|
Post by danorak on Nov 21, 2013 14:59:46 GMT
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. Don't forget double deckers have to meet accessibility requirements by 2017 (single deckers by 2015). A bus built in 1999 is unlikely to meet all the requirements even if it's low floor.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2013 19:37:39 GMT
Surely routes should be shortened where appropriate and some routes given slightly wider frequencies than currently, but chopping entire routes seems a little extreme. In my own area (Harlesden/Park Royal) I believe the 226 Golders Green Station-Ealing Broadway could become Golders-Green Station-Hanger Lane Station with passengers changing to the frequent 83 service at Hanger Lane on to Ealing Broadway. The 487 South Harrow-Willesden Junction could become South Harrow-Central Middlesex Hospital with passengers changing on to the 228 on to Willesden Junction. Just two examples where resources could be utilized more effectively.
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Nov 22, 2013 9:54:07 GMT
My immediate thought, if we have to have cuts, is to look at all those routes in the City of London that run around carrying little but fresh air at weekends...
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Nov 22, 2013 16:24:44 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 releaseThe problem with cutting or withdrawing night bus routes that parallel tubes lines are there are often frequent signal failures or mechanical trains. If that happens where will the punters go? It's better to keep at least minimal night buses running alongside as backup. Another issue to consider are punters that live halfway between tube stations, especially when there is quite a bit of distance.... South Wimbledon and Morden on the N155 being an example (bearing in mind the 93 runs between those two stops on a 24-hour basis).
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 22, 2013 18:12:47 GMT
Surely routes should be shortened where appropriate and some routes given slightly wider frequencies than currently, but chopping entire routes seems a little extreme. In my own area (Harlesden/Park Royal) I believe the 226 Golders Green Station-Ealing Broadway could become Golders-Green Station-Hanger Lane Station with passengers changing to the frequent 83 service at Hanger Lane on to Ealing Broadway. The 487 South Harrow-Willesden Junction could become South Harrow-Central Middlesex Hospital with passengers changing on to the 228 on to Willesden Junction. Just two examples where resources could be utilized more effectively. I think those examples are actually very poor. You have not said what happens to the "freehold" section of the 226 from Ealing to Hanger Lane. Do these people simply lose their bus service? You have not explained why anyone would find changing buses at Hanger Lane even vaguely attractive compared to having a through service? Gyratory systems are frankly hideous places to change buses. I've changed from a 112 to a 95 at Hanger Lane and misjudged the stop meaning I had to go through the underpass. It was awful enough in the daylight but would be downright unacceptable in the dark. One thing London is not very good at is making interchange really easy and safe at big road junctions like Hanger Lane. I know it is not always easy given the differing directions routes take but more could be done. Hacking the 487 short of a railhead doesn't help matters either. It makes a great deal of sense for buses to link to rail systems wherever possible and especially to facilitate links to hospitals. Why stop a bus short of Willesden Junction which is a major interchange node on the Overground network? Breaking the Ealing to Central Middlesex Hospital link offered by the 226 is completely contrary to the NHS strategy for NW London which sees Ealing Hospital losing facilities and some being concentrated at Central Middlesex. The recent London Assembly hearings made an enormous point about the chaos invoked by the NHS reorganisation and the huge demand for *direct* buses to hospitals, especially from elderly patients who hate having to change buses. I can understand that you might think Harlesden and the Central Middlesex Hospital area is overbussed but the area has a strange road layout and spread of activities which means you have buses taking all sorts of routes around the area to offer reasonably convenient links. There are no easy answers if TfL does have to cut. There are "tipping points" in what happens if you cut too much or cut badly. If you remove or severely reduce Sunday or evening services do you lose journeys at other times? If you lose passengers altogether then revenue goes down and possibly by more than the cost savings so TfL end up worse off. As I have already said the politics could be poisonous if TfL go after the lightly used services. Demands to remove suburban night buses make no sense alongside a proposal for "night tubes" which would deliver *more* passengers to these night bus services in some parts of London. We have to realise the cuts scenario is merely an option and not yet discussed or agreed so there is a long way to go. However the prospects look bad and we have been here before in the 70s and 80s and look what that did to people's view of the bus service. Many people, rightly, consider London's bus services to be good and dependable. It would be ridiculous to adopt a policy that would undo that goodwill.
