I mean, no public transit system operates without subsidy, but are we sure about that? I've always been under the impression that The RIDE was the big cost center / fare recovery hole. The thing about the CR system is that it doesn't cost a huge amount to operate, and because it has high ticket prices it generated a fair bit of revenue for the T, and has historically had a better fare recovery rate than the Green line or Buses. Basically, despite having a fraction of the riders, thanks to the length of the trip, it carried them far further than the heavy rail system resulting in more passenger miles traveled on the CR system than Red/Orange/Blue combined, and with the distance based zone system...
You are 100% correct, though I don't think that's a fair comparison because it's a specialty service for a specific and limited demographic. It's not government-Uber.
I would agree generally with respect to the Ride, but the T does seem to have a fairly inefficient cost structure compared to other RTAs.
Ruggles<->Longwood is served by the 8,19,47, CT2, CT3, Longwood Collective buses, and various other shuttle buses. Theres also many bus connections to get to the industrial and warehouse jobs in between Dorchester, Roxbury, and the South End. On top of that, the station sits on Northeastern. Getting more regional rail trains to Ruggles is far more important than I think people realize. Thats not only including Northside terminating trains but also the Old Colony Lines that can run select rush hour trips bypassing South Station and through onto NEC routes.
South Station >>> Ruggles as a destination.
Regional Rail doesn't fire on all cylinders unless you substantially expand suburban bus routes and microtransit. That's a wrinkle not all advocates are keen on, but we basically need to also fund a 'Marshall Plan' of suburban bus expansion and RTA funding for the last-mile trips if we're truly going to break the dependency on cars. Rail can only go where the tracks go, and that's not everywhere.
I believe the best local case study for this at the moment is Sharon(?) - they got a grant for a set of 20 bikeshare e-bikes based at the CR station & community center for tourists to ride around town a couple of years ago.
I heard about the Sharon example. but I am really confused about how bikeshare can work to provide last mile train to home connectivity on a suburban setting.
I think in this case if you are going to the train station regularly you're looking at owning an e-bike. Instead of 3 cars (mom, dad, kid) a family might own 2 cars (mom, kid) and dad bikes to the train station and borrows car as necessary. Since a bike is cheaper than a car this works out.
I'd second that if you're in the burbs, you'd more likely own one to park at the station, and why I think secure bike parking is needed everywhere on the system. That said, I've heard about two models for that.
I don't think it's something you're meant to do forever. But if you're visiting someone and want to go by transit, or maybe your car broke down and you need an alternative for a couple days, or maybe you just want to give it a try, now there are e-bikes at a convenient location you can use. No it's not going to solve every problem with last mile transit, but it also shouldn't be expected to.
Understood, but you flipped the ridership scenario back around to visitors (the original intent) not residents of Sharon. I don't see how it works for residents to accomplish last mile trips.
One of the examples was visitors, the other two are more applicable to residents. They're e-bikes that are just rentable from a convenient location, what you choose to use them for is up to you.