Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2016 6:11:10 GMT
Just watching the BBC London News, and just saw Sadiq Khan make an interesting point about buses. He saying because buses are run using 18 franchises we are loosing money as some profit is being sent to places like France, Germany and Holland. If he gets voted, do you think our tendering system is going to be altered because of his opinion? For example, getting rid of companies like Arriva, London United, Abellio London, Tower Transit, Metroline and having Stagecoach and Go-Ahead London running most of London, maybe even First Group coming back as they as (I think) it is an English company OR having TFL running all the buses directly under their control.
|
|
|
Post by Gellico on Apr 19, 2016 6:21:40 GMT
Just watching the BBC London News, and just saw Sadiq Khan make an interesting point about buses. He saying because buses are run using 18 franchises we are loosing money as some profit is being sent to places like France, Germany and Holland. If he gets voted, do you think our tendering system is going to be altered because of his opinion? For example, getting rid of companies like Arriva, London United, Abellio London, Tower Transit, Metroline and having Stagecoach and Go-Ahead London running most of London, maybe even First Group coming back as they as (I think) it is an English company OR having TFL running all the buses directly under their control. I think all the railways in the country should return to state run like East coast was. It cost the government less to run per mile and over 10 years the government made £1 billion from it which can be reinvested or better spent on the NHS rather than helping to fund Richard Bransons next mansion. It really annoys me that you see on the overground all the poster about hiw they reinvest all the profits. The running of overground is going to Arriva in the near future so that is even more money leaving London. All buses should just return to one government company in London the only issue with all of this and it is a biggy is that service quality can slip if the government decides that the money is needed elsewhere more urgently.
|
|
|
Post by planesandtrains on Apr 19, 2016 6:24:58 GMT
He dare even think of touching my beloved London United
|
|
|
Post by ServerKing on Apr 19, 2016 6:29:39 GMT
Just watching the BBC London News, and just saw Sadiq Khan make an interesting point about buses. He saying because buses are run using 18 franchises we are loosing money as some profit is being sent to places like France, Germany and Holland. If he gets voted, do you think our tendering system is going to be altered because of his opinion? For example, getting rid of companies like Arriva, London United, Abellio London, Tower Transit, Metroline and having Stagecoach and Go-Ahead London running most of London, maybe even First Group coming back as they as (I think) it is an English company OR having TFL running all the buses directly under their control. Well, Arriva is English (okay it was adopted by a German family in 2010), but yes things could be simplified into the Big Five running the show - I think First made very little profit, and if things like dead mileage isn't paid for it all has to be reviewed to make such a prospect attractive to the four or so possible contenders. TfL tried this before with East Thames Buses after Harris Bus collapsed, and then sold it on to Go-Ahead in the end. Running buses is expensive, so they will have to think this thru... this is just electioneering. I doubt very little money actually reaches the Parent Companies such as DB, RATP and Abellio NS. Like all politicians he will change his mind in a few days time anyway
|
|
|
Post by ServerKing on Apr 19, 2016 6:31:13 GMT
He dare even think of touching my beloved London United He has very little idea what is going on - he probably thinks London United play in the Championship EDIT: Pictured is Premiership contender London United's most prolific goalscorer, Zlatan Ibrahimovic after their recent win against Ipswich. Courtesy : Wikipedia
|
|
|
Post by RT3062 on Apr 19, 2016 8:38:14 GMT
Just watching the BBC London News, and just saw Sadiq Khan make an interesting point about buses. He saying because buses are run using 18 franchises we are loosing money as some profit is being sent to places like France, Germany and Holland. If he gets voted, do you think our tendering system is going to be altered because of his opinion? For example, getting rid of companies like Arriva, London United, Abellio London, Tower Transit, Metroline and having Stagecoach and Go-Ahead London running most of London, maybe even First Group coming back as they as (I think) it is an English company OR having TFL running all the buses directly under their control. I think all the railways in the country should return to state run like East coast was. It cost the government less to run per mile and over 10 years the government made £1 billion from it which can be reinvested or better spent on the NHS rather than helping to fund Richard Bransons next mansion. It really annoys me that you see on the overground all the poster about hiw they reinvest all the profits. The running of overground is going to Arriva in the near future so that is even more money leaving London. All buses should just return to one government company in London the only issue with all of this and it is a biggy is that service quality can slip if the government decides that the money is needed elsewhere more urgently. very well put i totally agree with you.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Apr 19, 2016 10:17:05 GMT
