Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2021 22:37:50 GMT
But would they really be that affected? are these buses used that much? I doubt it very much. I think it's the fact they enjoy the cheap TfL fares. I bet people would soon transfer to commercial buses or trains if the bus services were cut.
Being a stuck record but we seriously need to get the buses in London sorted out and if it means cutting this outer London services so be it.
Sorry that's my views
So with routes such as that of the 292 & 492 where commercial routes do duplicate them a fair bit on their sections outside of London (for the 292 Elstree & Borehamwood to Rossington) but it does not mean they are underused in any shape or form, would you suggest that a route such as the 279 that crosses the border for 0.4 miles is underused? If we were to get rid of all cross border services it can in some cases be awkward to residents who live in the GLA but due to the cutback would not be able to access their residence due to the terminus being awkwardly placed. As someone mentioned, an example of this would be the 233 (Though I have never used the service I shall go off of local knowledge), some routes do have places of demand such as Bluewater and Waltham Cross and Lakeside that are across the border and even then, there are small towns over the border that are of significance to those in London like Potters Bar. Could you clarify what services you would consider cutting? You are being too literal no issue with buses that cross the border for a short distance. As I said before no point trying to offer another view when the majority have decided the other said is correct. |
|
|
|
Post by uakari on Mar 11, 2021 23:02:10 GMT
Can someone explain why London Local Service Agreements don't exist any more, or whatever the system was called when the route was run commercially but accepted TfL tickets within the London section of the route? I'm thinking of when the 84 and 614 stopped accepting them (2011?). Did TfL make it too unattractive to the operators? Was the intention that TfL would be providing their own services along these corridors (hasn't happened)?
It's strange to me that there are places wholly within London like Hadley Green, where the only service to the local station (High Barnet) is the 84, which doesn't accept TfL tickets.
|
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Mar 11, 2021 23:15:37 GMT
Can someone explain why London Local Service Agreements don't exist any more, or whatever the system was called when the route was run commercially but accepted TfL tickets within the London section of the route? I'm thinking of when the 84 and 614 stopped accepting them (2011?). Did TfL make it too unattractive to the operators? Was the intention that TfL would be providing their own services along these corridors (hasn't happened)? It's strange to me that there are places wholly within London like Hadley Green, where the only service to the local station (High Barnet) is the 84, which doesn't accept TfL tickets. Quite simply TfL did not want to pay the commercial operators. When agreements finished were told it would have to go LSP which receives no contribution from TfL. So effectively they culled a subset of cross border services, whilst seemingly keeping a random selection they had decided warranted full TfL services. Seems you either got lucky or you did not. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Mar 11, 2021 23:27:18 GMT
Had Metroline pulled out of the 84 commercially around 2002/03 then its likely TFL would have stepped in with either an extension of another route or a new route from Barnet to Potters Bar. Similar to how they stepped in with the 166, 293, 405, 406, 418 and 351 as the 498 and the 408 as the 470.
|
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Mar 12, 2021 13:22:15 GMT
I love how little the E bomb has been dropped about cross-border services so I'll do it for you: economy! People are choosing to see it as Londoners propping up provincial towns but it's mostly the other way around economically with residents and their jobs mostly being in greater London.
Places like Redhill, Potters Bar, Waltham Cross and the like benefit from London run bus services and offers attractive transport regarding work and socialising/leisure, which they may not have engaged in if services didn't run after 8pm for example. Then there's Londoners benefiting and boosting the local economies of Watford, Bluewater and Lakeside by using reliable bus services for work in studios and retail for the former example and latter examples respectively. I've met a mutual friend in Edgware last year who in response to me saying how he managed to get to Elstree Studios without any hassle for media work, he simply responded the 107!
We should not be quick to head to cross county services to trim the fat, the answer is in smart reductions from high frequency routes. The RV1/343 changes were pretty smart I have to say; 6 PVR from the RV1 gone but the 343's upped by 4 buses I believe so a net saving of 2 buses per annum. It's sensible cuts like that in places with multiple routes that can absorb the dispersed passengers is what's needed.
And another point if I may- why should London be any different to the other cities when it comes to interconnectivity? I watched a year old Panorama special about Britain's Bus Crisis on iPlayer and I was contemplating getting around by bus going large distances & crossing counties. If I'm at Lakeside bus station and can get to Kent or to Southend via one bus, why shouldn't I be able to go the few miles into Rainham or Upminster, the nearest London towns?
