|
|
Post by ServerKing on Oct 20, 2020 22:05:52 GMT
TfL Travelwatch seem to have conducted an investigation into the effects of removing free travel for teenagers. The reason TfL gave initially for the removal of free bus travel was to help with social distancing, it's now been proven that buses do have the capacity available to help transport children to and from school during the busiest times. However this has also been helped by increased car usage where parents are now increasingly dropping children off at school in a car. Zip demand stands at 70% with a lot of these children now being ferried in private road vehicles. Satisfaction surveys that have been carried out on general members of the public are showing no decline in satisfaction levels of the general public either. The big bombshell here is that should the removal of free travel be pressed ahead, we are looking at least at a 33% increase in road traffic with parents now opting to use this over paying for bus services. Parents are much more likely to drive to other places too as a result as opposed to non-parents, meaning that the increase in cars is unlikely to just be for the school run. The investigation has also shown that the benefits provided by free travel far out-weigh the costs as since 2009 it has been found that zip travel has caused 1. Increased use of the bus by young people and fare paying adults 2. Car journeys in adults and children show reduction 3. Bus use was normalised, so car dependance is reduced in later life 4. Risks of assault were mitigated, especially for girls* 5. Increased uptake of education and training Travelwatch suggest that it is now no longer in the interests of the public to implement this, the benefits once again outweigh the cons of the system. Should it still be implemented it will almost certainly lead to a car led recovery of London's economy. A report by the London councils also throws in further data on the matter. £27M extra will need to be funded by councils £85M extra will fall upon parents This also doesn't include the extra admin costs of getting all the systems set up and in place to deal with it all, and the wages of staff that will either need to be hired or given a raise as a result of the increased workload. The two reports can be found here: Letter by Travelwatch
Analysis by London Councils*This matter is one I've wanted to assess, the safety of children is paramount, and the free travel available is extremely important in the safety of the younger generation who do not have access to their own money at will. Levels of crime in London are as high as ever, especially sexual assaults on girls of school age of which a lot doesn't get reported. In my opinion this alone is enough to justify the retention of free travel. If this "big bombshell" prediction is correct then surely that's a good thing? Yes more traffic congestion but more kids going to and from school in the safety of their parents car because yes....... the safety of children is paramount. And how has it "been been proven that buses do have the capacity available to help transport children to and from school during the busiest times?" Reality is packed buses and people left behind including children. If this is the best Travelwatch can come up with......... My daughter who has just started Year 7 complains about packed W3 buses in Wood Green that just drive past, so a lot of times she walks home from school, which is not great as the nights draw in... There may not be much Travel to Watch if TfL goes under  |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Oct 20, 2020 22:08:33 GMT
The Financial Times is reporting that the Government has threatened to take direct control of Transport for London, unless Sadiq Khan accepts a range of conditions that it's insisting upon in order to provide additional funding when the current financial agreement expires on 31 October. In a letter leaked to the FT, Transport Secretary Grant Shapps made "a long list of demands" in return for a six-month funding package that will see TfL through to March 2021, rather than the 18-month deal that TfL has been trying to negotiate. The FT's Jim Pickard said that Shapps' demands include: Khan has already rejected these demands, calling for the restoration of the central government grant for TfL that was previously withdrawn, dismissing a heavier council tax burden on Londoners as "regressive" and a misguided "reliance on an already broken form of taxation", and asserting that above-inflation fare increases would be "a huge economic mistake". He also attacked the proposal to massively expand the congestion charge zone, saying that "this blunt approach would have a catastrophic effect on the economy of inner London and beyond". Conservative Mayoral candidate Shaun Bailey also said that he would not back any extension of the congestion charge zone. Predictably, he then blamed the current situation on Khan's "mismanagement" of TfL before the Covid-19 crisis, unironically adding: "Yet again, he's trying to shift the blame on to others." Does Shaun Bailey still not realise he is a puppet for the government - it's great he doesn't back congestion charge extension but equally, I don't forsee Shapps dropping that pledge just for Bailey. |
