|
|
Post by vjaska on Mar 13, 2021 23:15:46 GMT
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. The network wasn't great compared to the subsequent decade after - maybe where you lived but in my area, a number of routes were performing very badly and only improved once TfL came along. The private operators initially faced a number of similar problems the LBL subsidaries had - if you lived in the 90's London General & Central period, you would of likely encountered your route badly affected by staff shortages to the point you've no idea whether your service turns up and in some cases (hello the 196), this lasted until 2001. The TfL era saw actual proper growth and improvement up to 2014-15. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Mar 13, 2021 23:19:06 GMT
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. The LEZ did kill some off sadly but when Red Ken first came in, a number of cross border routes were added to the TfL network like the 405, 406, 418, etc. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2021 0:01:35 GMT
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. The LEZ did kill some off sadly but when Red Ken first came in, a number of cross border routes were added to the TfL network like the 405, 406, 418, etc. Livingstone really championed cross border routes and it was great that value was seen in the routes you’ve listed plus many more that existed like the 293 were transformed into what we know them as today. Yes, budgets were better but there is huge value in cross border routes which are likely to continue to see growth in passenger numbers whilst central routes haemorrhage passengers. |
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Mar 14, 2021 0:34:37 GMT
The LEZ did kill some off sadly but when Red Ken first came in, a number of cross border routes were added to the TfL network like the 405, 406, 418, etc. Livingstone really championed cross border routes and it was great that value was seen in the routes you’ve listed plus many more that existed like the 293 were transformed into what we know them as today. Yes, budgets were better but there is huge value in cross border routes which are likely to continue to see growth in passenger numbers whilst central routes haemorrhage passengers. The thing that TfL were good at with some cross-border toutes like 293 and 405 was of using them to deliver value within the London area, with the 293 serving new roads through Lower Morden and the 405 providing useful extra capacity along Pampisford Road. |
|
|
|
Post by Gellico on Mar 14, 2021 20:02:04 GMT
Relating to the Cross-Border argument.
A slightly different to London but when you look at how Reading Buses have operated over the past few years it provides a solid case study for expansion into other areas.
Reading being municipal (Reading Borough Council is the only Stakeholder and as such any excess made is returned to the taxpayer) has bought out both Newbury & District along with Courtney Buses as well as starting up the profitable 702 from First. These entities would not of been taken to run at a loss and any profit made is either reinvested in services or goes back to the stakeholder which directly benefits people living in Reading. When someone buys a ticket to Legoland on a 702 at Victoria some of that money gets seen by taxpayers in Reading.
I am all for TFL taking a somewhat more commercial approach to services outside of their remit in order to benefit the public purse however the TFL contracting model simply does not allow for this in the current form.
Had London Transport never been privatised can you imagine some of the services we could had now that would exist purely from the commercial aspect.
81X to Windsor - certainly in the summer
405X to Gatwick
etc
The cross border market is well used where it exists however the formation of TFL basically wiped most of it off the plate and created border significant border regions that have arguably suffered from it and as such car ownership/usage has grown vice poor transport provisions.
With rail nationalisation I do wonder whether questions are being asked as to why TFL required such colossal bailouts compared to other, comparable regions. Again relating back to Reading, quite literally as lockdown restrictions changed the service levels changed simultaneously so services were not running at an absolute excess. I mean the fact the 521 is currently running at pre pandemic levels is verging on scandalous for the taxpayer but due to obligations of the contracts quick changes are just not possible.
Rail franchising is over, I would imagine there might be some questions from Gov regarding the Bus system of London where the only competitive aspect is the initial bidding process. Does the TFL bus contracting system represent good value for the taxpayer? An open question for you all, I think not as the model does not focus around driving passenger/user growth which is the model that literally every business apart from contracted bus monopolies utilise.
|
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Mar 16, 2021 23:54:07 GMT
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. The network wasn't great compared to the subsequent decade after - maybe where you lived but in my area, a number of routes were performing very badly and only improved once TfL came along. The private operators initially faced a number of similar problems the LBL subsidaries had - if you lived in the 90's London General & Central period, you would of likely encountered your route badly affected by staff shortages to the point you've no idea whether your service turns up and in some cases (hello the 196), this lasted until 2001. The TfL era saw actual proper growth and improvement up to 2014-15. Only two routes were perfoming badly I knew, 123 and W12. Many were not bad at all. Thamesway seemed to be not doing as good for service like Grey Green, Capital Citybus, Docklands Minibus, Kentish Bus, County Bus. Staff shortages were worse under LT, got better when it changed to LBL, but got back sour in the year before privitisation. |
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Mar 16, 2021 23:56:53 GMT
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. The LEZ did kill some off sadly but when Red Ken first came in, a number of cross border routes were added to the TfL network like the 405, 406, 418, etc. Did not get them in East or North London and more the opposite. Also due to red tape, we had very well established bus operators like Ensign even publicily say they would not do any TfL contracted services due to the certain red tape. But would only do rail replacement, emergencies etc. and all these years after they stuck to their guns. Such a shame as they would do really well in cross border services. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Mar 16, 2021 23:57:36 GMT
