|
|
Post by vjaska on Mar 13, 2021 16:14:59 GMT
Khan is right to invest in Outer London but the problem with him is he is brazenly ignoring Inner London. A lot of the Central London routes serve secondary purposes within Inner London and we have to be careful how deep we cut as Inner London areas still require investment. True but I think the majority of bus passenger growth in the next decade will come from outer London communities as opposed to inner and Central London. Personally I would expect a flatline in inner London and a decline in central so it is right to reposition bus services from central London to inner/outer London routes. Perhaps we could see routes like the 14/188 etc sacrifice their central London sections for further extensions on their outer sections. Fewer central London routes with a higher focus on tube or train journeys with a push to mixed use in inner London and a far bigger push to bus usage in outer London. Indeed, that’s what I’m getting at, as long as the section within Inner London is retained at a sensible level, then I could accept a drop within Central London with room to review it if patronage within the centre picks up. Where I couldn’t agree is with examples like the 48 where an entire route is needlessly chopped to bits or withdrawn outright which of course you wasn’t suggesting but just wanted to be a bit clear on that part. |
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Mar 13, 2021 19:56:29 GMT
This whole debate is absurd. The Mayor's transport duty under section 141 of the GLA Act 1999 states "The Mayor shall develop and implement policies for the promotion and encouragement of safe, integrated, efficient and economic transport facilities and services to, from and within Greater London" and "the transport facilities and services mentioned in subsection (1) above include facilities and services for pedestrians and are those required to meet the needs of persons living or working in, or visiting, Greater London". So even if the Mayor wanted to erect a hard border at Crayford, Londoners needing to get to Darent Valley Hospital or Bluewater as major traffic objectives cannot be ignored. I have no doubt that TfL would ditch services like the 405 if they weren't value for money. www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/29/section/141If Greater London ever became independent, and maybe rejoined the EU, there may have to be a hard border at Crayford and other places. It might even lead to Sullivan and Uno without any garages in Greater London excluded from future TfL bus tendering.  |
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Mar 13, 2021 20:02:28 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 only Central London services matter basically. It’s a good job you’ve not been put in charge that’s all I can say. I find central London routes easier to remember than outer London routes, especially recent routes. That said, all routes have an importance anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by ian on Mar 13, 2021 20:34:07 GMT
As the person who first suggested that TfL cuts bus services that cross the Greater London boundary. The reason I suggested this is that the residents of the London Boroughs have to pay a precept to TfL as part of their Council Tax. In return TfL fares are cheap compared to those outside of London. Apart from Surrey residents, none of the other residents pay anything to fund the London subsidised fares that they charged. When TfL is broke why should Londoners be funding cheap fares outside of Greater London, when TfL has to reduce bus services in London? If the routes that cross the GL boundary are so popular then why don't the likes of Ensignbus run services from Thurrock into Greater London commercially? The reason is that they could not run a service commericially when only charging £1.50 flat fares without any local authority support. Therefore here is another idea, the routes are unchanged but the fares on TfL bus routes that cross the GL Boundary are changed: Within Greater London fares would be at the flat rate (£1.50 or whatever the flat rate would be) but as soon as the route crossed the GL boundary then commercial fares would be charged. Then Londoners would only be funding cheap fares within London but the services would continue to cross the boundary enabling current journeys to be possible. Light blue touch paper and withdraw:-) That’s not an original idea. Fare and pass validity was always different in the “country zone” . Perhaps not a bad suggestion ? As a tweak, how about the normal £1.55 fare in greater London, but any journey starting outside GL is (say) £2. (that keeps things simple with the tap in etc). In an ideal world, some non-TfL operators could opt in to such a scheme, at least for means of payment even if not same flat fare. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Mar 13, 2021 21:46:33 GMT
That’s not an original idea. Fare and pass validity was always different in the “country zone” . Perhaps not a bad suggestion ? As a tweak, how about the normal £1.55 fare in greater London, but any journey starting outside GL is (say) £2. (that keeps things simple with the tap in etc). In an ideal world, some non-TfL operators could opt in to such a scheme, at least for means of payment even if not same flat fare. But this sounds just like the same thing you suggested previously - so you end up charging London residents a higher fare when they take a bus from outside London across the border inside? |
|
|
|
Post by ian on Mar 13, 2021 21:48:03 GMT
I think you are mistaking me for someone else as I have not commented on it before.
