|
Post by snoggle on Nov 27, 2013 17:11:39 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. I think you can rest safe about the 199 - extremely unlikely that it would be withdrawn. If TfL have to contemplate widespread frequency reductions then it might well be in scope of that sort of change - as would many routes. The marginal services are as Steve 80 set out earlier in this thread of posts but any proposal to get rid of them would cause huge political fall out despite the low numbers of people using them. I've only ridden the 389 and 399 once but the majority of users were pensioners who were travelling to and from shops etc. Withdrawing services for pensioners, who take the time to vote, is not good politics.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 27, 2013 17:18:29 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. The Death Valley Hospital issue featured large in the Transport Committee discussions. Lots of pensioners want the 96 to go there but it would be too expensive for TfL to do given the frequency and the need to maintain the "flexible routing" option to preserve service to Bluewater. Mark Threapleton of Stagecoach was well aware of the issues and said attempts to get access to the Fastrack bus lanes had been made but Kent County Council would not agree. I doubt Arriva KT would be too keen to see more abstraction risk for their commercial (and popular) routes in and around Dartford and Bluewater. Given TfL don't have the money I think people will not see any change in respect of route 96 or extensions to the B12.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2013 17:28:14 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 I heavily rely on the 71 to take me to Chessington, and so do other people who live in the area. Which route would replace the southern section? and where would the turn around and standing points be if it was cut to Hook?
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 27, 2013 17:33:06 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 Sorry to shatter your illusions but no commercial operator can compete with TfL's fares. I know from another group that Ensignbus have tried to run cross border services from Thurrock to Upminster and they lasted weeks because insufficient people used the Ensign service compared to the 370. Fares were the killer issue for Ensigns. Those few routes that do still cross boundaries are either tendered routes or where the bulk of the revenue is from outside of London. Kingston is the main area where there is any sort of substantial cross boundary service provision but as I understand it nearly all of Abellio's stuff is tendered with perhaps the 458 as a commercial service. I doubt Richmond council has any discretionary cash available to support school services - is it not an unwritten rule that school transport requirements (barring some private schools) fall on TfL within Greater London? Happy to be corrected if I've got that one wrong.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 27, 2013 19:40:24 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. I am surprised that you are surprised about London's buses being subsidised. You need only look at the fares level to see how much lower it is than comparable networks which run commercially. London's network is also vast and comprehensive. I can't point to another UK network that gets anywhere near in terms of coverage and hours of operation and frequency. Some cities have some service corridors which equal London's most frequent services but they are relatively rare - I'm thinking of the 192 in Manchester and some Liverpool corridors where Arriva and Stagecoach operate under voluntary partnership arrangements. I do not see how referring to a TfL Paper requested *by the TfL Board* several months ago is "screaming Old Labour". A Conservative Mayor appoints the Board Members and he chairs it. I assume he has no issue with TfL constructing a scenario which sets out the implications of funding reductions. There is obviously a political lobbying dimension to the Paper but I see nothing "Old Labour" about it or the fact I raised it on this forum. Would members prefer it if these things were not posted about? I am not au fait with the modelling techniques you mention but it is clear from reading over 70 pages of the transcripts from the Transport Committee sessions that TfL do not plan on the basis of route numbers or route types. Clare Kavanagh and Leon Daniels were very clear that they look at demand flows and seek to meet the demand in the best way. Allocating resource to routes is a final stage of their planning and consultation process. Their argument was that talking about "nebulous" flows of demand was unlikely to be meaningful to stakeholders or the public. Their other point was the public hate massive area based change all in one go. Smaller scale evolution taken at a sensible pace was the preferred way forward and I suspect that is all that is affordable. Therefore I would question if passengers would really