Paul Corfield wrote:
Thank you Robin. I am clearly attempting to explain something that is
seen as indefensible by a fair slice of group opinion. I might work for,
I may even have been one of the brains behind the Prestige project but
I'm not here to defend a policy I did not develop and do not have
responsibility for. Those who are fed up with it should direct their ire
at LU directly.

I can't speak for others here, but I'm simply looking to understand the
new policy. From what I can tell (across the pond), it has some serious
problems. I could be wrong. If I'm wrong, I hope to be informed why;
if I'm right, perhaps somebody in a position to solve those problems is
reading this newsgroup.

Oyster policy doesn't personally affect me here in New York (although
transportation officials in New York are certainly watching Oyster
closely), so I don't think it would be appropriate for me to complain to LU.

I don't come here and contribute to be "beaten around the head". Whether
people like it or not a stored value type product requires an entry and
an exit to work properly - that is how it works. It cannot work any
other way unless you have flat fares which are deducted solely on entry
as in New York on the Subway.

And all I'm looking for is your (and others') contributions. I'm not
trying to beat anyone around the head.

A Travelcard system with the capability to issue automatic ticket
extensions requires entry and exit swipes just as much as pure PAYG. A
regular commuter between Kenton and Central London can get away with a
Z1-2 Travelcard (£888 annually) rather than the proper Z1-4 Travelcard
(£1264 annually) -- a 30% savings -- in exchange for the risk of an
occasional £20 penalty charge on an inbound trip (but not on an outbound
trip).

(I would have used Harrow & Wealdstone as my example, for a more
dramatic 41% savings, but I'm not sure if Harrow & Wealdstone has gates,
while I know Kenton doesn't.)

I don't understand why PAYG abuse is such a problem while Travelcard
abuse is not.

And, as I've pointed out, a traveler following the rules to the letter
can still get hit with the penalty charge, or even two on a single trip!
Fix those glitches and I'd be much less critical of the charge.

I was going to draft a detailed explanation about the forthcoming change
but I don't see that there is any point because such a post will simply
attract unwarranted criticism when I am trying to be helpful. Sorry to
those who asked for it but there's no point in perpetuating the
criticism. I won't be responding to other posts in the thread even
though some of the conclusions are clearly incorrect.

That's a shame. I was looking forward to it. Your posts are
interesting and informative, even if I don't agree with all of them.
--
David of Broadway
New York, NY, USA