|
Post by wirewiper on Mar 11, 2021 10:54:40 GMT
I know it's already been said but people in the outer zones have to pay more to TfL generally and equally on the GLA tax, yet you seem want them to have a worse service to neighbouring places they need to get to. How is that fair? TfL should definitely not see the Greater London boundary as a barrier but rather seek to be providing a service up to the next town beyond. But the reality is they have scaled back their own services to the border since thhe beginning of the century, and got rid of local service agreements/made them too unattractive. So you now have entirely unbalanced situations like five separate TfL routes between Barnet and Whetstone vs none between Barnet and Potters Bar. Plus the situation of places within London not being served by a London bus (eg Hadley Green), so people travelling to their local tube station can't use capping or season tickets. While cutting them isn't ideal, they all run out of TfL territory into other counties of which these people do not pay anything towards the GLA. Why exactly should these people then as a result get to use services funded by it? Why exactly should a route like the 262 gets cut within the London boundary due to financial issues when someone out in Hertfordshire gets a bus route that runs at a loss and is funded by GLA taxes. I think routes should be carefully picked here, routes that have more benefit to Londoners should remain and routes that don't should be cut. Really don't see the need for the 292 and 107 to both go to Borehamwood when only one will probably suffice, while obviously the 96, 492, 428, 370 and 372 all run out to huge out of town shopping centres which are extremely useful to Londoners. Honestly don't see why people outside the London boundary should be benefiting from our GLA tax money when they don't pay towards anything and the services within the London boundary are suffering issues in themselves. You can't even get from St Paul's to Oxford Circus in a bus at the moment so why exactly services to Dorking and Borehamwood are being looked after I do not know. Surrey residents still contribute towards TfL services. The County Council considers that supporting TfL services represents "good value". The 96 and 428 are no longer supported by Kent County Council but are of significant benefit to London residents. Dartford is effectively a continuation of the London built-up area and I am surprised it wasn't included in Greater London when the County was created in 1965. I could see the 492 cut back to Crayford though with Arriva providing a replacement service between Crayford (or possibly Bexleyheath) and Bluewater charging commercial fares.
|
|
|
Post by Dillon95 on Mar 11, 2021 11:04:34 GMT
So people living in TfL territory do not use buses for work and leisure activities outside the London boundary? That’s just daft. In my neck of the woods we have people using buses to get to work, shops, schools, medical appointments, places of worship, friends and family outside the London boundary. Why should we be penalised? We pay GLA tax too, so why should we subsidise those living in zones 1-3 whilst we suck up the cuts? Before TfL make any further cuts to cross boundary services, they should look at making it easier and more attractive for private operators in neighbouring authorities to run such services. Their are many that work outside the London boundary who do not get travel provided for by TfL. Why should just a selected few benefit. Is their elitism in certain parts and not others? Because they are a sensible distance outside of the Greater London border for TFL buses to leave Bexley Borough to serve Dartford/Darent Valley Hospital/Bluewater for example. They are neighbouring towns or facilities to Greater London towns. Many people in Gravesend, Medway, Maidstone, Tonbridge etc may work in Greater London, but they are further away..
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Mar 11, 2021 11:07:01 GMT
Their are many that work outside the London boundary who do not get travel provided for by TfL. Why should just a selected few benefit. Is their elitism in certain parts and not others? Because they are a sensible distance outside of the Greater London border for TFL buses to leave Bexley Borough to serve Dartford/Darent Valley Hospital/Bluewater for example. They are neighbouring towns or facilities to Greater London towns. Many people in Gravesend, Medway, Maidstone, Tonbridge etc may work in Greater London, but they are further away.. OK so why should someone working in Redhill benefit from a TfL service when those working in Reigate or Godstone don't. There is no justification. Then there is Dorking!
