|
|
Post by snowman on Jun 7, 2019 5:24:28 GMT
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. Whilst TfL has obligation to provide transport, that could be a tube line, a rail service, a tram etc You are wrong to say it has to provide a good bus network, it could provide a patchy bus network just covering the gaps between the other services if it chose to. This might be a bus forum, and can be assumed there is an affinity to buses by some members, but let’s be clear, no where does a subsidy free TfL have an obligation to loose £2m per day running buses. It has more of an obligation to try not to loose excess money (effectively cutting the loss making routes as far as it is reasonably allowed to). |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jun 7, 2019 5:27:17 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 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.
Whether you agree with Khan or not I don't see how fulfilling his manifesto is a bad thing? |
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Jun 7, 2019 8:05:10 GMT
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.
Whether you agree with Khan or not I don't see how fulfilling his manifesto is a bad thing? If you look at the state of TfLs finances, I fail to see how it can be regarded as a good thing! Opposite of a good thing is? |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jun 7, 2019 8:10:49 GMT
Whether you agree with Khan or not I don't see how fulfilling his manifesto is a bad thing? If you look at the state of TfLs finances, I fail to see how it can be regarded as a good thing! Opposite of a good thing is? What? I'm no particular fan of him but some perspective is needed here. Trust in politicians is probably at an all time low and here we have the mayor being lambasted for actually keeping his promises! |
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Jun 7, 2019 8:50:27 GMT
If you look at the state of TfLs finances, I fail to see how it can be regarded as a good thing! Opposite of a good thing is? What? I'm no particular fan of him but some perspective is needed here. Trust in politicians is probably at an all time low and here we have the mayor being lambasted for actually keeping his promises! So quick yes/no questions? Are TfLs finances in a healthy position? Has the Mayors policies exacerbated the situation? Do either of your replies imply a 'good thing' about the mayoral position? Sometimes it is better to admit that the situation is so bad ... your original decision was based on bad judgement ... and take corrective action to try and fix the errors of your ways rather than just compounding the mess your successor to sort out. Khan will be leaving Londons finances is a similar position to Brown leaving the nations finances .... can only see a further level of London austerity coming up due to this 'good thing'! |
|
|
|
Post by londonboy71 on Jun 7, 2019 9:01:39 GMT
This is becoming a discussion about politics now nothing to do with actual bus changes. It's gone on too long now let's move on
|
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jun 7, 2019 9:05:14 GMT
No, their finances are not in a good way. Maybe/yes Khan has possibly exasperated it with the fares freeze but in fairness I don't think we should have to pay more then £1.50-1.60 for a single fare so I think the fares freeze is fair tbh.
Personally I'd like a mayor with the guts to reduce the freedom pass to just a bus pass after 9.30 like everywhere else in the country to bring in some revenue (and encourage bus use amongst older people rather then the tube).
I think changes in travelling (better tube, cycling, walking and of course Uber style services) mean buses inevitably will be used less juts as shops are used less and cloth must be cut. Khan increasing the bus fare to £2 may prop up over bussed sections but will probably lead to a further drop in usage. It's a fine line because I do get if people have to wait longer they may turn away from buses (I certainly wouldn't to the 25, 8 then a walk or 55/98 to reach Oxo. I don't think I would even take the 8 to get from Bank to Oxo due to the change over at TCR or a walk to complete the journey. I'd use the central line now).
|
|
|
|
Post by londonboy71 on Jun 7, 2019 9:12:22 GMT
Fgs move on
|
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jun 7, 2019 10:15:21 GMT
What? I'm no particular fan of him but some perspective is needed here. Trust in politicians is probably at an all time low and here we have the mayor being lambasted for actually keeping his promises! So quick yes/no questions? Are TfLs finances in a healthy position? Has the Mayors policies exacerbated the situation? Do either of your replies imply a 'good thing' about the mayoral position? Sometimes it is better to admit that the situation is so bad ... your original decision was based on bad judgement ... and take corrective action to try and fix the errors of your ways rather than just compounding the mess your successor to sort out. Khan will be leaving Londons finances is a similar position to Brown leaving the nations finances .... can only see a further level of London austerity coming up due to this 'good thing'! Different people will have different opinions on Mr Khan, I hear plenty of criticism of him in the media about crime, housing and various other things but very little about bus provision. Obviously on a bus forum cuts in services are going to be a cause for concern but in the outside world it seems few people are too fussed about it. I can only see a fares I increase putting more people off bus travel. |
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Jun 7, 2019 11:48:50 GMT
It's Friday afternoon 7 June... what do we reckon? I've drawn Tuesday afternoon in the publication sweepstake.
