|
|
Post by busaholic on Jul 23, 2018 17:56:34 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. 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. I don't take myself seriously enough to be a pedant and, in any case, your summary of TfL's ancestry was pretty accurate, but I'd just add a couple of points. The LCC had run trams until the creation of the London Passenger Transport Board in i933, on which they had one representative, but they never ran buses, trolleybuses or the Underground. The LPTB was very underground-centric at the top at its creation, Lord Ashfield and Frank Pick as chairman and vice chairman having come from that background, and I'm certain there are many obligations etc contained in the Act that set it up. Most transport historians agree that the success of the LPTB was in no small part due to those individuals and the decisions/appointments they made. From 1948, however, the railways were effectively nationalised with the creation of the British Transport Commission, and the London Transport Executive was also created at the same time, reporting to the Department of Transport. This in turn became the London Transport Board in 1963, a statutory undertaking, and that was my employer for a short period before the GLC takeover of LT in 1970. Those of us employed by LT prior to 1970 had privileged travel on British Railways and free travel on what became London Country Bus Services in perpetuity, or at least until we left the organisation.
On your wider point, I agree that TfL have many obligations, both legal and moral. What some called the 'disability lobby' were of course very active in securing wheelchair access to London buses and generally better access, at least in theory, to all buses and some underground stations and, of course, saw off the final Routemaster routes, though I suspect they were used as an excuse for something TfL wanted to do anyway. I'm sure that some of TfL's recent actions in relation to bus services could be challenged legally on the grounds of age/disability discrimination should any individual or organisation choose to spend the time, effort and lots of money on it. (An example being the 137 route's terminus at Park Lane aka Marble Arch).
|
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Jul 24, 2018 10:21:41 GMT
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. I don't take myself seriously enough to be a pedant and, in any case, your summary of TfL's ancestry was pretty accurate, but I'd just add a couple of points. The LCC had run trams until the creation of the London Passenger Transport Board in i933, on which they had one representative, but they never ran buses, trolleybuses or the Underground. The LPTB was very underground-centric at the top at its creation, Lord Ashfield and Frank Pick as chairman and vice chairman having come from that background, and I'm certain there are many obligations etc contained in the Act that set it up. Most transport historians agree that the success of the LPTB was in no small part due to those individuals and the decisions/appointments they made.
<snip> Good point - at no point did the London County Council have control over London Transport. Until 1933 they were responsible for their directly-owned tram network, which on routes operating beyond the County of London was operated jointly with other companies such as London United, North Metropolitan and the municipal operators in what was then Metropolitan Essex (e.g. West & East Ham, Walthamstow, Leyton). The LCC trams were a definite thorn in the side of The Combine; their acquisition, together with the Metropolitan Railway, were the two big prizes when the Combine's successful lobbying resulted in the London Transport Act which paved the way for the creation of London Transport. The strong influence of London United Tramways in The Combine - and notably their early experience of trolleybus operation in the Kingston area - was probably responsible for London Transport's early decision to convert its entire tram network to trolleybus operation - a process that would have been completed by 1942 has the Second World War not intervened. My own feeling is that, had the LCC retained control of the tram network (or been responsible for London Transport in its entirety) a lot of the tram network would have been retained and renewed, and London's surface transport network could have looked very different even today, if LCC/London Transport had looked to continental practice for inspiration. Of course this is purely my own speculation. But I digress. London Transport did not come under local government control until 1st January 1970, when it was divested of its Country Bus division and devolved to the control of the Greater London Council. |
|
|
|
