On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 11:15:27 +0000
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 13/01/2013 10:48, d wrote:
Are you really so ****ing stupid you can't use google to look this stuff
up yourself?


Insults and bad language are always such a persuasive arguement aren't they?

I'll take that as a yes.

B2003

On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 11:56:44 +0000
Recliner wrote:
Even a Zone 1 to Zone 9 (£6.70 today) peak fare wouldn't have been
more than the fare they quote, but that takes you right out to places
like Chesham, well outside London. I assume this is the fare they
quote. The off-peak fare on that route is over 40% cheaper.

Chesham is a tube station.

Just use google, I can't be bothered any more.

B2003

On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 12:25:29 +0000, Paul Corfield
wrote:

On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 10:51:48 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 21:37:26 +0000
Paul Corfield wrote:
He won't want anything better because the subtext of the article is
flat fares which Boltar has said many times should be introduced in
London. Goodness know expensive a flat fare would be and what it would
do to off peak and non Zone 1 fares which are actually pretty low.

Yes, crazy idea. I mean it would never work for anything.

I didn't say it would not work. I queried what the fare level would
be. The follow on from that is what then happens to travel demand and
travel patterns. It would probably be popular in outer areas for
travel to the centre but not for local trips (through zones 2-9) which
are relatively cheap on PAYG, especially off peak. It would most
likely lead to an increase in Z1 and Z12 / Z123 fares. Now you either
then get loads of complaints about further inflated fares or a mass
diversion from tubes to buses which is not terribly efficient given
the tube is the better "mass transport" mode in the centre / inner
areas.

The other unknown is what would happen to TfL's revenue under such a
scheme. The TOCs almost certainly would refuse to join in such a
scheme and would object to a policy which could lead to them losing
revenue even if the policy only applied to tube fares. That's just the
nature of things under a franchising system where they take the
revenue risk.

Oh , wait....

Someone remind me about the fare system on london buses again...

The flat fare on buses is only there to make sure Oyster validation on
entry works. You could have a graduated system but it would either
mean people telling the driver where they were travelling to on entry
so the right fare is deducted or else have validation on exit which is
potentially fraught with problems in London. These options would
affect the economics of the bus services as dwell times would probably
increase meaning longer journeys and more buses to provide a given
frequency level.

Exit validation does apply in Singapore but societal norms are a bit
different there. I have used the system quite a lot and not had a
problem but the rules on the system clearly show problems can and do
arise and passengers have to jump through hoops to rectify overcharges
or non charges / equipment failures etc.

I think that if a practical way of getting back to graduated bus fares
existed then TfL would want to adopt it to increase revenue / reduce
subsidy.

Also, because London buses are slow (lots of stops, as well as bad
traffic), most people don't travel very far on a bus compared to even
a slow, stopping Tube train. So not many people would stay on the bus
long enough to get into a higher fare (eg, multi-zone) band.
Furthermore, a single Tube fare might include two or three separate
rides, with no surcharge; taking two or three buses on one journey
doubles or trebles the price (unless you hit a daily cap).

http://www.priceoftravel.com/595/pub...ldwide-cities/

So, it looks like they've overstated the minimum London fare, and
included peak fares for routes from the centre to places well outside
London when calculating the maximum fare. I wonder how wide ranging an
area the fares they quote for other cities are?

For Toronto it's the amalgamated city (former Metropolitan Toronto)
plus the airport, approximately a rectangular area 25 miles by 10 miles.
A flat single fare for any one trip including all transfers between
bus, subway, and streetcar as needed.

For the New York subway it's the four boroughs of Manhattan, Brooklyn,
Queens, and the Bronx -- again, completely flat fare. Very roughly
this is a triangular area 20 miles wide at the foot and 30 miles high,
but there are areas within it that the subways don't reach. Buses cover
this area plus Staten Island, which is about 15 miles long and up to
8 miles wide, and the island has its own rail service with one line.
However, with buses the single fare only includes one transfer (between
two buses or between bus and another mode).

