|
|
Post by WH241 on Oct 21, 2024 14:43:42 GMT
Think that is an over simplistic view. If the costs saved exceeds the drop in revenue, that is a good cut financially. If the drop in revenue exceeds the costs saved, then that is a bad cut. If you cut any service regardless if it's a loss or good financially, your still going to end up the case of deterring people away from services as we know it. A Londoner can easily notice longer gaps in services and most of the time doesn't have the patience for such. The cuts made to Central and Inner London's enough to say for itself and yet the TfL planners continue to stick their heads in the pit rather actively looking for strategies to improve the network overall. I personally don’t know why people here seem to get so worked up about slight frequency cuts to buses. Even with worse case scenario 12 to 15 minutes is pretty decent. Most routes are around every 10 mins again this is good compared to other places. I know this is a bus forum so will be biased but it’s in TfL interest to push passengers towards the Underground, DLR, Elizabeth Line and Overground where they get more revenue. The biggest threat to buses is Uber and it’s a shame they were allowed to grow at the rate they have. I am not fan of them but they seem to be seen as an alternative to buses to many Londoners! I can’t see why as they are more expensive unless splitting the cost with other passengers. It’s a shame people have lost the ability to foward plan and allow time for journeys instead would rather book cabs everywhere. |
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Oct 21, 2024 14:46:25 GMT
Think that is an over simplistic view. If the costs saved exceeds the drop in revenue, that is a good cut financially. If the drop in revenue exceeds the costs saved, then that is a bad cut. If you cut any service regardless if it's a loss or good financially, your still going to end up the case of deterring people away from services as we know it. A Londoner can easily notice longer gaps in services and most of the time doesn't have the patience for such. The cuts made to Central and Inner London's enough to say for itself and yet the TfL planners continue to stick their heads in the pit rather actively looking for strategies to improve the network overall. If your deterrence results in a loss of say £50k in revenue, but costs are reduced by £100k, that is in effect £50k saved. That £50k can then potentially be reinvested elsewhere. Unfortunately not as some may wish, public expenditure can not go left unchecked. Those in power may choose to take away winter fuel allowance to give train drivers an inflation busting pay rise. You might not agree with how all public money is spent, but savings have to be made in certain areas to pay for others. |
|
|
|
Post by BL15HCD on Oct 21, 2024 14:50:45 GMT
If you cut any service regardless if it's a loss or good financially, your still going to end up the case of deterring people away from services as we know it. A Londoner can easily notice longer gaps in services and most of the time doesn't have the patience for such. The cuts made to Central and Inner London's enough to say for itself and yet the TfL planners continue to stick their heads in the pit rather actively looking for strategies to improve the network overall. I personally don’t know why people here seem to get so worked up about slight frequency cuts to buses. Even with worse case scenario 12 to 15 minutes is pretty decent. Most routes are around every 10 mins again this is good compared to other places. The biggest threat to buses is Uber and it’s a shame they were allowed to grow at the rate they have. I am not fan of them but they seem to be seen as an alternative to buses to many Londoners! I can’t see why as they are more expensive unless splitting the cost with other passengers. It’s a shame people have lost the ability to foward plan and allow time for journeys instead would rather book cabs everywhere. I personally think the main reason people find uber preferable to public transport is convenience, it gets u directly from A to B, don't need to worry about the bus being on time or going on diversion, lots of space etc. If they're willing to pay the extra cost for it, there's not much tfl can do about that. I get what you're saying about the rapid invasive growth, but it's more so an alternative to the black cabs as it's an on demand service which have caused black cabs to try and catch up by joining platforms such as FreeNow or Gett. I'm just glad they haven't allowed them to use bus lanes unlike Bristol which do allow them to and it gets quite interesting at times |
|
|
|
Post by BL15HCD on Oct 21, 2024 14:55:07 GMT
If you cut any service regardless if it's a loss or good financially, your still going to end up the case of deterring people away from services as we know it. A Londoner can easily notice longer gaps in services and most of the time doesn't have the patience for such. The cuts made to Central and Inner London's enough to say for itself and yet the TfL planners continue to stick their heads in the pit rather actively looking for strategies to improve the network overall. If your deterrence results in a loss of say £50k in revenue, but costs are reduced by £100k, that is in effect £50k saved. That £50k can then potentially be reinvested elsewhere. Unfortunately not as some may wish, public expenditure can not go left unchecked. Those in power may choose to take away winter fuel allowance to give train drivers an inflation busting pay rise. You might not agree with how all public money is spent, but savings have to be made in certain areas to pay for others. There is no right or wrong view in this case, if the demand is detrimentally lower than the supply then of course a frequency cut is calling however at the same time there has to be some sort of a decent supply to attract people onto the service. But we can't be using revenue as the forefront reason to cutting services especially in a city such as London. The public infrastructure is the backbone to the majority of the city's commute to work and indirectly helps growth of the economy in many ways. |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Oct 21, 2024 14:58:22 GMT
