On Sat, 12 Feb 2005, Solar Penguin wrote:

Distance based? Then how come a ticket from Morden to Waterloo (zones
1-4) costs the same as a ticket from Morden all the way to Mill Hill
East?

When zone-based fares are used, it's always possible to find
anomalies. It's a compromise, done on the basis of simplicity.

There's possibly a case to be made for ring zones being charged extra
if you use them on both sided of the core, than if you only go
core-to-ring or ring-to-core.

That worked well in Munich, where most of the services through the
rings were more-or-less axial. But with the much better connectivity
of London, you'd then have people going by circumferential routes to
avoid leaving their ring zone. Then you'd need some kind of honeycomb
zoning system, like they have in certain other mass conurbations.

Is it really fair that passengers only going as far as
Waterloo should pay for *twice* the distance they're actually
travelling?

Fares for a single journey include not only the distance travelled,
but also an element of the cost of the whole fare "system", including
issuing equipment, issuing staff, ticket inspectors, gate systems etc.
etc. - with the whole thing then modified by political policies,
subsidies and I don't know what.

If you insist on making the system more complex, you could well finish
up with the economic cost of your Morden - Waterloo fare being higher
than you would have previously paid to Mill Hill East. Swings and
roundabouts.

And how are people happy when "they can easily understand" that
they're being charged *twice* as much

You mean they aren't happy on the occasions they want to travel
"twice" the distance and it's the same fare? It can cut both ways.

as they should be charged?

The tariff says what they /should/ be charged. Or do you have some
special insight into the economics of the fare system?

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005, Stephen Osborn wrote:

Every can of beans / newspaper / magazine / item of clothing / etc
you buy is individually priced

Not quite. The "pick and mix" has a fixed price for your choice of
the items included in the offer. And a zone fare system works a bit
like that.

Solar Penguin wrote:
--- Dave Arquati said...


I fail to see how an uncomplicated system which people can actually
understand is a problem. Zones are essentially distance-based


Distance based? Then how come a ticket from Morden to Waterloo (zones
1-4) costs the same as a ticket from Morden all the way to Mill Hill
East? Is it really fair that passengers only going as far as Waterloo
should pay for *twice* the distance they're actually travelling?

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.

Do you really think that under a point-to-point system, a fare to a
central London station would be *less*?

and keep people
happy when they can easily understand what fare they will pay.


And how are people happy when "they can easily understand" that they're
being charged *twice* as much as they should be charged? That might
make you happy, but I'm not so easily pleased!

They're not being charged twice what they should; the Mill Hill East
travellers are paying less than they would under your system.

I'm quite happy that should I decide to travel from one side of London
to the other, I'm paying less under the current system.

How would Travelcards - the most useful and flexible ticket - work
under a point-to-point system?


You say "flexible" like it's a good thing. But it isn't. It's just a
con to make you pay for routes you don't actually use.

Either single/return fares decrease - which is unlikely and would be a
bad move on the part of TfL as it would increase Tube crowding and
reduce revenue - or Travelcard prices increase, which doesn't really
benefit anyone.

People aren't always making a simple return journey; they may have
several destinations to visit. Why should they be penalised just because
you think that it's wrong that a Travelcard is cheaper than a return
ticket in some cases? Return tickets certainly aren't going to decrease
in price, so the only other way is for Travelcards to increase.

Suppose you want to travel, for example, from Crystal Palace to Oxford
Circus. Why can't you simply buy a cheap day return from Crystal Palace
to Oxford Circus? Instead you *have* to buy a One Day Travelcard for
zones 1-4, which means you're also paying for the flexibility of
travelling to Morden, Mill Hill East, Waterloo, and dozens of other
places that you won't actually visit today!

You *can* buy a return between those stations, but it's more expensive
than a Travelcard, so you get a Travelcard instead. You're not paying
more, you're paying less!!! I don't see the problem. You think that
you're paying for that extra flexibility but you're not, as the
inflexible return ticket is more expensive and isn't going to get any
cheaper.

The National Rail fares system is a complicated mess at the moment,
and hardly sets a good example for London to revert to.

I agree that the NR system could be streamlined. So let's concentrate
on streamlining it, instead of scrapping it and replacing it with
something worse.

I wouldn't advocate a zonal scheme for the entire NR system; we're
talking about Greater London, where a zonal system suits the demands
placed upon the network. However, I would support streamlining the NR
system, so let's have a look at your plan.

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)

Give the customers an itemised receipt along with their ticket, and they
can easily understand how the fare was worked out.

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.

And while we're at
it, let's get rid of pointless things like:

** different rates for adults and children. (After all, if you buy a
magazine or a can of drink, the shop won't charge you extra just because
you happen to be an adult. Why should adults buying train tickets be
penalised that way?)

What about families? Rail can't possibly compete with car without some
sort of discount for groups travelling together.

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).

** cheaper prices for tickets bought in advance. (If you buy a tin of
baked beans, the supermarket won't give you a discount if you leave the
tin on your shelf for a week with out opening it. The newsagent won't
reduce the price of a magazine if you keep it instead of reading it
right away. So why should tickets be cheaper if you don't use them
straight away?)

Train journeys are hardly comparable to baked beans or magazines. This
is again an issue to do with demand management; encourage people to book
in advance for busy trains, and encourage them to use less busy trains,
resulting in a lessening of overcrowding.

