On 03/03/2016 14:32, Neil Williams wrote:

On 2016-03-03 11:48:29 +0000, d said:

Would be easy - though costly - to implement too. Have a touch out
reader on the bus for people wanting to interchange to a different
route then have a timeout of say 30 mins for them to get the next
bus.

Don't even need that complexity. Just allow a second touch-in free
within, say, 1.5-2 hours of a touch in, with any further touch-in
restarting the clock. The odd person would get to do a return-half
journey for nothing, and somebody would no doubt stop a bus, touch in
and alight to restart the clock deliberately, but it would be so few and
such short journeys that the effect would be marginal.


No need for that level of complexity - you already said it, "a second
touch-in free" - i.e. one free transfer - within a time limit. No people
'restarting the clock' like that.

This 'one free transfer' already exists on Croydon Tramlink, within a 70
minute time window. It also exists between the tram and buses and v.v.
in New Addington (at the southern extremity of the tram network) - it
used to be between T-prefixed tram feeder routes (and a few others I
think) but the bus network around there was rejigged very recently so
there aren't any more T-routes, instead the free transfer is on offer
for a number of local routes...

https://tfl.gov.uk/fares-and-payments/fares/bus-and-tram

---quote---
Both pay as you go and paper single tickets cover one transfer made
between trams, or between trams and connecting bus routes 64, 130, 314,
353, 359, 433 and 464 (made within 70 minutes of touching in to pay as
you go at the start of your journey, or within 90 minutes of buying a
paper single ticket).
---/quote---


(The paper single tickets in question are those still available from
tram stop ticket machines... I wonder if the days of said machines might
be numbered though...)

However, as Paul C said earlier, TfL's budget is really tight and it's
going to remain that way for some time to come - free bus transfers
would come at a cost one way or another.

On Thu, 3 Mar 2016 14:45:58 +0000, Mizter T
wrote:


On 03/03/2016 14:32, Neil Williams wrote:

On 2016-03-03 11:48:29 +0000, d said:

Would be easy - though costly - to implement too. Have a touch out
reader on the bus for people wanting to interchange to a different
route then have a timeout of say 30 mins for them to get the next
bus.

Don't even need that complexity. Just allow a second touch-in free
within, say, 1.5-2 hours of a touch in, with any further touch-in
restarting the clock. The odd person would get to do a return-half
journey for nothing, and somebody would no doubt stop a bus, touch in
and alight to restart the clock deliberately, but it would be so few and
such short journeys that the effect would be marginal.


No need for that level of complexity - you already said it, "a second
touch-in free" - i.e. one free transfer - within a time limit. No people
'restarting the clock' like that.

This 'one free transfer' already exists on Croydon Tramlink, within a 70
minute time window. It also exists between the tram and buses and v.v.
in New Addington (at the southern extremity of the tram network) - it
used to be between T-prefixed tram feeder routes (and a few others I
think) but the bus network around there was rejigged very recently so
there aren't any more T-routes, instead the free transfer is on offer
for a number of local routes...

https://tfl.gov.uk/fares-and-payments/fares/bus-and-tram

---quote---
Both pay as you go and paper single tickets cover one transfer made
between trams, or between trams and connecting bus routes 64, 130, 314,
353, 359, 433 and 464 (made within 70 minutes of touching in to pay as
you go at the start of your journey, or within 90 minutes of buying a
paper single ticket).
---/quote---


(The paper single tickets in question are those still available from
tram stop ticket machines... I wonder if the days of said machines might
be numbered though...)

However, as Paul C said earlier, TfL's budget is really tight and it's
going to remain that way for some time to come - free bus transfers
would come at a cost one way or another.

Yup, bus fares would have to rise for everyone to cover the loss of
revenue from those taking two or more buses for their journey.

On 2016-03-03 15:11:18 +0000, Recliner said:

Yup, bus fares would have to rise for everyone to cover the loss of
revenue from those taking two or more buses for their journey.

They would, but they would be much fairer, because people would not get
a discount for TfL providing a direct bus for their journey - or rather
people would not be penalised again for TfL not providing a direct bus
for their journey.

The current system is *incredibly* unfair. It near enough works in
small towns where most journeys are to/from the city centre on one
direct bus, and usually if your journey requires crossing the city
centre it's roughly twice as far so charging twice as much is not all
that unreasonable. London is too big for that to work.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

Neil Williams wrote:
On 2016-03-03 15:11:18 +0000, Recliner said:

Yup, bus fares would have to rise for everyone to cover the loss of
revenue from those taking two or more buses for their journey.

They would, but they would be much fairer, because people would not get
a discount for TfL providing a direct bus for their journey - or rather
people would not be penalised again for TfL not providing a direct bus
for their journey.

The current system is *incredibly* unfair. It near enough works in
small towns where most journeys are to/from the city centre on one
direct bus, and usually if your journey requires crossing the city
centre it's roughly twice as far so charging twice as much is not all
that unreasonable. London is too big for that to work.

