Paul Corfield wrote:
On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 17:08:03 GMT, David of Broadway
wrote:

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.

I think it all depends on how people perceive TfL's actions. It is
evident that there is polarised opinion and no amount of explanation
will change that. People have decided what their view is and anyone
proffering the counter view simply gets "abused".

I perceive TfL's actions in this case as well-intentioned but somewhat
misguided. I am willing to be proven wrong, preferably in the latter
category.

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.

Do you know what particularly about Oyster they are watching closely? I
can't imagine it is the smartcard element as that is proven in many
places and they already have experience of key elements of such a system
via the magnetic Metrocard installation.

I can't say exactly, but NYCT has only just gotten into the smartcard
world with a pilot program on a single subway line. The MetroCard
program will be phased out.

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).

Yes - this has always been the case but Oyster allows more sophisticated
checks to be made which could very easily pick out such usage and alert
revenue protection staff.

I'm curious -- what checks could be made that would pick out such usage?
All the system knows is that one end of my trip is at an ungated
station and the other end is in Z1. The ungated station could well be
in Z2 (e.g., Olympia or most of the DLR).

Aside from honesty, what possible reason could a Z12 Travelcard holder
have to touch out at Kenton (or, as you point out below, H&W)?

(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.)

H&W does not have gates - I was there on Saturday.

Thank you.

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.

If they follow the rules I don't see how they get hit.

I've already explained how. If a trip takes longer than the Oyster
system expects it to take, it will time out, splitting a single trip
into two unconnected trips, one with no beginning and one with no end.
That's a double penalty right there.

Anyone
encountering a problem with validation due to equipment failure or
emergency evacuation will be treated sympathetically and would have the
£4 adjusted away.

Not by the station staff!

If they follow the rules then they would otherwise
have touched in and out properly and thus there would be no risk of
overcharging or missed caps.

If only that were the case!

And this gets back to my earlier question:
Why are only PAYG users expected to touch in and out "properly"?

And there was me imagining you agreed with everything I said!

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news!
--
David of Broadway
New York, NY, USA