For Paris the Metro covers the city proper, roughly a circle 7 miles
across, and a number of spurs running a mile or so outside. Again,
completely flat fare, including transfers (and the use of the RER as
part of the Metro inside the city only). Buses also cover the city
proper, but not outside, there are no free transfers.

For San Francisco the area would also be the city proper, which is about
the same size as Paris. Rather than transfers, I believe they use a time
system where your fare is good for any number of legs started within
2 hours, or some such rule.

If you assume that the other cities cover smaller zones (eg, the Paris
fares are for the Metro, not including the wider ranging RER), the
true London range should only go out as far as zone 6...

When different cities use different fare bases, it makes this sort of
comparison very difficult. Showing a range of fares, as the site does,
makes considerable sense, but as noted, it doesn't tell you how far you
can go.
--
Mark Brader "We demand rigidly defined areas
Toronto of doubt and uncertainty!"
-- Vroomfondel (Douglas Adams: HHGTTG)

My text in this article is in the public domain.

wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 11:56:44 +0000
Recliner wrote:
Even a Zone 1 to Zone 9 (£6.70 today) peak fare wouldn't have been
more than the fare they quote, but that takes you right out to places
like Chesham, well outside London. I assume this is the fare they
quote. The off-peak fare on that route is over 40% cheaper.

Chesham is a tube station.

Just use google, I can't be bothered any more.

Yes, I know what kind of station it is. But it's not in London, nor even
within the M25.

Mark Brader wrote:
http://www.priceoftravel.com/595/pub...ldwide-cities/

So, it looks like they've overstated the minimum London fare, and
included peak fares for routes from the centre to places well outside
London when calculating the maximum fare. I wonder how wide ranging an
area the fares they quote for other cities are?

For Toronto it's the amalgamated city (former Metropolitan Toronto)
plus the airport, approximately a rectangular area 25 miles by 10 miles.
A flat single fare for any one trip including all transfers between
bus, subway, and streetcar as needed.

For the New York subway it's the four boroughs of Manhattan, Brooklyn,
Queens, and the Bronx -- again, completely flat fare. Very roughly
this is a triangular area 20 miles wide at the foot and 30 miles high,
but there are areas within it that the subways don't reach. Buses cover
this area plus Staten Island, which is about 15 miles long and up to
8 miles wide, and the island has its own rail service with one line.
However, with buses the single fare only includes one transfer (between
two buses or between bus and another mode).

For Paris the Metro covers the city proper, roughly a circle 7 miles
across, and a number of spurs running a mile or so outside. Again,
completely flat fare, including transfers (and the use of the RER as
part of the Metro inside the city only). Buses also cover the city
proper, but not outside, there are no free transfers.

For San Francisco the area would also be the city proper, which is about
the same size as Paris. Rather than transfers, I believe they use a time
system where your fare is good for any number of legs started within
2 hours, or some such rule.

If you assume that the other cities cover smaller zones (eg, the Paris
fares are for the Metro, not including the wider ranging RER), the
true London range should only go out as far as zone 6...

When different cities use different fare bases, it makes this sort of
comparison very difficult. Showing a range of fares, as the site does,
makes considerable sense, but as noted, it doesn't tell you how far you
can go.

Thanks for the info -- do the fares quoted look right for these cities?
And do they, like London, have different off-peak fares?

On 13/01/2013 14:23, Recliner wrote:
Mark Brader wrote:
http://www.priceoftravel.com/595/pub...ldwide-cities/

So, it looks like they've overstated the minimum London fare, and
included peak fares for routes from the centre to places well outside
London when calculating the maximum fare. I wonder how wide ranging an
area the fares they quote for other cities are?

For Toronto it's the amalgamated city (former Metropolitan Toronto)
plus the airport, approximately a rectangular area 25 miles by 10 miles.
A flat single fare for any one trip including all transfers between
bus, subway, and streetcar as needed.

For the New York subway it's the four boroughs of Manhattan, Brooklyn,
Queens, and the Bronx -- again, completely flat fare. Very roughly
this is a triangular area 20 miles wide at the foot and 30 miles high,
but there are areas within it that the subways don't reach. Buses cover
this area plus Staten Island, which is about 15 miles long and up to
8 miles wide, and the island has its own rail service with one line.
However, with buses the single fare only includes one transfer (between
two buses or between bus and another mode).

