|
Post by snowman on Nov 29, 2013 14:02:57 GMT
I was wrong to say no strategic planning and apologise to snoggle for upsetting him. There is planning but what I should have said is there is no widespread implementation of any plans that get drafted. An unused plan may as well be no plan. I stick by my acersion that there isn't the drive to change multiple routes in an area. Replacing 20 routes by a modern local network just doesn't happen anymore, deemed too hard by TfL (yes same organisation that issue route contracts so could put in a clause permitting it). Surely its easier to do one consultation than twenty if the benefits outweigh the losses. But it takes determined hard working leadership, not wimps who put it in a too difficult category because they want easy life. MPs are one of dozens of stakeholders so don't think they singularly dictate what happens.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 29, 2013 19:53:55 GMT
I was wrong to say no strategic planning and apologise to snoggle for upsetting him. There is planning but what I should have said is there is no widespread implementation of any plans that get drafted. An unused plan may as well be no plan. I stick by my acersion that there isn't the drive to change multiple routes in an area. Replacing 20 routes by a modern local network just doesn't happen anymore, deemed too hard by TfL (yes same organisation that issue route contracts so could put in a clause permitting it). Surely its easier to do one consultation than twenty if the benefits outweigh the losses. But it takes determined hard working leadership, not wimps who put it in a too difficult category because they want easy life. MPs are one of dozens of stakeholders so don't think they singularly dictate what happens. I'm not upset - I just get irritated about things which are not really accurate when the public have been given at least some insight into what goes on behind normally closed doors. If we'd been told nothing and people were just left to speculate wildly then fair enough. I do think that your assertions about a lack of "hard working leadership" and "wimps" and "too difficult categories" and an "easy life" are unfair if you are talking about people who do the route and area reviews in TfL. If we want to be really fair then I'd argue that your adjectives can apply to people in a wide range of businesses where things are not always done for the best of reasons and very rarely are they done for customers. My experience of planners in TfL is that they are typically very hard working and thorough people who have to come with answers from masses and masses of data and opinions from all and sundry. As I have posted somewhere else this afternoon enthusiasts tend to believe they can do a better job than those actually doing it even when they're not in possession of the relevant facts, lobbying from stakeholders, whatever. I just feel it is unfair on those doing the job. I have no personal connection to anyone working in that area so I've no personal or vested interest just in case someone thinks I have! The problem with doing a huge consultation is that there are genuine limits to what the average person can take in and understand. That sounds patronising but I think it is true. The more complicated something is the less likely you are to get a balanced view - especially if there are choices which affect more than one route. If you present people with 4 options for their route and another one they use how are they supposed to weigh which option is best? Most consultations consist of a basic idea and asking for support and comments. Sometimes a choice is given but rarely are there more than two options to be considered in order to keep things easy for people to deal with. The other side of the coin is that you need some clarity in the responses in order to be able to analyse them and reach a conclusion. If you just get a random collection of feedback from people it is very hard to deal with. I have never suggested MPs are the sole determinant of any decision. Look at how few responded to the Transport Committee's Bus Investigation. I am saying, though, that local councils are clearly fed up with TfL's approach to the buses. They feel frustrated. London Assembly members are similarly fed up but beware some of the madness (IMO, of course) that some of them put forward. To some extent this will reflect genuine public concern but I am a tad sceptical as to whether it always relates to public views and is not sometimes a personal tactic from the politician to achieve some other end.
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Nov 30, 2013 19:16:40 GMT
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. Sorry, but I can't let that go unchallenged. London's buses are far from dire. They may not be perfect - there's always room for improvement - but they're not dire. In my experience 'yuppies' (is it still 1987?) shun buses far less in London than elsewhere - who are all those people in suits I see waiting for buses to get them to and from the station?. Frequencies and densities are far better than they've ever been. Yes, there are good operations outside the capital, but the fact the same few names keep getting trotted out (Brighton, Nottingham and Oxford) suggest the picture is not as rosy as you suggest. Look at the stats comparing ridership levels in London with the downward trend outside. No-one would ever point to Stoke or Northampton as exemplars. We also benefit from a superb integrated ticketing system and full accessibility. I should say I'm not connected with TfL but I am someone who prefers to go by London bus rather than run a car.
