The whats, whys and wherefores of integration and why the UK is and always has been awful at it

[Bletchleyite]

So I had this suggested elsewhere and have only just got round to it.

You probably all well know that integration is very much my thing - indeed I'm so strongly for it that I believe it is the only way to significantly grow the market for public transport. And it isn't the UK's thing.

The idea of this thread is to explore the reasons why, and how that might change.

At the simplest level, clearly it's hard to justify a "free" bus journey with your train journey, i.e. charging the same for someone to go from anywhere in say Altrincham to anywhere in central Manchester, when buses are run for a profit on the company's own account. This is a barrier, certainly.

But even when everything came under the British Transport Commission, the "Beeching buses" weren't part of the railway timetable nor fares system. And even in London, which does have a fully regulated system where TfL could make a bus trip included in rail fares, they don't.

Yet over in the anti-public-transport land of north America, rail companies run buses to connect with them and the likes.

And while Trawscymru is sort-of-integrated in a way, e.g. the T10 stopping outside Bangor station rather than at the bus station up the road, it isn't in the rail timetable and I can't search for say Bethesda on the National Rail/TfW Rail site nor buy a through fare...and this is deliberate!

What gives?

 

[ANDREW_D_WEBB]

And even in London, which does have a fully regulated system where TfL could make a bus trip included in rail fares, they don't.

TfL do however apply a daily cap across all modes except the cable car. With Contactless, Oyster or a Travelcard you can travel across all modes seamlessly.

 

[JonathanH]

TfL do however apply a daily cap across all modes except the cable car. With Contactless, Oyster or a Travelcard you can travel across all modes seamlessly.

Unfortunately the daily cap is Zone 1 centric. If you use a bus and the train in Zone 1 and 2 you may well hit the cap. If you use a bus and the train in zone 5 and 6 you end up paying for both at full cost, so the cap is meaningless.

The problem with integration is that it is difficult to define. Most peoples' definition seems to be about buses jumping to the tune of the railway, that is offering cheaper through fares or aligning bus timetables to the railway timetable.

Getting buses to connect with buses, and with trains doesn't always fit with running times.

Contactless payment on buses has removed the 'loose change' issue that was part of the deterent against using buses after a railway journey. It could be part of the solution for through fares if systems could be made to align better - eg in Cornwall, the bus companies have common management of contactless systems so touch on / touch off works with capping on all bus operators - but I am not sure what would fill the funding gap which exists when bus and rail operations come under one fare system.

 

[Greybeard33]

At the simplest level, clearly it's hard to justify a "free" bus journey with your train journey, i.e. charging the same for someone to go from anywhere in say Altrincham to anywhere in central Manchester, when buses are run for a profit on the company's own account. This is a barrier, certainly.

Altrincham is a particularly apt example of the "British way", in that there are three competing(?)/complementary(?) public transport modes between Altrincham Interchange and central Manchester:

• Metrolink has 10tph and is the quickest but most expensive.
• The 263 bus has 3bph and is the cheapest but slowest. It is mainly patronised by people making intermediate journeys that would require a longer walk to/from a Metrolink stop.
• Northern Trains has 1tph, which also serves stations to Chester and supports orbital journeys to Stockport for connections to the south and east.

Interchange between these services is disincentivised. Multi mode System One travelcards are available but are more costly than single mode tickets. A traveller from Cheshire who wishes to change to Metrolink at Altrincham must pay the sum of the separate National Rail and Metrolink fares, at greater cost than the National Rail fare through to Piccadilly via Stockport.

There are local, subsidised, circular bus routes to Altrincham Interchange from the surrounding suburbs, which can be used as feeder services to the Metrolink. But fares are not integrated and frequency is no more than hourly, so these services are lightly used.

Hopefully when GM bus franchising extends to this area the feeder bus segment will be included in the Metrolink fare, resulting in a virtuous circle of increasing bus frequency and ridership.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Unfortunately the daily cap is Zone 1 centric. If you use a bus and the train in Zone 1 and 2 you may well hit the cap. If you use a bus and the train in zone 5 and 6 you end up paying for both at full cost, so the cap is meaningless.

It is true that in the UK the only integration you do get is on day tickets or caps, often off peak only. It's better than nowt, but it's bizarre that only Nexus has ever had (still has?) a multimodal single fare.

The problem with integration is that it is difficult to define. Most peoples' definition seems to be about buses jumping to the tune of the railway, that is offering cheaper through fares or aligning bus timetables to the railway timetable.