|
|
|
Post by rambo on Nov 22, 2013 23:22:57 GMT
Whilst I agree that maybe fares shoud be more of a night time, the extra money will go straight to TFL, because new drivers now don't get extra for night duties.
|
|
|
Post by ThinLizzy on Nov 22, 2013 23:33:35 GMT
Surely routes should be shortened where appropriate and some routes given slightly wider frequencies than currently, but chopping entire routes seems a little extreme. In my own area (Harlesden/Park Royal) I believe the 226 Golders Green Station-Ealing Broadway could become Golders-Green Station-Hanger Lane Station with passengers changing to the frequent 83 service at Hanger Lane on to Ealing Broadway. The 487 South Harrow-Willesden Junction could become South Harrow-Central Middlesex Hospital with passengers changing on to the 228 on to Willesden Junction. Just two examples where resources could be utilized more effectively. I think those examples are actually very poor. You have not said what happens to the "freehold" section of the 226 from Ealing to Hanger Lane. Do these people simply lose their bus service? You have not explained why anyone would find changing buses at Hanger Lane even vaguely attractive compared to having a through service? Gyratory systems are frankly hideous places to change buses. I've changed from a 112 to a 95 at Hanger Lane and misjudged the stop meaning I had to go through the underpass. It was awful enough in the daylight but would be downright unacceptable in the dark. One thing London is not very good at is making interchange really easy and safe at big road junctions like Hanger Lane. I know it is not always easy given the differing directions routes take but more could be done. Hacking the 487 short of a railhead doesn't help matters either. It makes a great deal of sense for buses to link to rail systems wherever possible and especially to facilitate links to hospitals. Why stop a bus short of Willesden Junction which is a major interchange node on the Overground network? Breaking the Ealing to Central Middlesex Hospital link offered by the 226 is completely contrary to the NHS strategy for NW London which sees Ealing Hospital losing facilities and some being concentrated at Central Middlesex. The recent London Assembly hearings made an enormous point about the chaos invoked by the NHS reorganisation and the huge demand for *direct* buses to hospitals, especially from elderly patients who hate having to change buses. I can understand that you might think Harlesden and the Central Middlesex Hospital area is overbussed but the area has a strange road layout and spread of activities which means you have buses taking all sorts of routes around the area to offer reasonably convenient links. There are no easy answers if TfL does have to cut. There are "tipping points" in what happens if you cut too much or cut badly. If you remove or severely reduce Sunday or evening services do you lose journeys at other times? If you lose passengers altogether then revenue goes down and possibly by more than the cost savings so TfL end up worse off. As I have already said the politics could be poisonous if TfL go after the lightly used services. Demands to remove suburban night buses make no sense alongside a proposal for "night tubes" which would deliver *more* passengers to these night bus services in some parts of London. We have to realise the cuts scenario is merely an option and not yet discussed or agreed so there is a long way to go. However the prospects look bad and we have been here before in the 70s and 80s and look what that did to people's view of the bus service. Many people, rightly, consider London's bus services to be good and dependable. It would be ridiculous to adopt a policy that would undo that goodwill. I think there is some scope for cuts in some places. Referring back to my earlier post on the cuts subject, the Seven Sisters to Edmonton Green corridor has always seemed over-bussed to me (and I regularly travel the section at various times of the day.) The 149, 259, 279, 349 gives roughly a combined BPH figure of 37 outside of peaks- perhaps one of these could be cut to Tottenham Town Hall or even diverted to Tottenham Hale once the new Bus Station opens. I do wonder if TfL would have to pay operators compensation if a decision is made to withdraw one of their routes, and how much this could potentially cost in comparison to the required savings
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 23, 2013 12:34:01 GMT