Just because a town is out of the GLA boundary, it doesn't mean it isn't an objective or place of interest to a London resident.
|
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Mar 12, 2021 13:29:37 GMT
I love how little the E bomb has been dropped about cross-border services so I'll do it for you: economy! People are choosing to see it as Londoners propping up provincial towns but it's mostly the other way around economically with residents and their jobs mostly being in greater London. Places like Redhill, Potters Bar, Waltham Cross and the like benefit from London run bus services and offers attractive transport regarding work and socialising/leisure, which they may not have engaged in if services didn't run after 8pm for example. Then there's Londoners benefiting and boosting the local economies of Watford, Bluewater and Lakeside by using reliable bus services for work in studios and retail for the former example and latter examples respectively. I've met a mutual friend in Edgware last year who in response to me saying how he managed to get to Elstree Studios without any hassle for media work, he simply responded the 107! We should not be quick to head to cross county services to trim the fat, the answer is in smart reductions from high frequency routes. The RV1/343 changes were pretty smart I have to say; 6 PVR from the RV1 gone but the 343's upped by 4 buses I believe so a net saving of 2 buses per annum. It's sensible cuts like that in places with multiple routes that can absorb the dispersed passengers is what's needed. And another point if I may- why should London be any different to the other cities when it comes to interconnectivity? I watched a year old Panorama special about Britain's Bus Crisis on iPlayer and I was contemplating getting around by bus going large distances & crossing counties. If I'm at Lakeside bus station and can get to Kent or to Southend via one bus, why shouldn't I be able to go the few miles into Rainham or Upminster, the nearest London towns? Just because a town is out of the GLA boundary, it doesn't mean it isn't an objective or place of interest to a London resident. If the town is out of the boundary, what is to stop them using a commercial service to access this location. Why does it have to be a TfL service, when a commercial one would perform the task just as well? |
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Mar 12, 2021 14:02:27 GMT
I love how little the E bomb has been dropped about cross-border services so I'll do it for you: economy! People are choosing to see it as Londoners propping up provincial towns but it's mostly the other way around economically with residents and their jobs mostly being in greater London. Places like Redhill, Potters Bar, Waltham Cross and the like benefit from London run bus services and offers attractive transport regarding work and socialising/leisure, which they may not have engaged in if services didn't run after 8pm for example. Then there's Londoners benefiting and boosting the local economies of Watford, Bluewater and Lakeside by using reliable bus services for work in studios and retail for the former example and latter examples respectively. I've met a mutual friend in Edgware last year who in response to me saying how he managed to get to Elstree Studios without any hassle for media work, he simply responded the 107! We should not be quick to head to cross county services to trim the fat, the answer is in smart reductions from high frequency routes. The RV1/343 changes were pretty smart I have to say; 6 PVR from the RV1 gone but the 343's upped by 4 buses I believe so a net saving of 2 buses per annum. It's sensible cuts like that in places with multiple routes that can absorb the dispersed passengers is what's needed. And another point if I may- why should London be any different to the other cities when it comes to interconnectivity? I watched a year old Panorama special about Britain's Bus Crisis on iPlayer and I was contemplating getting around by bus going large distances & crossing counties. If I'm at Lakeside bus station and can get to Kent or to Southend via one bus, why shouldn't I be able to go the few miles into Rainham or Upminster, the nearest London towns? Just because a town is out of the GLA boundary, it doesn't mean it isn't an objective or place of interest to a London resident. If the town is out of the boundary, what is to stop them using a commercial service to access this location. Why does it have to be a TfL service, when a commercial one would perform the task just as well? Commercial services need a healthy, established passenger flow for it to be profitable. TfL services be they subsidised or not, generate extra journeys by having a fixed price which isn't incremental, and that saving can then be disposable income for the commuter. I know people in Dartford who [when it was allowed] like to go on nights out to Gravesend for the convenience in locality, but prefer to go out into central London (via 96 and DLR at Woolwich) as they don't have to pay for expensive taxis. One of them even visited Westfield Stratford City more than me, and I live a few miles away from Westfield but don't go as much! If you don't make buses attractive to passengers then they won't use it. In out of boundary towns where its residents are typically more car reliant; you make the bus reliable, regular if possible and at a reasonable price to tempt people to use services at a more enhanced rate. No one's going to pay 4 or 5 quid to go a mile when the service is hourly and buses run during limited times of the day. |
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Mar 12, 2021 14:11:41 GMT
