|
Post by capitalomnibus on Sept 4, 2021 10:53:23 GMT
Ok, that would make more sense. As for de-regulation in London I cannot see that working, it would be a total mess Given that TfL provide financial support for many routes complete deregulation could mean the end of this. Operators will not run buses at a loss. Also some of the routes that had get local council funding
|
|
|
Post by LT 20181 on Sept 4, 2021 10:59:02 GMT
I think the current contractual model works well.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Sept 4, 2021 15:12:41 GMT
So do I. The fact that every corner of London gets atleats a 30 mins service (146/375 are probably the exceptions) can only be achieved by all money taken being paid into 1 pot and it then paid out in route miles. Obviously with finite resources then if operators basically say they can run services at a reasonable price by not having to pay for high back seats, WiFi etc then the current standards have to be accepted.
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Sept 4, 2021 15:35:39 GMT
So do I. The fact that every corner of London gets atleats a 30 mins service (146/375 are probably the exceptions) can only be achieved by all money taken being paid into 1 pot and it then paid out in route miles. Obviously with finite resources then if operators basically say they can run services at a reasonable price by not having to pay for high back seats, WiFi etc then the current standards have to be accepted. London is the biggest city in the UK. Has the biggest population and a high population density. It should be great bus operating territory. Compare to Leeds, about equivalent to one large London borough ... they have many frequent routes, and the majority of them are operated by newish buses fitted out to higher standards than what you get in London. If they can offer these facilities at a profit in Leeds, why can't London be expected to have similar standards. Services mainly provided by First or Arriva, with Transdev and a few independents thrown in. High back seating is the standard for the large bus companies outside London. It is only London that is supplied pauper class vehicles from new these days .... which was the opposite when nationalised when pvc seats were common in the provinces. Deregulation has seen the level of vehicle operated in the provinces change from being sub standard when compared to London, to being superior. Things have improved outside of London, whilst London has stood still. Why? Early deregulation was bad ... but things are improving ... London just plods along in the slow lane.
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Sept 4, 2021 15:56:03 GMT
Deregulation as we knew it outside London is dead. It was on its last legs when the Bus Services Act happened and the National Bus Strategy has effectively finished it off. The gap between the best of provincial services and the rest is massive. Look at the state of Arriva these days outside London. You might regard London as like a fast food chain - a bit homogenised but good coverage, reliable and you know roughly what you're going to get. Deregulated areas are more like a local takeaway: some are brilliant, some are entirely inedible and a few too many have had the health inspectors in. One day the pendulum will swing again but for the time being, deregulation is off the menu.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Sept 4, 2021 16:00:43 GMT
But 40% of passengers don't pay on buses in London and unlike outside London buses ticketing is more integrated with Underground/Overground/National Rail/Tram. For example I buy an anual 1-4 travel card. How would Go Ahead earn money from me taking the 80/93 to Morden Station and then let's say Stagecoach for a journey on the 25 from Bank to Whitechapel?
Contrast that with Leeds where taking 2 or even 3 modes doesn't really happen. Someone taking a bus from their home to their University campus in Leeds would probably only pay a single ticket or buy a bus pass from First Leeds.
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Sept 4, 2021 16:01:59 GMT
So do I. The fact that every corner of London gets atleats a 30 mins service (146/375 are probably the exceptions) can only be achieved by all money taken being paid into 1 pot and it then paid out in route miles. Obviously with finite resources then if operators basically say they can run services at a reasonable price by not having to pay for high back seats, WiFi etc then the current standards have to be accepted. London is the biggest city in the UK. Has the biggest population and a high population density. It should be great bus operating territory. Compare to Leeds, about equivalent to one large London borough ... they have many frequent routes, and the majority of them are operated by newish buses fitted out to higher standards than what you get in London. If they can offer these facilities at a profit in Leeds, why can't London be expected to have similar standards. Services mainly provided by First or Arriva, with Transdev and a few independents thrown in. High back seating is the standard for the large bus companies outside London. It is only London that is supplied pauper class vehicles from new these days .... which was the opposite when nationalised when pvc seats were common in the provinces. Deregulation has seen the level of vehicle operated in the provinces change from being sub standard when compared to London, to being superior. Things have improved outside of London, whilst London has stood still. Why? Early deregulation was bad ... but things are improving ... London just plods along in the slow lane. In regards to Leeds, I'd call it a very good example. I certainly think it's one of the better subsidaries, up there with Cornwall, Norwich & West Lothian and it does have great investment in regards to quality as you mentioned however it does require a lot of new stock and money compared to other subsidaries so once buses are disposed of they end up in "dumping grounds" mostly being Great Yarmouth however the whole Norfolk subsidary has seen an improvement in regards to investment...services A/B/C/D do spring to mind
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Sept 4, 2021 16:38:21 GMT
