|
Post by sid on Aug 3, 2018 11:11:03 GMT
I suspect it would be a case of 'welcome to the real world' for many. What 'real world'? The world of waiting for an undesirable amount of time for a bus to come as a result of these cuts and it being nearly impossible to board it, then having to wait ages for the next one to come until it gets to the point where one gives up on using buses altogether? If that's the 'real world' then it's very concerning and unfortunately it seems to be heading towards that direction. More sense should be knocked into the powers that be in TFL... Just out of interest, which route are you referring to? I'm not suggesting TfL are perfect by any means but they have to work within their resources and I'm afraid reduced bus usage is going to mean only one thing, that's the real world!
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Aug 3, 2018 13:21:20 GMT
Most of them have been sacked or, wisely, took the money and left. I suspect in the "bright young things rule the world" TfL of today enthusiasm would be frowned upon. I suspect it would be a case of 'welcome to the real world' for many. In my limited experience with LT, particularly on the bus side, I saw both the good and bad sides of enthusiasm amongst HQ staff. The bus schedules dept was full of 'enthusiasts', many of whom had been there for decades and even the younger ones had no plans of moving on/sideways/anywhere. There was an overwhelming sense of a lot of ,people not being able to see the wood for the trees, frankly, and wanting things set in stone, which is as unappealing and unrealistic as changing things for the sake of it. There were realistic enthusiasts, and realistic non-enthusiasts who did their job very well too: my own late father-in-law went to work for Scout Motors of Preston around 1935 and worked for them and their successors Ribble until he retired. If he was a bus enthusiast he kept it very well hidden, but he did his various jobs very well and, in NBC days, was sent all over the country to help their companies come to terms with computerisation. Although he wasn't an enthusiast, being a lifetime non-driver and enjoying the outdoor life he made many long treks by bus well into his eighties, so he understood bus travel and the travails of the bus passenger. What I'm getting at is what is wanted at TfL are knowledgeable people, with some experience of life, showing empathy and getting to grips, on the bus side, with the reasons for the (verging on) disastrous decline in bus passenger numbers, particularly in central and inner London, and implementing plans to reverse them. If they were enthusiasts, too, all well and good, but it's not essential.
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Aug 3, 2018 23:05:18 GMT
I can see the logic that reduced passengers means less demand and cuts to services, but this needs a closer look. Using an analogy of a supermarket that is losing customers whilst other local supermarkets are not what do you do? Do you reduce your stock, offering and staff because you have fewer customers, or do you try and find out why your supermarket is not doing so well and try to do something about it? If you do the latter you’ll find out that your supermarket is old-fashioned with slightly higher process and queues at the checkout. You could then either take the first option and sit back and watch whilst you continue to lose custom, or you could invest in your supermarket by bringing it up to date, bring in self-serve checkouts and try and win customers back. Well if you take the first option you eventually get into trouble, House of Fraser comes to mind. If you take the second option and successfully re-invent yourself, you become like Selfridges who are doing fine. Cutting bus services following a reduction in passengers is the House of Fraser option. I want the Selfridges option.
Having said this, cutting bus services is not exactly analogous to retail. If you cut bus frequencies then passengers have a longer wait, maybe a more crowded bus, neither of which encourages usage. The danger is that the cuts reduce passengers further, which leads to more cuts and so on. We can already see this happening on routes such as the 31 which have had multiple service cuts. Some of the learned members here have stated they aren’t taking the bus so much, or if they weren’t a bus enthusiast they wouldn’t uses buses much. If the service isn’t attractive to enthusiasts like us, how on earth is it going to be attractive to everyone else?
If a bus route has a frequency cut and the buses are no busier than before, then it is time to press the panic button. The reason the bus is no busier is because of more lost patronage, making things no better than before. There may be an immediate cost saving from a frequency reduction, but if it results in further lost patronage there may be an overall financial loss, never mind gain. I see there has been a rise in car usage, tube usage, other forms of transport static, but for buses a 10 million passenger loss. That in itself should mean the panic button is pressed! I am not going to blame frequency cuts for the whole 10 million passenger loss, there are multiple reasons for it, but it is one of the reasons and the cuts to bus frequency and loss of passengers are not unconnected. Do we really want to continue cutting buses and then find another 10 million passenger loss?
Finally, who gets left to use the bus – those that have little choice, the elderly, the mobility impaired those who need to travel to doctors and hospitals, the weakest in our society. These are the people who suffer most from the cuts, the longer waits, the change of buses as direct links are lost. For me a cornerstone of a civilised society is that we don’t treat our weakest in this way. You will also find those left to use the bus more often won’t be the ones paying £1.50 per trip, so the average fare income from those passengers left will also go down, not exactly helping finances.
