tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5377014210518433927.post7316012456807174905..comments2009-03-10T23:11:11.495-04:00Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15057113283154126104noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5377014210518433927.post-88577534548853072532009-03-10T23:11:00.000-04:002009-03-10T23:11:00.000-04:00That's a fair comment. If you change the bus fare data to use $1.35 for the current fare, the trend rate changes to 0.5 cents per year from 0.6 cents per year, with a 17-cent decline over the past 33 years.<BR/><BR/>For rail, it doesn't change the 5-mile ride at all (the difference is still not statistically significant based on an F-test).<BR/><BR/>However, if you eliminate the 10% bonus correction, the 10-mile trip has trended downward by 1.5 cents per year, for a 46-cent decline over the past 30 years, and the 15-mile trip has trended down 3.7 cents per year for a $1.00 decline over the past 28 years. Those decline rates are significant at a 95% confidence level.<BR/><BR/>I don't know how many people bought fares without the 10% bonus at the time. Certainly regular riders would have had enough incentive to do so, and people who got the federal transit subsidy had it included on their Metrocheks.Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15057113283154126104noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5377014210518433927.post-48353765035541234512009-03-10T20:31:00.000-04:002009-03-10T20:31:00.000-04:00Assuming a 10% discount for Metrorail for everyone because there was a 10% discount available is misleading, as is assuming all bus riders ride for $1.25 today.<BR/><BR/>While you may be right that a Metrobus fare increase to $1.50 would be too big a jump, the transition away from paper transfers has apparently been successful enough that I would support an increase in the cash fare to $1.50. For the infrequent rider or out of towner, $1.50 is probably about the same as $1.35.lrbrownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01763797319849018456noreply@blogger.com