like your "mini Network" approach. Your Romford proposal also does not reflect the fact that some of the routes in your scope run south of Romford. Therefore if they were merged or abolished do you still have an efficient and convenient network for passengers? I am not entirely convinced that the Seven Sisters - Edmonton corridor is overbussed. In the peaks the buses are ridiculously oversubscribed given the scale of interchange to the tube. Off peak on weekdays you may have a case but not on Sundays where there are insufficient buses for the demand on offer. Yes some routes are overbussed but I am not sure I'd include the 73 in that list. I also agree with you that TfL can do much more to plan and co-ordinate timetables on shared sections of the network. Whether I would scale up the scope of route tenders to amalgamate routes I do not know. The problem with big PVR routes is that smaller scale operators can't bid for them. TfL do need to keep up the levels of competition for route tenders to ensure value for money. Removing competition by making routes "too big" is unlikely to give value for money in the medium to long term. I would also question whether co-ordination benefits would be high enough to balance the risks associated with reduced competition. I thought one of the big differences in London is that most routes do NOT interwork - they are all stand alone other than handling some peak workings and schools. Only tiddler routes like the 389 and 399 interwork AFAIK - have I missed something? I am also a bit confused by your criticisms about roads. Yes TfL look after certain trunk roads but the vast majority of roads are run by the Boroughs who set their own priorities. TfL can clearly ask for a Borough's help with bus priority but there is evidence from the past that Barnet and Ealing took out bus lanes to make space for cars to the detriment of buses. TfL cannot "boss" the Boroughs about when it comes to road management, it can only try and persuade. TfL does provide funding for a range of borough schemes but the Boroughs decide what they want to do. The other area under TfL control are the traffic signals and the "master brain" computer as seen on the Route Masters programme. There will always be compromises with those sorts of systems given the huge range of traffic issues to be managed day in and day out. It would be lovely to have a London wide policy on bus priority but I can't see some boroughs ever buying into that. In the Transport Committee sessions London Travelwatch lamented the abolition of TfL's bus priority unit - an early casualty of Boris's spending cuts or "efficiencies" as he terms them. Borough liaison was also affected by the same cuts and here we are five years on with the Boroughs moaning about lack of involvement, consultation and the operators moaning about traffic congestion. Well I wonder what conclusion we can draw about that? I agree with your basic premise that things can be done better. The question is how do you do this without too many side effects in terms of poorer frequencies on "freehold" route sections or broken links which force passengers to pay twice. Encouraging headway co-ordination and even possibly joint route management via I-Bus and the contract arrangements are certainly worth looking at. Drives me nuts how badly it is done on Sundays and evenings when a spread of buses on common sections is important. If you haven't delved into the Transport Committee transcripts then it might be useful. I have written a big article for "another place" about the bus network and the Committee's report but it is awaiting publication. If you want to try and spot my ramblings to the Transport Committee they have published all of the submissions they received as part of the Bus Services report. I'm sure you could probably pick out my ideas in amongst the other stuff - the written style will be familiar.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2013 22:05:51 GMT
I did say net subsidy - the net cost of the 'social' elements ought to be covered by surpluses made on the rest of the network. And no, London's bus fares are anything but cheap - it's only Oyster singles are that are cheaper than most single fares elsewhere (but then Trent Barton Mango's singles are £1.25) - the daily cap and season tickets are considerably more expensive than many other networks. 'Oh but London is far larger' I hear you say - in reality most bus passengers do not travel further than the radius of Nottingham or Brighton.
Of course you plan on the basis of flows, and where you identify a large concentration of similar flows you create routes for them, this is how bus networks have been planned from day one. You serve flows best when the routes that serve them are coordinated - otherwise buses get uneven loadings and delays occur from the first stop and propagate fast. The majority of the passengers invariably pile themselves onto the already busy bus having waited longer than they should, while 2 buses 2 minute behind run around carrying fresh air.
