Authority-proposes-single-2-50-fare-for-all-rides/stories/201601130027

[unc70]

1. We cut fares to $0.00

Chapel Hill Transit is a much smaller system, but years ago we raised taxes and eliminated fares for almost all in-city routes. (Fares are charged for shuttles for special events like ball games.)

[happyslug]

2. This is to eliminate cash fares and increase the fares on people who do use Cash

You must remember when it comes to collecting cash fares, roughly 35% of cash fares collected goes into collecting those fares. If you eliminate cash fares, you save most of that 35% of costs (This is one of the reasons most toll roads are going to "Easy Fare" system, it eliminates having to handle cash and thus saves money).

Now, a few years ago the Federal Government required the Port Authority Transit (PAT for short) to adopt a machine to collect fares. In the past you had a fare box, that you dropped the fare into and the driver then accepted it and dropped it into the money box below the fare box. The driver had to watch the fares being dropped into it and if you were careful could underpay the fare. No one I knew ever did, but that allegation was always being made.

About ten years ago, the Feds insisted that PAT (Among other transit companies) install new cash boxes that actually counted the money "dropped" into the cash box. This was to make sure all fares are collected to the full amount. The problem with this system is that it slows down the whole system. In the olden days, you dropped off the fare into the cash box as one or more drops. People who entered the bus or streetcar at the same time would drop in their fares. The Driver would look what was dropped into the box and then dropped it into the cash box below. This could be done in seconds by dozens of people entering the bus or streetcars. Once in the cash box the driver would drive to the next stop.

With these new cash boxes, each person who pays cash, has to wait in line for the others to put in the correct cash. Then one at a time the driver has to approve the payment (or the machine does it on its own). Either way, there you have several passengers waiting for the fare box to get free so they could deposit their fares. It slows down the whole system.

Anyway, people were encouraged to buy "Passes" (Now call "Connect Card and 70% of the people use these passes today, the concern is the other 30%). These "Passes" permitted people to just show the pass and ride. You had two types, a "Weekly Pass" that cost about the same as paying 10 trips a week (or five round trips). The "Monthly Pass" would cost a little less than 40 trips a month, or roughly 20 round trips. Given most people work five days a week, and there are fours weeks in a month, that covered most people. The proposal adds a "Daily Pass" if you have a "ConnectCard".

The real heart of this proposal is one buried deep in the article, people who pay CASH would see an INCREASE of 25 cents a fare. Furthermore such people will also have to pay the full fare every time they enter a bus, unlike at present where they can get a transfer for .50.

Given most low income people are living in Zone One, many who do NOT use transit everyday, but maybe once or twice a week, they will pay MORE to subsidize those people who take transit ten times a week to and from work. We are also talking about people who do NOT have Credit Cards and thus can NOT prepay fares via the net. Such prepayment over the net is what PAT really wants. This is to eliminate all cash fares, it is both cheaper AND speeds up transit by getting people NOT to use those new fare boxes.

Remember, when Cash is the main form of payment of fares, the cost of collecting the cash is roughly 35% of any fare. By FORCING everyone to get a "Pass" even for one trip, PAT will cut its costs of operation, but at the cost of low income people, who rely on CASH, paying more for the privilege of riding a bus.

Worse, given that most low income people have to take TWO buses to get to a store or hospital or other place (Which is the norm for most low income people who use the bus) the plan also eliminates "Transfers" if you pay cash. Thus a person who has to take two buses to go to an appointment will have to pay $2.75 FOUR times, once to go to Downtown, once to go to their destination, then reverse. At present such a person pays $2.50 plus a transfer of .50, total $3.00 one way, and another $3.00 in reverse (Under the proposal total fee for such a trip would be $11, Four trips at $2.75 each as compared to the present price of $6.00).

If you have a "pass" the transfer will be automatically added to your fare of $2.50 to $3.50, thus the trip will be $7.00 under the proposed fare "Cut" unlike the present $6.00 such a trip costs today.

Thus this is NOT a "Fare Cut" but a FARE Increase to anyone who uses cash, and that appears to be the main thrust of this proposal, a Fare INCREASE on low income users of Mass Transit.

[Pat Riot]

4. Thank you

I was wondering about tranfers and the like. I don't ride frequently enough to buy the pass, and it isn't really any cheaper than to pay for parking. (I'd tell you about my semi secret parking spots downtown but then I'd have to kill you. haha) My car door was frozen shut one day last week, so I walked up to the bus stop before realizing I didn't have singles, just a 20 and a roll of quarters. Now I understand why the whole bus was staring daggers at me. The younger woman behind me had to wait while I stuffed coins one by one; if I'd realized how it is I would have let her go first.

My best option would be to get back in shape enough to commute by bike again, except that I'm afraid of getting killed.

Really, that was a great explanation of penalty for poor folks who need to pay cash, very detailed, and I'm going to steal it and share it if you don't mind.

