In message
, at
08:10:48 on Mon, 6 Feb 2012, allantracy
remarked:
If good for London, why not every other major city in the UK?

Surely, we already have such tickets.

In London, they have the Railcard and that even covers the Croydon
Tramlink.

In Birmingham, they have something similar so do all the other PTEs.

In Nottingham there's the "Kangaroo" ticket[1] card which is accepted
by:

Bus - NCT (but not night buses), Trent Barton (not night buses),
Premiere, Yourbus, South Notts, Notts+Derby, Pathfinder, Stagecoach East
Midlands, Marshalls, Centrebus, Nottingham Community Transport, Veolia
and Arriva Midland.

Also Nottinghamshire, Nottingham City and Leicestershire Council
contracted buses coming into or around Nottingham - all Dunnline, Paul
Winson, Paul James, Doyles and Premiere Travel contracts.

Park and Ride bus services from Queens Drive and Racecourse

And not forgetting Medilink and Locallink, which are free anyway!

Tram - all services

Train - all services on East Midlands trains and Cross Country trains
within the boundary, valid at/from Attenborough, Beeston, Bulwell,
Carlton, Netherfield and Nottingham

[1] Another candidate for the "most embarrassing name" award.

--
Roland Perry

"Neil Williams" wrote:

On Feb 7, 12:33 pm, ian batten wrote:

Well, only up to a point. PAYG Oyster caps make this less of a
problem than it otherwise would be. What you're proposing is
essentially a "transfer" system in which once you step onto the
transport system, you pay only one fare until you exit the system or
for the next hour or whatever; you could do that, but unless you're
assuming that you reduce the overall revenue by some considerable
amount, it'll involve raising the single fare (because single now
encompasses what were previously multiple rides) which is politically
tricky.

It is fair that the fare be raised for that, yes. Perhaps it could
even go back to being zonal.

Bus fares going back to being zonal? Don't think so. You either require
passengers to have interaction with a driver or a machine on boarding the
bus so as to declare how far they're going, which would massively damage the
speedy bus boarding benefits of Oyster, or else you have some sort of
touch-out arrangement when departing the bus. Which wouldn't work in London.
(This isn't Singapore.)


It also means that some realistic use-cases, such as "quickly nipping
over to X to buy a Y" become single journeys, unless you have some
amazingly complex rules on doubling back. Unless you add Oyster tap-
out to bus journeys, how would you detect "bus from home to shop, buy
thing, bus back?"

So if a Zone 1 to Zone 3 fare is, say, £4, it should be £4 whether
it's a direct Tube, or a bus, a Tube and another bus, or whatever.

OK, so bus Zone 4 to Zone 1, buy a book in Foyles, bus back to Zone 4
is charged as what? Show your working.

Absent bus touch-out, it's quite a hard one to determine. I'd
probably say it should be something along the lines of a bus-only
touch-in allows unlimited bus travel within an hour of the first touch-
in (or possibly a variable time based on the journey length of the bus
you touched in on). For paper tickets in other countries it's often
something like a bus ticket being a one-hour rover ticket.

The problem is that it'd mean lost revenue, which would have to be covered
somehow - higher fares, higher subsidies, or both. Bus fares have already
gone up by some degree under Boris, and it wouldn't be accepted for them to
jump significantly further even if it were to provide for free transfers.
Bumping up Tube & rail fares to provide for free bus transfers at the end
(or start) of the journey wouldn't be popular either. Boris at least is of
the 'keep the GLA council tax precept low' school of thinking, so the extra
subsidy to account for lost revenue from free transfers wouldn't be
forthcoming from him. One of Ken's lines of attack in the forthcoming
Mayoral election is that of lowering fares - given the tight state of
finances, I don't think there'd be much space for providing free transfers.

FWIW, I do very much like the idea of free bus transfers (say within an
hour) in particular, and free bus transfers and the start/end of a Tube/rail
journey would also be neat - but for the time being, it's not something
that's going to be on the agenda.

"Neil Williams" wrote:
[...]
It is absolutely nonsensical that you are penalised for a journey that
requires two buses, and you are penalised for changing from Tube/train
to bus.

There should be one zonal fares system for the entire network for
single fares, completely irrespective of what mode(s) of transport is/
are used. The one exception is that I'd allow for a "bus only"
variant to avoid Tube crowding in central London - but even then
changes should not be penalised.

So if a Zone 1 to Zone 3 fare is, say, £4, it should be £4 whether
it's a direct Tube, or a bus, a Tube and another bus, or whatever.

(Leaving aside the difficulties of charging variable bus fares in an
environment now well accustomed to a flat fare...)

The last paragraph is where you totally lose the argument. No London bus
user is going to approve of (let alone vote for) a system whereby a GBP1.35
fare for a single bus journey suddenly becomes GBP4 (or whatever).

On Feb 7, 2:10*pm, "Mizter T" wrote:

The last paragraph is where you totally lose the argument. No London bus
user is going to approve of (let alone vote for) a system whereby a GBP1.35
fare for a single bus journey suddenly becomes GBP4 (or whatever).

No - and if we went for a "pure" Verbundtarif that is what would
happen. But I would retain the concession that "bus only travel is
cheaper". However, if, to allow free transfers, the bus fare
increased from gbp1.35 to, say, gbp1.80, which might be nearer what
it'd be outside London, that's not unreasonable.

At present, people requiring two or three buses to do a single journey
are subsidising those who use a single bus. That is wrong.

Neil

On Feb 7, 12:30*pm, Neil Williams wrote:

It is fair that the fare be raised for that, yes. *Perhaps it could
even go back to being zonal.

All the people that currently make single bus trips involving one bus
are going to be pretty ****ed off, though.

ian

On Feb 7, 1:13*pm, Neil Williams wrote:

At present, people requiring two or three buses to do a single journey
are subsidising those who use a single bus. *That is wrong.

However, a lot of people on PAYG will walk ten minutes rather than get
a bus outside the station. Encouraging train-bus interchange may have
some interesting unintended consequences.

ian

On Feb 7, 2:56*pm, ian batten wrote:

All the people that currently make single bus trips involving one bus
are going to be pretty ****ed off, though.

Perhaps. But at present they benefit from an unfair quirk of the
price system.

Can you imagine, say, it being one Zone 1 single *per Tube train you
use*? It'd be no different.

Neil

On Feb 7, 2:58*pm, ian batten wrote:

However, a lot of people on PAYG will walk ten minutes rather than get
a bus outside the station. *Encouraging train-bus interchange may have
some interesting unintended consequences.

Of increased bus usage, you mean?

Neil

In message
, at
06:28:20 on Tue, 7 Feb 2012, Neil Williams
remarked:
All the people that currently make single bus trips involving one bus
are going to be pretty ****ed off, though.

Perhaps. But at present they benefit from an unfair quirk of the
price system.

Can you imagine, say, it being one Zone 1 single *per Tube train you
use*? It'd be no different.

To some extent you can solve that by a pricing structure where (for
example) an unlimited day ticket is the same price as two individual
legs. So the only people who would ever pay for a single leg are those
who are sure that's all they need to do that day (think of it as a "low
daily use discount").
--
Roland Perry

On Feb 7, 2:28*pm, Neil Williams wrote:
On Feb 7, 2:58*pm, ian batten wrote:

However, a lot of people on PAYG will walk ten minutes rather than get
a bus outside the station. *Encouraging train-bus interchange may have
some interesting unintended consequences.

Of increased bus usage, you mean?

Yes, but not necessarily in a good way. There wouldn't be any
additional revenue associated with it, for a start off.

ian