Re: I have been CHALLENGED. . .

On 2008-06-17, Jasper Janssen <jasper.janssen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 17 Jun 2008 13:45:13 GMT, Niklas Karlsson <anksil@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
[arguments for fares on PT]
Free public transport is available in certain places, and tends to cost
the community running it less than a fare-based system, due to the lack of
overhead. *And* you get the economic benefit of it, too.

Yes, I'm aware of several examples. They tend to be in places that are
only moderately dense/large, and in systems that aren't very far-flung,
so there isn't that much need for demand management to begin with, and
wear-and-tear and problems with littering, vandalism and graffiti are
less pronounced.

And, of course, there are examples of very specific uses, like the
automated rail vehicles that connect different parts of many larger
airports. If you want to get silly, even your average elevator/lift
counts as free public transport.

I've yet to see zero-fare systems work in anything like a major city,
though I'd love to see counterexamples.

That said, many places exacerbate the fare-system overhead by
implementing fairly silly measures that aren't very effective, such as
increasingly advanced turnstile/gate systems that people can still jump
over or otherwise defeat, instead of having open gate lines and
employing a few more ticket inspectors to randomly wander the system.

However, I think we've strayed far enough into p*bl*c tr*nsp*rt and
would perhaps be well advised to stop before the big LARTs roll in...

So basically you're not really choosing based on level of sanity as you
originally claimed, you just happen to like one sort of insanity more
than the other. Fair enough, we all have our insanity preferences.
-- Steve VanDevender, asr