On 13/01/2013 17:07, Roland Perry wrote:
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?

Ah, possible memory failure, there was a two stage fare system. Outer
and zone 1. Outer zone fares were 70p and fares including zone 1 were
£1. The change to a single flat fare coincided with the introduction of
Oyster in 2004.
--
Phil Cook

Recliner wrote:

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).

The lack of free transfers on UK buses is extremely unfair on those that
are already disadvantaged by having to change bus. Day tickets priced at
the same as or slightly less than two singles mitigate this for almost
everyone (return journeys are more common) but don't totally solve it.

Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK. Put first name before the at to reply.

Paul Corfield wrote:

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.

It would be sensible for National Rail fares in the TfL area to be the
business of TfL (by law), just as they are in the PTE areas.

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.

The Dutch also have it. As their culture is much more similar to the UK, I
would be interested in how it's working there. Other places in the UK seem
to have retained "state your destination" which is slower.

As for graduated bus fares, it would be vastly fairer to have zonal bus
fares but with changes allowed than a flat fare with two buses meaning a
higher cost. That might be a viable way of allowing changes without
revenue loss or raising all fares.

Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK. Put first name before the at to reply.

In message
.
net, at 23:51:22 on Sun, 13 Jan 2013, Neil Williams
remarked:
Exit validation does apply in Singapore but societal norms are a bit
different there.

The Dutch also have it. As their culture is much more similar to the UK, I
would be interested in how it's working there.

On the trams they have little gates at the exit doors, to make sure
people "touch out". I think it's the only place I've ever seen other
than an unimpeded exit from a bus or tram.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:

On the trams they have little gates at the exit doors, to make sure
people "touch out". I think it's the only place I've ever seen other than
an unimpeded exit from a bus or tram.

If you mean Amsterdam, aren't they just one-way gates as found on some
bendy buses in the UK? I think they were there before.

Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK. Put first name before the at to reply.

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

Given that probably the vast majority of tube journeys are by people
commuting in to the centre from the suburbs I don't have a problem with that
and given that TfL already fleeces tourists in zone 1 with their absurd
paper ticket prices they could continue that unsavoury tradition.

scheme. The TOCs almost certainly would refuse to join in such a

Don't care.

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.

Exactly , its all about revenue, not about whether the system is practical.

B2003

In message
.
net, at 09:33:38 on Mon, 14 Jan 2013, Neil Williams
remarked:
On the trams they have little gates at the exit doors, to make sure
people "touch out". I think it's the only place I've ever seen other than
an unimpeded exit from a bus or tram.

If you mean Amsterdam, aren't they just one-way gates as found on some
bendy buses in the UK? I think they were there before.

They are probably one-way as well, but you need to swipe your rfid
ticket to get them to open from the inside.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 11:31:42 on
Mon, 14 Jan 2013, Paul Corfield remarked:

[Amsterdam trams]

I am not certain if the "gates" only allow exit if a RFID ticket has
been presented.

That was the case on the last tram I used, which was a bit annoying as
being a one-shot ticket (not a pre-pay purse) there seemed to be no
need.

There are no paper tickets used in Amsterdam any more - even day
tickets are on RFID format even though they look like paper tickets.

Yes, I know. This was a one-shot ticket made of paper, but with an RFID
in it.
--
Roland Perry

On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 11:39:11 +0000, Paul Corfield
wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 09:35:40 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:

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

Given that probably the vast majority of tube journeys are by people
commuting in to the centre from the suburbs I don't have a problem with that
and given that TfL already fleeces tourists in zone 1 with their absurd
paper ticket prices they could continue that unsavoury tradition.

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.

Exactly , its all about revenue, not about whether the system is practical.

Of course it is. I thought, given your stated political leanings, that
you would fully support fares increasing and revenue being maximised
so subsidy is as low as possible. I don't see flat fares on the tube
being helpful in terms of subsidy reduction.

From memory, Boltar describes himself as right wing on social issues,
but left wing on economic ones. So he probably approves of public
transport subsidy, as long as it's targeted only at people he approves
of (white adult British males) but not those he doesn't (eg,
immigrants, women, gays, etc, etc).

Paul Corfield writes:

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.

Yet these increases in dwell time would probably not be as great as the
increase when driver only operation[1] replaced rear platform buses with
a conductor.

[1] Especially where you have to pay the driver and receive change.