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?

If you go by marginal cost then they're both artificially high, but there
is an enormous fixed cost that has to be paid for somehow.

Either way, it doesn't matter, as long as
they're stopped.

On the contrary, it doesn't matter as long as they're not stopped. The
ability to get to any part of London (and some places beyond it) without
having to buy another ticket is one of the nice things about London.

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.

Their "getting ripped off" is not the result of giving the Mill Hill East
travellers good value.

(unsnip)
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.

So now you object to paying for routes you don't 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.

That question (which you snipped) deserves an answer!

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.

Are you sure it's more expensive? I don't know about from Crystal Palace,
but from some NR stations a return ticket to Underground Zone 1 is
cheaper than a travelcard.

And that's exactly what I'm complaining about! Common sense says a
return should cost less than a Travelcard.

That depends on your objective. If your objective is to reduce car use, a
travelcard is much better, as bus and train journeys then have zero
marginal cost. Instead of thinking "I've paid for the car so I may as
well use it" people think "I've paid for the travelcard so I may as well
use it".

The fact that it costs more is **proof** that there's something seriously
wrong with the current system. What more evidence do you need!?!

(*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.

The transport providers don't need such an excuse as they've already got
a very good reason not to increase supply: lack of adequate funding.

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

Yes it can. The question is how much group discount should be provided to
attract families - or should it stick to what it's best at. And the
answer really depends on the time of day - when the trains are full,
attracting families is probably best avoided, but when there is spare
capacity, it's often worth putting on special offers in order to attract
more passengers.

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)

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.

Yes you can, as I have explained.

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.

They could, but when the fixed to marginal cost ratio to the provider is
so high, that is not a good aim.

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!)

Are you seriously suggesting that TL2K and Crossrail have been held up by
doubts about whether there's the demand for them?

And if Central London fares stayed low, how do you think they could
afford to increase supply?

(snip)