First rule of politics: If your opponent has a great idea, copy it!
 

On Feb 7, 3:40*pm, Roland Perry wrote:

To some extent you can solve that by a pricing structure where (for
example) an unlimited day ticket is the same price as two individual
legs. So the only people who would ever pay for a single leg are those
who are sure that's all they need to do that day (think of it as a "low
daily use discount").

Local bus companies seem to take that approach in many parts of the UK
- the MK one has been slightly less than the price of two average-
distance[1] singles for some time. But most smaller towns' bus
systems are rather less likely to need a change of bus for the kind of
journey that usually requires a single only - a journey to the town
centre bus station for the railway station, for a trip away for more
than one day. London's system is rather more complicated, so this
doesn't apply.

[1] There are 4 single-fare levels in MK - town centre only, short-
journey, "normal" and cross-town-centre. Most journeys take the
"normal" one. Very few take the latter, to the point that I don't see
why they don't do away with it.

Neil

First rule of politics: If your opponent has a great idea, copy it!
 

On 7 Feb., 12:33, ian batten wrote:
It also means that some realistic use-cases, such as "quickly nipping
over to X to buy a Y" become single journeys, unless you have some
amazingly complex rules on doubling back. *Unless you add Oyster tap-
out to bus journeys, how would you detect "bus from home to shop, buy
thing, bus back?"


In a German style Tarifverbund, doubling back is normally allowed, as
the validity of the ticket is zone and time dependent but route
independent. However, such cases will probably be quite rare so its
better to accept them than to make the system unnecessarily
complicated because of them.

First rule of politics: If your opponent has a great idea, copy it!
 

In message
, at
07:56:08 on Tue, 7 Feb 2012, amogles remarked:
It also means that some realistic use-cases, such as "quickly nipping
over to X to buy a Y" become single journeys, unless you have some
amazingly complex rules on doubling back. *Unless you add Oyster tap-
out to bus journeys, how would you detect "bus from home to shop, buy
thing, bus back?"

In a German style Tarifverbund, doubling back is normally allowed, as
the validity of the ticket is zone and time dependent but route
independent. However, such cases will probably be quite rare so its
better to accept them than to make the system unnecessarily
complicated because of them.

Some systems (possibly even Oyster on the tube) will look at the time
between subsequent touch *in*s to decide if it's really two separate
chargeable trips. Being out and about on buses for an hour is generally
regarded as "one trip", even if it's actually a "there and back".
--
Roland Perry

First rule of politics: If your opponent has a great idea, copy it!
 

On Feb 7, 4:56*pm, amogles wrote:

In a German style Tarifverbund, doubling back is normally allowed, as
the validity of the ticket is zone and time dependent but route
independent.

Indeed. Essentially a "single ticket" in many such cases (not
Hamburg, interestingly, where it is genuinely a single ticket in the
manner of a zonal single Tube ticket) is the same as a day ticket, but
validity is limited to an hour or two.

To prevent silly situations, "you can board any bus within an hour of
first touching in on your first one" or similar is the easiest.

Neil

First rule of politics: If your opponent has a great idea, copy it!
 

On Feb 7, 4:30*pm, Neil Williams wrote:
On Feb 7, 4:56*pm, amogles wrote:

In a German style Tarifverbund, doubling back is normally allowed, as
the validity of the ticket is zone and time dependent but route
independent.

Indeed. *Essentially a "single ticket" in many such cases (not
Hamburg, interestingly, where it is genuinely a single ticket in the
manner of a zonal single Tube ticket) is the same as a day ticket, but
validity is limited to an hour or two.

To prevent silly situations, "you can board any bus within an hour of
first touching in on your first one" or similar is the easiest.

Neil

Having read through the "Vision," there really is nothing new in there
- its basically a more mainstream-friendly summary of TfL's HLOS2
response combined with the NERA report into Franchise Devolution that
TfL commissioned last March. Alongside that there's some fuzzy talk
about making sweeping changes to ticketing and fares without any real
acceptance of how much of a hot potato that'll be (and the whole
Oyster/ITSO battle is neatly dodged).

I'm not saying that's a bad thing certainly - just that this largely
reiterates a position that TfL have been pushing the DfT on for some
time, but doesn't address the key problem - which is how the GLA
actually goes about getting the DfT to accept devolution in the first
place. That's potentially a tough fight with lots of pouring over
specs and details, and the current mayoral administration has hardly
demonstrated a desire to take on that side of things so far. Boris is
an "idea's man" and not really into (to corrupt a Dr Who phrase) the
"Wibbley Wobbly Liney-winey" stuff.

That said, I do think 2012 is going to be the year of the big DfT/TfL
squabble over authority in the south east - both over Franchises and
Smartcard technology. Stuff like this Vision and the DfT's rejection
of the FCC/TfL deal to take Oyster out further into the sticks are
just the start.

First rule of politics: If your opponent has a great idea, copy it!
 

Mizter T wrote in article
...

