Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2013 12:00:41 GMT
One difficulty of improving Sunday services is getting enough drivers - if you could improve Sunday services the network would probably make money. Either you pay over the odds for drivers to work regular Sunday shifts or you change your terms and conditions to make more Sunday shifts mandatory without changing pay. The former is expensive and if you do the latter don't expect the unions not to kick up a fuss. It would be easy to say f*ck the drivers and their unions, but the fact is society wants to have its cake and eat it by wanting to do stuff but not wanting to work, and Sunday capacity shortages merely reflect this societal paradox. Remember many TOCs still entirely rely on voluntary overtime from their staff to cover weekend diagrams.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2013 1:18:01 GMT
The publication of www.mayorwatch.co.uk/tfl-ponders-bus-cuts-to-meet-potential-funding-shortfall/201328517 and the linked report provides a rather less optimistic outlook on the future of services. Has anyone else read the report? If TfL has its funding reduced again proposals to meet a 20% reduction in subsidy include withdrawing the 15 least used night bus services, the 15 least used outer london services, and reduction on some 200 other routes by 1bph during midday, evening and Sunday. All this to save £65 million - or 4+(1/3) monuments to Thatcher. Its expected these would reduce total capacity by 10% and patronage by 5%. Anyone else thinking such a proposition is absolutely crazy?? Bus usage is still rising despite a real-term increase in ticket prices, not to mention an ever decreasing average route length - yet in order to follow the ideology of 'investment is subsidy is bad' instead of increasing service provision to match demand, or the Mayors' self proclaimed objectives for new stratigic orbital routes, much less new connectivity or express routes, the service **might** actually be reduced?!
|
|
|
Post by bengady3 on Nov 26, 2013 7:22:08 GMT
The publication of www.mayorwatch.co.uk/tfl-ponders-bus-cuts-to-meet-potential-funding-shortfall/201328517 and the linked report provides a rather less optimistic outlook on the future of services. Has anyone else read the report? If TfL has its funding reduced again proposals to meet a 20% reduction in subsidy include withdrawing the 15 least used night bus services, the 15 least used outer london services, and reduction on some 200 other routes by 1bph during midday, evening and Sunday. All this to save £65 million - or 4+(1/3) monuments to Thatcher. Its expected these would reduce total capacity by 10% and patronage by 5%. Anyone else thinking such a proposition is absolutely crazy?? Bus usage is still rising despite a real-term increase in ticket prices, not to mention an ever decreasing average route length - yet in order to follow the ideology of 'investment is subsidy is bad' instead of increasing service provision to match demand, or the Mayors' self proclaimed objectives for new stratigic orbital routes, much less new connectivity or express routes, the service **might** actually be reduced?! Don't make 200 bus routes 1bph it's crazy
|
|
|
Post by Connor on Nov 26, 2013 8:27:18 GMT
The publication of www.mayorwatch.co.uk/tfl-ponders-bus-cuts-to-meet-potential-funding-shortfall/201328517 and the linked report provides a rather less optimistic outlook on the future of services. Has anyone else read the report? If TfL has its funding reduced again proposals to meet a 20% reduction in subsidy include withdrawing the 15 least used night bus services, the 15 least used outer london services, and reduction on some 200 other routes by 1bph during midday, evening and Sunday. All this to save £65 million - or 4+(1/3) monuments to Thatcher. Its expected these would reduce total capacity by 10% and patronage by 5%. Anyone else thinking such a proposition is absolutely crazy?? Bus usage is still rising despite a real-term increase in ticket prices, not to mention an ever decreasing average route length - yet in order to follow the ideology of 'investment is subsidy is bad' instead of increasing service provision to match demand, or the Mayors' self proclaimed objectives for new stratigic orbital routes, much less new connectivity or express routes, the service **might** actually be reduced?! Don't make 200 bus routes 1bph it's crazy Read over it, it says BY 1 bph, not actually 1 bph
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 26, 2013 10:05:23 GMT
The publication of www.mayorwatch.co.uk/tfl-ponders-bus-cuts-to-meet-potential-funding-shortfall/201328517 and the linked report provides a rather less optimistic outlook on the future of services. Has anyone else read the report? If TfL has its funding reduced again proposals to meet a 20% reduction in subsidy include withdrawing the 15 least used night bus services, the 15 least used outer london services, and reduction on some 200 other routes by 1bph during midday, evening and Sunday. All this to save £65 million - or 4+(1/3) monuments to Thatcher. Its expected these would reduce total capacity by 10% and patronage by 5%. Anyone else thinking such a proposition is absolutely crazy?? Bus usage is still rising despite a real-term increase in ticket prices, not to mention an ever decreasing average route length - yet in order to follow the ideology of 'investment is subsidy is bad' instead of increasing service provision to match demand, or the Mayors' self proclaimed objectives for new stratigic orbital routes, much less new connectivity or express routes, the service **might** actually be reduced?! I think you might find a thread called "cuts, cuts, glorious cuts" elsewhere on the forum which deals with exactly this subject.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2013 20:24:23 GMT
Thanks, I'll go have a looksie!
