The Off Topic Topic

[garbon]

True as the blog notes it is built on pie in the sky thinking.

[Admiral Yi]

The proposal does not seem to take into account the concept of price elasticity of demand.

[DGuller]

On the one hand, it makes clear economic sense to price subway rides based on how much you're actually using them.  On the other hand, I did find DC Metro highly confusing, after being used to single-zone NYC subway.  If the economic benefits of more refined pricing are not that significant, then maybe single zone is the way to go just for the sake of user-friendliness.

[Eddie Teach]

On the one hand, it makes clear economic sense to price subway rides based on how much you're actually using them.

I dunno, I think from the city's point of view it makes better sense to have non-users subsidize users.

[Jacob]

On the one hand, it makes clear economic sense to price subway rides based on how much you're actually using them.

I dunno, I think from the city's point of view it makes better sense to have non-users subsidize users.

Yeah, I reckon the pricing logic to maximize economic benefit to a city overall does not necessarily map directly to the pricing logic of individual users.

[DGuller]

On the one hand, it makes clear economic sense to price subway rides based on how much you're actually using them.

I dunno, I think from the city's point of view it makes better sense to have non-users subsidize users.

I see your point, but I think subsidies and fare systems should be determined separately from each other.  There is a big difference between non-users subsidizing the users, and low-users subsidizing high-users.

[Jacob]

I see your point, but I think subsidies and fare systems should be determined separately from each other.  There is a big difference between non-users subsidizing the users, and low-users subsidizing high-users.

What's your reasoning here?

[DGuller]

I see your point, but I think subsidies and fare systems should be determined separately from each other.  There is a big difference between non-users subsidizing the users, and low-users subsidizing high-users.

What's your reasoning here?

If non-users subsidize the users, you encourage utilization.  If low-users subsidize high-users, then you discourage utilization for the low-users.

[Jacob]

I see your point, but I think subsidies and fare systems should be determined separately from each other.  There is a big difference between non-users subsidizing the users, and low-users subsidizing high-users.

What's your reasoning here?

If non-users subsidize the users, you encourage utilization.  If low-users subsidize high-users, then you discourage utilization for the low-users.

Ah yeah. That makes sense.

[Josquius]

I see your point, but I think subsidies and fare systems should be determined separately from each other.  There is a big difference between non-users subsidizing the users, and low-users subsidizing high-users.

What's your reasoning here?

If non-users subsidize the users, you encourage utilization.  If low-users subsidize high-users, then you discourage utilization for the low-users.

This is London though.
You're not going to buy a car just because the underground costs you a pound more.
A bike maybe. Which is a good thing.

I see your point, but I think subsidies and fare systems should be determined separately from each other.   

Current thinking on benefits is moving away from a myriad of subsidies and more towards keeping things as simple as possible.
It makes more sense to charge the poor less to begin with than to charge them highly and give them a chance to do some paperwork to reclaim some of that.

[garbon]

I see your point, but I think subsidies and fare systems should be determined separately from each other.  There is a big difference between non-users subsidizing the users, and low-users subsidizing high-users.

What's your reasoning here?

If non-users subsidize the users, you encourage utilization.  If low-users subsidize high-users, then you discourage utilization for the low-users.

This is London though.
You're not going to buy a car just because the underground costs you a pound more.
A bike maybe. Which is a good thing.

I don't think that's how it works.

I see your point, but I think subsidies and fare systems should be determined separately from each other.   

Current thinking on benefits is moving away from a myriad of subsidies and more towards keeping things as simple as possible.
It makes more sense to charge the poor less to begin with than to charge them highly and give them a chance to do some paperwork to reclaim some of that.

Ah yes, the only reason someone would choose not to live in Central London is because they are poor. Also, I think you are using subsidy in a different manner.

[celedhring]

Distribution of factions across countries in the game Star Wars: Commander.



The north/south distribution between Empire and Rebellion fans is... telling.

[Admiral Yi]

Current thinking on benefits is moving away from a myriad of subsidies and more towards keeping things as simple as possible.
It makes more sense to charge the poor less to begin with than to charge them highly and give them a chance to do some paperwork to reclaim some of that.

The Green Party proposal doesn't differentiate on income.

[Duque de Bragança]

http://londonist.com/2016/01/no-more-zones

The green party want to make all of London one fair zone.
You know....that actually makes a lot of sense.

Depends what zone they choose to harmonise the prices, if they lower or rise prices overall.
It does not make more sense if you want to get more money to improve transportation in the far suburbs, outside of the real centre, where the problem is not price, but the lack of public transportation. Financing Crossrail by cutting prices won't work.
The Left and Greens here did it for Paris and Île-de-France (so bigger than Greater London for the latter). It's an even bigger mess to find money to maintain the network, let alone improve it.

[Syt]

celed: Is this like Clash of Clans in Star Wars?