http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/13301604

Jim wrote:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/13301604

The official announcement (TfL press release) is at
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/press-rele...a-21-sep.shtml

with details of all the fares at
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/downloads/...ares-table.pdf

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

"Jim" wrote in message
...

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/13301604

I don't understand how the ES can describe putting bus fares up from 100p to
120p before 9:30am and down from 100p to 80p after 9:30am as "Bus Fares
Soar".

Free bus travel for all under 16? That is a diabolically bad idea... buses
will become unsafe for anyone else, that's if there's room for anyone else.
If they only gave free travel to under-16s who have been in no trouble with
the police or school, that might be an idea.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 15:22:57 +0100, "John Rowland"
wrote:

"Jim" wrote in message
...

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/13301604

I don't understand how the ES can describe putting bus fares up from 100p to
120p before 9:30am and down from 100p to 80p after 9:30am as "Bus Fares
Soar".

The point though is that cash fares rise 20p or 20%; AM peak Oyster pre
pay fares rise 30p to £1 so nearly 50% while even off peak Pre Pay fares
rise 10p or 14%. No matter which way you view it I'd say they were
pretty big rises.

Of course the Evening Standard will do anything to make a headline but I
think they are partly justified in making a bit of noise about this.
Clearly the financial settlement from government is not being directed
at the bus network - looks like we are stuck with what we've got today
with not a lot of room for improvement for the next 4 years.

Free bus travel for all under 16? That is a diabolically bad idea... buses
will become unsafe for anyone else, that's if there's room for anyone else.
If they only gave free travel to under-16s who have been in no trouble with
the police or school, that might be an idea.

While I understand the social exclusion arguments about keeping child
fares down I do not agree with the policy of free fares for under 11
year olds never mind increasing it progressively to under 18s by 2006.
I trust Ken will be funding the increase in insurance and vandalism
costs in certain areas of London where youths and children already wreak
wanton damage on buses and related infrastructure. I feel sorry for the
bus drivers - how to make a tough job even more unattractive.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

John Rowland wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message
...

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/13301604

I don't understand how the ES can describe putting bus fares up
from 100p to 120p before 9:30am and down from 100p to 80p after
9:30am as "Bus Fares Soar".

Try reading the TfL documents (see my earlier post) rather than the ES
spin. On buses, cash fares go up from £1 to £1.20 all day. Pre-pay goes
up from 70p to 80p (£1 in the morning peak). Saver goes up from 70p to
£1 all day (43% rise).

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

John Rowland wrote:

Free bus travel for all under 16? That is a diabolically bad idea... buses
will become unsafe for anyone else, that's if there's room for anyone else.
If they only gave free travel to under-16s who have been in no trouble with
the police or school, that might be an idea.

There are two advantages to me:

1) Stops them going to school/piano lessons or whatever in mummy's car
2) Encourages ownership of public transport for kids, making for better
treatment of vehicles and a higher likelihood they will use public
transport when they are older.

I find your generalisations of young people surprising, almost
disturbing, but perhaps I've failed to pick up on a nuance of your post
or history.

Dan

"John Rowland" wrote in message
...
"Jim" wrote in message
...

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/13301604

...

Free bus travel for all under 16? That is a diabolically bad idea... buses
will become unsafe for anyone else, that's if there's room for anyone
else.
If they only gave free travel to under-16s who have been in no trouble
with
the police or school, that might be an idea.

I understand what you mean; strikes me this is the teenage vandals' dream
come true. Now they don't even have to pay before they get on, go upstairs
and scratch the windows/paint graffiti everywhere.

I am tempted to conclude whoever thinks this is a good idea has never
travelled on a bus in SE London. And to think we'll all be paying for them
too...

(and before someone says 'not all kids do this', I would completely agree
and say it's a relatively tiny minority of teenagers. However, this
relatively tiny minority cause widespread damage running into hundreds of
thousands of pounds; we simply cannot ignore that and allow this serious
problem with bus vandalism to escalate in order to provide free bus travel
for all IMO). The situation with public transport vandalism in SE London is
quite simply dire.

In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 15:22:57 +0100, "John Rowland"
wrote:

"Jim" wrote in message
...

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/13301604

I don't understand how the ES can describe putting bus fares up from
100p to
120p before 9:30am and down from 100p to 80p after 9:30am as "Bus Fares
Soar".

The point though is that cash fares rise 20p or 20%; AM peak Oyster pre
pay fares rise 30p to £1 so nearly 50% while even off peak Pre Pay fares
rise 10p or 14%. No matter which way you view it I'd say they were
pretty big rises.

In 2003 the fare was 80p cash
In 2004 the fare was 70p cash
In 2005 the fare will be 120p cash.

