Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#31
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Solar Penguin wrote to uk.transport.london on Sat, 12 Feb 2005:
--- Mrs Redboots said... Still untrue. You can buy a Network Rail ticket & a Tube ticket separately, there's no law requiring you to buy a Travelcard! Of course, the former would cost you a minimum of £7.10 return, while the Travelcard would cost you £5.20 Good point. But we're still charged £1.90 *less* for the chance to make *more* journeys. Or, alternatively, charged £1.90 more for the chance to make fewer journeys. Whichever way you look at it, it goes against common sense. Doesn't that indicate that there's something very wrong at the heart of the system..? Why shouldn't we be able to save money by not buying those journeys that we don't make? Perhaps it's like those "Buy two for £2.00" offers at Tesco (or "Two for £5.00"), where whatever it is, is often too expensive to be worth it if you only wanted one, but two is a bit much, really..... -- "Mrs Redboots" http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/ Website updated 23 January 2005 with new photos |
#32
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Solar Penguin wrote:
OTOH I'd say the fact that it doesn't have any demand management nonsense is a big advantage of my scheme. It gives the transport providers some incentive to actually improve the supply of transport where it's needed most, instead of discouraging customers from travelling. (E.g. if London had had something like that, instead of zones, maybe we'd have T2K and Crossrail by now!) But how many more tube trains can be run over the current system? How many more buses can be run through central London? How many more overground trains can operate out of the existing London terminal stations? There's very little room for additional services to be run over the current network, especially in the peaks. So demand management is required. The building of new train lines (at enormous cost) tends to attract more passengers onto the system, so it is unlikely that demand management could be relaxed, much less eliminated even with improvements in infrastructure. What I am hoping for as more advanced ticketing systems (e.g. Oyster) are introduced are more attempts to balance demand by time (more incentives to travel off-peak when the network is quieter) as well as by area (through the zonal system). -- Mark Etherington |
#33
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
tim wrote:
"Stephen Osborn" wrote in message ... tim wrote: It's complicated in the sense that all journeys are individually priced. It is thus impossible for someone to sell you a ticket Every can of beans / newspaper / magazine / item of clothing / etc you buy is individually priced and you cope with that don't you. It's not a question of coping, it's a question of costs of distribution/sale. When buying a tangible item there is inherently a cost of distribution in getting the goods on the shelf. adding to this cost by having to this stick a little price sticker does not make much difference. A travel ticket has no cost of distribution other than that of calculating the price, making the price calcualtion more difficult makes a bigger difference. What are you talking about? You said that it is complicated, implying that is a problem, I merely pointed out it is no more complicated than any shopping trip. As for your costs of distribution 'argument', this is total hogwash. The price of many goods bears no relationship to their cost of distribution, compare a designer dress with a cheap one. Or are you saying that all sale prices should be related to the cost of distribution - in which case all travel tickets would cost the same. 1. Assumption that there will be a queue at the station and not at the newsagents. so go to another news agents. No, I was merely pointing out an unfounded assumption, namely that there will always be a queue at a station and never at a newsagents. Whenever I buy a ticket (an extension as I have a Z1-3 annual) I do so off-peak and almost invariably there is no queue. aren't you lucky. No, smart. If you go to any shop (which is what a station booking office is) when it is quiet then there is less chance of a queue. |
#34
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Solar Penguin wrote:
--- Dave Arquati said... What makes you think that passengers to Waterloo are paying twice the distance they're travelling? Given that the number of people travelling from Morden to Zone 1 must *vastly* outnumber those travelling beyond into northern parts of the outer zones, I find it much more likely that passengers to Mill Hill East are actually paying *less* than they would under a point-to-point system. Ahhh... You think it's those elusive across-London-to-Mill-Hill-East passengers that TfL are so eager to attract with artificially low fares? Or given that the number of people travelling from Morden to Zone 1 must *vastly* outnumber those travelling beyond into northern parts of the outer zones, is it more likely that TfL have artificially high prices to discourage all those passengers congesting the network and only going into zone 1. Artificially low fares to MHW or artificially