If the town is out of the boundary, what is to stop them using a commercial service to access this location. Why does it have to be a TfL service, when a commercial one would perform the task just as well? Commercial services need a healthy, established passenger flow for it to be profitable. TfL services be they subsidised or not, generate extra journeys by having a fixed price which isn't incremental, and that saving can then be disposable income for the commuter. I know people in Dartford who [when it was allowed] like to go on nights out to Gravesend for the convenience in locality, but prefer to go out into central London (via 96 and DLR at Woolwich) as they don't have to pay for expensive taxis. One of them even visited Westfield Stratford City more than me, and I live a few miles away from Westfield but don't go as much! If you don't make buses attractive to passengers then they won't use it. In out of boundary towns where its residents are typically more car reliant; you make the bus reliable, regular if possible and at a reasonable price to tempt people to use services at a more enhanced rate. No one's going to pay 4 or 5 quid to go a mile when the service is hourly and buses run during limited times of the day. Is that really a proper justification. So many seem to not be facing up to the fact that outside London deregulation rules supreme. TfL maybe unfairly stifling competition in border areas with subsidised services, which guess what is illegal. Commercial services will never establish themselves when the competition is subsidised and making a loss. Give them a chance if there is an established passenger flow. If there are not established traffic f,own, why are TfL even considering operating them? |
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Mar 12, 2021 15:03:10 GMT
Commercial services need a healthy, established passenger flow for it to be profitable. TfL services be they subsidised or not, generate extra journeys by having a fixed price which isn't incremental, and that saving can then be disposable income for the commuter. I know people in Dartford who [when it was allowed] like to go on nights out to Gravesend for the convenience in locality, but prefer to go out into central London (via 96 and DLR at Woolwich) as they don't have to pay for expensive taxis. One of them even visited Westfield Stratford City more than me, and I live a few miles away from Westfield but don't go as much! If you don't make buses attractive to passengers then they won't use it. In out of boundary towns where its residents are typically more car reliant; you make the bus reliable, regular if possible and at a reasonable price to tempt people to use services at a more enhanced rate. No one's going to pay 4 or 5 quid to go a mile when the service is hourly and buses run during limited times of the day. Is that really a proper justification. So many seem to not be facing up to the fact that outside London deregulation rules supreme. TfL maybe unfairly stifling competition in border areas with subsidised services, which guess what is illegal. Commercial services will never establish themselves when the competition is subsidised and making a loss. Give them a chance if there is an established passenger flow. If there are not established traffic f,own, why are TfL even considering operating them? Commercial services would never be as frequent or run so generously into the late evening like subsidised services, which is what passengers want on established out-of-London town corridors but don't see services as requited as such with their lifestyle, particularly leisure & social activities. Surely if a bus like the 96 has (had pre pandemic) healthy loads on its final trips after midnight from Bluewater & Dartford, you're not proposing to pull these vital services to Londoners and profitable services for TfL are you?  Also I doubt TfL running one or two services in a home counties town is hardly stifling competition 🙄 |
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Mar 12, 2021 15:24:27 GMT
Is that really a proper justification. So many seem to not be facing up to the fact that outside London deregulation rules supreme. TfL maybe unfairly stifling competition in border areas with subsidised services, which guess what is illegal. Commercial services will never establish themselves when the competition is subsidised and making a loss. Give them a chance if there is an established passenger flow. If there are not established traffic f,own, why are TfL even considering operating them? Commercial services would never be as frequent or run so generously into the late evening like subsidised services, which is what passengers want on established out-of-London town corridors but don't see services as requited as such with their lifestyle, particularly leisure & social activities. Surely if a bus like the 96 has (had pre pandemic) healthy loads on its final trips after midnight from Bluewater & Dartford, you're not proposing to pull these vital services to Londoners and profitable services for TfL are you? Also I doubt TfL running one or two services in a home counties town is hardly stifling competition 🙄 If a route is profitable there is not a problem unless it sniffles competition, are you stopping another operator making a profit then? But, given Londons low fares, and a large % of non paying passengers, I would imagine only a very small percentage of the network is profitable, given the huge deficit TfL bus services run up. |
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Mar 12, 2021 15:47:13 GMT
