wrote:
From: "Richard J."
So, at what price would you set the flat fare for a single journey
on the Underground? Remember this has to be valid for, say,
Waterloo to Leicester Square as well as for, say, Northwood to
Newbury Park.

Two pounds seems like a nice round number. A bit more expensive for
a within a single zone journey but a lot cheaper for all others.

Not "a bit more" but *twice as expensive* (as Oyster) for a one- or
two-zone journey outside zone 1.

No doubt there will be immediate bleatings about how the subsidy
required can't be afforded. Well in that case , give me the economic
case why other countries can afford it and the 4th richest country
in the world and one of the higher taxed (ie us), can't.

Obviously we could afford the subsidy if we took money away from other
things or people, which might or might not be a good idea. But the
London tube system is much bigger than other cities' metros (end-to-end
line distances typically twice those in Paris for example). I don't
think it's sensible, or a good use of public subsidies, for a 1-mile
journey to have the same fare as a 30 mile journey.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

"Richard J." wrote in news:jyqcg.73896$wl.16438
@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
Obviously we could afford the subsidy if we took money away from other
things or people, which might or might not be a good idea. But the
London tube system is much bigger than other cities' metros (end-to-end
line distances typically twice those in Paris for example). I don't
think it's sensible, or a good use of public subsidies, for a 1-mile
journey to have the same fare as a 30 mile journey.


But it would all equal itself out. And Joe Public won't complain, because
£2 is less than £3 which is what that 1-mile journey currently costs!

Tristán White wrote:
"Richard J." wrote in news:jyqcg.73896$wl.16438
@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
Obviously we could afford the subsidy if we took money away from other
things or people, which might or might not be a good idea. But the
London tube system is much bigger than other cities' metros (end-to-end
line distances typically twice those in Paris for example). I don't
think it's sensible, or a good use of public subsidies, for a 1-mile
journey to have the same fare as a 30 mile journey.


But it would all equal itself out. And Joe Public won't complain, because
£2 is less than £3 which is what that 1-mile journey currently costs!

The fare for such a journey is either £1 or £1.50 - there's no point
using cash fares because most of Joe Public uses Oyster.

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

wrote:
Dave Arquati wrote:
Although I accept that averages cover up fluctuations across the
country, the following ILO document (p46 in Acrobat Reader) suggests
that Kiev workers have a lower wage than the Ukrainian average. It is

Thats contrary to my experience. Even if that were true , well lets
multiply the monthly card by 10. That still only makes it 28 quid.
Still 1/5th that of london.

It's very difficult to argue with less-than-anecdotal evidence and
figures plucked out of thin air.

metro can only realistically be compared to a Zones 1&2 travelcard in
London because the London system is so much larger overall (thus making
a comparison with a Z1-6 travelcard a fallacy).

So what if its larger? One of the metro lines goes a good 6 or 7 miles
out of the city centre. That would make it at least the same as zone 4
and if you take into account the fact that kiev is somewhat smaller
than london it would make it the equivalent of zone 6.

The simple fact is that a Zone 1-6 travelcard enables you to travel to
more places than the entire Kiev Metro does, placing them somewhat
beyond comparison. Apples and oranges. £2.80 lets me travel round
Brighton all day by bus; £3 lets me travel round London all day by bus.
Does that mean Brighton is better value for money?

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

Tristán White wrote:
"Richard J." wrote in
news:jyqcg.73896$wl.16438 @text.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
Obviously we could afford the subsidy if we took money away from
other things or people, which might or might not be a good idea.
But the London tube system is much bigger than other cities'
metros (end-to-end line distances typically twice those in Paris
for example). I don't think it's sensible, or a good use of
public subsidies, for a 1-mile journey to have the same fare as a
30 mile journey.

But it would all equal itself out. And Joe Public won't complain,
because £2 is less than £3 which is what that 1-mile journey
currently costs!

£1 or £1.50 with Oyster at present. Joe Public will certainly complain
if his Council Tax goes up yet again. I'm prepared to support Ken's
purchase of new buses and subsidies for youngsters, but I don't see why
I should subsidise commuters making 20-mile journeys into Central London
for £2.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Dave Arquati wrote in
:

Tristán White wrote:
"Richard J." wrote in
news:jyqcg.73896$wl.16438 @text.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
Obviously we could afford the subsidy if we took money away from
other things or people, which might or might not be a good idea.
But the London tube system is much bigger than other cities' metros
(end-to-end line distances typically twice those in Paris for
example). I don't think it's sensible, or a good use of public
subsidies, for a 1-mile journey to have the same fare as a 30 mile
journey.