Post by DE20106 on Jul 24, 2018 23:10:58 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. Very tricky position here, if freezing bus fares and increasing the amount of journeys you can make for the price of one isn’t working to make buses more popular, then I’m pretty certain increasing fares which as you said is assumed to happen in line with RPI index in 2020 will go down like a lead balloon. In response to a previous post, I would also like to disagree to an extent with the point of using buses as a last resort. I use the term ‘to an extent’ as this is definitely true in Zone 1. I would never choose to use the 11 if I were going from Westminster to Liverpool Street, as the journey time is just ridiculous, Ludgate Circus being the main culprit, if I’m ever on a bus in that area I always get off before/at Ludgate as I can walk it so much faster. I’d only ever use it if I had to, ie if the tube was down, as a last resort. But this isn’t the case so much in outer London, where traffic isn’t as much of an issue in some places. Sure you have your bad surburban hotspots such as Walthamstow and Southall which is seeing declining numbers, but usage in South London particularly is holding up quite well, as I’d say it has the worst links rail-wise. Crystal Palace to Croydon is a good example of a journey definitely quicker by bus, the 157 is much quicker than waiting at CP and then changing and waiting again at Sydnenham. As you said a while back months ago, bus travel is still by far the most used form of transport in London, despite declines. I have friends in South and East London who use the bus just as much as rail, and only use Uber in large groups as that makes it cheaper. Imo large parts of South London and Newham are areas where bus usage is definitely not a last resort. When I’ll be staying in Kingston from next week I have to rely on my old faithful 131 to get me part of the way to Central London for a much cheaper fare, and as it’s a route that doesn’t get caught in traffic and has great reliability I like to rely on it, no way would I use it took ages and that’s a common mentality of passengers.  When I get to Wimbledon I never use the 156 as the southwest train is so much quicker, and I only used it once when both the District Line and South West service was down. (very unlucky lol) However hacking away links and expecting people to use the hopper is a ludicrous strategy, I’d just stick two fingers up and find another round. Londoners are not people who like waiting around |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jul 24, 2018 23:51:57 GMT
Very tricky position here, if freezing bus fares and increasing the amount of journeys you can make for the price of one isn’t working to make buses more popular, then I’m pretty certain increasing fares which as you said is assumed to happen in line with RPI index in 2020 will go down like a lead balloon. I am sure the Mayor believes he is unlike King Canute and can not only hold back the waves but also inflation. The problem is that TfL and its suppliers and its employees are not immune to the impact of inflation. To stand still cost wise TfL has to make cuts of around 2-3% per annum to cope with the impact of rising costs and wages. In some parts of its actitivies inflation will be higher than CPI or RPI as some sectors are vulnerable to cost pressures. Construction is one such area and TfL are still building things. Specialist assets like rolling stock will be another - especially as LU has a custom train fleet due to infrastructure constraints. If revenues are less than budget then TfL's "standing still" trick gets ever harder. If businesses start to fail and go out of business then TfL's share of business rates will decline thus impacting a source of revenue. It can't borrow very much more money as it would breach Treasury limits and also risk damaging its credit rating. In short it's all precarious. Do you know what? I don't really care very much about fares rises going down like a lead balloon. Some people will have avoided them for 4 years - lucky them. The simple fact is that the current fares freeze policy can't carry on unless TfL gets a large and additional source of money such as government subsidy. Do you really think the Treasury under a Tory government would ever restore revenue grant to TfL? I don't. They've been trying for 30-40 years to stop subsidising London's fares and they've succeeded due to the berk of a Mayor who got such a rubbish deal from Osborne and agreed to lose revenue grant 2 years earlier than had been planned. A Labour government might restore some revenue grant but only if there was a Labour Mayor. They'll be more interested in shelling out in other parts of the country. I can't avoid the cost of my groceries going up or my energy bills or the cost of just about everything rising. I don't see why London's public transport users should be exempt - the risk is that TfL collapses and services grind to a halt or, more likely, they are simply eroded to the point that they become unusable / unsafe. A shoddy vandalised decrepit transport system will damage London's economy and cause huge reputational damage at a time when the UK will be difficulties anyway. Look at the current shambles in New York where work has been neglected, funds misappropriated by politicians and a series of shoddy operational and investment decisions have been made. Immense damage is being done to the productivity and wellbeing of New Yorkers who can't get to / from work on time nor enjoy other aspects of their life. This will in turn pull down NY's economy and its attractiveness to investors. I honestly thought we'd got past that lesson in London but seemingly not. I expect Khan will be pilloried by his opponents over his handling of TfL during his first term. He's also boxed himself in in terms of what he can promise / achieve post 2020. Politically I think it's stupid but I suspect he believes he can pull some rabbit out a hat and make everything better again. |
|
|
|
Post by ServerKing on Jul 25, 2018 3:23:09 GMT