For Paris the Metro covers the city proper, roughly a circle 7 miles
across, and a number of spurs running a mile or so outside. Again,
completely flat fare, including transfers (and the use of the RER as
part of the Metro inside the city only). Buses also cover the city
proper, but not outside, there are no free transfers.

For San Francisco the area would also be the city proper, which is about
the same size as Paris. Rather than transfers, I believe they use a time
system where your fare is good for any number of legs started within
2 hours, or some such rule.

If you assume that the other cities cover smaller zones (eg, the Paris
fares are for the Metro, not including the wider ranging RER), the
true London range should only go out as far as zone 6...

When different cities use different fare bases, it makes this sort of
comparison very difficult. Showing a range of fares, as the site does,
makes considerable sense, but as noted, it doesn't tell you how far you
can go.

Thanks for the info -- do the fares quoted look right for these cities?
And do they, like London, have different off-peak fares?

No.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

Mark Brader wrote:
http://www.priceoftravel.com/595/pub...ldwide-cities/

So, it looks like they've overstated the minimum London fare, and
included peak fares for routes from the centre to places well outside
London when calculating the maximum fare. I wonder how wide ranging an
area the fares they quote for other cities are?

For Toronto it's the amalgamated city (former Metropolitan Toronto)
plus the airport, approximately a rectangular area 25 miles by 10 miles.
A flat single fare for any one trip including all transfers between
bus, subway, and streetcar as needed.

I guess that would be roughly equivalent to Zones 1-4 in London?

For the New York subway it's the four boroughs of Manhattan, Brooklyn,
Queens, and the Bronx -- again, completely flat fare. Very roughly
this is a triangular area 20 miles wide at the foot and 30 miles high,
but there are areas within it that the subways don't reach. Buses cover
this area plus Staten Island, which is about 15 miles long and up to
8 miles wide, and the island has its own rail service with one line.
However, with buses the single fare only includes one transfer (between
two buses or between bus and another mode).

Maybe equivalent to Zones 1-5 in London?


For Paris the Metro covers the city proper, roughly a circle 7 miles
across, and a number of spurs running a mile or so outside. Again,
completely flat fare, including transfers (and the use of the RER as
part of the Metro inside the city only). Buses also cover the city
proper, but not outside, there are no free transfers.

Maybe equivalent to Zones 1-2?


For San Francisco the area would also be the city proper, which is about
the same size as Paris. Rather than transfers, I believe they use a time
system where your fare is good for any number of legs started within
2 hours, or some such rule.

Maybe Zones 1-2 again, or perhaps just Zone 1?


If you assume that the other cities cover smaller zones (eg, the Paris
fares are for the Metro, not including the wider ranging RER), the
true London range should only go out as far as zone 6...

When different cities use different fare bases, it makes this sort of
comparison very difficult. Showing a range of fares, as the site does,
makes considerable sense, but as noted, it doesn't tell you how far you
can go.

Given the huge area covered by the London zonal system, it does seem odd to
try and compare it to these much smaller city areas. On a like-for-like
basis, London still isn't cheap, but it's much closer to those other
western countries (but obviously much more than second and third world
countries).

On 13/01/2013 12:25, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 10:51:48 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:

Someone remind me about the fare system on london buses again...

The flat fare on buses is only there to make sure Oyster validation on
entry works.

That's rather strange, because the flat fare on buses predates oyster.
--
Phil Cook

In message , at 16:53:49 on Sun, 13
Jan 2013, Phil Cook remarked:
Someone remind me about the fare system on london buses again...

The flat fare on buses is only there to make sure Oyster validation on
entry works.

That's rather strange, because the flat fare on buses predates oyster.

Then perhaps it's a reason not to use Oyster as a way to introduce zonal
fares on buses.

However, I recall a story about a nun who fell asleep on a bus and
missed her stop being PF'd as a result of being over-carried. If there
were flat fares then (1999), how did that happen?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/nu...for-pounds-1-1
103871.html
--
Roland Perry