On 12 Apr, 13:53, Tom Anderson wrote:

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008, MIG wrote:

Does the use of GPS have implications for Oyster and flat fares?

I don't think so. We had the technical capacity to have non-flat fares
before GPS, and indeed did so. The flares were flattened as an act of
policy, not practical exigency. I suppose with GPS they could introduce
some truly fiendish true-distance-based fare system, but i can't see why
they would.


That's not really right - it's a more complicated picture than you
paint and I think it's fair to say that the bus fares were flattened
as both an act of policy *and8 as a matter of practical exigency.
Making a smartcard system work on buses with a variable (i.e.non-flat)
fare structure introduces significant complications, in that either
passengers have some kind of transaction where they with specify the
length of their journey (whether with a driver or a machine) or
alternatively passengers need to touch-out at the end of their journey
before they alight from the bus. Or, I suppose, all bus stops are
fitted with Oyster readers ala Tramlink and passengers have to touch-
in and out on them.

I started a thread back in January on this very topic, and it contains
a very interesting, comprehensive and informative contribution from
Paul Corfield who was there in the early days of Oyster's development
and outlines some of the thinking that went on with regards to how to
make the smartcard system work on buses in London. He also shared his
experiences of how smartcards systems work on the transport systems of
Hong Kong and Singapore.

The thread is he
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk....a7d0d50c9d3b1/

For those who don't want to plough through all that, the most relevant
paragraph of what Paul C had to say with regards to the specific issue
of flat or variable fares on London's buses is this one:

"My guess is that the reality of making zonal fares work on buses
forced TfL into considering flat fares (although simplification had
been working its way through LT Buses for several years). This
consideration then meshed nicely with the aspirations of the Mayor to
drive up bus usage. The rest, they say, is history."

You're right in saying that GPS tracking (as part of the iBus project)
doesn't make any real difference to this whole issue - variable fares
are technically feasible without any such extra tracking technology.

I think that flat fares in London are here to stay, thankfully. I
don't think any future Mayor would dare change it, given the
tremendous advantage of quick boarding and thus reduction in dwell
time that it offers.

On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 07:14:04 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
wrote:

I think that flat fares in London are here to stay, thankfully. I
don't think any future Mayor would dare change it, given the
tremendous advantage of quick boarding and thus reduction in dwell
time that it offers.

Given how simplistic the policies are from the other mayoral candidates
I fear your thoughts may be misplaced. As they understand so little
about how transport works in the capital and are making easy promises
I'd guess they believe they have "easy" options with regards to fares
when they face a financial squeeze and decide to increase them. Child
fares will be the first to return and then we'll have different fares
for express routes, different fares for conductor buses because they're
"better" but cost more to run and then longer routes are more expensive
to run so we need to charge more .....
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!