On Tue, 7 Dec 2010 14:20:42 -0000
"Recliner" wrote:
Because most bus routes are relatively short, and most bus journeys
shorter still (as progress is so slow). You can go short or long

Slow or not its just as vital for some people as the tube is for others
especially if you're making a through the suburbs journey rather than
into the city centre.

distances on the Tube -- would you prefer it if every Tube journey,
however short, cost £2.50 on Oyster, or £3.50 in cash?

Frankly yes. 2.50 sounds reasonable since as has been pointed out, most
people don't use the tube for short journeys anyway. And since LU seem
keen to make the zoning system increasingly meaningless by not allowing
people to buy only certain zone combinations anymore and are now
charging for going through zone 1 even if you go around in zone 2 say
on the NLL a lot more people would benefit than lose out I reckon.
Flat fares work in New York so they can quite easily work here.

B2003

On Wed, 8 Dec 2010 09:30:22 +0000
Paul Terry wrote:
short journeys and a dramatic fall in the cost of long journeys. The
latter would cause a huge shift from NR to the tube for long commutes,

I doubt it. If you live in Potters Bar are you really going to drive to
cockfosters, spend 20 mins finding a parking spot and then trundle in to work
on the piccadilly line just to save 50 quid or whatever a month? I don't think
so. The only time it might happen are where the tube and rail station are
integrated and both offer a service into london, such as at amersham or west
ruislip.

B2003

In message , d
writes

most people don't use the tube for short journeys anyway

That's the end of the Waterloo and City, and its 9+ million passengers a
year, then.

Not to mention all of the other short hops of a few stations on the tube
that commuters make daily to get between mainline terminals and their
work.

Make the Christmas shoppers walk from Victoria to Oxford Street, that's
what I say!
--
Paul Terry

On Wed, 8 Dec 2010 11:42:53 +0000
Paul Terry wrote:
In message , d
writes

most people don't use the tube for short journeys anyway

That's the end of the Waterloo and City, and its 9+ million passengers a
year, then.

Which is less than 1% of the billion in total who used the system last year.
Which part of the word "most" is confusing you?

Not to mention all of the other short hops of a few stations on the tube
that commuters make daily to get between mainline terminals and their
work.

Still a tiny percentage compared to the number who commute in from the
suburbs on the tube.

B2003

In message , d
writes

On Wed, 8 Dec 2010 11:42:53 +0000
Paul Terry wrote:

Not to mention all of the other short hops of a few stations on the tube
that commuters make daily to get between mainline terminals and their
work.

Still a tiny percentage compared to the number who commute in from the
suburbs on the tube.

More people commute into London by National Rail (34%) than by tube
(32%), and the average tube journey is only 13 minutes in length, so I
doubt your statistics.

However, supposing for a moment that you were right and that the
overwhelming number of tube passengers were commuters from the suburbs,
that would push-up the average fare considerably - your "flat fare" for
even a short tube ride is then going to be nearer a fiver.

--
Paul Terry

In article , d
writes


That's the end of the Waterloo and City, and its 9+ million passengers a
year, then.

Not to mention all of the other short hops of a few stations on the tube
that commuters make daily to get between mainline terminals and their
work.

Still a tiny percentage compared to the number who commute in from the
suburbs on the tube.

But presumably those going from mainline terminals to their work
have through tickets from their home NR station to their destination
(or its zone), and don't pay the exorbitant "single" fares.
--
Bill Borland

"Bill Borland" wrote in message
news
In article , d
writes


That's the end of the Waterloo and City, and its 9+ million passengers a
year, then.

Not to mention all of the other short hops of a few stations on the tube
that commuters make daily to get between mainline terminals and their
work.

Still a tiny percentage compared to the number who commute in from the
suburbs on the tube.

But presumably those going from mainline terminals to their work
have through tickets from their home NR station to their destination
(or its zone), and don't pay the exorbitant "single" fares.

You obviously haven't looked at the fares.

If you buy a daily ticket from outside of London to "zone 1" the add on fare
IS the exorbitant "single" fare, so no-one with an oyster card would ever
buy it!

tim

On 2010-12-08 10:01:06 +0000, d said:

On Wed, 8 Dec 2010 09:30:22 +0000
Paul Terry wrote:
short journeys and a dramatic fall in the cost of long journeys. The
latter would cause a huge shift from NR to the tube for long commutes,

I doubt it. If you live in Potters Bar are you really going to drive to
cockfosters, spend 20 mins finding a parking spot and then trundle in to work
on the piccadilly line just to save 50 quid or whatever a month? I don't think
so. The only time it might happen are where the tube and rail station are
integrated and both offer a service into london, such as at amersham or west
ruislip.

B2003

My father used to do exactly that! Well, not quite Potters Bar but he
lived nearer to there than to Cockfosters. It wasn't about money - he
swore blind that the Piccadilly Line was more reliable than BR. I
suspect the tables have been turned now.

On 7 Dec, 12:39, "Ian F." wrote:
http://www.londonnet.co.uk/news/2010...kim-%C2%A360m-...

Ian

--

It's about time Trading Standards were bought into this, TfL have been
ripping passengers off left right and centre with this shambolic
Oystercard system.

It does work perfectly well on buses and Tramlink where a simple flat
fare is deducted at the start of the journey but having been
overcharged on LU, and spent a considerable time at ticket office
windows getting reimbursed, I now stick with paper tickets for rail
journies and would advise others to do the same.