|
|
Post by sid on Jun 6, 2019 4:33:50 GMT
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. You say it's not you scaremongering but outside of forums like this is anybody bothered? The cuts from June 15th have been in the public domain for sometime yet I don't see any great protests about them. Are they likely to cause any great hardship other than maybe during peak hours? I suspect not. TfL also have a responsibility not to waste money on services that are no longer needed. I've thought reductions on routes like the 264 and 468 were a bad idea but I'll have to admit that I was wrong, although I still think the 468 deserves a better service during peak hours and Sunday daytimes, but these once busy routes just aren't that busy anymore. Much of it is down to lifestyle changes, more people working from home, shopping online, healthcare online, food delivered to the front door, all means less people using buses and I can only see that continuing. |
|
|
|
Post by busman on Jun 6, 2019 8:33:55 GMT
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. The primary objective is to save money. TfL must now live within its means and that means taking a broader look at supply and demand in terms of overall fare revenue vs overall service provision. TfL are actually taking an even handed approach by spreading the cuts across busy high frequency routes with duplicate corridors as well less busy suburban routes. Would you rather TfL made cuts based on usage of individual routes, and the axe fall disproportionately on smaller local community routes? That would be even more grim than the current scenario. Whether we like it or not TfL has to operate as a business. That means good financial stewardship and narrowing the gap between its income and expenditure. I would argue that sound management of public money is also part of their social responsibility. TfL have stated that they do not know the exact reason behind the drop in patronage. I think it’s for a variety of reasons like those sid has mentioned. TfL are prudently spending money to test the water for solutions - bus branding (don’t laugh...don’t laugh...don’t 🤣) and now demand responsive services in Sutton. They have even looked at private sector collaboration with the likes of Chariot and Citymapper to address falling demand. In the meantime it would be crazy for TfL to continue paying for excess bus capacity when their revenue is massively decreasing and they can’t increase fares. They are doing what any sensible business would do and that is to reduce their expenditure. |
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Jun 6, 2019 9:30:52 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. Well this needs to be sorted out at stretches like Tower Hill to Embankment and Liverpool Street to Kings Cross, as the service over this section on the Metropolitan/District/Cricle/Hammersmith & City is a joke. It is very slow, even at times in the evenings. If we are going on this basis, but they would never do it, buses are just a soft easy target that bends over to everything. |
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Jun 6, 2019 9:31:21 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. Keep kidding yourself... |
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Jun 6, 2019 9:32:02 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. It still is congested, it is now just a moving taxi rank, more taxis and constant u turns from them. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jun 6, 2019 9:32:59 GMT
They're basically matching supply with demand like any other business would do. Keep kidding yourself... Sounds like you're the one kidding themselves. Have you really not noticed the reduction in bus usage? |
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Jun 6, 2019 19:29:15 GMT
Sounds like you're the one kidding themselves. Have you really not noticed the reduction in bus usage? Of course frequencies will have to drop if there is a reduction in usage. Conservative austerity has left TFL running short of money, if bus usage falls, it is only natural that frequencies will be reduced. Does one really expect frequencies to remain constant whilst patronage falls? Some of the frequency cuts are dogmatic and apalling such as the 47's Sunday frequency cut but what is to be expected when patronage is plummeting. I think TFL are going too far in the way of frequency cuts, but optimising frequency to better match demand is a necesarry move so TFL can save money and make necesarry investments where extra bus capacity is required |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jun 6, 2019 19:48:03 GMT
Sounds like you're the one kidding themselves. Have you really not noticed the reduction in bus usage? Of course frequencies will have to drop if there is a reduction in usage. Conservative austerity has left TFL running short of money, if bus usage falls, it is only natural that frequencies will be reduced. Does one really expect frequencies to remain constant whilst patronage falls? Some of the frequency cuts are dogmatic and apalling such as the 47's Sunday frequency cut but what is to be expected when patronage is plummeting. I think TFL are going too far in the way of frequency cuts, but optimising frequency to better match demand is a necesarry move so TFL can save money and make necesarry investments where extra bus capacity is required That's it, if passenger numbers continue to fall inevitably there will be more reductions in services. I don't know quite why the 47 has been reduced to every 20 minutes on a Sunday, I appreciate it's another one of those routes that is nowhere near as busy as it once was but it still seems pretty meagre for a Central London route. The improved East London line has obviously taken a lot of its custom, Surrey Quays to Shoreditch in about 10 minutes as opposed to about 50 minutes on the 47! |
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Jun 6, 2019 23:24:43 GMT
Sounds like you're the one kidding themselves. Have you really not noticed the reduction in bus usage? In central London no. Because during the daytime was always quiet, for years now. The same goes on areas like zone 3 or 4. There have been routes in the outer areas loosing patronage like a sinking ship, but they have not been hacked, due to their lower contract prices. It would get worse as many people just see buses as slow and dirty. One key factor of getting people back to buses some years ago was fast and frequent, also used to be put in marketing.
|
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Jun 6, 2019 23:28:02 GMT
Sounds like you're the one kidding themselves. Have you really not noticed the reduction in bus usage? Of course frequencies will have to drop if there is a reduction in usage. Conservative austerity has left TFL running short of money, if bus usage falls, it is only natural that frequencies will be reduced. Does one really expect frequencies to remain constant whilst patronage falls? Some of the frequency cuts are dogmatic and apalling such as the 47's Sunday frequency cut but what is to be expected when patronage is plummeting. I think TFL are going too far in the way of frequency cuts, but optimising frequency to better match demand is a necesarry move so TFL can save money and make necesarry investments where extra bus capacity is required No TfL was not left short of money by austerity, it was Labour incompetence left TfL short. If khan looked into what was on the table left by his predecessor with a cut in subsidy, he would have thought twice about policies. Khan is trying to put a track record like Boris by fulfilling his manifesto to the max, so that it would then show he can deliver and land him one day the ultimate job of being leader for the Labour party.
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 7, 2019 0:57:17 GMT
Sounds like you're the one kidding themselves. Have you really not noticed the reduction in bus usage? Of course frequencies will have to drop if there is a reduction in usage. Conservative austerity has left TFL running short of money, if bus usage falls, it is only natural that frequencies will be reduced. Does one really expect frequencies to remain constant whilst patronage falls? Some of the frequency cuts are dogmatic and apalling such as the 47's Sunday frequency cut but what is to be expected when patronage is plummeting. I think TFL are going too far in the way of frequency cuts, but optimising frequency to better match demand is a necesarry move so TFL can save money and make necesarry investments where extra bus capacity is required TfL is short of money due to Boris agreeing to remove the subsidy & then Kahn stupidly implementing a fares freeze & hopper fare which has resulted in less revenue - I don't think it's fair that poorer Londoners like myself are having to suffer cuts to what is arguably the best bus network in the UK considering just how many people like me reply on the bus to get around. The people on here who are in favour of cuts generally seem to be people who don't rely on buses at all so understandably have no idea what it's like to affected or probably couldn't give two hoots which I really hope the latter isn't true. TfL needs incoming money, mainly through revenue and cutting routes to pieces does nothing to support that - cuts usually only make things worse and what they should be doing is identifying what is causing patronage to drop and then start finding the solution. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 7, 2019 1:04:41 GMT
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. The primary objective is to save money. TfL must now live within its means and that means taking a broader look at supply and demand in terms of overall fare revenue vs overall service provision. TfL are actually taking an even handed approach by spreading the cuts across busy high frequency routes with duplicate corridors as well less busy suburban routes. Would you rather TfL made cuts based on usage of individual routes, and the axe fall disproportionately on smaller local community routes? That would be even more grim than the current scenario. Whether we like it or not TfL has to operate as a business. That means good financial stewardship and narrowing the gap between its income and expenditure. I would argue that sound management of public money is also part of their social responsibility. TfL have stated that they do not know the exact reason behind the drop in patronage. I think it’s for a variety of reasons like those sid has mentioned. TfL are prudently spending money to test the water for solutions - bus branding (don’t laugh...don’t laugh...don’t 🤣) and now demand responsive services in Sutton. They have even looked at private sector collaboration with the likes of Chariot and Citymapper to address falling demand. In the meantime it would be crazy for TfL to continue paying for excess bus capacity when their revenue is massively decreasing and they can’t increase fares. They are doing what any sensible business would do and that is to reduce their expenditure. It's not liking it or not - TfL isn't business but a local government body responsible for transport and it has a responsibility to provide affordable access which it is only half meeting in terms of of the affordable part. We've had at least 10 years of a government that told us austerity was needed and cuts were essential but instead, the vast majority of councils are running on almost no money at all - cuts will not solve falling demand and will only increase it leaving us with a poor bus network in the long term. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 7, 2019 1:09:59 GMT