"Neil Williams" wrote:

On Feb 7, 12:33 pm, ian batten wrote:

It is fair that the fare be raised for that, yes. Perhaps it could
even go back to being zonal.

Bus fares going back to being zonal? Don't think so. You either
require passengers to have interaction with a driver or a machine on
boarding
the bus so as to declare how far they're going, which would massively
damage the speedy bus boarding benefits of Oyster, or else you have
some sort of
touch-out arrangement when departing the bus. Which wouldn't work in
London. (This isn't Singapore.)


If it didn't work, more revenue ?

Charge a higher fare on entry, deduct on exit or on use of a machine at
the destination bus stop (or even on boarding another bus).

Fun when the bus route is entirely in one zone but those who don't
touch out still get charged more and (for the roadside machine) when
the destination is park & ride.

--
Mike D

First rule of politics: If your opponent has a great idea, copyit!
 

On 07/02/2012 08:02, Neil Williams wrote:
On Feb 7, 8:50 am, Arthur wrote:

I'm not sure that having a third TOC which runs trains into both
Liverpool Street and Marylebone (or whatever) would be necessary for
getting through bus tickets.

True.

Getting NS to accept passengers kicked off DB buses which stop short
would be a good start.

Assuming you mean in London, that is already possible *if* the bus
changes its destination after you've boarded. If a driver fails to do
it they should be reported for being lazy and neglect of duty.

I think, however, that whether the bus has terminated short should be
irrelevant.

Drivers on the second bus can be a bit awkward if it is a different
route number, but going to the same place. The 410 is suffering from an
outbreak of short workings, and last time I was kicked off some
passengers were moaning that 407 drivers regularly don't let them on.
Though in my experience, suggesting the driver might "tell the companies
to sort it out with TfL" seems to work...

There should be a through single fare from any part of
London to any other part of London by any mode, its cost being
determined by the zones crossed, and *only* the zones crossed, nothing
else. It should probably be around the level of the current Tube fare
set. For bus only (as there is an advantage with an overcrowded Tube
of keeping people on buses; this does not exist in most other cities)
there should be again one single fare for a bus journey of any length
in London regardless of whether that involves one, two or ten buses.

The need to relieve rail and the inter-related bus question would break
any true multi-modal fully interchangeable system. Trying to work out
what zones the X26 (Croydon - Heathrow orbital bus) involves would be a
mess.

I think the simplicity of flat bus and tram fares is better than
charging the same as trains. And for true "single system-ness", we might
be looking at filling up the peak trains with well-off leisure
travellers demanding their free trip gets priority over hard-pressed
British (well, some of them are) workers... (cont'd bus route 94).

Would railcards become valid on non-NR services, or even abolished on
BorisRail trains....

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

First rule of politics: If your opponent has a great idea, copyit!
 

On 07/02/2012 11:33, ian batten wrote:

It also means that some realistic use-cases, such as "quickly nipping
over to X to buy a Y" become single journeys,

That is how Tramlink works at present.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

First rule of politics: If your opponent has a great idea, copyit!
 

On 06/02/2012 17:22, Neil Williams wrote:
On Feb 6, 5:10 pm, wrote:
If good for London, why not every other major city in the UK?

Surely, we already have such tickets.

In London, they have the Railcard and that even covers the Croydon
Tramlink.

In Birmingham, they have something similar so do all the other PTEs.

What’s being proposed here that’s any different?

Single tickets as well, presumably.

It is absolutely nonsensical that you are penalised for a journey that
requires two buses, and you are penalised for changing from Tube/train
to bus.

There should be one zonal fares system for the entire network for
single fares, completely irrespective of what mode(s) of transport is/
are used. The one exception is that I'd allow for a "bus only"
variant to avoid Tube crowding in central London - but even then
changes should not be penalised.

So if a Zone 1 to Zone 3 fare is, say, £4, it should be £4 whether
it's a direct Tube, or a bus, a Tube and another bus, or whatever.

Neil

Whether or not I agree with the proposition, it is sometimes worthwhile
looking at the cost and practicality of implementing policies such as
this. If this could be achieved cheaply within the existing Oyster
system (by, for example, making X bus journeys within Y time a flat
fare) then fair enough. But if this will lead to huge system costs and,
for example, the need to touch OUT as well as in on buses, then it
should perhaps be consigned to the 'good idea, let's look at it again
when we refresh the technology' pile.

First rule of politics: If your opponent has a great idea, copy it!
 

On Feb 7, 5:26*pm, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 08:50:52 -0800 (PST), Garius

wrote:
That said, I do think 2012 is going to be the year of the big DfT/TfL
squabble over authority in the south east - both over Franchises and
Smartcard technology. Stuff like this Vision and the DfT's rejection
of the FCC/TfL deal to take Oyster out further into the sticks are
just the start.

What Dft rejection? *details please!
--
Paul C

http://www.stalbansreview.co.uk/news..._are_rejected/
As reported in Saint Albans local media.