On Tue, 21 Sep 2004, Rich Mallard wrote:

"John Rowland" wrote in message
...
"Jim" wrote in message
...

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/13301604

...

Free bus travel for all under 16? That is a diabolically bad idea...
buses will become unsafe for anyone else,

I understand what you mean [...]

(and before someone says 'not all kids do this', I would completely agree
and say it's a relatively tiny minority of teenagers.

Good to hear we all understand that.

However, this relatively tiny minority cause widespread damage running
into hundreds of thousands of pounds; we simply cannot ignore that and
allow this serious problem with bus vandalism to escalate in order to
provide free bus travel for all IMO).

So, because of the actions of a tiny number of criminals, you'd deny this
benefit to hundreds of thousands of children?

In any case, i just don't believe that this is going to lead to more
vandalism. Are you saying that the yobs, if they can't find a quid for a
bus fare, are just going to say "Oh bother! I rather suppose we can't
vandalise a bus today; let's go home and read improving books."? No -
they're just going to go off and vandalise something else, or vandalise
the outside of a bus, or else hop on a bus anyway and fare-dodge.
Moreover, i suspect that this image of gangs roaming round London, getting
on buses specifically to vandalise them, is erroneous: i suspect that
these kids are using the bus anyway (to get to school, or go to the park,
or visit their dealer, or whatever), and simply take the opportunity to
vandalise it, like a dog ****ing all over the place when it's being taken
for a walk. Free travel won't get them on the bus more, it just means
their mums'll have more cash to spend on fags.

On which subject: dogs should be banned in London. In fact, in all urban
areas. I'll allow guide dogs.

tom

ps Shall we start cross-posting this thread to uk.prejudice?

--
curry in a sack

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004, Dan Gravell wrote:

John Rowland wrote:

Free bus travel for all under 16? That is a diabolically bad idea...
buses will become unsafe for anyone else, that's if there's room for
anyone else. If they only gave free travel to under-16s who have been
in no trouble with the police or school, that might be an idea.

There are two advantages to me:

1) Stops them going to school/piano lessons or whatever in mummy's car

Surely the kind of mum who drives her kids to school isn't going to send
them on the bus purely because it now costs a quid a day less? They'd have
to mix with all those common people!

2) Encourages ownership of public transport for kids, making for better
treatment of vehicles and a higher likelihood they will use public
transport when they are older.

Interesting. People seem to be assuming that making travel free for kids
will make kids travel more - that there's elasticity in the market. I'd
have thought that demand is already saturated; people _need_ to use the
bus to get around, so they do. Making it free will just make it cheaper
for them.

In particular, i suspect Ken believes that spend on bus travel as a
fraction of income is highest amongst the poorest people in London (which
seems plausible - the absolute expense is probably constant, so the poorer
you are, the greater the relative expense; also, better-off people are
more likely to use other modes), and thus that this is essentially a
progressive tax break; redistribution by the back door. Not that there's
anything wrong with that, of course!

I find your generalisations of young people surprising, almost
disturbing, but perhaps I've failed to pick up on a nuance of your post
or history.

Hmm; 'nuance' isn't the word i'd have chosen ...

tom

--
curry in a sack

Richard J. wrote:
Jim wrote:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/13301604


The official announcement (TfL press release) is at
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/press-rele...a-21-sep.shtml

with details of all the fares at
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/downloads/...ares-table.pdf


I forgot to mention one of the most important things in my previous post!

"Following groundbreaking talks with the train operating companies, a
simpler pricing structure will be introduced for rail/Tube journeys
which will reduce the cost of some
trips."

No mention yet of any details, but this promises to be interesting -
following on from the recent introduction of the validity of Tube single
tickets on the North London Line and West London Line down to West Brompton.

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 14:49:34 GMT Richard J.
said...

Saver goes up from 70p to £1 all day (43% rise).

The message there is to stock up on Saver tickets before January '05 as
there is no "Use By" date. The same applied at the beginning of this year
though only a 5p rise from 65p to 70p.

Presumably Pass Agents have to buy their stocks of Bus Savers off LUL as
the sales are not accounted for through their ticket issuing system?
Therefore on that basis agents would get to make a huge profit if they
stocked up at the before the price rise and sold them on after January.