high fares to zone 1? Which are they really doing? Either way, it doesn't matter, as long as they're stopped. How can fares be "artificially high"? It's not like thousands of Zone 1 commuters are subsidising about ten Mill Hill East ones. TfL's fare prices do discourage some from congesting the network in zone 1. I don't see the problem; it's simple economics - you have a supply which can't meet demand, so you raise the price of the product. The only artificiality is that the price is subsidised by the state for social reasons. If TfL fares were completely "natural", then they would probably be significantly higher than they are now, and London would cease to have a transport system that served the needs of its population. The fares are what they are; enough to allow people to actually travel, but not enough to prevent excessive overcrowding, and somewhere vaguely in the middle when it comes to raising money for improvements and covering operating costs. They're not being charged twice what they should; the Mill Hill East travellers are paying less than they would under your system. And how many times do people actually want to travel across London to Mill Hill East? Compare that to the number of times people want to travel to Central London. There are more people getting ripped off than there are getting good value. You raised the example. I agree that few people want to travel across London to MHE, so does it really matter that their fares are the same as a fare into Zone 1? Good value is a sticky concept when it comes to the Tube, but lowering fares to Zone 1 would be disastrous financially for TfL, so the only remaining strategy would be to raise fares for cross-London journeys, which would probably only raise marginal extra revenues. You *can* buy a return between those stations, but it's more expensive than a Travelcard, so you get a Travelcard instead. And that's exactly what I'm complaining about! Common sense says a return should cost less than a Travelcard. The fact that it costs more is **proof** that there's something seriously wrong with the current system. What more evidence do you need!?! Don't get so worked up about the fact that Travelcards cost less than returns in some cases! I say "in some cases" as Zone 1 and 2 fares make sense by your definition. We were comparing baked beans to TfL tickets. Annabel rightly pointed out that Tesco might offer 2 cans of baked beans for 40p when one can costs 25p. That's not a bad thing - you're saving money! Why is it done? It's to encourage people to buy more baked beans, even if they don't go into the shop wanting two cans. TfL want to encourage people to use public transport. You might only be in the market for a return journey, but it happens that a Travelcard costs less than that return journey. You pay less than a return journey; is that a bad thing? Behind the scenes, I'm sure TfL are acutely aware that Travelcards cost less than returns from zone 3 outwards. They obviously don't consider it a problem. The Travelcard system has been designed to make sure the fares are allocated appropriately, by measuring the numbers of passengers on services across the system, and distributing revenues accordingly. As for flexibility, I once travelled from Gloucester Road to Arnos Grove and back. I bought a Travelcard because it was cheaper than two singles at the time (although now, for off-peak journeys, Prepay singles are cheaper). On the way back, my train stopped for ten minutes at Bounds Green, where it was announced that there was some problem at Hyde Park Corner causing extensive delays to the Piccadilly line. Having a Travelcard, I left the Tube and walked to Bowes Park, caught a train to Highbury & Islington and got on the Victoria line. Then they announced some problem on the Victoria line and the train took an age to get to King's Cross, so I got out, gave up on the Tube and took a bus. Did I originally need a Travelcard? No. Was it useful? Yes. Was it cheaper? Yes. In an alternative scenario where a return fare was cheaper and a Travelcard was the same price as originally, I would have been worse off - yes, I saved money, but my ticket was inflexible so I would have had difficulty getting the train or bus, and TfL would have been worse off, as they would be receiving less money to put towards fixing these annoyingly regular occurrences. In an alternative scenario where a return fare was the same price as before but a Travelcard was more expensive, I would have been worse off - it didn't cost me any different, but again I had an inflexible ticket. The people who don't just make a simple return journey would also have been worse off as their tickets would have been more expensive. (*snip vague off-the-top-of-my-head ideas about ways to streamline a poin-to-point fares system*) It's a nice idea (and I especially support a ticket for all modes of transport), but you need a method of managing demand on busy routes and in busy areas too. Why? That just gives the transport providers an excuse for not increasing supply to match demand. Where does all the money come from to increase the supply? Would you prefer to be left waiting on platforms in the meantime because you can't physically fit on the train? In