|
Post by snoggle on Jan 3, 2016 0:58:15 GMT
Looks like the 142 and 258 are likely to see cuts to their service levels as a result of Herts County Council funding cuts. www.watfordobserver.co.uk/news/14176296.More_bus_routes_under_threat/That's going to go down like a lead balloon locally but Herts CC have no room for manoeuvre and I doubt TfL can be seen to be "nice" to one local authority given there are funding pressures all round the boundary area. If it agrees to fund one cross boundary service then every council is going to argue for the same for their residents that use TfL run services. I expect Surrey will be along soon with Staines and Epsom area services under threat. I wonder if Thurrock and Slough pay towards the 370/372 and 81? If they do then they'll be for the chop next. Surprised the 498 hasn't popped up yet either.
|
|
|
Post by ServerKing on Jan 3, 2016 9:03:02 GMT
£390k isn't much, that's like a few metres of Cycle Highway Surely TfL could use the money for good to keep the routes where they are? What of all other routes that stray out of London and what will happen to the likes of the 235, 405, 370, 81 and I'm sure there's others I've forgotten...
|
|
|
Post by thewintersoldier on Jan 3, 2016 9:10:58 GMT
Both routes take a fair bit of patronage though. I suppose however when the Metropolitan line extension opens there will still be a way to get from Watford to Harrow. Nothing towards Stanmore or Edgware though.
|
|
|
Post by Green Kitten on Jan 3, 2016 9:50:48 GMT
The bus fan in me is totally against this - both are well used links to and from Watford. The Hertfordshire resident in me worries if anything will happen to the 298 and 313, the former being my lifeline. Having to get monthly tickets for the train would just be a pain instead of being able to get to work for free.
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Jan 3, 2016 9:59:53 GMT
The bus fan in me is totally against this - both are well used links to and from Watford. The Hertfordshire resident in me worries if anything will happen to the 298 and 313, the former being my lifeline. Having to get monthly tickets for the train would just be a pain instead of being able to get to work for free. There is also of course the 107 and 292 in Borehamwood. Mentioning Surrey above : Surrey CC I know are looking to make more savings, so one to keep an eye on. All very sad.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 3, 2016 10:10:00 GMT
£390k isn't much, that's like a few metres of Cycle Highway Surely TfL could use the money for good to keep the routes where they are? What of all other routes that stray out of London and what will happen to the likes of the 235, 405, 370, 81 and I'm sure there's others I've forgotten... Well I think there are three broad options (regardless of the service we're talking about). 1. TfL funds the shortfall in funding in each case so services are unchanged. 2. TfL doesn't fund any shortfall and services are cut / revised to get costs down or to lose the cross boundary sections. That then leaves the neighbouring authority with an issue if a TfL route provides a key link and no one takes over the section commercially. 3. TfL says it still requires a funding contribution but it reduces service levels to lower the funding requirement. It's then down to the neighbouring authority to decide if they can fund the lower subsidy. TfL have said they will go out to consultation about possible changes to the 20 and 167 so we may get a glimpse of their approach when that happens. As new budgets apply from 1 April 2016 I'd expect something fairly soon to allow councils to know if TfL expect any money from them.
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Jan 3, 2016 10:33:45 GMT
I was worried that something like this will happen.I wonder if the routes that go to Waltham Cross will get the chop e.g the 279 and 217.
|
|
|
Post by YY13VKP on Jan 3, 2016 11:29:11 GMT
£390k isn't much, that's like a few metres of Cycle Highway Surely TfL could use the money for good to keep the routes where they are? What of all other routes that stray out of London and what will happen to the likes of the 235, 405, 370, 81 and I'm sure there's others I've forgotten... The 166 and 293 also go out of London into Epsom (The 166 used to have all journeys go into Epsom when i was little, but since fairly recently, one bus an hour goes to Epsom, the rest to Banstead).
|
|
|
Post by Red Dragon on Jan 3, 2016 11:49:26 GMT
I was worried that something like this will happen.I wonder if the routes that go to Waltham Cross will get the chop e.g the 279 and 217. I could see the 217 curtailing at Bullsmoor Lane / Hertford Road.
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Jan 3, 2016 12:08:46 GMT
I wonder what will happen to the 331?