|
|
|
Post by Mokujin on Dec 22, 2013 3:11:25 GMT
Why Arriva ... surely it is TfL's responsibility Exactly...............Arriva will do something when TfL tell them I think a new double deck route from Croydon via the 468 route to Upper Norwood, the 249 to Crystal Palace and then taking over the section of the 450 to Lower Sydenhamn and maybe onto Lewisham replacing part of the 181 could perhaps be justified? This would take a lot of pressure off the 450 which could just run from Croydon to Crystal Palace. Why should it replace part of the 181?
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Mar 24, 2014 21:14:12 GMT
A follow up with what TfL have initiallysaid to the Transport Committee in response to their Bus Report. A full formal reply is due by the end of March. I've only just noticed that the meeting details have been updated with these extra documents. There is now quite a gap in London Assembly meetings because of the local elections in May - nothing can happen that might be viewed as influencing the election process hence the gap in City Hall activity. Therefore we may not hear more until June! This letter from TfL sets out TfL's initial response. Much is fairly tentative and non committal at this stage but there are signs of some movement on improved performance data and, most interesting of all, a slight hint that Express Buses are being looked at (as per David21's comment) - see page 4 of the letter (recommendation 3). I can't see that TfL would have committed to say something about Express buses if the message was "no change to the policy". They'd have just said "no change" to try to shut down the issue. The March formal response will also update on fleet changes to improve environmental performance including electric bus trials. There are also letters from London Travelwatch and from North London Transport Forum. Worryingly the letter from the Forum suggests Enfield's approach is good.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2014 0:40:57 GMT
Has anyone found a copy of the 'Formal Response' due by the end of March yet? Over a week late being published now - can't find it on the TfL site or the GLA's.
From elsewhere on here I understand it is supposed to include some interesting ideas - could it be that its publication is being delayed whilst machinations occur in windowless rooms somewhere? What is causing so much grief...
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Apr 9, 2014 10:08:26 GMT
Has anyone found a copy of the 'Formal Response' due by the end of March yet? Over a week late being published now - can't find it on the TfL site or the GLA's. From elsewhere on here I understand it is supposed to include some interesting ideas - could it be that its publication is being delayed whilst machinations occur in windowless rooms somewhere? What is causing so much grief... No I haven't found it so I emailed the relevant person at City Hall earlier this week. They confirmed that they had not yet received the document from TfL so it's late. They did confirm that it will be published and will also be discussed by the Transport Committee in June. The local council elections mean there is a pause in meetings and activity at City Hall due to the "Purdah" rules which prevent anything happening that might sway voter intentions. I was told to keep on eye out for the agenda and papers for the Transport Committee session in June. There is a related bit of work going on within TfL which must be causing difficulties for Surface Transport. The Finance and Policy Committee asked Leon Daniels to come back with a range of options for more savings and cost cutting on the bus network. This is a follow on from the infamous "speculative" list of route and frequency cut backs. The paper to the F&PC was due in March but is now delayed to June. To be honest I don't see how TfL Surface Transport can make a series of commitments to the Assembly while elsewhere in TfL people are demanding more cuts and savings. If the rumoured idea for NB4Ls on new Express routes is correct then why on earth would you spend money on that when Board members are asking for savings in fuel use, vehicle specs / age, analysis of the night bus network costs and revenue etc? There has to be coherence in these responses because the Transport Committee will be watching what is said within TfL and to the extent there are contradictions then they'll be back asking questions and seeking clarification. The demands of the two committees are not really complimentary so there is a risk of being pulled in two directions. It's pretty clear to me that the pressure from the TfL Board Members is to spend less and less on the bus network while the Transport Committee and many stakeholders want vastly more money spent.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2014 10:56:50 GMT
Quite so. Its a bit frustrating that in all of the meetings with the committee no one has put it as bluntly as, to say that you cant deliver a step change in service provision *and* significantly reduce costs. One or the other. Its a bit like the NHS - theres a massive pressure on it to cut costs *and* increase provision, thing is when compared globally it does very well in both anyway. Just as the buses.