I do not envisage wholesale changes with regards to routes being required - nothing more drastic than the type of changes that took place in the last decade. In a hypothetical franchise system service requirements can be written to protect the vast bulk of existing provision and TfL can have the final say on route numbers to maximise continuity. In my Romford example all the main roads into Romford will still have the same links into Romford with probably the same route numbers, only stuff north of Colliers Row might be swapped around or rationalised - it's not as though London doesn't see this kind of change of this scale (197/312, 5/87 etc). I did allude to a 'wider Romford franchise' which would maintain through running opportunities which any sensible bidder would take up.
I'm not sure 'massive changes' are necessarily a bad thing - London had rather a few network shakeups in the last few decades, and Nottingham's 'Big Bang' directly contributed to historical growth levels in the years afterwards. If asked the public will never like change, but once implemented, as long as the changes are thought through, they'll always end up embracing it.
In terms of competition - the market is already dominated by the players and the big groups take advantage of joint bids already. There will always be the smaller 'standalone' routes on tender that smaller operators can get their teeth into.
My Old Labour reference was towards the mentality that subsidies are invariably good and cuts are invariably bad, while a more sober look at things would identify opportunities to find efficiencies on the one hand and to grow the market on the other, both of which would make better use of your assets. When one talks about 'funding is required' to solve capacity shortages there is a big problem - if a route is stuffed to the brim it should be swimming in profit and more than self-funding!! This is an incredibly useful thread and I'm glad you created it snoggle, apologies for any misunderstanding caused.
I'm aware that TfL does not control all of London's roads. TfL does however control the trunk road network which gives it great opportunities to streamline bus planning. While not directly controlling the rest of roads TfL does have influence over them - it actively promotes and gives part funding of many schemes geared towards pedestrians and cycles which are often to the detriment of buses. TfL have also been rather quiet about Hackney and Bromley town centre schemes - as a public voice it should have put up a fight. It is certainly disappointing that the bus priority unit was abolished under Boris. It is clear that buses now sit way behind pedestrians and cyclists on the priority list.
With hearts in the right place the savings required can fairly easily be achieved through efficiency savings (some via a restructuring of the industry) and putting focus back onto bus priority. Alas I might have to concede that what'll end up happening is that what shouldn't be cut will be cut while the fat will carry on sitting there left alone.
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Nov 28, 2013 10:39:59 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. Not an easy one to solve. Diverting the 492 through there would mean you'd probably lose some of the routing between Dartford and Bluewater which is popular particularly at school times. Diverting the 96 would have the problem of adding an 8-min frequency to an area where demand is probably fairly low. Would also add some time to the "express" link between Dartford and Bluewater - the current end-to-end running time is by no means short, either. Extension to the B12 would mean a very circuitous routing between Bexleyheath and Darent Valley that would probably take longer than changing at Erith from a 229. Realistically, it's probably going to have to be a longish extension to a bus terminating at Bexleyheath, and in the current climate, that's unlikely. My choice would be the 401 : via B12 to the old Bexley Hospital site, then Old Bexley Lane, Shepherds Lane, Princes Road (so bypassing Dartford town centre), Watling Street to terminate at the hospital.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 28, 2013 19:16:09 GMT
I did say net subsidy - the net cost of the 'social' elements ought to be covered by surpluses made on the rest of the network. And no, London's bus fares are anything but cheap - it's only Oyster singles are that are cheaper than most single fares elsewhere (but then Trent Barton Mango's singles are £1.25) - the daily cap and season tickets are considerably more expensive than many other networks. 