Sorry for the long rant and please tell me if you think I am wrong, but there will be lots of unintended consequences from cutting buses including things I have not even touched upon.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2018 9:32:15 GMT
I think the operators should have more of a say. There was some real innovation in the 90’s, some good examples, some bad, but at least there was an impetus on getting more passengers on board.
Advertising is non existent. Route branding should be left to operators and included as part of tender submission. The all red rule should be abandoned to allow operators flexibility in connection with the route branding. On board announcements could be altered to include a short advert for the route the bus is on. On board displays showing up places of interest, news, travel updates. WiFi should be available. I would also tap into the express route genre , because most people put off by bus travel bemoan the point the bus is slow. So provide express routes over busy sections and routes. Even the 81 could be altered to an “all stops” and “semi fast “service, as it is a key corridor route with end to end passengers.
TfL need someone with vision to lead the bus revival, I fear it is managed decline strategy at present.
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Aug 5, 2018 18:27:23 GMT
I think the operators should have more of a say. There was some real innovation in the 90’s, some good examples, some bad, but at least there was an impetus on getting more passengers on board. Advertising is non existent. Route branding should be left to operators and included as part of tender submission. The all red rule should be abandoned to allow operators flexibility in connection with the route branding. On board announcements could be altered to include a short advert for the route the bus is on. On board displays showing up places of interest, news, travel updates. WiFi should be available. I would also tap into the express route genre , because most people put off by bus travel bemoan the point the bus is slow. So provide express routes over busy sections and routes. Even the 81 could be altered to an “all stops” and “semi fast “service, as it is a key corridor route with end to end passengers. TfL need someone with vision to lead the bus revival, I fear it is managed decline strategy at present. I agree with much of what you say, with the exception of the all red rule. Lomdon buses are known worldwide for being red, it is the iconic colour for a London bus. People including Londoners expect their buses to be red, and their hackney taxis black. I was never a fan of the period when Operators could have their own livery. That said there can be exceptions such the advertising buses and special buses, but the vast majority should be red. I would not be keen to see a 'Reading' in London, where the colour of the bus relates to the route. Route branding could go on top of the red bus, eg the period when Routemasters advertised their bus route and key places they passed.
Perhaps bus contracts should change so the Operators receive the fare box, and take the risk of how much money the fare box raises. That would encourage them to innovate and get more passengers on board. This does however need to be done with other measures such as speeding up buses.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 5, 2018 20:03:05 GMT
I think the operators should have more of a say. There was some real innovation in the 90’s, some good examples, some bad, but at least there was an impetus on getting more passengers on board. Advertising is non existent. Route branding should be left to operators and included as part of tender submission. The all red rule should be abandoned to allow operators flexibility in connection with the route branding. On board announcements could be altered to include a short advert for the route the bus is on. On board displays showing up places of interest, news, travel updates. WiFi should be available. I would also tap into the express route genre , because most people put off by bus travel bemoan the point the bus is slow. So provide express routes over busy sections and routes. Even the 81 could be altered to an “all stops” and “semi fast “service, as it is a key corridor route with end to end passengers. TfL need someone with vision to lead the bus revival, I fear it is managed decline strategy at present. I agree with much of what you say, with the exception of the all red rule. Lomdon buses are known worldwide for being red, it is the iconic colour for a London bus. People including Londoners expect their buses to be red, and their hackney taxis black. I was never a fan of the period when Operators could have their own livery. That said there can be exceptions such the advertising buses and special buses, but the vast majority should be red. I would not be keen to see a 'Reading' in London, where the colour of the bus relates to the route. Route branding could go on top of the red bus, eg the period when Routemasters advertised their bus route and key places they passed.
Perhaps bus contracts should change so the Operators receive the fare box, and take the risk of how much money the fare box raises. That would encourage them to innovate and get more passengers on board. This does however need to be done with other measures such as speeding up buses.
I have to say that 100% red is extremely dull, looks horrendous as the paint ages and I don't exactly subscribe to the notion that people in London expect their buses to be red - people in London probably couldn't care what colour they are providing they turn up. That period during the 90's I think was absolutely great to see as some wonderful liveries popped up and in some cases, would allow people to tell their bus simply by colour (the 64 on London Road using blue & yellow buses for example). The fact that advertising is allowed merely makes the argument to retain 100% red even less worthy personally - now I'm not exactly advocating a Reading style except maybe with local networks such as the R & U routes but at least allowing the operator to create their own identity. We also have to remember that London Transport buses were never 100% red and least had black, white or yellow relieving it in some way but this isn't the case today.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Aug 23, 2018 15:21:05 GMT
Period 4's patronage numbers have been updated in the London Datastore
Buses 178.5m Tube 109.9m DLR 9.4m Tram 2.4m Overground 14.8m TfL Rail 4.5m
Buses are down 3.0m on same period last year, Tube is up 0.9m on last year. DLR, Trams and Overground are near enough static. TfL Rail is up 0.8m.
