Quote:
Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut
Again, that "extra" fare will still be cheaper than 2024's 1-zone at $3.20... which, if traffic is particularly bad, you'll have to pay twice once your 90 minutes are up.
|
Actually, currently it's 90min before the last tap in, then you have another 120min to finish your trip on the current bus/train before you need to pay a new fare.
Well, my point is... I only want to go from BCIT to UBC. I only pay $3.20 if I take the direct (25 UBC), but why I'll have to pay $4.70 if I take (25 UBC via Downtown) when TransLink decide they want to take a few extra passengers from downtown? Why would the extra cost of "TransLink trying to get a few extra revenue" being passed down to the passengers?
Of course this is just a fictional detour route I use so people know what I mean... but something like this exist a lot, especially in the suburban area. So again, what would be the most fair way to handle this situation?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut
Ridership and coverage are actually opposite ends of the spectrum; maximum coverage planning like loops is the surest way to decrease ridership, because if the bus takes too long, everybody opts to drive instead.
|
That's only work for urban area. If your "straight line" happens to be farm land.. good luck of getting any ridership if you run a bus straight through it. For suburban area, pretty much the once chance of even getting service at all is a route that loop around and trying to do everything that ever needed in the area.
Again, I feel like we are talking different things... You're talking about routes like 9, 99, 25, that are relatively straight. I'm talking about routes more like 188, 342, 363, 388... or combined routes like 173/174, 184/185, 246/249, etc. Or an extreme example... 254.
Threaded Mode