Welcome to Reconnections’ Friday Reads:
-
- • London’s Rail and Tube Services map in Beck style (Inat)
- • Why don’t people give up seats on transport? (BBC)
- • Cities become more sustainable & inclusive with data (WorldResourcesInstitute)
- • US National links: Building the cycling city (TheOverheadWire)
- • Urbanists paint parking spaces for eScooters (99%Invisible)
- • Buffalo Metro’s self-destructive idea (CityLab)
- • Art gallery built for transit riders (SeattleCurbed)
- • Who speaks at public consultations – the data (NextCity)
Check out our most popular articles:
And some of our other sections:
If you have something you feel we should read or include in a future list, email us at [email protected].
Reconnections is funded largely by its community. Like what we do? Then help us to do more!
Thanks for the link to the Inat map – I’m sure others are familiar with these, but first time I’ve seen them and really impressed by the clarity and design language. Only thing I can see as a possible improvement would be the full set of OSIs, but otherwise near perfect.
Thinking about ordering a poster version!
The first link is interesting. And whilst being able to apreciate all the hard work, it doesn’t really serve anyone needing step-free access well.
I would notice the errors of course. There are missing OSI’s (Kent House/Clock House for example).
It’s hard to see that the C2C doesn’t stop at District Line stations.
The odd choice to show the DLR service patterns as sub-lines, colour all the Overground Lines differently but not split up the District Line into the operational separate Edgware Road service.
And Reading is in an odd place too.
There’s loads of missing OSIs – the ones that are there seem to be ones that were on the tube map a couple of years ago (no Archway-Holloway Rd), plus the Seven Sisters-South Tottenham, Bank-Cannon St and Charing X-Embankment ones.
It seems odd to make a big deal about the River accuracy, but then not put the 3 westernmost Elizabeth line stations south of it (though that would look terrible on the map – partially due to the problem of having a square map for a non-square network).
@Briantist re. the District: Perhaps they didn’t want to change how traditional parts of the tube map are shown too much. I think what you suggest would be useful though. You’d need a double line down to Wimbledon from Earls Court. Having lived there for many years I can’t disagree that Reading’s an odd place, but on the map, the long western branch had to bend up or down to fit and be shown in its entirety. Some TOC maps have used similar distortions to depict far flung extremities. I like the treatment of DLR and Overground. It’s useful information for the traveller. I note Southern’s West London Line services are separated out too. Weirdly the Northern Line is not as black as it usually is. Predicting a split perhaps?
The map is as good as it gets (I could list a few minor tweaks to make it near-perfect) and has for many years provided the clearest depiction of the south of the river rail services in particular. It completely does away with the ‘should Thameslink be on the Tube map’ malarkey, because it puts everywhere on the Tube map. As INAT’s visualisations show, it would be of great benefit to both TFL and the rail companies if it were displayed across the network, with the increasingly ugly and irrelevant ‘Tube map’ finally ditched. It may be fanciful to think that TFL and the ToCs could think in this way, so it’s worth noting that INAT’s Tube-only map is also great, and at least the two maps would complement each other as a co-ordinated piece of infrastructure design. I think it has the power to change perceptions and increase ridership for underground and rail, and most importantly, cross-mode journeys between the two.
That’s one brilliant map. A few tweaks: Barking is just one station (one blob not two) whilst Stratford International should show as two (albeit they are literally side by side).
The complexity of station links around the Canary Wharf estate is almost correct – the best DLR to Jubilee connection is actually from Herons Quay.
But this is very nit picking – it’s a great asset.
@MarkT & Briantist.
IIRC, early versions of the INAT map had Wimbleware as a different line (likewise the Northern was split), but there were complaints – not least about the (garish) colours chosen, though that they are branded as one line was another reason why they were re-merged together – it’s not helpful to separate stuff that isn’t treated as separate in real life. (NB: the DLR has different colours on the network strip diagram, at least nowadays).
The map is square. If it was printed and displayed on the usual A landscape format, 41% of the display would be wasted. This would effectively reduce the size to 73% of the existing maps. A pity when the amount of information has been increased so much.
