|
|
Post by redbus on Jul 22, 2018 22:57:21 GMT
The Mayoral choice to cut bus mileage by 7% would not be my choice on how to proceed. It is also exactly what not to do if you want increase the number of journeys made by public transport. While I understand why you've said that I bet that if you told the Mayor that you disagreed with his choice he'd say he had nothing to do with it. He'd say it was TfL's decision to do that to meet the efficiency and financial targets that he said he'd introduce to make TfL "leaner and fitter". Semantics I know but that's what politicians do. He'd completely disown any responsibility for bus cuts. I sometimes wonder if he has an actual clue what is being done in pursuit of his policies. He might struggle with that argument given his relationship with TfL and that it is part of TfL's Business Plan. Given that and the answers he has written to London Assembly members in response to their questions, he can hardly claim ignorance. He would have a choice either to condone it or change it! He may have called TfL 'flabby and inefficient', but nowhere he did say that part of the answer to that was to cut the bus service. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jul 22, 2018 22:57:42 GMT
In fairness to him the subsidy from central government has been cut. Whilst raising fares would help a bit the bottom line is TFL need to be more financially sustainable and that unfortunately means some rationalisation. I know TFL is not a business but a public service but look at House of Fraser axing 31 stores and M&S aswell. You cannot go on with any institution loosing money forever. Sorry but completely incorrect analogy. TfL and the services it runs have no comparison whatsoever with what M&S and House of Fraser do. They have absolute discretion as to how they run their businesses and what rate of return they earn. The only vaguely controlling influences are shareholders and funders but that's capitalism for you. There is no Act of Parliament that requires either retailer to provide shops anywhere in Greater London. TfL not only have obligations placed on them by the Greater London Act 2000 but also have a pile of inherited obligations that stretch way back through LRT, GLC controlled LT and LCC controlled LT. Although I have not specifically checked I strongly suspect that LT also inherited a load of obgligations placed on the private companies that built most of the tube network and ran London's private bus services prior to 1933. TfL cannot decide to just ignore those obligations as it will be in breach of the law. Now it's a politcal choice but nowhere in the world attempts to run a transport network at an overall profit (i.e. no subsidy) on the scale of what London runs. NOWHERE. Now perhaps there are some good reasons for this? Because it's economically illiterate? Because good affordable comprehensive *subsidised* transport supports efficient businesses and cities / towns? Because everyone deserves access to mobility in a fair and equitable society rather than just what you can afford? To be frank I am getting more than a bit tired with the never ending calls for more cuts. TfL have been implementingd cuts and efficiency changes for the last 10 years. We are now getting to the point where there is no fat left to cut. Thousands of jobs have gone, decades worth of experience has walked away from TfL. We are now at the point where major investment schemes are being cancelled, where maintenance is being cut or postponed and where service levels and network coverage is being endangered. We have been here before - it's called the 1970s and 1980s. It ended up with 31 people being killed in a fire at Kings Cross in 1987. I worked for LU at the time and narrowly avoided being caught up in the fire. It was a horrendous time (as was 7/7) - no one wants a return to that or even anything remotely like it. I am very sorry but we are now at a very serious point in terms of where we go next. TfL say they have a way forward to recover from the deficit this year. I am not sure I believe them. Assembly Members of all parties certainly do not. It would take very little to blow their plan off course. As I have said before if the economy weakens anymore or we dive off a cliff as a country come March next year then TfL (and the rest of us) can wave goodbye to transport services at the level they currently operate at. Enormous cuts will be required because if tens or hundreds of thousands of jobs vanish there will not be enough revenue to cover costs never mind earn any surplus. Still if we are living on spam and gruel and queuing for days to receive medical care no one will care about using the bus or tube for discretionary travel. There won't be any. The network will be vastly scaled back because it will have to be - probably at government instruction. And anyone thinking I'm exaggerating then come back to me when you've received your government produced leaflets about life in the UK post Brexit over the next couple of months.  And yes I am *genuinely* worried about what food and energy will cost, how it will be supplied and whether I will be able to get the medication I need from the chemist. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jul 22, 2018 23:16:39 GMT
While I understand why you've said that I bet that if you told the Mayor that you disagreed with his choice he'd say he had nothing to do with it. He'd say it was TfL's decision to do that to meet the efficiency and financial targets that he said he'd introduce to make TfL "leaner and fitter". Semantics I know but that's what politicians do. He'd completely disown any responsibility for bus cuts. I sometimes wonder if he has an actual clue what is being done in pursuit of his policies. He might struggle with that argument given his relationship with TfL and that it is part of TfL's Business Plan. Given that and the answers he has written to London Assembly members in response to their questions, he can hardly claim ignorance. He would have a choice either to condone it or change it! He may have called TfL 'flabby and inefficient', but nowhere he did say that part of the answer to that was to cut the bus service. Oh sure. He also said, prior to the election, that all fares would be frozen for 4 years. That didn't last for very long did it? It was obviously a lie and I predicted it would unravel for precisely the real reasons on London Reconnections. [ The Mayor doesn't control Travelcard prices or some rail fares on TfL services and cannot overrule the Secretary of State. ] He's a politician. He will say what he thinks he can away with or invent some extra "justification" for action that is seen as contrary to earlier promises. They all do it. |
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Jul 22, 2018 23:26:34 GMT
In fairness to him the subsidy from central government has been cut. Whilst raising fares would help a bit the bottom line is TFL need to be more financially sustainable and that unfortunately means some rationalisation. I know TFL is not a business but a public service but look at House of Fraser axing 31 stores and M&S aswell. You cannot go on with any institution loosing money forever. While I largely agree with snoggle response in respect of the buses I would also add. Financially sustainable yes, but that should include a subsidy like other major cities. In respect of the buses I would also point out that a single fare is £1.50, yet only about 64p is collected per journey. I think about 94p per journey is needed to break-even. The reason for only getting 64p per journey is subsidised travel to various groups such as senior citizens, children, hopper fares and so forth. You can argue the merits of each, but perhaps it is only right to have a subsidy to cater for this subsidised travel. No business such as House of Fraser or M&S have to sell their products at a loss to certain groups of customers.
