Bus mileage to be cut by 4% over next 3 years

[Eastlondoner62]

Jan 21, 2021 0:22:09 GMT greg said:

Is the 46 the first route affected by the 4% mileage cut? Seems TFL were quite quick with this or is it because of a complete different reason

I believe foxhat mentioned this cut quite a few months ago, certainly before the 4% thing was made public.

[jrussa]

I recall route 46 originally be part of the proposed Route 23 diversion to Lancaster Gate and extension to Wembley. There is adequate stand space for another route when route 46 is curtailed to Paddington.

[foxhat]

Jan 21, 2021 0:22:09 GMT greg said:

Is the 46 the first route affected by the 4% mileage cut? Seems TFL were quite quick with this or is it because of a complete different reason

The 46 cut back is very strange to me because hardly saves anything! The new stand working from Paddington is very similar to the mileage to/from Lancaster Gate so the saving is actually negligible 

[ianhardy]

How about is this for a way for TfL to save money on buses:

All TfL bus routes only operate within the Greater London area i.e. only serving the people who have a TfL precept on their council tax to fund the cheap fares etc. The people who live outside of Greater London served by TfL buses are getting the benefits without paying anything through their council tax.

For example:
96, 428 and 492 terminate at Crayford and not go into Kent.
370 & 372 terminate at Corbets Tey / Wennington and not go into Essex / Thrurrock.
81 terminate at Longford and not go into Berkshire.
116, 117, 203, 216, 235, 290, 406, 411, 418 & 465 terminate at Clockhouse Roundabout / Lower Feltham / Beacon Road (Stanwell) / Hanworth / Lower Feltham / Hampton / Tolworth / Hampton Court / Tolworth / Chessington Zoo and not go into Surrey.
Withdraw the 467 as inside Greater London it does not go anywhere unique.

Actually the 216, 406, 411, 418 & 465 could all be withdrawn as they would become short workings of the following routes 111, 281, 111, 281 & 71.

[LJ17THF]

Jan 21, 2021 21:00:46 GMT ianhardy said:

How about is this for a way for TfL to save money on buses:

All TfL bus routes only operate within the Greater London area i.e. only serving the people who have a TfL precept on their council tax to fund the cheap fares etc. The people who live outside of Greater London served by TfL buses are getting the benefits without paying anything through their council tax.

For example:
96, 428 and 492 terminate at Crayford and not go into Kent.
370 & 372 terminate at Corbets Tey / Wennington and not go into Essex / Thrurrock.
81 terminate at Longford and not go into Berkshire.
116, 117, 203, 216, 235, 290, 406, 411, 418 & 465 terminate at Clockhouse Roundabout / Lower Feltham / Beacon Road (Stanwell) / Hanworth / Lower Feltham / Hampton / Tolworth / Hampton Court / Tolworth / Chessington Zoo and not go into Surrey.
Withdraw the 467 as inside Greater London it does not go anywhere unique.

Actually the 216, 406, 411, 418 & 465 could all be withdrawn as they would become short workings of the following routes 111, 281, 111, 281 & 71.

Don't do this at all! This will only cause jeopardy! Some councils outside of London are also taxed for those London routes, so it would only make a mess. People need those routes and all of a sudden to just get rid of them would cause a disaster!

Central London routes are the ones going to be cut, they are more frequent than outer London ones and have higher PVR's, not to mention that once they are withdrawn from sections would cause less congestion.

[TB123]

Jan 21, 2021 21:00:46 GMT ianhardy said:

How about is this for a way for TfL to save money on buses:

All TfL bus routes only operate within the Greater London area i.e. only serving the people who have a TfL precept on their council tax to fund the cheap fares etc. The people who live outside of Greater London served by TfL buses are getting the benefits without paying anything through their council tax.

For example:
96, 428 and 492 terminate at Crayford and not go into Kent.
370 & 372 terminate at Corbets Tey / Wennington and not go into Essex / Thrurrock.
81 terminate at Longford and not go into Berkshire.
116, 117, 203, 216, 235, 290, 406, 411, 418 & 465 terminate at Clockhouse Roundabout / Lower Feltham / Beacon Road (Stanwell) / Hanworth / Lower Feltham / Hampton / Tolworth / Hampton Court / Tolworth / Chessington Zoo and not go into Surrey.
Withdraw the 467 as inside Greater London it does not go anywhere unique.

Actually the 216, 406, 411, 418 & 465 could all be withdrawn as they would become short workings of the following routes 111, 281, 111, 281 & 71.

