|
|
Post by redbus on Apr 19, 2021 18:26:35 GMT
The relationship between the Government and Khan seems pretty toxic and if Khan wins again as seems likely, then I agree that the Government won't bail out TfL. The Government will set the financial picture, but it will be up to Khan assuming he wins whether he wants more cuts or tries to increase revenue. Either way the Government can blame Khan as it will be his decision. In my opinion Khan was extremely foolish in offering up a 4% bus mileage cut to save money, but if nothing else it shows how little he prioritises the bus service. Services should have been looked at in the last year and temporarily reduced where there was excess capacity with a view to returning to a full service as the economy opens up (ie now). That would have saved some money. As the economy opens it is important to provide that full service to encourage people back onto public transport. Public transport must be attractive to use, many will be scared to come back onto the bus and tube and this is because both the Mayor and Government have gone out of their way to scare people. This needs to be reversed and along with attractive public transport is the only real way to prevent a car led recovery. Walking and cycle lanes simply won't cut it. For these reasons I see these bus cuts as being disastrous. No one yet knows how many will go back to the tube and bus. Give it time, see what happens, and only if passenger number fail to recover over time does one then look at service cuts. If Bailey against the odds were to win, whatever the government may think of him, he is of the same party and will have beaten Khan so metaphorically speaking they won't want to throw him under a bus! So if he were to win I think the financial picture might be more generous, partly because he also will do other things the Government might like. Exactly this, nobody knows where exactly routes are going to suffer post pandemic and which ones will boom in usage. I wouldn't be surprised to see a route like the 15 suffer heavily for a period after this due to tourism downfall, while I don't think the reducing something like the 25 would be a wise idea as this route caters for a lot of blue collar workers which won't have working patterns altered as a result. There's a split view over the return to the office, some people believe it won't happen while some people believe it will. Nobody here is right o wrong because none of us know how the future will go, while offices may be downsized, extra space in the buildings could lead to more companies setting up and in total offering similar employment numbers throughout the week which will mean bus travel may eventually pick up. TfL generally haven't got something hopelessly wrong, the only recent example I can think of is the 384, and if we go back to the Central London cuts I'd say the 25, 53 and 171 were the only ones out of the many proposed which majorly inconvenienced a large number of people at once. TfL may again just have the data available to make such a decision, no matter how bad their financial situation is now, they've probably got extremely clever statisticians working with the data they have available (of which in many cases is down to exactly the number of people which board at each stop) to determine where any cuts may be. These have probably already been drafted up, and Purdah may be an opportunity for the company as a whole to really knuckle down and thoroughly analyse these changes while they don't need to worry about making any public announcements. I'm not sure what the planning mode in TfL is like at the moment, whether they plan for an all case scenario or plan depending on mayoral polls. But I can see Khan's future plans being proceeded with for now in a realistic fashion unless there's a huge downturn at the polls over the next couple of weeks. We're only three weeks from the election now, following this we should probably hear of the cuts before the summer is out. There might even be a case where the hope that people are away on holidays might soften the blow. I wouldn't even be surprised to see the consultation drop just before the August bank holiday or around that time when the most people are likely to be away from work, and as a result are unlikely to discuss commutes. I remember very well the last consultation came when I was abroad sweltering in the heat of the Indian Subcontinent and then thinking my eyes were playing tricks on me as I read all the proposals. TfL are sadly in the position of having to decide the least worst option. All the choices they are being given are bad, so it is a question of priorities. Clearly the bus network is not a priority and the routes which they decide to cut will no doubt have been modelled etc. The trouble is that all modelling is based on assumptions, assumptions that may prove incorrect such as how passenger numbers will recover post covid. It is under the kind of financial pressure that TfL find itself in when decisions are most likely to be wrong, even hopelessly wrong. In many ways the consequences of the decisions are hidden, so they don't necessarily appear as hopelessly wrong. For example if a bus service is cut you won't necessarily see passengers left at stops, instead passengers may use another means of transport such their car, or not travel at all leading to fewer