In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 17:58:36 +0000 (UTC),
wrote:

In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 15:22:57 +0100, "John Rowland"
wrote:

"Jim" wrote in message
...

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/13301604

I don't understand how the ES can describe putting bus fares up
from 100p to
120p before 9:30am and down from 100p to 80p after 9:30am as "Bus
Fares
Soar".

The point though is that cash fares rise 20p or 20%; AM peak Oyster
pre
pay fares rise 30p to £1 so nearly 50% while even off peak Pre Pay
fares
rise 10p or 14%. No matter which way you view it I'd say they were
pretty big rises.

In 2003 the fare was 80p cash
In 2004 the fare was 70p cash
In 2005 the fare will be 120p cash.

This will be a 50% rise on the 2003 fares and a 70% rise on the 2004
fares for the many people who pay cash. It's just a rip-off.

Sorry, I got the years wrong. It should have been:
2002 - 80p - 50% rise
2003 - 70p - 70% rise

Roger


You cannot pay 70p cash for any fare in 2004. The cash fare is £1 London
wide. You only pay 70p if you opt for a Saver pre-paid ticket or Oyster
pre-pay. Therefore the cash fare increase is 20%.

The prepay etc. fares are just a smoke screen. It's like a firm saying
- "look, we haven't put our prices up this year but, for those of you
not paying by direct debit you'll now pay another £2/month!"

Well yes but the objective is to get the remaining 15% of passengers out
of cash and into some form of pre-payment. Providing access to such
cheaper alternatives is as easy and convenient as possible then it is a
reasonable policy objective. It ceases to be so if passengers are
seriously inconvenienced - and it is my view that is the case already
with the poorly thought out cashless zone in central London.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!