SAVE THE BUS

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

In these days, filled with the clamor over ROTC and over the larger issue of student power in the University, I run the risk of seeming trivial in broaching the subject that I do. Yet I think that the Harvard-Radcliffe bus is an issue which holds large enough practical significance for a large enough number of us that it should not be allowed to die without at least some arguments in its favor.

Figures first. The bus costs $56 a night and the fare is 10 cents a ride. Mr. Leahy, the man responsible for articulating the decision to axe the bus, claims, "We've been losing $20 to $30 every night." What his figures do not tell you, though, is that the bus conversely has been earning $26 to $36 every night, meaning that 130 to 180 people ride the bus nightly (assuming all riders ride round-trip), and that is still quite a few.

In the light of this fact, there are two simple but important economic concepts which the Committee on Houses should have taken into account. The first is the idea of social cost vs. social benefit. I would suggest that what the University's purse is losing monetarily, the University's students are more than making up for in non-monetary gains. On a pragmatic level, the bus is a) expedient and b) health-preserving. It spares the user two long walks and the likelihood in this weather of his taking sick from those walks.

On a symbolic level, the bus is one of several manifestations of a current and growing spirit toward greater equality and togetherness between Harvard and Radcliffe, and it is on this level that those who do not ordinarily use the bus should support it. The on-campus Cliffe faces the continuous disadvantage of being nearly a mile away from the hub of campus life. The bus, as such, is a tangible attempt to bridge an unjust gap. As to the practicability of eliminating the inequity completely by instituting an all-day bus system, I know not; but certainly the night bus is a step in the right direction. From the Harvard student's point of view, the bus facilitates socializing--with Lesley as well as with Radcliffe. The Committee on Houses should be persuaded to consider the $20 to $30 not as a "loss" but as the cost of a worthwhile service to the students of Harvard and Radcliffe.

The second concept which the Committee on Houses should have aired more thoroughly is that of consumer surplus tied in with the possible inelasticity of demand. What the terms boil down to is that the students who have used the bus may think it worthwhile to pay another nickle or so per ride to insure its continuation. As long as enough students continued to use the bus despite a rise in price, the money collected in fares would come a lot closer to meeting costs. Although ideally the bus service should be continued unchanged, such a compromise may be the only way to save the bus, providing students are indeed willing to pay somewhat higher fares.

What to do to keep the bus. Mr. Leahy suggests that if the bus were swamped with passengers these next two nights, the Committee on Houses would have to reconsider. I would prefer to see the bus continued on the social-benefit grounds enumerated above, rather than on the grounds that it has earned its keep. Roy S. Goldfinger '71