loufah wrote:Would it be reasonable, given that SEPTA knows the cost-per-mile of each mode of transportation (and even each route), that a fair fare would be based not on zones travelled or transfers taken but on the total mileage spent on each vehicle, pro-rated? NPT can do this if everything is tag-in tag-out. The RRD does this to some extent (with a high minimum fare), of course. But this could mean that a trip on the NHSL from 69th Street to Haverford would cost $1.75 and a trip to Norristown would cost $5.50, instead of a flat $2.75. And I see plenty of people on the 101 trolley that travel less than a mile. Maybe they should pay 30 cents and people travelling all the way to Media should pay $4.50.
Definitely interesting, but I wonder what complexities it might introduce for the average rider. A lot of businesses wrestle with the dilemma of "make it simple" versus "prices should reflect true costs"; the direction seems to be towards simplicity even if it doesn't make economic sense. I guess airlines remain at the opposite end of the spectrum, where pricing algorithms take into account all sorts of factors and produce a crazy-quilt of choices that are the bane of many flyers. Given how many pricing anomalies result, not to mention the mini-industry that's sprung up to guide people though that maze, I can't help but wonder if a fully distance-based fare scheme would turn out similarly for SEPTA. Just speculating...
The other end might be the Postal Service, where the same stamp sends a letter from Philly to Media or to Honolulu. Unfortunately SEPTA's been trending that direction with their attempts to flatten fare zones even if it produces inequities like the Phantom Zone 1 or the P&W's surcharge on trips below Bryn Mawr. I have no specific answers, just the thought that there has to be a balance between totally granular and completely flat fares.
Requiem for it's/its, your/you're, than/then, less/fewer. They were once such nice words with such different meanings...