many cases, supply is at 100% of capacity or even above (e.g. approaches to London Bridge). The solutions cost billions of pounds. How will lowering fares help? Without any demand management, the transport providers will be incapable of providing the service that you have paid for. That is no solution by anyone's standards. What about families? Rail can't possibly compete with car without some sort of discount for groups travelling together. Well, if you really want to encourage families, then myabe children could be added as a supplement to the adult ticket along with the first class supplement etc. Or just add a surcharge to all adult tickets. (But it's starting to get complicated again. It's worth going for the simpler system, especially if it means we don't have to put up with noisy kids on our trains! Keep them in cars, where only their parents will have to suffer! nirg) You could offer a ticket supplement which offers free sedative-spiked drinks for children. More seriously, it's not a good idea just to say "keep them in cars"; not all families have a car, and we don't really want cars to be used more than necessary (certainly not in London). And once again, I think you'll find the child is being undercharged (i.e. encouraged), rather than the adult being overcharged (i.e. penalised). It works both ways. You can't aid the children without also penalising the adults. You're not penalising the adults if their tickets cost the same as they would have done in the first place! Train journeys are hardly comparable to baked beans or magazines. But they could become comparable. That's what I'm aiming towards with this system. See above, special offers. Your system certainly has some merit; however, it falls down in one major factor, which is demand management, dealt with quite simply and easily by a zonal system in cities. OTOH I'd say the fact that it doesn't have any demand management nonsense is a big advantage of my scheme. It gives the transport providers some incentive to actually improve the supply of transport where it's needed most, instead of discouraging customers from travelling. (E.g. if London had had something like that, instead of zones, maybe we'd have T2K and Crossrail by now!) It's ludicrous to say that demand management is a "nonsense"; it clearly works very well for planes and lack of it causes untold misery for motorists. One of the advantages of road user charging is that it would manage demand, provide new income to improve transport and doesn't charge motorists in lightly-trafficked areas the same way as a motorist in the centre of a huge city. If we are considering making that step forward on the roads, why would we make a step back on the railways and charge someone travelling 3 miles through rural Cornwall the same price as someone travelling 3 miles through inner London? Cutting revenue and causing unnecessary extra overcrowding and customer dissatisfaction is hardly an incentive to improve supply. There is also an issue with understanding; people don't really care what the distance is between their journey points, but journey time and price are very important. In London, if people want to perform any journey in London they haven't done before, the price, based on a zonal system, is very transparent - what zones do I travel through? With a distance-based system, it's only possible to make an informed decision by using some computer-based tool (or consulting an extremely large set of tables). OTOH looking at any map will allow you to estimate the distance and so give you a fairly good idea of what it would cost. Not very useful in London where you either have a simple schematic map or a visually intimidating geographical one. -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - transport projects in London |
#35
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Stephen Osborn" wrote in message ... tim wrote: "Stephen Osborn" wrote in message ... tim wrote: It's complicated in the sense that all journeys are individually priced. It is thus impossible for someone to sell you a ticket Every can of beans / newspaper / magazine / item of clothing / etc you buy is individually priced and you cope with that don't you. It's not a question of coping, it's a question of costs of distribution/sale. When buying a tangible item there is inherently a cost of distribution in getting the goods on the shelf. adding to this cost by having to this stick a little price sticker does not make much difference. A travel ticket has no cost of distribution other than that of calculating the price, making the price calcualtion more difficult makes a bigger difference. What are you talking about? You said that it is complicated, implying that is a problem, I merely pointed out it is no more complicated than any shopping trip. It is complicated for the provider, therefore it adds to the cost of sale. As for your costs of distribution 'argument', this is total hogwash. The price of many goods bears no relationship to their cost of distribution, Of course there isn't a relationship, but there is an element of cost that is 'distribution. Make the distribution more complicated and this cost goes up. compare a designer dress with a cheap one. Or are you saying