This will be a 50% rise on the 2003 fares and a 70% rise on the 2004
fares for the many people who pay cash. It's just a rip-off.

The prepay etc. fares are just a smoke screen. It's like a firm saying -
"look, we haven't put our prices up this year but, for those of you not
paying by direct debit you'll now pay another £2/month!"

Roger



Of course the Evening Standard will do anything to make a headline but I
think they are partly justified in making a bit of noise about this.
Clearly the financial settlement from government is not being directed
at the bus network - looks like we are stuck with what we've got today
with not a lot of room for improvement for the next 4 years.

Free bus travel for all under 16? That is a diabolically bad idea...
buses
will become unsafe for anyone else, that's if there's room for anyone
else.
If they only gave free travel to under-16s who have been in no trouble
with
the police or school, that might be an idea.

While I understand the social exclusion arguments about keeping child
fares down I do not agree with the policy of free fares for under 11
year olds never mind increasing it progressively to under 18s by 2006.
I trust Ken will be funding the increase in insurance and vandalism
costs in certain areas of London where youths and children already wreak
wanton damage on buses and related infrastructure. I feel sorry for the
bus drivers - how to make a tough job even more unattractive.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 17:58:36 +0000 (UTC),
wrote:

In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 15:22:57 +0100, "John Rowland"
wrote:

"Jim" wrote in message
...

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/13301604

I don't understand how the ES can describe putting bus fares up from
100p to
120p before 9:30am and down from 100p to 80p after 9:30am as "Bus Fares
Soar".

The point though is that cash fares rise 20p or 20%; AM peak Oyster pre
pay fares rise 30p to £1 so nearly 50% while even off peak Pre Pay fares
rise 10p or 14%. No matter which way you view it I'd say they were
pretty big rises.

In 2003 the fare was 80p cash
In 2004 the fare was 70p cash
In 2005 the fare will be 120p cash.

This will be a 50% rise on the 2003 fares and a 70% rise on the 2004
fares for the many people who pay cash. It's just a rip-off.

You cannot pay 70p cash for any fare in 2004. The cash fare is £1 London
wide. You only pay 70p if you opt for a Saver pre-paid ticket or Oyster
pre-pay. Therefore the cash fare increase is 20%.

The prepay etc. fares are just a smoke screen. It's like a firm saying -
"look, we haven't put our prices up this year but, for those of you not
paying by direct debit you'll now pay another £2/month!"

Well yes but the objective is to get the remaining 15% of passengers out
of cash and into some form of pre-payment. Providing access to such
cheaper alternatives is as easy and convenient as possible then it is a
reasonable policy objective. It ceases to be so if passengers are
seriously inconvenienced - and it is my view that is the case already
with the poorly thought out cashless zone in central London.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Richard J. wrote:
Jim wrote:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/13301604


The official announcement (TfL press release) is at
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/press-rele...a-21-sep.shtml

with details of all the fares at
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/downloads/...ares-table.pdf


I never realised that for a bus commuter travelling twice a day for the
five working days, Pre-Pay (in both 2004 & 2005) is cheaper than a Bus Pass!

It's interesting that season Travelcard price increases are high for
inner zones but lower for many zones, whereas the opposite seems to be
true for Day Travelcards (up from £5.40 to £6.00 for off peak all zone!).

ISTR there used to be a £4.50 minimum fare for YP Railcard-discounted OP
Day Travelcards - I assume this will increase in 2005 as the cheapest
OPDT is now £4.70.

The zone changes aren't anywhere near as drastic as I thought - just
some fare simplification.

Interestingly, on Pre Pay, single fares from Zones 6 & 4 to Zone 1 have
decreased as a result of the simplification. *However* a whole new range
of complication has been introduced with Pre Pay "peak" & "off peak".

For example, if you're travelling at midday from Z6 to Z1 and back at
5pm, Pre Pay will be more expensive (£7) than a travelcard (£6) - but
travelling out at 12.00 and back at 20.00, Pre Pay will be cheaper (£5.50).

Although this will be confusing for the semi-regular or irregular user,
it could present *significant* savings for people working outside normal
hours (which I guess is the point!). Someone travelling from Z6 to Z1
for work for 07.00 (starting their journey before 06.30) and finishing
at 15.00 (£2 + £3.50) would save £12 off the weekly travelcard price -
some 30%! Obviously this saving would reduce if they made extra
journeys, but leisure journeys at evenings would easily be absorbed (3
return journeys into Z1).

Incidentally, using prepay for a Z6-1 return journey on a 9am-5pm
working day would still result in a £4.50 saving, although this would be
useless if the passenger broke journeys for some reason or make more
than one return leisure trip.

It will be interesting to see if capping extends to seven-day
travelcards as with the new peak/offpeak system it could present
benefits for early starters, late finishers or shift workers.

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London