In message .com, MIG
writes
When bus routes were progressively cut short over the last few years,
eg stopping short at Russell Square instead of going on to Euston, I
originally thought that it was to avoid difficult stretches of road so
that claims could be made about improved reliability.

It wasn't to get more fares at first, because everyone was using
travelcards.
Travelcards haven't been removed so I don't see how that makes any
difference to the argument (whether the argument is right or wrong). Bus
routes have changed radically in terms of destinations and frequency
over the years, particular in recent years. Anyway, one the basis 1
counter example proves you wrong(!) the Number 5 bus route is being
extended this March and covering the length of a the "next" bus route
along the road, the Number 87. There's a 15 minute overlapping section,
so in this case it appears to be a case of trying to stop the buses
clogging up behind each other over the overlapping service and evening
out service frequency (there doesn't seem to be any change in overall
bus numbers serving the combined route).


But now with Prepay, shorter bus routes does mean double fares in a lot
of cases. I object to that and I think that there should be more
sensible ways of defining a "journey".
This situation existed a long time before Prepay. Think X43 and all
sorts of other bus alterations (e.g. a random trawl produces the 15 bus
route, which in 1949 ran all the way from Kew Green to East Ham. There's
many other examples as a random trawl on http://www.londonbuses.co.uk/
will show. Inconceivable now due to the various congestion points on
route); nothing to do with Prepay. Also I recall a few 'That's Life's on
the subject of shortening bus routes, an unfortunate number of years
(from my perspective) before Prepay.

--
Paul G
Typing from Barking