I think there is some scope for cuts in some places. Referring back to my earlier post on the cuts subject, the Seven Sisters to Edmonton Green corridor has always seemed over-bussed to me (and I regularly travel the section at various times of the day.) The 149, 259, 279, 349 gives roughly a combined BPH figure of 37 outside of peaks- perhaps one of these could be cut to Tottenham Town Hall or even diverted to Tottenham Hale once the new Bus Station opens. I do wonder if TfL would have to pay operators compensation if a decision is made to withdraw one of their routes, and how much this could potentially cost in comparison to the required savings I have not said there is no scope for cuts. In a network as large as TfL's there is clearly a lot of resource to play with. However you have to balance several things - demand and capacity, resilience and reliability and how actual and prospective passengers view the network. After many years of effort London is seeing a public transport boom and a decline in car ownership and usage. That has to be a good thing overall but it rests crucially on the public transport still being effective for people and still being perceived as attractive. People accept, but don't like, the fact that peak times will see full buses and crowding. However they won't really like that off peak or on Sundays. If people go out for the evening then they reasonably expect to be able to get there and back. If you start to thin out off peak buses so the wait times are too long or buses are too crowded then people will stop using the buses. If you half or remove evening and Sunday services then you deprive people of travel opportunities for work and leisure. This is one of the big problems in many deregulated areas - you can't get anywhere after dark or on Sunday without a car or using taxis. Once people buy cars they tend to use and not use the bus so you lose passengers forever. London simply cannot afford to go back to that sort of downward spiral. In your Tottenham example I would point out that TfL have faffed about with frequencies many times on those corridors. The 349 has been reduced several times as has the 279 but has then had to have frequencies restored due to overcrowding. My preferred option would be to divert the 349 via T Hale and the 192 to give relief to the 192 but I don't have the numbers to understand the impact of losing the 349 between Seven Sisters and Edmonton Angel on the remaining services. You might get a thinning out of bus frequencies when TfL take over the parallel railway services and hopefully increase the frequencies to double what they are now. If they did that then I suspect a fair number of people will move to rail as Oyster fares are comparable with the buses but will you simply see a surge in demand on the buses again? This happened in Hackney where people moved to the Overground but the buses fuilled back up again within weeks! It's not easy and there is little point in TfL cutting stuff if they then end up with huge complaints and have to restore frequencies again - that is just a waste of time and money.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2013 13:17:44 GMT
I have said this before and I will say it again - I am staggered that of all networks London's buses still require a net subsidy.
It is easy to go Old Labour and scream cuts, when reality there are plenty of efficiencies to be made. Many of Ken's expansion policies were just not sustainable, free travel for the under 16s is the first example that springs to mind - the result has been a surge in loadings from kids going a few stops reducing capacity for fare paying passengers. There were many network initiatives that were sensible, but sometimes standardisation was done for the sake of it without economic justifications, like the removal of through running in the evenings for the likes of the 15 and 115. Between Aldgate and Blackwall buses are pretty lightly loaded, and there is certainly scope for efficiencies to be made. Mistakes were made under Boris's watch too - many 'debendified' routes were clearly over-specified, the 12, 38, 73 to name but a few. I'm glad to see steps have been taken to remedy that and resources have been diverted to the 44, 63 and 77 where it was needed - this is precisely the kind of initiatives we should welcome. There does exist other bus corridors which are over-provided for, including between Seven Sisters and Edmonton, and resources from the 349 could for example be diverted to create new journey opportunities on Montague Road and Nightingale Road which would have next to no adverse impact on the existing market and which could well turn out to be revenue positive. North Street in Romford is another corridor which is way overbussed.
A fall in bus demand isn't automatically a bad thing - if that demand goes onto rail rather than onto cars. Crossrail alone will add 10% to London's rail capacity and it is not inconceivable that it will ease pressure on the bus network. Likewise with Thameslink and continuing Tube upgrades. Of course there is a danger of cutting the bus network too far and I am a bit worried that emphasis on pedestrians and cycling will create a more adverse operating environment for buses making them vulnerable to cuts.
Being a public organisation TfL has in the past been too willing to simply chuck money at problems rather than to look at more economic ways of solving them. Extending journey times and chucking more buses have been the panacea for solving reliability problems, even when as a public body TfL has direct powers to influence road designs and management that operators in the provinces don't. The result has been a poorer and poorer service that is increasingly more expensive to operate. TfL's various surface transport divisions don't seem to talk to each other and bus services are seldom a consideration in designing road layouts. TfL's trunk road network is managed in a way that is very hostile to buses that dart off and back on them to serve bus stations for example.