Very tricky position here, if freezing bus fares and increasing the amount of journeys you can make for the price of one isn’t working to make buses more popular, then I’m pretty certain increasing fares which as you said is assumed to happen in line with RPI index in 2020 will go down like a lead balloon. I am sure the Mayor believes he is unlike King Canute and can not only hold back the waves but also inflation. The problem is that TfL and its suppliers and its employees are not immune to the impact of inflation. To stand still cost wise TfL has to make cuts of around 2-3% per annum to cope with the impact of rising costs and wages. In some parts of its actitivies inflation will be higher than CPI or RPI as some sectors are vulnerable to cost pressures. Construction is one such area and TfL are still building things. Specialist assets like rolling stock will be another - especially as LU has a custom train fleet due to infrastructure constraints. If revenues are less than budget then TfL's "standing still" trick gets ever harder. If businesses start to fail and go out of business then TfL's share of business rates will decline thus impacting a source of revenue. It can't borrow very much more money as it would breach Treasury limits and also risk damaging its credit rating. In short it's all precarious. Do you know what? I don't really care very much about fares rises going down like a lead balloon. Some people will have avoided them for 4 years - lucky them. The simple fact is that the current fares freeze policy can't carry on unless TfL gets a large and additional source of money such as government subsidy. Do you really think the Treasury under a Tory government would ever restore revenue grant to TfL? I don't. They've been trying for 30-40 years to stop subsidising London's fares and they've succeeded due to the berk of a Mayor who got such a rubbish deal from Osborne and agreed to lose revenue grant 2 years earlier than had been planned. A Labour government might restore some revenue grant but only if there was a Labour Mayor. They'll be more interested in shelling out in other parts of the country. I can't avoid the cost of my groceries going up or my energy bills or the cost of just about everything rising. I don't see why London's public transport users should be exempt - the risk is that TfL collapses and services grind to a halt or, more likely, they are simply eroded to the point that they become unusable / unsafe. A shoddy vandalised decrepit transport system will damage London's economy and cause huge reputational damage at a time when the UK will be difficulties anyway. Look at the current shambles in New York where work has been neglected, funds misappropriated by politicians and a series of shoddy operational and investment decisions have been made. Immense damage is being done to the productivity and wellbeing of New Yorkers who can't get to / from work on time nor enjoy other aspects of their life. This will in turn pull down NY's economy and its attractiveness to investors. I honestly thought we'd got past that lesson in London but seemingly not. I expect Khan will be pilloried by his opponents over his handling of TfL during his first term. He's also boxed himself in in terms of what he can promise / achieve post 2020. Politically I think it's stupid but I suspect he believes he can pull some rabbit out a hat and make everything better again. *Sadiq reaches into hat, only sees rabbit droppings* This will be another magic trick gone wrong, and the summer club won't invite him back the next day. Cue 'angry parents' who paid out to watch the magic show, only for the kids to be disappointed  Like all politicians he made promises he couldn't keep... he seemed more credible than Zak Goldsmith at the time, but the bizarre choices have raised eyebrows. He did well to stop LT production, but he failed to stop the cycle lanes work. His Waterloo was the Oxford Street pedestrianization which is costing us money somewhere with failed consultations, having been blocked by Westminster Council. Don't get me started on the failure to tackle knife crime, yet at the same time sanction the "Baby Trump" blimp which barely sat five feet off the ground Brexit, will see the economy disappear quicker than Maplin and Toys R Us, And in the papers they admit to stockpiling food in case of a hard exit and no customs whatsoever. Theresa Maybe has effectively made Sajid Javed a milk monitor and has stripped him of his powers in Brexit negotiations, probably to beg to stay in the EU. EU says no, and now we are marooned. Still, we have a fares freeze and 20 zones now, so it's all good  |
|
|
|
Post by rugbyref on Jul 25, 2018 12:20:25 GMT
Trading with the rest of the world rather than the sinking EU is somehow going to ruin our economy?? Sorry, but you are leting your prejudice show.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2018 15:44:59 GMT
Trading with the rest of the world rather than the sinking EU is somehow going to ruin our economy?? Sorry, but you are leting your prejudice show. I thinks he's trying to say that a hard or no deal Brexit will be like falling off a cliff. Also, trade deals can take many years to finalise so if there is no customs deal with the EU the UK may have problems in the short and long terms if it looks to forge new ones from scratch |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jul 25, 2018 17:57:29 GMT
Trading with the rest of the world rather than the sinking EU is somehow going to ruin our economy?? Sorry, but you are leting your prejudice show. I totally agree, much better off out of the EU. Probably a debate for another thread though. |
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Jul 26, 2018 16:51:24 GMT
N279 to be withdrawn and replaced by a 24 hour 279 so that the N279 avoids the ULEZ. I been wondering why the N279 never gained hybrid.
