On Aug 11, 9:07*pm, Boltar wrote:
On 11 Aug, 20:46, asdf wrote:

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 14:38:51 +0100, Tim Roll-Pickering wrote:
But, well, that's not how they've done it. I suspect it would probably
be far too expensive for too little benefit to retrofit it now.

Too little benefit for who? The passengers?

Yes. I don't see why TfL should spend £lots adding a pointless
facility just to allow e.g. people travelling from West Brompton to
Bermondsey to save a quid by taking a tour of the Overground.

So you don't think they should fix an obvious cock-up? As for it
costing £lots - it'll be some updated computer data.

I have no idea what it might cost, but I certainly can't see why
charging the correct fare is "pointless". If TfL really has that
attitude, then a lot of criticisms would be justified.

By the same logic, someone hoping to save a couple of quid by using
only buses ought to be charged the Undergound fare if LU covers the
same routes.

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 14:18:25 -0700 (PDT), MIG wrote:

But, well, that's not how they've done it. I suspect it would probably
be far too expensive for too little benefit to retrofit it now.

Too little benefit for who? The passengers?

Yes. I don't see why TfL should spend £lots adding a pointless
facility just to allow e.g. people travelling from West Brompton to
Bermondsey to save a quid by taking a tour of the Overground.

So you don't think they should fix an obvious cock-up? As for it
costing £lots - it'll be some updated computer data.

I have no idea what it might cost, but I certainly can't see why
charging the correct fare is "pointless". If TfL really has that
attitude, then a lot of criticisms would be justified.

I was coming from the point of view that the current fares *are*
correct, by definition.

From that point of view there seems little point in changing them.

By the same logic, someone hoping to save a couple of quid by using
only buses ought to be charged the Undergound fare if LU covers the
same routes.

IMO, charging less for using an inferior mode of transport, where this
benefits the transport system by removing passengers from a
capacity-constrained mode, and/or the inferior mode is cheaper to run,
is logical.

Offering a discount (but only in certain, arbitrary, almost random
circumstances) for taking a much longer journey than necessary by the
same mode, where there is no benefit to the transport system from them
doing so, is not logical.

On Aug 12, 7:16*am, asdf wrote:
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 14:18:25 -0700 (PDT), MIG wrote:
But, well, that's not how they've done it. I suspect it would probably
be far too expensive for too little benefit to retrofit it now.

Too little benefit for who? The passengers?

Yes. I don't see why TfL should spend £lots adding a pointless
facility just to allow e.g. people travelling from West Brompton to
Bermondsey to save a quid by taking a tour of the Overground.

So you don't think they should fix an obvious cock-up? As for it
costing £lots - it'll be some updated computer data.

I have no idea what it might cost, but I certainly can't see why
charging the correct fare is "pointless". *If TfL really has that
attitude, then a lot of criticisms would be justified.

I was coming from the point of view that the current fares *are*
correct, by definition.

My assumption was that the fare is not correct, because despite a
record of passing through Stratford, a higher fare for a different
route is charged.


From that point of view there seems little point in changing them.

By the same logic, someone hoping to save a couple of quid by using
only buses ought to be charged the Undergound fare if LU covers the
same routes.

IMO, charging less for using an inferior mode of transport, where this
benefits the transport system by removing passengers from a
capacity-constrained mode, and/or the inferior mode is cheaper to run,
is logical.

Offering a discount (but only in certain, arbitrary, almost random
circumstances) for taking a much longer journey than necessary by the
same mode, where there is no benefit to the transport system from them
doing so, is not logical.

In a case where that was true, I'd probably agree, but I am not sure
it applies here.

Taking longer is one kind of "inferior". There are many NR examples
where you can taker a longer (in time, if not distance as well)
journey and pay less, eg Chiltern/Virgin.

But in this case, going from Hampstead Heath via Stratford seems like
a perfectly reasonable route, which does relieve the Jubilee as well.
The modes are not the same, but both are awful in different ways (313s
lacking windows v Jubilee lacking seats and usuable standing space).

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 07:56:28 -0700 (PDT), John B
wrote:

That's bloody depressing. Surely at worst they could impose a flat
penalty cash fare (kind of like we already have) and then vary PAYG
fares with distance...?

They'll need to install exit readers for that. I would therefore
predict they won't.

Neil

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