Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila
Yes, because DC has focused their rail growth in the inner-city in recent years...
Distance-based fares aren't a bad idea, but what rate do you keep them at? It discourages support for transit in outlying areas of the city (despite the huge rail system, the lines stay largely within city borders, serving only 6 suburbs). Without that support, politicians will be more reluctant to push for transit expansion.
There's also a substantial capital cost in implementing distance-based fares, since you have to install readers at all exits as well as entrances.
|
Of course there's a substantial expense involved, but:
1) It's only fair that those travelling farther pay more, and
2) Capital expenses come from a different budget.
As for support, if politicians will only support rail in their own back yard, then it's being sold to them (and the public) using the wrong arguments. If a rail system that maintains a its present form and adds only in a more compact scope costs less per rider, enabling better overall transit at the periphery, then that is how you sell it. You want people to be able to reach as many places as possible in a metro area via transit. But you don't want to encourage frivilous long-distance travel through irrational pricing, either. Extra cost for express buses, and for longer rail rides, is fair to riders and just good business. Setting fares so that most trips are, say $2, short trips are $1, and long trips are up to $5 is fair and encourage good use. Regardless of the capital cost, getting transit right so that it becomes a natural part of living in Chicago is worth the investment.
About D.C.: Chicago would be refocusing an existing system, D.C. is still in their build-out phase.