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Jan 3, 2016 12:27:27 GMT
I was worried that something like this will happen.I wonder if the routes that go to Waltham Cross will get the chop e.g the 279 and 217. I doubt it: Waltham Cross is only just over the boundary and is the most convenient point at which to terminate. There are some political tactics at play here: under the GLA Act 1999, the Mayor has a general transport duty (section 141) to 'develop and implement policies for the promotion and encouragement of safe, integrated, efficient and economic transport facilities and services to, from and within Greater London.' It's that 'to & from' that lets Herts politicians dump the ball back at the feet of TfL. Responsibility for the Croxley Rail Link probably blurs the issue too.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jan 3, 2016 13:21:21 GMT
£390k isn't much, that's like a few metres of Cycle Highway Surely TfL could use the money for good to keep the routes where they are? What of all other routes that stray out of London and what will happen to the likes of the 235, 405, 370, 81 and I'm sure there's others I've forgotten... The 166 and 293 also go out of London into Epsom (The 166 used to have all journeys go into Epsom when i was little, but since fairly recently, one bus an hour goes to Epsom, the rest to Banstead). Actually, the 166 has been terminating at Banstead with one journey an hour continuing to Epsom for at least 11 years - I did the 166 to Epsom a few times when I had free time at Croydon College. EDIT: seems it was introduced even earlier than that - according to the excellent buses at work website, it was introduced in 2003 when the terminus was changed to Banstead daily.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jan 3, 2016 13:55:57 GMT
£390k isn't much, that's like a few metres of Cycle Highway Surely TfL could use the money for good to keep the routes where they are? What of all other routes that stray out of London and what will happen to the likes of the 235, 405, 370, 81 and I'm sure there's others I've forgotten... The 166 and 293 also go out of London into Epsom (The 166 used to have all journeys go into Epsom when i was little, but since fairly recently, one bus an hour goes to Epsom, the rest to Banstead). The full 166 service has never gone to Epsom, ever since it was extended from Chipstead Valley to Banstead it has been hourly beyond there to Epsom with no evening or Sunday service
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 3, 2016 14:24:13 GMT
I was worried that something like this will happen.I wonder if the routes that go to Waltham Cross will get the chop e.g the 279 and 217. I doubt it: Waltham Cross is only just over the boundary and is the most convenient point at which to terminate. There are some political tactics at play here: under the GLA Act 1999, the Mayor has a general transport duty (section 141) to 'develop and implement policies for the promotion and encouragement of safe, integrated, efficient and economic transport facilities and services to, from and within Greater London.' It's that 'to & from' that lets Herts politicians dump the ball back at the feet of TfL. Responsibility for the Croxley Rail Link probably blurs the issue too. The fact TfL also has a bus station at Waltham Cross adds to the point you're making about operational convenience etc. The general transport duty does, of course, have a rather flexible interpretation. Some places have good links and others are very poorly off indeed. I expect flexible interpretations will continue to apply! I don't think the Croxley Rail Link blurs anything other than HCC's nose being out of joint having had the project taken away from them by Government and given to TfL to implement as the latter was considerable more "competent". It's a capital investment project which has separate funding to bus subsidies. LU has little scope these days to close any bit of the Underground - demand is high and growing and I suspect that if the Ongar line and Aldwych branch were still open they'd be busy and would have all day services. I could certainly see people in Essex being attracted to park and ride at Ongar to take the tube into town. Sadly we'll never one way or the other.
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Jan 3, 2016 14:55:14 GMT
I doubt it: Waltham Cross is only just over the boundary and is the most convenient point at which to terminate. There are some political tactics at play here: under the GLA Act 1999, the Mayor has a general transport duty (section 141) to 'develop and implement policies for the promotion and encouragement of safe, integrated, efficient and economic transport facilities and services to, from and within Greater London.' It's that 'to & from' that lets Herts politicians dump the ball back at the feet of TfL. Responsibility for the Croxley Rail Link probably blurs the issue too. I don't think the Croxley Rail Link blurs anything other than HCC's nose being out of joint having had the project taken away from them by Government and given to TfL to implement as the latter was considerable more "competent". It's a capital investment project which has separate funding to bus subsidies. Yes, that's what I was driving at - a sort of 'right, TfL is handling that so they can handle this as well' attitude.
|
|