|
Post by vjaska on Oct 27, 2021 10:40:07 GMT
Yes, but the chances of people having free travel withdrawn causes the opposite. If you suddenly have to fork out a few more grand each year people are likely to switch. So your solution to raising more revenue without making the fare payers pay more is what? At the end of the day there is only so much in a revenue pot. If more can't be raised then cloth has to be cut. Can I ask why you think cutting cloth is great when there is plenty of evidence to suggest that all what happens is further decline?
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Oct 27, 2021 11:52:47 GMT
Sorry can you point out where the word great is? It's simply an example of what happens often when revenue isn't increased for a business or service.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Oct 27, 2021 13:02:15 GMT
Sorry can you point out where the word great is? It's simply an example of what happens often when revenue isn't increased for a business or service. That doesn’t mean it’s correct - we’ve seen many times that unless you don’t invest, decline will set in and cutting or implementing austerity only ramps the decline up.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Oct 27, 2021 13:31:49 GMT
But I'm talking about what is right or wrong. I'm here to discuss the fact that tfl have given the indication that following their review they have stated they will make more substantial route changes in central and inner London.
What I belive is immaterial and iv made clear my belief is that we need greater revenue through more people paying, not the current fare payers paying more. If bus fares go much higher then again main people will say sharing an Uber or similar is better value.
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Oct 27, 2021 13:43:09 GMT
But I'm talking about what is right or wrong. I'm here to discuss the fact that tfl have given the indication that following their review they have stated they will make more substantial route changes in central and inner London. What I belive is immaterial and iv made clear my belief is that we need greater revenue through more people paying, not the current fare payers paying more. If bus fares go much higher then again main people will say sharing an Uber or similar is better value. Bus fares offer excellent value for money even a small 10p increase could raise revenue. If we never had such a long fare freeze I think bus fares would be higher than £1.60 -£1.70.
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Oct 27, 2021 13:44:09 GMT
But I'm talking about what is right or wrong. I'm here to discuss the fact that tfl have given the indication that following their review they have stated they will make more substantial route changes in central and inner London. What I belive is immaterial and iv made clear my belief is that we need greater revenue through more people paying, not the current fare payers paying more. If bus fares go much higher then again main people will say sharing an Uber or similar is better value. But if more people pay for the bus it will be the same. If two parents and two children have to pay £6.20, and an Uber only then costs £5 the Uber is by far the better value considering you effectively get private transport. The answer is to persuade people out of cars and onto public transport. But making even more people pay will not cause that to happen.
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Oct 27, 2021 13:54:25 GMT
But I'm talking about what is right or wrong. I'm here to discuss the fact that tfl have given the indication that following their review they have stated they will make more substantial route changes in central and inner London. What I belive is immaterial and iv made clear my belief is that we need greater revenue through more people paying, not the current fare payers paying more. If bus fares go much higher then again main people will say sharing an Uber or similar is better value. But if more people pay for the bus it will be the same. If two parents and two children have to pay £6.20, and an Uber only then costs £5 the Uber is by far the better value considering you effectively get private transport. The answer is to persuade people out of cars and onto public transport. But making even more people pay will not cause that to happen. How many of the car drivers you wish to persuade out of their cars will be eligible for free travel ... probably the smallest of percentages ... most car drivers will pay fares if they use buses, so how many people does it effect? The majority of eligible free bus users are already using it ... if you can't get someone to use something that is free, you are really struggling. Again can not understand why you worry about free users ... they contribute nothing, so will not be of any loss to TfL. Attracting more free users will not bring in any more money, just makes buses fuller so potentially driving fare paying passengers away.
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Oct 27, 2021 14:31:18 GMT
But if more people pay for the bus it will be the same. If two parents and two children have to pay £6.20, and an Uber only then costs £5 the Uber is by far the better value considering you effectively get private transport. The answer is to persuade people out of cars and onto public transport. But making even more people pay will not cause that to happen. How many of the car drivers you wish to persuade out of their cars will be eligible for free travel ... probably the smallest of percentages ... most car drivers will pay fares if they use buses, so how many people does it effect? The majority of eligible free bus users are already using it ... if you can't get someone to use something that is free, you are really struggling. Again can not understand why you worry about free users ... they contribute nothing, so will not be of any loss to TfL. Attracting more free users will not bring in any more money, just makes buses fuller so potentially driving fare paying passengers away. That is also another worrying sign. There is also a lot of staff who do not use the bus or train even though they have the free staff pass.
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Oct 27, 2021 15:46:03 GMT
But I'm talking about what is right or wrong. I'm here to discuss the fact that tfl have given the indication that following their review they have stated they will make more substantial route changes in central and inner London. What I belive is immaterial and iv made clear my belief is that we need greater revenue through more people paying, not the current fare payers paying more. If bus fares go much higher then again main people will say sharing an Uber or similar is better value. I think one of the other issues is terminating/diverting routes to areas which perhaps aren't that useful for patrons.
For example the 263 is useless from H&I up to Highbury Barn and carries air whereas Dalston would probably be more of a useful place to terminate the service & not much further away, ditto the 271 down to Finsbury Square, would've been far more useful to Shoreditch (I'm going full crayon mode here).
Perhaps at the time of the 87 withdrawal in East London/when the EL2 was diverted the 238 could've always taken on the Becontree Heath section as that would provide a second link to East Ham, whilst the EL1/EL2 working in tandem up Ilford Lane at appropriate frequencies; though I'll leave this to the East Londoners to comment on.