|
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jul 26, 2018 18:34:04 GMT
N279 to be withdrawn and replaced by a 24 hour 279 so that the N279 avoids the ULEZ. I been wondering why the N279 never gained hybrid. I think it should at least go to Camden Town. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jul 26, 2018 18:46:09 GMT
But that would cut the long established night bus link with the west end and Edmonton, Ponders End and Waltham Cross. Plus would reduce capacity between Finsbury Park and central London on the nights when there is no night tube.
We never did get that second night bus consultation that was supposed to come out months ago. I would imagine the ace would fall on 24h routes first with tfl now realising the efficiency of N routes covering many different day routes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2018 21:21:27 GMT
An alternative 27 scheme.
Divert 27 from Notting Hill Gate to Acton Green
Withdraw 31 Notting Hill Gate to White City.
Withdraw 94 Oxford Circus to Piccadilly Circus and Shepherds Bush Green to Acton Green. Divert to Westfield and extend from Oxford Circus to Parliament Hill Fields via C2 . Converted to electric buses.
Withdraw C2
440 changes as per consultation.
|
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Jul 26, 2018 21:24:33 GMT
An alternative 27 scheme. Divert 27 from Notting Hill Gate to Acton Green Withdraw 31 Notting Hill Gate to White City. Withdraw 94 Oxford Circus to Piccadilly Circus and Shepherds Bush Green to Acton Green. Divert to Westfield and extend from Oxford Circus to Parliament Hill Fields via C2 . Converted to electric buses. Withdraw C2 440 changes as per consultation. I've suggested some similar changes before to simplify some of the routes in West London in response to various proposals/consultations: Extend the 9 to Chiswick Park, Turnham Green or Gunnersbury. Divert the 27 from Notting Hill Gate to Acton Green via the 94. Possible diversion via Lancaster Gate to Paddington, instead of Westbourne Grove, to retain capacity along Bayswater Road. Divert the 31 from Notting Hill Gate to Hammersmith via the 27. Withdraw the 94. |
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Jul 26, 2018 21:25:36 GMT
But that would cut the long established night bus link with the west end and Edmonton, Ponders End and Waltham Cross. Plus would reduce capacity between Finsbury Park and central London on the nights when there is no night tube. We never did get that second night bus consultation that was supposed to come out months ago. I would imagine the ace would fall on 24h routes first with tfl now realising the efficiency of N routes covering many different day routes. ''Hopper fare, hopper fare''. Finsbury Park is known as a place of Buddhist levels of serenity, particularly at 3 a.m., so no concerns there.  |
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Jul 26, 2018 21:30:22 GMT
But that would cut the long established night bus link with the west end and Edmonton, Ponders End and Waltham Cross. Plus would reduce capacity between Finsbury Park and central London on the nights when there is no night tube. We never did get that second night bus consultation that was supposed to come out months ago. I would imagine the ace would fall on 24h routes first with tfl now realising the efficiency of N routes covering many different day routes. It is a bit surprising that Waltham Cross has a night service - I think it is the only cross-border night bus. Other similar areas could probably benefit from a night service, such as Watford, Staines, Epsom or Dartford. |
|
When I get to Wimbledon I never use the 156 as the southwest train is so much quicker, and I only used it once when both the District Line and South West service was down. (very unlucky lol)