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Mar 13, 2021 22:00:39 GMT
I think you are mistaking me for someone else as I have not commented on it before. Apologies, looks like we have two Ian's however my point still stands in regards to the rest of my reply. |
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Mar 13, 2021 22:13:56 GMT
Why does it seem everyone is in denial. This country's and many others has been totally screwed by this pandemic. The increased interest payments required on the increased national debt will cripple this country for a couple of decades, with the basket case Health department taking a ever increasing % of the UK budget, having just recently approved a drug costing £1.79m a dose! Will get an indication on Tuesday just how big a hatchet job will be done on our military. Heavan forbid we ever need them, we can't defend ourselves anymore ... Will become surrender monkeys like one of our near neighbours.. We are in a tough financial situation and I a hundred percent understand that - however we need to retain as much normality as possible and we need an approach leaving the pandemic which encourages job creation e.g low taxation, low business rates however higher taxation and regulations on larger businesses that decimated our markets. This problem is not down to TFL operating a few cross border services, this is down to our governments building back policies. 10% hike in council tax in London is the problem, not enough disposable income means not enough money to spend on small businesses, which will contribute to our economy. We have been faced with the phenomon of people working from home, this will not be helped by slashing our transport network which is vital for people getting from A to B. If we have any chance of getting back to normal you need to make sure people can get back to work, therefore strengthening the economy. There will be a rude awakening from those whose jobs can be done fully from home and they pride themselves from it as they will potentially end up with their job being outsourced. The only hope we can have from having an economic boom is creating jobs and getting people back to work to support businesses, not by cutting cross border services or making it harder/preventing people from getting to work in the process. It is not going to be any easier to get people back to work or create jobs or support local economies and businesses by cutting services to and from places which are hotspots for economic growth such as the high street if redesigned or big out of town stores like Bluewater or Lakeside. Well the rise in council tax seems to be a fix for Khan, but I cannot see how this would make much difference. Happened before on Ken's second term with huge council tax rises year after year and imo it did sweet FA |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2021 22:17:28 GMT
That’s not an original idea. Fare and pass validity was always different in the “country zone” . Perhaps not a bad suggestion ? As a tweak, how about the normal £1.55 fare in greater London, but any journey starting outside GL is (say) £2. (that keeps things simple with the tap in etc). In an ideal world, some non-TfL operators could opt in to such a scheme, at least for means of payment even if not same flat fare. But going the other direction there would be no way to know if someone’s getting off in Greater London or in Kent/Essex/Surrey etc without having to tap out. Without tapping out, how would the system know if someone getting on the 96 in Welling is getting off in Bexleyheath for £1.55 or Dartford for £2? |
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Mar 13, 2021 22:18:13 GMT
This whole debate is absurd. The Mayor's transport duty under section 141 of the GLA Act 1999 states "The Mayor shall develop and implement policies for the promotion and encouragement of safe, integrated, efficient and economic transport facilities and services to, from and within Greater London" and "the transport facilities and services mentioned in subsection (1) above include facilities and services for pedestrians and are those required to meet the needs of persons living or working in, or visiting, Greater London". So even if the Mayor wanted to erect a hard border at Crayford, Londoners needing to get to Darent Valley Hospital or Bluewater as major traffic objectives cannot be ignored. I have no doubt that TfL would ditch services like the 405 if they weren't value for money. www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/29/section/141If Greater London ever became independent, and maybe rejoined the EU, there may have to be a hard border at Crayford and other places. It might even lead to Sullivan and Uno without any garages in Greater London excluded from future TfL bus tendering. lol at London becoming independent and re-joining the EU. That is a dream from crack pipe smokers, it would NEVER happen. Besides, do you think the EU would want to put up with all the nonsense of in and out from the UK again. |
