Quote:
Originally Posted by Radley77
There are other far reaching benefits of a differentiated system that would encourage better use of TOD's, as well as having prices that are reflective of energy costs and therefore more sustainable. The last point is that since the suburbs have greater per capita household income than inner city, that the currently policy is actually regressive. A differentiated system that is equally accomodating in that it doesn't punish one type of rider at the expense of another type of rider, instead it makes the service available to everyone.
|
Interestingly enough, because most transit revenue is derived from taxes (property and income), those same suburban folks you mention are *already* paying more for transit. Which makes it progressive by design.
Quote:
|
Imagine if Air Canada was to suddenly move to a flat fare system across Canada. On day one, they just take the average of all fare prices. The next day people who take short trips (say Calgary to Edmonton) would stop using the service because other alternatives are available. The next day, operational costs rise and Air Canada has to increase the fares. This causes other people who take short trips to discontinue using the service. Eventually the only feasible route for the airline company is the Vancouver to Toronto. i.e. long distances with most users.
|
This is all fine and dandy if we run Transit as if it were a commercial business (ie: streetcar companies 100 years ago). Problem is, it's not. It's a public good funded by taxpayers. If you want to turn Transit into Air Canada, fine by me - but incidentally, we'll be cutting those under-utilized routes next week. Oh, and that poorer part of town? Sorry, it no longer gets bus service on weekends. Not enough ridership.
We had that before, and then government stepped in and took over. For a damned good reason. Running Transit as a for-profit operation is both stupid and harmful to those who need it most.
Threaded Mode