Good effort though. I particularly like the way that LO services have been separated and numbered (except Romminster).
@Nameless: One basic design problem is that they have used hollow lines both for the Overground and for peak hours only services…
@Nameless
The map is square because INAT wants to have all networks shown in the same design standard while trying not to upset local sensibilities.
cf the parks being shown in London – Central Park is a key part of the NYC map, so the second rendition of the NYC, Paris and London maps (the first three), following complaints from the Big Apple, got a park added to each. London got Kensington Gardens/Hyde Park looking very odd, and so that one park in each city became several to minimise the oddness for London and Paris, while keeping Central Park for NYC.
I think the point being missed by obsessions with trying to beautify maps is that they are becoming increasingly antiquated for the purpose of planning journeys; Apps can calculate the optimum route much faster than humans.
@DPWH
Apps may be able to calculate more quickly than humans but what is optimum for one person is not necessarily optimum for someone else. Each traveller may have different needs. A good map enables the user to see the bigger picture and so have an understanding of their overall journey. This allows for last minute changes of plan, whether this is at the behest of the user or outside circumstance.
@DPWH. I’m presuming your day job is head of Web services for tfl – because they are obsessed with forcing use of apps and removing maps.
I’m not alone in being able to make a more informed choices (or choices – I like to know all my options) with a good old fashioned map and some timetables.
DPWH
Maybe
IF you can get the appropriate App to load & work on your phone – I’ve just lost a really good map-app, because my Android O/S is apparently an old version & can’t be updated.
BAH / Yuck / Sucks & other rude remarks …
Excuse me, but what’s the point?
A paper map ALWAYS WORKS, apps … don’t.
A printed timetable always works, too!
Island Dweller has the point as well ….
“New” does not necessarily mean “better” – especially if it is badly thought-out & poorly implemented, as has happened in this case.
[Snip for ranting about individuals/organisations. PoP]
Getting a little off topic. Try using the tfl planner today for a journey from Mudchute to Lewisham. It gives a journey of 53 minutes via two buses, the Jubilee line, and the Overground.
It’s actual 9 minutes by direct DLR, which is operating normally….
Hence my huge scepticism about relying on an app alone.
Island Dweller: Scepticism shared. However, as an aside, Traveline south-east also gives a similar stupid answer, so there is presumably something wrong with the secret underlying database, rather than the TfL journey planner itself.
But the point about the current fallibility of such gadgetry remains.
Malcom
In support of your “fallibility of gadgetry” point ….. I’m not sure if it’s relevant, but a recent example involved me getting to LCY ( London City Airport ) – & Journey Planner insited that the best route was into the centre, & change – twice- finally onto the DLR & back out again, rather than getting a bus (97) to Stratford-in-the-hole & then the DLR, which was obvious nonsense …..
Or it’s obvious if you are a Londoner
@Greg T – ‘fraid* I agree with you – it’s exactly the same point about the use of paper (or digital) timetables which show you the whole service, and about the value if satnavs versus paper maps when planning strategically a longish journey.
*actually, I’m not afraid or apologetic – when using IT-based systems, one rarely knows what assumptions and conventions have been programmed into it. And might agree with them even more rarely if one did know.
@Malcolm _ I once accompanied Portillo to the launch of the predecessor of Journey Planner. He was asked to test it by its shiny faced proponents. I suggested, not entirely innocently, Catford to Catford Bridge, which, of course brought the system to its knees. We move outwards and onwards from the Waterloo undercroft…
@Graham H – Tech has developed, Catford today gives 83mins via Blackfriars (only £2.80 for a 2 min walk).
I just tried the TfL journey planner for Mudchute to Lewisham and it gave me DLR for the fastest public transport option. So it works properly at least some times. My experience with journey planners has been that often if they give counter-intuitive results there is usually a good reason. One, which can’t be overcome easily, is if the counter-intuitive route is just one or two minutes quicker than the obvious route – if I want to go from home to London Bridge, I will nearly always be told to change at Ashford and St Pancras, rather than take the direct train, even though the former is considerably more expensive and less comfortable, just because it is 2 minutes quicker. More usefully, I use the journey planner at weekends because it will take into account engineering works, whereas paper timetables and maps won’t.
