On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 16:38:38 +0100
"David A Stocks" wrote:
They managed a flat fare in New York. You ever looked at the distance
between
Times Square and Far Rockaway?

NY's flat fare only worked because geology and history combined to provide a
system that doesn't have the lack of capacity in the central area that is
experienced by London.

If you can imagine London with most of the central zone lines sub-surface
rather than deep tunnel, and express and local services on each route
(especially the east-west routes), then you could start thinking about a
flat fare. Having 2 or 3 large mainline hub termini in the middle rather
than a load of smaller stations scattered around the edge would help as
well.

Sorry , I don't follow your reasoning. So because new york has more stations
and lines in the central area it can charge a flat fare? Eh? I know NYC
has twice the number of stations than london (but the same route miles) but
that means twice the maintenance costs all other things being equal so if
anything it should be a reason NOT to have a flat fare.

B2003