|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Jan 21, 2021 23:46:46 GMT
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. I think TfL do indeed to this, although I think there's a few exceptions however on routes like this I think the profit made certainly outweighs any costs incurred. The 96 for example isn't funded but it's probably safe to say that route certainly justifies itself |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2021 0:07:55 GMT
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. But what if those local authorities say no because they can’t afford to cover the cost beyond their existing funding arrangements? Under your logic TfL won’t pick up the bill so those services are then cut and residents are forced to either use really expensive replacement commercial services or drive adding to congestion where they may have been able to use a bus. Not gaining revenue from these routes which tend to have very steady usage could affect TfLs ability to fund improvements in other areas. You wouldn’t be demanding the authorities are shamed then. |
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Jan 22, 2021 8:05:09 GMT
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. The 420 spends a very short time within London and immediate links to the south of Sutton (that come under Surrey) are well catered for by the S1. Don't think London taxpayers should partly subsidy a service that spends 14 miles of a 16 mile journey within Surrey. Also, the present 420 is operated commercially at tiny cost to (Surrey) taxpayers. |
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Jan 22, 2021 15:10:24 GMT
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. But what if those local authorities say no because they can’t afford to cover the cost beyond their existing funding arrangements? Under your logic TfL won’t pick up the bill so those services are then cut and residents are forced to either use really expensive replacement commercial services or drive adding to congestion where they may have been able to use a bus. Not gaining revenue from these routes which tend to have very steady usage could affect TfLs ability to fund improvements in other areas. You wouldn’t be demanding the authorities are shamed then. If the extra revenue is positive then yes, but would need confirmation, as I doubt many are at TfL fare levels. |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Jan 22, 2021 15:15:05 GMT
But what if those local authorities say no because they can’t afford to cover the cost beyond their existing funding arrangements? Under your logic TfL won’t pick up the bill so those services are then cut and residents are forced to either use really expensive replacement commercial services or drive adding to congestion where they may have been able to use a bus. Not gaining revenue from these routes which tend to have very steady usage could affect TfLs ability to fund improvements in other areas. You wouldn’t be demanding the authorities are shamed then. If the extra revenue is positive then yes, but would need confirmation, as I doubt many are at TfL fare levels. I would be interested to see what cross border routes actually self fund themselves once they cross the London border. Ignoring anything that makes it to Waltham Cross (as that's only a few stops out) I would really be interested in the 428 and 492 numbers to see why TfL wanted to cut them before U turning. I would also like to see how the 370 and 372 are doing, as while the routes get busy, a lot of the time once the route crosses the London border there is far less usage, I wonder if in such cases routes should be left due to the benefits they provide London commuters. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jan 22, 2021 15:52:21 GMT
The 428 and 492 were left by tfl 'for now' so there is nothing to say they won't re visit the routes again with a new plan if revenue isn't found to be sufficient beyond the boundary.
If I was to revisit it if probably keep the 428 the same between Bluewater and Dartford then divert it between Darford and Crayford via the 492 and make the 492 Crayford to Sidcup. That way issue of changing from a 428 to a 96 at Crayford would be solved.
|
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Jan 22, 2021 15:55:46 GMT
If the extra revenue is positive then yes, but would need confirmation, as I doubt many are at TfL fare levels. I would be interested to see what cross border routes actually self fund themselves once they cross the London border. Ignoring anything that makes it to Waltham Cross (as that's only a few stops out) I would really be interested in the 428 and 492 numbers to see why TfL wanted to cut them before U turning. I would also like to see how the 370 and 372 are doing, as while the routes get busy, a lot of the time once the route crosses the London border there is far less usage, I wonder if in such cases routes should be left due to the benefits they provide London commuters. If a cross-border rout e has to run to the boundary regardless, it makes sense for it to continue to a major traffic objective that is visited by Greater London residents as the benefits accrue to those residents. However TfL routes don't go further than that, for instance the 142 doesn't continue to Hemel Hempstead, the 96 doesn't go on to Gravesend, and the "Iron Curtain" (or should that be Red Wall?) that has developed at Waltham Cross is often commented on. The only real exceptions are the 166 beyond Banstead to Epsom and the 465 beyond Leatherhead to Dorking, which continue due to the past histories of the routes concerned and the involvement of Surrey County Council, which remains willing to continue supporting TfL routes. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jan 22, 2021 16:04:10 GMT
Tfl did threaten to withdrawn the sections of the 166 and 465 beyond Banstead and Leatherhead untill Surrey County Council agreed to continue.
But it is right that it makes logical sense to run a service to the last stop in London and then continue to next the natural place which is place like Banstead, Epsom, Dartford, Swanley, Loughton, Potters Bar, Staines.
|
|
|
|
Post by bustavane on Jan 22, 2021 17:35:04 GMT
Tfl did threaten to withdrawn the sections of the 166 and 465 beyond Banstead and Leatherhead untill Surrey County Council agreed to continue. But it is right that it makes logical sense to run a service to the last stop in London and then continue to next the natural place which is place like Banstead, Epsom, Dartford, Swanley, Loughton, Potters Bar, Staines. Pity that's not the case for the 375, but perhaps understandable for a one bus service. |
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Jan 22, 2021 17:40:59 GMT
Tfl did threaten to withdrawn the sections of the 166 and 465 beyond Banstead and Leatherhead untill Surrey County Council agreed to continue. But it is right that it makes logical sense to run a service to the last stop in London and then continue to next the natural place which is place like Banstead, Epsom, Dartford, Swanley, Loughton, Potters Bar, Staines. Pity that's not the case for the 375, but perhaps understandable for a one bus service. There's nowhere really for it to go - it only goes to Passingford Bridge because it is the first point beyond the boundary where it is safe to turn and stand (there is a roundabout and the bus stops have lay-bys). |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jan 22, 2021 18:16:22 GMT
The 375 really is a privide as basic as possible service for as cheap as possible to maintain a service to Havering-Atte-Bower. It almost ended up as a handful journeys between the peak using a bus from the 370 Monday to Fridays with no weekend service.
|
|
|
|
Post by greg on Jan 22, 2021 19:56:52 GMT
I think the 27 will be fiddled with in the northern section and possibly the 332.
I just feel like areas with overlapping routes are at more risk
Edgware Road (16, 32, 189, 316, 332)
Bayswater Road (94, 148, 274)
Baker Street - something will most definitely be pulled out and I very much think it will either be the 74 and 113
Southampton Row - (59, 68, 91, 168, 188)
Pentonville Road - the 476 may be a victim for a cut
and etc
|
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jan 22, 2021 20:12:38 GMT
Based on other schemes like Finchley round id say Jamaica Road (47, 188, 381) and possibly Lewisham to TL (47, 54, 136, 199, 208 and 75, 171, 185, 320 part of stretch) with Shoreditch to LB (35, 47, 149, 388 also at risk.
It survived last time but I'd say Piccadilly/Shaftsbury Avenue aswell (14, 19, 38) and maybe the Strand aswell.
|
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Jan 22, 2021 23:35:56 GMT
Based on other schemes like Finchley round id say Jamaica Road (47, 188, 381) and possibly Lewisham to TL (47, 54, 136, 199, 208 and 75, 171, 185, 320 part of stretch) with Shoreditch to LB (35, 47, 149, 388 also at risk. It survived last time but I'd say Piccadilly/Shaftsbury Avenue aswell (14, 19, 38) and maybe the Strand aswell. If adequate stand space could be made at Catford savings could be made as the 47, 171 & 199 could be cut back to The Catford Centre |
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Jan 23, 2021 6:19:20 GMT
Since the 23 has survived (for now) to Marble Arch as opposed to be withdrawn to Paddington and extended to Wembley, tfl may decide to pull the 7 out of the west end which was rumoured a few years ago to be cut once Crossrail opens. 23 diverted at Ladbroke Grove to East Acton and the 452 remaining/diverting to Westbourne Park and an increased 70 along Westbourne Park Road. I think the 7 will be left untouched. Only reason I say this is because TfL will want to see the full benefit of the hydrogen Streetdecks in heavily polluted areas such as Oxford Street. I think route 7 could be extended to Bloomsbury, route 98 curtailed at Marble Arch and route 159 finally curtailed at Oxford Circus. |
|