While I like proper timetables and maps and think the argument that paper is better than online is actually a silly one. Both have their advantages and disadvantages and I like to have both.
Aleks
😞
Quinlet
Your argument has merit, but the real “killer” is in your last sentence, or even the last 5 words; I like to have both
But the whizz-kids of the revolution are determined not to let us have both – we MUST have an app, even if it won’t load, even if it gives utterly daft answers & alternatives ( paper) are not permitted.
Greg: You overstate the case. Paper alternatives are permitted, and no-one is “banning” them. What TfL are doing is choosing not to spend our money on producing them. Like many of us, you might not agree with that particular economy – but there is a reason for it.
Like Mike Harris has done, anyone is free to produce their own paper alternatives. We are (arguably) no more entitled to a free bus map than we are to a free copy of the Economist (for instance).
@Malcolm – of course, no one is obliged to produce any info at all. We could be like rural France where info in any form on bus services requires real determination and much luck – and then people wonder why they get so little custom.
@Aleks/Greg T – quite.
@Quinlet – Rather emphasises my point that one needs to know what assumptions and conventions have been applied to the IT systems
@Graham H: one rarely knows what assumptions and conventions have been programmed into it
The same applies to paper maps as well – to use the Tube map well, you need to know what counts as an interchange, what services are shown and not shown, and what level of geographical distortion applies, otherwise you will find yourself doing things like travelling from Central London to Mitcham Junction via the Overground and Tramlink, or the Tube from Bayswater to Queensway via Notting Hill Gate.
One pfoblem with the digital journey planner is that it is sensitive to the time the journey starts.
You will then find, for example, that there is a recommended route by rail and walking which changes five minutes later to a couple of tubes and a couple of buses. Three minutes later start you are instructed to travel via a different rail station and walk for 15 minutes, or take a different bus etc.
As the services are not reliable to that degree of precision, you can be sent via a rail line with a 30 monute service.
As for the return journey, a new plan will be necessary if you cannot specify the exact time of departure.
What the current system appears to lack is an algorithm to specify the most reliable route taking into account the frequency of the various services available.
With flatnav, i.e. real maps and timetables you can form a reasoned judgement.
@Ian J _ what you say is true in principle, except that “everyone knows” that that map is not supposed to be a geographic representation (although I agree, one does encounter visitors making the trip from Charing Cross to Embankment). The issue is, however, far far worse with Journey Planner (and satnavs) because one simply has no ability to interpret the meaning of any location or route without a complete local street map. Take a bus journey to a strange town: JP asks you to enter a street or postcode – even if you select one from their list you may or may not know whether these are at, near, or remote from your actual local destination*; if a change is required en route, the system doesn’t know, either whether two seemingly different stops are, in fact, next to each other or just round the corner. In some cases, it will tell you that no journey is available, when, with a detailed search of street maps, you find that you can construct an interchange with little difficulty.
* A personal recent example was trying to find a remote pub in Derbyshire. I entered the postcode correctly, and the satnav guided me correctly to the centroid of the code area, but the pub was nowhere to be seen and it took a further 15 minutes posting around the lanes in the area to find it. It was, however, clearly marked on the paper map.
What the discussion of maps vs. on-line journey planners lacks is anecdotes about all those people who misread/totally failed to understand maps. My guess is that this happens far more often than glitches in the journey planners.
@ Malcolm
Not convinced by the comparison of a bus map and The Economist. A bus map is much nearer a flyer or takeaway menu – it is advertising/informing about the available service, it is not the service itself
@Graham H: All the issues you mention don’t occur if using journey planners like Google Maps or Citymapper, which have the “complete local street map” built in and know the location of stops etc (and don’t require postcodes). They are also reasonably intelligent in providing a choice of route options, including telling you the frequency of service on each leg.