Just watching the BBC London News, and just saw Sadiq Khan make an interesting point about buses. He saying because buses are run using 18 franchises we are loosing money as some profit is being sent to places like France, Germany and Holland. If he gets voted, do you think our tendering system is going to be altered because of his opinion? For example, getting rid of companies like Arriva, London United, Abellio London, Tower Transit, Metroline and having Stagecoach and Go-Ahead London running most of London, maybe even First Group coming back as they as (I think) it is an English company OR having TFL running all the buses directly under their control. I think all the railways in the country should return to state run like East coast was. It cost the government less to run per mile and over 10 years the government made £1 billion from it which can be reinvested or better spent on the NHS rather than helping to fund Richard Bransons next mansion. It really annoys me that you see on the overground all the poster about hiw they reinvest all the profits. The running of overground is going to Arriva in the near future so that is even more money leaving London. All buses should just return to one government company in London the only issue with all of this and it is a biggy is that service quality can slip if the government decides that the money is needed elsewhere more urgently. No thanks, nationalisation hardly worked last time and with a penny pinching government in power, its hardly going to work this time.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Apr 19, 2016 10:24:53 GMT
Just watching the BBC London News, and just saw Sadiq Khan make an interesting point about buses. He saying because buses are run using 18 franchises we are loosing money as some profit is being sent to places like France, Germany and Holland. If he gets voted, do you think our tendering system is going to be altered because of his opinion? For example, getting rid of companies like Arriva, London United, Abellio London, Tower Transit, Metroline and having Stagecoach and Go-Ahead London running most of London, maybe even First Group coming back as they as (I think) it is an English company OR having TFL running all the buses directly under their control. The man's a berk. He doesn't know what he is talking about. TfL are required, as LRT was, to competitively tender operation of the bus network. Does Mr Khan really think he is going to get primary legislation changed by the Government? Nope. Furthermore East Thames was "operator of last resort". It never competed directly with private companies so as to avoid accusations of unfair competition or "state aid". If Mr Khan tries to set up a "TfL bus company" to directly compete with private firms he may well find himself subject to legal challenge and that'll cost millions to defend. More waste. Where the heck is he going to get the money from the take over these bus companies? How is he going to fund the impact on the TfL pension fund if it suddenly gained thousands of new members? He makes these trite ridiculous promises because they are supposed to persuade trade union members in the bus companies to vote for him. Just like his "I'll pay all bus drivers the same" pledge. Where's the money for that coming from? And if you have long service and are on a good pay rate will you accept a pay cut as part of "levelling up" the pay rates for all drivers. I rather think not. Can "Mr I'll take £450m out of the TfL Budget" really find the hundreds and hundreds of millions of quid to equalise all bus driver wages to be the highest rate? I don't think he can. He also has NO control over pay negotiations with the bus companies so I don't even see how he can pay a uniform rate anyway. There are a thousand and one sensible things he could do to improve driver wages, improve the vehicles and improve the routes and reliability if he had the wit to do so. Instead he indulges in his own set of "dog whistle" policy headlines on transport which are economically illiterate and mostly impractical.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Apr 19, 2016 10:59:34 GMT
Just watching the BBC London News, and just saw Sadiq Khan make an interesting point about buses. He saying because buses are run using 18 franchises we are loosing money as some profit is being sent to places like France, Germany and Holland. If he gets voted, do you think our tendering system is going to be altered because of his opinion? For example, getting rid of companies like Arriva, London United, Abellio London, Tower Transit, Metroline and having Stagecoach and Go-Ahead London running most of London, maybe even First Group coming back as they as (I think) it is an English company OR having TFL running all the buses directly under their control. The man's a berk. He doesn't know what he is talking about. TfL are required, as LRT was, to competitively tender operation of the bus network. Does Mr Khan really think he is going to get primary legislation changed by the Government? Nope. Furthermore East Thames was "operator of last resort". It never competed directly with private companies so as to avoid accusations of unfair competition or "state aid". If Mr Khan tries to set up a "TfL bus company" to directly compete with private firms he may well find himself subject to legal challenge and that'll cost millions to defend. More waste. Where the heck is he going to