It is a very key part of it, yes. I wonder if part of the problem is that bus managers (whether they were BTC, NBC or private) culturally can't handle the idea of their little empire being subservient to another? But if you're going to have (local/rural)* rail, it does make sense for it to be the main mode around which others work. If it doesn't, then it's questionable if rail should exist on that route at all. To use an example, it's absolutely bizarre that Liverpool has several bus routes running from Liverpool to Formby and Southport - the Southport line is classic "beads on a string" - absolutely perfect development structure to be served only by rail plus some local shuttle bus routes to/from stations, and the Ormskirk line isn't much different. And Merseyside does have some such routes, e.g. there's a frequent shuttle between Maghull Square and the station.

But even within a single bus company, hardly any of them bother to integrate their own services with themselves, and insist on selling single fares for a single vehicle journey only and giving no attention at all to even attempting to integrate timetables. I do get the thing about the risk of tickets being resold, but it can easily be done without that risk with contactless. Yet none seem interested.

* I don't think it makes sense to plan the Milton Keynes local bus network around Avanti West Coast, for instance. But it absolutely does make sense in my eyes for Liverpool's bus network around the areas where Merseyrail operates to be planned around connecting to that rather than duplicating it. Same with London and the Tube (which it largely is, give or take fares) and GM and Metrolink. And Birmingham has excellent rail coverage to do similar in places.

Getting buses to connect with buses, and with trains doesn't always fit with running times.

It's not always possible to do it perfectly, though with buses you can adjust route lengths so they do match up.

Contactless payment on buses has removed the 'loose change' issue that was part of the deterent against using buses after a railway journey. It could be part of the solution for through fares if systems could be made to align better - eg in Cornwall, the bus companies have common management of contactless systems so touch on / touch off works with capping on all bus operators - but I am not sure what would fill the funding gap which exists when bus and rail operations come under one fare system.

Cornwall, particularly south Cornwall, is another classic "beads on a string" layout - a half hourly train service down the mainline plus the branches and some "virtual branches" using buses timed to connect with it on one fares system is exactly how it should work. You'd probably also want a north Cornwall trunk bus route of some kind (a proper long distance route using coach style vehicles) serving similar "branches" where necessary.

Transport for Cornwall isn't, to be fair, the worst rural network in the world. But it doesn't connect well between the rural routes and the main ones, there's a lot of sitting around or alternatively impossibly tight connections that aren't managed and so miss by the minutes.

 

[Ken H]

Unfortunately the daily cap is Zone 1 centric. If you use a bus and the train in Zone 1 and 2 you may well hit the cap. If you use a bus and the train in zone 5 and 6 you end up paying for both at full cost, so the cap is meaningless.

The problem with integration is that it is difficult to define. Most peoples' definition seems to be about buses jumping to the tune of the railway, that is offering cheaper through fares or aligning bus timetables to the railway timetable.

Getting buses to connect with buses, and with trains doesn't always fit with running times.

Contactless payment on buses has removed the 'loose change' issue that was part of the deterent against using buses after a railway journey. It could be part of the solution for through fares if systems could be made to align better - eg in Cornwall, the bus companies have common management of contactless systems so touch on / touch off works with capping on all bus operators - but I am not sure what would fill the funding gap which exists when bus and rail operations come under one fare system.

Bus operators need a fair whack for cqrrying rail passengers. They cant carry people for a few pence. So apportionment of through fares need to be considered. But some bus/rail interchange is good. York, Harrogate, Ilkley, Menston. Leeds, Shipley and Keighley are rubbish.

 

[deltic]

Interesting that you choose Altrincham as an example. I remember when Altrincham Interchange was built and buses fed into rail services and Greater Manchester operated its Saver Seven ticket which was a multi-modal ticket long before London's travelcard. Joint bus and rail timetables were produced and lots of people used the buses to connect on to rail services. The whole think collapsed with bus privatisation.

 

[30907]

But some bus/rail interchange is good. York, Harrogate, Ilkley, Menston. Leeds, Shipley and Keighley are rubbish.

York - mixed. It doesn't even have a central bus station anyway.
Harrogate - bus station within spitting distance
Ilkley - all buses serve the adjacent bus stands AFAIK
Menston - most call
Shipley - agree, though apart from Baildon Village where would you go to by bus having arrived at Shipley by train. Blame the geography!
Keighley - agree. Unfortunately, the station is on the edge of the town centre, and all the ex railway lands have been sold off....

 

[Ken H]

York - mixed. It doesn't even have a central bus station anyway.
Harrogate - bus station within spitting distance
Ilkley - all buses serve the adjacent bus stands AFAIK
Menston - most call
Shipley - agree, though apart from Baildon Village where would you go to by bus having arrived at Shipley by train. Blame the geography!
Keighley - agree. Unfortunately, the station is on the edge of the town centre, and all the ex railway lands have been sold off....

