That's effectively distance based pricing, a subject discussed on here regularly and generally rejected for a number of reasons, including:
- difficult to make a change that's revenue neutral to the railway without appearing to make substantial increases to some fares
- would create winners and losers, how happy do you think the losers would be?
- loss of flexibility between routes where options exist currently
I don't disagree that some degree of regulation would be useful but a broad brush approach would almost certainly upset a lot of people.
I've heard people leave say on here, in relation to other railway matters, there will always be winners and losers.
Whilst I personally think it needs to change, I don't know enough to give solutions that I could argue were better.
If it did change I'm sure it would affect me for the worse but I wouldn't mind if it was for the greater good as a whole.
Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
As I always say:
You can have it simpler, or you can have it cheaper.
Given that we need to fund our railway system and future improvements, there is the argument that simpler and more expensive would be better.
If the railways are not funded, how can infrastructure improvements take place. The government don't seem so keen to fund them.
Perhaps if passenger paid more, infrastructure improvements could happen sooner.
Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk