Laurence Payne wrote:
On 31 Jan 2006 05:07:58 -0800, "MIG"
wrote:

Which would help someone who wanted to make a single journey, at a
single journey price, just how?

By being cheap enough I spose.

Depends what you mean by "journey". The problem is with being charged
extra for having to change to a different vehicle, despite it actually
being less convenient, to make what in real life is a single journey to
where you want to be.

People using cars (the real competition) don't have to pay extra if
they stop off on their way, so why should people using buses and/or
trains?

So you want to be charged for a full day's usage of the whole system
when you just wanted a single Underground journey? You'd be
screaming even louder :-)


Not if a full day's usage was cheap enough


All we were discussing was a failure of one type of ticket to
automatically recognise a diversion due to breakdown etc. If you
were driving your car and broke down you wouldn't get free diversion
to another form of transport. Anyway, a car is only a special-case
option into central London now.


The problem is that the system has trouble with working out that you
started your journey in one place and ended up (in some reasonable
amount of time) in another place, and then charging you for getting
from one place to the other. Diversions shouldn't be an issue.

They've gone for the simplistic option of deeming you to have made two
journeys if you have to use, say, two buses or bus and a train along
the way.

When bus routes were progressively cut short over the last few years,
eg stopping short at Russell Square instead of going on to Euston, I
originally thought that it was to avoid difficult stretches of road so
that claims could be made about improved reliability.

It wasn't to get more fares at first, because everyone was using
travelcards.

But now with Prepay, shorter bus routes does mean double fares in a lot
of cases. I object to that and I think that there should be more
sensible ways of defining a "journey".

In message .com, MIG
writes
When bus routes were progressively cut short over the last few years,
eg stopping short at Russell Square instead of going on to Euston, I
originally thought that it was to avoid difficult stretches of road so
that claims could be made about improved reliability.

It wasn't to get more fares at first, because everyone was using
travelcards.
Travelcards haven't been removed so I don't see how that makes any
difference to the argument (whether the argument is right or wrong). Bus
routes have changed radically in terms of destinations and frequency
over the years, particular in recent years. Anyway, one the basis 1
counter example proves you wrong(!) the Number 5 bus route is being
extended this March and covering the length of a the "next" bus route
along the road, the Number 87. There's a 15 minute overlapping section,
so in this case it appears to be a case of trying to stop the buses
clogging up behind each other over the overlapping service and evening
out service frequency (there doesn't seem to be any change in overall
bus numbers serving the combined route).


But now with Prepay, shorter bus routes does mean double fares in a lot
of cases. I object to that and I think that there should be more
sensible ways of defining a "journey".
This situation existed a long time before Prepay. Think X43 and all
sorts of other bus alterations (e.g. a random trawl produces the 15 bus
route, which in 1949 ran all the way from Kew Green to East Ham. There's
many other examples as a random trawl on http://www.londonbuses.co.uk/
will show. Inconceivable now due to the various congestion points on
route); nothing to do with Prepay. Also I recall a few 'That's Life's on
the subject of shortening bus routes, an unfortunate number of years
(from my perspective) before Prepay.

--
Paul G
Typing from Barking

On 31 Jan 2006 12:42:04 -0800, "MIG"
wrote:

It wasn't to get more fares at first, because everyone was using
travelcards.

But now with Prepay, shorter bus routes does mean double fares in a lot
of cases. I object to that and I think that there should be more
sensible ways of defining a "journey".

Don't you understand the capping system on pre-pay? It can't go over
the cost of a travelcard or 'bus pass, but it can be a lot cheaper if
you just want one or two 'bus journeys. It is indeed unfair that you
can't get a transfer when a route runs short. But the travelcard user
has no advantage in this case.

Laurence Payne wrote:
On 31 Jan 2006 12:42:04 -0800, "MIG"
wrote:

It wasn't to get more fares at first, because everyone was using
travelcards.

But now with Prepay, shorter bus routes does mean double fares in a lot
of cases. I object to that and I think that there should be more
sensible ways of defining a "journey".

Don't you understand the capping system on pre-pay? It can't go over
the cost of a travelcard or 'bus pass, but it can be a lot cheaper if
you just want one or two 'bus journeys. It is indeed unfair that you
can't get a transfer when a route runs short. But the travelcard user
has no advantage in this case.


Capping was introduced to persuade people that Prepay was just as good
as a travelcard (as long as you don't use a NR train), with the
possibility that on certain days you would actually save by not making
many journeys.

But short bus routes still double the amount you pay, even if you don't
reach the capping limit.

If you have Prepay and then realise that, due to lack of time or
whatever, you need a NR train, you are really shafted, even though it
would have been covered by a travelcard for nothing (the reason why TfL
got done by the ASA for their posters).

I'm saying that there is a problem with charging per vehicle instead of
per genuine journey, and that capping is only a little bit of a
solution.

It may well be better than the single bus tickets of the 1970s, but
many bus routes were a lot longer then.