| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
First rule of politics: If your opponent has a great idea, copy it!
From the Evening Standard:
Boris bid to run every rail service in London Boris Johnson today made a bid to take over every rail service in London in a move described as the biggest shake-up since privatisation. The Mayor wants to control all suburban railways and introduce a one-ticket system across Greater London. In his most dramatic campaign pledge so far in his fight to be re-elected, Mr Johnson said the "devolution of power" to City Hall would lead to lower fares. The plan would put him in charge of key commuter routes from outlying areas. The move comes as Mr Johnson trails Labour rival Ken Livingstone by two points in polls. Mr Livingstone today said he had tried to implement a similar plan when Mayor and demanded to know why it had taken Mr Johnson four years to suggest it. END QUOTE (There's an election looming, Ken!) For the rest of the article, go to: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-mayor/article-24033482-boris-bid-to-run-londons-railways.do |
First rule of politics: If your opponent has a great idea, copy it!
On Feb 6, 3:50*pm, Bruce wrote:
The Mayor wants to control all suburban railways and introduce a one-ticket system across Greater London. A true Verbundtarif, like that in, say, Hamburg? Including connections onto buses? Yes, please. London has been crying out for that for years. Neil |
First rule of politics: If your opponent has a great idea, copy it!
On Feb 6, 3:15*pm, Neil Williams wrote:
A true Verbundtarif, like that in, say, Hamburg? *Including connections onto buses? *Yes, please. *London has been crying out for that for years. Neil If good for London, why not every other major city in the UK? |
First rule of politics: If your opponent has a great idea, copy it!
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? |
First rule of politics: If your opponent has a great idea, copy it!
On Feb 6, 4:32*pm, 82045 wrote:
If good for London, why not every other major city in the UK? Indeed it is - but the (regulated) framework in London makes it easier to implement, because London bus operators cannot damage the concept by selling non-network tickets. Neil |
First rule of politics: If your opponent has a great idea, copy it!
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 |
First rule of politics: If your opponent has a great idea, copyit!
On 06/02/2012 14:50, Bruce wrote:
From the Evening Standard: Boris bid to run every rail service in London Boris Johnson today made a bid to take over every rail service in London in a move described as the biggest shake-up since privatisation. The Mayor wants to control all suburban railways and introduce a one-ticket system across Greater London. Haven't we got one? Or would this be about squishing those nasty point-to-point rail seasons in favour of multi-modal travelcards... at twice the price. Or even breaking through ticketing to the world beyond the M25. In his most dramatic campaign pledge so far in his fight to be re-elected, Mr Johnson said the "devolution of power" to City Hall would lead to lower fares. The plan would put him in charge of key commuter routes from outlying areas. As in Worcester, King's Lynn, Dover, Exeter - or just more TOCs per terminus? -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
First rule of politics: If your opponent has a great idea, copy it!
In message , at 17:34:41 on
Mon, 6 Feb 2012, Paul Corfield remarked: The Mayor has launched a proposal for further rail services to come under TfL control. http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor%E2%80...-services-lon\ don The proposal centres on taking over the local "West Anglia" routes out of Liverpool Street Only those to Chingford, Enfield and Hertford East. I was looking forward to Cambridge being in Zone 6 (with bargain fares as a result), but this seems unlikely. -- Roland Perry |
First rule of politics: If your opponent has a great idea, copy it!
