On Monday, 31 March 2014 09:28:53 UTC+1, Robin wrote:
There's a fair few parents in East London who can't afford to take

a day off work to look after their children let alone to go watch the

Tour. (I think that's one significant difference from 2007 when the time

trial was in central London on Saturday and 1st stage on Sunday.)



Prompts the thought that some commuters will end up using 2

buses where usually it's only one. And the extra GBP 1.45 will

matter to some of them. It'd be nice if TfL could do something to

address the point. Could they instruct drivers to issue "bus transfer

tickets" where routes are curtailed? (Not something I've seen them do

routinely.)

I've long thought it unfair that buses don't have a transfer system by default.
Oyster would have been the perfect opportunity to introduce it - a single
journey limited by time, just like the trams and tubes work. Someone might
need to take 2 or 3 buses to travel the distance someone else does on 1 bus,
and it's not their fault the routes don't favour them.

On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 07:42:32PM +0100, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 13:03:21 +0100, David Cantrell
wrote:
On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 06:11:02PM +0100, Paul Corfield wrote:
I am afraid I do not understand the raging contempt people have for an
event ...
How about the fact that, just like the Olympics, it's a pain in the
arse, and that the powers that be can't be arsed with actually talking
to the people affected, they just impose these events on their home
towns.
OK you don't like big sporting events or the Tour de France. Message
received and understood.

Received and misunderstood.

I have nothing against big sporting events. I'm looking forward to the
rugby world cup, for example. What I'm against is events that massively
inconvenience large numbers of people who aren't interested in them and
can't reasonably avoid them. If, hypothetically, the rugby world cup
were to be held in temporary stadiums erected on the spaces normally
occupied by roads, I'd be against it. But it isn't, because it's not run
by selfish gits.

--
David Cantrell | Hero of the Information Age

"Cynical" is a word used by the naive to describe the experienced.
George Hills, in uknot

"Mark Hynes" wrote

[...]
matter to some of them. It'd be nice if TfL could do something to
address the point. Could they instruct drivers to issue "bus transfer
tickets" where routes are curtailed? (Not something I've seen them do
routinely.)

I've long thought it unfair that buses don't have a transfer system by
default.
Oyster would have been the perfect opportunity to introduce it - a single
journey limited by time, just like the trams and tubes work. Someone might
need to take 2 or 3 buses to travel the distance someone else does on 1 bus,
and it's not their fault the routes don't favour them.

See previous discussions !

The Oyster capping deals with a lot of this and it was pointed out that
there are 1 per hour TfL buses so limited by time would allow many return
journeys free, plus the variable time due to traffic would vary the cost
too.

Compare the Out of Station Interchange cases where a return was partially
joined to the initial journey.



--
Mike D

Well said, sir! I couldn't have put it better myself.

On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 04:12:12AM -0700, Mark Hynes wrote:

I've long thought it unfair that buses don't have a transfer system by default.
Oyster would have been the perfect opportunity to introduce it - a single
journey limited by time, just like the trams and tubes work.

IIRC that's been a Lib Dem policy for their London Assembly members
since forever.

Someone might
need to take 2 or 3 buses to travel the distance someone else does on 1 bus,
and it's not their fault the routes don't favour them.

It's a good policy, because it gets rid of all the faff of transfer
tickets and the ripoff that results from the vast majority of passengers
not knowing about them and drivers not bothering to inform them. But I
don't buy your argument. Unless you're a child you choose where you
live. And you choose where you work. If you choose to do inconvenient
journeys that's your problem.

It's a bit like people in Bromley moaning about not having any tubes.

--
David Cantrell | top google result for "internet beard fetish club"

While researching this email, I was forced to carry out some
investigative work which unfortunately involved a bucket of
puppies and a belt sander
-- after JoeB, in the Monastery

I wish that the Daily Mash would return to writing satire instead of
sensible news stories:

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/fish/chips-2014040385379

--
David Cantrell | Reality Engineer, Ministry of Information

Support terrierism! Adopt a dog today!