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Nov 30, 2013 20:11:03 GMT
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. Sorry, but I can't let that go unchallenged. London's buses are far from dire. They may not be perfect - there's always room for improvement - but they're not dire. In my experience 'yuppies' (is it still 1987?) shun buses far less in London than elsewhere - who are all those people in suits I see waiting for buses to get them to and from the station?. Frequencies and densities are far better than they've ever been. Yes, there are good operations outside the capital, but the fact the same few names keep getting trotted out (Brighton, Nottingham and Oxford) suggest the picture is not as rosy as you suggest. Look at the stats comparing ridership levels in London with the downward trend outside. No-one would ever point to Stoke or Northampton as exemplars. We also benefit from a superb integrated ticketing system and full accessibility. I should say I'm not connected with TfL but I am someone who prefers to go by London bus rather than run a car. Would largely agree with danorak. The buses, generally, are clean, and certainly much cleaner than many were in the 1980s/90s. One thing I do wish TfL would consider is fitting wi-fi to buses, as many provincial operators do now.
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Nov 30, 2013 20:13:09 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. I think TfL may well already be considering the bus network post Crossrail, if the rumours surrounding route 7 are true...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2013 20:29:18 GMT
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. Sorry, but I can't let that go unchallenged. London's buses are far from dire. They may not be perfect - there's always room for improvement - but they're not dire. In my experience 'yuppies' (is it still 1987?) shun buses far less in London than elsewhere - who are all those people in suits I see waiting for buses to get them to and from the station?. Frequencies and densities are far better than they've ever been. Yes, there are good operations outside the capital, but the fact the same few names keep getting trotted out (Brighton, Nottingham and Oxford) suggest the picture is not as rosy as you suggest. Look at the stats comparing ridership levels in London with the downward trend outside. No-one would ever point to Stoke or Northampton as exemplars. We also benefit from a superb integrated ticketing system and full accessibility. I should say I'm not connected with TfL but I am someone who prefers to go by London bus rather than run a car. 'London is better than Northampton' - that's an incredibly defensive and complacent attitude. London has the most vibrant economy in the UK, a consistently high population density and an integrated transport authority with real regulatory power (the only one of the kind) - these things create an incredibly favourable operating condition for buses. London's buses should by rights be the best in the country. Brighton, Nottingham and Oxford all lack at least one of those aforementioned conditions - if London buses can't outperform those then dire is not an inappropriate adjective.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2013 21:03:01 GMT
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. Hang on a minute - you are putting words in my mouth again - where did I imply you were slagging off Edinburgh or Brighton? You were ignoring them. 'London is not Brighton nor is it Edinburgh or Oxford' is shirking the issue. The scale of operation is merely proportional to London's size, and aided by the higher population density and higher trip rates - the 'vastly different scale of operation' should only make London's buses better - that you are using it as an excuse for not comparing with the higher achievers is rather telling. Your second paragraph is rather confused. You acknowledge the need for change but actually shy from wanting any meaningful change. The public and politicians have one thing in common - they want to have their cake and eat it. The political process is crucial in providing checks and balances in the commercial world (essentially regulation to avoid exploitation), it is completely and utterly useless for micro-management (as in the case with London buses' tendering). Things under political micro-management, however well intentioned, might just about plod along okay in the good times, but invariably start creaking at the seams in bad times. There are essentially two choices - rely on the political process producing a good politician micro-manager with a good technical and commercial understanding, or scale back the political process to create room for private sector innovation. History tells that the latter is usually more likely to happen.