Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 26, 2020 14:04:57 GMT
You do realise that not having staff at stations means the gates need to be left open, meaning that people are much less likely to pay for their journey, meaning that LU/TfL will lose out on revenue which undermines the whole purpose of your suggestion. Also, most of our stations have 'minimum numbers' which is the minimum number of staff needed to operate a station and deal with an emergency evacuation etc. If we go below minimum numbers we have to close the station for safety reasons. Out of interest - who would LO be sold to and why would this help the financial situation? What about cut down the amount of staff instead of getting rid of the staff well at the small stations? The amount is set by the London Fire Brigade as an absolute minimum requirement, and I doubt they would want to reduce numbers even further as in an emergency every member of staff is needed to safely evacuate the station. Through the first lockdown we were running on Sunday minimums meaning that there were already less staff than normal, but I doubt this is sustainable in the long term and the unions would certainly have a problem with it.
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Dec 26, 2020 18:41:08 GMT
TfL sells of London Overground and make all London Underground station staff less. If it ever got to that Sadiq would be done for.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Dec 27, 2020 9:13:33 GMT
Frankly I'd rather have a safe station anydayover a completely standardised bus network. Withdraw some evening services after 8pm like the 349, 414 and even some sections after 8pm (151 between Sutton and WP) as I doubt very much capacity would be an issue without these at those times.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Dec 27, 2020 11:36:03 GMT
Frankly I'd rather have a safe station anydayover a completely standardised bus network. Withdraw some evening services after 8pm like the 349, 414 and even some sections after 8pm (151 between Sutton and WP) as I doubt very much capacity would be an issue without these at those times. It’s not about capacity - withdrawing evening services without reviewing them properly will affect key workers in getting to work. It must be done on a case by case basis. Withdrawing evening services will not increase patronage either
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Dec 27, 2020 13:24:40 GMT
Frankly I'd rather have a safe station anydayover a completely standardised bus network. Withdraw some evening services after 8pm like the 349, 414 and even some sections after 8pm (151 between Sutton and WP) as I doubt very much capacity would be an issue without these at those times. So would I, there are numerous routes and sections of route that aren't really needed in the evening. Some night route arrangements could be brought forward to about 20.00, 16 extended to Edgware replacing the 32, 137 extended to Crystal Palace replacing the 417 etc.
|
|
|
Post by galwhv69 on Mar 16, 2021 20:14:50 GMT
Unfortunately, seems that TfL are requiring another bailout by the 31st March
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Mar 16, 2021 20:21:17 GMT
Unfortunately, seems that TfL are requiring another bailout by the 31st March This was always gonna be the case as the last agreement only lasted 6 months
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Mar 16, 2021 21:05:35 GMT
Unfortunately, seems that TfL are requiring another bailout by the 31st March This was always gonna be the case as the last agreement only lasted 6 months It's mad to think it's already been 6 months since the last one. I wonder what conditions will be attached this time, it's very perfectly timed to fall in the Mayoral election period.
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Mar 16, 2021 21:11:14 GMT
This was always gonna be the case as the last agreement only lasted 6 months It's mad to think it's already been 6 months since the last one. I wonder what conditions will be attached this time, it's very perfectly timed to fall in the Mayoral election period. I know of one bus-related condition I'm told may be attached, but that is a *maybe* - it is listed as a scenario in TfL's financial recovery plan. They really do need to get past these absurd 6 month agreements - Andy Byford is right to call for a 10/20 year settlement, that would do wonders for London.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Mar 16, 2021 21:50:02 GMT
I think thou with social distancing potentially coming to an end with the high numbers being vaccinated each day now that it will be harder for TFL to justify running pretty much the full service with the help of government money. Rather then 35 on a DD we may be back to 90 passengers by summer in which case if loadings are still lower then before March/April last year then lowers freqs may be on the cards.