I would also argue that cutting the bus service amounts to managing decline. What is really needed is investment to make buses more attractive, cheaper to run (by speeding them up) as this will both reduce costs and increase revenue - the opposite to managing decline.
|
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Jul 22, 2018 23:33:37 GMT
He might struggle with that argument given his relationship with TfL and that it is part of TfL's Business Plan. Given that and the answers he has written to London Assembly members in response to their questions, he can hardly claim ignorance. He would have a choice either to condone it or change it! He may have called TfL 'flabby and inefficient', but nowhere he did say that part of the answer to that was to cut the bus service. Oh sure. He also said, prior to the election, that all fares would be frozen for 4 years. That didn't last for very long did it? It was obviously a lie and I predicted it would unravel for precisely the real reasons on London Reconnections. [ The Mayor doesn't control Travelcard prices or some rail fares on TfL services and cannot overrule the Secretary of State. ] He's a politician. He will say what he thinks he can away with or invent some extra "justification" for action that is seen as contrary to earlier promises. They all do it. As you may well have gathered I am not exactly happy with Mayoral bus policy and have made much criticism. In terms of the fare freeze, I have a little more sympathy with the Mayor in that he has frozen a lot of the fares in his control, but clearly did not keep the election pledge as you state. So to be fair he did something, although not his pledge.
Of course he will get away with what he thinks he can, but that leaves him vulnerable should anyone come along able and willing to exploit it. At this point in time there is no one to do that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2018 23:34:00 GMT
I reckon a big loss of passengers from Central London can be explained by the recent proliferation of tour buses and a lack of TfL visitor centres. The one that used to be at Victoria was always so busy. Now, if you visit London and stay for a few days, you will be tapped into by a salesperson from BigBus, TOT, Golden Tours, London CitySightseeing, etc etc and sold a week pass. You get unlimited open top tours and local trips,included. No need to fathom out the TfL bus network. Maybe a few trips on the tube perhaps.
My friends in their twenties simply don’t use buses. It’s trains or Uber.
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 23, 2018 0:34:48 GMT
In fairness to him the subsidy from central government has been cut. Whilst raising fares would help a bit the bottom line is TFL need to be more financially sustainable and that unfortunately means some rationalisation. I know TFL is not a business but a public service but look at House of Fraser axing 31 stores and M&S aswell. You cannot go on with any institution loosing money forever. But you mentioned it in your post - TfL is a public service and these cuts and silly schemes are not in the interests of passengers. House of Fraser & M&S are business designed to make a profit and are completely different - you cannot compare them with each other. Really, TfL should have their thinking caps on in terms of trying to increase revenue rather than simply admitting defeat and destroying the great bus network we have. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 23, 2018 0:38:14 GMT
I reckon a big loss of passengers from Central London can be explained by the recent proliferation of tour buses and a lack of TfL visitor centres. The one that used to be at Victoria was always so busy. Now, if you visit London and stay for a few days, you will be tapped into by a salesperson from BigBus, TOT, Golden Tours, London CitySightseeing, etc etc and sold a week pass. You get unlimited open top tours and local trips,included. No need to fathom out the TfL bus network. Maybe a few trips on the tube perhaps. My friends in their twenties simply don’t use buses. It’s trains or Uber. On the Tour Bus point, that should begin to change at some point with the entrance of Megabus Sightseeing with it's very reasonable prices of which I still need to do at some point. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jul 23, 2018 11:16:39 GMT
Of course he will get away with what he thinks he can, but that leaves him vulnerable should anyone come along able and willing to exploit it. At this point in time there is no one to do that. I think all the Tories bidding to be the next Mayoral candidate have identified the fares freeze and the financial impact on TfL as a major line of attack. I expect we will hear a lot of more on this up to May 2020. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jul 23, 2018 11:32:25 GMT
I reckon a big loss of passengers from Central London can be explained by the recent proliferation of tour buses and a lack of TfL visitor centres. The one that used to be at Victoria was always so busy. Now, if you visit London and stay for a few days, you will be tapped into by a salesperson from BigBus, TOT, Golden Tours, London CitySightseeing, etc etc and sold a week pass. You get unlimited open top tours and local trips,included. No need to fathom out the TfL bus network. Maybe a few trips on the tube perhaps. My friends in their twenties simply don’t use buses. It’s trains or Uber. Open top sightseeing buses must be doing a roaring trade in the current heatwave? I've heard similar from people of all ages who are happy to use trains, trams, taxis etc but buses are a last resort if they use them at all. Too slow seems to be the main reason, I think most people will accept traffic congestion but not buses deliberately being driven slowly or sitting at stops for ages in order to regulate the service. |
