http://www.priceoftravel.com/595/pub...ldwide-cities/

So, it looks like they've overstated the minimum London fare, and
included peak fares for routes from the centre to places well outside
London when calculating the maximum fare. I wonder how wide ranging an
area the fares they quote for other cities are?

For Toronto it's the amalgamated city (former Metropolitan Toronto)
plus the airport, approximately a rectangular area 25 miles by 10 miles.
A flat single fare for any one trip including all transfers between
bus, subway, and streetcar as needed.

For the New York subway it's the four boroughs of Manhattan, Brooklyn,
Queens, and the Bronx -- again, completely flat fare. Very roughly
this is a triangular area 20 miles wide at the foot and 30 miles high,
but there are areas within it that the subways don't reach. Buses cover
this area plus Staten Island, which is about 15 miles long and up to
8 miles wide, and the island has its own rail service with one line.
However, with buses the single fare only includes one transfer (between
two buses or between bus and another mode).

For Paris the Metro covers the city proper, roughly a circle 7 miles
across, and a number of spurs running a mile or so outside. Again,
completely flat fare, including transfers (and the use of the RER as
part of the Metro inside the city only). Buses also cover the city
proper, but not outside, there are no free transfers.

For San Francisco the area would also be the city proper, which is about
the same size as Paris. Rather than transfers, I believe they use a time
system where your fare is good for any number of legs started within
2 hours, or some such rule.

If you assume that the other cities cover smaller zones (eg, the Paris
fares are for the Metro, not including the wider ranging RER), the
true London range should only go out as far as zone 6...

When different cities use different fare bases, it makes this sort of
comparison very difficult. Showing a range of fares, as the site does,
makes considerable sense, but as noted, it doesn't tell you how far you
can go.
--
Mark Brader "We demand rigidly defined areas
Toronto of doubt and uncertainty!"
-- Vroomfondel (Douglas Adams: HHGTTG)

My text in this article is in the public domain.

Mark Brader wrote:
http://www.priceoftravel.com/595/pub...ldwide-cities/

So, it looks like they've overstated the minimum London fare, and
included peak fares for routes from the centre to places well outside
London when calculating the maximum fare. I wonder how wide ranging an
area the fares they quote for other cities are?

For Toronto it's the amalgamated city (former Metropolitan Toronto)
plus the airport, approximately a rectangular area 25 miles by 10 miles.
A flat single fare for any one trip including all transfers between
bus, subway, and streetcar as needed.

For the New York subway it's the four boroughs of Manhattan, Brooklyn,
Queens, and the Bronx -- again, completely flat fare. Very roughly
this is a triangular area 20 miles wide at the foot and 30 miles high,
but there are areas within it that the subways don't reach. Buses cover
this area plus Staten Island, which is about 15 miles long and up to
8 miles wide, and the island has its own rail service with one line.
However, with buses the single fare only includes one transfer (between
two buses or between bus and another mode).

For Paris the Metro covers the city proper, roughly a circle 7 miles
across, and a number of spurs running a mile or so outside. Again,
completely flat fare, including transfers (and the use of the RER as
part of the Metro inside the city only). Buses also cover the city
proper, but not outside, there are no free transfers.

For San Francisco the area would also be the city proper, which is about
the same size as Paris. Rather than transfers, I believe they use a time
system where your fare is good for any number of legs started within
2 hours, or some such rule.

If you assume that the other cities cover smaller zones (eg, the Paris
fares are for the Metro, not including the wider ranging RER), the
true London range should only go out as far as zone 6...

When different cities use different fare bases, it makes this sort of
comparison very difficult. Showing a range of fares, as the site does,
makes considerable sense, but as noted, it doesn't tell you how far you
can go.

Thanks for the info -- do the fares quoted look right for these cities?
And do they, like London, have different off-peak fares?

On 13/01/2013 14:23, Recliner wrote:
Mark Brader wrote:
http://www.priceoftravel.com/595/pub...ldwide-cities/

So, it looks like they've overstated the minimum London fare, and
included peak fares for routes from the centre to places well outside
London when calculating the maximum fare. I wonder how wide ranging an
area the fares they quote for other cities are?

For Toronto it's the amalgamated city (former Metropolitan Toronto)
plus the airport, approximately a rectangular area 25 miles by 10 miles.
A flat single fare for any one trip including all transfers between
bus, subway, and streetcar as needed.

