Laurence Payne wrote:
On 31 Jan 2006 05:07:58 -0800, "MIG"
wrote:

Which would help someone who wanted to make a single journey, at a
single journey price, just how?

By being cheap enough I spose.

Depends what you mean by "journey". The problem is with being charged
extra for having to change to a different vehicle, despite it actually
being less convenient, to make what in real life is a single journey to
where you want to be.

People using cars (the real competition) don't have to pay extra if
they stop off on their way, so why should people using buses and/or
trains?

So you want to be charged for a full day's usage of the whole system
when you just wanted a single Underground journey? You'd be
screaming even louder :-)


Not if a full day's usage was cheap enough


All we were discussing was a failure of one type of ticket to
automatically recognise a diversion due to breakdown etc. If you
were driving your car and broke down you wouldn't get free diversion
to another form of transport. Anyway, a car is only a special-case
option into central London now.


The problem is that the system has trouble with working out that you
started your journey in one place and ended up (in some reasonable
amount of time) in another place, and then charging you for getting
from one place to the other. Diversions shouldn't be an issue.

They've gone for the simplistic option of deeming you to have made two
journeys if you have to use, say, two buses or bus and a train along
the way.

When bus routes were progressively cut short over the last few years,
eg stopping short at Russell Square instead of going on to Euston, I
originally thought that it was to avoid difficult stretches of road so
that claims could be made about improved reliability.

It wasn't to get more fares at first, because everyone was using
travelcards.

But now with Prepay, shorter bus routes does mean double fares in a lot
of cases. I object to that and I think that there should be more
sensible ways of defining a "journey".