Robin wrote:
On 19/11/2019 11:15, Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:21:29 on Tue, 19 Nov
2019, Recliner remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
https://metro.co.uk/2019/11/18/trans...-tube-dlr-bus-
tram-fares-sadiq-khan-says-11173313/

At a time when political promises are being made daily, it always pays
to ask about the small print.

So when Khan said

"I want to be crystal clear - no ifs, no buts - what you'll pay
if I'm elected Mayor in May 2016 is what you'll pay at the end
of my 4 years in office."

What he delivered was: all fares on buses and trams, plus single pay-as-
you-go Tube and DLR fares; but Daily and weekly price caps, plus weekly,
monthly and annual travelcards, are not included in the freeze.

So lots of people are paying many pennies more.

There are inevitable structural reasons why this might be the case, but that
simply brings the original pledge into more disrepute.

To be fair, I think he always made clear that his promise only applied to
TfL fares,

If you can find a quote from him *before* the election, distancing
himself from "no ifs and buts" into "well, actually... on the trains
it's just daily tube fares, not even seasons, let alone suburban rail
services" a lot of people would be interested.

And at the time it would have lost a lot of votes, especially south of
the river.

Of course, and that's why he didn't do something so idiotic. He's a
lawyer-turned-politician, and used carefully chosen, precisely correct
terms that people were free to interpret as more generous than they were.
But he told no lies, even if some people mistakenly thought the pledge was
wider than it really was. He was under no obligation to correct their
mistake.

Please explain to me how "Londoners won’t pay a penny more for their
travel in 2020 than they do today" were carefully chosen, precisely
correct terms that have the meaning you ascribe to them.

Somewhere in that paragraph will have been a mention of TfL fares.

In message , at 11:22:30 on Tue, 19 Nov
2019, Recliner remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:21:06 on Tue, 19 Nov
2019, Recliner remarked:
https://metro.co.uk/2019/11/18/trans...-tube-dlr-bus-
tram-fares-sadiq-khan-says-11173313/

At a time when political promises are being made daily, it always pays
to ask about the small print.

So when Khan said

"I want to be crystal clear - no ifs, no buts - what you'll pay
if I'm elected Mayor in May 2016 is what you'll pay at the end
of my 4 years in office."

What he delivered was: all fares on buses and trams, plus single pay-as-
you-go Tube and DLR fares; but Daily and weekly price caps, plus weekly,
monthly and annual travelcards, are not included in the freeze.

So lots of people are paying many pennies more.

There are inevitable structural reasons why this might be the
case, but that
simply brings the original pledge into more disrepute.

To be fair, I think he always made clear that his promise only applied to
TfL fares, and not those that included any actual or potential mainline
rail use, over which he had no control.


His manifesto had

"Freeze TfL transport fares for four
years ... Londoners won’t
pay a penny more for their travel
in 2020 than they do today."

No qualifications.

Also reported as:

"I want to be crystal clear, no ifs, no buts, what you will pay
if I'm elected Mayor in 2016 as a traveller in London is what
you'll pay at the end of my four years in office.

Note, "a traveller", not a "TfL passenger" although he did later start
claiming success based on bus/tram fares alone.

And he did exactly what he promised: he *did* freeze TfL transport fares.
He didn't, and couldn't, freeze fares set by the DfT. Travelcards and caps
that include elements of both TfL and DfT fares were accordingly not
frozen. But bus-only fares were.

What he promised, when questioned on the manifesto, was to freeze the
price of people's journeys to work. If anything he longer the campaign
went on, the more generic it became.

"For millions of workers in London, the cost of travel is a huge
part of their annual salary. With spiralling housing costs, the
mayor has the ability to help ease the financial burden for
commuters and I will deliver for them."

But his cat is out of the bag, his goose cooked (or is that the
electorate's goose)

There's a different, more valid criticism of his policy: was it wise to
damage TfL's revenue stream in that way? TfL is now in serious financial
trouble, being forced to postpone or cancel essential investment and fleet
replacement projects. Perhaps he should have committed only to limiting TfL
fare rises to the rate of inflation?

Some other candidates were committing to *cutting* travel costs!

It's their policy, they have to cost it, and think through the
consequences.

His plan depended on a stream of Crossrail fares revenue arriving during
2019; instead, there will be very little during his term.

Then he should have been more on the ball when it came to "getting
crossrail done" [would that fit on the side of a bus?]

The only Crossrail revenues that TfL will get before 2021 are the fares
collected from Reading.

What about Shenfield?

People need to be a bit clearer in this General Election exactly what it
is they are being promised (bay any party).