that all sale prices should be related to the cost of distribution - in which case all travel tickets would cost the same. 1. Assumption that there will be a queue at the station and not at the newsagents. so go to another news agents. No, I was merely pointing out an unfounded assumption, namely that there will always be a queue at a station and never at a newsagents. I never made this assertion. I simply suggest that it is often easier to buy your travel tickets at the newsagents rather than the station. This is definately the case with an unmanned station where the machine might be vandalised, not have the correct change etc and you have the aggro of explaining all this to the guard to avoid a penalty fare, noting that some of the reason you can think of do not avoid the penalty. If you don't like the idea of buying them at the newsagents then that's fine, but why does this give you the right to deny this option to somebody else? Whenever I buy a ticket (an extension as I have a Z1-3 annual) I do so off-peak and almost invariably there is no queue. aren't you lucky. No, smart. If you go to any shop (which is what a station booking office is) when it is quiet then there is less chance of a queue. Um, so I'll change my meeting time to one when I know that the booking office is not going to have a queue, that'll go down well won't it? tim |
#36
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
tim wrote:
"Stephen Osborn" wrote in message ... What are you talking about? You said that it is complicated, implying that is a problem, I merely pointed out it is no more complicated than any shopping trip. It is complicated for the provider, therefore it adds to the cost of sale. A. So is that your only concern? If so you are ditching your earlier assertion that a complicated point-to-point ticketing system is bad for the passenger buying a ticket. B. If it is implemented (as I suggested in a single computerised database) then any extra cost of a more complex system is spread out over millions of tickets and effectively amounts to nothing. As for your costs of distribution 'argument', this is total hogwash. The price of many goods bears no relationship to their cost of distribution, Of course there isn't a relationship, but there is an element of cost that is 'distribution. Make the distribution more complicated and this cost goes up. As B above. 1. Assumption that there will be a queue at the station and not at the newsagents. so go to another news agents. No, I was merely pointing out an unfounded assumption, namely that there will always be a queue at a station and never at a newsagents. I never made this assertion. I simply suggest that it is often easier to buy your travel tickets at the newsagents rather than the station. This is definately the case with an unmanned station where the machine might be vandalised, not have the correct change etc and you have the aggro of explaining all this to the guard to avoid a penalty fare, noting that some of the reason you can think of do not avoid the penalty. QUOTE Effectively, this means that to buy a ticket for my journey I have to queue up at the station. Were a complete zonal system in operation accross all modes, I could just go and buy a ticket from my local newsagents (as I could for LT journeys). /QUOTE Sounds like an assumption that there will be a queue at the station but not at the newsagents to me. If you don't like the idea of buying them at the newsagents then that's fine, but why does this give you the right to deny this option to somebody else? Now who is trying to put words in other people's mouths? I never came near suggesting that tickets should not be sold in newsagents. In: "I was merely pointing out an unfounded assumption, namely that there will always be a queue at a station and never at a newsagents." the word merely shows that refuting the assumption was the limit of my comment. Whenever I buy a ticket (an extension as I have a Z1-3 annual) I do so off-peak and almost invariably there is no queue. aren't you lucky. No, smart. If you go to any shop (which is what a station booking office is) when it is quiet then there is less chance of a queue. Um, so I'll change my meeting time to one when I know that the booking office is not going to have a queue, that'll go down well won't it? I never said that either. I assume that you would not go into a newsagents at a busy time (on the way to the station in the morning, say) and expect a guarantee there will be no queue. You might go to the newsagents at a quite time, the previous evening perhaps. Of course you could go to the station at a quite time as well. |
#37
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In message , Dave Arquati