Shipley.. Nab Wood, saltaire on the main road,greengates, Wrose, Cottingley

 

[Bletchleyite]

Interesting that you choose Altrincham as an example. I remember when Altrincham Interchange was built and buses fed into rail services and Greater Manchester operated its Saver Seven ticket which was a multi-modal ticket long before London's travelcard. Joint bus and rail timetables were produced and lots of people used the buses to connect on to rail services. The whole think collapsed with bus privatisation.

It's quite an interesting one because being a prosperous place it has high car ownership and high willingness to drive, but if people do get in the car they'll mostly drive all the way. Integration could well make people more likely to go public transport all the way. It works in Germany even in similarly prosperous areas (e.g. Hamburg-Blankenese).

To be fair there is "integration with the car" i.e. plentiful parking in the South East, but driving into London is utter purgatory compared to Manchester.

To add another idea that I alluded to on another thread - has the likes of Trainline ever considered, I wonder, doing some integration itself, perhaps with missed-connection insurance arranged via a commercial insurer? You'd want a curated set of connections, just adding all bus routes would be confusing. But then would that pose competition-law issues? I must admit I think competition law applied to public transport is more negative than positive - cartels that have fare and timetable integration are a good thing, and fares on short distance urban transport can't be cranked up too far as taxis would undercut them.

 

[py_megapixel]

I think it comes from an idea that people should always pay more for what is perceived to be the higher standard of service. People like trains more than buses, so trains should cost more than buses. This makes some sort of sense on
paper. It works quite well if there are two modes that both serve the same route, and neither one has enough capacity to carry all the passengers. You need some way to split passengers up between modes. (If one mode could carry all passengers, it would almost certainly make more sense to withdraw the other one and use the resources elsewhere).

But in other cases - which account for the vast majority of journeys, as actual duplication is quite rare (in fact the only real example I can think of off the top of my head is in Blackpool, but I'm sure there are others) - it completely falls down. It's not that a passenger wants a ticket valid on both trains and buses because they have a choice - it's that their journey requires them to use both a bus and a train. In this circumstance, to require the passenger to purchase two separate tickets defies all logic. The underlying problem, though, is that in this country, that journey - which is, in function, a single journey with a change in the middle - would be seen as two separate journeys, because of the inexplicable aversion in this country to seeing public transport as a single concept.

That's all it is. Nothing material, just a way of thought which has become ingrained: in Britain we have buses, we have trains, we have light rail of various flavours, but they're all run by different organisations*, each of which is expected to individually promote its service, and people view them completely separately. One of the strangest things to me is that even when they are run by the same organisation, the segmentation is almost invariably maintained. Why? I have no idea.

Because of this, a "public transport journey" isn't really a concept that exists - it has to be either a bus journey, a rail journey, a metro journey or suchlike. Trying to plan a journey involving multiple modes often feels like you're doing something unusual or nonstandard, so is it any surprise that you can't buy a simple ticket for such a journey?

And of course this has wider consequences. Each individual transport operator is generally trying to persuade people out of their cars and onto their particular mode. This strategy is doomed to fail, because the car's success can be attributed to its all-encompassing nature. It can take you almost anywhere in (what most people consider to be) a simple, reasonably fast and relatively comfortable way. No single other mode of transport can do this. But a system - where the type of vehicle you are getting on becomes almost an irrelevance - certainly can. A massive wasted potential.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think it comes from an idea that people should always pay more for what is perceived to be the higher standard of service. People like trains more than buses, so trains should cost more than buses. This makes some sort of sense on
paper. It works quite well if there are two modes that both serve the same route, and neither one has enough capacity to carry all the passengers. You need some way to split passengers up between modes. (If one mode could carry all passengers, it would almost certainly make more sense to withdraw the other one and use the resources elsewhere).

And in that case there are options. If for instance your rail service can't quite cope so you need to price some people onto a parallel bus service you can adequately resource despite it taking an hour rather than half, you could have a system whereby a bus-only trip was £X and a multimodal trip was £Y where £Y was higher. This is probably the case in parts of Manchester, and certainly pre COVID and pre Lizzie was the case in central London too (though the Lizzie and COVID have both affected that). TfL does do that with a bus-only cap and a multimodal one, but inexplicably not for single fares, where you're charged separately for both and thus pay extra for being inconvenienced by the lack of a through rail service, which is just ludicrous in a fully regulated system. And Manchester's present day tickets are the same.

as actual duplication is quite rare (in fact the only real example I can think of off the top of my head is in Blackpool, but I'm sure there are others)

