This is Cascadian's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Cascadian's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
I still have my copy of this shirt. Add a d10 in the lower-right corner and I'll buy another one!
1 reply
Thinking about this in terms of Seattle's smart card system (ORCA), I think the solution is pretty straightforward: * Have a smart card system. * Time-limit every smart card fare so that you can only be charged once every 2-3 hours or whatever the normal transfer/connection window is no matter how many vehicles you use in that window. I think this is already done in Seattle with ORCA with some exceptions for connections between particular services. * If cash payment must be retained, offer only one cash option: an all-day pass, set at roughly a two-way single peak fare with perhaps a slight discount. In Seattle, that would be about $5. * The system could be simplified further by simply charging the all-day fare to everyone using either cash or a smart card purse. So you pay $5 if you use transit any amount in a single day. You'd be charged once the first time you entered the system each day, and never again. * You could still have monthly (and ideally, weekly) pass options that provided a slight discount. It might even be simpler to do away with passes entirely and just institute weekly and monthly maximums. So in the end, you'd have a daily fare ($5), a weekly maximum ($25, even if you ride all seven days), and a monthly maximum ($100, even if you ride every day in the month.) In the case of ORCA, there's a $5 charge for the card anyway, so it would be quite easy to just charge the $5 the first day and then on every successive day. The same cards could be used for both temporary single-day use (for tourists and infrequent riders) and for regular transit users. For discount riders you could allow discount fares by providing youth/senior cards at TVMs and retailers, and force all riders who pay in cash to pay the full $5 fare. The one drawback I can see with this kind of simplified system is that it provides far-flung suburban riders with a hidden subsidy, because they pay the same amount for services with much higher operational costs. On the other hand, such riders are often only going to use buses to get to and from work in a city center, while urban riders are taking shorter trips more frequently. It probably comes close to balancing out. And even if they do get a better deal in some cases I think there's a value in encouraging suburban residents to use transit rather than driving.
1 reply
LBJ--aside from Vietnam, which is admittedly a huge blemish--was a great president. Jimmy Carter was a sensible moderate who had the misfortune of cleaning up after the Nixon years, and was naive enough to be honest with the American people about the economy and energy policy. His biggest mistake was being too much of a moderate and losing the Democratic base to Ted Kennedy. Yet he still would have won a second term if not for the Iran hostage crisis. There's just no comparison with the bunch of scoundrels that comprise the Republican Hall of Presidents.
1 reply
I just saw this over the weekend. I second Wil's recommendation. The best part about it was how they got the information about the current raters for the MPAA (I won't say, because I think it's spoilerish.) There's plenty of sexual content that might make parents and kids feel awkward seeing the movie together, but anybody old enough to get the point of the film (I'd say teenagers (13+) on up) is old enough to see the sexual content, which is completely harmless and sex-positive. The scenes that are more disturbing are those depicting violence, and are frequently the kind of thing I'd be wary to show kids outside the context of this film. But I think the film contextualizes the violence in a way that makes it appropriate for teenagers, particularly in that it is sensitizing rather than desensitizing. Kids younger than teens probably wouldn't get the larger point of the film, so there's really no point in showing it to them. But that's an issue of enjoying the subject matter, not being put off by the imagery.
Toggle Commented Feb 19, 2007 on this film is not yet rated at WWdN: In Exile
1 reply