Good luck with that!

People are better than that. Once alerted to the possibility that they
are being lied to, many are perfectly capable of giving the proposals
grater scrutiny.

For example "Getting Brexit done", which won't happen in January even if
Boris gets elected. It'll only be the end of the beginning, Not even the
beginning of the middle, let alone the end.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 11:15:47 on Tue, 19 Nov
2019, Recliner remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:21:29 on Tue, 19 Nov
2019, Recliner remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
https://metro.co.uk/2019/11/18/trans...-tube-dlr-bus-
tram-fares-sadiq-khan-says-11173313/

At a time when political promises are being made daily, it always pays
to ask about the small print.

So when Khan said

"I want to be crystal clear - no ifs, no buts - what you'll pay
if I'm elected Mayor in May 2016 is what you'll pay at the end
of my 4 years in office."

What he delivered was: all fares on buses and trams, plus single pay-as-
you-go Tube and DLR fares; but Daily and weekly price caps, plus weekly,
monthly and annual travelcards, are not included in the freeze.

So lots of people are paying many pennies more.

There are inevitable structural reasons why this might be the case,
but that
simply brings the original pledge into more disrepute.

To be fair, I think he always made clear that his promise only applied to
TfL fares,

If you can find a quote from him *before* the election, distancing
himself from "no ifs and buts" into "well, actually... on the trains
it's just daily tube fares, not even seasons, let alone suburban rail
services" a lot of people would be interested.

And at the time it would have lost a lot of votes, especially south of
the river.

Of course, and that's why he didn't do something so idiotic.

So idiotic as to tell the truth!!!

He's a lawyer-turned-politician, and used carefully chosen, precisely
correct terms that people were free to interpret as more generous than
they were.

No, his talk about travellers and commuters precisely *didn't*
ring-fence to promise to day-ticket tube users. When Andrew Marr later
asked him how well it was going, considering that most passengers
observably use Travelards, Oyster and Contactless, he ducked the
question.

But he told no lies, even if some people mistakenly thought the pledge was
wider than it really was. He was under no obligation to correct their
mistake.

On one hand I'm posting this thread to make people more alert to the
possibility of more "over-interpretable" promises being made, on the
other hand what he promised *was* much wider than you are caring to
remember.

and not those that included any actual or potential mainline rail use,
over which he had no control.

I think it's part of the opaqueness of fares setting that Londoners
might well think that national rail fares *within the zones*, while
being higher than tube fares for an equivalent trip, could be set by the
Mayor rather than the DfT. It'd have to be in the franchise agreements
of course.

It would, but isn't.

Because of the opaqueness. And he deliberately chose not to shine a
light on this aspect.

While we are on the subject, who sets the Crossrial (nee TfL Rail)
fares? And is there an expectation in Khan's pledge that those might be
pegged as well (on routes currently operated by TfL Rail).

I think that TfL only sets them inside the zones. That's why, for example,
Oyster won't be usable on TfL Rail trains next month to Reading.

"Zones" is becoming a bit fuzzy now. I suppose Shenfield is in a "Zone",
but they don't really give it a user-facing number.

Yes, it's "Zone C", but you won't find that on a ticket machine I bet.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at
11:24:48 on Tue, 19 Nov 2019, Robin remarked:

To be fair, I think he always made clear that his promise only applied to
TfL fares,

If you can find a quote from him *before* the election, distancing
himself from "no ifs and buts" into "well, actually... on the trains
it's just daily tube fares, not even seasons, let alone suburban rail
services" a lot of people would be interested.

And at the time it would have lost a lot of votes, especially south of
the river.
...
Of course, and that's why he didn't do something so idiotic. He's a
lawyer-turned-politician, and used carefully chosen, precisely correct
terms that people were free to interpret as more generous than they were.
But he told no lies, even if some people mistakenly thought the pledge was
wider than it really was. He was under no obligation to correct their
mistake.

Please explain to me how "Londoners won’t pay a penny more for their
travel in 2020 than they do today" were carefully chosen, precisely
correct terms that have the meaning you ascribe to them.

Perhaps he found it too difficult to implement a fares structure where
Londoners had their fares pegged and country bumpkins got fleeced?
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 11:39:56 on Tue, 19 Nov
2019, Recliner remarked:

To be fair, I think he always made clear that his promise only applied to
TfL fares,

If you can find a quote from him *before* the election, distancing
himself from "no ifs and buts" into "well, actually... on the trains
it's just daily tube fares, not even seasons, let alone suburban rail
services" a lot of people would be interested.