[happyslug]

5. I do not use PAT that often either, I live in Johnstown...

But ever so often I take AMTRAK into Pittsburgh. It leaves Johnstown at 6:00 pm and arrives in Pittsburgh anywhere between 7:30 and 8:05 pm (It is scheduled to be in Pittsburgh at 8:05 but that is its final stop, thus no one complains about it arriving early). It could make it earlier, but it has to stop at Latrobe and Greensburg, and since those are stops not the termination of the trip, the train can NOT leave either location before the scheduled time at each stop. On the other hand Pittsburgh terminates the trips and thus arriving early is permitted.

Anyway, I then catch the LRV to Beechview where my Mother lives. Thus I saw the new cash box in operation and saw how it was slowing down travel. Some stops in the LRV you pay on the stop and then enter the LRV, but on the stops I was using you had to pay on the LRV. Given how little I end up using the LRV, I can see the problem (And I suspect this is one of the reason PAT is adopting a new "New Day Pass" for those people who use it only once in a while, but the One Day Pass will cost the same as two fares, thus someone who is using the system once in a while and then one way will be charged a premium.

As to stealing it, just remember it is from what PAT released, but PAT news release tried to pass the increase if one uses Cash as some sort of Fare decrease. Thus I have no objections to you using it

Now, every so often you get a legal issue that will NEVER come to court for the parties will almost always settle the legal issue before trial. The reason being the actual issue is measured in cents, while the cost of taking it to court is measured in Dollars. Thus will someone pay $100,000 in lawyer's fees to get a court order forcing PAT to return 50 cents? The plaintiff will only get the 50 Cents difference between paying cash or using a "pass" NOT the Lawyer's fees to take the case to court (and in most cases to Appellant Courts). Furthermore the Court MAY rule the difference is a CASH DISCOUNT for buying in bulk, not a premium for paying in cash and thus NOT a violation of the the law I cite below.

I bring this up for under Federal Law, all debts may be paid is the form of Cash and a Fare is a "debts, public charges, taxes, and dues":

United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues. Foreign gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5103

Now, the US Treasury maintains today that the above does NOT require people to take US Currency, but the actual law traces back to the US Civil War when the US government for the first time since the Revolution, issued paper currency AND Congress wanted the paper currency to be used in place of Silver and Gold Coins.

One affect of the Civil War was Gold and Silver Coins disappeared and replaced by paper currency down to 3 cent pieces of paper (The US had a Three Cent SILVER Coin from 1851 till 1873, but most disappeared after 1862 with the rest of US Silver and Gold Coins, in 1865 a Nickel three cent piece was introduced, 11 million were minted in that year alone, compared to just 3000 Silver three cent pieces, these three cent nickels ended production in 1889).

More on Three Cent Pieces:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-cent_piece_(United_States_coin)

The Cent stayed in production and was used, and starting in 1862, the three cent stamp became a popular piece of "Change". The Nickel replaced the paper five cent bill in 1866, the five cent bill had for all practical purposes replaced the "Half dime" made out of silver during the Civil War (Through half dimes were made till 1873, in Canada till 1922 when Canada finally adopted the Nickel). Gold coins stayed rare till US dollars finally returned to $20.67 a ounce of gold in 1876).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_currency_(United_States)

Half Dimes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half_dime

US Nickels:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel_(United_States_coin)

The Civil War also caused the two cent piece to be minted from 1864 till 1872:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-cent_piece_(United_States)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Head_cent

I bring this up for I have questions if you can charge a premium for using cash under the above law. The US Treasury Department has taken the position that it can be done and the courts have always upheld that position, but the cases do NOT go beyond Local Federal Court or are from the 1800s and then uphold paper money as equal to gold.

Given the history of the above section, I suspect the US Supreme Court MAY rule the law is as written and any premium for use of cash is a violation of the above FEDERAL LAW and base that decision on the language of the actual law AND the intent of Congress when it was passed. The law has been modified (such as adding the phased including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) but the actual language is the same as passed in 1862.

I also suspect this is all moot, for the simple reason to take a case to the US Supreme Court till cost someone between $50,000 to $100,000. Given that expense will someone want to spend that type of money to force PAT to refund him or her the difference between the cash fare and purchase of a pass? The answer is no (and one of the reason is PAT may just give such a person the difference before trial ending the trial without an ruling being made on the law). Thus a legal issue that probably will NEVER be addressed by any court.

Side Note, the US has produced other coins, other then the present One Cent, Nickel, Dime, Quarters, Half Dollars and Dollars. These include the following:

from 1792 till 1857 the Half Cent:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half_cent_(United_States_coin)

The large Cent (the size of a half dollar but made of Copper):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_cent_(United_States_coin)

From 1875 to 1877 a 20 cent piece was produced:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-cent_piece_(United_States_coin)

Starting in the 1500s, the Spanish Dollar (Derived from the German Thaler, the main European Coin of the later Middle Ages) became the coin of choice in the China. Spain was very careful to maintain production for the Chinese disliked any change in the coin. When the US adopted the Dollar, for it was the coin most used in Colonial America. Americans in China would use Mexican made Dollars when doing trade in China, for the Chinese trusted the coin.

