Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2013 19:35:21 GMT
The best objective of express services usually seems to be linking the centre of London to outward destinations that might otherwise be unreachable (practically) by a single route, or supporting these trunk routes where they do exist. The 607 and X68 are the main examples of that, linking together places that would never otherwise be achieved by one day route. There are now quite a few densely-populous areas along the outer edges of London, some of which don't enjoy particularly good rail provision. Nonetheless on some corridors I think there is something to be said for time-savings from the limited stop nature of these services. The 25, for example, stops pretty much at every stop whatever the time of day, each for at least 30-60 seconds. If you consider there's about 50 stops along the route, that means potentially 30-50 minute savings end to end if the stopping was reduced. It would also be a smarter way to increase capacity as through journeys could be split from short distance loadings. There probably also is something to be said of finding homes for express services along fast roads. The fast nature of the 113 does seem to be what's allowed it to survive in its current form - running all the way from Oxford Street to Edgware. It mainly runs along dual-carriageways and doesn't seem to stop that much along the way. It almost acts a quasi-express service (though it nonetheless takes a while end-to-end!). The X26 similarly runs along fast-ish outer London roads for most of its journey. In an ideal world, I'd quite like to see an X25 or X53. The big problem, though, is that Central London means slow journeys and a highish risk of congestion and delays. As I type TfL are reporting delays of 20 minutes in the TCR Stn area. I am not convinced a X25 could really operate reliably and consistently from Oxford Circus. You therefore have to decide whether the City or the West End is your traffic objective. You also need to think about what you do to the stopping 25 service - does it get reduced in frequency? I can see merit in having a X25 but getting the service spec correct would not be easy. I'd be minded to run just as far as Aldgate to avoid congestion but I can see that would not be hugely popular. Your choice of the 607 is interesting. Yes it can get past a number of stops on its outer section because of the dual carriageway. However it can get horribly bogged down in Ealing and Acton. The other thing I've noticed is that it can have very long stop dwell times because so many people are getting on and off. Therefore there might not be such a big time saving on a X25 unless you miss out a lot of stops. Here's a small challenge - would the X25 use the Bow Flyover or would it serve Bow Church because of all the connections with local routes but be delayed in the nasty jams? Not an easy one to solve. One other question is how you manage express routes - do you curtail them or accept late running but go to the route terminus? Frequencies are likely to be lower so dumping people at the roadside short of their destination is unlikely to be popular. Therefore routes need to be designed to balance the need for reliability and to serve the right places to create enough demand. I can see merit in trying to use the main, faster routes to give faster journeys. Traditionally there are few services using these corridors - partly understandable because access to stops is poor and the waiting environment is often horrible. I can certainly see merit in more routes using the A12, A13, A4, A40 and A406. I know South London less well but I suppose bits of the A2, A20 and A3 could be used to speed up some services or create faster links. I agree there must be some merit in using dual-carriageways for "sped-up" bus services - as you suggest, the main problem does seem to be access and stopping arrangements. The 113 works well because there's already pre-established arrangements covering stopping and access - subways in the Hendon area, and an access route down to Brent Cross. There's also a noticeable amount of residential development close to the A41 which means access arrangements are (I'm assuming) established for that reason. The A2 has a fair amount of housing and residental development alongside it - I wonder if this would be a good candidate. The question there is what useful objectives it could then be linked to... There's similarly long dwell times at 25 stops - however, the patronage of the 25 does revolve around several key stops, e.g. Stratford station, Whitechapel station. Given there's already the 86 and a railway line covering Stratford - Ilford, so perhaps the "X25" could terminate there - the 25 does often empty and then fill up again at Stratford. As for the Bow Flyover, serving Bow Church station should suffice, and then the flyover could be used. |
|
|
|
Post by sw11simon on May 15, 2013 21:03:06 GMT
So the problem with express services... they are expensive. You have to buy/lease buses that will only really be used weekday peaks. To example these costs the tender for the 68 is based on £4.48 per mile while the X68 is £18.70 per mile!
Then you have to staff it basically with expensive spreadover duties. And then the London fare model means most people would already have a valid travelcard so very little extra revenue would be gained. Unless I am mistaken TFL have made attempts to withdraw both the X26 and X68 in the past but then bowed to political pressure. Outside of London an express service would generally attract a premium fare to counter this.
Take route 25. We know in the peaks this route spends a lot of time stuck in traffic. It passes the following stations that provide quicker journeys (albeit crowded): Ilford, Woodgrange Park, Stratford, Bow Church, Mile End, Stepney Green, Whitechapel, Algate East, Aldgate, Bank, St Paul's, City Thameslink, Holborn, Tottenham Court Road and Oxford Circus. How many passengers are likely to stay on the bus for an "express journey." I would suggest not many. If more capacity is needed on the corridor, add more 25's. They are probably not much slower than an express service along the corridor would be anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on May 15, 2013 22:05:22 GMT
So the problem with express services... they are expensive. You have to buy/lease buses that will only really be used weekday peaks. To example these costs the tender for the 68 is based on £4.48 per mile while the X68 is £18.70 per mile! Then you have to staff it basically with expensive spreadover duties. And then the London fare model means most people would already have a valid travelcard so very little extra revenue would be gained. Unless I am mistaken TFL have made attempts to withdraw both the X26 and X68 in the past but then bowed to political pressure. Outside of London an express service would generally attract a premium fare to counter this. Take route 25. We know in the peaks this route spends a lot of time stuck in traffic. It passes the following stations that provide quicker journeys (albeit crowded): Ilford, Woodgrange Park, Stratford, Bow Church, Mile End, Stepney Green, Whitechapel, Algate East, Aldgate, Bank, St Paul's, City Thameslink, Holborn, Tottenham Court Road and Oxford Circus. How many passengers are likely to stay on the bus for an "express journey." I would suggest not many. If more capacity is needed on the corridor, add more 25's. They are probably not much slower than an express service along the corridor would be anyway. I don't disagree with your analysis. I would challenge one assumption though. Although no one has said one way or the other (in this discussion) you've assumed any new expresses are peaks only. That doesn't have to be the case. I think some new express routes could function as daily routes from early until late - for example my favoured North Circular Rd express service, a Mill Hill Bdwy to Heathrow express or perhaps a Hounslow to Harrow express that used some of the faster roads in West London. With more sensible scheduling, greater vehicle utilisation and far higher mileage you'd get comparable numbers to those for stopping services. The X26 is only £3.55 per mile but obviously it is low frequency. Nonetheless your affordability point stands and without a big change in Mayoral policy and funding we won't see substantive changes. The forthcoming Transport Committee meetings will be fascinating to see what TfL decide to say about network improvements. |
|
|
|
Post by sw11simon on May 16, 2013 4:19:17 GMT
So the problem with express services... they are expensive. You have to buy/lease buses that will only really be used weekday peaks. To example these costs the tender for the 68 is based on £4.48 per mile while the X68 is £18.70 per mile! Then you have to staff it basically with expensive spreadover duties. And then the London fare model means most people would already have a valid travelcard so very little extra revenue would be gained. Unless I am mistaken TFL have made attempts to withdraw both the X26 and X68 in the past but then bowed to political pressure. Outside of London an express service would generally attract a premium fare to counter this. Take route 25. We know in the peaks this route spends a lot of time stuck in traffic. It passes the following stations that provide quicker journeys (albeit crowded): Ilford, Woodgrange Park, Stratford, Bow Church, Mile End, Stepney Green, Whitechapel, Algate East, Aldgate, Bank, St Paul's, City Thameslink, Holborn, Tottenham Court Road and Oxford Circus. How many passengers are likely to stay on the bus for an "express journey." I would suggest not many. If more capacity is needed on the corridor, add more 25's. They are probably not much slower than an express service along the corridor would be anyway. I don't disagree with your analysis. I would challenge one assumption though. Although no one has said one way or the other (in this discussion) you've assumed any new expresses are peaks only. That doesn't have to be the case. I think some new express routes could function as daily routes from early until late - for example my favoured North Circular Rd express service, a Mill Hill Bdwy to Heathrow express or perhaps a Hounslow to Harrow express that used some of the faster roads in West London. With more sensible scheduling, greater vehicle utilisation and far higher mileage you'd get comparable numbers to those for stopping services. The X26 is only £3.55 per mile but obviously it is low frequency. Nonetheless your affordability point stands and without a big change in Mayoral policy and funding we won't see substantive changes. The forthcoming Transport Committee meetings will be fascinating to see what TfL decide to say about network improvements. I would agree they could be used to plug certain gaps in the rail network in an ideal world and also would agree Heathrow is an all day traffic aim, unlike the City or Canary Wharf which have very defined peak periods and would need peak based expensive services. Let's face it, when Boris came in he vowed for more orbital routes similar to the ones described and that proposal has been buried away... I would suggest due to the level of subsidy needed. It would be interesting to know how much subsidy the X26 needs. Even a higher base fare for express routes probably would not generate sufficient extra income due to the number of period tickets/ Freedom passes. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on May 16, 2013 9:57:23 GMT
I would agree they could be used to plug certain gaps in the rail network in an ideal world and also would agree Heathrow is an all day traffic aim, unlike the City or Canary Wharf which have very defined peak periods and would need peak based expensive services. Let's face it, when Boris came in he vowed for more orbital routes similar to the ones described and that proposal has been buried away... I would suggest due to the level of subsidy needed. It would be interesting to know how much subsidy the X26 needs. Even a higher base fare for express routes probably would not generate sufficient extra income due to the number of period tickets/ Freedom passes. The performance of the enhanced X26 during the trial period was covered in a TfL paper back in 2009. www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/corporate/Item07-Orbital-Bus-Services.pdfYou are correct that the cost exceeded the benefits and did not meet the TfL "pass mark". The two interesting points are abstraction from parallel services (not unexpected) and also the relatively low user base for the X26 meaning benefits only accrue to a small number of people. Clearly some of the numbers in the above paper are now out of date but the principle seems to be that TfL only expect sufficient benefits when the service is frequent and has a large user base. Given that logic I do ponder just a little about how some recent enhancements to low frequency services in outer areas were ever justified on benefit / cost grounds. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2013 10:15:51 GMT
So the problem with express services... they are expensive. You have to buy/lease buses that will only really be used weekday peaks. To example these costs the tender for the 68 is based on £4.48 per mile while the X68 is £18.70 per mile! Then you have to staff it basically with expensive spreadover duties. And then the London fare model means most people would already have a valid travelcard so very little extra revenue would be gained. Unless I am mistaken TFL have made attempts to withdraw both the X26 and X68 in the past but then bowed to political pressure. Outside of London an express service would generally attract a premium fare to counter this. Take route 25. We know in the peaks this route spends a lot of time stuck in traffic. It passes the following stations that provide quicker journeys (albeit crowded): Ilford, Woodgrange Park, Stratford, Bow Church, Mile End, Stepney Green, Whitechapel, Algate East, Aldgate, Bank, St Paul's, City Thameslink, Holborn, Tottenham Court Road and Oxford Circus. How many passengers are likely to stay on the bus for an "express journey." I would suggest not many. If more capacity is needed on the corridor, add more 25's. They are probably not much slower than an express service along the corridor would be anyway. I think the 25 is one route that would greatly benefit from an express service, using the Bow flyover alone would shave off a few minutes, and there are a lot of end to end users of the route, much cheaper than train/tube. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2013 10:39:23 GMT
So the problem with express services... they are expensive. You have to buy/lease buses that will only really be used weekday peaks. To example these costs the tender for the 68 is based on £4.48 per mile while the X68 is £18.70 per mile! Then you have to staff it basically with expensive spreadover duties. And then the London fare model means most people would already have a valid travelcard so very little extra revenue would be gained. Unless I am mistaken TFL have made attempts to withdraw both the X26 and X68 in the past but then bowed to political pressure. Outside of London an express service would generally attract a premium fare to counter this. Take route 25. We know in the peaks this route spends a lot of time stuck in traffic. It passes the following stations that provide quicker journeys (albeit crowded): Ilford, Woodgrange Park, Stratford, Bow Church, Mile End, Stepney Green, Whitechapel, Algate East, Aldgate, Bank, St Paul's, City Thameslink, Holborn, Tottenham Court Road and Oxford Circus. How many passengers are likely to stay on the bus for an "express journey." I would suggest not many. If more capacity is needed on the corridor, add more 25's. They are probably not much slower than an express service along the corridor would be anyway. I think the 25 is one route that would greatly benefit from an express service, using the Bow flyover alone would shave off a few minutes, and there are a lot of end to end users of the route, much cheaper than train/tube. The 25 has an extremely high patronage as well, so I do wonder about how much subsidy it would need. I understand there's a "free pass" element to it but there still seems to be a huge number of normal-fare paying customers on the 25. There are end-to-end journeys made on the route, and even though parallel rail alternatives exist along the Central/District lines and the Shenfield Metro, it does all go down to what's the cheapest option. In the peaks people will use the route end-to-end whereas off-peak it seems to empty out and fill up again at certain points. Perhaps certain journeys in the peaks could be made "express" journeys, using the same buses as the daytime 25 - it would mean there wouldn't be buses sitting around off-peak which seems to be the case on the X68 (and probably what drives the cost per mile up so much). |
|
|
|
Post by snowman on May 16, 2013 11:21:13 GMT
So the problem with express services... they are expensive. You have to buy/lease buses that will only really be used weekday peaks. To example these costs the tender for the 68 is based on £4.48 per mile while the X68 is £18.70 per mile! Then you have to staff it basically with expensive spreadover duties. And then the London fare model means most people would already have a valid travelcard so very little extra revenue would be gained. Unless I am mistaken TFL have made attempts to withdraw both the X26 and X68 in the past but then bowed to political pressure. Outside of London an express service would generally attract a premium fare to counter this. Take route 25. We know in the peaks this route spends a lot of time stuck in traffic. It passes the following stations that provide quicker journeys (albeit crowded): Ilford, Woodgrange Park, Stratford, Bow Church, Mile End, Stepney Green, Whitechapel, Algate East, Aldgate, Bank, St Paul's, City Thameslink, Holborn, Tottenham Court Road and Oxford Circus. How many passengers are likely to stay on the bus for an "express journey." I would suggest not many. If more capacity is needed on the corridor, add more 25's. They are probably not much slower than an express service along the corridor would be anyway. I think the 25 is one route that would greatly benefit from an express service, using the Bow flyover alone would shave off a few minutes, and there are a lot of end to end users of the route, much cheaper than train/tube. I think the 25 might be thinned when Crossrail opens as it effectively will parallel a new high capacity route. Probably just be left with the local use rather than end to end The whole rail-bus-train fare structure needs looking at as it is supposed to be a zonal system, so shouldn't really bias against mixed mode journeys, probably easiest way would be to kill off bus only passes and just keep travelcard passes. The 25 is only busy because it is priced in competition with the train/tube but really should be priced at same level (which on a neutral gain/loss must be the weighted average by volume of journeys by each competing mode) |
|
|
|
Post by sw11simon on May 16, 2013 19:22:32 GMT
Ok to be blunt to the last two posts. You get what you pay for. If you want a quicker journey you pay more and use a train. If you want a slower journey and pay less, you take the bus.
The lower fares on buses are, in my opinion, purposely aimed at providing a cheaper travel option for lower paid workers. I'm not sure increasing the cost of buses to match trains is a good option. Fares within London zones are basically regulated by TfL anyway. Oyster on Rail is a fixed zone related fare, the same for all TOC's. So modes are not so much competing, more providing social options, with river boat, private car, taxi and helicopter etc further up the chain. The low flat fare for all modes found in some parts of Europe requires heavy subsidy.
So with that in mind, much as it would make some people happy, I cannot see an X25 happening. Still don't even really think it is a good idea. Making some peak buses "expresses" (I say that tongue in cheek as I don't think they'd be very fast!) would pass by waiting passengers and probably have people wanting to jump off the bus between stops all the way (or maybe letting themselves out!) It would make no extra income compared to the current model unless you put fares up, which would keep people on the (quicker) trains anyway. And the model suggested leaves a less frequent peak service on route 25 than off peak. Hmmm.
I do agree the route is likely to be thinned out with Crossrail, along with a number of others. As with the JLE, TFL need to justify all that money spent.
|
|
|
|
Post by smiler52 on May 16, 2013 21:38:14 GMT
maybe a bit off topic here I have been to Amsterdam now maybe 6 times there bus routes are not long longest route I have found is maybe 45 mins but its hard to get from a-b by bus from the eurolines coach stn you have to get two buses they only hop for short route like a major route like that they only have short routes
|
|
|
|
Post by joefrombow on May 16, 2013 23:51:02 GMT
Ok to be blunt to the last two posts. You get what you pay for. If you want a quicker journey you pay more and use a train. If you want a slower journey and pay less, you take the bus. The lower fares on buses are, in my opinion, purposely aimed at providing a cheaper travel option for lower paid workers. I'm not sure increasing the cost of buses to match trains is a good option. Fares within London zones are basically regulated by TfL anyway. Oyster on Rail is a fixed zone related fare, the same for all TOC's. So modes are not so much competing, more providing social options, with river boat, private car, taxi and helicopter etc further up the chain. The low flat fare for all modes found in some parts of Europe requires heavy subsidy. So with that in mind, much as it would make some people happy, I cannot see an X25 happening. Still don't even really think it is a good idea. Making some peak buses "expresses" (I say that tongue in cheek as I don't think they'd be very fast!) would pass by waiting passengers and probably have people wanting to jump off the bus between stops all the way (or maybe letting themselves out!) It would make no extra income compared to the current model unless you put fares up, which would keep people on the (quicker) trains anyway. And the model suggested leaves a less frequent peak service on route 25 than off peak. Hmmm. I do agree the route is likely to be thinned out with Crossrail, along with a number of others. As with the JLE, TFL need to justify all that money spent. Not always the case that the bus is more cheaper than using the train off peak it costs me a pound to travel from Zone 2 to any zone outwards if I use the Underground or c2c for example since I have a 16-25 railcard where as if I got the bus just three stops down the road would cost me £1.40 , I personally think it's more of a convienence thing people use what ever mode of transport iseasier not always depending on the money , and are all routes tendered by which ever operator can give the lowest cost per mile to operate the route ? Or do tfl set a price that yhe operators get paid by ?? |
|
|
|
Post by sw11simon on May 17, 2013 4:55:24 GMT
Ok to be blunt to the last two posts. You get what you pay for. If you want a quicker journey you pay more and use a train. If you want a slower journey and pay less, you take the bus. The lower fares on buses are, in my opinion, purposely aimed at providing a cheaper travel option for lower paid workers. I'm not sure increasing the cost of buses to match trains is a good option. Fares within London zones are basically regulated by TfL anyway. Oyster on Rail is a fixed zone related fare, the same for all TOC's. So modes are not so much competing, more providing social options, with river boat, private car, taxi and helicopter etc further up the chain. The low flat fare for all modes found in some parts of Europe requires heavy subsidy. So with that in mind, much as it would make some people happy, I cannot see an X25 happening. Still don't even really think it is a good idea. Making some peak buses "expresses" (I say that tongue in cheek as I don't think they'd be very fast!) would pass by waiting passengers and probably have people wanting to jump off the bus between stops all the way (or maybe letting themselves out!) It would make no extra income compared to the current model unless you put fares up, which would keep people on the (quicker) trains anyway. And the model suggested leaves a less frequent peak service on route 25 than off peak. Hmmm. I do agree the route is likely to be thinned out with Crossrail, along with a number of others. As with the JLE, TFL need to justify all that money spent. Not always the case that the bus is more cheaper than using the train off peak it costs me a pound to travel from Zone 2 to any zone outwards if I use the Underground or c2c for example since I have a 16-25 railcard where as if I got the bus just three stops down the road would cost me £1.40 , I personally think it's more of a convienence thing people use what ever mode of transport iseasier not always depending on the money , and are all routes tendered by which ever operator can give the lowest cost per mile to operate the route ? Or do tfl set a price that yhe operators get paid by ?? TFL do not set the prices but award the route to the lowest compliant bidder generally, although there are occasions that a non-compliant bid (e.g. specifying a stand in a garage) or a higher bid is awarded (this would be for quality expected - rarely if ever applied in current climate.) As you have subsidized rail travel, but not bus, you are in a minority (well... so many people get discounts or free travel I'm not sure that's correct. But I am talking about general price structure above. An express route would have to be aimed at commuters really. Freedom pass holders cannot use National Rail before 09.30 but can use Tube or bus). People without subsidy will generally pay a premium to use a train as opposed to a bus, certainly when travelling with the flow during the peaks. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2013 18:04:15 GMT
It is only £2.40 off-peak from zone 2 to zone 6 using trains and tubes compared to £2.80 where you need to use two buses. For a four zone journey it is £2.20, which makes a return the same as the bus price cap of £4.40.
Unless you are served by a direct bus route then the bus is surprisingly not cheaper for many local off-peak journeys, basically any that avoid zone 1 or are not between zone 2 and zone 6.
|
|
|
|
Post by sw11simon on May 18, 2013 5:28:38 GMT
Ok I go numbers again. Ilford is in zone 4, so anybody travelling on Oyster via National rail, changing at Stratford for the Central Line to go zone 1 will pay £5.10 (albeit with a proportion of that going to Greater Anglia). Every person who changed their travel pattern to a new X25 would pay £1.40, therefore revenue loss is £3.70 per person. Peak journey Stratford to zone 1 on LU is £3.20 - loss of £1.80 from anyone who changes mode. If you were running a business, would you introduce something that would lose money?
There is capacity across the network off peak generally, and there will always be examples where the train is cheaper to make certain journeys. As a general rule, a train is more expensive to make a comparable journey than a bus. The passenger aim of the suggested X25 (which is an idea I am arguing against, sorry to all who like the idea!) has to surely target peak flows?
|
|
|
|
Post by Swadbus on May 18, 2013 10:44:21 GMT
Ok I go numbers again. Ilford is in zone 4, so anybody travelling on Oyster via National rail, changing at Stratford for the Central Line to go zone 1 will pay £5.10 (albeit with a proportion of that going to Greater Anglia). Every person who changed their travel pattern to a new X25 would pay £1.40, therefore revenue loss is £3.70 per person. Peak journey Stratford to zone 1 on LU is £3.20 - loss of £1.80 from anyone who changes mode. If you were running a business, would you introduce something that would lose money? There is capacity across the network off peak generally, and there will always be examples where the train is cheaper to make certain journeys. As a general rule, a train is more expensive to make a comparable journey than a bus. The passenger aim of the suggested X25 (which is an idea I am arguing against, sorry to all who like the idea!) has to surely target peak flows? But that wouldn't lose money. In the overall scheme It would encourage further transport use, short term it would mean an adjustment to revenue received, but medium/long term I believe revenue would increase. Another angle to come at in this debate, is how do we increase capacity on our rail/tube network? People short of cash will swap to the express bus from rail/tube as it is faster and quicker than it was previously. People who currently drive because they don't (quite rightly IMHO) want to pay to be wedged in a horrendously overloaded central line train or GA train in the peaks (and these are literally at bursting point during the peak) are drawn back onto the network from using their cars, with more chance of getting a seat to/from work - Everyone wins, and TFL ticks a box encouraging increased public transport use, and consequently revenue increase (which would almost certainly cover the cost). Even better is that it is significantly easier to increase the number of buses on an express (or any) bus service than increase the number of trains per hour or train length without major expensive and disruptive changes to infrastructure. Personally, I find the 207/607 scenario works extremely well, and shows this could be replicated elsewhere on the network. I still maintain an express service from Beckton to Brent Cross via the North Circular as a limited stop would do extremely well, and again would assist with relieving other services (both rail and bus) as East / West travel is poor by comparison to North / South (and it gets even worse at night!). It's ridiculous you have to go into central London to come out again to make an east / west journey. An express limited stop bus would relieve capacity on both the current rail and bus network. An example of East / West travel being required is evident with the London Overground rail network. Barking to Gospel oak has in recent years had service increased significantly from every 30 mins to every 15 min, with new longer trains. You cannot physically board these trains during the peaks any longer as they are so wedged they leave many people behind. A victim of its own success, which is great, but we need to provide capacity on viable alternatives. Capacity on the Barking to Gospel Oak line cannot be increased without major and expensive infrastructure spending on signalling with closer sections, platform extensions, longer trains or electrification. An express bus is a viable and considerably cheaper alternative. |
|