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Mar 11, 2021 11:11:26 GMT
While cutting them isn't ideal, they all run out of TfL territory into other counties of which these people do not pay anything towards the GLA. Why exactly should these people then as a result get to use services funded by it? Why exactly should a route like the 262 gets cut within the London boundary due to financial issues when someone out in Hertfordshire gets a bus route that runs at a loss and is funded by GLA taxes. I think routes should be carefully picked here, routes that have more benefit to Londoners should remain and routes that don't should be cut. Really don't see the need for the 292 and 107 to both go to Borehamwood when only one will probably suffice, while obviously the 96, 492, 428, 370 and 372 all run out to huge out of town shopping centres which are extremely useful to Londoners. Honestly don't see why people outside the London boundary should be benefiting from our GLA tax money when they don't pay towards anything and the services within the London boundary are suffering issues in themselves. You can't even get from St Paul's to Oxford Circus in a bus at the moment so why exactly services to Dorking and Borehamwood are being looked after I do not know. So people living in TfL territory do not use buses for work and leisure activities outside the London boundary? That’s just daft. In my neck of the woods we have people using buses to get to work, shops, schools, medical appointments, places of worship, friends and family outside the London boundary. Why should we be penalised? We pay GLA tax too, so why should we subsidise those living in zones 1-3 whilst we suck up the cuts? Before TfL make any further cuts to cross boundary services, they should look at making it easier and more attractive for private operators in neighbouring authorities to run such services. But why exactly should London taxpayers pay for a route like the 465 or the 406 when the money to keep the 148 running, or the 25 running to Oxford Circus, or to increase the frequency on the 18 can't be found? I really doubt that the 465 and 406 are of more importance than the 25 and 18. Anything funded for by the relevant council should remain, that's fine. They fund it so they can have it, but anything not funded really should be removed or reduced until TfL can sort out the area they actually should be serving before trying to branch out to areas elsewhere. There are probably some exceptions such as the 96, 428, 492, 370, 372, 142 and 258 which are probably good enough to keep due to their benefits to Londoners. Something that should probably be explored is a lot more 96 style arrangements, where the route effectively runs express as soon as it leaves the London boundary, serving areas important to Londoners and leaving people in the provinces to use their local routes. The 96 for example serves Dartford Station and Daren't Valley Hospital where Londoners are likely to want to travel, but doesn't serve all the stops in-between.
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Mar 11, 2021 11:17:21 GMT
Because they are a sensible distance outside of the Greater London border for TFL buses to leave Bexley Borough to serve Dartford/Darent Valley Hospital/Bluewater for example. They are neighbouring towns or facilities to Greater London towns. Many people in Gravesend, Medway, Maidstone, Tonbridge etc may work in Greater London, but they are further away.. OK so why should someone working in Redhill benefit from a TfL service when those working in Reigate or Godstone don't. There is no justification. There is. TfL has a remit to provide a service as far as the Greater London boundary, and there is a strong commercial case to continue that route to Redhill which is a sizeable traffic objective. There is not a similar commercial case to run a route to Reigate or Godstone.
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Mar 11, 2021 11:19:38 GMT
Because they are a sensible distance outside of the Greater London border for TFL buses to leave Bexley Borough to serve Dartford/Darent Valley Hospital/Bluewater for example. They are neighbouring towns or facilities to Greater London towns. Many people in Gravesend, Medway, Maidstone, Tonbridge etc may work in Greater London, but they are further away.. OK so why should someone working in Redhill benefit from a TfL service when those working in Reigate or Godstone don't. There is no justification. If I am correct there are a number of routes that have come under TFL operation that were previously commercial routes and some routes are partly funded by other boroughs. The 405 is one of them much easier said than done to make a comment like that. Having routes like 96 246 370 372 405 428 492 and many others connects London Buses with other bus networks too...
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Mar 11, 2021 11:25:08 GMT
OK so why should someone working in Redhill benefit from a TfL service when those working in Reigate or Godstone don't. There is no justification. There is. TfL has a remit to provide a service as far as the Greater London boundary, and there is a strong commercial case to continue that route to Redhill which is a sizeable traffic objective. There is not a similar commercial case to run a route to Reigate or Godstone. Exactly this
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Mar 11, 2021 11:36:04 GMT
So people living in TfL territory do not use buses for work and leisure activities outside the London boundary? That’s just daft. In my neck of the woods we have people using buses to get to work, shops, schools, medical appointments, places of worship, friends and family outside the London boundary. Why should we be penalised? We pay GLA tax too, so why should we subsidise those living in zones 1-3 whilst we suck up the cuts? Before TfL make any further cuts to cross boundary services, they should look at making it easier and more attractive for private operators in neighbouring authorities to run such services. But why exactly should London taxpayers pay for a route like the 465 or the 406 when the money to keep the 148 running, or the 25 running to Oxford Circus, or to increase the frequency on the 18 can't be found? I really doubt that the 465 and 406 are of more importance than the 25 and 18. Anything funded for by the relevant council should remain, that's fine. They fund it so they can have it, but anything not funded really should be removed or reduced until TfL can sort out the area they actually should be serving before trying to branch out to areas elsewhere. There are probably some exceptions such as the 96, 428, 492, 370, 372, 142 and 258 which are probably good enough to keep due to their benefits to Londoners. Something that should probably be explored is a lot more 96 style arrangements, where the route effectively runs express as soon as it leaves the London boundary, serving areas important to Londoners and leaving people in the provinces to use their local routes. The 96 for example serves Dartford Station and Daren't Valley Hospital where Londoners are likely to want to travel, but doesn't serve all the stops in-between.The 25 is a route that should have never been removed from Oxford Circus. That is easier said than done if the link and bus stops are already there it would be a fight to have stops removed from the route. The 492 passengers who use the route between Bluewater & Dartford kicked up such a fuss over it instead of paying for the 480. Such a well established link now try doing that to any other route that exits the London Boundary. Overall it do think cutting it to Crayford and re-routing the 428 to Bluewater is the current 492 would have made sense.
