[xyzzyz]

In Seattle, a typical local bus trip costs the transit company around $10, while the ticket costs around $3. Running twice as many buses would result in cost of something like $18-20 per ride, which would make it require even more subsidies than it already receives.

[kolinko]

That assumes the buses would be similarly packed. With a denser and reliable schedule you get more people using the bus and it can actually require fewer subsidies.

(In other words: instead of a half-empty bus every 20 minutes you end up with packed buses every 5 min)

[sagarm]

The "farebox recovery ratio" for cars is also low: taxes and user fees only pay for only ~50% of the cost of roads, at most. The rest comes out the general fund.

[ryukafalz]

Does that assume that no more people will use the frequent (convenient) bus service than were using the infrequent (much less convenient) service?

[anigbrowl]

I really think the answer to this is to run much smaller and cheaper buses instead of the extremely expensive big ones that only have a few occupants. Shuttle buses cost around $60-70k vs >$600k for a new full size bus. Of course, driver labor is also a significant cost, but I think it's easier to find shuttle bus drivers as it only requires a class B license.

[mellavora]

Luxembourg made all public transit free.

Including commuter rail.

And it all runs pretty regularly (bus, tram, train)