Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2013 11:41:03 GMT
I dont believe that privitisation should ever have happened, I cant understand how it can make sense for us (indirectly through TfL/fares/taxes) to pay private companies to run a service (at a profit) when the service could be run through a unified organisation at the greatest efficiency (ie routes run from the closest/most suitable garage.) However, I am glad that we kept regulation in London, you only have to look at the stats regarding bus useage (falling in the rest of the country, rising in London). Additionally, although we have seen above inflation fare rises recently, compared to the rest of the country, our fares are CHEAP and we have a lot more frequent services to choose from. I am glad that all our buses are red once again, and am pleased to see the return of the roundall, it shows a unified, integrated network. Had full deregulation occurred, we would have a vastly different network, and I am sure that it would not be as good as what we have today. Just my opinion/. Not sure how you can say they are cheap - for my journey into the Halifax Town Centre, those that know the 197 it is like from Woodside Green To East Croydon ... via T.J.Walsh it is £1.20 single or £1.30 return ... via First it is £1.80 single or £1.90 return |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Apr 10, 2013 12:29:27 GMT
I dont believe that privitisation should ever have happened, I cant understand how it can make sense for us (indirectly through TfL/fares/taxes) to pay private companies to run a service (at a profit) when the service could be run through a unified organisation at the greatest efficiency (ie routes run from the closest/most suitable garage.) However, I am glad that we kept regulation in London, you only have to look at the stats regarding bus useage (falling in the rest of the country, rising in London). Additionally, although we have seen above inflation fare rises recently, compared to the rest of the country, our fares are CHEAP and we have a lot more frequent services to choose from. I am glad that all our buses are red once again, and am pleased to see the return of the roundall, it shows a unified, integrated network. Had full deregulation occurred, we would have a vastly different network, and I am sure that it would not be as good as what we have today. Just my opinion/. Not sure how you can say they are cheap - for my journey into the Halifax Town Centre, those that know the 197 it is like from Woodside Green To East Croydon ... via T.J.Walsh it is £1.20 single or £1.30 return ... via First it is £1.80 single or £1.90 return So what's the price up in Halifax of say, the length from Peckham to Croydon Flyover? |
|
|
|
Post by westhamgeezer on Apr 10, 2013 13:59:50 GMT
Well I think that London fares are cheap, in Birmingham (Easter Weekend) on Nat Ex West Midlands, I paid £2 for a journey essentially approximately the length of Oxford Street, a single fare on Abellio Surrey route 555 from Ashford to Walton cost £3.30. £1.10 more than that and I could have travelled as much as I liked across the London Bus Network. I am sure that there are some operators that have cheaper fares, but on the whole I believe our fares in London are much better value than in the provinces.
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Apr 10, 2013 14:17:56 GMT
Well I think that London fares are cheap, in Birmingham (Easter Weekend) on Nat Ex West Midlands, I paid £2 for a journey essentially approximately the length of Oxford Street, a single fare on Abellio Surrey route 555 from Ashford to Walton cost £3.30. £1.10 more than that and I could have travelled as much as I liked across the London Bus Network. I am sure that there are some operators that have cheaper fares, but on the whole I believe our fares in London are much better value than in the provinces. I agree, London bus fares tend to be lower than elsewhere. Regarding Surrey bus companies, I find their fares quite expensive. Doing the full route of Redhill to Sutton Bus Garage on Metrobus 420 route, it costs between £3.20 & £3.60 when you can do the 405 to Croydon and then 407 to Sutton which costs you roughly the same. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2013 15:36:18 GMT
Not sure how you can say they are cheap - for my journey into the Halifax Town Centre, those that know the 197 it is like from Woodside Green To East Croydon ... via T.J.Walsh it is £1.20 single or £1.30 return ... via First it is £1.80 single or £1.90 return So what's the price up in Halifax of say, the length from Peckham to Croydon Flyover? No idea - it is the only route I use up here - but wonder on the other examples listed on here whether there is active competition between bus companies for passeneger - when I was up in Blackpool found fares to be cheaper than London ... but then bith Stagecoach and Blackpool Transport were competing for your custom. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2013 15:51:07 GMT
Well I think that London fares are cheap, in Birmingham (Easter Weekend) on Nat Ex West Midlands, I paid £2 for a journey essentially approximately the length of Oxford Street, a single fare on Abellio Surrey route 555 from Ashford to Walton cost £3.30. £1.10 more than that and I could have travelled as much as I liked across the London Bus Network. I am sure that there are some operators that have cheaper fares, but on the whole I believe our fares in London are much better value than in the provinces. I agree, London bus fares tend to be lower than elsewhere. Regarding Surrey bus companies, I find their fares quite expensive. Doing the full route of Redhill to Sutton Bus Garage on Metrobus 420 route, it costs between £3.20 & £3.60 when you can do the 405 to Croydon and then 407 to Sutton which costs you roughly the same. A Metrobus day ticket costs £6.70 and can be used on all their non TfL services as well as certain other Sussex operators services and is very good value for money, I agree one off journies are expensive though |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Apr 10, 2013 16:06:56 GMT
Well I think that London fares are cheap, in Birmingham (Easter Weekend) on Nat Ex West Midlands, I paid £2 for a journey essentially approximately the length of Oxford Street, a single fare on Abellio Surrey route 555 from Ashford to Walton cost £3.30. £1.10 more than that and I could have travelled as much as I liked across the London Bus Network. I am sure that there are some operators that have cheaper fares, but on the whole I believe our fares in London are much better value than in the provinces. Yes but they do not have £480m a year subsidy as London does. It is no wonder that fares are cheaper and services better with that level of support. It is really a false comparison because if London had to run its buses commercially with minimal support for "social" routes then the fares would be higher and services probably lower - except in areas with strong competition. If places like Surrey or Essex or Berkshire had £100m a year subsidy for their bus networks rather than a couple of million then their fares would be lower, buses much younger and services far more frequent and comprehensive. |
|
|
|
Post by westhamgeezer on Apr 10, 2013 16:41:47 GMT
Well I think that London fares are cheap, in Birmingham (Easter Weekend) on Nat Ex West Midlands, I paid £2 for a journey essentially approximately the length of Oxford Street, a single fare on Abellio Surrey route 555 from Ashford to Walton cost £3.30. £1.10 more than that and I could have travelled as much as I liked across the London Bus Network. I am sure that there are some operators that have cheaper fares, but on the whole I believe our fares in London are much better value than in the provinces. Yes but they do not have £480m a year subsidy as London does. It is no wonder that fares are cheaper and services better with that level of support. It is really a false comparison because if London had to run its buses commercially with minimal support for "social" routes then the fares would be higher and services probably lower - except in areas with strong competition. If places like Surrey or Essex or Berkshire had £100m a year subsidy for their bus networks rather than a couple of million then their fares would be lower, buses much younger and services far more frequent and comprehensive. I agree, but I fail to see why London needs such a subsidy. Surely with the levels of passenger useage, the service (as a whole could at least break even with profitable routes subsidising non-profitable routes) I think there are a few key factors as to why such a subsidy is needed: Too many people travel free (I believe reading somewhere that in the morning peak 30% of people dont pay) I agree with kids getting free school travel, but could we not charge them half fare out of going to/coming home from school hours (eg free between 7am & 9am and 2pm & 5pm but half fare the rest of the time?? Secondly, Often perfectly serviceable buses are replaced upon contract renewal when with a refurb they could do another term. Yes, of course its great to have brand spanking new buses, but 10 year old buses are generally still servicable. Thirdly, there is a high level of investment in things such as iBus, Oyster and, dare I say it, NBfL (PLEASE DONT LET THIS TURN INTO AN ARGUEMENT ABOUT THAT!!) I am all for investment in these areas, and I am at a loss if I ever venture out of London and havent a clue when or if my bus is going to turn up!! |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Apr 10, 2013 17:41:38 GMT
Yes but they do not have £480m a year subsidy as London does. It is no wonder that fares are cheaper and services better with that level of support. I agree, but I fail to see why London needs such a subsidy. Surely with the levels of passenger useage, the service (as a whole could at least break even with profitable routes subsidising non-profitable routes) I think there are a few key factors as to why such a subsidy is needed: Too many people travel free (I believe reading somewhere that in the morning peak 30% of people dont pay) I agree with kids getting free school travel, but could we not charge them half fare out of going to/coming home from school hours (eg free between 7am & 9am and 2pm & 5pm but half fare the rest of the time?? Secondly, Often perfectly serviceable buses are replaced upon contract renewal when with a refurb they could do another term. Yes, of course its great to have brand spanking new buses, but 10 year old buses are generally still servicable. Thirdly, there is a high level of investment in things such as iBus, Oyster and, dare I say it, NBfL (PLEASE DONT LET THIS TURN INTO AN ARGUEMENT ABOUT THAT!!) I am all for investment in these areas, and I am at a loss if I ever venture out of London and havent a clue when or if my bus is going to turn up!! I think it is very simple as to why London has a large subsidy. 1. There is a large, comprehensive network. Very few cities have anything that comes close. 2. Buses are specified to a relatively high standard which have higher maintenance costs. 3. Almost all routes run 7 days a week with early starts and late finishes. This costs a lot of money. 4. There is a comprehensive night bus network - only some of which would be commercially viable. 5. London has difficult operating conditions meaning it needs much higher levels of supervision and control. 6. Fares are kept relatively low and are flat to allow Oyster PAYG to work efficiently and stop dwell times low. 7. There are some concessions but many of these are mimicked by other areas. TfL does not fund the Freedom Pass facility. 8. Congestion means that schedules have to have more recovery time than is typical in other parts of the country. I know this is slightly changing but it does mean buses sitting still for longer than the route headway. There is also very little inter-working which means reduced efficiency in scheduling terms. 9. Costs are higher than elsewhere because more staff and more vehicles / garages are needed to run and maintain the higher level of service that TfL specifies. 10. Extra buses run in the peak. Many places outside London do not increase PVRs - they widen peak headways to deal with the much longer journey times due to congestion. 11. London specifies relatively high standards of reliability which means more resource is required (links to 8 and 10 above). I think it is just too easy to pick on things like vehicle ages and fare concessions. These are fairly small beer when set against the decision to keep fares low & flat plus having a high standard of service and reliability. The way to get the subsidy down is to shove fares (including all season tickets valid on buses) up about 100% (say £2.50 PAYG and £3.50 cash fares and £8.50 daily cap) and to reduce peak service levels right across London and then to remove early morning, evening, Sunday and night journeys on the more marginal bits of the network. Some routes would have to be withdrawn completely. We've done the "useless routes" thing already so no need to repeat that. The net result of the above would be a fall in total PVR, driver numbers, garage closures and loss of other jobs. Buses would be more overcrowded in the peaks and some areas would lose services altogether. We have, of course, been here before with the Fares Fair court decision in 1982 and other traumatic events earlier in the history of London's buses. |
|