'Oh but London is far larger' I hear you say - in reality most bus passengers do not travel further than the radius of Nottingham or Brighton. Of course you plan on the basis of flows, and where you identify a large concentration of similar flows you create routes for them, this is how bus networks have been planned from day one. You serve flows best when the routes that serve them are coordinated - otherwise buses get uneven loadings and delays occur from the first stop and propagate fast. The majority of the passengers invariably pile themselves onto the already busy bus having waited longer than they should, while 2 buses 2 minute behind run around carrying fresh air. I do not envisage wholesale changes with regards to routes being required - nothing more drastic than the type of changes that took place in the last decade. In a hypothetical franchise system service requirements can be written to protect the vast bulk of existing provision and TfL can have the final say on route numbers to maximise continuity. In my Romford example all the main roads into Romford will still have the same links into Romford with probably the same route numbers, only stuff north of Colliers Row might be swapped around or rationalised - it's not as though London doesn't see this kind of change of this scale (197/312, 5/87 etc). I did allude to a 'wider Romford franchise' which would maintain through running opportunities which any sensible bidder would take up. I'm not sure 'massive changes' are necessarily a bad thing - London had rather a few network shakeups in the last few decades, and Nottingham's 'Big Bang' directly contributed to historical growth levels in the years afterwards. If asked the public will never like change, but once implemented, as long as the changes are thought through, they'll always end up embracing it. In terms of competition - the market is already dominated by the players and the big groups take advantage of joint bids already. There will always be the smaller 'standalone' routes on tender that smaller operators can get their teeth into. My Old Labour reference was towards the mentality that subsidies are invariably good and cuts are invariably bad, while a more sober look at things would identify opportunities to find efficiencies on the one hand and to grow the market on the other, both of which would make better use of your assets. When one talks about 'funding is required' to solve capacity shortages there is a big problem - if a route is stuffed to the brim it should be swimming in profit and more than self-funding!! This is an incredibly useful thread and I'm glad you created it snoggle, apologies for any misunderstanding caused. I'm aware that TfL does not control all of London's roads. TfL does however control the trunk road network which gives it great opportunities to streamline bus planning. While not directly controlling the rest of roads TfL does have influence over them - it actively promotes and gives part funding of many schemes geared towards pedestrians and cycles which are often to the detriment of buses. TfL have also been rather quiet about Hackney and Bromley town centre schemes - as a public voice it should have put up a fight. It is certainly disappointing that the bus priority unit was abolished under Boris. It is clear that buses now sit way behind pedestrians and cyclists on the priority list. With hearts in the right place the savings required can fairly easily be achieved through efficiency savings (some via a restructuring of the industry) and putting focus back onto bus priority. Alas I might have to concede that what'll end up happening is that what shouldn't be cut will be cut while the fat will carry on sitting there left alone. My reference to "big changes being bad" was simply referring to what Leon Daniels told the Transport Committee. Given his position I would assume that what he says in front of that body is what TfL's current thinking is. We have not had really big schemes since the likes of Bexleybus, Suttonbus, Harrowbus and Kinsgtonbus. There were reasons why those network changes were, in some respects, disastrous and probably put people off buses for a long time. On the flipside there are many routes from those days that still survive and have grown and prospered. There are obviously ways to deliver changes depending on where you start from. If things are a mess already then a big change gives you the basis to start again. If things are stable but perhaps a bit dull then you're taking a risk throwing it all up in the air and hoping it all pans out OK. Given the relatively small numbers of people paying cash in London I really don't think that is a sensible place to start from. The Oyster bus fare is the one paid by most people and as a *flat* fare that is better value than many networks offer. Yes some short hop fares are a bit lower but that's it. The point about the London network is that the public sector funds the service and some element of the performance risk (via the target setting process and the resource levels paid for). Fares and other payments quite clearly do not cover the cost of the network although if you look at gross expenditure per pass kilometre then LU and Buses are equal but that reflects the much higher capital element for LU. It roughly covers its opex from revenue. Your comments about "swimming in profit" suggest you'd prefer that London moved to a deregulated and contracted socially necessary service structure - is that what you want to see with all the risks about competition, wasted resource, congestion and