passengers which is then used to justify the cuts! Never mind the extra cars, never mind people who choose not to go to the shops and shop online instead, never mind more stores closing because people aren't travelling to them and so forth, but these are the real consequences that don't feed sufficiently into the planning. This is because the only priority is to save money, so services are cut above all else. TfL will have statistics on the expected loss of passengers as a result of service cuts, but I suspect only the direct financial impact (that is fewer fares) will have have been properly considered in any assessment. I suspect the other consequences such as extra cars, fewer people going to the shops etc won't have been properly factored in. Indeed if you trying to get places like London's West End to recover post Covid and not to have a wider car led recovery, then bus cuts are a very strange way to go about it, and arguably will hinder any recovery. As the saying goes you can't have your cake and eat it! |
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Apr 19, 2021 18:34:11 GMT
Khan scored an own goal with the 4 year fare freeze and hopper fare. He knew very well the tough financial circumstances facing TfL ahead of his previous election, yet he still chose to deepen concessions. As a result he can hardly portray himself as a sound custodian of TfL finances. Combined with his unhelpful aggression against the government, London’s bus network will be in a worse state than it could have been. Andy Byford has struck a more diplomatic and pragmatic tone since he came in, Khan would do well to take a leaf out of his book. Khan identified back office savings (that were largely achieved), plus there was an expectation that some extra trips would be generated that would offset the revenue loss to some degree. It's strange that everyone accepts that the Underground has effectively had Hopper Fares since the 1930s (no-one pays again if they have to change lines) yet there is still opposition to it being applied to buses. I think the hopper fare is really a sideshow. If the hopper fare had been introduced and fares has gone up as normal, that is no fares freeze, it would not have been anything like as toxic a situation as it is. The other element is the relationship between the Mayor and Government which has been much worse than it should have been even given they are from different political parties. I don't think anyone comes out with credit here, both Government and Mayor are elected and need to get on for everyone including their own voters benefit. |
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Apr 19, 2021 18:52:32 GMT
He could have done the responsible thing and not made those manifesto pledges in the first place. In fairness there have been calls for a hopper fare for a long time and I think it would have come whoever was mayor......... whether fares should have increased is another matter although inevitably any fares increase will result in a further drop in passenger numbers. The hopper fare was a lib dem policy from the first London Mayoral elections iirc. It has worked in many other countries and outside of London for years in the form of a transfer ticket. |
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Apr 19, 2021 19:19:29 GMT
Has anyone here had a route that went into Central London but got cutback noticed any changes in patronage to other modes of transport? Example I've definitely noticed since the 88 was extended to Parliament Hill I've seen an increase in the number of people using the C11 in Parliament Hill, presumably to access Archway for the tube Connected to the 218/266/306 changes , I’ve noticed the 220 is busier with Hammersmith bound passengers to/from Harlesden. Why would the change to the 88 have made anyone go from Parliament Hill to Archway to get the tube? That seems like making their journey longer. To be frank if they took the 266 from Harlesden to Hammersmith and have since swapped to the 220 they will have massively reduced their journey time. The 266 was slow and unreliable. |
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Apr 19, 2021 19:48:45 GMT
Connected to the 218/266/306 changes , I’ve noticed the 220 is busier with Hammersmith bound passengers to/from Harlesden. Why would the change to the 88 have made anyone go from Parliament Hill to Archway to get the tube? That seems like making their journey longer. To be frank if they took the 266 from Harlesden to Hammersmith and have since swapped to the 220 they will have massively reduced their journey time. The 266 was slow and unreliable. If a service is not reliable they will find other methods. The 88, bless its soul, is regularly on diversion due to Whitehall but also down to the Central London traffic and I believe some people in Parliament Hill have chosen to now start using the Northern Line then the C11 rather than the unreliable 88. This was one of the reasons I was against the C2 withdrawal, I also disliked how it was removed from Victoria as it was far busier going down there than the 22 currently is.
|
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Apr 30, 2021 10:58:48 GMT
Talking of Parliament Hill, I recommend this tremendous bit of footage from 1970 about cuts to the services there. Some of the arguments - on both sides! - will sound familiar.