But it would all equal itself out. And Joe Public won't complain,
because £2 is less than £3 which is what that 1-mile journey
currently costs!

The fare for such a journey is either £1 or £1.50 - there's no point
using cash fares because most of Joe Public uses Oyster.




OK, Oyster-enabled Joe Public pays £1.25 per journey irrespective of
length, and people without Oyster pay £2 per journey irrespective of
length. No need to use ticket upon exit, as on the continent and other
places. Quicker to get through the barriers, less confusing for all.

In message , Richard J.
writes
Obviously we could afford the subsidy if we took money away from other
things or people, which might or might not be a good idea. But the
London tube system is much bigger than other cities' metros (end-to-end
line distances typically twice those in Paris for example). I don't
think it's sensible, or a good use of public subsidies, for a 1-mile
journey to have the same fare as a 30 mile journey.
Paris has the same zonal system that London has. You also pay extra if
your zonal ticket includes journeys which use the SNCF part of the
system.
--
Clive

On Tue, 23 May 2006 02:36:54 +0100, Clive
wrote:

In message , Richard J.
writes
Obviously we could afford the subsidy if we took money away from other
things or people, which might or might not be a good idea. But the
London tube system is much bigger than other cities' metros (end-to-end
line distances typically twice those in Paris for example). I don't
think it's sensible, or a good use of public subsidies, for a 1-mile
journey to have the same fare as a 30 mile journey.

Paris has the same zonal system that London has. You also pay extra if
your zonal ticket includes journeys which use the SNCF part of the
system.

It's the same in so far as it is concentric in nature. They have more
zones though - 8 IIRC. I'm ignoring our diddy 6ABC add on area for
comparative purposes.

Season tickets (Carte Orange) are part funded through employer
contributions in Paris so that's a huge difference compared to London.

Their fare structure differs in that the Metro is flat fare but as
Richard J says the Metro is much smaller in terms of geographic spread.
You also have the anomaly that there are different fares to La Defense
if you go by Metro rather than RER. Tram services have graduated fares
while the buses are now flat fare - at least within the Paris city
walled area.

The RER and SNCF suburban network are on a completely different
farescale to the Metro (outside of the Central area) and you have the
same complexity about through ticketing that we have here.

One huge difference is the bus system where RATP's coverage does not
extend very far into the suburbs and frequencies can be very low. Local
bus networks then take over and they are very thin in terms of network
density and frequency. I sometimes stay with friends in the North West
of the Paris region (on the RER network and well within the zonal area)
and they have an hourly daytime RATP service and nothing else. There is
no comparison when you look at somewhere like Wembley or Sudbury in
London which have a far, far better bus service and are a similar
geographic distance from the centre.

--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Tristán White wrote:
Dave Arquati wrote in
:

Tristán White wrote:
"Richard J." wrote in
news:jyqcg.73896$wl.16438 @text.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
Obviously we could afford the subsidy if we took money away from
other things or people, which might or might not be a good idea.
But the London tube system is much bigger than other cities' metros
(end-to-end line distances typically twice those in Paris for
example). I don't think it's sensible, or a good use of public
subsidies, for a 1-mile journey to have the same fare as a 30 mile
journey.

But it would all equal itself out. And Joe Public won't complain,
because £2 is less than £3 which is what that 1-mile journey
currently costs!
The fare for such a journey is either £1 or £1.50 - there's no point
using cash fares because most of Joe Public uses Oyster.

OK, Oyster-enabled Joe Public pays £1.25 per journey irrespective of
length, and people without Oyster pay £2 per journey irrespective of
length. No need to use ticket upon exit, as on the continent and other
places. Quicker to get through the barriers, less confusing for all.

OK, now you're charging everyone a price based on the lowest possible
fares - meaning extra subsidy is required. Demand would increase,
particularly from the outer zones, but it's unlikely to cover the
shortfall in revenue (it's probably not very elastic), and means
overcrowding. Instead of rationing train capacity by price, it will be
by queuing.

There's also the fact that since Underground users have high average
wages compared to the rest of the country, spending extra tax money to
subsidise their fares is a poor social decision.
--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

In message , Paul Corfield
writes
I sometimes stay with friends in the North West of the Paris region
(on the RER network and well within the zonal area) and they have an
hourly daytime RATP service and nothing else.
Several years ago I stayed in Maisons-Laffitte (zone 4 NW Paris) and
found the service to be about every ten minutes during the day.
--
Clive