The reduction to the 12 listed on the website has gone under my radar. Is this new?
Monday to Saturday during the day: Reduced to 8 buses an hour
Sunday during the day: Reduced to 7 buses an hour
All evening services: Reduced to 6 buses an hour
With the changes to the 53, that puts the 453 under a bit more pressure.
|
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Jun 7, 2019 11:52:29 GMT
So quick yes/no questions? Are TfLs finances in a healthy position? Has the Mayors policies exacerbated the situation? Do either of your replies imply a 'good thing' about the mayoral position? Sometimes it is better to admit that the situation is so bad ... your original decision was based on bad judgement ... and take corrective action to try and fix the errors of your ways rather than just compounding the mess your successor to sort out. Khan will be leaving Londons finances is a similar position to Brown leaving the nations finances .... can only see a further level of London austerity coming up due to this 'good thing'! Different people will have different opinions on Mr Khan, I hear plenty of criticism of him in the media about crime, housing and various other things but very little about bus provision. Obviously on a bus forum cuts in services are going to be a cause for concern but in the outside world it seems few people are too fussed about it. I can only see a fares I increase putting more people off bus travel. The thing with fare increases is, if say 10% of passengers stopped using the buses because fares went up 25%, that is still and increase of revenue for TfL ... and increased revenue is what TfL needs ... at the moment it is falling passenger numbers and falling revenue. Why not falling passenger numbers and increased revenue ... and some of those 10% will return, so even bigger increase in revenue. If 90% pay 125% of the fare that is an increase in revenue of 12.5% And yes there are more important things for the mayor than public transport, but it is a major responsibility of his and as you said this is a bus forum. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2019 12:16:06 GMT
Sorry to all but I think most are making a big deal about these bus cuts from next Saturday. I know lot of routes being cut but it is going to be better in the long term.
Think, you have the tube and rail mostly every where in London.
I am not a fan of Khan but I support him with the central london bus changes.
So what will you come up with when it is running smoothly?
|
|
|
|
Post by foxhat on Jun 7, 2019 12:30:50 GMT
Sorry to all but I think most are making a big deal about these bus cuts from next Saturday. I know lot of routes being cut but it is going to be better in the long term. Think, you have the tube and rail mostly every where in London. I am not a fan of Khan but I support him with the central london bus changes. So what will you come up with when it is running smoothly? Of course it will run smoothly, once everything has settled down. Going forwards there won't be massive overcrowding either. Most London commuters are smarter than you think, and will slyly alter their travelling habits very shortly afterwards to adapt to the new situation. As with a lot of things recently, only the true extent of the lost links will be realised when something like a tube strike or major service disputation occurs and the tube won't take the slack. The vast spread of the tube/rail is a valid comment however the beauty of the bus is that it can penetrate areas far better than a rail link. There is much more to Central London than the few places you can reach at a Zone 1 station for example. TfL provides a service, and the cutting of routes removes the service on offer. Whilst demand may be falling, I can sympathise with a reduction in frequencies and to an extent a shortening of route, however the complete withdrawal of the 48 and RV1 is terrible. If you are not affected by these cuts then you are almost certainly not going to feel as if it is a big deal, whereas it will be a big deal if any of these changes do impact you. |
|
|
|
Post by londonboy71 on Jun 7, 2019 13:38:17 GMT
Can we leave politics alone now and move on plesse?
|
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jun 7, 2019 13:52:47 GMT
It's Friday afternoon 7 June... what do we reckon? I've drawn Tuesday afternoon in the publication sweepstake. The reduction to the 12 listed on the website has gone under my radar. Is this new? Monday to Saturday during the day: Reduced to 8 buses an hour Sunday during the day: Reduced to 7 buses an hour All evening services: Reduced to 6 buses an hour With the changes to the 53, that puts the 453 under a bit more pressure. I wasn't aware of any reduction on the 12 which is currently 10/12 buses an hour. If cuts need to be made I would question whether the full service needs to go to Dulwich. TfL's standardisation policy really is a luxury that can no longer be justified. |
|