If you cut any service regardless if it's a loss or good financially, your still going to end up the case of deterring people away from services as we know it. A Londoner can easily notice longer gaps in services and most of the time doesn't have the patience for such. The cuts made to Central and Inner London's enough to say for itself and yet the TfL planners continue to stick their heads in the pit rather actively looking for strategies to improve the network overall. I personally don’t know why people here seem to get so worked up about slight frequency cuts to buses. Even with worse case scenario 12 to 15 minutes is pretty decent. Most routes are around every 10 mins again this is good compared to other places. I know this is a bus forum so will be biased but it’s in TfL interest to push passengers towards the Underground, DLR, Elizabeth Line and Overground where they get more revenue. The biggest threat to buses is Uber and it’s a shame they were allowed to grow at the rate they have. I am not fan of them but they seem to be seen as an alternative to buses to many Londoners! I can’t see why as they are more expensive unless splitting the cost with other passengers. It’s a shame people have lost the ability to foward plan and allow time for journeys instead would rather book cabs everywhere. Why would you allow time for a journey if you have the option not to? Time is money to most people. Why would you wake up at 7 for a bus including a wait in the cold when you can wake up at 7:30 for a faster journey and a wait in your house? |
|
|
|
Post by joefrombow on Oct 21, 2024 15:16:48 GMT
If you cut any service regardless if it's a loss or good financially, your still going to end up the case of deterring people away from services as we know it. A Londoner can easily notice longer gaps in services and most of the time doesn't have the patience for such. The cuts made to Central and Inner London's enough to say for itself and yet the TfL planners continue to stick their heads in the pit rather actively looking for strategies to improve the network overall. I personally don’t know why people here seem to get so worked up about slight frequency cuts to buses. Even with worse case scenario 12 to 15 minutes is pretty decent. Most routes are around every 10 mins again this is good compared to other places. I know this is a bus forum so will be biased but it’s in TfL interest to push passengers towards the Underground, DLR, Elizabeth Line and Overground where they get more revenue. The biggest threat to buses is Uber and it’s a shame they were allowed to grow at the rate they have. I am not fan of them but they seem to be seen as an alternative to buses to many Londoners! I can’t see why as they are more expensive unless splitting the cost with other passengers. It’s a shame people have lost the ability to foward plan and allow time for journeys instead would rather book cabs everywhere. The way tfl operate currently though is as if Buses are a hindrance , back in the late 90s and 00s , Buses were being promoted I remember the ads in the early 00s everywhere , a lot of cross border non tfl routes became tfl routes , Some Buses were very frequent , a bit too frequent in some cases (38 post bendy withdrawal was every minute at one point ) a lot of routes had frequency increases it was a good time , Now they literally make routes inconvenient to make it easier to operate not thinking of the whole reason the route operates to serve the public plus regulating every few minutes and if you read the press or social media you would think Buses have just become lawless aswell in a lot of cases , for a extra couple of quid if there are a few of you a Uber is probably more an attractive option , I believe Uber stopped UberPool when COVID started but even then that worked out cheaper in a lot of cases and worked the same in effect as a Bus , I think ViaVan gave up as it wasn't picking up aswell as UberPool did down to the branding probably I think some cuts are completely justified where there is a lot of excess 14/414 for example but then there are so many places they could be at least trying to get some additional revenue new routes or improving routes , I think they need local planners and management on a borough level or failing that a East , North , South , West , Central level like First group for example would have at each division not someone in a office in Aberdeen planning a route in Basildon , people who actually know the routes and areas and actually listening to consultations etc not just we know best like it or lump it . |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Oct 21, 2024 16:03:20 GMT
Time for TfL to start looking at ways to actively grow or protect revenue rather than waiting for people to return to the office. There are lots of things that could be done over a range of timescales: - too many tube ticket gates left open, apparently due to shortage of station staff - too many adult passengers boarding buses, refusing to pay and facing no sanction and getting a free ride - take over operation of some of the overland train services and drive passenger revenues through TfL branding, frequency improvements, 24/7 staffing with ticket gates in operation - reintroduce the free London wide bus map to promote the network - fit devices to all buses to provide electronic passenger loading data to efficiently manage demand and supply on individual routes Are these ticket gates left open because of a shortage of staff or is it more of a can't be bothered attitude from staff? There certainly are too many people boarding buses without paying but what can be done to stop it? What revenue staff there are only have limited powers and it seems that the police aren't willing to get involved anymore. I'd love bus maps return but I don't think many people would be interested in them outside of the enthusiast community. But certainly bus maps could be provided online along with other relevant information for people unfamiliar with the bus network. Bus presentation needs to improve and surely all buses should have route number and destination clearly displayed as a bare minimum, it's ridiculous brand new state of the art buses with bits of paper stuck in the windscreen. |
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Oct 21, 2024 16:06:37 GMT