So far this year bus patronage is 13.2m down on the same periods last year. That's looking fairly serious to me.
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Aug 23, 2018 18:41:00 GMT
Period 4's patronage numbers have been updated in the London Datastore Buses 178.5m Tube 109.9m DLR 9.4m Tram 2.4m Overground 14.8m TfL Rail 4.5m Buses are down 3.0m on same period last year, Tube is up 0.9m on last year. DLR, Trams and Overground are near enough static. TfL Rail is up 0.8m. So far this year bus patronage is 13.2m down on the same periods last year. That's looking fairly serious to me. Not good
What I find particularly disturbing is that buses are down whilst other modes are not. This is very telling and the reasons why need to clearly be understood. Only then can the decline be addressed. When the route level information finally comes out for last year we might get some clues.
|
|
|
Post by rj131 on Aug 23, 2018 18:47:30 GMT
Period 4's patronage numbers have been updated in the London Datastore Buses 178.5m Tube 109.9m DLR 9.4m Tram 2.4m Overground 14.8m TfL Rail 4.5m Buses are down 3.0m on same period last year, Tube is up 0.9m on last year. DLR, Trams and Overground are near enough static. TfL Rail is up 0.8m. So far this year bus patronage is 13.2m down on the same periods last year. That's looking fairly serious to me. Not good
What I find particularly disturbing is that buses are down whilst other modes are not. This is very telling and the reasons why need to clearly be understood. Only then can the decline be addressed. When the route level information finally comes out for last year we might get some clues.
I wonder if TfL ever will publish the route figures, they better. I reckon a lot of this loss is coming from routes that have had cuts, as they’re no longer seen as attractive by passengers, or just in plain rebellion ‘I’ve had my route cut, so I refuse to use it anymore’. This 13mill fall, is that the worse fall yet or is that a lesser fall compared to previous years? Also it looks like the tube’s fall has recovered, so it begs the question why it fell in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Aug 23, 2018 19:42:36 GMT
Not good
What I find particularly disturbing is that buses are down whilst other modes are not. This is very telling and the reasons why need to clearly be understood. Only then can the decline be addressed. When the route level information finally comes out for last year we might get some clues.
I wonder if TfL ever will publish the route figures, they better. I reckon a lot of this loss is coming from routes that have had cuts, as they’re no longer seen as attractive by passengers, or just in plain rebellion ‘I’ve had my route cut, so I refuse to use it anymore’. This 13mill fall, is that the worse fall yet or is that a lesser fall compared to previous years? Also it looks like the tube’s fall has recovered, so it begs the question why it fell in the first place. You need to be extremely careful with this data. Some of it gets revised in subsequent periods anyway. A 13m fall over 4 periods is certainly NOT the worst it has been. There have been 4 cumulative totals of well over 30m falls in pass jnys in 2015/16. TfL have said that last year's annual bus patronage data is ready for publication. It is just going through the process to be uploaded. I'm more cynical than most people but I happen to believe what I've been told by the person on the FOI team who handled by questions on this issue. I can't see any benefit in that person telling me lies. It would just end up rebounding on them if, for some reason, the numbers don't appear and I have to chase the issue up again and they were found to have fibbed. Why would someone do that? Makes no sense. Clearly there are NO guarantees - all sorts of nonsensical things can happen with the TfL I.T. dept BUT this is a public commitment to transparency and, if necessary, I would take this issue as far as the Mayor. I very strongly suspect that the woes afflicting GTR have caused a change in commuting patterns and the tube has benefitted from that. I have read other forums where people in Herts are driving to High Barnet / Edgware / Stanmore / Cockfosters and using the tube instead. Similarly people in South London (Sutton loop area) have switched to buses and the tube as Thameslink has ruined their services. I don't expect the tube increases to carry on much longer. If GTR can start adding back services and maintain some level of reliability then people will return but it entirely depends on GTR. The next couple of periods' data will be lower anyway because they cover the school holiday season and you always get a seasonal dip.
