Solar Penguin wrote:
--- Dave Arquati said...


I fail to see how an uncomplicated system which people can actually
understand is a problem. Zones are essentially distance-based


Distance based? Then how come a ticket from Morden to Waterloo (zones
1-4) costs the same as a ticket from Morden all the way to Mill Hill
East? Is it really fair that passengers only going as far as Waterloo
should pay for *twice* the distance they're actually travelling?

What makes you think that passengers to Waterloo are paying twice the
distance they're travelling? Given that the number of people travelling
from Morden to Zone 1 must *vastly* outnumber those travelling beyond
into northern parts of the outer zones, I find it much more likely that
passengers to Mill Hill East are actually paying *less* than they would
under a point-to-point system.

Do you really think that under a point-to-point system, a fare to a
central London station would be *less*?

and keep people
happy when they can easily understand what fare they will pay.


And how are people happy when "they can easily understand" that they're
being charged *twice* as much as they should be charged? That might
make you happy, but I'm not so easily pleased!

They're not being charged twice what they should; the Mill Hill East
travellers are paying less than they would under your system.

I'm quite happy that should I decide to travel from one side of London
to the other, I'm paying less under the current system.

How would Travelcards - the most useful and flexible ticket - work
under a point-to-point system?


You say "flexible" like it's a good thing. But it isn't. It's just a
con to make you pay for routes you don't actually use.

Either single/return fares decrease - which is unlikely and would be a
bad move on the part of TfL as it would increase Tube crowding and
reduce revenue - or Travelcard prices increase, which doesn't really
benefit anyone.

People aren't always making a simple return journey; they may have
several destinations to visit. Why should they be penalised just because
you think that it's wrong that a Travelcard is cheaper than a return
ticket in some cases? Return tickets certainly aren't going to decrease
in price, so the only other way is for Travelcards to increase.

Suppose you want to travel, for example, from Crystal Palace to Oxford
Circus. Why can't you simply buy a cheap day return from Crystal Palace
to Oxford Circus? Instead you *have* to buy a One Day Travelcard for
zones 1-4, which means you're also paying for the flexibility of
travelling to Morden, Mill Hill East, Waterloo, and dozens of other
places that you won't actually visit today!

You *can* buy a return between those stations, but it's more expensive
than a Travelcard, so you get a Travelcard instead. You're not paying
more, you're paying less!!! I don't see the problem. You think that
you're paying for that extra flexibility but you're not, as the
inflexible return ticket is more expensive and isn't going to get any
cheaper.

The National Rail fares system is a complicated mess at the moment,
and hardly sets a good example for London to revert to.

I agree that the NR system could be streamlined. So let's concentrate
on streamlining it, instead of scrapping it and replacing it with
something worse.

I wouldn't advocate a zonal scheme for the entire NR system; we're
talking about Greater London, where a zonal system suits the demands
placed upon the network. However, I would support streamlining the NR
system, so let's have a look at your plan.

For example, the development of GPS systems means that it's possible to
calculate the straight-line, as-the-crow-flies distance between
stations, and use that as a basis for a point-to-point system. (This
way, we eliminate much of the complicated routing nonsense which makes
NR's present fares system so awkward. After all, from the customer's
POV it's only the start and end points that really matter, not the
places in between.)

Multiply that straight-line distance by a fixed pounds-per-mile rate,
and you get the base cost of the ticket. You can then add on various
fixed value premiums for premium services, e.g.

** travelling first class

** travelling by an express train instead of a stopping train

** even travelling by a train instead of a bus (assuming that this could
be the basis for tickets on all modes of transport)

Give the customers an itemised receipt along with their ticket, and they
can easily understand how the fare was worked out.

It's a nice idea (and I especially support a ticket for all modes of
transport), but you need a method of managing demand on busy routes and
in busy areas too.

And while we're at
it, let's get rid of pointless things like:

** different rates for adults and children. (After all, if you buy a
magazine or a can of drink, the shop won't charge you extra just because
you happen to be an adult. Why should adults buying train tickets be
penalised that way?)

What about families? Rail can't possibly compete with car without some
sort of discount for groups travelling together.

And once again, I think you'll find the child is being undercharged
(i.e. encouraged), rather than the adult being overcharged (i.e. penalised).

** cheaper prices for tickets bought in advance. (If you buy a tin of
baked beans, the supermarket won't give you a discount if you leave the
tin on your shelf for a week with out opening it. The newsagent won't
reduce the price of a magazine if you keep it instead of reading it
right away. So why should tickets be cheaper if you don't use them
straight away?)

Train journeys are hardly comparable to baked beans or magazines. This
is again an issue to do with demand management; encourage people to book
in advance for busy trains, and encourage them to use less busy trains,
resulting in a lessening of overcrowding.

However, I do think that turn-up-and-go fares are just too expensive in
many cases to be worthwhile except for business passengers. Even if they
can't be reduced, making the availability of cheaper advance fares more
transparent would make people happier, rather than the Ryanair method
where you can't get a cheap fare without trawling through dozens of
different flight combinations.

There we are. A nice, simple, streamlined, easy to follow system, based
entirely on the point-to-point system, and which cannot overcharge
people the way a zonal system does. That's the sort of thing the rail
companies should be aiming for. Not making things worse by forcing
zones on people.

I never said the whole NR network should be subjected to zonal fares.
Your system certainly has some merit; however, it falls down in one
major factor, which is demand management, dealt with quite simply and
easily by a zonal system in cities.

The main example of a distance-based fares system in this country is
road traffic; journeys increase in cost proportional to distance
(combined with some element of fuel efficiency). Look at how
unsuccessful that system is in dealing with demand in cities and on
trunk routes.

There is also an issue with understanding; people don't really care what
the distance is between their journey points, but journey time and price
are very important. In London, if people want to perform any journey in
London they haven't done before, the price, based on a zonal system, is
very transparent - what zones do I travel through? With a distance-based
system, it's only possible to make an informed decision by using some
computer-based tool (or consulting an extremely large set of tables).


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