|
|
|
Post by ServerKing on Oct 20, 2020 22:12:47 GMT
The Financial Times is reporting that the Government has threatened to take direct control of Transport for London, unless Sadiq Khan accepts a range of conditions that it's insisting upon in order to provide additional funding when the current financial agreement expires on 31 October. In a letter leaked to the FT, Transport Secretary Grant Shapps made "a long list of demands" in return for a six-month funding package that will see TfL through to March 2021, rather than the 18-month deal that TfL has been trying to negotiate. The FT's Jim Pickard said that Shapps' demands include: Khan has already rejected these demands, calling for the restoration of the central government grant for TfL that was previously withdrawn, dismissing a heavier council tax burden on Londoners as "regressive" and a misguided "reliance on an already broken form of taxation", and asserting that above-inflation fare increases would be "a huge economic mistake". He also attacked the proposal to massively expand the congestion charge zone, saying that "this blunt approach would have a catastrophic effect on the economy of inner London and beyond". Conservative Mayoral candidate Shaun Bailey also said that he would not back any extension of the congestion charge zone. Predictably, he then blamed the current situation on Khan's "mismanagement" of TfL before the Covid-19 crisis, unironically adding: "Yet again, he's trying to shift the blame on to others." Frankly I think it would be better for the DfT to assume control of TfL on an emergency basis to keep it going, work out what it has and where it can make sensible cutbacks to things other than services and then turn in back to Kahn in a few months. It’s been obvious for years even before Kahn that TfL needs a major overhaul in its procedures to be a cost effective operation but I think COVID has exacerbated a problem that has been rooted in TfL for years. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again if TfL was a private business it would have an annual audit of its finances and be accountable to its spending. I think DfT just need to keep TfL... Khan will be gone in a few months. The current system is leaving the drunkard in charge of the brewery. TfL has more nostalgia than English football each time it's the World Cup. They need to start looking forward. Cleaning the tube seats on the Victoria Line would be a start. I don't want to be sat on 11 years of grime...  |
|
|
|
Post by routew15 on Oct 20, 2020 22:23:36 GMT
The 18 times larger Congestion Charge zone does feel like a political ‘black spot’ deliberately put in the deal so Khan has to turn it down. Especially baring in mind how polarising the Western Extension Zone was.
As soon as the government absorbs TfL they will ditch it, as it is not practical to police/introduce. How do you charge a car that sticks solely to the back roads for short journeys?
|
|
|
|
Post by thelondonthing on Oct 20, 2020 22:37:42 GMT
The Financial Times is reporting that the Government has threatened to take direct control of Transport for London, unless Sadiq Khan accepts a range of conditions that it's insisting upon in order to provide additional funding when the current financial agreement expires on 31 October. In a letter leaked to the FT, Transport Secretary Grant Shapps made "a long list of demands" in return for a six-month funding package that will see TfL through to March 2021, rather than the 18-month deal that TfL has been trying to negotiate. The FT's Jim Pickard said that Shapps' demands include: Khan has already rejected these demands, calling for the restoration of the central government grant for TfL that was previously withdrawn, dismissing a heavier council tax burden on Londoners as "regressive" and a misguided "reliance on an already broken form of taxation", and asserting that above-inflation fare increases would be "a huge economic mistake". He also attacked the proposal to massively expand the congestion charge zone, saying that "this blunt approach would have a catastrophic effect on the economy of inner London and beyond". Conservative Mayoral candidate Shaun Bailey also said that he would not back any extension of the congestion charge zone. Predictably, he then blamed the current situation on Khan's "mismanagement" of TfL before the Covid-19 crisis, unironically adding: "Yet again, he's trying to shift the blame on to others." Does Shaun Bailey still not realise he is a puppet for the government - it's great he doesn't back congestion charge extension but equally, I don't forsee Shapps dropping that pledge just for Bailey. Bailey doesn't even understand what the Mayor's responsibilities are - ten days ago, he blamed Khan for "letting London fall behind" other countries by not allowing fans to return to football matches in London. He failed to grasp that that decision lies with central Government as a matter of national policy, and has absolutely nothing to do with the Mayor. Words fall out of his mouth, but most of them amount to little more than disingenuous nonsense, ill-informed gibberish, or plain and simple lies - none of which stands up to even the lightest of scrutiny. |
