Comments on: going outbound http://www.jon22.net/going-outbound/ The Website of Jonathan Dobres Tue, 27 Sep 2011 03:58:50 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Damian Hopper http://www.jon22.net/going-outbound/comment-page-1/#comment-592 Damian Hopper Sat, 13 Jan 2007 22:16:49 +0000 http://www.jon22.net/going-outbound/#comment-592 L.A. is still $1.25. Though, they decided sometime in the last couple of years to stop allowing free transfers on the subway. And on that subject, this is a common exchange I have with friends: Damian: "blah blah blah L.A. blah subway blah..." Friend: "Wait, L.A. has a subway?" Damian: "Yeah, didn't you ever see Speed?" Friend: "Ooooh yeah...." Anyway, why it is that cheap, I do not know, since it cost a couple million dollars per foot to dig because it kept on creating sinkholes under Hollywood Blvd. I also don't know whose brilliant idea it was to put underground transit in an earthquake-prone locale (that goes for San Francisco too, which was $1.50 per bus/streetcar/subway ride--but with 1 free transfer--last I was there). L.A. is still $1.25. Though, they decided sometime in the last couple of years to stop allowing free transfers on the subway. And on that subject, this is a common exchange I have with friends:

Damian: “blah blah blah L.A. blah subway blah…”
Friend: “Wait, L.A. has a subway?”
Damian: “Yeah, didn’t you ever see Speed?”
Friend: “Ooooh yeah….”

Anyway, why it is that cheap, I do not know, since it cost a couple million dollars per foot to dig because it kept on creating sinkholes under Hollywood Blvd. I also don’t know whose brilliant idea it was to put underground transit in an earthquake-prone locale (that goes for San Francisco too, which was $1.50 per bus/streetcar/subway ride–but with 1 free transfer–last I was there).

]]> By: GDeeeeZL http://www.jon22.net/going-outbound/comment-page-1/#comment-586 GDeeeeZL Fri, 12 Jan 2007 00:46:17 +0000 http://www.jon22.net/going-outbound/#comment-586 Living in London I've become privy with what is arguably the most expensive (and most extensive) public transportation system in the world. Recently, the Transport for London organization upped the costs on all rails, buses, trams and underground lines. To give you an idea, it now costs 2GBP per BUS RIDE for the individual who does not have the London equivalent of the Charlie Ticket, known as an "Oyster Pass." With the current exchange rate, that is $4 to get 10 minutes down the road. Even more ridiculous in cost are the London equivalents of the commuter rail. Last I was in Boston it was $6 to take a train all the way to Worcester (over 55miles). To move 20 miles on the London commuter rail, say to go visit Lincoln, it can cost you upwards of 23GBP ($46) for one direction! So expensive is the transportation, that Anna and I were able to take a cab for over an hour drive to Stanstead Airport for a lower price than for both of us to use public transportation. My argument here is, how in the hell are these ridiculous prices ever going to encourage commuters to use the environmentally safe public transport instead of a car when it is cheaper to drive yourself? (As an aside, London charges a congestion fee 8GBP/day just to take your car into the city - it's still remain cheaper than the rails in many cases). I agree with you JD, as exemplified above, that the price of tickets in Boston is much lower than many other transit systems (NYC, DC, London and so forth). However, these other rails - particularly, NYC - have been charging $2 per ticket (or more) for a while now and have a lot to show for it. Boston's transit system is one iota the size of these larger cities. Maybe $2 isn't such a big jump to complain about at first, but I certainly would expect nothing less than some real-time arrival/departure signs at each of the stations in the near future. If NYC can move millions of commuters throughout its massive system at $2 a pop, and can still afford more trains and the electronic signs that let you know if your train is delayed or if it's (though unlikely) right on time, then Boston should be able to make this addition. In long, I fully support the increase in price, but service better improve as a result. Given the volume of individuals who use the "T" and the infrequency of the trains, I would argue the jump to $2 is a bit extreme to simply maintain the lines. There should be some improvements made soon, beyond the silly Charlie Ticket updates. Those Charlies Tickets haven't accomplished much besides confusing tourists (and many Bostonians) who have no idea how to purchase and use them because the system is still in its infancy. Only time will tell... hopefully, you won't have to wait for the good stuff while standing on Comm. Ave. as your $2 ride approaches at the whopping speed of "is it moving?" Living in London I’ve become privy with what is arguably the most expensive (and most extensive) public transportation system in the world. Recently, the Transport for London organization upped the costs on all rails, buses, trams and underground lines. To give you an idea, it now costs 2GBP per BUS RIDE for the individual who does not have the London equivalent of the Charlie Ticket, known as an “Oyster Pass.” With the current exchange rate, that is $4 to get 10 minutes down the road. Even more ridiculous in cost are the London equivalents of the commuter rail. Last I was in Boston it was $6 to take a train all the way to Worcester (over 55miles). To move 20 miles on the London commuter rail, say to go visit Lincoln, it can cost you upwards of 23GBP ($46) for one direction! So expensive is the transportation, that Anna and I were able to take a cab for over an hour drive to Stanstead Airport for a lower price than for both of us to use public transportation. My argument here is, how in the hell are these ridiculous prices ever going to encourage commuters to use the environmentally safe public transport instead of a car when it is cheaper to drive yourself? (As an aside, London charges a congestion fee 8GBP/day just to take your car into the city – it’s still remain cheaper than the rails in many cases).

I agree with you JD, as exemplified above, that the price of tickets in Boston is much lower than many other transit systems (NYC, DC, London and so forth). However, these other rails – particularly, NYC – have been charging $2 per ticket (or more) for a while now and have a lot to show for it. Boston’s transit system is one iota the size of these larger cities. Maybe $2 isn’t such a big jump to complain about at first, but I certainly would expect nothing less than some real-time arrival/departure signs at each of the stations in the near future. If NYC can move millions of commuters throughout its massive system at $2 a pop, and can still afford more trains and the electronic signs that let you know if your train is delayed or if it’s (though unlikely) right on time, then Boston should be able to make this addition.

In long, I fully support the increase in price, but service better improve as a result. Given the volume of individuals who use the “T” and the infrequency of the trains, I would argue the jump to $2 is a bit extreme to simply maintain the lines. There should be some improvements made soon, beyond the silly Charlie Ticket updates. Those Charlies Tickets haven’t accomplished much besides confusing tourists (and many Bostonians) who have no idea how to purchase and use them because the system is still in its infancy. Only time will tell… hopefully, you won’t have to wait for the good stuff while standing on Comm. Ave. as your $2 ride approaches at the whopping speed of “is it moving?”

]]>