For the New York subway it's the four boroughs of Manhattan, Brooklyn,
Queens, and the Bronx -- again, completely flat fare. Very roughly
this is a triangular area 20 miles wide at the foot and 30 miles high,
but there are areas within it that the subways don't reach. Buses cover
this area plus Staten Island, which is about 15 miles long and up to
8 miles wide, and the island has its own rail service with one line.
However, with buses the single fare only includes one transfer (between
two buses or between bus and another mode).

For Paris the Metro covers the city proper, roughly a circle 7 miles
across, and a number of spurs running a mile or so outside. Again,
completely flat fare, including transfers (and the use of the RER as
part of the Metro inside the city only). Buses also cover the city
proper, but not outside, there are no free transfers.

For San Francisco the area would also be the city proper, which is about
the same size as Paris. Rather than transfers, I believe they use a time
system where your fare is good for any number of legs started within
2 hours, or some such rule.

If you assume that the other cities cover smaller zones (eg, the Paris
fares are for the Metro, not including the wider ranging RER), the
true London range should only go out as far as zone 6...

When different cities use different fare bases, it makes this sort of
comparison very difficult. Showing a range of fares, as the site does,
makes considerable sense, but as noted, it doesn't tell you how far you
can go.

Thanks for the info -- do the fares quoted look right for these cities?
And do they, like London, have different off-peak fares?

No.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

http://www.priceoftravel.com/595/pub...ldwide-cities/

So, it looks like they've overstated the minimum London fare, and
included peak fares for routes from the centre to places well outside
London when calculating the maximum fare. I wonder how wide ranging an
area the fares they quote for other cities are?

For Toronto...
For the New York subway...
For Paris...
For San Francisco...

Thanks for the info -- do the fares quoted look right for these cities?

A further issue that can make these comparisons misleading is that some
cities offer reduced fares if you buy, say, 5 tickets at a time -- what
the French call a carnet -- and others don't. I think the carnet fare
is the correct comparison since most people who don't use a pass (season
ticket) will pay that amount. They have chosen to show the single-trip
fares. If they had shown the carnet-type fares, the numbers for New York,
Toronto, and Paris would have been lower by amounts (using today's fares
in early 2013) varying from 7% to 21%.

And do they, like London, have different off-peak fares?

In all four cases, not that I am aware of.
--
Mark Brader "Well, it's not in MY interest -- and I represent
Toronto the public, so it's not in the public interest!"
-- Jim Hacker, "Yes, Minister" (Lynn & Jay)

My text in this article is in the public domain.

Mark Brader wrote:
http://www.priceoftravel.com/595/pub...ldwide-cities/

So, it looks like they've overstated the minimum London fare, and
included peak fares for routes from the centre to places well outside
London when calculating the maximum fare. I wonder how wide ranging an
area the fares they quote for other cities are?

For Toronto it's the amalgamated city (former Metropolitan Toronto)
plus the airport, approximately a rectangular area 25 miles by 10 miles.
A flat single fare for any one trip including all transfers between
bus, subway, and streetcar as needed.

I guess that would be roughly equivalent to Zones 1-4 in London?

For the New York subway it's the four boroughs of Manhattan, Brooklyn,
Queens, and the Bronx -- again, completely flat fare. Very roughly
this is a triangular area 20 miles wide at the foot and 30 miles high,
but there are areas within it that the subways don't reach. Buses cover
this area plus Staten Island, which is about 15 miles long and up to
8 miles wide, and the island has its own rail service with one line.
However, with buses the single fare only includes one transfer (between
two buses or between bus and another mode).

Maybe equivalent to Zones 1-5 in London?


For Paris the Metro covers the city proper, roughly a circle 7 miles
across, and a number of spurs running a mile or so outside. Again,
completely flat fare, including transfers (and the use of the RER as
part of the Metro inside the city only). Buses also cover the city
proper, but not outside, there are no free transfers.

Maybe equivalent to Zones 1-2?


For San Francisco the area would also be the city proper, which is about
the same size as Paris. Rather than transfers, I believe they use a time
system where your fare is good for any number of legs started within
2 hours, or some such rule.

Maybe Zones 1-2 again, or perhaps just Zone 1?


If you assume that the other cities cover smaller zones (eg, the Paris
fares are for the Metro, not including the wider ranging RER), the
true London range should only go out as far as zone 6...

When different cities use different fare bases, it makes this sort of
comparison very difficult. Showing a range of fares, as the site does,
makes considerable sense, but as noted, it doesn't tell you how far you
can go.

Given the huge area covered by the London zonal system, it does seem odd to
try and compare it to these much smaller city areas. On a like-for-like
basis, London still isn't cheap, but it's much closer to those other
western countries (but obviously much more than second and third world
countries).