writes We were comparing baked beans to TfL tickets. Annabel rightly pointed out that Tesco might offer 2 cans of baked beans for 40p when one can costs 25p. That's not a bad thing - you're saving money! I've never known them do that (and I don't think that is what Annabel meant). Baked beans last for years, so the consumer would need only half the quantity and thus Tesco would lose out. Much more common is to offer two bags of veg or salad (or two almost expired pizzas) for a reduced price. People fall for the offer but cannot consume that much fresh food before it goes off - so they throw away the out-of-date goods. They then need to buy the same quantity of goods as before ... so instead of selling two lots of goods at 25p, Tesco has managed to sell one at 40p and the other at 25p (if not 40p again!). Sadly, this is becoming *very* common (especially in Sainsburys, but also Tesco). Getting back on topic, rail-fare offers will only make an impact if a reasonable number of people can benefit from them - if the benefit is limited to a few people, the benefit to the TOC will similarly be very limited. -- Paul Terry |
#38
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Solar Penguin wrote:
--- Solar Penguin said... For example, the development of GPS systems means that it's possible to calculate the straight-line, as-the-crow-flies distance between stations, and use that as a basis for a point-to-point system. (This way, we eliminate much of the complicated routing nonsense which makes NR's present fares system so awkward. After all, from the customer's POV it's only the start and end points that really matter, not the places in between.) Multiply that straight-line distance by a fixed pounds-per-mile rate, and you get the base cost of the ticket. You can then add on various fixed value premiums for premium services, e.g. ** travelling first class ** travelling by an express train instead of a stopping train ** even travelling by a train instead of a bus (assuming that this could be the basis for tickets on all modes of transport) Oops. I forgot to add that CDRs etc. can be treated as a fixed premium added to the single fare at this point. Should've double checked everything before I pressed Send. Sorry. Just to throw this into all the other arguments, if it's illogical that a Travelcard costs less than some singles, then it's also illogical that a return should cost less than two singles. Why would you price a CDR as a fixed premium added to the single fare? -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
#39
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Paul Terry wrote:
In message , Dave Arquati writes We were comparing baked beans to TfL tickets. Annabel rightly pointed out that Tesco might offer 2 cans of baked beans for 40p when one can costs 25p. That's not a bad thing - you're saving money! I've never known them do that (and I don't think that is what Annabel meant). Baked beans last for years, so the consumer would need only half the quantity and thus Tesco would lose out. Much more common is to offer two bags of veg or salad (or two almost expired pizzas) for a reduced price. People fall for the offer but cannot consume that much fresh food before it goes off - so they throw away the out-of-date goods. They then need to buy the same quantity of goods as before ... so instead of selling two lots of goods at 25p, Tesco has managed to sell one at 40p and the other at 25p (if not 40p again!). Sadly, this is becoming *very* common (especially in Sainsburys, but also Tesco). Oh dear, I didn't really mean to start a debate about Tesco pricing policies... I'm pretty sure that Annabel meant that sometimes, two goods are offered together for a price that is cheaper than their individual prices combined. They might not sell two baked beans cans for a discount, but they certainly *do* sell four cans for a discount - multipacks. Personally, my purchase of baked beans is related to how many I can carry back from the supermarket... Getting back on topic, rail-fare offers will only make an impact if a reasonable number of people can benefit from them - if the benefit is limited to a few people, the benefit to the TOC will similarly be very limited. -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
#40
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 20:09:49 +0000, Paul Terry wrote in
, seen in uk.railway: In message , Dave Arquati writes We were comparing baked beans to TfL tickets. Annabel rightly pointed out that Tesco might offer 2 cans of baked beans for 40p when one can costs 25p. That's not a bad thing - you're saving money! I've never known them do that [...] There's a BOGOF on Crosse & Blackwell 4-can packs of baked beans (and other C&B items, for that matter) at Tesco at the moment. Ob.railway? Err.. Can't think of one. Oh, I know: the sandwich shop outside Lincoln station (now defunct) had the annoying habit of putting baked beans, with lots of sauce, on its breakfast rolls, thus making them very messy eating on the train. The sandwich stall outside Sleaford station, OTOH, doesn't - and makes an excellent sausage, bacon & egg roll. Ideal for those mornings when you really need a decent brekkie - and as she takes phone orders I don't even have to delay my train whilst it's cooked. ;-) -- Ross, a.k.a. Prof. E. Scrooge, CT, 153 & bar, Doctor of Cynicism (U. Life) |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Zones 1, 2 and 3 or just 2 and 3 and PAYG | London Transport | |||
Annual Season Ticket : Colchester - London All Zones | London Transport | |||
Gold Card season ticket and LT (was Annual vs monthly season tickets) | London Transport | |||
Season tickets on oyster, refund vouchers, prepay balance and refunds | London Transport |