chaos that would undoubtedly ensue for years. Places away from London that do reasonably well with deregulation have only got to the state after 25+ years of deregulated operation with all the market "shake out" that has ensued. It is highly debateable as to whether London could actually function with years of road based bus competition. The rail network could not take up any diverted patronage if people voted with their feet at peak times as happened in other UK cities where people had the option. On the road issue I think it is more accurate to say that policy is an utter mess. Boris wants to do several things that are in conflict - smoothing traffic flow, improving the road network, adding cycle lanes, improving pedestrian facilities, more accessible bus stops. If you want fully segregated cycle paths then something else goes - typically traffic lanes. This slows everything down which may be feasible and OK on some roads but not on others. Boris required the abolition of the former road user hierarchy which has meant the loss of priority for buses. TfL cutting its bus priority unit is a disaster as it means a loss of momentum on proper corridor schemes which could have helped keep (bus operating) costs down. The latest controversy with cycling runs a risk of ill considered ideas and schemes being implemented quickly while everyone regrets them at their leisure afterwards. I support better cycle lanes and we should have a sensible programme to bring them forward but it should take due account of bus priority, goods deliveries etc. I am a bit less concerned about car drivers because we should be actively getting people out of cars on to more efficient modes. On your point about borough schemes like Hackney and Bromley I think Boris is very reluctant to "take on" any Boroughs and certainly not Tory ones. He was elected on a basis of a better deal for outer Boroughs which is where his votes come from. The latest example is the problem of the grants to the Boroughs - TfL want to cut the amount of money because their budget has been cut by the Mayor and Treasury. Will Boris face down Tory Assembly Members? - nope. Therefore something else gets chopped to keep the Boroughs happy. Given what my council - Labour Waltham Forest - spends its TfL grant money on I wish they wouldn't bother. Months and months and months of poncing about with pavements and curb lines which reduce road space, don't put in bike lanes and make all the traffic (incl buses) slower. He is also averse to challenging developments that will create jobs etc even if there are other downsides such as creating rich ghettos, not enough social housing or massive tower blocks all over the place (despite criticising the previous Mayor on this point). Therefore it's no surprise to me that the impact of development on bus users is not a key issue for him even though TfL *has* to be concerned about it. I look forward to us having a Mayor with at least some understanding of transport matters - Boris really, really does not understand it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2013 20:57:10 GMT
I made no single mention of cash fares so I have no idea why you feel the need to raise it. I specifically referred to the daily cap and season tickets, and stated there are many networks that offer cheaper prices, which is an indisputable fact. It is also baffling why you think I'd prefer a deregulated market and on-road competition, though it is telling that you think that model is the only alternative. If as you say revenues *clearly* do not cover costs then there is something seriously wrong going on.
Forgive me for saying it, but judging your protective tendency towards subsidies and your rather ill-informed view about competition, you have a rather 'Old Labour' way of looking at things. You keep alluding to the worst of the deregulated markets while completely failing to acknowledge the high quality networks offered by many council-owned and independent operations outperforms London's network on many fronts. On fares alone Nottingham, Brighton and Edinburgh's networks all offer better value for money than London's (some fares are only marginally cheaper, but journey times, reliability and cleanliness are heads and shoulders above what's typical of London). Even Glasgow, which is a First operation, is what I'd call decent. That there are high quality and self-funding operations out there means London has a lot of catch-up to do. To put it bluntly, London's buses are dire. Fares and journey times aside, the buses are dirty, information and marketing inside the bus is completely non-existent. Buses have a terrible image in London (basically poor man's travel - the yuppies especially shun buses) which is only slightly countered by the Borisbus.
If competition is of the on-road, or 'in the market' type, then what you describe is correct. However we both know that this is not the only form competition can take - there is also competition 'for the market', which is basically what's happening now, but there is a lot of untapped potential from this competitive process.