Planning services and tendering at a route level doesn't really help either. The 13, 82 and 113 ought to be one contract and run together, also the 217/231. This will help with coordinating headways - not only in the sense of service planning on paper, but also in terms of service regulation with iBus - the 13 and 82 should be jointly controlled to a combined 3-4 minute headway for example. What you'll soon discover is that 20 uncoordinated buses per hour could be easily reduced to say 18 or even 15 coorindated buses per hour with no impact on demand and revenue. I think TfL uses an emme based model which uses average frequencies so does not take into account the effects of uneaven headways. This is in contrast with the rail industry that favours a roof-top model that is much more realistic in modelling passenger behaviour in uneaven headway situations. Not only is joint operation beneficial in achieving coordinated headways, it also allows for efficient vehicle and crewe diagramming (pardon me for using railway terminology). Of course every garage has various forms of interworking going on, but without being able to take full advantage of parallel routes interworking is often spilled over a wide area meaning delays on one route could often pollute the performance of another.
TfL could be even more imaginative by tendering out mini networks and specifying fairly 'loose' service requirements for frequencies, maximum journey times and crowding and performance targets. For example the North West Romford service requirement as part of a wider Romford 'franchise' could be in the form of
6 bph between Romford and Barkingside, 6 bph between Romford and Lodge Lane end, 6 bph between Romford and Clockhouse Lane end, 6 bph between Romford and Hillrise Estate and also minimum frequencies on some other road sections or protected links.
A successful bidder may propose to deliver this requirement by 4 routes rather than the current 6 (103, 175, 247, 252, 294 and 365), with no impact on demand and revenue but cutting costs by up to a fifth.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2013 16:16:19 GMT
My suggested amendment to the 226 does not affect Central Middlesex Hospital and patients for that hospital are highly unlikely to be from the Ealing area (they go to Ealing Hospital). I have never seen a 487 even one third loaded on the stretch between Willesden Junction Station and Willesden County Court hence my idea to leave that stretch to the 228. Although a bus service is seen as a social service, it also has to be operated these days in terms of a business and I can't see a valid business case for the 487 between Willesden Junction Station and Central Middlesex Hospital.
|
|
|
Post by Mokujin on Nov 26, 2013 21:24:32 GMT
I hope TFL don't consider getting rid of 199 as although it is a short route, it still helps the 47 with loadings along it's whole route (except Greenwich and Pepys Estate) and is overcrowded in the Mornings and After-school times, but on weekends, the route is lightly used. Pepys Estate also rely on the 199 as it is the only route that serves there along with the N1 which runs only at night.
I'm thinking TFL might want to get rid of routes like 346, 389, 399 etc.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2013 21:58:58 GMT
fitforthefuture.tfl.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/L7912_Night_Tube_Factsheet_v1.pdfThis factsheet for staff about the upcoming Night Tube says "Impact on Night Buses It is likely that the night bus network will change over time, with some frequency changes where bus routes are parallel to Night Tube routes. There will possibly be some new routes to complement the overnight Tube network. It is not expected that any routes will be removed. London Buses will develop their plans over the coming months." So there you have it! Personally, I must agree with some of the people advocating a move away from the 'simplicity and standardisation' tenets that are currently within the bus route planning framework. The marketing and passenger recognition benefits of a route running same end to same end all the time must be weighed against the drawbacks that given a finite amount money, it might become necessary to reduce or withdraw a route without compensation in any form, instead of allowing appropriate variations. The 15/115/N15 and 427/207/N207 are both good examples. Both N buses run longer routes when the traffic is presumably at its quietest at nighttime. However, now, at times that are more busy than nighttime, but quiet compared to day and certainly peak, a structure that is optimised for the peak is still present. In both cases this includes overlap. Is it really necessary on a Sunday evening, say, to have this overlap in the middle of routes when they could remove duplication and just provide an extension? In the 207's case something like 1-2-2-2 instead of 1-3-3-2. I've got an old timetable for the 15/115 before they were totally split and to me it seems the ideal set up; as total return trip time decreases with traffic, the route is extended to cover another further out, which in turn can be withdrawn without hardship. In much the same way as bespoke night routes being withdrawn in favour of multiple 24 hour bus roues... Is it the most efficient way of doing it? Does it provide the most benefit to the passenger for the least cost? Garage journeys are another good point - where