I think the era when most people would reflexively head to the TfL website for journey information is over (if it ever really began). Standalone sat-navs have no long-term future and I suspect the same might apply to the TfL online journey planner.
For most people ‘public transport’ is a single system, and a source of information (whether on paper or online) that combines all operators is more useful than an operator-specific one. The only ‘logic’ behind what is on the Tube map is that it shows only TfL-specified services that are on rails (or wires) – not that that is made clear on the map itself. And there is no real logic to what services in London happen to be TfL-specified.
@Byrn Davies: I suspect that is particularly the case with London bus maps, which were never easy to use because of the density of different routes, all shown in the same shade of red.
Not forgetting that any printed map or timetable could be out-of-date and one doesn’t know it. Would one seriously trust anything printed on paper when wanting train times for Gospel Oak – Barking?
What I never understand when this topic comes up (an nauseum) is that there are two separate issues and no-one seems to grasp this.
One issue is the format. Here we are talking about Journey Planners as opposed to timetables in column format. Or traditional maps as opposed to diagrams – diagrams are often confusingly referred to as maps (e.g. Tube Map).
The other issue we are talking about is the medium on which the information is obtained. So we are talking about paper or electronically. Clearly some formats such as journey planner cannot be put on paper.
I suppose a hybrid format is the ‘create your own timetable’ application.
I have heard people rant about preferring paper timetable when often, if you question them closely, they don’t mean that at all. They are quite happy with a PDF timetable. What they often mean is they want the totality of the information (e.g. all trains shown). Basically they want the thinking out to be done by them not by some bot. Similarly they don’t always appreciate the stylised diagrams intended to help them but, in the process, sometimes conveying misleading information.
I would question any point in discussing this again. We have the same points made and the same entrenched views.
@Ian J – I am sure you are right that things will improve but I would like to put up a particular black mark against the “journey planner” promoted by so many local authorities these days. Having abandoned any pretence at providing information themselves, you are referred to a national website. To make use of this, you need to know the pattern of services about which you are inquiring, especially if you are making connecting journeys. Failure to provide a map (paper or online) and a complete timetable (eg does this service run only on selected days) means that you can’t plan in advance. The simple question, such as “Is this journey even feasible?” becomes impossible – you have to rely on the argumentum ex silentio – always doubtful and although Google maps may help you, as a human inquirer, there is no reason to think that journey planner software will do the same, especially where you – as a human interrogator- can see from a map that a connexion is “good enough”, but the planner software’s judgement is unknown,.
I did personally try, as you might expect to have a look at the “Tube Map” and apply the Beck-style principle that the map was about how to make changes.
In this version, which isn’t finished, the principle is that interchanges are shown on a square grid. The bigger the interchange (including with NR) the bigger the station blob). Actual geography takes second place
https://ukfree.tv/styles/images/2018/New_Liz_Bec.JPG
So, as to Journey Planners, I think it quite possible that they are of great use to people who are not have (from Walter Burke Barbe’s learning modalities) the “Visual learning style” and find anything presented graphically very hard to understand. There are considerable proportion of humans who prefer to have Auditory or “Kinesthetic” (Physical and Social) explanations of the world.
This means that it is highly important – for a public body at least – to present information in ways that can be seen, and heard (or read) and presented. None of these are right or wrong, but the selection process of business always pushes “Visual learning” people to planning transport networks.
Graham H,
Not disputing any of that but an experience earlier this year made me believe that you can’t know for sure if a rural bus will run regardless of which information is displayed in which format on what medium.
I needed to make a journey on a route that had around 5 buses per day and I knew further cut-backs were being talked about. I intended to catch the last bus. As it turned out, I arrived an hour earlier so caught the bus due an hour earlier. But despite my methodical online checking (both traditional timetable and Journey Planner) I saw that the timetable on the bus stop, behind glass, had the last bus time obliterated with black ink. The timetable was the most recent and available online. The Journey Planners were third party. I now have absolutely no idea whether the last bus on the timetable will run on not and don’t ever intend to put it to the test.