Your assessment of policy is spot on. What you have highlighted is that transport in London is too political, and that it is perpetually subject to Labour spend and Tory cuts, and both parties quite frankly don't have a clue. What is needed is more room for private sector innovation. At the moment the operators have the dullest form of management contracts, and have neither the freedom nor the incentives to deliver more for less. Keep the market regulated, but not controlled, and let operators take on revenue risk - give them the incentive to improve marketing and presentation to grow a market, give them opportunities to find efficiency savings by letting bigger networks, and give them a reason to speak out against borough and city policies.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 28, 2013 23:08:04 GMT
I made no single mention of cash fares so I have no idea why you feel the need to raise it. I specifically referred to the daily cap and season tickets, and stated there are many networks that offer cheaper prices, which is an indisputable fact. It is also baffling why you think I'd prefer a deregulated market and on-road competition, though it is telling that you think that model is the only alternative. If as you say revenues *clearly* do not cover costs then there is something seriously wrong going on. Forgive me for saying it, but judging your protective tendency towards subsidies and your rather ill-informed view about competition, you have a rather 'Old Labour' way of looking at things. You keep alluding to the worst of the deregulated markets while completely failing to acknowledge the high quality networks offered by many council-owned and independent operations outperforms London's network on many fronts. On fares alone Nottingham, Brighton and Edinburgh's networks all offer better value for money than London's (some fares are only marginally cheaper, but journey times, reliability and cleanliness are heads and shoulders above what's typical of London). Even Glasgow, which is a First operation, is what I'd call decent. That there are high quality and self-funding operations out there means London has a lot of catch-up to do. To put it bluntly, London's buses are dire. Fares and journey times aside, the buses are dirty, information and marketing inside the bus is completely non-existent. Buses have a terrible image in London (basically poor man's travel - the yuppies especially shun buses) which is only slightly countered by the Borisbus. If competition is of the on-road, or 'in the market' type, then what you describe is correct. However we both know that this is not the only form competition can take - there is also competition 'for the market', which is basically what's happening now, but there is a lot of untapped potential from this competitive process. Your assessment of policy is spot on. What you have highlighted is that transport in London is too political, and that it is perpetually subject to Labour spend and Tory cuts, and both parties quite frankly don't have a clue. What is needed is more room for private sector innovation. At the moment the operators have the dullest form of management contracts, and have neither the freedom nor the incentives to deliver more for less. Keep the market regulated, but not controlled, and let operators take on revenue risk - give them the incentive to improve marketing and presentation to grow a market, give them opportunities to find efficiency savings by letting bigger networks, and give them a reason to speak out against borough and city policies. I have never slagged off Edinburgh or Brighton buses - I've used them and found them decent enough. Much of First Group has had a poor reputation in recent years but they seem now to be trying to put things right and allowing some local freedom to their managers to try things out and innovate. Nonetheless London is not Brighton nor is it Edinburgh or Oxford. The scale of operation is vastly different. If you bothered to read my submission to the London Assembly's investigation (it's in the public domain) you would see that what you have set out in your final paragraph is largely what I actually suggested to them! That the politicians chose to ignore what I said is down to them not me. All public transport is political in the UK. The public still think it is run by local councils or should be. You will never divorce politics from transport in London no matter what bit of national or local or regional government is in charge of it or influencing it. Therefore you have to work within that framework and it is not going to be easy to shift London politicians of any hue away from the current set up. None of the Tory members on the Transport Committee seem to be aware that there might be things you could do to raise quality or alter incentives in the current structure. They were shouting as loudly as Ms Shawcross and Ms Pidgeon and Mr D Johnson for more buses, cheaper fares and more political involvement in the planning process. They're more "Old Labour" than I am when it comes to bus services in London.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2013 2:29:15 GMT
A few points to comment on. As stated above, area based comprehensive reviews never seem to be the cure all solution that is hoped for. Nor, for that matter do general widespread changes. It almost seems as though every time a proposal for London with the words 'Bus' and 'plan' in its title has occured, passengers have born the brunt of the fallout. Further to that, mordern reshaping schemes have tended to be scaled back from what was envisaged initially. The U line and Harrow schemes being examples, so I'm led to believe.
It might be that private companies have more room to innovate, or rather, less obligations to uphold. But that doesn't necessarily make them more attractive by default. First may be improving by allowing some devolved autonomy, but their total withdrawl from the London market to concentrate on deregulated areas can only be seen as representing their view that regulation is against their business interests. Not their moral or philanthropic interests (else why would regulation matter); their business ones.