It kind of varies. There is direct duplication - as you say Blackpool's route 1 is one example (it near enough just follows the tram, and on the short sections where it doesn't other routes could easily be tweaked to fill in instead - I've looked at it before), while on Merseyside due to the perfect-for-public-transport "beads on a string" layout of the Southport line the bus up the main road there is pretty much entirely duplicative, give or take the likes of a figure-8 Formby circular. But there are also better ways to serve other things - for instance, is it really sensible to have the Arriva 310 closely following the Merseyrail Northern Line all the way from Walton to Ormskirk, near enough, when in a sensible world Aughton and Ormskirk is small enough that it barely needs a town circular (but does have one) and Lydiate and Maghull would be better served with a town circular to Maghull station for connections, and Skem with a fast motorway bus to Maghull North plus the Southport-Wigan service (which isn't duplicative as it doesn't really follow the railway for most of its journey) connecting it to Ormskirk?

Though if we look at Blackpool we see something even worse - one company running a bus and tram service with totally different fares structures (though I think day/period fares are integrated) and the same in Edinburgh! If that isn't municipal conservatism I don't know what is.

And of course this has wider consequences. Each individual transport operator is generally trying to persuade people out of their cars and onto their particular mode.

Actually, it's worse than that. An awful lot of the time each individual operator is trying to persuade people off another one and onto theirs, tiffing over a tiny subset of the number of people travelling, and largely totally ignoring the 90-odd percent (outside London) of journeys being made by car, which if things are done right are ripe for the picking. Even if you got 5-10% of those car journeys, which you realistically might, that's easily going to fill your buses and trains to the brim. But in the vast majority of cases they just don't try.

 

[JonathanH]

In this circumstance, to require the passenger to purchase two separate tickets defies all logic.

It doesn't defy all logic.

It is logical that someone living closer to the station who can walk to it might pay less for their through journey than someone living further away who has to use a bus.

We benefit in this country from fare clustering on the railway so we are used to long distance journeys costing the same regardless of where you start in a particular area. However, they don't have to be priced like that.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It is logical that someone living closer to the station who can walk to it might pay less for their through journey than someone living further away who has to use a bus.

If they're further from the destination, yes, there's logic there. But done right the bus section will be very short, and so de-minimis, and charging extra just encourages their car to be used instead.

But public transport generally (done well) works on a "hub and spoke" basis. Let's imagine for a second that Bletchley and Wolverton stations didn't exist, and Milton Keynes had just one station, MKC. It's probably fairly logical that people from Wolverton should pay a little more to travel to MKC on top of their trip to London from there (though by train they don't - fares from Wolverton are generally the same as MKC). But from Bletchley? Is it fair to charge them extra to head north and back south again? Clearly not. Those who say that is fair misunderstand how public transport works effectively.

Or in short - further as the crow flies, yes, by all means make it more expensive. But the same or nearer? It's nonsensical, other than where it has to be done to avoid anomalies, which is a bit of a Hobson's choice. And in most cases the anomalies are resolved by making it the same price, not more expensive. As another example, there isn't a fare allowing one to travel Ormskirk-Preston via Liverpool, which means there's no fare at all for that journey on a Sunday when the branch doesn't run. But if we introduced one at the same price as the direct fare, we would be creating problematic anomalies in a non-gated system. However if we did introduce one, would it have to be priced as a return to Liverpool plus a return from there to Preston? No, of course not - it could be priced at the maximum return fare you get on that route, i.e. the same as Liverpool-Preston return (I suspect, without having checked).

"But they got the trip from Ormskirk to Liverpool for free" - no, they didn't, they are buying a trip from Ormskirk to Preston. The idea that more time or distance, by vehicle kilometres, spent on a public transport service, is worth more than fewer vehicle kilometres or less time, is an enthusiast perspective. The normal passenger is miffed enough that their £7.70 has become £15.80 and takes two hours rather than 35 minutes without making it well over 20 quid just to ensure some "value" in the roundabout journey they didn't even want to make.

(Of course they can make that journey in about an hour on a Sunday by bus and pay something closer to their £7.70, or even two quid in the first quarter of next year, but the National Rail journey planner won't tell them that, nor would they be able to use their period return ticket to say Lancaster on that bus, and with that we are back at the problem - the exact same thing exists when travelling from Milton Keynes to Midland Mainline or north-of-Oxford destinations).

 

[Nottingham59]

integration is very much my thing .... And it isn't the UK's thing

I think there are a number of reasons which are deeply structural and very difficult to change.