|
|
|
Post by joefrombow on Oct 21, 2020 2:46:30 GMT
The Financial Times is reporting that the Government has threatened to take direct control of Transport for London, unless Sadiq Khan accepts a range of conditions that it's insisting upon in order to provide additional funding when the current financial agreement expires on 31 October. In a letter leaked to the FT, Transport Secretary Grant Shapps made "a long list of demands" in return for a six-month funding package that will see TfL through to March 2021, rather than the 18-month deal that TfL has been trying to negotiate. The FT's Jim Pickard said that Shapps' demands include: Khan has already rejected these demands, calling for the restoration of the central government grant for TfL that was previously withdrawn, dismissing a heavier council tax burden on Londoners as "regressive" and a misguided "reliance on an already broken form of taxation", and asserting that above-inflation fare increases would be "a huge economic mistake". He also attacked the proposal to massively expand the congestion charge zone, saying that "this blunt approach would have a catastrophic effect on the economy of inner London and beyond". Conservative Mayoral candidate Shaun Bailey also said that he would not back any extension of the congestion charge zone. Predictably, he then blamed the current situation on Khan's "mismanagement" of TfL before the Covid-19 crisis, unironically adding: "Yet again, he's trying to shift the blame on to others." Does Shaun Bailey still not realise he is a puppet for the government - it's great he doesn't back congestion charge extension but equally, I don't forsee Shapps dropping that pledge just for Bailey. I think it's just a ploy to get Khan out and make him take the blame calling his bluff they cannot honestly think extending the congestion charge zone and getting rid of free travel for some older folk many of whom will be Tory voters is a good idea , businesses are already on the brink this would send a lot under . |
|
|
|
Post by joefrombow on Oct 21, 2020 2:48:32 GMT
The 18 times larger Congestion Charge zone does feel like a political ‘black spot’ deliberately put in the deal so Khan has to turn it down. Especially baring in mind how polarising the Western Extension Zone was. As soon as the government absorbs TfL they will ditch it, as it is not practical to police/introduce. How do you charge a car that sticks solely to the back roads for short journeys? This is why they are blocking all the backroads off at the moment with plant pots and whatever else so that drivers have to use the "main" routes and the cameras see them for the ULEZ so won't be hard to introduce though probably still possible but agreed they are calling his bluff . |
|
|
|
Post by Frenzie on Oct 21, 2020 3:05:55 GMT
The 18 times larger Congestion Charge zone does feel like a political ‘black spot’ deliberately put in the deal so Khan has to turn it down. Especially baring in mind how polarising the Western Extension Zone was. As soon as the government absorbs TfL they will ditch it, as it is not practical to police/introduce. How do you charge a car that sticks solely to the back roads for short journeys? This is why they are blocking all the backroads off at the moment with plant pots and whatever else so that drivers have to use the "main" routes and the cameras see them for the ULEZ so won't be hard to introduce though probably still possible but agreed they are calling his bluff . I really don’t think our leaders are capable of such joined up thinking mate. This congestion charge stuff is jusy a giant distraction bomb to take everybody’s attention off the mistakes of the government and place blame on the Mayor. It’s never going to happen. |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Oct 21, 2020 6:02:09 GMT
If this "big bombshell" prediction is correct then surely that's a good thing? Yes more traffic congestion but more kids going to and from school in the safety of their parents car because yes....... the safety of children is paramount. And how has it "been been proven that buses do have the capacity available to help transport children to and from school during the busiest times?" Reality is packed buses and people left behind including children. If this is the best Travelwatch can come up with......... My daughter who has just started Year 7 complains about packed W3 buses in Wood Green that just drive past, so a lot of times she walks home from school, which is not great as the nights draw in... There may not be much Travel to Watch if TfL goes under Yes my kids have had the same........ free bus travel isn't much good if you can't get on a bus. |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Oct 21, 2020 6:04:48 GMT