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Mar 13, 2021 22:25:06 GMT
So what way do you suggest to curb this deficit given that cutting services is only going to reduce income from fares. The simple answer is to reinstate the subsidy that was stupidly cut by Boris & the Tory government of the time. Subsidised transport seems to be a dirty word to some but it helped the London network grow out of the mess of the 80's & 90's. I cannot see the subsidy being reinstated, especially if it is Khan; he does not have a good relationship with the government. I would say the network in London was not that bad in the 90's patronage was starting to increase, part in thanks to high frequency and reliable services. I would say the hoppa and midibus helped revitalise the network. Also sadly to say the private operators were doing better than LT's LBL subsidaries. I cannot understand what LT was doing so wrong as it was pleasing the staff, but got less staff output compared to many others that came in London running tendered routes. |
|
|
|
Post by bus12451 on Mar 13, 2021 22:33:20 GMT
That’s not an original idea. Fare and pass validity was always different in the “country zone” . Perhaps not a bad suggestion ? As a tweak, how about the normal £1.55 fare in greater London, but any journey starting outside GL is (say) £2. (that keeps things simple with the tap in etc). In an ideal world, some non-TfL operators could opt in to such a scheme, at least for means of payment even if not same flat fare. What this would mean is that people will avoid paying the higher fare where possible - instead of boarding the bus at the stop just outside GL, they would walk to the next stop inside GL to pay less. Charging a higher fare might possibly act as a disincentive to using cross border bus services for leisure purposes. |
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Mar 13, 2021 22:37:34 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? It isn't London's fault as to the issue outside of London - dig up Thatcher and round up her government from the 80's and speak to them. It makes no sense castigating an area that had no say in what goes on elsewhere. It is like those in the north who wan't all funding cut off for London over anything as we all live in golden house with money trees out in the back because they don't get as good as a deal - it isn't Londoners fault so don't punish us, go seek out those who are actually accountable. So its Thatchers fault, the usual left thing which they cannot get over, even Arthur Scargill has let go. We still had many services cross border after Thatcher. They started dwindling in the 90's but were eventually killed off when Red Ken came in. After all the red tape of running cross border services, then the later impeding LEZ in 2007 killed many off. Routes that we had such as 505, 551 etc were suffering down to LT ticketing etc and red tape. |
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Mar 13, 2021 22:43:23 GMT
Interesting reading this whole debate about 'cross-border' bus services.
Surely as long as they meet the usual business case criteria like any other TfL service, they should just operate as normal, and any enhancements should be considered along the same line. I don't see the whole need for this argument about Londoners subsidising other counties - if it is economical for the taxpayer and meets strategic objectives, that's all that matters.
For instance, the recent & proposed introduction/changes of routes 96, 324, 404, 434, 439, 466 involves enhancements, in some cases significant, for those living beyond the London area, but goes some way to meeting strategic London transport objectives as well as having strong business cases. That's how it should be approached. Not some kind of arbitrary suspension of services at the London border like some seem to wish for.
|
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Mar 13, 2021 23:07:38 GMT
Interesting reading this whole debate about 'cross-border' bus services. Surely as long as they meet the usual business case criteria like any other TfL service, they should just operate as normal, and any enhancements should be considered along the same line. I don't see the whole need for this argument about Londoners subsidising other counties - if it is economical for the taxpayer and meets strategic objectives, that's all that matters. For instance, the recent & proposed introduction/changes of routes 96, 324, 404, 434, 439, 466 involves enhancements, in some cases significant, for those living beyond the London area, but goes some way to meeting strategic London transport objectives as well as having strong business cases. That's how it should be approached. Not some kind of arbitrary suspension of services at the London border like some seem to wish for. Some of these cross-border red tape does nothing in favour for bus services and various council intervention. After all, if you wanted to take your car and drive over the border there is not any problem. |
|
