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

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.

Ahhh... You think it's those elusive across-London-to-Mill-Hill-East
passengers that TfL are so eager to attract with artificially low fares?
Or 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, is it more likely that TfL have artificially high
prices to discourage all those passengers congesting the network and
only going into zone 1.

Artificially low fares to MHW or artificially high fares to zone 1?
Which are they really doing? Either way, it doesn't matter, as long as
they're stopped.

How can fares be "artificially high"? It's not like thousands of Zone 1
commuters are subsidising about ten Mill Hill East ones.

TfL's fare prices do discourage some from congesting the network in zone
1. I don't see the problem; it's simple economics - you have a supply
which can't meet demand, so you raise the price of the product. The only
artificiality is that the price is subsidised by the state for social
reasons. If TfL fares were completely "natural", then they would
probably be significantly higher than they are now, and London would
cease to have a transport system that served the needs of its population.

The fares are what they are; enough to allow people to actually travel,
but not enough to prevent excessive overcrowding, and somewhere vaguely
in the middle when it comes to raising money for improvements and
covering operating costs.

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

And how many times do people actually want to travel across London to
Mill Hill East? Compare that to the number of times people want to
travel to Central London. There are more people getting ripped off than
there are getting good value.

You raised the example. I agree that few people want to travel across
London to MHE, so does it really matter that their fares are the same as
a fare into Zone 1? Good value is a sticky concept when it comes to the
Tube, but lowering fares to Zone 1 would be disastrous financially for
TfL, so the only remaining strategy would be to raise fares for
cross-London journeys, which would probably only raise marginal extra
revenues.

You *can* buy a return between those stations, but it's more expensive
than a Travelcard, so you get a Travelcard instead.

And that's exactly what I'm complaining about! Common sense says a
return should cost less than a Travelcard. The fact that it costs more
is **proof** that there's something seriously wrong with the current
system. What more evidence do you need!?!

Don't get so worked up about the fact that Travelcards cost less than
returns in some cases! I say "in some cases" as Zone 1 and 2 fares make
sense by your definition.

We were comparing baked beans to TfL tickets. Annabel rightly pointed
out that Tesco might offer 2 cans of baked beans for 40p when one can
costs 25p. That's not a bad thing - you're saving money! Why is it done?
It's to encourage people to buy more baked beans, even if they don't go
into the shop wanting two cans.

TfL want to encourage people to use public transport. You might only be
in the market for a return journey, but it happens that a Travelcard
costs less than that return journey. You pay less than a return journey;
is that a bad thing?

Behind the scenes, I'm sure TfL are acutely aware that Travelcards cost
less than returns from zone 3 outwards. They obviously don't consider it
a problem. The Travelcard system has been designed to make sure the
fares are allocated appropriately, by measuring the numbers of
passengers on services across the system, and distributing revenues
accordingly.

As for flexibility, I once travelled from Gloucester Road to Arnos Grove
and back. I bought a Travelcard because it was cheaper than two singles
at the time (although now, for off-peak journeys, Prepay singles are
cheaper). On the way back, my train stopped for ten minutes at Bounds
Green, where it was announced that there was some problem at Hyde Park
Corner causing extensive delays to the Piccadilly line. Having a
Travelcard, I left the Tube and walked to Bowes Park, caught a train to
Highbury & Islington and got on the Victoria line. Then they announced
some problem on the Victoria line and the train took an age to get to
King's Cross, so I got out, gave up on the Tube and took a bus.

Did I originally need a Travelcard? No. Was it useful? Yes. Was it
cheaper? Yes.

In an alternative scenario where a return fare was cheaper and a
Travelcard was the same price as originally, I would have been worse off
- yes, I saved money, but my ticket was inflexible so I would have had
difficulty getting the train or bus, and TfL would have been worse off,
as they would be receiving less money to put towards fixing these
annoyingly regular occurrences.

In an alternative scenario where a return fare was the same price as
before but a Travelcard was more expensive, I would have been worse off
- it didn't cost me any different, but again I had an inflexible ticket.
The people who don't just make a simple return journey would also have
been worse off as their tickets would have been more expensive.

(*snip vague off-the-top-of-my-head ideas about ways to streamline a
poin-to-point fares system*)


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.


Why? That just gives the transport providers an excuse for not
increasing supply to match demand.

Where does all the money come from to increase the supply?
Would you prefer to be left waiting on platforms in the meantime because
you can't physically fit on the train?

In many cases, supply is at 100% of capacity or even above (e.g.
approaches to London Bridge). The solutions cost billions of pounds. How
will lowering fares help?

Without any demand management, the transport providers will be incapable
of providing the service that you have paid for. That is no solution by
anyone's standards.

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

Well, if you really want to encourage families, then myabe children
could be added as a supplement to the adult ticket along with the first
class supplement etc. Or just add a surcharge to all adult tickets.
(But it's starting to get complicated again. It's worth going for the
simpler system, especially if it means we don't have to put up with
noisy kids on our trains! Keep them in cars, where only their parents
will have to suffer! nirg)

You could offer a ticket supplement which offers free sedative-spiked
drinks for children.

More seriously, it's not a good idea just to say "keep them in cars";
not all families have a car, and we don't really want cars to be used
more than necessary (certainly not in London).

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).

It works both ways. You can't aid the children without also penalising
the adults.

You're not penalising the adults if their tickets cost the same as they
would have done in the first place!

Train journeys are hardly comparable to baked beans or magazines.

But they could become comparable. That's what I'm aiming towards with
this system.

See above, special offers.

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.


OTOH I'd say the fact that it doesn't have any demand management
nonsense is a big advantage of my scheme. It gives the transport
providers some incentive to actually improve the supply of transport
where it's needed most, instead of discouraging customers from
travelling. (E.g. if London had had something like that, instead of
zones, maybe we'd have T2K and Crossrail by now!)

It's ludicrous to say that demand management is a "nonsense"; it clearly
works very well for planes and lack of it causes untold misery for
motorists.

One of the advantages of road user charging is that it would manage
demand, provide new income to improve transport and doesn't charge
motorists in lightly-trafficked areas the same way as a motorist in the
centre of a huge city. If we are considering making that step forward on
the roads, why would we make a step back on the railways and charge
someone travelling 3 miles through rural Cornwall the same price as
someone travelling 3 miles through inner London?

Cutting revenue and causing unnecessary extra overcrowding and customer
dissatisfaction is hardly an incentive to improve supply.


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).

OTOH looking at any map will allow you to estimate the distance and so
give you a fairly good idea of what it would cost.

Not very useful in London where you either have a simple schematic map
or a visually intimidating geographical one.

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