get the money from the take over these bus companies? How is he going to fund the impact on the TfL pension fund if it suddenly gained thousands of new members? He makes these trite ridiculous promises because they are supposed to persuade trade union members in the bus companies to vote for him. Just like his "I'll pay all bus drivers the same" pledge. Where's the money for that coming from? And if you have long service and are on a good pay rate will you accept a pay cut as part of "levelling up" the pay rates for all drivers. I rather think not. Can "Mr I'll take £450m out of the TfL Budget" really find the hundreds and hundreds of millions of quid to equalise all bus driver wages to be the highest rate? I don't think he can. He also has NO control over pay negotiations with the bus companies so I don't even see how he can pay a uniform rate anyway. There are a thousand and one sensible things he could do to improve driver wages, improve the vehicles and improve the routes and reliability if he had the wit to do so. Instead he indulges in his own set of "dog whistle" policy headlines on transport which are economically illiterate and mostly impractical. Couldn't agree with all the above more - he really has no clue as to what he is talking about. As usual from Labour, it's all unrealistic populist policies that have no foundation - Corbyn is the same but people are blinded by those very same unworkable policies.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Apr 19, 2016 11:53:23 GMT
Couldn't agree with all the above more - he really has no clue as to what he is talking about. As usual from Labour, it's all unrealistic populist policies that have no foundation - Corbyn is the same but people are blinded by those very same unworkable policies. My fundamental issues are not so much with wanting to do things better. That's fine as a political objective. The problem is seemingly ignoring the changed financial reality we are heading into. I also have a problem with pursuing structural change with no clear objectives. Unless it is handled very carefully it will destabilise the workforce, distract management and cost a lot of money that could be used for other things. You only change structures if you confident that the actual service quality and performance can be maintained. Would any Mayor really want to risk the entire performance of the bus network going down the drain during their term? They won't do that with the Tube because they know it's potentially fatal to their re-election prospects. What is wrong with buses in London? - declining patronage, traffic problems, delays and unreliability, low level of network development, potentially incorrect allocation of resources given demographic changes, worsening recruitment and retention are the things I'd identify. Little of that is to do with "structure". I'd have no problem with the payment of a driver "premium" to deal with recruitment and retention issues - provided we know where the money is coming from. Heck I doubt people would object to paying 5p more on their fare if it meant the service ran better and was more sustainable. The service won't be capable of expansion if drivers can't be recruited and retained - that's a key issue that needs redressing. None of the Mayoral candidates have plans to deal with any of the problems that are listed.
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Apr 19, 2016 16:16:48 GMT
Just watching the BBC London News, and just saw Sadiq Khan make an interesting point about buses. He saying because buses are run using 18 franchises we are loosing money as some profit is being sent to places like France, Germany and Holland. If he gets voted, do you think our tendering system is going to be altered because of his opinion? For example, getting rid of companies like Arriva, London United, Abellio London, Tower Transit, Metroline and having Stagecoach and Go-Ahead London running most of London, maybe even First Group coming back as they as (I think) it is an English company OR having TFL running all the buses directly under their control. Think he Is also forgetting the DLR, London Overground etc. Surely the profit isn't that huge unless you have a lot of routes. Hence why many companies have pulled out of London over the years. It started with Ken Livingstone when he said the gross contract tenders were a licence for the bus operators to print money and he got rid of them. End of the day the majority of mayoral candidates policy for buses is basically a load of poo. These companies have their required profit margins, if they are not met, they then start to cut the budget down on other departments, whether its engineering, getting rid of higher paid drivers and admin staff etc.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2016 18:25:29 GMT
I forgot that all these politicans lie. Some people have made some good points above. The way he was on about, it sounded like we were loosing the lottery. It shows how much he knows about how London works, probably some of you guys will be better of this new mayor as him. I can't see business men voting for him.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2016 18:30:06 GMT
He dare even think of touching my beloved London United He has very little idea what is going on - he probably thinks London United play in the Championship P Pictured is Premiership contender London United's most prolific goalscorer, Zlatan Ibrahimovic after their recent win against Ipswich. Courtesy : Wikipedia He thinks Arriva is Barcelona!