On Feb 6, 7:10*pm, Arthur Figgis wrote: On 06/02/2012 14:50, Bruce wrote: *From the Evening Standard: Boris bid to run every rail service in London Boris Johnson today made a bid to take over every rail service in London in a move described as the biggest shake-up since privatisation. The Mayor wants to control all suburban railways and introduce a one-ticket system across Greater London. Haven't we got one? Or would this be about squishing those nasty point-to-point rail seasons in favour of multi-modal travelcards... at twice the price. Or even breaking through ticketing to the world beyond the M25. We've got three different Oyster PAYG fare scales for single journeys - one for TfL rail services (Tube, DLR, London Overground plus a few NR routes as well), one for NR, and one for 'through journeys' that involve both TfL and NR rated services. This understandably causes some confusion - a single unified tariff would be preferable. The 'three tariff' situation is mirrored with paper ticket fares for single journeys (and indeed return journeys - though off-peak, a Day Travelcard is likely to be cheaper) - one fare scale for TfL/Tube, one for NR, one for TfL-NR through journeys. Haven't ever come across any suggestion that point-to-point rail seasons would be squished, either under the proposals floated back when Livingstone was Mayor, nor under any of these latest proposals. |
First rule of politics: If your opponent has a great idea, copy it!
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 |
First rule of politics: If your opponent has a great idea, copy it!
In message , at 20:00:00 on
Mon, 6 Feb 2012, Paul Corfield remarked: The Mayor has launched a proposal for further rail services to come under TfL control. http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor%E2%80...-services-lon\ don The proposal centres on taking over the local "West Anglia" routes out of Liverpool Street Only those to Chingford, Enfield and Hertford East. I did say "local" routes - I don't think anyone can reasonably say Cambridge or Stansted are local to London. I didn't catch on to the emphasis on *local* WA routes. The report says that the outer limit of stations aligns with the Mayor's wider boundary. Roughly inside the M25 I suppose. I was looking forward to Cambridge being in Zone 6 (with bargain fares as a result), but this seems unlikely. I guess you can dream but I can't imagine the good burghers of Cambridge would want a London Mayor controlling their train services. If it meant getting to London on a Z6 travelcard, I don't think they'd complain. -- Roland Perry |
First rule of politics: If your opponent has a great idea, copy it!
On Feb 6, 3:00*pm, Paul Corfield wrote:
The report says that the outer limit of stations aligns with the Mayor's wider boundary. has TfL or the GLA ever produced a map showing what that boundary is? I did a quick Google but couldn't find anything. -- Roy |
First rule of politics: If your opponent has a great idea, copy it!
If it meant getting to London on a Z6 travelcard, I don't think they'd
complain. Yerrbut it'd also mean London's tea-leafs 'n feral youfs getting to Cambridge on an Oyster (possibly the one they've just robbed off a visiting Cantabrigian.......) -- Robin reply to address is (meant to be) valid |
First rule of politics: If your opponent has a great idea, copy it!
On Feb 6, 8:36*pm, Roy Stilling wrote: On Feb 6, 3:00*pm, Paul Corfield wrote: The report says that the outer limit of stations aligns with the Mayor's wider boundary. has TfL or the GLA ever produced a map showing what that boundary is? I did a quick Google but couldn't find anything. It's the Greater London boundary, which has existed since 1965 (with a few minor amendments since then). This TfL Streets master map shows an overview of Greater London and its boundary: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloa...Map_Master.pdf There's some outline mapping available in the wikipedia entry for Greater London: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_London Decent street maps such as the A-Z or the Collins Bartholomew mapping used by streetmap.co.uk show administrative boundaries. http://www.streetmap.co.uk/ OS's useful Election Maps site also shows administrative boundaries: http://www.election-maps.co.uk/ |
First rule of politics: If your opponent has a great idea, copy it!
On Feb 6, 8:35*pm, Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 20:00:00 on Mon, 6 Feb 2012, Paul Corfield remarked: The Mayor has launched a proposal for further rail services to come under TfL control. http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor%E2%80...ervices-london The proposal centres on taking over the local "West Anglia" routes out of Liverpool Street Only those to Chingford, Enfield and Hertford East. I did say "local" routes - I don't think anyone can reasonably say Cambridge or Stansted are local to London. I didn't catch on to the emphasis on *local* WA routes. The report says that the outer limit of stations aligns with the Mayor's wider boundary. Roughly inside the M25 I suppose. Greater London - I think Paul's phrase "the Mayor's wider boundary" is potentially confusing - the GLA/Mayor have one boundary, and it's the GL boundary. Of course arrangements can be made for TfL provided services to run beyond the GL boundary - there's the Met line, and in recent times London Overground beyond Hatch End up to Watford - sensible arrangements could be made elsewhere. |
First rule of politics: If your opponent has a great idea, copy it!