@PoP
Just one final question.
Does anyone remember:
1. When did the “Diagram of Lines” became the “Journey Planner”?
2. When was the “Journey Planner” renamed the “Tube Map”?
Nameless,
Don’t know. When will it be called TfL rail services map?
One experience with the JP. Wanting to know how long it would take to get to a particular location (a crematorium, as it happened) for which I knew there was a direct bus service from home, I put in the name of the destination and got a complicated route involving three buses. Why? Because the stop I had selected as my destination was on the wrong side of the road. The stop going the other way had a different (and unguessable) name.
National Rail’s JP can be as bad. It allows you to put in a “via” point, but if you are making a return journey it insists that both legs are made by way of that point. No easy way of finding if a return ticket to Wakefield (say) is valid out via Doncaster and back via Derby.
Ian J
Google Maps is all very well if your phone GPS works – mine became very erratic a couple of months ago for no apparent reason ….
As for “Citymapper” it appears that one can load it up on to your phone as an app – so I’ll give it a try.
[ I do have “Open Street Map” from the web – which I can recommend – but it’s no use for “Transit” services ]
PoP
Point taken. But, I would be happy to uses TfL’s “app” IF IT WORKED & showed all the information, easily, on a smallish phone screen.
But – it does not do those things, does it?
You have also highlighted that a timetable is not a Journey Planner, & nor is a map – but if you put those two items together, then you do have a “JP” – moderated by one’s self, of course.
@Greg T: No need to get the phone, it works perfectly well on a pre-smartphone web-browser.
It also gets the Catford problem right: 3 Minutes walk/cycle, bus 284 or £3+ by taxi. However you can take 74 minutes and do it by train if you insist…
@NAMELESS
Looking at my book, Underground Maps After Beck (Maxwell J Roberts) shows “Tube Map” first in summer 1996.
The pre-Beck map of 1925-32 is entitled “Underground Railways of London”.
Becks maps from 1934 show “London Transport Underground”
From 1973 the label is “THE LONDON UNDERGROUND” until 1985
The combined Rail-Tube map was “London’s Railways” from the first one in 1973 until May 1985 when it became “London Connections”.
As for “Journey Planner” – wasn’t that used to show where the London Connections/Tube Map could be found in the station, rather than on the actual map?
PoP: “they want the totality of the information (e.g. all trains shown).”
Or, in my case, I want to be rid of (or greatly suppress the use of) ‘Spider Maps’ at bus stops. By only informing me where buses from that location go to *and nothing about interchange options* they are effectively useless. And planners of the digital variety are too concerned with exact (ha!) timing and not general options to get between A and C ‘during the afternoon’ (for example.)
Alison: Your wish to know how to get somewhere requiring a change of bus might be better expressed as a wish for a full bus map of the surrounding area – such as used to be displayed (if memory serves) on the wall of certain bus shelters (and still is is some places outside London). (I think never on free-standing bus stop poles though: it would not fit).
The harm is not in spider maps per se. Sometimes they can be helpful. But the harm comes from assuming that they are “all you need”.
Alison W
Yes ….
The other advantage of paper &/or even on-line-available maps is that they show things not directly on the bus/rail routes, which you might want top get to/from.
Such as: Eltham Palace / Wentlooge Tower / Sutton House & similar visitor attractions …..
@PoP – Yes – I may have recounted before (if so, I apologise) driving through rural Northants where a lot of money (c £80k each) had been spent on a series of Next Bus Displays at each stop. The display read “Next Bus Thursday”… [BTW £80k would buy you a daily bus service for several years].
Your last bus point – Some years ago, Boston (Mass) put on a series of additional last buses, known as straggler buses, which apparently stimulated the next to last bus loadings considerably.
@ Graham H
Everyone knows that capex is good and opex is bad though!
Re spider maps, they are very useful, and especially for figuring out at a glance that there isn’t a bus in the particular direction you want to go in.