And at the time it would have lost a lot of votes, especially south of
the river.

Of course, and that's why he didn't do something so idiotic. He's a
lawyer-turned-politician, and used carefully chosen, precisely correct
terms that people were free to interpret as more generous than they were.
But he told no lies, even if some people mistakenly thought the pledge was
wider than it really was. He was under no obligation to correct their
mistake.

Please explain to me how "Londoners won’t pay a penny more for their
travel in 2020 than they do today" were carefully chosen, precisely
correct terms that have the meaning you ascribe to them.

Somewhere in that paragraph will have been a mention of TfL fares.

When asked for clarification, his wording got ever more generic. Until
he blurted out the "no ifs and buts". Which admittedly almost always
turns out to be the exact opposite, whoever says it, to the savvy
listener.

--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:15:47 on Tue, 19 Nov
2019, Recliner remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:21:29 on Tue, 19 Nov
2019, Recliner remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
https://metro.co.uk/2019/11/18/trans...-tube-dlr-bus-
tram-fares-sadiq-khan-says-11173313/

At a time when political promises are being made daily, it always pays
to ask about the small print.

So when Khan said

"I want to be crystal clear - no ifs, no buts - what you'll pay
if I'm elected Mayor in May 2016 is what you'll pay at the end
of my 4 years in office."

What he delivered was: all fares on buses and trams, plus single pay-as-
you-go Tube and DLR fares; but Daily and weekly price caps, plus weekly,
monthly and annual travelcards, are not included in the freeze.

So lots of people are paying many pennies more.

There are inevitable structural reasons why this might be the case,
but that
simply brings the original pledge into more disrepute.

To be fair, I think he always made clear that his promise only applied to
TfL fares,

If you can find a quote from him *before* the election, distancing
himself from "no ifs and buts" into "well, actually... on the trains
it's just daily tube fares, not even seasons, let alone suburban rail
services" a lot of people would be interested.

And at the time it would have lost a lot of votes, especially south of
the river.

Of course, and that's why he didn't do something so idiotic.

So idiotic as to tell the truth!!!

He's a lawyer-turned-politician, and used carefully chosen, precisely
correct terms that people were free to interpret as more generous than
they were.

No, his talk about travellers and commuters precisely *didn't*
ring-fence to promise to day-ticket tube users. When Andrew Marr later
asked him how well it was going, considering that most passengers
observably use Travelards, Oyster and Contactless, he ducked the
question.

But he told no lies, even if some people mistakenly thought the pledge was
wider than it really was. He was under no obligation to correct their
mistake.

On one hand I'm posting this thread to make people more alert to the
possibility of more "over-interpretable" promises being made, on the
other hand what he promised *was* much wider than you are caring to
remember.

and not those that included any actual or potential mainline rail use,
over which he had no control.

I think it's part of the opaqueness of fares setting that Londoners
might well think that national rail fares *within the zones*, while
being higher than tube fares for an equivalent trip, could be set by the
Mayor rather than the DfT. It'd have to be in the franchise agreements
of course.

It would, but isn't.

Because of the opaqueness. And he deliberately chose not to shine a
light on this aspect.

While we are on the subject, who sets the Crossrial (nee TfL Rail)
fares? And is there an expectation in Khan's pledge that those might be
pegged as well (on routes currently operated by TfL Rail).

I think that TfL only sets them inside the zones. That's why, for example,
Oyster won't be usable on TfL Rail trains next month to Reading.

"Zones" is becoming a bit fuzzy now. I suppose Shenfield is in a "Zone",
but they don't really give it a user-facing number.

Yes, it's "Zone C", but you won't find that on a ticket machine I bet.

I don't suppose TfL picks up many Shenfield to London fares; it'll mainly
be getting local traffic.

In message , at 15:44:01 on Tue, 19 Nov
2019, Recliner remarked:

While we are on the subject, who sets the Crossrial (nee TfL Rail)
fares? And is there an expectation in Khan's pledge that those might be
pegged as well (on routes currently operated by TfL Rail).

I think that TfL only sets them inside the zones. That's why, for example,
Oyster won't be usable on TfL Rail trains next month to Reading.

"Zones" is becoming a bit fuzzy now. I suppose Shenfield is in a "Zone",
but they don't really give it a user-facing number.

Yes, it's "Zone C", but you won't find that on a ticket machine I bet.

I don't suppose TfL picks up many Shenfield to London fares; it'll mainly
be getting local traffic.

Which would include pretty much all the Brentwood/Harold Wood/etc
traffic to London.
--
Roland Perry