|
|
|
|
Post by cl54 on Apr 30, 2021 16:39:40 GMT
Talking of Parliament Hill, I recommend this tremendous bit of footage from 1970 about cuts to the services there. Some of the arguments - on both sides! - will sound familiar. The withdrawal of the 163 was controversial is south east London too. It provided a number of useful connections. |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Apr 30, 2021 17:23:38 GMT
Alternative suggestion for the 148, plus other central London ideas: 148 - Restructure to operate between Queens Park Station and Old Kent Road Tesco, via the 36 to Marble Arch, existing route to Elephant & Castle, then the 168. Maintaining useful links around central London. Also covers links/capacity from Old Kent Road towards Westminster if the 453 gets cut. 36 - Cut back to Marble Arch (or Lancaster Gate), to improve reliability. 168 - Rerouted at Elephant to Camberwell Green, or possibly onwards to North Dulwich, Herne Hill or Tulse Hill if able to operate reliably. 68/468 - Corridor restructured along with the 168 change. 68 cut back from Euston to Aldwych, Waterloo or Elephant, but extended south from West Norwood, such as to Thornton Heath. 468 to be cut back at the north end to improve reliability, e.g. to Camberwell Green or Tulse Hill. Frequencies adjusted if needed. 7 - Extend from Oxford Circus to Piccadilly Circus via the 94, re-introducing the link from Paddington to the West End. 94 - Re-routed to Holborn via the 98. 98 - Cut back to Marble Arch. Possible extension from Willesden to Wembley Park. 35/45 - Restructured, with the 35 cut back to Elephant & Castle, and the 45 extended to Shoreditch in place. Improves reliability on the 35, while making the shortened 45 more useful - also reduced capacity via London Bridge and Liverpool Street, while maintaining capacity towards Clapham Junction. Route numbers could swap here if it's preferable to keep the 35 to Shoreditch. Interesting idea to reroute the 148 to Queens Park, it would no longer be suitable for LT operation although obviously that's not an insurmountable problem. If the 36 was cut back to Marble Arch or Paddington it could be extended back to Lewisham at the other end and the 436 altered. I can't see much merit in extending the 68 to Thornton Heath. I'm open minded about your 7/94/98 suggestion, swings and roundabouts. Your 35/45 suggestion makes sense although the frequencies are different. |
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Apr 30, 2021 17:38:02 GMT
Alternative suggestion for the 148, plus other central London ideas: 148 - Restructure to operate between Queens Park Station and Old Kent Road Tesco, via the 36 to Marble Arch, existing route to Elephant & Castle, then the 168. Maintaining useful links around central London. Also covers links/capacity from Old Kent Road towards Westminster if the 453 gets cut. 36 - Cut back to Marble Arch (or Lancaster Gate), to improve reliability. 168 - Rerouted at Elephant to Camberwell Green, or possibly onwards to North Dulwich, Herne Hill or Tulse Hill if able to operate reliably. 68/468 - Corridor restructured along with the 168 change. 68 cut back from Euston to Aldwych, Waterloo or Elephant, but extended south from West Norwood, such as to Thornton Heath. 468 to be cut back at the north end to improve reliability, e.g. to Camberwell Green or Tulse Hill. Frequencies adjusted if needed. 7 - Extend from Oxford Circus to Piccadilly Circus via the 94, re-introducing the link from Paddington to the West End. 94 - Re-routed to Holborn via the 98. 98 - Cut back to Marble Arch. Possible extension from Willesden to Wembley Park. 35/45 - Restructured, with the 35 cut back to Elephant & Castle, and the 45 extended to Shoreditch in place. Improves reliability on the 35, while making the shortened 45 more useful - also reduced capacity via London Bridge and Liverpool Street, while maintaining capacity towards Clapham Junction. Route numbers could swap here if it's preferable to keep the 35 to Shoreditch. Interesting idea to reroute the 148 to Queens Park, it would no longer be suitable for LT operation although obviously that's not an insurmountable problem. If the 36 was cut back to Marble Arch or Paddington it could be extended back to Lewisham at the other end and the 436 altered. I can't see much merit in extending the 68 to Thornton Heath. I'm open minded about your 7/94/98 suggestion, swings and roundabouts. Your 35/45 suggestion makes sense although the frequencies are different. The 35/45 suggestion doesn't make sense at all...the 35 is a well used service and nothing should need to be changed. There could be some merit in extending the 45 on its southern end to Wandsworth or Balham via Clapham South to hopefully fix up some lost links that could be really helpful. Though opinions may vary, there could be some merit also reducing the 35 a bit as it does bunch a lot - though with its heavy increase in usage in 1 year (over 1m) nothing should be changed really. |
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Apr 30, 2021 17:44:13 GMT