Wrt transport policy of GLA versus the boroughs - ultimately one must ask if it is wise that two seperate organisations composed of 34 different groups in total can ever be expected to deliver a coherant, value for money, and efficient programme of works when their responsibilities are any of inter-dependant, duplicative and contradictary. Perhaps the main problem is what organisations are expected to deliver doesn't necessarily coincide with the areas of organisational control they have authority over.
Looking at Londonbuses.co.uk, it seems clear that the old LT way of doing things in terms of reroutings, diversions and new routes was based on an almost semi yearly scheme of tinkering. Whether this is attractive or not to passengers is a seperate issue, but it must surely be more demand responsive than the worst examples of TfL planning.
London opperations opperate it seems at an average of 8% profit on the side of the companies, yet overall work at a loss and require a subsidy. How can this be in the interest of the passenger when that 8% could be re-invested in the network, probably a further 2-3% saved in erradicating duplicated management, maybe 1% in ecconomies of scale, and then the total cost of the tendering process wiped away? How much would all that save?? Was it about a third of the entire market is run by companies ultimately owned by foreign nationalised transport organisations? DB + NedRail + RAPT? Why is that allowed when any form of domestic publically owned transport system is regarded as almost a 'dirty thought' and actively discouraged?
Why are people so reluctant to challenge the dogma and ideology of the setup itself when that may provide the largest imporvements to provision?
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Nov 29, 2013 7:38:07 GMT
A few points to comment on. As stated above, area based comprehensive reviews never seem to be the cure all solution that is hoped for. Nor, for that matter do general widespread changes. it seems clear that the old LT way of doing things in terms of reroutings, diversions and new routes was based on an almost semi yearly scheme of tinkering. Whether this is attractive or not to passengers is a seperate issue, but it must surely be more demand responsive than the worst examples of TfL planning. You have highlighted the main problem. There is no longer any strategic planning, just a bit of minor tinkering. It is over a decade since any area changes took me place (when some changes with new Jubilee line stations occurred) even the Overground extensions and Olympic park changes were more tinkering than wholesale. If plans are ever drawn up there doesn't appear to be any management skill and drive to get them through a consultation and implement them. Result is network is virtually frozen in out of date pattern although London work and life patterns keep changing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2013 11:38:15 GMT
Just to clarify that point, as I posted it half asleep!
Maybe 'tinkering' in the sense I used is not the best word to use. LT were better able to adapt to passenger requirements in terms of routing because they weren't affraid to make small changes to routes regularly to best match the demand and local situations. I refered to that as tinkering but perhaps it would be better refered to evolution, because whereas the changes were small, and sometimes occured in a back and forth manner, they were always co-ordinated. Tinkering has the negative connotation of being a half-arsed way of changing something without having to put the effort in to committ a revamp of perhaps more useful scale.