However, I do think that turn-up-and-go fares are just too expensive in
many cases to be worthwhile except for business passengers. Even if they
can't be reduced, making the availability of cheaper advance fares more
transparent would make people happier, rather than the Ryanair method
where you can't get a cheap fare without trawling through dozens of
different flight combinations.

There we are. A nice, simple, streamlined, easy to follow system, based
entirely on the point-to-point system, and which cannot overcharge
people the way a zonal system does. That's the sort of thing the rail
companies should be aiming for. Not making things worse by forcing
zones on people.

I never said the whole NR network should be subjected to zonal fares.
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.

The main example of a distance-based fares system in this country is
road traffic; journeys increase in cost proportional to distance
(combined with some element of fuel efficiency). Look at how
unsuccessful that system is in dealing with demand in cities and on
trunk routes.

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).


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

"Stephen Osborn" wrote in message
...
tim wrote:
"Nick" wrote in message
...

"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
...

...

The National Rail fares system is a complicated mess at the moment, and
hardly sets a good example for London to revert to.

...

Apart from a few anomalies, it isn't that complicated at all


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.

from A to B without them having a complete database (thick
book or computer disk) of fares from every A to every B. To
be able to sell tickes for a zonal system all you need is a map
on the wall.

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).

tim

1. Assumption that there will be a queue at the station and not at the
newsagents.

so go to another news agents.

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.

tim

Solar Penguin wrote to uk.transport.london on Sat, 12 Feb 2005:

--- Mrs Redboots said...

Solar Penguin wrote to uk.transport.london on Sat, 12 Feb 2005:

Not a pleasant way to travel at the best of times.

But infinitely preferable to the Tube!

And yet you'd take the Tube all the way from Brixton, instead of just a
couple of stops from Victoria to Oxford Circus. :-)

No I wouldn't - I suggested you might want to!

Ok... Just to prevent this thread turning into a dull debate on the
subjective merits of Tube vs. single deckers vs. double deckers, I'll
withdraw my original statement and replace it with:

Suppose you want to travel, for example, from Crystal Palace to
Oxford Circus *by* *train* *and* *tube*. Why can't you simply
buy a cheap day return from Crystal Palace to Oxford Circus?
Instead you have to buy a One Day Travelcard for zones 1-4,
which means you're also paying for the flexibility of travelling to
Morden, Mill Hill East, Waterloo, and dozens of other places that
you won't actually visit today!

How's that...?

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 and you would have the option of
deciding to go somewhere else that evening and not have to pay more for
your transport, but hey, it's a free country!
--
"Mrs Redboots"
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/
Website updated 23 January 2005 with new photos

"Solar Penguin" wrote in message
...
--- tim said...


It's complicated in the sense that all journeys are individually
priced.

And why is being individually priced a bad thing?

that depends upon whether you think a proper zonal system is
a good thing. I happen to think that it is. Pity London doesn't
have one.

Look at the example I
gave elsewhere in the thread: the Northern Line ticket from Morden to
Waterloo costs the same as the ticket from Morden going all the way to
Mill Hill East. Passangers to Waterloo are paying for around twice as
much journey than they actually use. An individually priced
Morden-Waterloo ticket would solve this problem.

So price London to Mill Hill as seven (or whatever it is) zones
This is an implementation fault, not a reason not to have zones.

tim

--- 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?

--

"We can't stand around here doing nothing. People will think we're
workmen!" -- Spike Milligan

--- Alan J. Flavell said...

When zone-based fares are used, it's always possible to find
anomalies.

Yes, it's "always possible". Always possible, because zone based
systems *always* go against common sense.

Then you'd need some kind of honeycomb
zoning system, like they have in certain other mass conurbations.

Well, once you get to things like honeycombs, it's no longer really a
zonal system anyway; just a sort of point-to-point system but with very
big points that cover several stations at once. So, yeah, you're right,
honeycombs could be a good idea.


Fares for a single journey include not only the distance travelled,
but also an element of the cost of the whole fare "system", including
issuing equipment, issuing staff, ticket inspectors, gate systems etc.
etc. - with the whole thing then modified by political policies,
subsidies and I don't know what.

If you insist on making the system more complex, you could well finish
up with the economic cost of your Morden - Waterloo fare being higher
than you would have previously paid to Mill Hill East. Swings and
roundabouts.

Would having seperate fares for Waterloo and Mill Hill East lead to
*significantly* increased costs for equipment, staff, gates etc.? To
turn the situation on its head -- Ken Livingstone's planning to force
TfL's zones onto NR fares in London. How much will *that* cost for new
equipment, staff, etc.?

And how are people happy when "they can easily understand" that
they're being charged *twice* as much

You mean they aren't happy on the occasions they want to travel
"twice" the distance and it's the same fare? It can cut both ways.

And how many times do people actually want to travel across London on a
long journey? Compare that to the number of times people just want to
travel to Central London. I suspect there are more people getting
ripped off then are getting good value.

The tariff says what they /should/ be charged. Or do you have some
special insight into the economics of the fare system?

The only insight I have is good old fashioned common sense. You should
try it sometime.

--

"A couple of weeks. When I get all these invisible women. Nikki
discovers her obnoxious landlords are competing in a farmhouse?"
-- MegaHal.

--- 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.

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 *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!?!

(*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.

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)

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.

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.

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!)

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.

--

"Oooooooooh! No, I haven't told you any personal stuff that was based
on a blatant affair with the entity." -- MegaHal

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005, Solar Penguin wrote:

The only insight I have is good old fashioned common sense. You
should try it sometime.

Congratulations, your application has been accepted without
needing to refer it to the committee. (TINC).