The first is historical. Britain was the first country to industrialise. By the time the railways came in the 1830s and 1840s, the country had already urbanised with Georgian-era mills and factories clustering around the ancient centres of cities. I know Manchester, Birmingham, Nottingham, Liverpool, Derby are like this, and I'm sure many others are too.

The railway only penetrated to the edge of the built up area. In Nottingham, the main Midland station is quite a way from the Old Market Square, which is the centre of the city and the focal point of the road network. So all the buses go to the Market Square; only some go past the station. The networks don't easily integrate.

In continental Europe, industrialisation came later, after the railways. Towns urbanised around the station. It became the natural centre of the town and the focus of the road network. Which is why in almost every town in France a bus towards the centre will be heading for La Gare. So bus and train networks in Europe have always been more intergrated on a basic geographical level.

The second reason is how we design transport networks. Victorian railway companies competed against each other to build tracks, and parliament saw its job to hold the ring and allow the competing interests to build railways wherever they wanted and could raise the capital for. So we ended up in the 1960s with multiple railway lines duplicating each other and with no overall network design.

We're still doing it. For evidence just look at the original brief for HS2. It was in effect "design a high-speed railway to run between London and the West Midlands, with future extensions to Manchester and Leeds. Oh, and make it easier to get to Heathrow Airport too." That's just the approach the Victorians took. Think how different the HS2 design would have been if the brief had said "Design a GB railway network fit for the twenty-first century (including faster trains and better airport access); and then tell us which bits to build first." Or even "Design a public transport network fit for the twenty-first century ....".

The third issue is the role that government sees for itself in transport. In the UK, it is to define standards and hold the ring while private companies provide transport services. And maybe providing subsidies when there are "market failures" in provision (note the wording). They don't see their role as actually providing transport. My understanding is that governments in France and Germany see themselves more as providers, which makes it much easier to design integration into "their" transport systems.

The fourth is government structure. Railways are the responsibility of Whitehall; buses, by and large, are regulated by local councils. The chances of getting rail-bus integration under that regime are very low indeed.

Anyway that's my view. What do others think?

 

[edwin_m]

I think there are a number of reasons which are deeply structural and very difficult to change.

The first is historical. Britain was the first country to industrialise. By the time the railways came in the 1830s and 1840s, the country had already urbanised with Georgian-era mills and factories clustering around the ancient centres of cities. I know Manchester, Birmingham, Nottingham, Liverpool, Derby are like this, and I'm sure many others are too.

The railway only penetrated to the edge of the built up area. In Nottingham, the main Midland station is quite a way from the Old Market Square, which is the centre of the city and the focal point of the road network. So all the buses go to the Market Square; only some go past the station. The networks don't easily integrate.

In continental Europe, industrialisation came later, after the railways. Towns urbanised around the station. It became the natural centre of the town and the focus of the road network. Which is why in almost every town in France a bus towards the centre will be heading for La Gare. So bus and train networks in Europe have always been more intergrated on a basic geographical level.

The second reason is how we design transport networks. Victorian railway companies competed against each other to build tracks, and parliament saw its job to hold the ring and allow the competing interests to build railways wherever they wanted and could raise the capital for. So we ended up in the 1960s with multiple railway lines duplicating each other and with no overall network design.

We're still doing it. For evidence just look at the original brief for HS2. It was in effect "design a high-speed railway to run between London and the West Midlands, with future extensions to Manchester and Leeds. Oh, and make it easier to get to Heathrow Airport too." That's just the approach the Victorians took. Think how different the HS2 design would have been if the brief had said "Design a GB railway network fit for the twenty-first century (including faster trains and better airport access); and then tell us which bits to build first." Or even "Design a public transport network fit for the twenty-first century ....".

The third issue is the role that government sees for itself in transport. In the UK, it is to define standards and hold the ring while private companies provide transport services. And maybe providing subsidies when there are "market failures" in provision (note the wording). They don't see their role as actually providing transport. My understanding is that governments in France and Germany see themselves more as providers, which makes it much easier to design integration into "their" transport systems.

The fourth is government structure. Railways are the responsibility of Whitehall; buses, by and large, are regulated by local councils. The chances of getting rail-bus integration under that regime are very low indeed.

Anyway that's my view. What do others think?

I'd agree with much of this but not necessarily the first part. There are many Continental cities where the railway station was at the edge of the city when it was built - but most of them manage to integrate the train journey much better with a trip into the centre on a tram or bus.

To answer an earlier point: yes, bus generally has to be subservient to rail to achieve integration. A bus is much cheaper to provide than a train, so if the buses have to be inefficient to connect with the trains then so be it. However, a bus service is also much easier to change than a train (or tram) service, so it can often be adjusted to do a round trip from a station taking 25 or 55 minutes to connect with the trains. Bringing all the buses to one place, preferably the railway station, also encourages journeys that don't use a train but need to connect between two buses. Most of this is of course virtually impossible if bus and rail are run by separate operators on a commercial basis.