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 30, 2013 22:45:40 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. AIUI TfL are already looking at the implications of Crossrail. However they'd be very clever to be able to "know" with any genuine level of certainty as to what will happen in 6 years time when the full service starts running across London. I go back to what has happened with the Overground - lots of people transferred from buses to Overground. Within weeks the capacity on the buses that had been freed up was used up. I assume that those routes which were cut, like the 242, are now more heavily loaded off peak than they were. I haven't been to look so don't know. Sir Peter Hendy is on the record as saying that Crossrail will be full within months which is bordering on lunacy - not the comments more that £16bn of expenditure doesn't get you much extra for very long. That scale of growth poses very serious questions which deserve some serious answers and they must start with the politicians. If TfL is contemplating biggish cuts to trunk services that serve Zones 1 and 2 on the basis that people will move to Crossrail and those tube lines which have been relieved then I fear they may be making a mistake by removing capacity that will be needed when people cannot squash onto Crossrail or the Tube! It is clear that there is some pressure on TfL to improve its planning and consultation processes. It is also clear to me, from the transcripts of the T'Port Committee meetings, that TfL *do* talk to councils, they *do* review and comment on development proposals, they *do* try to get extra facilities and services paid for by developers and they do try to accommodate change. However it was also evident that there are some sources of change where TfL try to get info and cannot get it or not really what they want. The NHS is one source of significant problems - they have no or very few people tasked with understanding the transport / travel implications of moving health services around London. Similarly local councils are losing their responsibilities for education as more and more free schools are build in all sorts of places. Do people setting up free schools have any understanding of the transport implications of their decisions? I'd argue they don't. Do parents expect there to be buses for their children to get to the school of their choice? - of course they do. They expect TfL to "magic" buses out of nowhere. If people want the ability to change routes, operators, frequencies, days and hours of operation at a drop of a hat without consultation and without bureaucracy then they should start demanding that London be deregulated. Just be careful what you wish for. The problem, though, is that London (as do many cities and towns) has *very* long established travel patterns. Does anything think that under deregulation routes like the 12 or 24 or 29 would disappear? I don't. I think they could be copied and be swamped with hundreds of buses as companies battled to get the last penny out of passengers' hands. I do think TfL will be forced to enhance their consultation and planning processes. However I believe there are limits to what they can do themselves. There are other organisations that must play their part and it must be open to question if they will. To the extent that they do not then TfL will face problems with dealing with the local implications of government health and education policies. I would also say there must be limits to what TfL can determine from forward planning and forecasting. I think we need to distinguish between policy and the aims and then how you take those aims and work with partners to turn them into affordable, practical and well timed proposals. Buses have the advantage of being a relatively flexible mode relative to rail. The other side of that coin is that if people need to panic and react then buses can also be cut and mucked around with. If we take Crossrail my personal preference would be to have three phases - the first one to strengthen connecting services to stations in the suburbs at around the time through services work. The second phase would be after 6 months to see how and where patronage on Crossrail is building, what has happened to tube services and to consider / make changes to trunk and local services if there are clear changes in demand patterns. I would then come back for a final fine tune and review at 12-15 months after services started. The main problem with my approach is that it costs money in the short term because of service increases but no accompanying reductions. However, if route 25 loses 25% of its ridership in 8 weeks then I would expect TfL to act quickly to reduce service levels appropriately and to free up the money for something else.