|
|
|
Post by londonbusboy on Apr 20, 2016 12:48:22 GMT
Couldn't agree with all the above more - he really has no clue as to what he is talking about. As usual from Labour, it's all unrealistic populist policies that have no foundation - Corbyn is the same but people are blinded by those very same unworkable policies. My fundamental issues are not so much with wanting to do things better. That's fine as a political objective. The problem is seemingly ignoring the changed financial reality we are heading into. I also have a problem with pursuing structural change with no clear objectives. Unless it is handled very carefully it will destabilise the workforce, distract management and cost a lot of money that could be used for other things. You only change structures if you confident that the actual service quality and performance can be maintained. Would any Mayor really want to risk the entire performance of the bus network going down the drain during their term? They won't do that with the Tube because they know it's potentially fatal to their re-election prospects. What is wrong with buses in London? - declining patronage, traffic problems, delays and unreliability, low level of network development, potentially incorrect allocation of resources given demographic changes, worsening recruitment and retention are the things I'd identify. Little of that is to do with "structure". I'd have no problem with the payment of a driver "premium" to deal with recruitment and retention issues - provided we know where the money is coming from. Heck I doubt people would object to paying 5p more on their fare if it meant the service ran better and was more sustainable. The service won't be capable of expansion if drivers can't be recruited and retained - that's a key issue that needs redressing. None of the Mayoral candidates have plans to deal with any of the problems that are listed. I couldn't agree with you more, the bus industry in my opinion is in serious trouble and needs action. I highly doubt any bus companies will change wages/hours etc anytime soon as they are trying to remain competitive in tender bids against other companies. I personally feel tendering has been a problem over the years with companies cutting running time down (or is that TfL?) in order to lower the tender bid. I could go on and on but i wont do that
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Apr 20, 2016 13:05:21 GMT
I couldn't agree with you more, the bus industry in my opinion is in serious trouble and needs action. I highly doubt any bus companies will change wages/hours etc anytime soon as they are trying to remain competitive in tender bids against other companies. I personally feel tendering has been a problem over the years with companies cutting running time down (or is that TfL?) in order to lower the tender bid. I could go on and on but i wont do that It's clearly a combination of the companies and TfL. TfL were "ripped off" in the early days of QI contracts with inflated PVRs and lax targets. Part of that is their responsibility. TfL then moved to cut out all the extra buses to get costs down. Surprise, surprise performance didn't drop to a great extent. Of course as the financial pressure at TfL has tightened through Boris's term the need to put in low tender prices and trim PVRs, recovery times etc has continued year on year. Of course it has now started to unravel because of the roadworks across London with PVRs rising to deal with delays and / or frequencies being cut "temporarily" (where temporary can mean years). I think it's an open secret that TfL have their own view about the "right" PVR for a route and will not tolerate "excessive" PVRs unless there is massive evidence that a higher value is needed. We had that on the W11 for years - First tried to run it with 6 buses which meant buses were chasing their tail all day long. It now has 7 buses and the timetable is much more reliable. I am sure there are other examples like this across London. I think recent tender awards have tended to see 1 or even 2 extra buses on the PVR which is probably the result of all operators bidding a higher level *or* there is strong evidence from an operator that conditions have changed (e.g. lower speed limits, more passengers along a route increasing dwell times) which requires a higher PVR. These sorts of things can be verified by TfL by looking at I-Bus data or from local authorities. To be fair TfL should always know about changing speed limits.
|
|