timetabled they represent no benefit whatsoever to the traveling public, and can only therefore be a drain on resources. As each route is asigned fixed routes to home garages, why not liven them up. Some compromises must be made ultimately, one wonders whether highlighting potential bus cuts is TfLs subtle way of issuing a threat to those in power. As pointed out, they affect an aweful lot of Tory areas. Loosening the terms opperators run with is not a good idea - if anything the groups that see the best financial benefit from such a move would be the opperators themselves, not TfL. The idea of returning to multicoloured buses left right and centre is poor - the system at the moment is trying to present the best image of cohesiveness as has been achieved since privitisation. Its a pity that it can't go further with standard families of bus, like the RF and RM. Standardisation when it comes to infrastructure can bring cost benefits. But this cuts both ways - ask a Londoner what colour a bus is and they will say red. Ask them how many doors they have, and they might say two, hesitantly. Ask them which way round the stairs face and of what shape the treads are and they wont know. The question then is can reducing the London Spec to something less onerous (a red box with two doors!) result in a decent Saving:Disbenefit ratio? A further point once again mentioned above is bigger but less frequent buses. All routes that can take 12m buses should be identified, and perhaps in combination with a reduction of 1bph on what are presumably high frequency routes (and given the ability of garages to accept longer buses) maybe overall capacity could be retained? It seems that two many conflicting visions, requirements and responses from London Buses are required at this moment in time. Combined with Boris being excellent at wasting other peoples money and the Assembleys general ignorance when it comes to transport matters, this is a perfect storm. Suddenly the chances of things actually getting worse for the first time in decades is back.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 26, 2013 22:57:18 GMT
My suggested amendment to the 226 does not affect Central Middlesex Hospital and patients for that hospital are highly unlikely to be from the Ealing area (they go to Ealing Hospital). I have never seen a 487 even one third loaded on the stretch between Willesden Junction Station and Willesden County Court hence my idea to leave that stretch to the 228. Although a bus service is seen as a social service, it also has to be operated these days in terms of a business and I can't see a valid business case for the 487 between Willesden Junction Station and Central Middlesex Hospital. I'm sorry but the whole d*mn point of TfL's approach is that the network is not a "business" in the sense of it being required to solely operate at a profit. TfL's approach, set by the elected Mayor, is that the bus network is there to facilitate movement across Greater London across the whole day. Therefore it is inevitably a mixture of what could be or is profitable and what is essentially a "social service". You also seem to be completely ignoring my point that it would be daft to start breaking links to hospitals like the Central Middlesex because Ealing Hospital is going to *lose* health services it currently has. Didn't Jeremy Hunt sign this off months ago and haven't Ealing Council just lost their case for a judicial review (or similar)? One of the biggest problems with NHS reorganisation is the unseen effect on patients / visitors who suddenly find themselves with inconvenient public transport journeys when health services move between hospitals. Read the London Assembly's Bus Services report and recommendations.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2013 9:18:51 GMT
I agree with designing timetables better to fit demand and looking at increasing the size of some buses on certain routes without increasing frequency , maybe reducing it slightly. If money has to be saved , the cuts have to be fair and well thought through. TfL could withdraw some cross boundary routes and invite the county councils to replace them or see if an operator will take them on commercially. Where these routes also provide a sole link within the London area, then they need to be save guarded.
Eg
411 , the main purpose of this route is to serve the residents of Elmbridge district. I would invite Surrey County Council to take this over. If Richmond Borough wants to fund the school bus 641 to Teddington Schools then fine.
The 216 was commercial for a long time under Westlink. Of course now running every 20mins I am sure patronage has increased , but again you have the issue that it is serving Spelthorne , albeit feeding punters into Kingston like the 411.
I am not anti cross border routes i live just outside myself and rely on one.
Run well , and to the right places , i am sure some commercial routes into London would be cost effective without costing tfl , saving them money , so they can maintain the night bus network and other bus routes within London that would be vulnerable
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2013 9:38:34 GMT
One outside tfl area that needs to be maintained and improved though is Bluewater and Darent Valley Hospital. No direct with Bexleyheath . I think the B12 should be extended to the hospital and possibly Bluewater , or make the 96's call in.
|
|