Tristán White wrote:
Dave Arquati wrote in
:

Tristán White wrote:
"Richard J." wrote in
news:jyqcg.73896$wl.16438 @text.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
Obviously we could afford the subsidy if we took money away from
other things or people, which might or might not be a good idea.
But the London tube system is much bigger than other cities' metros
(end-to-end line distances typically twice those in Paris for
example). I don't think it's sensible, or a good use of public
subsidies, for a 1-mile journey to have the same fare as a 30 mile
journey.

But it would all equal itself out. And Joe Public won't complain,
because £2 is less than £3 which is what that 1-mile journey
currently costs!
The fare for such a journey is either £1 or £1.50 - there's no point
using cash fares because most of Joe Public uses Oyster.

OK, Oyster-enabled Joe Public pays £1.25 per journey irrespective of
length, and people without Oyster pay £2 per journey irrespective of
length. No need to use ticket upon exit, as on the continent and other
places. Quicker to get through the barriers, less confusing for all.

OK, now you're charging everyone a price based on the lowest possible
fares - meaning extra subsidy is required. Demand would increase,
particularly from the outer zones, but it's unlikely to cover the
shortfall in revenue (it's probably not very elastic), and means
overcrowding. Instead of rationing train capacity by price, it will be
by queuing.

There's also the fact that since Underground users have high average
wages compared to the rest of the country, spending extra tax money to
subsidise their fares is a poor social decision.
--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London