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Mar 16, 2021 23:30:06 GMT
Unfortunately, seems that TfL are requiring another bailout by the 31st March Seem ridiculous imo and starting to make them look a laughing stock, surely after the second time you would have got your figures right.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Mar 17, 2021 0:07:18 GMT
I think thou with social distancing potentially coming to an end with the high numbers being vaccinated each day now that it will be harder for TFL to justify running pretty much the full service with the help of government money. Rather then 35 on a DD we may be back to 90 passengers by summer in which case if loadings are still lower then before March/April last year then lowers freqs may be on the cards. I can't see social distancing or full capacity buses coming back anytime soon, I think this is more hope rather than actual expectation.
|
|
|
Post by thelondonthing on Mar 17, 2021 0:41:38 GMT
Unfortunately, seems that TfL are requiring another bailout by the 31st March Seem ridiculous imo and starting to make them look a laughing stock, surely after the second time you would have got your figures right. It's got nothing to do with TfL 'getting its figures right'. It's down to the collapse in TfL's revenues throughout the coronavirus crisis - and even more so during lockdown periods - and the government's refusal to provide more than six months' worth of funding at a time. TfL could gets its figures right to the exact penny and it still wouldn't change the fact that they simply don't have the income needed to operate for more than six months. Andy Byford already made it clear in October that this is a terrible and impractical way of funding TfL, as it entirely undermines the way that the organisation, by necessity, manages its assets, operations and projects over the medium to long term. The government ignored his assertions that a longer-term funding arrangement was essential for TfL's stability, which is hardly surprising. With the Mayoral election fast approaching, it's in the Conservative Party's interests to force TfL to keep coming back to the table, as it allows the general public to make the flawed assumption that the blame must lie entirely with TfL and the current Mayor for failing to 'get their figures right', and that this must be the reason for TfL returning once again to ask for more money. We've already seen how the Tories were previously caught trying to fuel those perceptions with a shady 'fact-checking' website after the last bailout. No doubt we'll hear Shaun Bailey making that same claim in the coming weeks, in between insisting that it's Sadiq Khan's fault that London football stadiums are closed, that the government has committed to fund Hammersmith Bridge in its entirety, that homeless people can save £5,000 as a deposit to buy a house, and that poor people would use extra financial support to buy drugs.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Mar 17, 2021 3:19:16 GMT
Seem ridiculous imo and starting to make them look a laughing stock, surely after the second time you would have got your figures right. It's got nothing to do with TfL 'getting its figures right'. It's down to the collapse in TfL's revenues throughout the coronavirus crisis - and even more so during lockdown periods - and the government's refusal to provide more than six months' worth of funding at a time. TfL could gets its figures right to the exact penny and it still wouldn't change the fact that they simply don't have the income needed to operate for more than six months. Andy Byford already made it clear in October that this is a terrible and impractical way of funding TfL, as it entirely undermines the way that the organisation, by necessity, manages its assets, operations and projects over the medium to long term. The government ignored his assertions that a longer-term funding arrangement was essential for TfL's stability, which is hardly surprising. With the Mayoral election fast approaching, it's in the Conservative Party's interests to force TfL to keep coming back to the table, as it allows the general public to make the flawed assumption that the blame must lie entirely with TfL and the current Mayor for failing to 'get their figures right', and that this must be the reason for TfL returning once again to ask for more money. We've already seen how the Tories were previously caught trying to fuel those perceptions with a shady 'fact-checking' website after the last bailout. No doubt we'll hear Shaun Bailey making that same claim in the coming weeks, in between insisting that it's Sadiq Khan's fault that London football stadiums are closed, that the government has committed to fund Hammersmith Bridge in its entirety, that homeless people can save £5,000 as a deposit to buy a house, and that poor people would use extra financial support to buy drugs. Whilst the first three links absolutely made me laugh at how stupid he is (the football stadium article with included tweets is comedy gold), the last article has some truth in it where he says some people would use the money to buy drugs as and the only reason I say this is I know of people who have done that with other things like benefits but I'm unsure how big or small this group is and I suspect it's small TBH. Where I differ from him is I don't think it's necessarily a bad idea if you iron out any kinks and I don't trust him one bit to come up with an alternative.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Mar 17, 2021 6:24:17 GMT
I think I would struggle to save £5000 even with a job and home to live in let alone someone homeless. Its such a disappointment that the Conservatives couldn't find a better candidate so that London would have a better link better itself and central Government.
|
|