|
Post by snoggle on Nov 20, 2013 11:02:20 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 The "fun" bit would be the Johnson family battle if there were bus cuts in Orpington. Boris's brother Jo Johnson is the MP for Orpington. I'll be at the side lines shouting "barny, barny, fight, fight" Andrew Rossindel (MP for Romford) would set his bulldog on Boris if he tried to axe the 347 and 375. The interesting dimension to many of those routes is that they all serve Tory run boroughs or constituencies with Tory MPs. That makes the political dimension particularly nasty and fraught for the Mayor. Of course what would happen instead is that other routes in non Tory areas would be cut instead.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2013 23:03:56 GMT
None of the bus subsidy should be cut. TFL can sell the Cable Car system for all I care. They can reduce the PVR for the routes, but they can never get rid of the route. The 38 needs a PVR reduction because its overbussed, every 38 goes past have a capacity equivalent to a midi bus! So its much better to reduce the PVR to make the use of the bus.
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Nov 20, 2013 23:35:52 GMT
None of the bus subsidy should be cut. TFL can sell the Cable Car system for all I care. They can reduce the PVR for the routes, but they can never get rid of the route. The 38 needs a PVR reduction because its overbussed, every 38 goes past have a capacity equivalent to a midi bus! So its much better to reduce the PVR to make the use of the bus. This might sound controversial but they could stop the NBFL project to save cash.
|
|
|
Post by Connor on Nov 20, 2013 23:56:36 GMT
None of the bus subsidy should be cut. TFL can sell the Cable Car system for all I care. They can reduce the PVR for the routes, but they can never get rid of the route. The 38 needs a PVR reduction because its overbussed, every 38 goes past have a capacity equivalent to a midi bus! So its much better to reduce the PVR to make the use of the bus. This might sound controversial but they could stop the NBFL project to save cash. Makes sense, seeing as there aren't enough suitable routes for them to go on. The 'controversial' bit, I think, was ordering 608 NBfLs in the first place, it's ridiculous!
|
|
|
Post by Mokujin on Nov 21, 2013 0:09:37 GMT
None of the bus subsidy should be cut. TFL can sell the Cable Car system for all I care. They can reduce the PVR for the routes, but they can never get rid of the route. The 38 needs a PVR reduction because its overbussed, every 38 goes past have a capacity equivalent to a midi bus! So its much better to reduce the PVR to make the use of the bus. This might sound controversial but they could stop the NBFL project to save cash. I agree and the whole NB4L scheme should end. I don't really see the point of it existing and I don't think many Londoners are fascinated by it as it's just a Double Decker IMO. That money could have been used on other vanity projects or finishing the ELT Project which would have a better benefit on people.
|
|
|
Post by rambo on Nov 21, 2013 0:24:43 GMT
We are all doooooomed......
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2013 1:28:37 GMT
This might sound controversial but they could stop the NBFL project to save cash. I knew someone is going to say that! One simple abbreviation sums up the conclusion - NBfL!! I agree and the whole NB4L scheme should end. I don't really see the point of it existing and I don't think many Londoners are fascinated by it as it's just a Double Decker IMO. That money could have been used on other vanity projects or finishing the ELT Project which would have a better benefit on people. But i seen loads of tweets on twitter praising the project... TFL can finish it off by redesigning it by removing the rear stairs and door to make it more conventional... But it mades it more expensive because of wooden flooring at the front and rear on the interior of the bus. But TFL could have done better by making the interior including the bench seats based from the Thomas Heatherwick's NBFL design and make it a requirement for the off the shelf buses as operator buy them. Just like what TFL want to have operators to have their buses in 100% red. Like I remember with the past where the outer London buses can be in any colour! But at the end of the day, the fate of the Routemaster is different to NBFL because of political influence, funding, new technology...etc. I think it should be a side project and it should be down to TFL to deal with. But I always don't get with the open platform dilemma because bus services from the well known cities around the world never have open platform buses, but its always London which becomes reluctant to it. But i won't go on with the Routemaster dilemma because i repeated myself over few threads about it. 