I agree it's unfair, but that's partly balanced by lower bus fares. But to
make it fairer for some, it would have to get more expensive for others who
benefit from the current system. And, as always, the losers shout much
louder than the winners cheer (partly because the losers soon discover that
they're losing out, while the potential winners may not even be customers
yet).

In article ,
(Neil Williams) wrote:

On 2016-03-03 15:11:18 +0000, Recliner said:

Yup, bus fares would have to rise for everyone to cover the loss of
revenue from those taking two or more buses for their journey.

They would, but they would be much fairer, because people would not
get a discount for TfL providing a direct bus for their journey - or
rather people would not be penalised again for TfL not providing a
direct bus for their journey.

The current system is *incredibly* unfair. It near enough works in
small towns where most journeys are to/from the city centre on one
direct bus, and usually if your journey requires crossing the city
centre it's roughly twice as far so charging twice as much is not all
that unreasonable. London is too big for that to work.

It's just hit Cambridge where a route from the north, covering s string of
villages and the city has been cut back and no longer goes to the railway
station and hospital. There are plenty of buses its passengers can change
onto but no transfer fares unless they buy a day ticket.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message , at 16:19:00
on Thu, 3 Mar 2016, remarked:
Yup, bus fares would have to rise for everyone to cover the loss of
revenue from those taking two or more buses for their journey.

They would, but they would be much fairer, because people would not
get a discount for TfL providing a direct bus for their journey - or
rather people would not be penalised again for TfL not providing a
direct bus for their journey.

The current system is *incredibly* unfair. It near enough works in
small towns where most journeys are to/from the city centre on one
direct bus, and usually if your journey requires crossing the city
centre it's roughly twice as far so charging twice as much is not all
that unreasonable. London is too big for that to work.

It's just hit Cambridge where a route from the north, covering s string of
villages and the city has been cut back and no longer goes to the railway
station and hospital. There are plenty of buses its passengers can change
onto but no transfer fares unless they buy a day ticket.

But a day ticket is the same price as a return, isn't it? Are there a
lot of people making one-way trips.
--
Roland Perry

On 2016-03-04 08:03:22 +0000, Roland Perry said:

But a day ticket is the same price as a return, isn't it? Are there a
lot of people making one-way trips.

Personally, my main bus use at the moment is home to station for a
multi-day trip. For a one day trip, I will mostly cycle, but cycling
with a trolley case or large rucksack is not wonderfully practical. To
go into town I'm probably more likely to drive but may also cycle. I
don't commute when not working away because I work from home, so that
is out.

In Cambridge I would expect that effect to be even larger with the
predominance of the bicycle.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

In article ,
(Neil Williams) wrote:

On 2016-03-04 08:03:22 +0000, Roland Perry said:

But a day ticket is the same price as a return, isn't it? Are there
a lot of people making one-way trips.

Personally, my main bus use at the moment is home to station for a
multi-day trip. For a one day trip, I will mostly cycle, but cycling
with a trolley case or large rucksack is not wonderfully practical.
To go into town I'm probably more likely to drive but may also cycle.
I don't commute when not working away because I work from home, so
that is out.

In Cambridge I would expect that effect to be even larger with the
predominance of the bicycle.

Precisely! My only difference is that as often as not on a day trip I take
the bike on the train with me, especially to central London.

--
Colin Rosenstiel
Cambridge

said

The current system is *incredibly* unfair. It near enough works in
small towns where most journeys are to/from the city centre on one
direct bus, and usually if your journey requires crossing the city
centre it's roughly twice as far so charging twice as much is not all
that unreasonable. London is too big for that to work.

It's just hit Cambridge where a route from the north, covering s string of
villages and the city has been cut back and no longer goes to the railway
station and hospital. There are plenty of buses its passengers can change
onto but no transfer fares unless they buy a day ticket.

Doesn't that also mean that concession bus payments in the city will go up ?

I made that objection to a Surrey CC proposal to rearrange subsidised
routes, they did it differently but I don't know if they took my reason on
board.


--
Mike D

On Thu, 3 Mar 2016 14:45:58 +0000
Mizter T wrote:
On 03/03/2016 14:32, Neil Williams wrote:

On 2016-03-03 11:48:29 +0000, d said:

Would be easy - though costly - to implement too. Have a touch out
reader on the bus for people wanting to interchange to a different
route then have a timeout of say 30 mins for them to get the next
bus.

Don't even need that complexity. Just allow a second touch-in free
within, say, 1.5-2 hours of a touch in, with any further touch-in
restarting the clock. The odd person would get to do a return-half
journey for nothing, and somebody would no doubt stop a bus, touch in
and alight to restart the clock deliberately, but it would be so few and
such short journeys that the effect would be marginal.


No need for that level of complexity - you already said it, "a second
touch-in free" - i.e. one free transfer - within a time limit. No people
'restarting the clock' like that.

Problem with that is that some bus journeys take a long time especially in
rush hour. So if you have a simple time out based on the touch-in time then
it could be exceeded by a long bus journey + wait for next bus. However if you
make it long enough to take account of all realistic scenarios you could have
people getting to their destination, doing their shopping/whatever and then
getting a free trip home again.

--
Spud