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Jul 23, 2018 12:04:09 GMT
I reckon a big loss of passengers from Central London can be explained by the recent proliferation of tour buses and a lack of TfL visitor centres. The one that used to be at Victoria was always so busy. Now, if you visit London and stay for a few days, you will be tapped into by a salesperson from BigBus, TOT, Golden Tours, London CitySightseeing, etc etc and sold a week pass. You get unlimited open top tours and local trips,included. No need to fathom out the TfL bus network. Maybe a few trips on the tube perhaps. My friends in their twenties simply don’t use buses. It’s trains or Uber. Open top sightseeing buses must be doing a roaring trade in the current heatwave? I've heard similar from people of all ages who are happy to use trains, trams, taxis etc but buses are a last resort if they use them at all. Too slow seems to be the main reason, I think most people will accept traffic congestion but not buses deliberately being driven slowly or sitting at stops for ages in order to regulate the service. Matches what people I know do, treat buses as last resort. Think there are 2 categories that use the buses : those you have plenty of time, and those on very tight budget. Nothing worse than sitting killing time if you are trying to encourage use. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jul 23, 2018 12:15:04 GMT
I have to say the padding of timetables has put me off buses a bit in central London.
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 23, 2018 13:24:14 GMT
Open top sightseeing buses must be doing a roaring trade in the current heatwave? I've heard similar from people of all ages who are happy to use trains, trams, taxis etc but buses are a last resort if they use them at all. Too slow seems to be the main reason, I think most people will accept traffic congestion but not buses deliberately being driven slowly or sitting at stops for ages in order to regulate the service. Matches what people I know do, treat buses as last resort. Think there are 2 categories that use the buses : those you have plenty of time, and those on very tight budget. Nothing worse than sitting killing time if you are trying to encourage use. There is a 3rd choice - those that have no choice as well. After all, you can’t board a train to everywhere. |
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Jul 23, 2018 13:26:03 GMT
I have to say the padding of timetables has put me off buses a bit in central London. Agreed. We have to make buses useful, timely, trendy and cool again. Buses have loads of potential, but not only is that potential being wasted, they are made positively unattractive instead of being turned into a first resort means of travel. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jul 23, 2018 13:30:57 GMT
While I largely agree with snoggle response in respect of the buses I would also add. Financially sustainable yes, but that should include a subsidy like other major cities. In respect of the buses I would also point out that a single fare is £1.50, yet only about 64p is collected per journey. I think about 94p per journey is needed to break-even. The reason for only getting 64p per journey is subsidised travel to various groups such as senior citizens, children, hopper fares and so forth. You can argue the merits of each, but perhaps it is only right to have a subsidy to cater for this subsidised travel. No business such as House of Fraser or M&S have to sell their products at a loss to certain groups of customers.
I would also argue that cutting the bus service amounts to managing decline. What is really needed is investment to make buses more attractive, cheaper to run (by speeding them up) as this will both reduce costs and increase revenue - the opposite to managing decline.
I may have the wrong end of the stick here about "yield" but I do wonder if TfL are being just a tad disingenuous about this. While I can see why people travelling at zero fare will pull the average down it is not as if these concessions are unfunded. They are funded. TfL gets hundreds of millions from the boroughs for Freedom Pass usage so that is "revenue" in the bank for TfL. Other concessions are funded by TfL themselves but I assume that the accountants will ensure that the "revenue foregone" is correctly allocated to the buses part of the business. I recognise that pooled revenue from Travelcard / Bus and Tram passes will never be £1.50 per ride as unlimited tickets have a lower average fare for each mode. Ditto for capped daily or weekly travel. In past years (under Boris) Val Shawcross got Mayor's answers and a commitment in the business plan to show the nature of the bus business's finances differently. It took the net subsidy position then removed the "capital element" within bus contracts for new vehicles and other capital spend and then added in the revenue foregone from concessions. On that basis the bus network made a modest surplus. This actually matches how the Underground's finances are handled in that capital spend on the vehicle fleet is a separate line in the budget (as it should be). As I am horrible I FOI'd the numbers for the latest business plan as TfL stopped producing the old "Val" format. Given the problems with bus revenue / patronage and demands for fleet modifications for air quality the numbers are no longer so good but we are talking about relatively modest deficits of £60m this year and declining sharply to £7m in 2022/23. It falls sharply post 2020 as a return to RPI annual fare increases is assumed in the revenue numbers. |
|
And yes I am *genuinely* worried about what food and energy will cost, how it will be supplied and whether I will be able to get the medication I need from the chemist. 