Neil Spellings wrote:
Nick Cooper wrote:

I'm sure that there might be a handful of people who fit the very
narrow criteria you have set, but it means that they'd never be
able
to use buses, use their PP on days off, etc.

A quick poll of the 6 nearest people sitting around me at work :

3 - *just* use the tube to get to work
2 - *just* use the train
1 - uses tube and train

Its a small selection, and is highly dependant on where you are
travelling to, but I think the number of people to use the tube
end-to-end for their daily commute is higher than you make out.

It's not a question of _just_ the "daily commute," it's also whether or
not they use LT services outside of that, particularly at weekends and
in the evening. Pretty much everyone _I_ work with who actually lives
in London uses local buses in the evening/at weekends because they're
covered by the TCs they already have for their LU commute during the
week.

On your own figures, the difference between the annual cost of monthly
Z1-4 TCs compared to using Oyster PP is £221.60, so a person would
have to be using LT services for an additional £18.47 per month to
make that up. Making just four extra peak-time Zone 1-4 returns (i.e.
8 singles), five off-peak returns (i.e. 10 singles), 24 single bus
trips, or any combitation in between, would eat that up. Not hard to
do in a month. On an ATC, they'd only have to make the equivalent of
£36 worth of "extra" journeys over the entire year.

Your model sounds appealing, but it presupposes someone will never use
LT services on their days off or at weekends, and that they will
willingly rob themselves of the flexibility that a TC gives with being
able to break journeys to or from work (so to go shopping on their way
home), unlimited bus use, etc. I suppose someone who lives or works
within walking distance of a supermarket, and all other retail outlets
or amenities they may need can restrict themselves in such a way, but
that genuinely won't apply to as many as you seem to think. Unless, of
course, all the "real life" examples you have cited have cars for their
local/non-work transport needs, which pretty much wipes out any
supposed cost difference in spades, anyway.

Of course, it's notable that the pricing structure for singles has
changed, so that a Z1-4 is the same as Z1-3, while also Z1-6 is the
same as Z1-5. This applies to ordinary singles, as well as Oyster
Prepay, while in previous years both ticket types were costed at a
point mid-way between the ones "either side." In fact, on the
non-Oyster tarrif, a Z1-4 single for this year costs the same as it did
in _2003_ (i.e. two years ago), and Z1-6 is only 10p more, while all
the other "including Z1" singles are between 30p and 50p more. In
other words, your model is specific for people who commute between
Zones 1 & 4. In fact, adjusting you model of 236 "commutes" for a Z1-2
user would make a MTC user £4.80 per year better off than Prepay, and
£28 for Z1-3. Z1-4 would be £221.60 per year better off _with_
Prepay, £168.40 for Z1-6, but only £20.80 for Z1-5. Annual TCs for
travel including Z1 are all better value than Prepay with the
_exception_ of Z1-4 (and a Z1-6 ATC is only £72 cheaper). Looking at
the current pricing structure, I can't help wondering if this is a hint
that the the number of Zones may be reduced in future, presumably by
merging 3 & 4, and 5 & 6.

Another factor worth considering is that one does not necessarily have
to "use" 12 MTCs per calendar year. If, for example, the day after
mine expires is a Saturday, Sunday or public holiday, I often don't
renew it until the next working day. Likewise if it expires while I'm
on holiday. In that way, it's fairly easy to get a calendar year + 2
or 3 weeks out of 12 MTCs. This would furthur minimise your "on paper"
savings for a Z1-4 user, the same would apply to Z1-6, but it would tip
the balance for Z1-5 in the favour of MTCs.