Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2013 12:38:24 GMT
I got a question...
Can't the Tramlink operate at nights?
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Sept 19, 2013 22:01:41 GMT
It seems ludicrous to me to increase the evening service on the 154 to every 15 mins. At present the DD service every 20 mins is very lightly used from about 8pm onwards. No extra capacity is required whereas those extra journeys from 7pm till 1am could run throughout the night giving a proper 24h service from Morden to Croydon.
|
|
|
Post by T.R. on Sept 19, 2013 22:38:14 GMT
I got a question... Can't the Tramlink operate at nights? Probably not safe or cost effective to justify it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2013 23:53:59 GMT
I got a question... Can't the Tramlink operate at nights? Probably not safe or cost effective to justify it. Sorry ... how exactly is it not safe compared to a night bus?
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Sept 20, 2013 0:58:46 GMT
Slightly veering off topic here but are night routes expensive to run?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2013 12:43:31 GMT
Slightly veering off topic here but are night routes expensive to run? I would have thought cheaper if anything,even if drivers are paid more less traffic congestion means less fuel consumption and the buses would only be sat in the garage otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by sw11simon on Sept 26, 2013 3:37:22 GMT
Slightly veering off topic here but are night routes expensive to run? I would have thought cheaper if anything,even if drivers are paid more less traffic congestion means less fuel consumption and the buses would only be sat in the garage otherwise. I think it depends how you look at it. Yes fuel consumption would be less but revenue would probably be less as well as most night buses are busy with the flow only - coming out of London with earlier journeys and coming into London on later journeys. If London was deregulated I think a lot of frequencies would be lower, some routes would only run at weekends and most routes that don't hit central London would not run. From a local to me perspective, routes such as 37/295 do not load heavily at all overnight Friday/Saturday nights excepted. I often use the 04.00 295 between Clapham Junction and Hammersmith to get to work and it normally only carries 5-10 people maximum, sometimes less. I then change to the N11, albeit useful for me, takes a very odd route between Hammersmith and Ealing from a night perspective. Very few people appear to use stops in the back roads it starts to serve and I'm sure that other routes take most of the passengers to and from Central London and Hammersmith/Acton/Ealing.
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Sept 26, 2013 11:10:53 GMT
I got a question... Can't the Tramlink operate at nights? I think there should be a trial period with overnight running of the trams, say x 30 minutes between 01:30 and first tram in the morning.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Sept 26, 2013 11:29:06 GMT
I think it depends how you look at it. Yes fuel consumption would be less but revenue would probably be less as well as most night buses are busy with the flow only - coming out of London with earlier journeys and coming into London on later journeys. If London was deregulated I think a lot of frequencies would be lower, some routes would only run at weekends and most routes that don't hit central London would not run. From a local to me perspective, routes such as 37/295 do not load heavily at all overnight Friday/Saturday nights excepted. I often use the 04.00 295 between Clapham Junction and Hammersmith to get to work and it normally only carries 5-10 people maximum, sometimes less. I then change to the N11, albeit useful for me, takes a very odd route between Hammersmith and Ealing from a night perspective. Very few people appear to use stops in the back roads it starts to serve and I'm sure that other routes take most of the passengers to and from Central London and Hammersmith/Acton/Ealing. I pretty much agree with the above. The point is cost vs benefit. The major cost element of running buses is driver wages followed by fuel so running night buses is not some marginal cost of a few gallons of fuel. If you're not going to earn money to cover both then, as you say, in a deregulated environment there would be few services running and certainly not against the main flow. London provides the services it does because TfL takes into account social benefit of providing transport to people who would otherwise not have any. Your example of using a bus at 0400 to get to work is an excellent example of the transport network supporting other economic activity in the City and avoiding people having to use cars. In the round it makes sense to spend taxpayers' money to provide these subsidised services but TfL is under such enormous financial pressure that expansion is extremely difficult. Leon Daniels has said that every change which increases services automatically leads to an increase in subsidy as that is the way the London system works. London is not able to take the pure commercial view of revenue exceeding costs as every passenger journey incurs a loss. The only compensating factor are passenger benefits from reduced journey / waiting times plus environmental benefits / reduced car travel.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Sept 26, 2013 13:14:36 GMT
I would have thought cheaper if anything,even if drivers are paid more less traffic congestion means less fuel consumption and the buses would only be sat in the garage otherwise. I think it depends how you look at it. Yes fuel consumption would be less but revenue would probably be less as well as most night buses are busy with the flow only - coming out of London with earlier journeys and coming into London on later journeys. If London was deregulated I think a lot of frequencies would be lower, some routes would only run at weekends and most routes that don't hit central London would not run. From a local to me perspective, routes such as 37/295 do not load heavily at all overnight Friday/Saturday nights excepted. I often use the 04.00 295 between Clapham Junction and Hammersmith to get to work and it normally only carries 5-10 people maximum, sometimes less. I then change to the N11, albeit useful for me, takes a very odd route between Hammersmith and Ealing from a night perspective. Very few people appear to use stops in the back roads it starts to serve and I'm sure that other routes take most of the passengers to and from Central London and Hammersmith/Acton/Ealing. Probably because on Fridays/Saturdays, Clapham Common & Junction does a roaring trade with their collection of upmarket bars, restaurants & pubs.