This wouldn't be feasible as many of those services and their functions are of value to London taxpayers, especially with hospital links - it would be absolutely pointless terminating at arbitrary points. It makes perfect sense to run to key traffic objectives like all of those services do. In fact arbitrary cutbacks like you suggest could well cause more damage to TfL finances given the present business cases clearly work.

I do think TfL should be a little firmer with neighbouring counties about funding cross-border service that benefit their taxpayers, but the arrangement with the services mentioned above is fine as it is at present. Neighbouring counties at present contribute to many of the services you mention.

The only cross-border cut I'd suggest is the proposed 258 cutback to Bushey Heath, which I agree with - given the demand only warrants the 142 and there's also a parralel London Overground service. Otherwise, I don't see any need for cutbacks on the border.

[Deleted]

Jan 21, 2021 21:03:41 GMT LJ17THF said:

Jan 21, 2021 21:00:46 GMT ianhardy said:

How about is this for a way for TfL to save money on buses:

All TfL bus routes only operate within the Greater London area i.e. only serving the people who have a TfL precept on their council tax to fund the cheap fares etc. The people who live outside of Greater London served by TfL buses are getting the benefits without paying anything through their council tax.

For example:
96, 428 and 492 terminate at Crayford and not go into Kent.
370 & 372 terminate at Corbets Tey / Wennington and not go into Essex / Thrurrock.
81 terminate at Longford and not go into Berkshire.
116, 117, 203, 216, 235, 290, 406, 411, 418 & 465 terminate at Clockhouse Roundabout / Lower Feltham / Beacon Road (Stanwell) / Hanworth / Lower Feltham / Hampton / Tolworth / Hampton Court / Tolworth / Chessington Zoo and not go into Surrey.
Withdraw the 467 as inside Greater London it does not go anywhere unique.

Actually the 216, 406, 411, 418 & 465 could all be withdrawn as they would become short workings of the following routes 111, 281, 111, 281 & 71.

Don't do this at all! This will only cause jeopardy! Some councils outside of London are also taxed for those London routes, so it would only make a mess. People need those routes and all of a sudden to just get rid of them would cause a disaster!

Not to mention that these routes feed workers into the London area which is important, just looking at that list routes like the 216, 406, 411, 418 & 465 feed retail and office workers into Kingston which is a very large employment town. Likewise the 465 feeds employees in the summer months from places like Dorking to Chessington for seasonal work. They are a lifeline to the young and those unable to drive.

[ianhardy]

But why should TfL fund them, surely if there is that much demand for them, then bus companies could run them as commercial services as per the rest of the country?

[TB123]

Jan 21, 2021 21:09:36 GMT ianhardy said:

But why should TfL fund them, surely if there is that much demand for them, then bus companies could run them as commercial services as per the rest of the country?

Why would TfL sacrifice much-needed revenues, for services that also fulfil Mayoral strategic objectives of providing comprehensive public transport links in outer London? Totally daft idea. If it had any merit it'd have happened by now. The fact it hasn't speaks volumes.

[Deleted]

Jan 21, 2021 21:11:01 GMT TB123 said:

Jan 21, 2021 21:09:36 GMT ianhardy said:

But why should TfL fund them, surely if there is that much demand for them, then bus companies could run them as commercial services as per the rest of the country?

Why would TfL sacrifice much-needed revenues, for services that also fulfil Mayoral strategic objectives of providing comprehensive public transport links in outer London? Totally daft idea. If it had any merit it'd have happened by now. The fact it hasn't speaks volumes.

If anything TfL should be looking at where they can, along with any proposed cuts in Central London, redistribute and takeover routes on the London borders. A prime example in my area would be the 420, but only between Sutton and Redhill. There are plenty of passengers and its a great feeder from areas like Tadworth into the London area. The best part is it could run 2 buses an hour, which is more or less what it has now. Little investment but a lot of improvements for residents and revenue from day one for TfL.

[twobellstogo]

Jan 21, 2021 21:11:01 GMT TB123 said:

Jan 21, 2021 21:09:36 GMT ianhardy said:

But why should TfL fund them, surely if there is that much demand for them, then bus companies could run them as commercial services as per the rest of the country?

Why would TfL sacrifice much-needed revenues, for services that also fulfil Mayoral strategic objectives of providing comprehensive public transport links in outer London? Totally daft idea. If it had any merit it'd have happened by now. The fact it hasn't speaks volumes.

This.
We could go on for a long time as to why TfL services go into neighbouring counties : but a lot of the reasons boil down to TfL’s remit being to provide a good public transport service to all Londoners. Even if we consider that some journeys are for leisure, there are other more critical journeys - from TfL area to schools just outside (Dartford is a good example of this), or people in TfL area referred to hospitals outside it (this is common with Epsom Hospital, also Darent Valley, and I’m sure elsewhere).