In article , Robin wrote:
If it meant getting to London on a Z6 travelcard, I don't think they'd complain. Yerrbut it'd also mean London's tea-leafs 'n feral youfs getting to Cambridge on an Oyster (possibly the one they've just robbed off a visiting Cantabrigian.......) Lahdahn LOOT .... Nick -- "The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life" -- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996 |
First rule of politics: If your opponent has a great idea, copy it!
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 |
First rule of politics: If your opponent has a great idea, copy it!
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 |
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. 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 |
First rule of politics: If your opponent has a great idea, copyit!
On 06/02/2012 20:06, Mizter T wrote:
On Feb 6, 7:10 pm, Arthur wrote: On 06/02/2012 14:50, Bruce wrote: From the Evening Standard: Boris bid to run every rail service in London Boris Johnson today made a bid to take over every rail service in London in a move described as the biggest shake-up since privatisation. The Mayor wants to control all suburban railways and introduce a one-ticket system across Greater London. Haven't we got one? Or would this be about squishing those nasty point-to-point rail seasons in favour of multi-modal travelcards... at twice the price. Or even breaking through ticketing to the world beyond the M25. We've got three different Oyster PAYG fare scales for single journeys - one for TfL rail services (Tube, DLR, London Overground plus a few NR routes as well), one for NR, and one for 'through journeys' that involve both TfL and NR rated services. This understandably causes some confusion - a single unified tariff would be preferable. With Oyster, how many people actually know? I'm hearing more and more people saying they basically trust they system to get it right, or at least even out over time. I must admit I didn't know Overground was different to the rest of NR. How would know whether you get Overground or Southern for the trips where both are possible? The 'three tariff' situation is mirrored with paper ticket fares for single journeys (and indeed return journeys - though off-peak, a Day Travelcard is likely to be cheaper) - one fare scale for TfL/Tube, one for NR, one for TfL-NR through journeys. Haven't ever come across any suggestion that point-to-point rail seasons would be squished, either under the proposals floated back when Livingstone was Mayor, nor under any of these latest proposals. Equally, has anyone denied it... -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
First rule of politics: If your opponent has a great idea, copy it!
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 |
First rule of politics: If your opponent has a great idea, copy it!
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 |
First rule of politics: If your opponent has a great idea, copy it!
On Feb 7, 8:55*am, Arthur Figgis wrote:
I must admit I didn't know Overground was different to the rest of NR. How would know whether you get Overground or Southern for the trips where both are possible? One set of fares apply. The same as Euston-Watford Junction assumes you *didn't* use LO, because LM is a more attractive service for that journey. Neil |
First rule of politics: If your opponent has a great idea, copy it!
"allantracy" wrote in message
... 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. Er... they have the 'Travelcard' in London. A London Travelcard is effectively a day pass though, so it is overkill if you only want to do a single journey that uses two modes. Railcards are a different beast, generally held to give discounts on rail travel... Paul S |
First rule of politics: If your opponent has a great idea, copy it!
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 |
First rule of politics: If your opponent has a great idea, copy it!
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 |
First rule of politics: If your opponent has a great idea, copy it!