Time for TfL to start looking at ways to actively grow or protect revenue rather than waiting for people to return to the office. There are lots of things that could be done over a range of timescales: - too many tube ticket gates left open, apparently due to shortage of station staff - too many adult passengers boarding buses, refusing to pay and facing no sanction and getting a free ride - take over operation of some of the overland train services and drive passenger revenues through TfL branding, frequency improvements, 24/7 staffing with ticket gates in operation - reintroduce the free London wide bus map to promote the network - fit devices to all buses to provide electronic passenger loading data to efficiently manage demand and supply on individual routes Are these ticket gates left open because of a shortage of staff or is it more of a can't be bothered attitude from staff? There certainly are too many people boarding buses without paying but what can be done to stop it? What revenue staff there are only have limited powers and it seems that the police aren't willing to get involved anymore. I'd love bus maps return but I don't think many people would be interested in them outside of the enthusiast community. But certainly bus maps could be provided online along with other relevant information for people unfamiliar with the bus network. Bus presentation needs to improve and surely all buses should have route number and destination clearly displayed as a bare minimum, it's ridiculous brand new state of the art buses with bits of paper stuck in the windscreen. How come train revenue staff seem to penalty fare and prosecute a fair number and is beyond TfL? |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Oct 21, 2024 16:10:12 GMT
Stop cutting frequencies and routes would also help - if you make cuts, don't expect growth of any kind to happen. Think that is an over simplistic view. If the costs saved exceeds the drop in revenue, that is a good cut financially. If the drop in revenue exceeds the costs saved, then that is a bad cut. In all fairness, suggesting such thing as a good cut financially is also an over simplistic view. Short term, you might get a small boost but long term, your degrading missed opportunities for increased revenue. Austerity has been proven time and again to be nothing more than a gimmick that does more harm than good. |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Oct 21, 2024 16:10:18 GMT
Time for TfL to start looking at ways to actively grow or protect revenue rather than waiting for people to return to the office. There are lots of things that could be done over a range of timescales: - too many tube ticket gates left open, apparently due to shortage of station staff - too many adult passengers boarding buses, refusing to pay and facing no sanction and getting a free ride - take over operation of some of the overland train services and drive passenger revenues through TfL branding, frequency improvements, 24/7 staffing with ticket gates in operation - reintroduce the free London wide bus map to promote the network - fit devices to all buses to provide electronic passenger loading data to efficiently manage demand and supply on individual routes It seems to be the peak traffic that is causing the loss of revenue, as off-peak loadings seem to have recovered to pre-pandemic levels. However it is unrealistic to expect people to give up some level of working-from-home, which they clearly prefer, just for the sake of TfL's coffers! As the biggest shortfalls appear to be Mondays and Fridays, this could even benefit TfL and allow some savings to be made. A slightly reduced level of service during Monday and Friday peaks on busier rail services would hardly be noticed by travellers - however it would free up a modicum of resources which would allow more flexibility with maintenance, servicing and examinations. I think working from home is here to stay now indeed many former offices have been sold for redevelopment and I think sooner or later TfL will have to start making reductions during Monday and Friday peak hours where current levels of service are no longer justified. |
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Oct 21, 2024 16:46:28 GMT
Think that is an over simplistic view. If the costs saved exceeds the drop in revenue, that is a good cut financially. If the drop in revenue exceeds the costs saved, then that is a bad cut. In all fairness, suggesting such thing as a good cut financially is also an over simplistic view. Short term, you might get a small boost but long term, your degrading missed opportunities for increased revenue. Austerity has been proven time and again to be nothing more than a gimmick that does more harm than good. OK say you persist with it for a while and things don't improve ... at what point do you say things can't carry on as they are ... When do you stop throwing good money after bad? If it is costing £50k a month and you keep it going for a year, that is £600k of savings needed to be made, 2 years £1.2m. That is £1.2m that could be put to better uses. |
|
|
|
Post by VWH1419 on Oct 21, 2024 17:02:52 GMT
It seems to be the peak traffic that is causing the loss of revenue, as off-peak loadings seem to have recovered to pre-pandemic levels. However it is unrealistic to expect people to give up some level of working-from-home, which they clearly prefer, just for the sake of TfL's coffers! As the biggest shortfalls appear to be Mondays and Fridays, this could even benefit TfL and allow some savings to be made. A slightly reduced level of service during Monday and Friday peaks on busier rail services would hardly be noticed by travellers - however it would free up a modicum of resources which would allow more flexibility with maintenance, servicing and examinations. I think working from home is here to stay now indeed many former offices have been sold for redevelopment and I think sooner or later TfL will have to start making reductions during Monday and Friday peak hours where current levels of service are no longer justified. As someone who works from home largely hybrid since pandemic, the company I work for will not be enacting an full return to the office anytime next year or two due to the department I am in. Not only due to office space as you say, but there are also project management tools and communication software in place that helps manage (in an non-toxic way) my job and work. Plus an risk of losing employees, more so those in suburban London or in commuter belts.