 

[miklcct]

"But they got the trip from Ormskirk to Liverpool for free" - no, they didn't, they are buying a trip from Ormskirk to Preston. The idea that more time or distance, by vehicle kilometres, spent on a public transport service, is worth more than fewer vehicle kilometres or less time, is an enthusiast perspective. The normal passenger is miffed enough that their £7.70 has become £15.80 and takes two hours rather than 35 minutes without making it well over 20 quid just to ensure some "value" in the roundabout journey they didn't even want to make.

More time or distance, by vehicle kilometres, spent on a public transport service means the service is more costly to provide, therefore the fare should be more assuming that it is priced on a cost-plus basis.

My stance is always the following - the fare of a journey should always be the sum of components, no matter it's on the same mode or not. Therefore fare integration isn't necessary.

 

[edwin_m]

More time or distance, by vehicle kilometres, spent on a public transport service means the service is more costly to provide, therefore the fare should be more assuming that it is priced on a cost-plus basis.

My stance is always the following - the fare of a journey should always be the sum of components, no matter it's on the same mode or not. Therefore fare integration isn't necessary.

That's the attitude of treating a service as a series of routes rather than a network. By the same logic a stamp for a letter to a remote island in Scotland should cost about £30. It's also why having operators running different routes to maximise their own fare income doesn't result in a coherent network.

In an integrated network, financial success is measured at a network level. You can look at whether individual routes are justified, but that shouldn't be purely based on the revenue versus operating costs of that route in isolation. Doing so usually also results in a simple fares structure that is easier to understand and attracts more passengers.

 

[TrenHotel]

Unfortunately the daily cap is Zone 1 centric. If you use a bus and the train in Zone 1 and 2 you may well hit the cap. If you use a bus and the train in zone 5 and 6 you end up paying for both at full cost, so the cap is meaningless.

When London fare caps were introduced there was a zone 2-6 cap that was about 80% of the cost of a z1-2 cap - unfortunately TfL removed that cap under Boris Johnson and it has not been restored by Sadiq Khan.

 

[JonathanH]

When London fare caps were introduced there was a zone 2-6 cap that was about 80% of the cost of a z1-2 cap - unfortunately TfL removed that cap under Boris Johnson and it has not been restored by Sadiq Khan.

Indeed. I doubt it will be restored in the current circumstances.

 

[miklcct]

When London fare caps were introduced there was a zone 2-6 cap that was about 80% of the cost of a z1-2 cap - unfortunately TfL removed that cap under Boris Johnson and it has not been restored by Sadiq Khan.

If there is a zone 2-6 cap now, TfL will lose a lot revenue from me as I won't travel through zone 1 again unless crossing London to the opposite side. I will also take a lot more buses than now as I will hit the cap anyway which I currently avoid as, by only taking rail in outer London, I can stay well under the zone 1-outer zone cap.

I live in zone 3 and most of my travel is within zones 2-3. If I currently travel enough to hit the zone 1-3 cap, I can then freely travel across zone 1 without doubt. If the zone 2-6 cap is restored than I simply won't travel across zone 1 and will take the orbital Overground and buses everywhere.

In contrast, if I need to travel to the outer zones, especially in the afternoon peak using National Rail services, restoring the zone 2-6 cap means I will pay much less, and I can freely use buses in addition. Under the current scheme, the cap is useless in the outer zones so I treat each journey in isolation and minimise the fare.

Therefore my conclusion is that the revenue loss to TfL if there is a zone 2-6 cap is too great, and it will lead to a massive increase of cap amount to restore the revenue.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If there is a zone 2-6 cap now, TfL will lose a lot revenue from me as I won't travel through zone 1 again unless crossing London to the opposite side. I will also take a lot more buses than now as I will hit the cap anyway which I currently avoid as, by only taking rail in outer London, I can stay well under the zone 1-outer zone cap.

The idea of the 2-6 cap (and the 2-6 Travelcard which existed in the past) was to keep people out of super-busy Zone 1. This is less needed now with the reduction in commuting and with capacity works at e.g. Bank having been done.

More time or distance, by vehicle kilometres, spent on a public transport service means the service is more costly to provide, therefore the fare should be more assuming that it is priced on a cost-plus basis.

Fares aren't on a cost-plus basis on any system I have ever come across.

My stance is always the following - the fare of a journey should always be the sum of components, no matter it's on the same mode or not. Therefore fare integration isn't necessary.