--
Phil Richards
London, UK
Home page: http://www.philrichards1.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk

How has this affected tourist travelcard (bought from abroad) prices?

"Chris" wrote in message
...
How has this affected tourist travelcard (bought from abroad) prices?
Oops just read right at the bottom that the visitor travelcard is being
replaced.

These price increases do make me wonder where all the money from the con
charge (which was supposed to improve transport) has gone though.

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 20:22:43 +0100 Chris said...

How has this affected tourist travelcard (bought from abroad) prices?

The London Visitor's Travelcard which is marketed to UK-bound tourists
will be abolished (along with the Weekend Travelcard) and is replaced by
a new 3-day Travelcard from January 2005.

Of course the Visitor's Travelcard isn't as straight forward as the ones
you buy in London as there are various discount vouchers thrown in as
part of the package.

--
Phil Richards
London, UK
Home page: http://www.philrichards1.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 20:22:43 +0100, "Chris"
wrote:

How has this affected tourist travelcard (bought from abroad) prices?

The press release notes say that the visitor travelcard and weekend
travelcard are replaced by the new 3 day travelcard and the normal 7 day
travelcard (only relates to the 7 day visitor travelcard).

I'm not hugely surprised by the loss of the 7 day Visitor Travelcard as
many tourists simply got a normal travelcard once in London.

The new 3 day ticket looks a bit dodgy to me - if you look at the
pricing it is most odd. You get a discount for zones 1 and 2 but you get
sod all discount for other zonal or time combinations. I don't
understand why anyone would buy one for Z1-6 other than to avoid queuing
up on subsequent days. I suspect this is another way of pushing up
income by getting rid of a ticket that is considered to be over
discounted. I also note the lack of commentary about Family Travelcards
- perhaps these are now abolished given that most children will go free
by bus and thus the Travelcard is, in effect, a rail only product for
children aged 16 or less.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 17:58:36 +0000 (UTC),
wrote:

In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 15:22:57 +0100, "John Rowland"
wrote:

"Jim" wrote in message
...

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/13301604

I don't understand how the ES can describe putting bus fares up
from 100p to
120p before 9:30am and down from 100p to 80p after 9:30am as "Bus
Fares
Soar".

The point though is that cash fares rise 20p or 20%; AM peak Oyster
pre
pay fares rise 30p to £1 so nearly 50% while even off peak Pre Pay
fares
rise 10p or 14%. No matter which way you view it I'd say they were
pretty big rises.

In 2003 the fare was 80p cash
In 2004 the fare was 70p cash
In 2005 the fare will be 120p cash.

This will be a 50% rise on the 2003 fares and a 70% rise on the 2004
fares for the many people who pay cash. It's just a rip-off.

Sorry, I got the years wrong. It should have been:
2002 - 80p - 50% rise
2003 - 70p - 70% rise

Roger


You cannot pay 70p cash for any fare in 2004. The cash fare is £1 London
wide. You only pay 70p if you opt for a Saver pre-paid ticket or Oyster
pre-pay. Therefore the cash fare increase is 20%.

The prepay etc. fares are just a smoke screen. It's like a firm saying
- "look, we haven't put our prices up this year but, for those of you
not paying by direct debit you'll now pay another £2/month!"

Well yes but the objective is to get the remaining 15% of passengers out
of cash and into some form of pre-payment. Providing access to such
cheaper alternatives is as easy and convenient as possible then it is a
reasonable policy objective. It ceases to be so if passengers are
seriously inconvenienced - and it is my view that is the case already
with the poorly thought out cashless zone in central London.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Dave Arquati wrote to uk.transport.london on Tue, 21 Sep 2004:

I never realised that for a bus commuter travelling twice a day for the
five working days, Pre-Pay (in both 2004 & 2005) is cheaper than a Bus
Pass!

If, and only if, you only need to use one bus to complete your journey.
For me, going to Streatham several times a week, it always needs two
buses or a longer walk than I've often time for - so I buy a bus pass
(which may not be cost-effective, but is simple!).
--
"Mrs Redboots"
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/
Website updated 11 September 2004