|
|
|
Post by rj131 on Aug 23, 2018 19:57:10 GMT
I wonder if TfL ever will publish the route figures, they better. I reckon a lot of this loss is coming from routes that have had cuts, as they’re no longer seen as attractive by passengers, or just in plain rebellion ‘I’ve had my route cut, so I refuse to use it anymore’. This 13mill fall, is that the worse fall yet or is that a lesser fall compared to previous years? Also it looks like the tube’s fall has recovered, so it begs the question why it fell in the first place. You need to be extremely careful with this data. Some of it gets revised in subsequent periods anyway. A 13m fall over 4 periods is certainly NOT the worst it has been. There have been 4 cumulative totals of well over 30m falls in pass jnys in 2015/16. TfL have said that last year's annual bus patronage data is ready for publication. It is just going through the process to be uploaded. I'm more cynical than most people but I happen to believe what I've been told by the person on the FOI team who handled by questions on this issue. I can't see any benefit in that person telling me lies. It would just end up rebounding on them if, for some reason, the numbers don't appear and I have to chase the issue up again and they were found to have fibbed. Why would someone do that? Makes no sense. Clearly there are NO guarantees - all sorts of nonsensical things can happen with the TfL I.T. dept BUT this is a public commitment to transparency and, if necessary, I would take this issue as far as the Mayor. I very strongly suspect that the woes afflicting GTR have caused a change in commuting patterns and the tube has benefitted from that. I have read other forums where people in Herts are driving to High Barnet / Edgware / Stanmore / Cockfosters and using the tube instead. Similarly people in South London (Sutton loop area) have switched to buses and the tube as Thameslink has ruined their services. I don't expect the tube increases to carry on much longer. If GTR can start adding back services and maintain some level of reliability then people will return but it entirely depends on GTR. The next couple of periods' data will be lower anyway because they cover the school holiday season and you always get a seasonal dip. Once again thank you for all the information you took the time to provide. With the fall in bus usage seeming to be smaller than a couple of years ago, that’s one positive to draw from it I suppose. It does show that bus usage isn’t getting worse. I do have faith that bus usage will increase in the near future. Near future as in maybe a couple years. GTR, is that Govia Thameslink, ie Southern etc? No surprises there why their patronage is going out the window. As for tube patronage, it sounds silly but a fall is somewhat needed to stop the network becoming dangerously overcrowded, it almost relieves me in a way as I did worry a couple of years ago how full the bursting the network would be in say 10 years time. Some newspapers warned some parts of the tube could become ‘inoperable’, but that’s a bit of scaremongering there I think
|
|
|
Post by sid on Aug 23, 2018 20:22:15 GMT
Period 4's patronage numbers have been updated in the London Datastore Buses 178.5m Tube 109.9m DLR 9.4m Tram 2.4m Overground 14.8m TfL Rail 4.5m Buses are down 3.0m on same period last year, Tube is up 0.9m on last year. DLR, Trams and Overground are near enough static. TfL Rail is up 0.8m. So far this year bus patronage is 13.2m down on the same periods last year. That's looking fairly serious to me. Not good
What I find particularly disturbing is that buses are down whilst other modes are not. This is very telling and the reasons why need to clearly be understood. Only then can the decline be addressed. When the route level information finally comes out for last year we might get some clues.
Surely it just shows that people are still switching from bus to train? A random example, Peckham Rye to Clapham Junction. About 45 minutes on the 37 or 15 minutes on LO in an air conditioned train.
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Aug 23, 2018 20:36:47 GMT
Not good
What I find particularly disturbing is that buses are down whilst other modes are not. This is very telling and the reasons why need to clearly be understood. Only then can the decline be addressed. When the route level information finally comes out for last year we might get some clues.
Surely it just shows that people are still switching from bus to train? A random example, Peckham Rye to Wandsworth. About 45 minutes on the 37 or 15 minutes on LO in an air conditioned train. We can make guesses and you could well be right, in which case you'd expect to see the route level figures back this up, as in the example you gave, routes such the 37 would see the patronage drop.
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Aug 23, 2018 21:27:07 GMT
Surely it just shows that people are still switching from bus to train? A random example, Peckham Rye to Wandsworth. About 45 minutes on the 37 or 15 minutes on LO in an air conditioned train. We can make guesses and you could well be right, in which case you'd expect to see the route level figures back this up, as in the example you gave, routes such the 37 would see the patronage drop. But the62-13 reg can do another contract on the 264 ... why would you do that? Otherwise 264 will need a new buses contract. DW332 is a seed vehicle for what is to come mwah-ha-ha
|
|
|
Post by rj131 on Aug 23, 2018 21:51:20 GMT
We can make guesses and you could well be right, in which case you'd expect to see the route level figures back this up, as in the example you gave, routes such the 37 would see the patronage drop. But the62-13 reg can do another contract on the 264 ... why would you do that? Otherwise 264 will need a new buses contract. DW332 is a seed vehicle for what is to come mwah-ha-ha Think you put this in the wrong thread Whoops you have a point there I forgot about a contract renewal, but however if TC do have the 264 for 7 years then they will in theory be too old to renew with my beef with the 301 getting the 60-reg’s, is that IMO a new route deserves better than a dingy, hard seated, manual blinded, knackered 8yo batch of DWs, which I very much share your view on, the newer ones are much nicer which is why the 301 should get them, and then they match with the DWs already at DT
|
|