On Mon, Feb 06, 2012 at 05:34:41PM +0000, Paul Corfield wrote:
http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor%E2%80...ervices-london The proposal centres on taking over the local "West Anglia" routes out of Liverpool Street and the inner suburban services on South Eastern. There is a report linked from the above press release. It's a damned shame that, if you look at the map and charts on page 21, the areas proposed for a TfL takeover are those that already have the best service. It would be better to concentrate on areas served by Southern and Southwest Trains, as they serve areas that have a lower train frequency and very few tube stations. The diagram on page 29 bears out the complaints I've been making here about the recent Clapham Junction to Shepherds Bush improvements being little more than cosmetic. They are predicted to be woefully inadequate within a decade - indeed, they are inadequate already. We can assume that all of those figures are under-estimates, given that it says that there are *no* passengers having to stand between Battersea Park and Balham - that's not true now, and certainly won't be in a decade's time. And I'm surprised that there's no mention of HS2 or Old Oak Common. -- David Cantrell | Minister for Arbitrary Justice Wow, my first sigquoting! I feel so special now! -- Dan Sugalski |
First rule of politics: If your opponent has a great idea, copy it!
"Neil Williams" wrote: On Feb 7, 8:55 am, Arthur Figgis wrote: I must admit I didn't know Overground was different to the rest of NR. How would know whether you get Overground or Southern for the trips where both are possible? One set of fares apply. The same as Euston-Watford Junction assumes you *didn't* use LO, because LM is a more attractive service for that journey. That's not a great example, in that it doesn't really make sense - there's only one Oyster PAYG fare for a Watford Jn to Euston (or v.v.) journey - my understanding is that it's essentially set by London Midland, as it's 'their' flow (bear in mind WJ is outside the zonal system - 'zone W' for WJ is a term that's only used internally). |
First rule of politics: If your opponent has a great idea, copy it!
On Feb 7, 12:33*pm, ian batten wrote:
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 is fair that the fare be raised for that, yes. Perhaps it could even go back to being zonal. 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. Absent bus touch-out, it's quite a hard one to determine. I'd probably say it should be something along the lines of a bus-only touch-in allows unlimited bus travel within an hour of the first touch- in (or possibly a variable time based on the journey length of the bus you touched in on). For paper tickets in other countries it's often something like a bus ticket being a one-hour rover ticket. Neil |
First rule of politics: If your opponent has a great idea, copy it!
In message
, at 08:10:48 on Mon, 6 Feb 2012, allantracy remarked: 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. In Nottingham there's the "Kangaroo" ticket[1] card which is accepted by: Bus - NCT (but not night buses), Trent Barton (not night buses), Premiere, Yourbus, South Notts, Notts+Derby, Pathfinder, Stagecoach East Midlands, Marshalls, Centrebus, Nottingham Community Transport, Veolia and Arriva Midland. Also Nottinghamshire, Nottingham City and Leicestershire Council contracted buses coming into or around Nottingham - all Dunnline, Paul Winson, Paul James, Doyles and Premiere Travel contracts. Park and Ride bus services from Queens Drive and Racecourse And not forgetting Medilink and Locallink, which are free anyway! Tram - all services Train - all services on East Midlands trains and Cross Country trains within the boundary, valid at/from Attenborough, Beeston, Bulwell, Carlton, Netherfield and Nottingham [1] Another candidate for the "most embarrassing name" award. -- Roland Perry |
First rule of politics: If your opponent has a great idea, copy it!
"Neil Williams" wrote: On Feb 7, 12:33 pm, ian batten wrote: 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 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.) 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. Absent bus touch-out, it's quite a hard one to determine. I'd probably say it should be something along the lines of a bus-only touch-in allows unlimited bus travel within an hour of the first touch- in (or possibly a variable time based on the journey length of the bus you touched in on). For paper tickets in other countries it's often something like a bus ticket being a one-hour rover ticket. The problem is that it'd mean lost revenue, which would have to be covered somehow - higher fares, higher subsidies, or both. Bus fares have already gone up by some degree under Boris, and it wouldn't be accepted for them to jump significantly further even if it were to provide for free transfers. Bumping up Tube & rail fares to provide for free bus transfers at the end (or start) of the journey wouldn't be popular either. Boris at least is of the 'keep the GLA council tax precept low' school of thinking, so the extra subsidy to account for lost revenue from free transfers wouldn't be forthcoming from him. One of Ken's lines of attack in the forthcoming Mayoral election is that of lowering fares - given the tight state of finances, I don't think there'd be much space for providing free transfers. FWIW, I do very much like the idea of free bus transfers (say within an hour) in particular, and free bus transfers and the start/end of a Tube/rail journey would also be neat - but for the time being, it's not something that's going to be on the agenda. |
First rule of politics: If your opponent has a great idea, copy it!
