|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 4, 2019 23:25:09 GMT
Saw this email about upcoming central London changes from TfL. Seems like they will be extending Hopper if needed, by virtue of automatic refunds. My favourite LInE: “We are working to reduce bus-on-bus congestion, to help improve reliability and make it easier to travel.” I think it's disgraceful that a transport body can come out with such a line which is not only false but also misleading given how much congestion is caused by other vehicles such as deliveries & private hire vehicles  |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jun 5, 2019 6:02:04 GMT
Saw this email about upcoming central London changes from TfL. Seems like they will be extending Hopper if needed, by virtue of automatic refunds.
My favourite LInE: “We are working to reduce bus-on-bus congestion, to help improve reliability and make it easier to travel.” In fairness there certainly is some scope for reducing bus on bus congestion in certain areas. |
|
|
|
Post by busman on Jun 5, 2019 11:12:06 GMT
My favourite LInE: “We are working to reduce bus-on-bus congestion, to help improve reliability and make it easier to travel.” In fairness there certainly is some scope for reducing bus on bus congestion in certain areas. Yep, especially bus stations and bus/cab only corridors! I just think that is such a misleading statement. The reason given for the cuts in this email is absolute nonsense. Cuts have to be made as TfL must now live within its financial means. That means a closer match between service and demand. It’s laughable to see these financially driven cuts being repackaged as something else. What the repackaging does achieve is that it helps TfL not sound too political so they don’t irritate anyone in central government and it also makes the work seem like a noble and beneficial cause to the employees who are commissioned to swing the axe. It also makes the cuts more palatable to the general public. From a corporate perspective, it’s very good management of a very difficult situation. I’d do exactly the same thing if faced with that scenario. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jun 5, 2019 11:19:18 GMT
In fairness there certainly is some scope for reducing bus on bus congestion in certain areas. Yep, especially bus stations and bus/cab only corridors! I just think that is such a misleading statement. The reason given for the cuts in this email is absolute nonsense. Cuts have to be made as TfL must now live within its financial means. That means a closer match between service and demand. It’s laughable to see these financially driven cuts being repackaged as something else. What the repackaging does achieve is that it helps TfL not sound too political so they don’t irritate anyone in central government and it also makes the work seem like a noble and beneficial cause to the employees who are commissioned to swing the axe. It also makes the cuts more palatable to the general public. From a corporate perspective, it’s very good management of a very difficult situation. I’d do exactly the same thing if faced with that scenario. I understand your point but I think Waterloo Bridge for example will still have an abundance of capacity outside peak hours after the 4,171 and RV1 are removed? On a positive note it should reduce the queues at the lights at the junction with The Strand. I don't know why TfL don't just say that they are reducing services in line with a fall in demand? |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Jun 5, 2019 11:32:28 GMT
Yep, especially bus stations and bus/cab only corridors! I just think that is such a misleading statement. The reason given for the cuts in this email is absolute nonsense. Cuts have to be made as TfL must now live within its financial means. That means a closer match between service and demand. It’s laughable to see these financially driven cuts being repackaged as something else. What the repackaging does achieve is that it helps TfL not sound too political so they don’t irritate anyone in central government and it also makes the work seem like a noble and beneficial cause to the employees who are commissioned to swing the axe. It also makes the cuts more palatable to the general public. From a corporate perspective, it’s very good management of a very difficult situation. I’d do exactly the same thing if faced with that scenario. I understand your point but I think Waterloo Bridge for example will still have an abundance of capacity outside peak hours after the 4,171 and RV1 are removed? On a positive note it should reduce the queues at the lights at the junction with The Strand. I don't know why TfL don't just say that they are reducing services in line with a fall in demand? Because they're reducing services to save money, and you don't usually want to admit that sort of stuff. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 5, 2019 11:43:51 GMT
Yep, especially bus stations and bus/cab only corridors! I just think that is such a misleading statement. The reason given for the cuts in this email is absolute nonsense. Cuts have to be made as TfL must now live within its financial means. That means a closer match between service and demand. It’s laughable to see these financially driven cuts being repackaged as something else. What the repackaging does achieve is that it helps TfL not sound too political so they don’t irritate anyone in central government and it also makes the work seem like a noble and beneficial cause to the employees who are commissioned to swing the axe. It also makes the cuts more palatable to the general public. From a corporate perspective, it’s very good management of a very difficult situation. I’d do exactly the same thing if faced with that scenario. I understand your point but I think Waterloo Bridge for example will still have an abundance of capacity outside peak hours after the 4,171 and RV1 are removed? On a positive note it should reduce the queues at the lights at the junction with The Strand. I don't know why TfL don't just say that they are reducing services in line with a fall in demand? It won't reduce nothing because buses wasn't the problem - you will still have queues with all the private hire vehicles & other vehicles when they just jump into the gap. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jun 5, 2019 11:45:17 GMT
I understand your point but I think Waterloo Bridge for example will still have an abundance of capacity outside peak hours after the 4,171 and RV1 are removed? On a positive note it should reduce the queues at the lights at the junction with The Strand. I don't know why TfL don't just say that they are reducing services in line with a fall in demand? Because they're reducing services to save money, and you don't usually want to admit that sort of stuff. They're basically matching supply with demand like any other business would do. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jun 5, 2019 11:47:36 GMT