|
|
|
Post by LX09FBJ on Sept 26, 2013 15:46:53 GMT
I got a question... Can't the Tramlink operate at nights? I think there should be a trial period with overnight running of the trams, say x 30 minutes between 01:30 and first tram in the morning. They run overnight on New Year's Eve.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2013 16:24:24 GMT
I think it depends how you look at it. Yes fuel consumption would be less but revenue would probably be less as well as most night buses are busy with the flow only - coming out of London with earlier journeys and coming into London on later journeys. If London was deregulated I think a lot of frequencies would be lower, some routes would only run at weekends and most routes that don't hit central London would not run. From a local to me perspective, routes such as 37/295 do not load heavily at all overnight Friday/Saturday nights excepted. I often use the 04.00 295 between Clapham Junction and Hammersmith to get to work and it normally only carries 5-10 people maximum, sometimes less. I then change to the N11, albeit useful for me, takes a very odd route between Hammersmith and Ealing from a night perspective. Very few people appear to use stops in the back roads it starts to serve and I'm sure that other routes take most of the passengers to and from Central London and Hammersmith/Acton/Ealing. I pretty much agree with the above. The point is cost vs benefit. The major cost element of running buses is driver wages followed by fuel so running night buses is not some marginal cost of a few gallons of fuel. If you're not going to earn money to cover both then, as you say, in a deregulated environment there would be few services running and certainly not against the main flow. London provides the services it does because TfL takes into account social benefit of providing transport to people who would otherwise not have any. Your example of using a bus at 0400 to get to work is an excellent example of the transport network supporting other economic activity in the City and avoiding people having to use cars. In the round it makes sense to spend taxpayers' money to provide these subsidised services but TfL is under such enormous financial pressure that expansion is extremely difficult. Leon Daniels has said that every change which increases services automatically leads to an increase in subsidy as that is the way the London system works. London is not able to take the pure commercial view of revenue exceeding costs as every passenger journey incurs a loss. The only compensating factor are passenger benefits from reduced journey / waiting times plus environmental benefits / reduced car travel. Most publicly funded organisations are under enormous financial pressure, I don't see why TfL should be any different. There seems to be no cohesive plan for the nightbus network, some areas have an excessive service, some an inadequate service and some areas have none at all
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Sept 26, 2013 17:09:14 GMT
I pretty much agree with the above. The point is cost vs benefit. The major cost element of running buses is driver wages followed by fuel so running night buses is not some marginal cost of a few gallons of fuel. If you're not going to earn money to cover both then, as you say, in a deregulated environment there would be few services running and certainly not against the main flow. London provides the services it does because TfL takes into account social benefit of providing transport to people who would otherwise not have any. Your example of using a bus at 0400 to get to work is an excellent example of the transport network supporting other economic activity in the City and avoiding people having to use cars. In the round it makes sense to spend taxpayers' money to provide these subsidised services but TfL is under such enormous financial pressure that expansion is extremely difficult. Leon Daniels has said that every change which increases services automatically leads to an increase in subsidy as that is the way the London system works. London is not able to take the pure commercial view of revenue exceeding costs as every passenger journey incurs a loss. The only compensating factor are passenger benefits from reduced journey / waiting times plus environmental benefits / reduced car travel. Most publicly funded organisations are under enormous financial pressure, I don't see why TfL should be any different. There seems to be no cohesive plan for the nightbus network, some areas have an excessive service, some an inadequate service and some areas have none at all. Well I am just one of those tedious people who sees transport as an absolutely essential public service that should be properly funded. The current policies being imposed on TfL are ridiculously short sighted and risk damage to the balance of transport choices as well as London's economy. Buses play an essential if somewhat unsung role in supporting commerce, education and mobility for everyone living in and visiting London. Therefore they should be funded properly even if taxes have to go up to pay for it. Taxes pay for essential services. I am glad you point out the lack of a plan - what is the point of spending non existent cash to develop a plan when there is no money to implement any changes that would result from such a plan? You develop plans in response to a strategy - the Mayor has *no* strategy in respect of buses and certainly not night buses. Surely that is evident to everyone by now? He thinks you solve all the problems with bus travel by building a new bus which is so huge that it can only run on a limited number of routes. You only need to read posts on this group alongside the hundreds of ideas of revised or new routes to see the scale of the problems and issues that people perceive. London deserves better than what we have now in terms of a strategy for bus travel.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2013 22:39:54 GMT
I might have known it would all come back to Boris and his bus.
There has never been a cohesive nightbus network, it just seems to be pot luck as to who gets what with standardisation often taking prioriry over actual demand as was the case with the N213.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2013 10:28:15 GMT
Yes. One wonders, assuming patronage to not be decreased by it, how much better suited a demand based system would be to the needs of London instead of one driven partly by the 'need' for simplicity. Livening up garage journeys, through routes to remove duplication at quiet times from common sections, shorts instead of the EL1/EL2 model, etc etc.
|
|