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. I don't know what to say really but TFL should keep everything as it is with the local routes and existing projects. But I know the NBFL project cost over £210 million, but what difference would it make with the off the shelf buses? With the removal of routes, It needs to be consulted directly to the people like what TFL done with the cashless consultation. It should be investigated in strict detail to see what needs tweaking or removing with the service. Like in NYC, with the MTA meeting videos i been watching, there are public speakers going up and telling the board members to restore their routes completely and telling them its more cheaper to bring back the bus route for them to use their equivalent service of "dial a ride". Here is the video, the public speakers is at the beginning thru. www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bLlBrqCRuo Always remember, its not a London problem, its a worldwide problem! Another thing, there are services which are funded by the local councils like the 812. Its operated by CT Plus, but its funded by the Hackney council so the passengers can get around their area using that route. But all i can simply say is, would it be cheaper in the first place if none of the bus services were de-regulated or split up into tendering which makes London Buses pay operators by the mile for operating the route under contract to London buses. I don't know, but I wasn't around in the past to see how the London Buses ran when it was all unified. But I can learn from the MTA in NYC that they have cut their services because of funding and they mention they are in billions in debt...etc. Even through the MTA chairman is not a Mayor which is surprising. With the routes that go outside the Greater London boundary, it should be met as a joint service between TFL and the local council. The TFL part of it can have the TFL fares and their side of the route whilst the local council can sort out their part of the route to meet the needs of their people. Is it cost saving? I don't know! Capacity increase: I think its ideal that the routes which uses single deckers and suffer overcrowding problems should be converted to double deck. I know there are routes which uses single deckers only so they can squeeze under low bridges, but they can do with 12m single decker buses. But i understand some of the routes will need low capacity buses due to going round bends, narrow roads...etc. With the double deckers, TFL should go and try out some double deck tri-axles. But it can carry more people, but the bus will be long for the sake of it. Singapore and Hong Kong have the tri-axles, why can't London Buses have them? With the 10.6m E400's, like what Stagecoach have with the 10 long Enviro400's including the Spirit of London. I think TFL should move on to allow operators to order more longer bus types instead of a shorter type which requires carrying 87 passengers. But I prefer TFL to upgrade its capacity requirement to between 95-100 passengers which will save money on them to increase the PVR. But I am against cuts, I know we have to accept we can't bring back the past like with the crew operations, but we got to find the most efficient and saving methods to run the transport system. Funding should go to the people (as in services), not to make profit! It boils down to common sense at the end of the day. To agree or disagree what I say, I don't know because i'm not really much educated about the background of the bus system. So beside it all, i am exciting for the upcoming projects which are the Crossrail and electric buses. I do know why its hard to upgrade the Transport system while having all the cuts being imposed. But I am also aware of the cuts being made to the LU staffing as well. We are all doooooomed...... And Rambo, best to keep positive because I will be interested to see new things coming to a near future... I know its a late night post, but my brain gets more intelligent during late night for unknown reason, but at least I put down my opinions on this thread.
|
|
|
Post by westhamgeezer on Nov 21, 2013 1:29:40 GMT
I expected the blame to be directed at the nbfl's door. Now that the investment has been made, it is nonsensical to cancel the project. They are designed to last 14 years (probably around double that the average bus stays in the capital) add in the fuel saving and the fact that the production examples are not significantly more than a standard hybrid and the overall costs aren't as much. True there is the conductor to factor in, but I don't imagine they will last long unfortunately. I believe that passengers do like the lt's and have seen many positive comments on Twitter. Having something bespoke will cost money, but i think London deserves something something bespoke.
Anyway, I will park the nbfl argument before I get lynched by the majority here that don't agree with me!
The report makes interesting, if not slightly depressing reading. What I am surprised at is how the level of subsidy has in real terms come down. To me, it seems illogical how we have a system whereby public subsidy is required with private companies (mostly owned by overseas and in some cases state run) making profits for shareholders/governments. If only those profits could he re-invested into OUR network! However, this is the model that we have and nothing will change so it at least something that the subsidy is coming down.
With regards to immediate cost saving, I think the following could be implemented to save money but still keep high service levels.