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Mar 11, 2021 11:40:37 GMT
OK so why should someone working in Redhill benefit from a TfL service when those working in Reigate or Godstone don't. There is no justification. There is. TfL has a remit to provide a service as far as the Greater London boundary, and there is a strong commercial case to continue that route to Redhill which is a sizeable traffic objective. There is not a similar commercial case to run a route to Reigate or Godstone. But they choose to replicate a route with excellent rail links ... the only strong commercial business case would be if it made a profit, which I very much doubt. Redhill means nothing to the vast majority of Londoners, other than a place the train goes through to get to Gatwick Airport
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Mar 11, 2021 11:45:16 GMT
While cutting them isn't ideal, they all run out of TfL territory into other counties of which these people do not pay anything towards the GLA. Why exactly should these people then as a result get to use services funded by it? Why exactly should a route like the 262 gets cut within the London boundary due to financial issues when someone out in Hertfordshire gets a bus route that runs at a loss and is funded by GLA taxes. I think routes should be carefully picked here, routes that have more benefit to Londoners should remain and routes that don't should be cut. Really don't see the need for the 292 and 107 to both go to Borehamwood when only one will probably suffice, while obviously the 96, 492, 428, 370 and 372 all run out to huge out of town shopping centres which are extremely useful to Londoners. Honestly don't see why people outside the London boundary should be benefiting from our GLA tax money when they don't pay towards anything and the services within the London boundary are suffering issues in themselves. You can't even get from St Paul's to Oxford Circus in a bus at the moment so why exactly services to Dorking and Borehamwood are being looked after I do not know. Surrey residents still contribute towards TfL services. The County Council considers that supporting TfL services represents "good value". The 96 and 428 are no longer supported by Kent County Council but are of significant benefit to London residents. Dartford is effectively a continuation of the London built-up area and I am surprised it wasn't included in Greater London when the County was created in 1965. I could see the 492 cut back to Crayford though with Arriva providing a replacement service between Crayford (or possibly Bexleyheath) and Bluewater charging commercial fares. I wouldn’t be surprised if it did happen in the future. Ever since the 96 was diverted to serve Darent Valley Hospital the 428 between Dartford and Bluewater pretty much carries fresh air. If the 492 was ever cut to Crayford, the 428 I can see being re-routed to replace it directly.
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Mar 11, 2021 11:49:33 GMT
There is. TfL has a remit to provide a service as far as the Greater London boundary, and there is a strong commercial case to continue that route to Redhill which is a sizeable traffic objective. There is not a similar commercial case to run a route to Reigate or Godstone. But they choose to replicate a route with excellent rail links ... the only strong commercial business case would be if it made a profit, which I very much doubt. Redhill means nothing to the vast majority of Londoners. There are few railway stations between East Croydon and Redhill compared to the number of bus stops along the 405 route - try telling residents of Hooley that they can get a train! TfL and Surrey County Council obviously consider that the route is worth supporting - as I have said elsewhere Surrey CC takes the view that its support for cross-boundary TfL services represents "good value".
