Panzerfaust
Active Member
Or better yet, just hold everyone to the same standard to start with, which has been my point all along.^^ Why not require 30-year-olds who engage in antisocial behaviour to pay a premium fare, then?
Or better yet, just hold everyone to the same standard to start with, which has been my point all along.^^ Why not require 30-year-olds who engage in antisocial behaviour to pay a premium fare, then?
A system which makes people pay more to travel on a slow bus across town rewards the inefficient transit agency more than it rewards the passenger.
Better Business as Usual - Pay less to cross Steeles and less between GO and TTC. [ 4 ] [10.53%]
Regional Flat Fare - One token gets you unlimited travel on any system, anywhere for 2 hours. [ 18 ] [47.37%]
London Model - GO and Subway use fare-by-distance, buses, streetcars and LRT use a flat fare. [ 12 ] [31.58%]
Full Fare-by-Distance - Fare is from point-to-point, regardless of the agency you used to make the trip. [ 4 ] [10.53%]
Better Business as Usual - Pay less to cross lines [ 2 ] [ 5.41% ]
Regional Flat Fare - One token gets you anywhere [ 6 ] [ 16.22% ]
London Model - Trains use fare-by-distance, buses and trams use flat fare. [ 16 ] [ 43.24% ]
Full Fare-by-Distance - Point-to-point, regardless of the agency. [ 13 ] [ 35.14% ]
I would argue that in the GTA the problem is not encouraging people to take the fastest route possible but rather encouraging transit agencies to provide faster options. A system which makes people pay more to travel on a slow bus across town rewards the inefficient transit agency more than it rewards the passenger.
Simple, operation of the subway costs more than buses. Operation of GO costs more than subway. Fares have to reflect underlying costs - even if they are subsidized.
On high capacity corridors, this is not true. Especially on Yonge Street at 5 pm on any weekday.
Thought you might be interested in the Transport for London 19 page PDF Guide to Fares and Tickets for comparison purposes.