Why?

 

[miklcct]

Fares aren't on a cost-plus basis on any system I have ever come across.



Why?

Because a sum-of-components system is the only system which does not penalise transfers, and one which does not penalise short journeys nor subsidise long journeys, and one which does not penalise break of journey. However, it does penalise journeys which don't go the most direct route.

With a tap-on-tap-off system, the complexity of collecting fare by distance in the past (which required a conductor) is gone.

The other extreme is a flat fare system, which penalises transfers, penalises short journeys, and penalises stopping en-route for a lunch, but it does not penalise how circuitous one's route is provided that it's on the same service.

Fare integration, depending on the extent, doesn't solve the problem of penalising passengers when the journey is just a short distance beyond the fare integration boundary, or when some of the available routes are excluded. For example, a West Hampstead Thameslink - St Pancras - Stratford International - Stratford - Maryland journey (let's assume the Elizabeth line core doesn't exist, hence this being the most likely fastest way) is charged as 3 separate journeys (1-3, high speed, 3-3), rather than a through 1-3 fare plus the high speed premium on top. Such non-integration means the HS1 is left out from the main public transport network (in this case, which is what actually Southeastern wants to prevent flooding the HS1 services, but the same argument can be applied elsewhere as well).

 

[Greybeard33]

And while Trawscymru is sort-of-integrated in a way, e.g. the T10 stopping outside Bangor station rather than at the bus station up the road, it isn't in the rail timetable and I can't search for say Bethesda on the National Rail/TfW Rail site nor buy a through fare...and this is deliberate!

TfW's new five year corporate strategy seems to support integration.

Integration of transport is also a major priority in the five-year strategy and which will be achieved by:

The integration of assets and creation of interchange facilities over differing transport networks including bus and rail.
Coordinating routes and timetables to create an operational integration of services.
Ticketing and information will also be integrated creating improved access for customers when planning a journey by using just one website and ticketing system.

Transport for Wales publishes its five-year Corporate Strategy

The strategy focuses on improvements to public transport and how to motivate more people to use sustainable travel in the future.

www.railadvent.co.uk

 

[edwin_m]

Because a sum-of-components system is the only system which does not penalise transfers, and one which does not penalise short journeys nor subsidise long journeys, and one which does not penalise break of journey. However, it does penalise journeys which don't go the most direct route.

With a tap-on-tap-off system, the complexity of collecting fare by distance in the past (which required a conductor) is gone.

The other extreme is a flat fare system, which penalises transfers, penalises short journeys, and penalises stopping en-route for a lunch, but it does not penalise how circuitous one's route is provided that it's on the same service.

Fare integration, depending on the extent, doesn't solve the problem of penalising passengers when the journey is just a short distance beyond the fare integration boundary, or when some of the available routes are excluded. For example, a West Hampstead Thameslink - St Pancras - Stratford International - Stratford - Maryland journey (let's assume the Elizabeth line core doesn't exist, hence this being the most likely fastest way) is charged as 3 separate journeys (1-3, high speed, 3-3), rather than a through 1-3 fare plus the high speed premium on top. Such non-integration means the HS1 is left out from the main public transport network (in this case, which is what actually Southeastern wants to prevent flooding the HS1 services, but the same argument can be applied elsewhere as well).

I'm a little confused by this - I assume by "sum of components" you mean a separate fare for each mode, but perhaps I am misunderstanding.

Short journeys will pay a higher rate per mile under any fare structure apart from a pure per-mile rate. It is probably right to do so because some of the operator's costs, such as maintaining stations/stops and selling the ticket itself, are the same regardless of the length of journey. From a policy point of view it may also be good to disincentivise use of a vehicle for journeys that many peopple could walk or cycle (with appropriate provision for those physically unable to do that). On the other hand, it's unfair that a passenger who does a bus-train-bus journey pays more than one doing an all-rail journey of the same length (which would be cheaper because of the higher rate on shorter journeys), as well as having the inconvenience of two interchanges.

The ideal integrated system is probably zonal, where a passenger between two zones pays the same whatever mode or route they use and indeed can choose to use whichever is most convenient. There probably also needs to be some arrangement where a short journey doesn't cost more if it happens to cross a zone boundary. The 1980s system in Tyne and Wear did all this but was quite complicated for the casual user, but tap-in-tap-out would make such a system much easier to use today.

 

[py_megapixel]

It is probably right to do so because some of the operator's costs, such as maintaining stations/stops and selling the ticket itself, are the same regardless of the length of journey.

It also has the useful advantage of deterring people from catching buses on distances they could easily walk/cycle, which would not be a good use of capacity.