I can see the point for them to include interchange options, especially now the hopper is in existence, but that could get pretty complicated. It would need to show the number and both termini to be useful and for some places that would be a lot of additional information
@Briantist
I was not talking about the map heading but referring specifically to the front cover of the folded pocket map available to customers. The title appears on the front cover above or below the Underground roundel.
To my recollection the Journey Planner title was issued between the Diagram of Lines and the current Tube Map.
The maps were all folded to the same size as the Central and Country bus maps.
The later Capitalcard and London Connections maps were folded to a larger size.
@NAMELESS
Sorry, I was interested enough to buy and expensive book, but it you want the real items I noted all of the folded pocket map were all on the “Liz Loves Liz” stall at Greenwich Market on Saturdays and Sundays.
https://www.greenwichmarket.london/guide/detail/liz-loves-liz
“If it’s a piece of London’s tube memorabilia you’re after, then look no further – we also uniquely frame old tube maps dating from the 1920’s to the noughties.”
He doesn’t charge to look at them.
If you get the dates I would be interested to know them, of course.
@Herned 🙂 You noticed that this was Northamptonshire…! This is what happens when you cap precepts but not borrowing. Northants seem to have taken this to a new level of financial “wizardry” with the recent borrowing for a new low operational cost county office in place of a high cost old office (with the added benefit of cash flow when you sell the old site). The business case for trading off capex interest against reduced opex must have been, shall we say, interesting.
@ Graham H
Oh yes, of course, I didn’t make the connection. The local authority in my area now I have escaped from London is doing its best to be next to call in the administrators, and has made some equally ‘interesting’ accounting choices over the years
@Briantist
Thanks.
If only there was some way I could plan how to get to Greenwich market and how long the journey would take…..
Living away from London my occasional visits bring the added excitement of working out my journeys. On my recent visit (weekend of 15/16 Sept) I encountered the TfL journey planner problem of its not knowing when the DLR was closed for engineering work. Had I not been with a group of transport experts I might have walked to Canning Town from Royal Victoria!
I did, however, find the spider maps at bus stops very useful. We should not try to suppress any forms of information but use them all wisely.
JJ
Spot on
We need spider maps & “proper” maps & apps & timetables, & “planners” not either/or.
This is what TfL seem ( And I stress “seem” ) not to have realised
Limehouse is missed on C2C. Apologies if someone spotted it before me.
Just caught up with the recent debate.
@ PoP – re the GOBLIN what info would you use? I assume the TfL provided pdf on their website would be deemed as useless as a paper timetable?
@ Alison W – I don’t have a great problem with spider maps but I agree they have severe limitations. One thing your comment has brought to mind is that TfL’s apparent new desire to “simplify” suburban services and massacre radial routes into Central London will force much more interchange activity. Therefore their new policy direction will create the need for new maps and new information if people are to have a reasonable chance of making informed choices. Given how appalling Journey Planner is I don’t see that as any sort of viable alternative in a “simplified” bus network. I wonder TfL will even bother to rejig their “at stop” information provision in our brave new world of “slimmer” bus networks? I suspect it will be deemed to cost too much thus leaving the poor passengers to work it out for themselves. The recent change to the 425 (to part replace some of route 25) resulting in no information for passengers other than the number on the stop flag. No panel timetables available on the new section of route. Result – people letting 425s go while crushing on board 25s and 86s even though they all go to the same place on the same roads. Nul points from the WW jury.
@ Malcolm – if only TfL had bothered to ask the poor souls who actually use their network if they would have been prepared to pay for paper bus maps then we might well have been able to keep them. I suspect people would not have objected to paying a reasonable sum per copy to retain them. Many moons ago I worked in a Travel Centre in Tyne and Wear and both the county timetable book and route map were priced items. They regularly sold out, despite the need to pay for them, because they were such good publications. I now have to rely on old TfL bus maps and my memory as to what routes have changed. I simply can’t use the TfL website Google maps garbage because it’s hopeless. As others have said it doesn’t “sell” you the network nor give you viable cues as to network stretch and density.
