On Feb 6, 5:10*pm, allantracy 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

On Feb 6, 5:22*pm, Neil Williams wrote:

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.

Isn't it cheaper for the operator if your journey has one leg rather
than two? There's overhead from getting on/off - people getting on
buses, interchange capacity at stations, etc. It seems like a good
thing to me to encourage people at the margins to not change - though
the current fares structure isn't right for that either since it does
allow unlimited tube changes for free; and the "penalty" for changing
in the circumstances you describe is probably too high.

Ganesh

On Feb 6, 8:13*pm, Ganesh Sittampalam
wrote:
On Feb 6, 5:22*pm, Neil *Williams wrote:

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.

Isn't it cheaper for the operator if your journey has one leg rather
than two? There's overhead from getting on/off - people getting on
buses, interchange capacity at stations, etc. It seems like a good
thing to me to encourage people at the margins to not change - though
the current fares structure isn't right for that either since it does
allow unlimited tube changes for free; and the "penalty" for changing
in the circumstances you describe is probably too high.

Ganesh


Interchange is a necessity to counter the practical inability to serve
all possible journeys whilst exploiting the high carrying capacity of
trains on core routes. Outer bus journeys transfer to tube or bus for
a faster & more reliable trunk leg to popular city destinations. Inner
bus distribution takes people from rail station to wider range of
possible destinations. The whole journey may not be possible in one
leg, or on bus mode alone. People 'endure' transfer because it gives
them overall journey time, reliability or comfort benefits, but it
brings it's own anxieties (will i catch the next connection?). I think
transfer penalties should be minimal if any, although I agree there
are areas where it needs to be managed to avoid overcrowding.

--
Mark

On Feb 6, 8:13*pm, Ganesh Sittampalam
wrote:
On Feb 6, 5:22*pm, Neil *Williams wrote:

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.

Isn't it cheaper for the operator if your journey has one leg rather
than two? There's overhead from getting on/off - people getting on
buses, interchange capacity at stations, etc. It seems like a good
thing to me to encourage people at the margins to not change - though
the current fares structure isn't right for that either since it does
allow unlimited tube changes for free; and the "penalty" for changing
in the circumstances you describe is probably too high.

Ganesh

Interchange is a necessity to counter the practical inability to serve
all possible journeys directly whilst exploiting the high carrying
capacity of trains on core routes. Outer bus journeys transfer to tube
or rail for a faster & more reliable trunk leg to popular
destinations. Inner bus distribution takes people from rail station to
wider range of possible city destinations than is practical to walk
to. The whole journey may not be possible in one leg, or on bus mode
alone. People 'endure' transfer when it gives them overall journey
time, reliability or comfort benefits, but it brings it's own
anxieties (will i catch the next connection?). I think transfer
penalties should generally be minimal (if any), although I agree there
are areas where it needs to be managed to reduce overcrowding on
trains where there are realistic alternatives.

--
Mark

On Feb 6, 9:13*pm, Ganesh Sittampalam
wrote:

Isn't it cheaper for the operator if your journey has one leg rather
than two? There's overhead from getting on/off - people getting on
buses, interchange capacity at stations, etc. It seems like a good
thing to me to encourage people at the margins to not change

People don't generally choose to change. They change because there is
not a feasible through journey opportunity. That is in its own a
penalty.

There should not be any fee for changing; it should be one transport
system made up of all the modes, just as the Tube is.

If particular interchanges are overloaded because of *bus* traffic,
the route network needs redesigning. If it's because of train or Tube
traffic, perhaps the zone map needs playing with to encourage
"optimal" changes. But certainly not to discourage them.

Neil

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.

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.

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

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.

Being able to change buses would be nice. But who cares about the bus
passengers who actually /pay/? Chances are they aren't the Poorest +
Most Vulnerable Members of Society.


--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On Feb 7, 8:50*am, Arthur Figgis 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. 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.

There is an argument that this causes pass-back fraud. But if you did
it on Oyster, it couldn't.

Being able to change buses would be nice. But who cares about the bus
passengers who actually /pay/? Chances are they aren't the Poorest +
Most Vulnerable Members of Society.

Quite.

Neil

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

On Feb 6, 5:22*pm, Neil Williams wrote:

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.

Well, only up to a point. PAYG Oyster caps make this less of a
problem than it otherwise would be. What you're proposing is
essentially a "transfer" system in which once you step onto the
transport system, you pay only one fare until you exit the system or
for the next hour or whatever; you could do that, but unless you're
assuming that you reduce the overall revenue by some considerable
amount, it'll involve raising the single fare (because single now
encompasses what were previously multiple rides) which is politically
tricky.

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?"

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.

OK, so bus Zone 4 to Zone 1, buy a book in Foyles, bus back to Zone 4
is charged as what? Show your working.

ian

On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 03:33:21 -0800 (PST)
ian batten wrote:
amount, it'll involve raising the single fare (because single now
encompasses what were previously multiple rides) which is politically
tricky.

Not if you're called Boris.

B2003