The night bus network, whilst excellent I believe should be altered. I think that the trend to shortening routes and making more routes 24 hr is a mistake. Whereas I used to be able to get 1 bus home from central London, I now have to get 2 with (if I'm unlucky) up to half hour wait in the middle of nowhere. It also now costs me £2.80. I would prefer to see higher fares charged for night buses, like they used to. £2 would be my suggestion, still excellent value for money imo and miles cheaper than a cab. I would also re-instate longer routes and cut some of the other routes out. I am sure that this would save money and have higher patronage. Traffic congestion is significantly less at night so less of a problem having longer routes. Personally as well, I would much rather wait (if I had to) in central London rather than the middle of nowhere, also knowing that I only had to get one bus home.
With regards to service levels, this is difficult and should be looked at on a route by route basis. I think some corridors are over-bused whilst some routes struggle. The 10 reduction/65 increase makes sense to me.
I understand that significant changes will be made in connection with crossrail (buses mag even talks of the 7 being withdrawn!) I think this would be a mistake. History has shown (think croydon tramlink) that some people will still want to use the bus. The 7 may see a drop in patronage, but I am sceptical as to the extent it will drop. Some people will want to use the bus still because it is cheaper and more accessable then underground and crossrail. Personally, I would review the routes after maybe a year of crossrail opening rather than make changes in connection with the opening.
I additionally think that more could be saved by introducing garage journeys (especially for first/last journeys) and maybe reducing frequencies on evening and Sunday services on less busy services. I know that this goes against the standardisation drive but I think that this is more acceptable than cutting rural services.
I also believe (as I have stated before) that more contracts should be given using existing buses. I understand the need to clean up air quality, but I can't understand why any bus built shouldnt be able to do 10 years service here.
|
|
|
Post by Steve80 on Nov 21, 2013 4:51:30 GMT
The night bus network, whilst excellent I believe should be altered. I think that the trend to shortening routes and making more routes 24 hr is a mistake. Whereas I used to be able to get 1 bus home from central London, I now have to get 2 with (if I'm unlucky) up to half hour wait in the middle of nowhere. It also now costs me £2.80. I would prefer to see higher fares charged for night buses, like they used to. £2 would be my suggestion, still excellent value for money imo and miles cheaper than a cab. I would also re-instate longer routes and cut some of the other routes out. I am sure that this would save money and have higher patronage. Traffic congestion is significantly less at night so less of a problem having longer routes. Personally as well, I would much rather wait (if I had to) in central London rather than the middle of nowhere, also knowing that I only had to get one bus home. I hope that TFL would look at the night routes and combine some of the 24hr routes like the 250 and N64 instead of withdrawn them completely. Also, looking at the profit margin chart provided in that link, Arriva are the only major company that's not making any profit. Even First made some profit. I wonder why?
|
|
|
Post by TA1 on Nov 21, 2013 10:40:27 GMT
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Nov 21, 2013 10:55:45 GMT
Im not against cuts at all. i think we pay too much in fares for an over busssed service. Cut routes like the 349 on sundays, withdrawn the 249 between Clapham Common and Balham on Sundays and evenings (both these routes merley add extra capacity at peaks and are not needed all day) drop the freq of recently DD routes (151, 302 do have busy journies but are noramlly followed by an empty DD or 2). Cut many 24h routes to hourly. With drawn the 359 route, it used to be useful when it ran to New addington and double ran via Forestdale. Both sections now gones its merely a duplication to the 64 and T33 both very overbussed outside thge peaks with 8 mins frqs on both with the only unique section serving an area i doubt is no more than 10mins walk to the 64 anyway.
However if cuts do happen im sure TFL would rather cut a route than unsimplify it such as cutting the 151 evening and Sunday service back to Sutton as the 213 and X26 are fine over that section particulary after 7pm.
But the main saving could come from keeping ALL buses inservice for 14 years. How many buses this year running are from 1999. very very few, Next year the 30 TAs from the 8 are basically redundant as they are served 2 5 year contracts and wont be allowed to start another. Also making all contracts 7 years would save money. There are obviously costs involed in the tender process, and the retendering of a route for poor performance on several contracts after 5 years like the 412 then reawarding to the incumbent again and again is beyong me as i bet almost always the milegae cost increase slightly on each retender (for inflation etc) so TFL miss out on 2 more years at a lower cost and possibly making vehicles redundant sfter 10 years service not 14.