If this "big bombshell" prediction is correct then surely that's a good thing? Yes more traffic congestion but more kids going to and from school in the safety of their parents car because yes....... the safety of children is paramount. And how has it "been been proven that buses do have the capacity available to help transport children to and from school during the busiest times?" Reality is packed buses and people left behind including children. If this is the best Travelwatch can come up with......... A 33% increase in traffic is a good thing? I'm a car driver myself but I don't think we should be advocating mass car travel just because it means kids have to pay for buses. What do you mean this is the best Travelwatch can come up with? Isn't safety, statistic and car led recoveries all decent points? What more do you want? Seriously I doubt if there will be any significant increase in traffic and goodness only knows where the 33% figure comes from. |
|
|
|
Post by mondraker275 on Oct 21, 2020 8:49:53 GMT
A 33% increase in traffic is a good thing? I'm a car driver myself but I don't think we should be advocating mass car travel just because it means kids have to pay for buses. What do you mean this is the best Travelwatch can come up with? Isn't safety, statistic and car led recoveries all decent points? What more do you want? Seriously I doubt if there will be any significant increase in traffic and goodness only knows where the 33% figure comes from. I suspect it came from some really basic maths after a very quick team meeting: Boss: Hey all, what do we think will happen if they stop free travel for kids? Peter: I don't have any kids, I dont care. Steve: Well, some will pay. I guess. John: Some will probably actively travel. Like cycle and walk. Peter: Lazy------. Steve: Some will probably take car. Boss: Three outcomes then. Cars are bad. What percentage would take cars then? Steve: My calculator says 33.3333333, so I think it is broken. Let's just say 33? Boss: Will get the intern to write a report on it. Shall we grab some drinks? Steve: My calculator says 100%. It is not broken. |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Oct 21, 2020 9:03:01 GMT
A 33% increase in traffic is a good thing? I'm a car driver myself but I don't think we should be advocating mass car travel just because it means kids have to pay for buses. What do you mean this is the best Travelwatch can come up with? Isn't safety, statistic and car led recoveries all decent points? What more do you want? Seriously I doubt if there will be any significant increase in traffic and goodness only knows where the 33% figure comes from. If you actually read what I linked in my original post you'd see where the figure comes from. I think it's far more believable to believe proper investigations that have been carried out as opposed to your opinion that doesn't seem to have any backing at all. |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Oct 21, 2020 9:29:26 GMT
Seriously I doubt if there will be any significant increase in traffic and goodness only knows where the 33% figure comes from. If you actually read what I linked in my original post you'd see where the figure comes from. I think it's far more believable to believe proper investigations that have been carried out as opposed to your opinion that doesn't seem to have any backing at all. None of this has any backing at all. |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Oct 21, 2020 9:45:29 GMT
If you actually read what I linked in my original post you'd see where the figure comes from. I think it's far more believable to believe proper investigations that have been carried out as opposed to your opinion that doesn't seem to have any backing at all. None of this has any backing at all. Can you actually read the data rather than being unable to open it because it doesn't agree with your opinion? The survey carried out shows the extreme likelihood of a 33% increase in traffic. Why are you trying to argue with collected data unless you have data yourself that says otherwise? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2020 9:47:07 GMT
Seriously I doubt if there will be any significant increase in traffic and goodness only knows where the 33% figure comes from. If you actually read what I linked in my original post you'd see where the figure comes from. I think it's far more believable to believe proper investigations that have been carried out as opposed to your opinion that doesn't seem to have any backing at all. I’m always distrustful of percentage figure increases. I’d prefer it for clarity if they said we expect an approximate extra xxxxx number compared to the current average xxxxx number. Saying percentages sounds way worse unless figures are quantified. Classic media style fear technique. That isn’t to say that any data collected in wrong, it would be fairly obvious to anyone that there would be traffic increases. |
|