[twobellstogo]

Jan 21, 2021 21:18:37 GMT @busenthusiast56 said:

Jan 21, 2021 21:11:01 GMT TB123 said:

Why would TfL sacrifice much-needed revenues, for services that also fulfil Mayoral strategic objectives of providing comprehensive public transport links in outer London? Totally daft idea. If it had any merit it'd have happened by now. The fact it hasn't speaks volumes.

If anything TfL should be looking at where they can, along with any proposed cuts in Central London, redistribute and takeover routes on the London borders. A prime example in my area would be the 420, but only between Sutton and Redhill. There are plenty of passengers and its a great feeder from areas like Tadworth into the London area. The best part is it could run 2 buses an hour, which is more or less what it has now. Little investment but a lot of improvements for residents and revenue from day one for TfL.

Yes - absolutely.
I would also certainly consider the Portsmouth Road in Kingston/Surbiton, and on into Surrey as a good TfL prospect, and you could also argue that the 461 at least as far as Walton would work too.

[Deleted]

Jan 21, 2021 21:23:43 GMT twobellstogo said:

Jan 21, 2021 21:18:37 GMT @busenthusiast56 said:

If anything TfL should be looking at where they can, along with any proposed cuts in Central London, redistribute and takeover routes on the London borders. A prime example in my area would be the 420, but only between Sutton and Redhill. There are plenty of passengers and its a great feeder from areas like Tadworth into the London area. The best part is it could run 2 buses an hour, which is more or less what it has now. Little investment but a lot of improvements for residents and revenue from day one for TfL.

Yes - absolutely.
I would also certainly consider the Portsmouth Road in Kingston/Surbiton, and on into Surrey as a good TfL prospect, and you could also argue that the 461 at least as far as Walton would work too.

I mean if you think about it a lot of the people in these areas are likely to already own Oyster cards either because they are so close to London or because they work in the London area, providing a better bus service would attract more revenue with more spending with their families and themselves on existing Oyster cards or debit/credit cards, gone are the days when Oyster cards were considered only for Londoners.

[Deleted]

Jan 21, 2021 21:00:46 GMT ianhardy said:

How about is this for a way for TfL to save money on buses:

All TfL bus routes only operate within the Greater London area i.e. only serving the people who have a TfL precept on their council tax to fund the cheap fares etc. The people who live outside of Greater London served by TfL buses are getting the benefits without paying anything through their council tax.

For example:
96, 428 and 492 terminate at Crayford and not go into Kent.
370 & 372 terminate at Corbets Tey / Wennington and not go into Essex / Thrurrock.
81 terminate at Longford and not go into Berkshire.
116, 117, 203, 216, 235, 290, 406, 411, 418 & 465 terminate at Clockhouse Roundabout / Lower Feltham / Beacon Road (Stanwell) / Hanworth / Lower Feltham / Hampton / Tolworth / Hampton Court / Tolworth / Chessington Zoo and not go into Surrey.
Withdraw the 467 as inside Greater London it does not go anywhere unique.

Actually the 216, 406, 411, 418 & 465 could all be withdrawn as they would become short workings of the following routes 111, 281, 111, 281 & 71.

Quite extreme. However, many of these routes provide decent revenue for TfL. Plus the councils partially fund them, many are cheaper to run and provide important links. 
Taking one example of the above, if implemented, Ashford Hospital and Darenth Valley Hospital lose their connections with catchment areas they serve. Apart from the 235 most have relatively low pvr. You could shave off buses from high pvr London routes and equal the cuts here.

[SILENCED]

Jan 21, 2021 21:19:34 GMT twobellstogo said:

Jan 21, 2021 21:11:01 GMT TB123 said:

Why would TfL sacrifice much-needed revenues, for services that also fulfil Mayoral strategic objectives of providing comprehensive public transport links in outer London? Totally daft idea. If it had any merit it'd have happened by now. The fact it hasn't speaks volumes.

This.
We could go on for a long time as to why TfL services go into neighbouring counties : but a lot of the reasons boil down to TfL’s remit being to provide a good public transport service to all Londoners. Even if we consider that some journeys are for leisure, there are other more critical journeys - from TfL area to schools just outside (Dartford is a good example of this), or people in TfL area referred to hospitals outside it (this is common with Epsom Hospital, also Darent Valley, and I’m sure elsewhere).

I think TfL should be able to recoup the cost of non-London mileage from the respective local authorities. Any that cry out should then publicly be shamed to their public.