--- Dave Arquati said...


I fail to see how an uncomplicated system which people can actually
understand is a problem. Zones are essentially distance-based

Distance based? Then how come a ticket from Morden to Waterloo (zones
1-4) costs the same as a ticket from Morden all the way to Mill Hill
East? Is it really fair that passengers only going as far as Waterloo
should pay for *twice* the distance they're actually travelling?

and keep people
happy when they can easily understand what fare they will pay.

And how are people happy when "they can easily understand" that they're
being charged *twice* as much as they should be charged? That might
make you happy, but I'm not so easily pleased!

How would Travelcards - the most useful and flexible ticket - work
under a point-to-point system?

You say "flexible" like it's a good thing. But it isn't. It's just a
con to make you pay for routes you don't actually use.

Suppose you want to travel, for example, from Crystal Palace to Oxford
Circus. Why can't you simply buy a cheap day return from Crystal Palace
to Oxford Circus? Instead you *have* to buy a One Day Travelcard for
zones 1-4, which means you're also paying for the flexibility of
travelling to Morden, Mill Hill East, Waterloo, and dozens of other
places that you won't actually visit today!


The National Rail fares system is a complicated mess at the moment,
and hardly sets a good example for London to revert to.

I agree that the NR system could be streamlined. So let's concentrate
on streamlining it, instead of scrapping it and replacing it with
something worse.

For example, the development of GPS systems means that it's possible to
calculate the straight-line, as-the-crow-flies distance between
stations, and use that as a basis for a point-to-point system. (This
way, we eliminate much of the complicated routing nonsense which makes
NR's present fares system so awkward. After all, from the customer's
POV it's only the start and end points that really matter, not the
places in between.)

Multiply that straight-line distance by a fixed pounds-per-mile rate,
and you get the base cost of the ticket. You can then add on various
fixed value premiums for premium services, e.g.

** travelling first class

** travelling by an express train instead of a stopping train

** even travelling by a train instead of a bus (assuming that this could
be the basis for tickets on all modes of transport)

Give the customers an itemised receipt along with their ticket, and they
can easily understand how the fare was worked out. And while we're at
it, let's get rid of pointless things like:

** different rates for adults and children. (After all, if you buy a
magazine or a can of drink, the shop won't charge you extra just because
you happen to be an adult. Why should adults buying train tickets be
penalised that way?)

** cheaper prices for tickets bought in advance. (If you buy a tin of
baked beans, the supermarket won't give you a discount if you leave the
tin on your shelf for a week with out opening it. The newsagent won't
reduce the price of a magazine if you keep it instead of reading it
right away. So why should tickets be cheaper if you don't use them
straight away?)

There we are. A nice, simple, streamlined, easy to follow system, based
entirely on the point-to-point system, and which cannot overcharge
people the way a zonal system does. That's the sort of thing the rail
companies should be aiming for. Not making things worse by forcing
zones on people.

--

"Napoleon was born on may 4th 1852 at Westminster so you are the one
asking all the luck going, if I were going to become a Vampire."
-- MegaHal