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. You say it's not you scaremongering but outside of forums like this is anybody bothered? The cuts from June 15th have been in the public domain for sometime yet I don't see any great protests about them. Are they likely to cause any great hardship other than maybe during peak hours? I suspect not. TfL also have a responsibility not to waste money on services that are no longer needed. I've thought reductions on routes like the 264 and 468 were a bad idea but I'll have to admit that I was wrong, although I still think the 468 deserves a better service during peak hours and Sunday daytimes, but these once busy routes just aren't that busy anymore. Much of it is down to lifestyle changes, more people working from home, shopping online, healthcare online, food delivered to the front door, all means less people using buses and I can only see that continuing. It isn't scare mongering - you only have to read the news and see what pressures the councils are under. As for anybody bothered, why there isn't much protest is because buses are talked about anywhere nowhere near as much as other forms of transport and the consultation process is not very well known amongst bus users - if they had massive groups like cyclists or trains do, there may very well be a different outcome. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jun 7, 2019 5:15:56 GMT
Of course frequencies will have to drop if there is a reduction in usage. Conservative austerity has left TFL running short of money, if bus usage falls, it is only natural that frequencies will be reduced. Does one really expect frequencies to remain constant whilst patronage falls? Some of the frequency cuts are dogmatic and apalling such as the 47's Sunday frequency cut but what is to be expected when patronage is plummeting. I think TFL are going too far in the way of frequency cuts, but optimising frequency to better match demand is a necesarry move so TFL can save money and make necesarry investments where extra bus capacity is required TfL is short of money due to Boris agreeing to remove the subsidy & then Kahn stupidly implementing a fares freeze & hopper fare which has resulted in less revenue - I don't think it's fair that poorer Londoners like myself are having to suffer cuts to what is arguably the best bus network in the UK considering just how many people like me reply on the bus to get around. The people on here who are in favour of cuts generally seem to be people who don't rely on buses at all so understandably have no idea what it's like to affected or probably couldn't give two hoots which I really hope the latter isn't true. TfL needs incoming money, mainly through revenue and cutting routes to pieces does nothing to support that - cuts usually only make things worse and what they should be doing is identifying what is causing patronage to drop and then start finding the solution. The fares freeze and hopper fare were in his manifesto, a lot of people are quite happy with them. Putting up fares is likely to put more people off bus travel. I don't think anybody is particularly happy about cuts in services but they are inevitable all the time usage is declining. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jun 7, 2019 5:21:11 GMT
You say it's not you scaremongering but outside of forums like this is anybody bothered? The cuts from June 15th have been in the public domain for sometime yet I don't see any great protests about them. Are they likely to cause any great hardship other than maybe during peak hours? I suspect not. TfL also have a responsibility not to waste money on services that are no longer needed. I've thought reductions on routes like the 264 and 468 were a bad idea but I'll have to admit that I was wrong, although I still think the 468 deserves a better service during peak hours and Sunday daytimes, but these once busy routes just aren't that busy anymore. Much of it is down to lifestyle changes, more people working from home, shopping online, healthcare online, food delivered to the front door, all means less people using buses and I can only see that continuing. It isn't scare mongering - you only have to read the news and see what pressures the councils are under. As for anybody bothered, why there isn't much protest is because buses are talked about anywhere nowhere near as much as other forms of transport and the consultation process is not very well known amongst bus users - if they had massive groups like cyclists or trains do, there may very well be a different outcome. The internet gives everybody a voice, anybody can start up a pressure group about buses but I suspect that there wouldn't be much interest unlike cycling and trains. |
|