Talking of Parliament Hill, I recommend this tremendous bit of footage from 1970 about cuts to the services there. Some of the arguments - on both sides! - will sound familiar. The withdrawal of the 163 was controversial is south east London too. It provided a number of useful connections. It predates me a bit but I can see why it would have been - some of those links (ie Peckham - Deptford Bridge) weren't restored until the 177 was diverted in the 90s. |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Apr 30, 2021 17:47:20 GMT
Interesting idea to reroute the 148 to Queens Park, it would no longer be suitable for LT operation although obviously that's not an insurmountable problem. If the 36 was cut back to Marble Arch or Paddington it could be extended back to Lewisham at the other end and the 436 altered. I can't see much merit in extending the 68 to Thornton Heath. I'm open minded about your 7/94/98 suggestion, swings and roundabouts. Your 35/45 suggestion makes sense although the frequencies are different. The 35/45 suggestion doesn't make sense at all...the 35 is a well used service and nothing should need to be changed. There could be some merit in extending the 45 on its southern end to Wandsworth or Balham via Clapham South to hopefully fix up some lost links that could be really helpful. Though opinions may vary, there could be some merit also reducing the 35 a bit as it does bunch a lot - though with its heavy increase in usage in 1 year (over 1m) nothing should be changed really. Well it does make sense, both routes would be of a similar length. The only stumbling block would be the difference in frequencies that I mentioned. The route would still be exactly the same from Shoreditch to Brixton, it would then go to Clapham Park rather than Clapham Junction. |
|
|
|
Post by cl54 on Apr 30, 2021 17:50:21 GMT
The withdrawal of the 163 was controversial is south east London too. It provided a number of useful connections. It predates me a bit but I can see why it would have been - some of those links (ie Peckham - Deptford Bridge) weren't restored until the 177 was diverted in the 90s. and beyond to Camberwell/Kennington plus supporting your favourite 53 to Plumstead Common. |
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Apr 30, 2021 17:57:17 GMT
The 35/45 suggestion doesn't make sense at all...the 35 is a well used service and nothing should need to be changed. There could be some merit in extending the 45 on its southern end to Wandsworth or Balham via Clapham South to hopefully fix up some lost links that could be really helpful. Though opinions may vary, there could be some merit also reducing the 35 a bit as it does bunch a lot - though with its heavy increase in usage in 1 year (over 1m) nothing should be changed really. Well it does make sense, both routes would be of a similar length. The only stumbling block would be the difference in frequencies that I mentioned. The route would still be exactly the same from Shoreditch to Brixton, it would then go to Clapham Park rather than Clapham Junction. Well no it doesn't, the 35 got over 9 million between 2019 and 2020 so what does that say about the route. It is very clearly successful in its own form. Ironically it would be more expensive to fiddle with them than just to leave the 35 as the breadwinner if you could call it that with the 45 existing as a South London oriented route potentially being extended into the New Bermondsey Development or going to somewhere like Wandsworth. |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Apr 30, 2021 18:02:14 GMT
Well it does make sense, both routes would be of a similar length. The only stumbling block would be the difference in frequencies that I mentioned. The route would still be exactly the same from Shoreditch to Brixton, it would then go to Clapham Park rather than Clapham Junction. Well no it doesn't, the 35 got over 9 million between 2019 and 2020 so what does that say about the route. It is very clearly successful in its own form. Ironically it would be more expensive to fiddle with them than just to leave the 35 as the breadwinner if you could call it that with the 45 existing as a South London oriented route potentially being extended into the New Bermondsey Development or going to somewhere like Wandsworth. I don't think there's much likelihood of the 45 being extended to Bermondsey or Wandsworth, if anything it looks a prime candidate for the axe. |
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Apr 30, 2021 18:06:37 GMT
Well no it doesn't, the 35 got over 9 million between 2019 and 2020 so what does that say about the route. It is very clearly successful in its own form. Ironically it would be more expensive to fiddle with them than just to leave the 35 as the breadwinner if you could call it that with the 45 existing as a South London oriented route potentially being extended into the New Bermondsey Development or going to somewhere like Wandsworth. I don't think there's much likelihood of the 45 being extended to Bermondsey or Wandsworth, if anything it looks a prime candidate for the axe. Then if you deem it up for the chopping block why bother saying it should get changed! |
|
