On Jul 4, 8:29*pm, (Neil Williams)
wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jul 2009 08:30:27 -0700 (PDT), MatthewD

wrote:
Another issue is likely to be whether to charge flat fares on buses,
or graduated fares. The latter will require either touching out on
alighting, or stating the destination to the driver before
validating.

Singapore use touch out on alighting. *It seems to work OK - the way
it works is that when you board the maximum fare is deducted from the
card, then when touching out there is a refund if required.


Singapore is a small, tightly managed state. The way they do things
largely doesn't translate to here, in particular touch out.

Capt Deltic is right when he writes "the functionality of the [ITSO]
smart card will be limited to that of a
mag-stripe ticket" in the context of his article in MR July issue,
namely the initial method for using the ITSO method for a ticket into
London followed by one or more journeys onwards by TfL services from
the heavy rail terminus, and in reverse when leaving London. It is the
80/20 rule: it is often relatively easy to satisfy 80% of the
travellers in a simple and effective manner with a ticketing system,
but the rest...

On Sat, 4 Jul 2009 23:32:05 -0700 (PDT), ticketyboo
wrote:

Singapore is a small, tightly managed state. The way they do things
largely doesn't translate to here, in particular touch out.

I'm not sure that is true. Making sure people touch out can be
enforced by charging a maximum fare on boarding and refunding back on
alighting, so there is a pecuniary disadvantage to not touching out

There is, as Paul states, the potential issue of people touching out
and not alighting, but that applies equally to a paper ticket system
where you can buy the cheapest ticket and ride further, and can't be
that much of a problem or bus companies would use more inspectors to
catch people out doing it or move en-masse to flat fare, both of which
Stagecoach and First appear to show no interest in.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

On Jul 5, 3:19*pm, (Neil Williams)
wrote:

On Sat, 4 Jul 2009 23:32:05 -0700 (PDT), ticketyboo
wrote:
Singapore is a small, tightly managed state. The way they do things
largely doesn't translate to here, in particular touch out.

I'm not sure that is true. *Making sure people touch out can be
enforced by charging a maximum fare on boarding and refunding back on
alighting, so there is a pecuniary disadvantage to not touching out

There is, as Paul states, the potential issue of people touching out
and not alighting, but that applies equally to a paper ticket system
where you can buy the cheapest ticket and ride further, and can't be
that much of a problem or bus companies would use more inspectors to
catch people out doing it or move en-masse to flat fare, both of which
Stagecoach and First appear to show no interest in.

Nah, touch-out on buses in London would be a disaster, trust me!

On Jul 5, 4:00*pm, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Sun, 05 Jul 2009 14:19:16 GMT, (Neil

Williams) wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jul 2009 23:32:05 -0700 (PDT), ticketyboo
wrote:

Singapore is a small, tightly managed state. The way they do things
largely doesn't translate to here, in particular touch out.

I'm not sure that is true. *Making sure people touch out can be
enforced by charging a maximum fare on boarding and refunding back on
alighting, so there is a pecuniary disadvantage to not touching out

Well we have that in London and it seems to cause no end of difficulty
in terms of people understanding it, accepting it and generally
recognising that something had to be done to stop the situation that
existed in the beginning where only the minimum fare was deducted on
entry.

There is, as Paul states, the potential issue of people touching out
and not alighting, but that applies equally to a paper ticket system
where you can buy the cheapest ticket and ride further, and can't be
that much of a problem or bus companies would use more inspectors to
catch people out doing it or move en-masse to flat fare, both of which
Stagecoach and First appear to show no interest in.

I suspect it is much more to do with the basic cost structure in these
companies - they simply don't employ revenue inspectors because they
cost too much. If some of the punters are ripping them off they simply
shove the fares up for everyone else. *I also doubt that Stagecoach and
First are alone in taking the axe to things like revenue staff and
inspectors who manage the service. I've read that there are now "lead
drivers" who are saddled with driving and supervising their colleagues
as well as other ancillary management tasks. *Part of the reason for
some of TfL's extra costs for the bus network is that they have people
managing bus stations and pay for the operators to have people out and
about actually managing the bus service.
--
Paul C

Paul, you put it very well.