US Silver coins equaled the Dollar Coins in Spain and Mexico till 1853. Due to the HUGE amount of gold found in California (I have read estimates that up to 1/3 of all gold even found came out of California but I have NOT been able to verify that comment but it shows how HUGE a find it was), the price of Gold fell in reference to Silver, so that by 1853 the Silver in a US Coin was wroth $1.07 in Gold. To correct this the US reduced the Silver in Silver Dollars so the Silver in a Dollar would be worth less then a dollar. The problem was a huge Silver find was made in Nevada in the late 1850s and production of Silver became so great, by 1900 the Silver in a Silver Dollar was only worth 55 cents.

At the same time the Mexican, Spanish and Austrian Dollars all contain the traditional amount of Silver for a Dollar coin. Thus the Chinese trusted those coins but NOT US Silver Dollars for US Silver dollars were lighter then the rest do to the changes made in 1853.

To address this problem the US in 1873 introduced the "trade dollar" and minted them till 1878. These were of the same weight as Mexican Dollars (and pre 1853 US Dollars), but that meant they were heavier then Regular US Dollars. They proved unpopular in the US, but continued to be used in China as late as WWII (They were unpopular for in 1878 Congress declared them NOT Currency, thus they only value in the US was their Silver Content, which by then was about 55 cents NOT the Dollar a regular Silver Dollar was valued at nor a dollar paper money was valued at).

Part of the problem with the Trade Dollar was involved in the push to mint more Silver Coins starting in the 1870s. The US was in a recession and needed inflation, the Silver Coins would have produced that inflation but Wall Street hated the idea of inflation and did all it could to keep production of Silver Coins to a minimum, that included regular Silver Dollars and Trade Dollars (and it was Wall Street that made sure the Trade Dollar were viewed as no longer legal tender after 1878 for producing those trade dollars even for trade would have lead to inflation).

The Austrian "Thaler" used extensively in the Middle East prior to WWII (About the same Silver in a US Trade dollar but over all heavier for it is only .833 % silver as opposed to US Trade Dollars 90% Silver Content):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Theresa_thaler

More on the US Trade Dollar:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_dollar_(United_States_coin)

The US has also issued Gold Coins, in One Dollar (only produced 1849 till 1889), $2.50 (only minted from 1792 till 1929), $5 (only minted from 1792 till 1929), $10 (Minted 1792 till 1933) and $20 (Minted 1849 till 1933) :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_eagle

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eagle_(United_States_coin)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half_Eagle

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quarter_eagle

From 1849 till 1889 you had Dollar and Three Dollar coins, they were NEVER popular:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_dollar

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-dollar_piece

The US has produced other coins, but those coins are NOT for general circulation.

Yes, I know this is off topic, for I should restrict this topic to the LEGALITY of charging a premium for using cash, but what has been legal currency is interesting and I wanted to review it for my use. The Gold Coins were NEVER used by most people, Silver, Paper Dollars and Trade goods were how people were paid prior to WWII and afterward Checks came into widespread use (today the move is to direct deposit).

The Gold in a $2.50 Gold coin equals about $71.12 today. Thus using a "Quarter Eagle" would be like using a $100 bill today. People today do use $100 bills but most people stay with nothing larger then a $20 dollar bills. The $5 Gold Coin would be worth more then $140 dollars, the $10 coin more then $280 and the $20 coin, more then $560. You do NOT use such amounts for picking something up at McDonald's (You do use such large amounts when buying expensive items, like a car, or a large order of groceries, but when gold coins were popular most people paid those bills on credit and when the crop came in paid off the creditors).

The US use to issue paper money more then $100, but have printed none since 1945 AND withdrew all of them from Circulation in 1969 (Checks had long replaced such large bills decades before 1969). The coins people used in the past were silver coins, gold was for the elite and they did all they could to protect the Value of Gold even if that meant sacrificing the value of Silver.

[Pat Riot]

6. wow, man.

You put a lot of work into that. I wasn't going to get legal about it, just use it to explain the fares to other people. I'm not worthy of all the effort you put into that. Interesting though.

I'm from Mifflin County, and have often taken the train too. I have the Historic Horseshoe Curve speech memorized.

[JPZenger]

3. Students of U. Pittsburgh ride free

I don't know about other area colleges, but U. of Pittsburgh students ride public transit free because of subsidies from the University. It is cheaper than the University running their own bus system.

[Pat Riot]

7. Yeah, I'm way past my Pitt years.

The BF works at CMU and he can get one too, but we're not on a busline to there and he rides his bike a lot. I don't think they're transferable.