Think TfL may have to adapt to peak time reviews without savage cuts that have taken place already. Living in times where employment styles have changed and probably would have gradually happened if not more sudden due to pandemic. Similar to other dying trends sadly pubs for instance due to changing lifestyles.
|
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Oct 21, 2024 18:04:24 GMT
I think working from home is here to stay now indeed many former offices have been sold for redevelopment and I think sooner or later TfL will have to start making reductions during Monday and Friday peak hours where current levels of service are no longer justified. As someone who works from home largely hybrid since pandemic, the company I work for will not be enacting an full return to the office anytime next year or two due to the department I am in. Not only due to office space as you say, but there are also project management tools and communication software in place that helps manage (in an non-toxic way) my job and work. Plus an risk of losing employees, more so those in suburban London or in commuter belts.
Think TfL may have to adapt to peak time reviews without savage cuts that have taken place already. Living in times where employment styles have changed and probably would have gradually happened if not more sudden due to pandemic. Similar to other dying trends sadly pubs for instance due to changing lifestyles.
Whilst it might have plateaued for TfL, seems like main line rail commuting has been growing strongly. From what I hear professional firms are generally expecting staff in minimum of 3 or 4 days. The reason appears to be training, mentoring, and thought interaction (the discussing of cases over water cooler or coffee machine where one person remembers similar and thus assists colleagues). Basically as people were retiring or promoted big gaps in knowledge were happening during WFH, people don't learn from colleagues if not in same room. Lack of knowledge transfer is not sustainable over longer period. The other big problem for TfL is over last 5 years many professional firms have opened and moving to (and lots more huge offices are under construction) huge new regional offices replacing London. Places like Leeds, Bristol and Birmingham are booming for commuting (and there is serious strain on rail and bus capacity now in these cities). Jobs and population have relocated and TfL will have to live with it, especially if the investment for expansion now has to go to other cities. |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Oct 21, 2024 18:09:15 GMT
As someone who works from home largely hybrid since pandemic, the company I work for will not be enacting an full return to the office anytime next year or two due to the department I am in. Not only due to office space as you say, but there are also project management tools and communication software in place that helps manage (in an non-toxic way) my job and work. Plus an risk of losing employees, more so those in suburban London or in commuter belts.
Think TfL may have to adapt to peak time reviews without savage cuts that have taken place already. Living in times where employment styles have changed and probably would have gradually happened if not more sudden due to pandemic. Similar to other dying trends sadly pubs for instance due to changing lifestyles.
Whilst it might have plateaued for TfL, seems like main line rail commuting has been growing strongly. From what I hear professional firms are generally expecting staff in minimum of 3 or 4 days. The reason appears to be training, mentoring, and thought interaction (the discussing of cases over water cooler or coffee machine where one person remembers similar and thus assists colleagues). Basically as people were retiring or promoted big gaps in knowledge were happening during WFH, people don't learn from colleagues if not in same room. Lack of knowledge transfer is not sustainable over longer period. The other big problem for TfL is over last 5 years many professional firms have opened and moving to (and lots more huge offices are under construction) huge new regional offices replacing London. Places like Leeds, Bristol and Birmingham are booming for commuting (and there is serious strain on rail and bus capacity now in these cities). Jobs and population have relocated and TfL will have to live with it, especially if the investment for expansion now has to go to other cities. But it's the rail boom more down to people using it for leisure travel instead? I'm doubtful somewhere like Bristol will entice major companies away from London when they can just get people to work from home instead. A lot of companies are also facing resistance to having people back in the office for anymore than 3 days a week. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Oct 21, 2024 18:37:31 GMT
Sometimes a permanent change just has to be accepted and adapted to.
More people work from home, more people do jobs without a 9 to 5 parameter and therefore can be heading to work at 10am and traveling home at 7pm etc (therefore out of the traditional peak hour rush), less people shop physically, Friday night down the pub is less popular, take aways are delivered to the door and a McDonalds can be.
The first thing BT did in 1981 when it became independent of the Post office was to scrap the telegram. In their words the 2.8m telegrams the previous year had cost £50m. Things change and adaption is needed.
|
|
