How do you draw public transport boundaries without splitting in awkward places?

[redreni]

It is interesting to compare what's happening now with the setting up of the LPTB, and defining its area within which sevices would be co-ordinated, and revenue pooled - the late Mike Horne wrote an essay on this (the London Passenger Transport Area) - see https://machorne.wordpress.com/2019/12/22/the-london-passenger-transport-area-an-explanation/ , while the OS 1934 maps showing it, and other relevant areas, are on line at https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/maps...13134&zoom=9&layer=london-passenger-transport and https://maps.nls.uk/os/one-inch-popular-england-wales/ #londontransport (individual maps, with key to the various boundaries, etc.). Something which will be apparent on studying it closely is that it was drawn up by busmen (based where they could, or wanted to, operate), and relating it to the main line railways and their stations was not simple or obvious.

The concept that the country can be divided up into neat self contained areas - whatever the purpose or prospective division - is very much wishful thinking, however you do it there is bound to be a lot of mess at the borders.

Having looked a bit more closely at this map, if we can all agree on anything, how about this: No public transport area or PAYG scheme should ever have a boundary that takes in one half of High Wycombe but not the other?

 

[etr221]

Having looked a bit more closely at this map, if we can all agree on anything, how about this: No public transport area or PAYG scheme should ever have a boundary that takes in one half of High Wycombe but not the other?

I did comment that the LPTB border was drawn up by busmen, for their mutual benefit. Places like High Wycombe had one busman running into it from one direction, and another from a different direction: as it was where they both wanted to run to, that's where they agreed the boundary should be. And in the days when it was all paid for by passengers paying individual fares, with a service licensing system that meant service patterns were pretty stable, facilitating crude co-ordination, it didn't matter that much.

But things have changed: service patterns are less stable, making co-ordination more difficult, and fare/ticket systems are based on zonal 'ride at will' travel cards (of one sort or another), with significant payments from general public (government) funds, it matters far more.

So where do you put boundaries? If you're not going to have them splitting places like High Wycombe in two (or more) - which I agree is undesirable - how do you deal with the fact that people want to travel to/from such places in multiple directions?

What are the implications of the logical conclusion, that the whole country has to be in one area, one scheme...?

 

[RT4038]

Having looked a bit more closely at this map, if we can all agree on anything, how about this: No public transport area or PAYG scheme should ever have a boundary that takes in one half of High Wycombe but not the other?

As @etr221 points out, there was no 'public transport area' ticketing at the time the LPTB was formed, and the PAYG scheme was very, very simple - you boarded a bus and paid the fare to the Conductor for the ride on that bus only. [in some instances you could buy a return ticket, and in the vast majority of cases the licensing system meant that all of the buses to come back on were the same Company that issued the ticket, or accepted the ticket on joint services]. 'ride at will' type area tickets were unknown at the formation of the LPTB, and were not really a thing in all or most bus undertakings until the mid 70s. Yes, some operators had some leisure products from the late 50s - LT rovers, Midland Red 'Day Out', Western National 7 day etc but these were not in mainstream everyday use. Remember of course that at that time everything happened in the town centre - people had little reason to be changing buses and going to a different suburb on a regular basis - on the irregular journeys where that happened (visiting friends or relatives etc, or catching a longer distance bus) it was just accepted that you bought four tickets - the operator didn't really matter.

 

[The exile]

I did comment that the LPTB border was drawn up by busmen, for their mutual benefit. Places like High Wycombe had one busman running into it from one direction, and another from a different direction: as it was where they both wanted to run to, that's where they agreed the boundary should be. And in the days when it was all paid for by passengers paying individual fares, with a service licensing system that meant service patterns were pretty stable, facilitating crude co-ordination, it didn't matter that much.

But things have changed: service patterns are less stable, making co-ordination more difficult, and fare/ticket systems are based on zonal 'ride at will' travel cards (of one sort or another), with significant payments from general public (government) funds, it matters far more.

So where do you put boundaries? If you're not going to have them splitting places like High Wycombe in two (or more) - which I agree is undesirable - how do you deal with the fact that people want to travel to/from such places in multiple directions?

What are the implications of the logical conclusion, that the whole country has to be in one area, one scheme...?

In terms of zonal ticketing, you ensure that boundaries overlap or that special add on fares are available for places just the “wrong” side of boundaries.

 

[redreni]

In terms of zonal ticketing, you ensure that boundaries overlap or that special add on fares are available for places just the “wrong” side of boundaries.

Well, quite.

Just because a station in London is in zone 3, doesn't necessarily mean it can't be in zone 4 as well. Nobody would complain about that.

But if you tried telling people in Todmorden they were in both Yorkshire and Lancashire, you'd be braver than me!

 

[The exile]

I’m sure if you told the canny inhabitants of those “border” towns they were saving money they would see the pecuniary advantages of being able to buy tickets for both!

 

[etr221]

One of the problem with zonal systems in the UK - thinking in particular of London's - is that they are (or tend to be) based on a central, inner, zone with other zones being rings around it. Which is perhaps sensible for a small, monocentric area: but not for large, polycentric areas. And London is perhaps really the latter. For these, a system of more, squarish, zones, each of which can be the centre of its own rings is required - for an example, see https://dinoffentligetransport.dk/en/plan-your-journey/zone-and-line-maps, showing that for Zealand (eastern Denmark) - 211 zones, starting with '1' in central Copenhagen. And for the Todmorden case that is what you - a TfN (Transport for the North) system stretching from the Wirral to the Humber, with Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, etc being primary 'centres of rings', and with Todmorden, etc. being the centres of their own.

 

[JonathanH]

Which is perhaps sensible for a small, monocentric area: but not for large, polycentric areas. And London is perhaps really the latter.

I have long thought that the concentric zonal rings in London are somewhat presumptuous about where people are likely to be travelling to, particularly given the only daily capping applied is zone 1 centric. London's railway network isn't necessarily conducive to being seen as polycentric, but it is odd that passengers making two single journeys are incentivised to avoid zone 1, but passengers making multiple journeys are treated as if that is where they want to go.