I understand your point but I think Waterloo Bridge for example will still have an abundance of capacity outside peak hours after the 4,171 and RV1 are removed? On a positive note it should reduce the queues at the lights at the junction with The Strand. I don't know why TfL don't just say that they are reducing services in line with a fall in demand? It won't reduce nothing because buses wasn't the problem - you will still have queues with all the private hire vehicles & other vehicles when they just jump into the gap. Of course it will, just like Oxford Street isn't as congested since the number of buses using it was reduced. |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Jun 5, 2019 11:50:02 GMT
It won't reduce nothing because buses wasn't the problem - you will still have queues with all the private hire vehicles & other vehicles when they just jump into the gap. Of course it will, just like Oxford Street isn't as congested since the number of buses using it was reduced. I go to Oxford Street almost every day and it's still pretty much the same, arguably worse since Tottenham Court Road went two way on the eastern side. The Western side only looks fine because it's currently being dug up and all the buses are on diversion away from there. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 5, 2019 13:34:06 GMT
Because they're reducing services to save money, and you don't usually want to admit that sort of stuff. They're basically matching supply with demand like any other business would do. That would only be true if they're actually just cutting routes that are failing except that isn't the case as many routes which have healthy loads have been needlessly cut, in some cases, very harshly. It is simply a money saving exercise and no more. TfL isn't a business so not sure why they are being compared to as such and even if they were, any right minded business would identify why demand has fallen and taken steps to find solutions - cutting is no solution and just worsens any drop in demand. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jun 5, 2019 13:38:03 GMT
They're basically matching supply with demand like any other business would do. That would only be true if they're actually just cutting routes that are failing except that isn't the case as many routes which have healthy loads have been needlessly cut, in some cases, very harshly. It is simply a money saving exercise and no more. TfL isn't a business so not sure why they are being compared to as such and even if they were, any right minded business would identify why demand has fallen and taken steps to find solutions - cutting is no solution and just worsens any drop in demand. There is a considerable over provision of buses across Waterloo Bridge outside of peak hours and there has been for years. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 5, 2019 13:39:14 GMT
That would only be true if they're actually just cutting routes that are failing except that isn't the case as many routes which have healthy loads have been needlessly cut, in some cases, very harshly. It is simply a money saving exercise and no more. TfL isn't a business so not sure why they are being compared to as such and even if they were, any right minded business would identify why demand has fallen and taken steps to find solutions - cutting is no solution and just worsens any drop in demand. There is a considerable over provision of buses across Waterloo Bridge outside of peak hours and there has been for years. I'm afraid I strongly disagree - seen on many occasions outside peaks and at weekends many busy or well loaded buses across Waterloo Bridge. |
|
|
|
Post by busman on Jun 5, 2019 21:51:35 GMT
Because they're reducing services to save money, and you don't usually want to admit that sort of stuff. They're basically matching supply with demand like any other business would do. Exactly that. With these cuts, TfL are merely cutting the cloth to suit their budget. Those of us arguing about whether or not previous cuts have reduced traffic, improved reliability, made it easier to travel (an actual line from that TfL email) etc are being taken in by the red herring that TfL has thrown out. These cuts were never about any of those things. These cuts primarily exist to help to achieve TfL’s real objective which is to live within its means. We are now making the shift towards getting the services we pay for. |
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Jun 5, 2019 22:46:14 GMT
Imagine this statement from TfL:-
''We are going to make your Underground journey quicker by reducing train-on-train congestion. It is unacceptable that your train is held at a signal outside a station because the previous train is still in the platform. We intend to even out the service so this never normally occurs.''
Do not imagine that words like that would never be spoken, maybe sooner than you think.
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 6, 2019 1:11:13 GMT
They're basically matching supply with demand like any other business would do. Exactly that. With these cuts, TfL are merely cutting the cloth to suit their budget. Those of us arguing about whether or not previous cuts have reduced traffic, improved reliability, made it easier to travel (an actual line from that TfL email) etc are being taken in by the red herring that TfL has thrown out. These cuts were never about any of those things. These cuts primarily exist to help to achieve TfL’s real objective which is to live within its means. We are now making the shift towards getting the services we pay for. Except that isn't happening - if you were matching supply with demand, you'd work out which routes has lost demand and which haven't and then go from there. Instead, from what I see, it seems a random scatter gun approach has been undertaken purely just to save some money. Like I said before, people are seemingly forgetting that TfL isn't a business and it has a social responsibility to provide accessible transport across a wide area and if it was a business, any decent business would of investigated how to find a solution to the lost demand rather than simply giving up because cuts only cause further misery and do not bring any solutions - you only have to look at council budgets and how the slashing of them has led to a poorer quality of life or even in some cases, a loss of life quite literally and that's not me scare mongering either. |
|