The network wasn't great compared to the subsequent decade after - maybe where you lived but in my area, a number of routes were performing very badly and only improved once TfL came along. The private operators initially faced a number of similar problems the LBL subsidaries had - if you lived in the 90's London General & Central period, you would of likely encountered your route badly affected by staff shortages to the point you've no idea whether your service turns up and in some cases (hello the 196), this lasted until 2001. The TfL era saw actual proper growth and improvement up to 2014-15. Only two routes were perfoming badly I knew, 123 and W12. Many were not bad at all. Thamesway seemed to be not doing as good for service like Grey Green, Capital Citybus, Docklands Minibus, Kentish Bus, County Bus. Staff shortages were worse under LT, got better when it changed to LBL, but got back sour in the year before privitisation. So I was right then, you lived in a part of London where your services were ok - in the south, many routes had issues that wasn't resolved until the TfL era. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Mar 17, 2021 0:00:47 GMT
The LEZ did kill some off sadly but when Red Ken first came in, a number of cross border routes were added to the TfL network like the 405, 406, 418, etc. Did not get them in East or North London and more the opposite. Also due to red tape, we had very well established bus operators like Ensign even publicily say they would not do any TfL contracted services due to the certain red tape. But would only do rail replacement, emergencies etc. and all these years after they stuck to their guns. Such a shame as they would do really well in cross border services. East London got the 370 & 498 under Ken |
|
|
|
Post by thesquirrels on Mar 17, 2021 0:42:15 GMT
Did not get them in East or North London and more the opposite. Also due to red tape, we had very well established bus operators like Ensign even publicily say they would not do any TfL contracted services due to the certain red tape. But would only do rail replacement, emergencies etc. and all these years after they stuck to their guns. Such a shame as they would do really well in cross border services. East London got the 370 & 498 under Ken 324 Hornchurch - Lakeside too, as the 372. Corridors did disappear i.e. 500/502 Romford - Harlow (very limited replacement in 375), the intensive 310/A/B/11 network south of Waltham Cross, 151/251/551 Romford - Basildon routes, Havering to Thurrock was linked by four routes (324/348/370/373) where only two do now. The relative level of intervention by TfL in the NE quadrant is small compared to that in Surrey, but the relationship between the outer London town centres and their 'over the border' neighbours is a bit tighter there, especially where the built up area on the SW London/Surrey border is unbroken. I think there is a case to say this for Havering and Thurrock too, but the main objective for the cross-border routes laid on by TfL is really Lakeside - they have never made any effort to serve any communities east/south of there under their regime. I think Ensign would do a fantastic job too but they must realise that running buses under TfL's cosh (as they might see it) on tendered work is not worth the trouble; the dream would be an operational merger of TfL's well provisioned cross-border routes into Thurrock and Ensign's local services through to Grays and Chadwell. In effect, what the old 348 and 370 did. Interesting to note in comparison is Uxbridge where clearly the commercial incentive to provide compliant buses is strong enough to keep services going - indeed they have been bolstered in recent years on the 3 (Slough, prevoiously 58), Chiltern Hundreds 101/102/104/105 network (busy enough to merit DDs when I see them) and the (admittedly anaemic) regrowth of the Iver/Slough local routes. LT's intervention here came much earlier, in the cash-short days of the 1990s, with their 331 cross-border commercial replacement offering. |
|
|
|
Post by MKAY315 on Mar 17, 2021 15:08:21 GMT
The network wasn't great compared to the subsequent decade after - maybe where you lived but in my area, a number of routes were performing very badly and only improved once TfL came along. The private operators initially faced a number of similar problems the LBL subsidaries had - if you lived in the 90's London General & Central period, you would of likely encountered your route badly affected by staff shortages to the point you've no idea whether your service turns up and in some cases (hello the 196), this lasted until 2001. The TfL era saw actual proper growth and improvement up to 2014-15. Only two routes were perfoming badly I knew, 123 and W12. Many were not bad at all. Thamesway seemed to be not doing as good for service like Grey Green, Capital Citybus, Docklands Minibus, Kentish Bus, County Bus. Staff shortages were worse under LT, got better when it changed to LBL, but got back sour in the year before privitisation. The 296 up until it's split in 2000 was a nightmare of a route to wait for. With a PVR of 9 and going the long way from Ilford to Harold Wood I used to feel for those especially in the Marks Gate area (when visiting family over there) to the point people would rather walk to Eastern Avenue to catch the 66 instead to Newbury Park or Romford. The 179 is another example I could use but it had other routes to supplement it's services I.e the 123 from Ilford to South Woodford and the 169 and 369 in Ilford Lane. Whitehall Road would probably see maybe 3 buses an hour in each direction. From 2001 onwards it got better. |
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Mar 17, 2021 16:44:57 GMT
Seen on the Evening Standard that the planned 4 % cut to the bus network will start to take place from July.
|
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Mar 17, 2021 17:00:46 GMT
Seen on the Evening Standard that the planned 4 % cut to the bus network will start to take place from July. I wonder if this will coincide with any lifting of social distancing requirements on buses. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Mar 17, 2021 22:07:20 GMT
Seen on the Evening Standard that the planned 4 % cut to the bus network will start to take place from July. As we know freq reductions don't need consultations but I wonder if routes changes will be consulted on on a one by one bases ie the 45 and 148 lets say or whether one large consultation will be held for several changes. Although not directly part of this I guess the 414 has started the ball rolling. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2021 6:12:51 GMT
Time to say goodbye to London’s buses for me. I’ve grown increasingly fed up with TfL and I’ve seen west London particularly, singled out for reductions. If the 148 gets withdrawn , this proves to me the whole system they are using of route restructuring is flawed. I don’t think they look any further than lines on maps. They see a line ends in one place that parallels another line for a while, so why not make it one line and shave off one end. Unbelievably the red arrow routes remain when they’re empty. Night buses have been ploughing around London empty all year. Why are some night routes running at fri sat night levels ? There is so much waste, and then to cut the waste they axe links. No, we deserve better than that.
|
|