 

[edwin_m]

It also has the useful advantage of deterring people from catching buses on distances they could easily walk/cycle, which would not be a good use of capacity.

Indeed, was just editing the post to add this as your replied!

 

[miklcct]

I'm a little confused by this - I assume by "sum of components" you mean a separate fare for each mode, but perhaps I am misunderstanding.

Short journeys will pay a higher rate per mile under any fare structure apart from a pure per-mile rate. It is probably right to do so because some of the operator's costs, such as maintaining stations/stops and selling the ticket itself, are the same regardless of the length of journey. From a policy point of view it may also be good to disincentivise use of a vehicle for journeys that many peopple could walk or cycle (with appropriate provision for those physically unable to do that). On the other hand, it's unfair that a passenger who does a bus-train-bus journey pays more than one doing an all-rail journey of the same length (which would be cheaper because of the higher rate on shorter journeys), as well as having the inconvenience of two interchanges.

The ideal integrated system is probably zonal, where a passenger between two zones pays the same whatever mode or route they use and indeed can choose to use whichever is most convenient. There probably also needs to be some arrangement where a short journey doesn't cost more if it happens to cross a zone boundary. The 1980s system in Tyne and Wear did all this but was quite complicated for the casual user, but tap-in-tap-out would make such a system much easier to use today.

What I mean by sum of components does not necessarily mean a fixed per-mile rate, but a bus stopping at A-B-C-D has to charge a total fare to be the sum of A-B, B-C and C-D. A fixed per-mile rate satisfies this criteria but there are also other pricing systems able to do that as well, for example, a fixed per-stop rate.

Under such systems it won't be unfair to people who need transfers. If you want to disincentivise walkable journeys, such as 1 km or less, under a mileage system you can set a minimum fare to be the 1 km rate and strictly mileage based beyond, but this will also disincentivise people from taking a bus to a railway station 600 m away as a connection as well.

 

[Ken H]

What I mean by sum of components does not necessarily mean a fixed per-mile rate, but a bus stopping at A-B-C-D has to charge a total fare to be the sum of A-B, B-C and C-D. A fixed per-mile rate satisfies this criteria but there are also other pricing systems able to do that as well, for example, a fixed per-stop rate.

Under such systems it won't be unfair to people who need transfers. If you want to disincentivise walkable journeys, such as 1 km or less, under a mileage system you can set a minimum fare to be the 1 km rate and strictly mileage based beyond, but this will also disincentivise people from taking a bus to a railway station 600 m away as a connection as well.

What about those who have reduced mobility? Not all are disabled. Many may be waiting for or recovering from orthopedic surgery so wont have a disabled pass.
Or people may be carrying something heavy. Maybe they have just left an hotel with a heavy bag.

 

[miklcct]

It also has the useful advantage of deterring people from catching buses on distances they could easily walk/cycle, which would not be a good use of capacity.

What about those who have reduced mobility? Not all are disabled. Many may be waiting for or recovering from orthopedic surgery so wont have a disabled pass.
Or people may be carrying something heavy. Maybe they have just left an hotel with a heavy bag.

I was responding to this quote about disincentivising extremely short journeys under a sum-of-components system (e.g. a mileage-rate system) which doesn't penalise transfers even without integration. I am personally against such disincentivisation.

What makes a fare system a sum-of-components system is that a fare of any journey is equal to the sum of the fares between its consecutive calling points. The mileage-rate system and the stop-count system is the least complicated sum-of-components system (by assigning the fare to be £x / km or £x / stop).

I'm neutral on the matter that a bus-train-bus journey should be charged the same as a all-train journey between the same two points, as a bus is different from a train. What I'm against is that train-bus journey will double the fare paid against a journey between the same two points on both an all-bus and an all-train journey, which means the penalisation comes from the fact that a transfer is made. For example, in order to get from X to Z, a transfer at Y must be made. There are both buses and trains between X and Y, and also both buses and trains on different routes between Y and Z. If using a bus from X to Y and a train from Y to Z will result the fare being doubled compared to an all-bus X-Y-Z or an all-train X-Y-Z journey, I consider that a failure of the fare system. Such an example can be found on my usual journey between Cricklewood and Gospel Oak, where it's possible to do the journey all the way by bus (C11, £1.65), all the way by train (Thameslink - Overground, £1.70 with Railcard), or a bus to Brondesbury then Overground which is the fastest way because of the frequency of buses on the A5 and the ease of transfer at Brondesbury, but will result in a huge extra in fares. The mileage difference here is not large (in fact, the bus-train journey is shorter than the bus alone because of the bus is circuitous).