Should London's Zonal system be scrapped?
- Thread starter PacificOcean
- Start date
trashpony
Hag
from the OP said:
That's plainly bollocks. The cheapest fares (if you're travelling into zone 1) are from other places in zone 1 which presumably means they benefit the richest. The only reason it's cheaper to travel from zone 2 is because you're not going very far. It's got fuck all to do with subsidising travel for the poor.
So the OP is making an erroneous assumption from the start.
I think that's redundant tbf. Not travelling far to where? To where people need to be? To where the work is? You still have to get there.
scifisam
deleted
So people in zone 2, who in your opinion are often poor and living in terrible conditions, should pay more for transport because, in your opinion, they don't use the tube much for commuting purposes, whereas someone in Enfield Lock should pay less for travel because of their purely theoretical use of the tube for commuting purposes.
With arguments like that, you should run for parliament.
Add to that London's suburbs and outlying boroughs are heftily populated by middle class families and well off folks in large, exclusive houses. It's only the absurdly rich who live in the very centre (Chelsea and Kensington) in palatial properties, but you don't get the average monied footballer or corporate md choosing to stay in Stockwell and Brixton. More likely a bigger property in more distant Hendon and beyond, with room for family and closer to some private school or other.
The whole thread's logic is made of wrong to me. Clearly not many people are going to be able to afford their own gorgeous single bedroom property in near central London, a busy city with demands on its property stock.
The whole thread's logic is made of wrong to me. Clearly not many people are going to be able to afford their own gorgeous single bedroom property in near central London, a busy city with demands on its property stock.
Sunray
Its sunny somewhere.
I live in Hackney in a nice house share and there are plenty of rooms round here for 400pm some inclusive.
If you live out where its cheaper to live its more expensive to travel because its further. Invest the extra money you pay in travel in somewhere to live and get cheaper travel and you don't have to travel as far.
If you live out where its cheaper to live its more expensive to travel because its further. Invest the extra money you pay in travel in somewhere to live and get cheaper travel and you don't have to travel as far.
Oswaldtwistle
Banned
If any one is old enough to remember, what was the fare structure before fares fair?
Oswaldtwistle
Banned
Hmm, not sure how comparable this is. You are talking about American cities with massive highways and car based commuting. We are talking about a railway line. Economics is very different.
(Oswald wishes his uni would stop teaching so called 'geography' about weather and earthquakes and let him loose on some hardcore fucking Transport economics)
Oswaldtwistle
Banned
Yes, I do know what you mean. But surely the running costs of the train is only a small part of the total system running costs. Say the tube from West Ruslip to Sheperds Bush currently costs 'x' a year to run, and currently carries 4 trains an hour. We then drop the train frequency to 1 train an hour, with the other three trains just serving the centre. That *will* reduce the running costs on the outer section, but not to a quarter of 'x'.
Not sure how you could easily do that.
Nice one to try. You could further argue that people in Plymouth, Perth and Port Talbot also pay tax towards TfL, but I ain't sure how they would claim their free travel!
(does the TfL subsidy come from central taxation? IIRC it does.)
Puddy_Tat
🐈⬛
Broadly, it was based on distance, with separate fares from one bus 'fare stage' or railway station to another - increasing by distance, much the same as bus fares (outside London) still tend to be.
There were "all London" bus passes, for days or longer periods - although think the longer periods came in in the 70s; and I think there was an "all London" underground kind of thing (my bit of SE London was so far off the end of the underground that I wouldn't have known), but nothing comparable on (what was then) BR.
Season ticket holders would have bought a season ticket valid between station A and station B, e.g. Lee to Charing Cross, Lee to Old Street (via Underground from London Bridge) - and such a ticket from Lee would have cost slightly more than one from Hither Green, and slightly less than one from Mottingham (the stations either side.)
The concept of a 'go anywhere you like by whatever form of transport you like' ticket was pretty much unheard of, so if your commute involved a train then a bus, you would pay the bus fare on each trip, and if you wanted one day to go to somewhere else by underground in central london, you would have had to pay for that journey.
There was a little bit of flexibility, in that (on the southern region at least) the same season ticket would allow you to go to any southern region central london station (although i believe that only came in in the 70s), and some stations were grouped - my Dad's season tickets in the 70s were "Lee or Kidbrooke" to "London SR" - although i think that may have been more to do with the two stations being the same price, and it being done to keep printing costs down (this was well before computerised ticketing!) rather than any other reason.
If I remember right, "Capitalcard" (bringing the zonal 'go anywhere' structure on to BR) was a year or so after London Transport introduced 'Travelcard' to the buses and underground, not sure whether it was LT or BR that was the delay here...
scifisam
deleted
When was 'fare's fair,' then? I thought it was in the nineties. Travelcards were in existence for many years before then - I remember buying them when I was a little kid of 7 or so, and I'm 33 now. The travelcard covered every form of transport too.
cybertect
It's grim up north (London)
There was the 'Red Bus Rover' that allowed you to go anywhere in London (and to outposts like Ongar and Slough on red bus routes) on a bus. IIRC it was about 30p for under-16s when Fares Fair was introduced. I used them a lot to explore the city in my early teens.
There's a nice potted history of the Capitalcard here
There's a nice potted history of the Capitalcard here
Puddy_Tat
🐈⬛
'Fares Fair' was during Ken Livingstone's time as leader of the GLC, so 1981 sounds about right. At that time, policies tended to get implemented fairly fast after an election!
The 'Capitalcard' in effect got renamed 'Travelcard' after a year or two of them both being availiable, the old 'Travelcard' (just bus and Underground) in effect being ditched.
There were further revisions to the way that fares worked when Ken became leader of the GLA...
Pickman's model
sunset spires and twilight woods
more than 100 years ago the london county council ran all night trams with discounted fares for workers. so there's no reason if it worked then that it couldn't work now.
Pickman's model
sunset spires and twilight woods
can you name me a city without demands on its property stock?
cybertect
It's grim up north (London)
It was a legal obligation on railway companies under the Cheap Trains Act 1883, which also included tram operators (i.e. light rail)
Fairs Fare was part of Ken's manifesto - he proposed an increase in the rates to subsidise public transport. All was well until the London Borough of Bromley mounted a successful legal challenge to Ken's right to do this.
Bromley had, at that time, the highest proportion of car ownership of any London borough. (Over 70% compared to around 30% for the inner boroughs.)
Despite being too young to vote, for me, Ken was a breath of fresh air after creepy Sir Horace Cutler.
cybertect
It's grim up north (London)
IIRC, the basis of their case was that there are no tube lines to Bromley, so they were paying toward a service subsidy that they couldn't use.
^this^
I reckon there's a trade off, if you live in private rented accommodation in zone 2 rent is higher but you can go most places by bus/bike and save on tube fares. i would also guess that there is a correlation between the distance people travel and how much they earn - higher paid (office based?) jobs tend to be concentrated in central London, but lower paid jobs (retail/service sector) are more evenly spread across London so if thats the type of job you are looking for you shouldn't need to travel so far.
Of course thats not to say that there is no merit at all in the OP's proposals - but just to be provocative why not instead of increasing all fares from zone 2, just increase them from the likes of hampstead/st johns wood, rather than kensal green, kentish town, whitechapel etc!
Oswaldtwistle
Banned
Not dissmissing your point totally, but by no means all office jobs are well paid. Even in the City, there will be admin clerks and receptionists who don't earn a lot more that the shelf stackers at the nearby Tesco.
Similar threads
