|
Post by RT3062 on Sept 11, 2017 21:47:20 GMT
Just a couple of ideas would it be possible with the current oyster set up to charge a slightly higher fare if it was a cross boundary route? Also there is a 242 extended down to cranbourne rd i the morning and evening not sure if thats much help though
|
|
|
Post by ben on Sept 11, 2017 23:29:01 GMT
Is there a summary of % in favour and against in the report, I can't see one? I'm pretty impressed they've managed to write an entire lengthy report without actually acknowledging the strength of resentment or opposition!
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Sept 12, 2017 0:47:53 GMT
Is there a summary of % in favour and against in the report, I can't see one? I'm pretty impressed they've managed to write an entire lengthy report without actually acknowledging the strength of resentment or opposition! Why would they even acknowledge it? The TfL line is clearly "this is nothing to do with us. Potters Bar is not our operational responsibility. Our buses run here entirely as an accident of history. Send all complaints about this cut to Herts CC. Go and put some pressure on them". On one hand I can see why they've done this (slopey shoulder syndrome) but it's really pretty shoddy for one of the largest public transport organisations in the *world* never mind the UK. I had not read the detail so had missed what Riverside picked up in terms of document quality. While I am sadly not exactly surprised at the shoddy quality / lack of proof reading it speaks volumes about the state of morale and quality inside TfL these days. I would have been shot if I'd produced something like that for internal consumption never mind for public release.
|
|
|
Post by Red Dragon on Sept 14, 2017 18:48:07 GMT
According to the Sullivans website, the 298's PVR will remain the same to ensure reliability. Surely this dramatically reduces potential savings?
|
|
|
Post by MoEnviro on Sept 14, 2017 19:05:29 GMT
According to the Sullivans website, the 298's PVR will remain the same to ensure reliability. Surely this dramatically reduces potential savings? There would be a saving from the reduced mileage.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Sept 14, 2017 19:09:50 GMT
According to the Sullivans website, the 298's PVR will remain the same to ensure reliability. Surely this dramatically reduces potential savings? Depends how the deal has been constructed. It may be that the contract price to TfL has actually gone down but Sullivans are funding the cost of keeping the bus in the schedule on the basis of earning bonus payments / avoiding contract deductions. Although the 298 is now on a new contract the extra bus may also help Sullivans meet the required levels in the performance assessment period. It is all about how the relative mechanisms work and who bears what risk. Of course TfL will have the risk of having to pay out performance bonuses but that risk is ever present but, of course, at a network level there is always a mix of good, average and poor performing routes. I assume TfL budget and forecast for performance bonus payments / abatement deductions separately from core contract costs.
|
|
|
Post by redexpress on Sept 14, 2017 22:33:13 GMT
According to the Sullivans website, the 298's PVR will remain the same to ensure reliability. Surely this dramatically reduces potential savings? Although the online schedule for the 298 doesn't show any crosslinks, on schooldays the route is using DDs off school routes in addition to the 6 scheduled SDs. Looking through the route history on LVF, there is a clear pattern of one of the 626 buses being used throughout the am, and one of the 605 buses working for an hour or so (presumably just one trip) in the pm peak - the same has happened every day since the beginning of this school year so it isn't a one-off. I seem to remember reading that the use of these DDs was agreed as a short-term measure pending the outcome of the Cranborne Road consultation (ha!) so I assume these DD workings will cease when the route is cut back, but the number of scheduled SDs will remain the same.
|
|
|
Post by Red Dragon on Sept 15, 2017 16:38:20 GMT
According to the Sullivans website, the 298's PVR will remain the same to ensure reliability. Surely this dramatically reduces potential savings? Although the online schedule for the 298 doesn't show any crosslinks, on schooldays the route is using DDs off school routes in addition to the 6 scheduled SDs. Looking through the route history on LVF, there is a clear pattern of one of the 626 buses being used throughout the am, and one of the 605 buses working for an hour or so (presumably just one trip) in the pm peak - the same has happened every day since the beginning of this school year so it isn't a one-off. I seem to remember reading that the use of these DDs was agreed as a short-term measure pending the outcome of the Cranborne Road consultation (ha!) so I assume these DD workings will cease when the route is cut back, but the number of scheduled SDs will remain the same. I'm not too familiar with daytime loadings, but don't some journeys require DDs?
|
|