|
Post by busman on Apr 4, 2019 11:34:07 GMT
So I haven’t read through all 115 pages of the report, but from what I can have read TfL are completely overlooking why people pile on the 132 and 472 from far and wide to reach North Greenwich. North Greenwich is in zone 2 whereas all other local stations are classed as zone 3 or 4. The savings are £15.40 a week, which increases for those who can afford monthly or annual season tickets. I also note that the TfL paper doesn’t propose any frequency change through Charlton, so are not addressing the future capacity issues in store for North Greenwich. There is an obvious fix and that is to increase capacity on the Jubilee line and rezone Charlton and the Woolwich stations. TfL would find many passengers would use those stations more readily rather than sailing past them on the bus to North Greenwich. Clearly TfL won’t like that idea as it would mean lost revenue for them. Having properly staffed stations at all times and slightly cheaper fares would be a benefit if TfL took over metro services, but there are other remedies available that are better solutions for the problems they set out.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Apr 4, 2019 13:10:19 GMT
So I haven’t read through all 115 pages of the report, but from what I can have read TfL are completely overlooking why people pile on the 132 and 472 from far and wide to reach North Greenwich. North Greenwich is in zone 2 whereas all other local stations are classed as zone 4. The savings are £15.40 a week, which increases for those who can afford monthly or annual season tickets. I also note that the TfL paper doesn’t propose any frequency change through Charlton, so are not addressing the future capacity issues in store for North Greenwich. There is an obvious fix and that is to increase capacity on the Jubilee line and rezone Charlton and the Woolwich stations. TfL would find many passengers would use those stations more readily rather than sailing past them on the bus to North Greenwich. Clearly TfL won’t like that idea as it would mean lost revenue for them. Having properly staffed stations at all times and slightly cheaper fares would be a benefit if TfL took over metro services, but there are other remedies available that are better solutions for the problems they set out. I've only skimmed through it but if LO did take over inner London wouldn't there be a conflict of interest on two track sections like Victoria to Shortlands? As it is now the 4tph frequency often delays fast trains.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Apr 4, 2019 13:46:20 GMT
So I haven’t read through all 115 pages of the report, but from what I can have read TfL are completely overlooking why people pile on the 132 and 472 from far and wide to reach North Greenwich. North Greenwich is in zone 2 whereas all other local stations are classed as zone 3 or 4. The savings are £15.40 a week, which increases for those who can afford monthly or annual season tickets. I also note that the TfL paper doesn’t propose any frequency change through Charlton, so are not addressing the future capacity issues in store for North Greenwich. There is an obvious fix and that is to increase capacity on the Jubilee line and rezone Charlton and the Woolwich stations. TfL would find many passengers would use those stations more readily rather than sailing past them on the bus to North Greenwich. Clearly TfL won’t like that idea as it would mean lost revenue for them. Having properly staffed stations at all times and slightly cheaper fares would be a benefit if TfL took over metro services, but there are other remedies available that are better solutions for the problems they set out. Clearly travel patterns and modal use are skewed by the presence of North Greenwich in Zone 2. The main problem is that forever tampering with fares zones just introduces problems elsewhere. TfL has NO ability to unilaterally change the zones and what stations are in which. The DfT requires TfL to keep any TOCs affected by changes "financially whole". This just creates a drain of money from TfL to various TOCs. TfL has to fund revenue loss on Greater Anglia because of the move of Stratford in Z23 and also because of the introduction of the marginally cheaper "TfL West Anglia" tariff when TfL took on some of the West Anglia services. To avoid different fares on the route via Edmonton Green compared to via Waltham Cross TfL pays GA money for using the cheaper tariff on services via Tottenham Hale. There are also all the restrictions in respect of places like Watford Junction, Shenfield where TfL have to raise fares to avoid "cliff edge" steps in fares at the edges of the TfL area. The problem is that passengers naturally want to pay as little as possible. Meanwhile those same people go and vote for governments (of both colours) whose clear policy has been to shove up the funding contribution from fare payers which means fares rise at or faster than inflation year on year. If you want cheap fares then fine but everyone has to be honest that it has to be paid for somehow. So it's either higher taxation or it's an additional local taxation or it's charged on employers as happens in France. As I have said before I think we may be getting to the point where fare zones need to be abolished and stations are priced individually. That affords a basis on which to reprice stations on a common scale. However without a big injection of subsidy there is no guarantee that fares would fall. They would just be priced more consistently by distance. Of course any increase in fares would be objected to by those who'd lose out.
|
|