On Thursday, 3 April 2014 12:52:40 UTC+1, David Cantrell wrote:
On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 04:12:12AM -0700, Mark Hynes wrote:



I've long thought it unfair that buses don't have a transfer system by default.

Oyster would have been the perfect opportunity to introduce it - a single

journey limited by time, just like the trams and tubes work.



IIRC that's been a Lib Dem policy for their London Assembly members

since forever.



Someone might

need to take 2 or 3 buses to travel the distance someone else does on 1 bus,

and it's not their fault the routes don't favour them.



It's a good policy, because it gets rid of all the faff of transfer

tickets and the ripoff that results from the vast majority of passengers

not knowing about them and drivers not bothering to inform them. But I

don't buy your argument. Unless you're a child you choose where you

live. And you choose where you work. If you choose to do inconvenient

journeys that's your problem.

No, not everyone is fortunate enough to choose where they work, or where they live, or where their family, friends, shops etc are.

On Thu, 03 Apr 2014 12:52:40 +0100, David Cantrell
wrote:

On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 04:12:12AM -0700, Mark Hynes wrote:

[Re transfers] Someone might
need to take 2 or 3 buses to travel the distance someone else does on 1 bus,
and it's not their fault the routes don't favour them.

It's a good policy, because it gets rid of all the faff of transfer
tickets and the ripoff that results from the vast majority of passengers
not knowing about them and drivers not bothering to inform them. But I
don't buy your argument. Unless you're a child you choose where you
live. And you choose where you work. If you choose to do inconvenient
journeys that's your problem.

If we can agree that people move to be near particular railways or
motorways, and I'm sure they do -- I did -- I can't accept that it's
ever the case for a bus route. They're just too ephemeral. Like a
cheap Ryanair destination, they can be gone in a moment.

It's a bit like people in Bromley moaning about not having any tubes.

Well, I moan about the lack of transfers, but don't think it's the
same at all. South London is bereft of the Underground thanks to
history, corporate decisions and, some say, geology. I'll never agree
with what Bromley did, by the way, but I see the objection they had.

On the other hand, I am as very well served as almost everyone else in
Greater London, with one of the world's best bus networks. It just
doesn't necessarily go where I want, although it might have done a
year ago and it might do in future. I have no complaint about the
level of service, I just want the *same* treatment that rail
travellers get, a ticket to where I'm going, not some arbitrary point
along the way.

I wonder what the figures are? What would the PAYG single fare need
to be for a change to transfers to need no extra subsidy? Yes,
occasional return journeys might be made, in the same way that a
second journey might be possible with a rail OSI. You could make a
transfer only to a different route, but that would remove the benefit
of not faffing about with transfer tickets during disruption (or a
planned event).

Richard.

On Thursday, 3 April 2014 20:24:56 UTC+1, Richard wrote:
I wonder what the figures are? What would the PAYG single fare need

to be for a change to transfers to need no extra subsidy? Yes,

occasional return journeys might be made, in the same way that a

second journey might be possible with a rail OSI. You could make a

transfer only to a different route, but that would remove the benefit

of not faffing about with transfer tickets during disruption (or a

planned event).

Occasional return journeys for a single fare happen already on Tramlink. Actually probably not that occasional, it's happened to me a fair few times when I've, say, hopped into Croydon to visit my bank (which is next to a stop) and straight back. I can't remember, and can't find, what the maximum journey time allowed on one touch-in is but I think it's fairly generous.

Thinking about this, I've also had similar on a bus. I caught a bus to its terminus, went to a shop and was back at the terminus in time to catch the same bus back. The ticket machine refused my card with something like "passback attempted". The driver remembered me from earlier and just waved me on..

The OSI time between London Bridge Underground and NR is 40 minutes, far greater than I need if I know my train time[1] so I've often used it to leave the station to do something quickly.

[1] The downside of OSI times at Underground/NR interchanges is that if something goes wrong on the NR side it's easy to exceed them and be charged for two journeys. A problem that generally won't happen in the the reverse (NR to Underground) direction as unlike on NR you go through the gateline without waiting for your train to be there / announced.