is he

http://www.london.gov.uk/publication/future-ticketing

The (widely reported) executive summary is quite polite given that the full
report is rather damming, if not on the idea itself certainly on the (lack
of) process for justifying it.

Personally, I see a full report that just confirms my original view that
this is nothing more than a vanity project for the people involved in
managing it.

What a pity my taxes paying for it.

tim

On Nov 23, 6:43*pm, "tim......" wrote:
is he

http://www.london.gov.uk/publication/future-ticketing

The (widely reported) executive summary is quite polite given that the full
report is rather damming, if not on the idea itself certainly on the (lack
of) process for justifying it.

Personally, I see a full report that just confirms my original view that
this is nothing more than a vanity project for the people involved in
managing it.

What a pity my taxes paying for it.

Oddly I was pondering on this coming development a few days ago and
thinking about just how much of a revolution in ticketing I imagine
it'll likely be (well, maybe "revolution" is a bit strong - it's an
overused and abused word anyway - let's say a "step-change") - in
other words a take on it all that's almost the polar opposite of
yours. Haven't read the aforementioned report, not even the exec
summary, yet - I'll take a look at it.

"Mizter T" wrote in message
...

On Nov 23, 6:43 pm, "tim......" wrote:
is he

http://www.london.gov.uk/publication/future-ticketing

The (widely reported) executive summary is quite polite given that the
full
report is rather damming, if not on the idea itself certainly on the (lack
of) process for justifying it.

Personally, I see a full report that just confirms my original view that
this is nothing more than a vanity project for the people involved in
managing it.

What a pity my taxes paying for it.

Oddly I was pondering on this coming development a few days ago and
thinking about just how much of a revolution in ticketing I imagine
it'll likely be (well, maybe "revolution" is a bit strong - it's an
overused and abused word anyway - let's say a "step-change") - in
other words a take on it all that's almost the polar opposite of
yours.

--------------------------------------------------------

I didn't have a principled objection, well I did but that was because I was
worried that this was a pre-cursor to it being a complete Oyster
replacement, but both the committee and Which (who they asked for comments)
said that this shouldn't be allowed happen in order not to disenfranchise
the "unbanked", who are predominantly the poorest in the community. On that
justification I don't think that a government agency, even one as
"independent" as TfL would ignore such advice.

No, my objection now is the cost - 73 million with a quoted payback of 12
years. Doesn't sound like much, but it's 73 million that doesn't need to be
spent.

And 12 years is far too long for a "new tech" development to recoup its
costs - it could be obsolete before then, and as the report says, the
figures used to calculate this period have been picked out of thin air and
there's a 50% risk of a 50% overspend (or something like that).

No commercial organization would take on the risk of this project for the
(imho) small immediate benefits, they would wait until the technology is
more mature before jumping in. Why is it OK when it's my money they are
spending?

tim

"tim......" wrote in message
...

I didn't have a principled objection, well I did but that was because I
was worried that this was a pre-cursor to it being a complete Oyster
replacement, but both the committee and Which (who they asked for
comments) said that this shouldn't be allowed happen in order not to
disenfranchise the "unbanked", who are predominantly the poorest in the
community. On that justification I don't think that a government agency,
even one as "independent" as TfL would ignore such advice.

TfL have consistently said that Oyster cards are not being withdrawn, in
various previous reports and papers on the subject that have been discussed
here in the past couple of years...

No, my objection now is the cost - 73 million with a quoted payback of 12
years. Doesn't sound like much, but it's 73 million that doesn't need to
be spent.

Can't disagree with that...

Paul S

"Paul Scott" wrote in message
...
"tim......" wrote in message
...

I didn't have a principled objection, well I did but that was because I
was worried that this was a pre-cursor to it being a complete Oyster
replacement, but both the committee and Which (who they asked for
comments) said that this shouldn't be allowed happen in order not to
disenfranchise the "unbanked", who are predominantly the poorest in the
community. On that justification I don't think that a government agency,
even one as "independent" as TfL would ignore such advice.

TfL have consistently said that Oyster cards are not being withdrawn, in
various previous reports and papers on the subject that have been
discussed here in the past couple of years...

we have every faith in our manager.

The board back him all the way

tim

On Nov 24, 7:40*pm, "tim......" wrote:

"Paul Scott" wrote:

TfL have consistently said that Oyster cards are not being withdrawn, in
various previous reports and papers on the subject that have been
discussed here in the past couple of years...

we have every faith in our manager.

The board back him all the way

I genuinely don't think there's any chance whatsoever that there won't
be a non-bank card fare payment option in the future, for a whole host
of reasons.

"Mizter T" wrote in message
...

On Nov 24, 7:40 pm, "tim......" wrote:

"Paul Scott" wrote:

TfL have consistently said that Oyster cards are not being withdrawn, in
various previous reports and papers on the subject that have been
discussed here in the past couple of years...

we have every faith in our manager.

The board back him all the way

I genuinely don't think there's any chance whatsoever that there won't
be a non-bank card fare payment option in the future, for a whole host
of reason.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

well obviously.

But that's not the same as not moving the "oyster" discounts to an
alternative (limited accesibility) scheme

tim