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Nov 21, 2013 11:02:48 GMT
That article also says some parts of the tube will run overnight Friday and Saturday Would rather make some night bus routes that parallel the tube pointless (or at very least, a lot less busy) so likely to be candidates for cuts of frequencies or even whole night routes TfL press release
|
|
|
Post by TA1 on Nov 21, 2013 12:15:41 GMT
That article also says some parts of the tube will run overnight Friday and Saturday Would rather make some night bus routes that parallel the tube pointless (or at very least, a lot less busy) so likely to be candidates for cuts of frequencies or even whole night routes I overlooked that to see if any comments would be made on that proposal. - I believe once the proposals are released to the general public we'll be presented with what lines will run 24 hours on Friday and Saturday. If these proposed job cuts are implemented to save money I'm confused at how TFL are intending to achieve this with the 'saved' money being used to cover drivers, station staff and signallers wages whilst the service runs. Although not every section of line is treated by maintenance crews, I suspect opposition will include the fact that two engineering night souls be lost on some sections of line etc. Although the metro newspaper are reporting that the night time tube services will run on the central line - EAB to HAI Piccadilly line - Heathrow to Cockfosters The Victoria line The Jubilee Line The Northern Line - Edgware/High Barnet - Morden via CHX If this is true, I could possibly see a reduction in frequency on the N8 on those days, N91 curtailed to its daytime terminus or even Turnpike Lane if the Piccadilly line will operate, I personally feel that despite the reduction in government funding, the reckless spending at TFL as of late has been unnecessary and hasn't really proved any advantage to most Londoners. I mean if the NBFL project is ceased will most of BOJO's voters really give a d*mn if he's manifesto pledge of 600 new cleaner buses for London aren't meet, I doubt this is the only cut we'll potentially see. I think their will be an increasment in fares in the forthcoming year to fund the deficit of how much left over TFL intend to save for their upcoming budgets.
|
|
|
Post by westhamgeezer on Nov 21, 2013 12:53:11 GMT
Difficult thing with this is that the tube will be Fri/Sat night only. So we could have a situation where the N9 for example is significantly reduced on the nights when it is currently most frequent
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 21, 2013 13:55:26 GMT
Difficult thing with this is that the tube will be Fri/Sat night only. So we could have a situation where the N9 for example is significantly reduced on the nights when it is currently most frequent I've only skimmed the press release from TfL about the "night tube" but there is obviously a big question mark about what happens with night buses. Talking about an "integrated system" may create the impression with people that daytime routes will be available during the night at weekends to get them home. Are TfL going to run extra "weekend only" night buses to give people extra connectivity to the tube? Given they've no money does the rest of the night bus network get hacked to bits to fund this? Take my local night bus - the N73 - which I use to and from the centre at the moment. However it would also be the bus to get me to and from the tube but I don't believe it will run beyond Tottenham at weekends if there is a all night Victoria Line. Therefore I could end up worse off as a result of a so called improvement. As always we only get part of the story. It would make much more sense if TfL spoke about the much wider plan. Running the tube all night is fine but getting the concept across to people of only a few lines being in operation will take some getting used to. The other problem is that there will be demands for all of the Central and Piccadilly Lines to run and for the Picc Line to serve Ravenscourt Park, Stamford Brook and Chiswick Park by using the slow lines rather than the fast ones. Just give the lobby groups and politicians a few weeks to work it out. I understand the proposed service level is a train every 15 minutes during the night which is way too infrequent. Can you imagine how ridiculously overcrowded platforms will get at places like Leicester Square or Oxford Circus? People will be forced to queue in ticket halls or outside stations once the platforms are full. I am also surprised that the Piccadilly Line has been identified given that its upgrade is supposed to start not long after 2015 and losing the bulk of weekend engineering hours is likely to be a serious impediment to the upgrade programme. Clearly the Picc serves a key part of the West End and Heathrow so running it makes sense from that perspective but why start running it if you're going to have to close it again? The rest of the lines are all (or will be) automatic train operation lines and I'd not be surprised if LU tries to run these services in a different operating mode. The Sub Surface lines are clearly excluded because of the ongoing upgrade to replace the signalling and control system and put in new tracks and power supplies.
|
|