Greater Greater Washington

Report a Comment

@Gray

The point here is that the surcharge represented an alternative to significantly hiking off-peak fares.

Did it?

A 20 cent POP fare hike, opposed to, say, a 10 cent across the board fare hike? Or a 15 cent hike on all peak fares?

I don't know the breakdown in percent of fares paid during the POP time, but nothing would possibly make the alternative a 'significant' fare hike for all riders.

Instead, I think the reality is that a) Metro had just raised fares, but was short on revenue, and b) saw this as a way to raise fares without appearing to raise fares.

The way they structured it made it very difficult for riders to actually shift their behavior, since the time window was way too big, the fare incentive way too small, and a broader misunderstanding of metro fares in the wider transportation system.

by Alex B. on Apr 30, 2012 4:15 pm • link • report

Does this comment violate Greater Greater Washington's comment policy? If so, you can report it using this form and an editor will take a look.

What is the major reason you believe the comment violates the policy?
Comment is spam.
Comment attacks other individuals personally.
Comment criticizes the level of knowledge of another commenter or contributor.
Comment discourages others from posting their ideas.
Commenter is impersonating someone else.
Comment uses profanity or abusive language.
Comment advocates violent acts or harm to another.
Comment was posted in multiple areas of the site.
Comment is arguing about the comment policy.
Other:

Your name:
Your email:

Administrator page • spam