"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. 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. (Leaving aside the difficulties of charging variable bus fares in an environment now well accustomed to a flat fare...) The last paragraph is where you totally lose the argument. No London bus user is going to approve of (let alone vote for) a system whereby a GBP1.35 fare for a single bus journey suddenly becomes GBP4 (or whatever). |
First rule of politics: If your opponent has a great idea, copy it!
On Feb 7, 2:10*pm, "Mizter T" wrote:
The last paragraph is where you totally lose the argument. No London bus user is going to approve of (let alone vote for) a system whereby a GBP1.35 fare for a single bus journey suddenly becomes GBP4 (or whatever). No - and if we went for a "pure" Verbundtarif that is what would happen. But I would retain the concession that "bus only travel is cheaper". However, if, to allow free transfers, the bus fare increased from gbp1.35 to, say, gbp1.80, which might be nearer what it'd be outside London, that's not unreasonable. At present, people requiring two or three buses to do a single journey are subsidising those who use a single bus. That is wrong. Neil |
First rule of politics: If your opponent has a great idea, copy it!
On Feb 7, 12:30*pm, Neil Williams wrote:
It is fair that the fare be raised for that, yes. *Perhaps it could even go back to being zonal. All the people that currently make single bus trips involving one bus are going to be pretty ****ed off, though. ian |
First rule of politics: If your opponent has a great idea, copy it!
On Feb 7, 1:13*pm, Neil Williams wrote:
At present, people requiring two or three buses to do a single journey are subsidising those who use a single bus. *That is wrong. However, a lot of people on PAYG will walk ten minutes rather than get a bus outside the station. Encouraging train-bus interchange may have some interesting unintended consequences. ian |
First rule of politics: If your opponent has a great idea, copy it!
On Feb 7, 2:56*pm, ian batten wrote:
All the people that currently make single bus trips involving one bus are going to be pretty ****ed off, though. Perhaps. But at present they benefit from an unfair quirk of the price system. Can you imagine, say, it being one Zone 1 single *per Tube train you use*? It'd be no different. Neil |
First rule of politics: If your opponent has a great idea, copy it!
On Feb 7, 2:58*pm, ian batten wrote:
However, a lot of people on PAYG will walk ten minutes rather than get a bus outside the station. *Encouraging train-bus interchange may have some interesting unintended consequences. Of increased bus usage, you mean? Neil |
First rule of politics: If your opponent has a great idea, copy it!
In message
, at 06:28:20 on Tue, 7 Feb 2012, Neil Williams remarked: All the people that currently make single bus trips involving one bus are going to be pretty ****ed off, though. Perhaps. But at present they benefit from an unfair quirk of the price system. Can you imagine, say, it being one Zone 1 single *per Tube train you use*? It'd be no different. 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"). -- Roland Perry |
First rule of politics: If your opponent has a great idea, copy it!
On Feb 7, 2:28*pm, Neil Williams wrote:
On Feb 7, 2:58*pm, ian batten wrote: However, a lot of people on PAYG will walk ten minutes rather than get a bus outside the station. *Encouraging train-bus interchange may have some interesting unintended consequences. Of increased bus usage, you mean? Yes, but not necessarily in a good way. There wouldn't be any additional revenue associated with it, for a start off. ian |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 09:59 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk