|
Post by snoggle on Nov 19, 2013 23:32:00 GMT
TfL have produced a paper to the Finance and Policy Committee setting out - a) how the tendering process works b) the market shares of the big bus groups in London. That should settle some arguments on here. c) the consequences of having to cope with a further 20% cut in funding of £65m come 2015/16. While there is undoubtedly some politics being played here given the impending Autumn Statement from the Chancellor and the ridiculous projected cuts in revenue grant it also sets out the consequences of that £65m cut. They are 1) evening and Sunday service reductions of at least 1 bph on 200 services. 2) withdrawal of the 15 most lightly used suburban services. 3) withdrawal of the 15 most lightly used night bus services. 4) further cuts to peak and off peak services across the network. The end result would be a network that was 10% smaller and with 5% fewer passenger journeys. The commercially confidential bits are in Appendix 2 which is not released to the public. What a disaster this would be. This is what you get when people just keep screaming for more and more cuts with no thought for the consequences. I'll let others draw the other obvious conclusions about errant spending by the Mayor.
|
|
|
Post by ThinLizzy on Nov 20, 2013 0:40:14 GMT
It's a real shame that a network that needs not only more buses, but larger buses and more routes into developing areas (i.e Barking Riverside) is facing such cuts- particularly as Sunday useage is more on a par with Saturdays now. Perhaps reducing some of the over-bussed corridors such as Seven Sisters to Edmonton would go some way to saving some of the lighter used suburban services which no doubt provide a vital lifeline.
|
|
|
Post by Steve80 on Nov 20, 2013 2:07:58 GMT
TfL have produced a paper to the Finance and Policy Committee setting out - a) how the tendering process works b) the market shares of the big bus groups in London. That should settle some arguments on here. c) the consequences of having to cope with a further 20% cut in funding of £65m come 2015/16. While there is undoubtedly some politics being played here given the impending Autumn Statement from the Chancellor and the ridiculous projected cuts in revenue grant it also sets out the consequences of that £65m cut. They are 1) evening and Sunday service reductions of at least 1 bph on 200 services. 2) withdrawal of the 15 most lightly used suburban services. 3) withdrawal of the 15 most lightly used night bus services. 4) further cuts to peak and off peak services across the network. The end result would be a network that was 10% smaller and with 5% fewer passenger journeys. The commercially confidential bits are in Appendix 2 which is not released to the public. What a disaster this would be. This is what you get when people just keep screaming for more and more cuts with no thought for the consequences. I'll let others draw the other obvious conclusions about errant spending by the Mayor. A quick glance at the 15 lightly used night routes are... 365, 472, 33, 213, 474, 321, N64, C2, 119, 85, 72, N113, 264, 93, N381 The N113 has recently been created which means the figures are misleading, so the next route in line would be the 271. If they go ahead with this proposal then three of the night routes in Croydon will no longer run including the 264 which I depend on heavily to get home from work. I only used the route between Mitcham Common and Croydon (in this direction only) but whenever I board, there are a few passengers on board as well. On weekends, you can get a decent load but I never had trouble in finding a seat by the window. If they do decide to ditch the nightly 264 then it would mean a 45 minute walk to my house unless I get a car
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 20, 2013 2:08:37 GMT
One simple abbreviation sums up the conclusion - NBfL!!
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 20, 2013 2:13:11 GMT
TfL have produced a paper to the Finance and Policy Committee setting out - a) how the tendering process works b) the market shares of the big bus groups in London. That should settle some arguments on here. c) the consequences of having to cope with a further 20% cut in funding of £65m come 2015/16. While there is undoubtedly some politics being played here given the impending Autumn Statement from the Chancellor and the ridiculous projected cuts in revenue grant it also sets out the consequences of that £65m cut. They are 1) evening and Sunday service reductions of at least 1 bph on 200 services. 2) withdrawal of the 15 most lightly used suburban services. 3) withdrawal of the 15 most lightly used night bus services. 4) further cuts to peak and off peak services across the network. The end result would be a network that was 10% smaller and with 5% fewer passenger journeys. The commercially confidential bits are in Appendix 2 which is not released to the public. What a disaster this would be. This is what you get when people just keep screaming for more and more cuts with no thought for the consequences. I'll let others draw the other obvious conclusions about errant spending by the Mayor. A quick glance at the 15 lightly used night routes are... 365, 472, 33, 213, 474, 321, N64, C2, 119, 85, 72, N113, 264, 93, N381 The N113 has recently been created which means the figures are misleading, so the next route in line would be the 271. If they go ahead with this proposal then three of the night routes in Croydon will no longer run including the 264 which I depend on heavily to get home from work. I only used the route between Mitcham Common and Croydon (in this direction only) but whenever I board, there are a few passengers on board as well. On weekends, you can get a decent load but I never had trouble in finding a seat by the window. If they do decide to ditch the nightly 264 then it would mean a 45 minute walk to my house unless I get a car There will be some opposition to the 213 if it's night service is withdrawn - it would mark the end of the whole route of the old N213. Out of those 15, only the N381 would survive anywhere near 10 years of service - the N119 & N264 came in with the N250. The N64 came about as part of the N159's morphing into the 2nd incarnation of the N109.
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Nov 20, 2013 7:40:30 GMT
One of the problems is the daft flat fare system regardless of travelling few stops or miles on an expensive staffing route. Other cities have taken different approach eg night services charged at 1.5 times day fare.
My own feeling is whilst some parts of the network could do with some thinning out to save money, but as less likely to get complaints from tiny route they will attack those as there are no real visionary managers left who look at whole picture. There is an obsession within TfL of doing nothing rather than radical changes as it is easier option. As an example why do many weekend buses mimic weekdays patterns when work and leisure and shopping journeys are different, simple answer its easier not because it saves money or benefits customer better.
Token cuts to whole routes are a bad idea, they should look at big routes and decide things like can we cut alternate buses from quiet third of route instead. Take the 71 as an example (currently awaiting tender results) usage is low on southern end so cut alternate to Hook or Copt G and save money, doesn't need high frequency on Chessington bit (except possibly 9 weeks during easter and summer school holidays). Voila
|
|
|
Post by guybowden on Nov 20, 2013 8:11:15 GMT
Having read this paper I find it very interesting but there are so many ways TfL can budget better so they don't have to put these cuts into reality.
1. I have noticed recently some hybrids (61-12 plate) have had their hybrid branding changed from the green hybrid word on the side and the 'another red bus going green for London' to a multiply coloured leaf with some wording (I cant remember what it says). Is this really necessary to start rebranding all the hybrids when IMO there is nothing wrong with the green word which stands out more IMO.
2. NBfL project. Yes they are the most environmentally friendly buses so far made but TfL could have gone for 12m plus hybrid buses that are already developed. You could argue these 12m hybrid deckers cost about the same as a NBfL but the carry significantly more passengers which means you get more revenue from them and they will only take an extra meter to meter and a half of road space. You also only need to employ one person instead of two!
3. This is opening a can of worms but if private company can make money out of running the buses in London, why can't TfL set up or take over one of these companies and run it in a similar way so they make money out of the services and this could reduce fair prices. I was talking to a driver at NX a few months ago who worked at ETB before Go-Ahead took over and he said some of the drivers were clearing over £1000 a week! This is mainly down to there shift work of 8 days on 3 days off. This bloke didn't say if it was a high earning rota they were on or if they were working all the rest possible.
4. Better utilization of existing staff. Also cutting down on some of the staffs wages, bonus' and pensions. As with every company in any industry there are some jobs that are over paying and some people milk the system so they do the barest minimum work to get by. Since the recession started in 2007/8 how many jobs have TfL cut? Off the top of my head I can't remember than making any but I stand to be corrected.
5. Moving offices to lower rent/ purchase price and rate areas of London, also as and when possible have better value for money contracts for maintenance of their offices. They also should buy the free hold of the offices as over the long term it will work out cheaper than renting.
6. Converting were physically possible single deck routes to double deck as this has the potential to increase revenue with little extra expenditure. Route 132 was nearly always packed at North Greenwich with standing people and now there not so many standing people.
|
|
|
Post by jay38a on Nov 20, 2013 8:25:06 GMT
TfL have produced a paper to the Finance and Policy Committee setting out - a) how the tendering process works b) the market shares of the big bus groups in London. That should settle some arguments on here. c) the consequences of having to cope with a further 20% cut in funding of £65m come 2015/16. While there is undoubtedly some politics being played here given the impending Autumn Statement from the Chancellor and the ridiculous projected cuts in revenue grant it also sets out the consequences of that £65m cut. They are 1) evening and Sunday service reductions of at least 1 bph on 200 services. 2) withdrawal of the 15 most lightly used suburban services. 3) withdrawal of the 15 most lightly used night bus services. 4) further cuts to peak and off peak services across the network. The end result would be a network that was 10% smaller and with 5% fewer passenger journeys. The commercially confidential bits are in Appendix 2 which is not released to the public. What a disaster this would be. This is what you get when people just keep screaming for more and more cuts with no thought for the consequences. I'll let others draw the other obvious conclusions about errant spending by the Mayor. A quick glance at the 15 lightly used night routes are... 365, 472, 33, 213, 474, 321, N64, C2, 119, 85, 72, N113, 264, 93, N381 The N113 has recently been created which means the figures are misleading, so the next route in line would be the 271. If they go ahead with this proposal then three of the night routes in Croydon will no longer run including the 264 which I depend on heavily to get home from work. I only used the route between Mitcham Common and Croydon (in this direction only) but whenever I board, there are a few passengers on board as well. On weekends, you can get a decent load but I never had trouble in finding a seat by the window. If they do decide to ditch the nightly 264 then it would mean a 45 minute walk to my house unless I get a car Problem with all those night routes is they don't go anywhere near Central London. The Sidcup end of the 321 did better when it had a link to Trafalgar Square. If they want to withdraw the night 321 then how about diverting the N21 between Eltham and Avery Hill via New Eltham (the place most people seem to get on and off in experience), so divert it from Eltham High Street down Southend Crescent, Footscray Road and Avery Hill Road to line of route at Bexley Road, only 2 stops are missed out along Bexley Road with the change.
|
|
|
Post by 6HP502C on Nov 20, 2013 9:16:33 GMT
6. Converting were physically possible single deck routes to double deck as this has the potential to increase revenue with little extra expenditure. Route 132 was nearly always packed at North Greenwich with standing people and now there not so many standing people. The double deckers would have to be sourced from somewhere, plus you're talking a six figure difference in operating costs per vehicle over the term of a route contract. Upgrades cost a lot of money. The 350 was an anomaly - extra capacity was needed and Abellio had spare buses sitting around when the 3 got its hybrids, so it was cost effective to use those buses.
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Nov 20, 2013 9:34:35 GMT
One of the problems is the daft flat fare system regardless of travelling few stops or miles on an expensive staffing route. Other cities have taken different approach eg night services charged at 1.5 times day fare. London use to have a different (higher) rate for night buses.
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Nov 20, 2013 10:09:57 GMT
I'm getting images of the 4th September 1982 in my head... Anyway, as the night buses have been covered, it would appear the 15 quietest suburban routes, according to the recently posted table, are 146, 327, 347, 359, 375, 385, 389, 399, 404, H3, R5/R10 (counted these as one route), R7, R8, U10, W10. Of course this may not come to fruition in exactly this form, but if it were applied exactly like this, that's an awful lot of communities losing their bus services. The Orpington area seems to be particularly badly hit. Unacceptable
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Nov 20, 2013 10:32:37 GMT
What happened in 1982? From memory I remember the 60 and 127 were introduced that year.
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Nov 20, 2013 10:44:51 GMT
What happened in 1982? From memory I remember the 60 and 127 were introduced that year. Probably the biggest set of cuts to bus services in London's history, plus a massive swathe of one-person-operation introduced, which back in the day was not regarded as a good step. Was as a result of Bromley Council's successful challenge to the GLC's Fares Fair low fare policy.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 20, 2013 10:53:52 GMT
Having read this paper I find it very interesting but there are so many ways TfL can budget better so they don't have to put these cuts into reality. 1. I have noticed recently some hybrids (61-12 plate) have had their hybrid branding changed from the green hybrid word on the side and the 'another red bus going green for London' to a multiply coloured leaf with some wording (I cant remember what it says). Is this really necessary to start rebranding all the hybrids when IMO there is nothing wrong with the green word which stands out more IMO. 2. NBfL project. Yes they are the most environmentally friendly buses so far made but TfL could have gone for 12m plus hybrid buses that are already developed. You could argue these 12m hybrid deckers cost about the same as a NBfL but the carry significantly more passengers which means you get more revenue from them and they will only take an extra meter to meter and a half of road space. You also only need to employ one person instead of two! 3. This is opening a can of worms but if private company can make money out of running the buses in London, why can't TfL set up or take over one of these companies and run it in a similar way so they make money out of the services and this could reduce fair prices. I was talking to a driver at NX a few months ago who worked at ETB before Go-Ahead took over and he said some of the drivers were clearing over £1000 a week! This is mainly down to there shift work of 8 days on 3 days off. This bloke didn't say if it was a high earning rota they were on or if they were working all the rest possible. 4. Better utilization of existing staff. Also cutting down on some of the staffs wages, bonus' and pensions. As with every company in any industry there are some jobs that are over paying and some people milk the system so they do the barest minimum work to get by. Since the recession started in 2007/8 how many jobs have TfL cut? Off the top of my head I can't remember than making any but I stand to be corrected. 5. Moving offices to lower rent/ purchase price and rate areas of London, also as and when possible have better value for money contracts for maintenance of their offices. They also should buy the free hold of the offices as over the long term it will work out cheaper than renting. 6. Converting were physically possible single deck routes to double deck as this has the potential to increase revenue with little extra expenditure. Route 132 was nearly always packed at North Greenwich with standing people and now there not so many standing people. Taking your points in turn 1. The change to the stickers may have nothing to do with the contract budget. It may be a separate marketing or Mayoral budget to promote the work being done to improve air quality. I agree a change can be construed as wasteful but the money involved is immaterial when set against a £65m funding cut. 2. The NB4L is the killer issue for me. Hundreds of millions of pounds over 4 years would easily avoid any cuts to services. It is no wonder that TfL are restricting the level of crew operation so much given these sorts of financial pressures. 3. TfL cite the sale of ETB as one of the efficiencies they have made! I do not see TfL moving back into bus operation because of all of the overhead and pension cost that it entail. The sale of the bus companies and outsourcing of operation is designed to dump all these costs elsewhere. There are already plenty of Tory politicians baying at the cost of the TfL pension scheme - that'll be the next thing to be attacked. 4. TfL have lost plenty of jobs over the years. Another 3,000 LU job cuts rumoured to be announced tomorrow. The problem is that you don't run massive investment schemes without employing people to run them. I'm sure there are more efficiencies that can be made but that often means fewer people in work or less investment being delivered. There are smarter ways to do things and ways to get better value for money from suppliers but that usually means a longer term contract. TfL can really only sign such contracts *if* it has a longer term funding deal from government. It would be very dangerous to sign up to several high value contracts without knowing whether it can afford the entire contract cost. This is particularly true for London Underground or DLR where costs can be very high. 5. TfL has already vastly reduced the number of offices it occupies and is further reducing the numbers. I expect hundreds more people to be squashed into Palestra and I'd not be surprised if many more are shunted to the delights of North Greenwich. I'd also expect other buildings to be vacated as the organisation keeps being rationalised. The loss of 55 Broadway will cause the dispersal of a fair amount of activity from the Victoria area and many local businesses will notice that. Still I'm sure Tescos at North Greenwich will have cause to be delighted! 6. As Mr Urbanite has already said there is a cost to convert routes to double deck. I'm not saying it is not worthwhile but the scramble to dump older buses due to poor environmental performance has caused a load of double deckers to leave London rather than keep them to boost capacity where needed. The pressure on TfL's budget means there is little scope to convert routes as there's no money to cover the increased costs. This is based on what Leon Daniels said to the LA Transport Committee about changes involving increased subsidy.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 20, 2013 11:01:18 GMT
6. Converting were physically possible single deck routes to double deck as this has the potential to increase revenue with little extra expenditure. Route 132 was nearly always packed at North Greenwich with standing people and now there not so many standing people. The double deckers would have to be sourced from somewhere, plus you're talking a six figure difference in operating costs per vehicle over the term of a route contract. Upgrades cost a lot of money. The 350 was an anomaly - extra capacity was needed and Abellio had spare buses sitting around when the 3 got its hybrids, so it was cost effective to use those buses. Most of the London operators do have spare buses lying around, even if they are old in London terms - surely, it's better to use them until the end of tender and then nice shiny new buses can always come afterwards.
|
|