Commercial services would never be as frequent or run so generously into the late evening like subsidised services, which is what passengers want on established out-of-London town corridors but don't see services as requited as such with their lifestyle, particularly leisure & social activities. Surely if a bus like the 96 has (had pre pandemic) healthy loads on its final trips after midnight from Bluewater & Dartford, you're not proposing to pull these vital services to Londoners and profitable services for TfL are you? Also I doubt TfL running one or two services in a home counties town is hardly stifling competition 🙄 If a route is profitable there is not a problem unless it sniffles competition, are you stopping another operator making a profit then? But, given Londons low fares, and a large % of non paying passengers, I would imagine only a very small percentage of the network is profitable, given the huge deficit TfL bus services run up. So what way do you suggest to curb this deficit given that cutting services is only going to reduce income from fares. |
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Mar 12, 2021 16:00:31 GMT
If a route is profitable there is not a problem unless it sniffles competition, are you stopping another operator making a profit then? But, given Londons low fares, and a large % of non paying passengers, I would imagine only a very small percentage of the network is profitable, given the huge deficit TfL bus services run up. So what way do you suggest to curb this deficit given that cutting services is only going to reduce income from fares. If loss of income is less than loss in cost, then that is a profit. If you lose £100,000 income, but reduce costs by £300,000 that is a £200,000 saving. |
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Mar 12, 2021 16:15:55 GMT
So what way do you suggest to curb this deficit given that cutting services is only going to reduce income from fares. If loss of income is less than loss in cost, then that is a profit. If you lose £100,000 income, but reduce costs by £300,000 that is a £200,000 saving. You make a good point however would it not be better to try and encourage people in these underused areas to use public transport by looking at things such as a slightly increased service? A good profit booster for tfl could be in areas not nearby to that of the regular bus network be a demand responsive service (an example could be Windmill Lane & Netherne on the Hill, but also incorporated in certain areas of London where car reliance is high?) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2021 16:22:33 GMT
I love how little the E bomb has been dropped about cross-border services so I'll do it for you: economy! People are choosing to see it as Londoners propping up provincial towns but it's mostly the other way around economically with residents and their jobs mostly being in greater London. Places like Redhill, Potters Bar, Waltham Cross and the like benefit from London run bus services and offers attractive transport regarding work and socialising/leisure, which they may not have engaged in if services didn't run after 8pm for example. Then there's Londoners benefiting and boosting the local economies of Watford, Bluewater and Lakeside by using reliable bus services for work in studios and retail for the former example and latter examples respectively. I've met a mutual friend in Edgware last year who in response to me saying how he managed to get to Elstree Studios without any hassle for media work, he simply responded the 107! We should not be quick to head to cross county services to trim the fat, the answer is in smart reductions from high frequency routes. The RV1/343 changes were pretty smart I have to say; 6 PVR from the RV1 gone but the 343's upped by 4 buses I believe so a net saving of 2 buses per annum. It's sensible cuts like that in places with multiple routes that can absorb the dispersed passengers is what's needed. And another point if I may- why should London be any different to the other cities when it comes to interconnectivity? I watched a year old Panorama special about Britain's Bus Crisis on iPlayer and I was contemplating getting around by bus going large distances & crossing counties. If I'm at Lakeside bus station and can get to Kent or to Southend via one bus, why shouldn't I be able to go the few miles into Rainham or Upminster, the nearest London towns? Just because a town is out of the GLA boundary, it doesn't mean it isn't an objective or place of interest to a London resident. A most excellent piece. |
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Mar 12, 2021 16:48:00 GMT
If loss of income is less than loss in cost, then that is a profit. If you lose £100,000 income, but reduce costs by £300,000 that is a £200,000 saving. You make a good point however would it not be better to try and encourage people in these underused areas to use public transport by looking at things such as a slightly increased service? A good profit booster for tfl could be in areas not nearby to that of the regular bus network be a demand responsive service (an example could be Windmill Lane & Netherne on the Hill, but also incorporated in certain areas of London where car reliance is high?) Again, only good idea if projected income gained exceeds the extra costs of providing the service, otherwise you are just digging yourself into a deeper financial hole. No point putting on a service that will bring in £50,000 of income if it costs you £200,000. A double decker depreciates on average c£25000 per year whilst in London service, that is just sitting in garage going nothing. Before you add fuel, staff costs (imagine 3 drivers per bus + support staff), insurance, garage overheads, vehicle maintainence costs ... you are going to need a lot a extra revenue paying customers to justify the increase. Existing pass, capped users, and non paying customers will contribute absolutely zero to this. I live in Croydon and have had enough of public authorities spending good money trying to recover bad money and achieving the opposite, just creating more debt. Spend where it is prudent, not the equivalent of just throwing money down the drain. |
|