Been mentioned before that the 433 could always take on the Forestdale section of the 353 as that would provide more use to Selsdon/Croydon, but again I'll leave that for South Londoners to comment on.
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Oct 27, 2021 17:06:27 GMT
But I'm talking about what is right or wrong. I'm here to discuss the fact that tfl have given the indication that following their review they have stated they will make more substantial route changes in central and inner London. What I belive is immaterial and iv made clear my belief is that we need greater revenue through more people paying, not the current fare payers paying more. If bus fares go much higher then again main people will say sharing an Uber or similar is better value. I think one of the other issues is terminating/diverting routes to areas which perhaps aren't that useful for patrons.
For example the 263 is useless from H&I up to Highbury Barn and carries air whereas Dalston would probably be more of a useful place to terminate the service & not much further away, ditto the 271 down to Finsbury Square, would've been far more useful to Shoreditch (I'm going full crayon mode here).
Perhaps at the time of the 87 withdrawal in East London/when the EL2 was diverted the 238 could've always taken on the Becontree Heath section as that would provide a second link to East Ham, whilst the EL1/EL2 working in tandem up Ilford Lane at appropriate frequencies; though I'll leave this to the East Londoners to comment on.
Been mentioned before that the 433 could always take on the Forestdale section of the 353 as that would provide more use to Selsdon/Croydon, but again I'll leave that for South Londoners to comment on. Indeed, bus route planning seems to have become ever more remote from local communities.
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Oct 27, 2021 18:17:46 GMT
But I'm talking about what is right or wrong. I'm here to discuss the fact that tfl have given the indication that following their review they have stated they will make more substantial route changes in central and inner London. What I belive is immaterial and iv made clear my belief is that we need greater revenue through more people paying, not the current fare payers paying more. If bus fares go much higher then again main people will say sharing an Uber or similar is better value. I think one of the other issues is terminating/diverting routes to areas which perhaps aren't that useful for patrons.
For example the 263 is useless from H&I up to Highbury Barn and carries air whereas Dalston would probably be more of a useful place to terminate the service & not much further away, ditto the 271 down to Finsbury Square, would've been far more useful to Shoreditch (I'm going full crayon mode here).
Perhaps at the time of the 87 withdrawal in East London/when the EL2 was diverted the 238 could've always taken on the Becontree Heath section as that would provide a second link to East Ham, whilst the EL1/EL2 working in tandem up Ilford Lane at appropriate frequencies; though I'll leave this to the East Londoners to comment on.
Been mentioned before that the 433 could always take on the Forestdale section of the 353 as that would provide more use to Selsdon/Croydon, but again I'll leave that for South Londoners to comment on. I agree about the 263, Dalston would be far more useful, and the 353 is ridiculous when pretty much everyone from Forestdale wants to go to Selsdon or Croydon.
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Oct 27, 2021 20:29:07 GMT
I think one of the other issues is terminating/diverting routes to areas which perhaps aren't that useful for patrons.
For example the 263 is useless from H&I up to Highbury Barn and carries air whereas Dalston would probably be more of a useful place to terminate the service & not much further away, ditto the 271 down to Finsbury Square, would've been far more useful to Shoreditch (I'm going full crayon mode here).
Perhaps at the time of the 87 withdrawal in East London/when the EL2 was diverted the 238 could've always taken on the Becontree Heath section as that would provide a second link to East Ham, whilst the EL1/EL2 working in tandem up Ilford Lane at appropriate frequencies; though I'll leave this to the East Londoners to comment on.
Been mentioned before that the 433 could always take on the Forestdale section of the 353 as that would provide more use to Selsdon/Croydon, but again I'll leave that for South Londoners to comment on. I agree about the 263, Dalston would be far more useful, and the 353 is ridiculous when pretty much everyone from Forestdale wants to go to Selsdon or Croydon. Regarding Forestdale, was the T31 of any use because I suppose it linked in to New Addington where there's shops etc?
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Oct 27, 2021 21:06:42 GMT
I agree about the 263, Dalston would be far more useful, and the 353 is ridiculous when pretty much everyone from Forestdale wants to go to Selsdon or Croydon. Regarding Forestdale, was the T31 of any use because I suppose it linked in to New Addington where there's shops etc?
Not really, that was quite poorly used. There's not much in New Addington to attract people from outside the estate. I think most people walked down the road and got the T33/433 to Croydon.
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Oct 27, 2021 21:22:28 GMT
Regarding Forestdale, was the T31 of any use because I suppose it linked in to New Addington where there's shops etc?
Not really, that was quite poorly used. There's not much in New Addington to attract people from outside the estate. I think most people walked down the road and got the T33/433 to Croydon. Is there not much in New Addington? Whenever I've done e2es I've seen shops on the parade but perhaps they aren't of demand.
Well I suppose if the demand was there the 433 could be rerouted round Forestdale (would attract a PVR of +1 from what I've calculated) however if the 353 were to be cutback to Addington it would drop by 1 as well. So pretty cost neutral then and Forestdale gets double the service.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Oct 27, 2021 21:25:41 GMT
I agree about the 263, Dalston would be far more useful, and the 353 is ridiculous when pretty much everyone from Forestdale wants to go to Selsdon or Croydon. Regarding Forestdale, was the T31 of any use because I suppose it linked in to New Addington where there's shops etc?
There was some use, mainly feeding people from Forestdale into the tram as well as people from the estate to the tram which was the role it was created for - a tram feeder route.
|
|