Deregulation as we knew it outside London is dead. It was on its last legs when the Bus Services Act happened and the National Bus Strategy has effectively finished it off. The gap between the best of provincial services and the rest is massive. Look at the state of Arriva these days outside London. You might regard London as like a fast food chain - a bit homogenised but good coverage, reliable and you know roughly what you're going to get. Deregulated areas are more like a local takeaway: some are brilliant, some are entirely inedible and a few too many have had the health inspectors in. One day the pendulum will swing again but for the time being, deregulation is off the menu. Many places outside of London have bus services that work adequately well. There has been nearly 40 years of deregulation outside London, so plenty of examples of what works and what doesn't. Surely if we took the best practices of the places that work London surely would not get it wrong ... OK I see the flaw in my plan, TfL would still be the overseeing authority. Yes I am glad London was exempt from deregulation, but there are plenty of good examples that can be used as case studies, and has matured enough for it to work in London. The TfL model is abysmally failing London ... Why would you be happy to see it continue? No nother city follows our example ... Lots talk about it, look at it closely, then go no thank you.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Sept 4, 2021 16:43:39 GMT
Deregulation as we knew it outside London is dead. It was on its last legs when the Bus Services Act happened and the National Bus Strategy has effectively finished it off. The gap between the best of provincial services and the rest is massive. Look at the state of Arriva these days outside London. You might regard London as like a fast food chain - a bit homogenised but good coverage, reliable and you know roughly what you're going to get. Deregulated areas are more like a local takeaway: some are brilliant, some are entirely inedible and a few too many have had the health inspectors in. One day the pendulum will swing again but for the time being, deregulation is off the menu. Many places outside of London have bus services that work adequately well. There has been nearly 40 years of deregulation outside London, so plenty of examples of what works and what doesn't. Surely if we took the best practices of the places that work London surely would not get it wrong ... OK I see the flaw in my plan, TfL would still be the overseeing authority. Yes I am glad London was exempt from deregulation, but there are plenty of good examples that can be used as case studies, and has matured enough for it to work in London. The TfL model is abysmally failing London ... Why would you be happy to see it continue? No nother city follows our example ... Lots talk about it, look at it closely, then go no thank you. What would you propose then?
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Sept 4, 2021 20:50:38 GMT
Many places outside of London have bus services that work adequately well. There has been nearly 40 years of deregulation outside London, so plenty of examples of what works and what doesn't. Surely if we took the best practices of the places that work London surely would not get it wrong ... OK I see the flaw in my plan, TfL would still be the overseeing authority. Yes I am glad London was exempt from deregulation, but there are plenty of good examples that can be used as case studies, and has matured enough for it to work in London. The TfL model is abysmally failing London ... Why would you be happy to see it continue? No nother city follows our example ... Lots talk about it, look at it closely, then go no thank you. What would you propose then? Identify what you consider to be the best 5 places with buses. Arrange meetings with the appropriate council or transport authority to see how they do things. Then whittle it down to your favourite 2 and see what you can learn from both.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Sept 4, 2021 21:12:02 GMT
Deregulation as we knew it outside London is dead. It was on its last legs when the Bus Services Act happened and the National Bus Strategy has effectively finished it off. The gap between the best of provincial services and the rest is massive. Look at the state of Arriva these days outside London. You might regard London as like a fast food chain - a bit homogenised but good coverage, reliable and you know roughly what you're going to get. Deregulated areas are more like a local takeaway: some are brilliant, some are entirely inedible and a few too many have had the health inspectors in. One day the pendulum will swing again but for the time being, deregulation is off the menu. Yes I am glad London was exempt from deregulation, but there are plenty of good examples that can be used as case studies, and has matured enough for it to work in London. The TfL model is abysmally failing London ... Why would you be happy to see it continue? No nother city follows our example ... Lots talk about it, look at it closely, then go no thank you. So why does most studies outside London basically conclude that the London model is what should be introduced - i.e. London style tendering system & contracts alongside a similar product to the Oyster.
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Sept 4, 2021 21:23:48 GMT
Yes I am glad London was exempt from deregulation, but there are plenty of good examples that can be used as case studies, and has matured enough for it to work in London. The TfL model is abysmally failing London ... Why would you be happy to see it continue? No nother city follows our example ... Lots talk about it, look at it closely, then go no thank you. So why does most studies outside London basically conclude that the London model is what should be introduced - i.e. London style tendering system & contracts alongside a similar product to the Oyster. Until it come to looking at the finance, then they realise it us a total basket case and becomes unviable, hence none have been introduced.
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Sept 4, 2021 21:49:05 GMT
So why does most studies outside London basically conclude that the London model is what should be introduced - i.e. London style tendering system & contracts alongside a similar product to the Oyster. Until it come to looking at the finance, then they realise it us a total basket case and becomes unviable, hence none have been introduced. If we were to look towards a company for aspiration, I'd say Brighton & Hove wouldn't be a bad shout.
Roger French, though he is a tough cookie in his posts online, he knows his stuff and he knows how to run a good bus company. Plus I'm a real fan of his advertising on buses.
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Sept 5, 2021 12:44:16 GMT
So why does most studies outside London basically conclude that the London model is what should be introduced - i.e. London style tendering system & contracts alongside a similar product to the Oyster. Until it come to looking at the finance, then they realise it us a total basket case and becomes unviable, hence none have been introduced. Isn't the model being introduced in Manchester?
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Sept 5, 2021 12:54:14 GMT
Until it come to looking at the finance, then they realise it us a total basket case and becomes unviable, hence none have been introduced. Isn't the model being introduced in Manchester? All gone quiet on that front
|
|