|
|
|
Post by rambo on Nov 30, 2013 23:34:20 GMT
Why on earth do we need wifi on buses?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2013 1:00:15 GMT
Why on earth do we need wifi on buses? I do not know for sure, but other operators around Britain and Ireland provide wifi on buses. But for London it's a different thing because of short routes and cost for maintenance. Its cheaper for the passengers themselves to use their mobile data to use the internet. I know at tube stations some of them have wifi, but you need to be attached to a mainstream mobile operator to log in. But also if your not on one of them you have to pay for the tube wifi. But why cant they keep the TFL sites unlocked on the tube wifi while leaving all the other sites premium. At least Wifi would be free only for the ones needing help to know where to go on the London Transport network. I personally think its ideal for London Buses to have no wifi to save money. If someone wants wifi, they can jump off to a bus go to Starbucks or somewhere to get their internet there.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Dec 1, 2013 13:41:38 GMT
Why on earth do we need wifi on buses? I do not know for sure, but other operators around Britain and Ireland provide wifi on buses. But for London it's a different thing because of short routes and cost for maintenance. Its cheaper for the passengers themselves to use their mobile data to use the internet. I know at tube stations some of them have wifi, but you need to be attached to a mainstream mobile operator to log in. But also if your not on one of them you have to pay for the tube wifi. But why cant they keep the TFL sites unlocked on the tube wifi while leaving all the other sites premium. At least Wifi would be free only for the ones needing help to know where to go on the London Transport network. I personally think its ideal for London Buses to have no wifi to save money. If someone wants wifi, they can jump off to a bus go to Starbucks or somewhere to get their internet there. What's wifi got to do with short routes, plenty of people go a reasonable enough distance on a bus to use wifi. Also, how can it be cheaper when wifi is usually made free when installed on provincial operators buses. Pizza Hut & McDonalds wifi is also free but you have to register. Wifi could potentially attract more people to public transport so I'm all for it.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Dec 1, 2013 13:48:53 GMT
Why on earth do we need wifi on buses? Well it seems to be used by private bus companies outside of London to attract passengers who would otherwise drive. Allows people to work on their commute or just keep in touch using the web. It's a small way of people saving some money if they'd normally use their phone's network. Judging from the retweets I see from Go North East then passengers seem to like it - particularly on express routes but even on local ones too.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Dec 1, 2013 13:51:19 GMT
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. Hang on a minute - you are putting words in my mouth again - where did I imply you were slagging off Edinburgh or Brighton? You were ignoring them. 'London is not Brighton nor is it Edinburgh or Oxford' is shirking the issue. The scale of operation is merely proportional to London's size, and aided by the higher population density and higher trip rates - the 'vastly different scale of operation' should only make London's buses better - that you are using it as an excuse for not comparing with the higher achievers is rather telling. Your second paragraph is rather confused. You acknowledge the need for change but actually shy from wanting any meaningful change. The public and politicians have one thing in common - they want to have their cake and eat it. The political process is crucial in providing checks and balances in the commercial world (essentially regulation to avoid exploitation), it is completely and utterly useless for micro-management (as in the case with London buses' tendering). Things under political micro-management, however well intentioned, might just about plod along okay in the good times, but invariably start creaking at the seams in bad times. There are essentially two choices - rely on the political process producing a good politician micro-manager with a good technical and commercial understanding, or scale back the political process to create room for private sector innovation. History tells that the latter is usually more likely to happen. You'll be delighted to hear that I'm bored of this now. You accuse me of putting words in your mouth and then you do the same to me. For whatever reason we are both failing to communicate effectively so it's best to stop. We'll have to agree to differ.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2013 1:37:11 GMT
A report in the "i" newspaper yesterday shows that cuts to bus services across the UK are well on their way. £65m cuts in London before 2015. Apparently that equates to 1/5 of the current spending.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Dec 12, 2013 10:24:37 GMT
A report in the "i" newspaper yesterday shows that cuts to bus services across the UK are well on their way. £65m cuts in London before 2015. Apparently that equates to 1/5 of the current spending. I saw that article courtesy of a tweet from a MP in Harrow. While I have no doubt that councils outside of London are facing serious funding issues and may well stop subsidising buses altogether I think they are wrong about London. Now we only have the draft TfL business plan to go on but it's clear to me that we are NOT getting £65m worth of bus cuts. I have sat down and compared the numbers across three business plans and it seems Leon Daniels has managed to protect the budget. While the numbers over the next few years are lower than the last full business plan back in 2010 it is safe to say that life has changed a lot since then - patronage and revenue are ahead of budget and I think TfL have managed to keep costs lower than previously forecast. The bus subsidy increases by £50m or so next year compared to this year and is then level for a couple of years and rises after that as the mileage operated increases after 2016. Now what is not immediately clear is the extent to which the level funding implies some cuts or efficiencies to cope with inflation in those years. The media have just used the £65m from the TfL paper *in isolation* and then not compared what has emerged in later documents. Clearly I am speculating a bit as I don't have access to any of the working detail and assumptions.
|
|