Quote:
Originally Posted by freeweed
Dear lord, I don't really want to have a fare system where I have to break out a slide rule just to figure out how much it's gonna cost. Bus vs no bus. Train vs no train. Transfer at a busy station vs transfer in the boonies. Multi-mode vs single mode. Rush hour vs off-peak hours. Add in the number of stops you're travelling, divided by the square of the radius from the downtown core, but factor in the "economic enhancement zone" (exaggerated for comedic effect, but as soon as we get into what's "fair", these ridiculous things come about - just look at our income tax system).
I've seen this confusing nonsense on the British rail system. Why do people argue in favour of this?  |
I'm not so sure that swiping a card twice is really that complicated, or having to place where your residence and workplace lie (and the location of a few non-commuting trips that might occur) on a zonal map is really that tricky. Yes, it is more complicated, but it really isn't very complicated. Generally, it is mostly an inconvenience for incidental riders (such as tourists,) but it does have the added benefit of having the potential to attract ridership and increase revenue. That is why people argue in favour of it and a pretty large majority of transit-oriented cities implement it.
At the end of the day, it is also generally more expensive to fly to Toronto than it is to Edmonton as well, so I'm not sure how the same shouldn't or couldn't be applied. Again, I'm not arguing in favour of this for Calgary as the system in Calgary currently is.
Threaded Mode