There seem to be two main reasons as to why TfL is hesitant to have the frequency of changes as they once had. One being contracts, and the second being the strive for 'simplicity'. This is a serious limitation, as it puts pressure on to minimise whatever change is planned, and to do it as infrequently as possible. This may lead to suboptimal changes occuring, and a lack of will to correct/improve them until something else reaches a critical point.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 29, 2013 12:06:55 GMT
A few points to comment on. As stated above, area based comprehensive reviews never seem to be the cure all solution that is hoped for. Nor, for that matter do general widespread changes. it seems clear that the old LT way of doing things in terms of reroutings, diversions and new routes was based on an almost semi yearly scheme of tinkering. Whether this is attractive or not to passengers is a seperate issue, but it must surely be more demand responsive than the worst examples of TfL planning. You have highlighted the main problem. There is no longer any strategic planning, just a bit of minor tinkering. It is over a decade since any area changes took me place (when some changes with new Jubilee line stations occurred) even the Overground extensions and Olympic park changes were more tinkering than wholesale. If plans are ever drawn up there doesn't appear to be any management skill and drive to get them through a consultation and implement them. Result is network is virtually frozen in out of date pattern although London work and life patterns keep changing. Where is the evidence that there is no strategic planning? In the T'port Committee sessions Clare Kavanagh of TfL was adamant that TfL had worked with the Boroughs to do sub regional (groups of Boroughs) planning to look at the transport needs and to see what might need to change. In the same session we had LA members complaining about a lack of strategic planning and then the London Councils rep saying the sub regional work was fine but didn't refer to individual bus routes. Well duh! - how do you square that one off? TfL does what the boroughs want and they complain. They do stragetic stuff and are told they don't do it. They have Caroline Pidgeon claiming that a review of buses in Highgate said that a certain bus route ran "because that's where the trams ran". Well hello that may simply be because it has been a corridor of demand that has lasted for nearly a century. These sorts of remarks bring out my worst fears - politicians wanting to play with crayons and felt tip pens on their colouring pads and completely failing to realise that you have routes like the 43 and 134 because they go where lots and lots people want to go and have done so for donkey's years. TfL have no money to do big schemes so therefore they don't happen. They say they prefer to do changes gradually so as not to upset the passengers - they're told they're useless and should do big schemes. Who are the most important people here? - the passengers, not politicians or planners with crayons. The only changes that are happening are where there is external (S106 agreements typically) funding or over generous PVRs (hello route 38) or something which is long promised and can't be dumped given the politics (hello route 255 extension) or is done solely for the politics (fewer buses in Oxford St). How many instances are there of routes that could be wholly or largely removed from the network without too much impact and how many instances are there of glaring deficiencies in bus service coverage where buses are not within 400m of where people live? The lead has to come from the Mayor - he should hold a consultation which sets out options for the bus network such as a) If you want more buses will you pay higher fares or higher council taxes? b) If you want more buses in some places will you be happy to have fewer buses elsewhere? c) If you want more buses in your area what else should I, as Mayor, cut or reduce in your area? d) If you want more day buses do you agree that we should reduce night bus services? e) If you want more buses on Sundays would you accept some frequency reductions on Saturdays as that is now a less busy shopping day? I am sure there are other, better phrased questions but they give a flavour of what should be asked. This is based on there being choices for people and it not being "all upside" (something for nothing). This seems to be what most people on here are saying when they call for routes to be changed, reduced, taken back to the 1950s. Everyone's shouting that TfL are not doing the right thing but the Mayor is actually *in charge* of policy. He'll happily throttle off the money but won't be accountable for the consequences. He needs to set out a strategic direction even if it is "more of the same" - at least people might understand what that means. I have gone back and read the Transport Strategy and the TfL Business Plans and there is really no plan *at all* for buses other than the NB4L which is an answer to a question that has never been clear. Dear Politicians - where is your version of the "Tube Upgrade Plan" for the bus network? When can we see the "Bus Upgrade Plan"? I've never worked in LT or TfL bus service planning in case anyone thinks I'm defending old colleagues. I do just get exasperated when there appears to be no acceptance or recognition of the difficult trade offs that exist or with politicians who think it is all terribly easy. There is easy to find evidence of what happens and what views people hold on the web courtesy of recent meetings and reports. People would do well to push themselves through their personal boredom thresholds and read all the documents and then sit back and see if they can come up with a better answer. I've done so and some of the stuff I can't begin to resolve - the buggy vs wheelchair issue being one of them. I've got some ideas about a trial to see if a partial solution could be developed but I know it would not work across London given the differing types of service and demand. However I am not arrogant enough to imagine my ideas have not already been considered and probably dismissed for reasons I'm not aware of.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2013 12:34:04 GMT
Why don't TfL launch a borough by borough consultation and investigation into travel patterns, emerging travel needs, housing locations and locations of social importance. Cross reference them , and develop a revised transport network across London based on what is needed not only now, but in ten years time after cross rail. Get in all in place now is what I say.
|
|