I have lost count of the times when people relying on their “smartphones” to identify the right alighting stop get it wrong because the GPS tracking shows the bus to be somewhere that it isn’t. A classic is people getting off one roundabout too early when they want Gants Hill Station. As the bus pulls off they are left dumfounded on the roadside wondering where the hell they are. So much for technology.
And now for a complete tangent but involving “new” technology. I needed to go for a blood test locally. Been a while since I’ve done that. The old system was turn up at the clinic, take a numbered ticket and wait. Very basic and potentially time consuming but little hassle other than the time factor. Now we have whizzo system – you can book an appointment online or you can turn up for one of 51 daily sessions and take a chance one is available. Having looked on line the earliest appointment was 8 days time. S*d that said I. I turned up at the clinic and was confronted with a touch screen. No paper tickets. As I am reasonably au fait with a touch screen and a keyboard I worked my way through and got a timed appointment with a 2.5 hour wait. Still not bad as the time meant I could do other things. I will confess to being a tad anxious as to whether my name would appear at the right time but it did.
However when I got back I watched umpteen people walk past the screen and sit down. They had no appreciation they had to log in even if they had a pre-booked appointment. You have to confirm you are physically there. There was no multi lingual facility despite London being hugely multi-ethnic. Older people really struggled with the system. Those who were less stable on the feet struggled to stand to use the facility. One person with failing eyesight – with a white stick – also struggled badly until another patient came to assist. Meanwhile several people kept asking the phlebologists for help which reduced their time on actually taking people’s blood. They had to go and check to see if people were on the system or tell them to come back another time. People had booked online but had forgotten the day they’d booked for and just come the next day! I wouldn’t go so far as to say it’s a shambles but whoever dreamt up the idea and created the concept and the tech seriously needs to spend a few hours watching how real people interract with the technology. It seriously made me wonder how I’d cope if my health was to worsen in some way that meant that computer based tech was suddenly very difficult to use.
To come back to transport matters I wonder how many people struggle with TfL’s growing reliance on tech and whether TfL make demonstrable efforts to find out what works and what does not?
WW
That is (partly) down to the decision, some years ago to only have the final destination on bus-blinds & not showing useful main intermediate points of call, which I’ve always thought a big mistake.
I wish there was an option on Ticket Machines (and thus the National rail and Train-line sites) for a (“Zone 6” to “specific named station beyond zones 1 – 6”) journey. Example, presently you can choose Ewell West on South Western, or Ewell East on Southern -as the zone 6 station to start a journey further from London but not both. Another point, I would miss the identification of what station is in what zone as a result of visual “de-cluttering”.
1956: I think for this you would need a ticket from “any Ewell station” to (say) Epsom. Because a ticket from “any zone 6 station” to Epsom would also be valid from Hadley Wood (say) and would be priced accordingly.
Granted that zoning is of itself sometimes a blunt instrument which sometimes produces anomalous fares. But at least these anomalies are mostly confined to the zoned region at present.
You can, of course, go to any TfL or “BR” ticket office & ask for: “Zone 6 boundary to $_Named_Station” – I do this several times, every year – but I’m unsure as to whether this option is available from ticket machines, though given the number of London-resident over-65’s for whom this is a useful option, it certainly ought to be ….
Greg and others – I thought, but may be wrong, that TfL’s ticket machines had been upgraded to offer Boundary Zone 6 to NR stn tickets. I believe the situation is far more patchy on NR where each TOC does their own thing (surprise surprise) and Southern, I think, actually withdrew the facility when it replaced its passenger operated ticket machines. Talk about going backwards. It is one of those things that really should be consistently provided across all TOC ticket machines given the ongoing push to close ticket offices / reduce their hours.
The ideal, of course, would be to have a consistent ability to use smart tickets and PAYG and have “auto extension” capability designed in but, given the DfT’s inability to do anything with smart ticketing, that’s a wish too far.
I am a bit uncertain on the detail here so happy to be corrected. I very rarely have cause to use ticket machines.
@Greg
Free travel in London is available to London residents from 60 (not 65) – at least, unless they want to use an NR service south of the river before 0930.