Now if the buses got the level of subsidy that some other EU capitals give them, you could realistically talk about premium express routes, more infill coverage, extra night buses, and maybe more cross boundary services.
Are we likely to see the response coming out now before June's meeting do you think?
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Apr 9, 2014 12:07:23 GMT
Quite so. Its a bit frustrating that in all of the meetings with the committee no one has put it as bluntly as, to say that you cant deliver a step change in service provision *and* significantly reduce costs. One or the other. Its a bit like the NHS - theres a massive pressure on it to cut costs *and* increase provision, thing is when compared globally it does very well in both anyway. Just as the buses. Now if the buses got the level of subsidy that some other EU capitals give them, you could realistically talk about premium express routes, more infill coverage, extra night buses, and maybe more cross boundary services. Are we likely to see the response coming out now before June's meeting do you think? I doubt it. Unless an Assembly report is being issued it is rare for papers or documents to be published outside of the regular publication schedule for a scheduled committee meeting. Agendas and papers are typically available a week before the meeting takes place. We are stymied because of the effect of the local council elections. Ordinarily there would be meetings in April and May but they've been lost for all Committees and Mayor's Questions. To be honest I am not expecting any great advances because there isn't the money for service improvements and there is pressure on staff numbers. Improving consultation, communication and transparency generally needs people to make it work and TfL stripped out the job roles for local authority liaison to meet previous Boris demanded "efficiencies". Of course all it does is cause problems later when councils are not aware of what TfL is up to (or vice versa) and time and money is wasted for want of some proper contact and meaningful discussion / data sharing. The "more environmentally friendly buses" issue is covered by work TfL is already doing with NB4L, hybrids and electric buses. The Mayor has instructed TfL to look at "more flexible tickets" so TfL don't need to do anymore on that than is already being done. The 2013 Fares Revision paper I've posted about elsewhere shows the numbers for the transfer or 1 hour ticket idea. Where's £60m going to come from to fund that? Leon gave no hints of movement on these issues when he appeared at the Bus Seminar nor on service improvements. Tinkering round the edge of the consultation process and working better with local councils seem to be the main areas that TfL are concentrating on.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on May 14, 2014 18:10:36 GMT
Well we appear to have a tiny bit of movement in terms of TfL actually replying to the Assembly's bus report. A TfL Press Release states that a response has been sent to the Assembly's Transport Committee. This is 6 weeks later than previously promised. There are no great shocks or surprises and the response feels quite muted. Responding today to the London Assembly Transport Committee’s report ‘Bus Services in London’, published in October 2013, Transport for London (TfL) welcomed the Assembly’s recognition of the capital’s bus network as ‘world class’ and has committed to: - Continue to develop affordable, cost-effective plans to increase capacity on the bus network to ensure it keeps pace with the expected growth in demand. - Introduce a new approach to engagement to capture the views of stakeholders and passengers on changes to bus services. This could include organising informal ‘drop-in’ sessions and emailing Oyster card users about consultations which may be of interest. - Build on the report’s welcome and strong support for increased bus priority which will include working more closely with the London boroughs to distribute the £200m that has been allocated for these schemes in the TfL Business Plan up to 2020/21. Four fifths of the capital’s bus services operate on borough roads. - Further increase transparency by publishing annually the number of passenger journeys and bus kilometres operated on each of nearly 700 bus routes, with data for 2013/14 published by the end of this year. It is nice to see that they have committed to issue route level pass jny and bus kms data for each bus route. Shame it's going to take another 6-7 months to emerge. I have E-mailed the TfL Press Office to request a copy of TfL's response. It'll be interesting to see if they send me one! One final note is the headline that patronage for 2013/14 exceeded 2.4 billion but unfortunately TfL haven't published the number to the nearest '000 journeys.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2014 10:47:51 GMT
I was just about to ask if the response had come out yet. It appears though the response isnt worth the paper its no doubt been printed on. Just a nod and a smile! Oh well!
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on May 16, 2014 10:50:19 GMT
I know a few people, including @benedict, have been waiting to see the TfL response to the Committee's report. Well the response and the supporting background papers have been published by the London Assembly (along with all the preceding work). Linky linky link linkI've just had a look at Background Paper 1 which explains how TfL plan service changes. It might be instructive for a number of people here to read it so they can understand how TfL approach things. There are also some hints about future areas which will see improvement. The other papers talk about Bus priority, consultation and engagement and more environmentally friendly buses. The last paper CONFIRMS that route 69 will be the trial route for the wireless charged virtual electric double deckers.
|
|