3 ms·

And that's entirely their choice However I strongly suspect you're wrong -- people choose cheaper tickets all the time, they book specific trains in advance an

And that's entirely their choice However I strongly suspect you're wrong -- people choose cheaper tickets all the time, they book specific trains in advance and they travel at non-business times of the day ("off-peak"), and they choose cheaper services (say 'virgin only' from Crewe to Manchester, rather than 'any permitted') This is good -- it allows you to make choices. Why would you want to take those choices away?

the_mitsuhiko 8y ago
> However I strongly suspect you're wrong -- people choose cheaper tickets all the time, they book specific trains in advance We are talking urban transit here and not advance bookable trains. If given the choice of a 20% cheaper ticket but half the trains people would take the more frequent service. Why take the choice away? Because more operators means fewer trains/busses/trams per operator as the infrastructure is generally limited. So in urban areas shared ticketing is what customers prefer.
- isostatic 8y ago
  > We are talking urban transit here and not advance bookable trains "The same with transport -- there's half a dozen ways to travel from say Edinburgh to London" That's not urban transport. > Why take the choice away? Because more operators means fewer trains/busses/trams per operator as the infrastructure is generally limited. So in urban areas shared ticketing is what customers prefer. In well run urban areas (like London) the competition comes from providers bidding to run the service, but the actual specification of the service including the conditions and ticketing, are done by the local authority. There are multiple bus operators in London, but most people don't realize that. The day to day choice comes down to choosing Bus vs Tube vs Bike vs Uber vs Taxi. In poorly run areas (like Manchester), the on-bus competition rarely exists, and when it does tickets aren't interchangable. > If given the choice of a 20% cheaper ticket but half the trains people would take the more frequent service. Some people would. You and I would, because we're highly paid IT professionals. Others wouldn't -- hence the reason that where direct commuting services do compete (say Milton Keynes to London), some buy flexible tickets, others buy "Virgin only" ones to save 15%.
amaccuish 8y ago
That's laughable considering peak times are... uh... peak. Transport is primarily for commutes, which happen at the same time everyday. I don't have the option of off-peak. And if you have a simplified, non-free market system, tickets are cheaper, and there's no need for choice. The only reason we have choice is because successive governments have believed it's possible to allow multiple companies to deliver the same service over the same infrastructure.
- isostatic 8y ago
  Board the 1840 Euston to Manchester ('peak time'), you'll find it about 30-50% full Board the 1900 or 1920 ('off peak') and it's standing room only. Transport is not 'primarilly for commuters'. There are very few commuters traveling from Warrington to London. You're taking your corner case (local commuting on a metro style service) and applying it to the network as a whole. This is a failing. However you still have a choice. I used to commute from Leighton Buzzard to London. I could either 1) Take the London Midland service into Euston and tube on (most frequent, least comfortable, slightly faster) 2) Take the Southern service to Shepherds Bush and walk (less frequent, more comfortable, slightly slower) 3) Take the commuter bus (slower, far cheaper, less frequent) 4) Drive (slower, cheaper than the train, more hassle) When we were both doing 5 days a week we took the train, as it was less hastle. When we dropped to 3 days a week we drove, as it was far cheaper. Commuter tickets are already massively subsidized (35% discount for being a commuter traveling from Guildford to London for example vs a one off trip), I hope those are got rid of when they get rid of break of journey. That will allow large scale price cuts across the network.

the_mitsuhiko 8y ago

> However I strongly suspect you're wrong -- people choose cheaper tickets all the time, they book specific trains in advance We are talking urban transit here and not advance bookable trains. If given the choice of a 20% cheaper ticket but half the trains people would take the more frequent service. Why take the choice away? Because more operators means fewer trains/busses/trams per operator as the infrastructure is generally limited. So in urban areas shared ticketing is what customers prefer.

isostatic 8y ago
> We are talking urban transit here and not advance bookable trains "The same with transport -- there's half a dozen ways to travel from say Edinburgh to London" That's not urban transport. > Why take the choice away? Because more operators means fewer trains/busses/trams per operator as the infrastructure is generally limited. So in urban areas shared ticketing is what customers prefer. In well run urban areas (like London) the competition comes from providers bidding to run the service, but the actual specification of the service including the conditions and ticketing, are done by the local authority. There are multiple bus operators in London, but most people don't realize that. The day to day choice comes down to choosing Bus vs Tube vs Bike vs Uber vs Taxi. In poorly run areas (like Manchester), the on-bus competition rarely exists, and when it does tickets aren't interchangable. > If given the choice of a 20% cheaper ticket but half the trains people would take the more frequent service. Some people would. You and I would, because we're highly paid IT professionals. Others wouldn't -- hence the reason that where direct commuting services do compete (say Milton Keynes to London), some buy flexible tickets, others buy "Virgin only" ones to save 15%.

amaccuish 8y ago

That's laughable considering peak times are... uh... peak. Transport is primarily for commutes, which happen at the same time everyday. I don't have the option of off-peak. And if you have a simplified, non-free market system, tickets are cheaper, and there's no need for choice. The only reason we have choice is because successive governments have believed it's possible to allow multiple companies to deliver the same service over the same infrastructure.

isostatic 8y ago
Board the 1840 Euston to Manchester ('peak time'), you'll find it about 30-50% full Board the 1900 or 1920 ('off peak') and it's standing room only. Transport is not 'primarilly for commuters'. There are very few commuters traveling from Warrington to London. You're taking your corner case (local commuting on a metro style service) and applying it to the network as a whole. This is a failing. However you still have a choice. I used to commute from Leighton Buzzard to London. I could either 1) Take the London Midland service into Euston and tube on (most frequent, least comfortable, slightly faster) 2) Take the Southern service to Shepherds Bush and walk (less frequent, more comfortable, slightly slower) 3) Take the commuter bus (slower, far cheaper, less frequent) 4) Drive (slower, cheaper than the train, more hassle) When we were both doing 5 days a week we took the train, as it was less hastle. When we dropped to 3 days a week we drove, as it was far cheaper. Commuter tickets are already massively subsidized (35% discount for being a commuter traveling from Guildford to London for example vs a one off trip), I hope those are got rid of when they get rid of break of journey. That will allow large scale price cuts across the network.