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Mar 11, 2021 12:08:59 GMT
But they choose to replicate a route with excellent rail links ... the only strong commercial business case would be if it made a profit, which I very much doubt. Redhill means nothing to the vast majority of Londoners. There are few railway stations between East Croydon and Redhill compared to the number of bus stops along the 405 route - try telling residents of Hooley that they can get a train! TfL and Surrey County Council obviously consider that the route is worth supporting - as I have said elsewhere Surrey CC takes the view that its support for cross-boundary TfL services represents "good value". Hooley is in Reigate & Banstead, so if those residents have issues, TfL is not the correct body to take it up with. SCC probably do think it represents good value as they are only covering a small percentage of the cost .... no brainer for them.
|
|
|
Post by stuckonthe486 on Mar 11, 2021 12:27:11 GMT
Cutting London buses to the border of the home counties is the worst idea I’ve ever heard. There isn’t a forcefield at these borders. People in Bexleyheath, Crayford, Erith etc have jobs, school, college, friends, family, hospital, days out in Dartford and vice versa. The same can be said with all of the Greater London boundary borderline towns. TfL also has a responsibility to businesses in outer London areas - a good bus service from border towns like Dartford helps drum up trade for businesses in Bexleyheath, gets staff to work and contributes to cutting congestion. Leatherhead to Dorking is an anomaly, sure (though one you could defend as it helps Londoners reach Box Hill and other popular leisure spots), but I expect Chessington World of Adventures and the businesses that depend on it appreciate the presence of the 465. Indeed, with talk - however hypothetical - of a border charge for cars, you could argue that cross-border services should be strengthened, not weakened. It was mentioned in the Bexleybus thread that Bexleyheath to Swanley is an omission, for example, and Erith's poor bus connections to the east can't help its economy.
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Mar 11, 2021 13:02:17 GMT
Cutting London buses to the border of the home counties is the worst idea I’ve ever heard. There isn’t a forcefield at these borders. People in Bexleyheath, Crayford, Erith etc have jobs, school, college, friends, family, hospital, days out in Dartford and vice versa. The same can be said with all of the Greater London boundary borderline towns. TfL also has a responsibility to businesses in outer London areas - a good bus service from border towns like Dartford helps drum up trade for businesses in Bexleyheath, gets staff to work and contributes to cutting congestion. Leatherhead to Dorking is an anomaly, sure (though one you could defend as it helps Londoners reach Box Hill and other popular leisure spots), but I expect Chessington World of Adventures and the businesses that depend on it appreciate the presence of the 465. Indeed, with talk - however hypothetical - of a border charge for cars, you could argue that cross-border services should be strengthened, not weakened. It was mentioned in the Bexleybus thread that Bexleyheath to Swanley is an omission, for example, and Erith's poor bus connections to the east can't help its economy. If there is a strong case for cross border services then make them commercial like every other part of the country. If there is not a strong case, is it worth them being provided? The harsh facts of outside of London, is to pay fares to cover the service providers costs, if you don't, you don't get a service.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Mar 11, 2021 13:08:01 GMT
So people living in TfL territory do not use buses for work and leisure activities outside the London boundary? That’s just daft. In my neck of the woods we have people using buses to get to work, shops, schools, medical appointments, places of worship, friends and family outside the London boundary. Why should we be penalised? We pay GLA tax too, so why should we subsidise those living in zones 1-3 whilst we suck up the cuts? Before TfL make any further cuts to cross boundary services, they should look at making it easier and more attractive for private operators in neighbouring authorities to run such services. But why exactly should London taxpayers pay for a route like the 465 or the 406 when the money to keep the 148 running, or the 25 running to Oxford Circus, or to increase the frequency on the 18 can't be found? I really doubt that the 465 and 406 are of more importance than the 25 and 18. Anything funded for by the relevant council should remain, that's fine. They fund it so they can have it, but anything not funded really should be removed or reduced until TfL can sort out the area they actually should be serving before trying to branch out to areas elsewhere. There are probably some exceptions such as the 96, 428, 492, 370, 372, 142 and 258 which are probably good enough to keep due to their benefits to Londoners. Something that should probably be explored is a lot more 96 style arrangements, where the route effectively runs express as soon as it leaves the London boundary, serving areas important to Londoners and leaving people in the provinces to use their local routes. The 96 for example serves Dartford Station and Daren't Valley Hospital where Londoners are likely to want to travel, but doesn't serve all the stops in-between. All border crossing routes provide value to Londoners though including the aforementioned 107 & 292 - the 292 was a route I purposefully used every Saturday for a period and the demand from Edgware to Borehamwood was strong whilst any removal of the 107 would see no link between Barnet & Borehamwood. The 406 & 465 have their value too hence the backlash to the 465’s cut which wasn’t just from Surrey residents. The problem here isn’t the border routes but actually the lack of investment into the network in the first place which is now seeing bus routes essentially squaring off against each other as if it’s a world heavyweight clash. TfL have no care for Inner London hence many of my routes receiving cuts but it’s not justifiable for me to take it out on those cross border routes which are an easy target as we saw with the 167 cutback which hasn’t been kind to the 20 as a result
|
|