|
Post by capitalomnibus on Oct 18, 2016 12:27:05 GMT
Good, no surprise, we constantly get told cycling is a gift from heaven and that evil stinking buses should be moved away from cities, turn bus lane's into cycle lanes, draft plans to close Oxford street. No cash fares, plans to slow buses via gps speed adaptation, more routes cut back, pathetic reclaim space urban realm projects. Then they wonder why people are deserting buses.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Oct 18, 2016 13:07:23 GMT
Good, no surprise, we constantly get told cycling is a gift from heaven and that evil stinking buses should be moved away from cities, turn bus lane's into cycle lanes, draft plans to close Oxford street. No cash fares, plans to slow buses via gps speed adaptation, more routes cut back, pathetic reclaim space urban realm projects. Then they wonder why people are deserting buses. I thought you worked for a bus company? Fail to see why you should be pleased that the TfL network is in decline. At some point job losses will be required to reduce costs. We know all your favourite "rants" but falling bus patronage is not a good thing. In your preferred world of unrestrained car use and vast motorways everywhere we would also see falling bus use - it was called the 1970s and 1980s if we need a lesson from history. Those decades were not a good time for London or London Transport.
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Oct 18, 2016 20:27:52 GMT
Good, no surprise, we constantly get told cycling is a gift from heaven and that evil stinking buses should be moved away from cities, turn bus lane's into cycle lanes, draft plans to close Oxford street. No cash fares, plans to slow buses via gps speed adaptation, more routes cut back, pathetic reclaim space urban realm projects. Then they wonder why people are deserting buses. I thought you worked for a bus company? Fail to see why you should be pleased that the TfL network is in decline. At some point job losses will be required to reduce costs. We know all your favourite "rants" but falling bus patronage is not a good thing. In your preferred world of unrestrained car use and vast motorways everywhere we would also see falling bus use - it was called the 1970s and 1980s if we need a lesson from history. Those decades were not a good time for London or London Transport. We 1970s ad 80s were good for LT, we got buses like the Leyland Titan and MCW Metrobus I have no sympathy for many at TfL. They do not listen to anyone, just go on like a dictatorship regime and expect everyone to crumble begging for mercy on their knees. The end of the day they promote these stupid urban realm projects without properly looking at the way it would affect buses. Walthamstow is a perfect example with the idiotic mini Holland. Close off all the side roads, then all the traffic goes on the main roads and cripples it with traffic, then the buses suffer more, because they remove filter lanes at Bakers Arms junction, obliterate the bus lanes on Hoe Street and Selborne Road. It then means people are stuck on crawling or gridlocked buses.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Oct 18, 2016 22:13:15 GMT
I thought you worked for a bus company? Fail to see why you should be pleased that the TfL network is in decline. At some point job losses will be required to reduce costs. We know all your favourite "rants" but falling bus patronage is not a good thing. In your preferred world of unrestrained car use and vast motorways everywhere we would also see falling bus use - it was called the 1970s and 1980s if we need a lesson from history. Those decades were not a good time for London or London Transport. We 1970s ad 80s were good for LT, we got buses like the Leyland Titan and MCW Metrobus I have no sympathy for many at TfL. They do not listen to anyone, just go on like a dictatorship regime and expect everyone to crumble begging for mercy on their knees. The end of the day they promote these stupid urban realm projects without properly looking at the way it would affect buses. Walthamstow is a perfect example with the idiotic mini Holland. Close off all the side roads, then all the traffic goes on the main roads and cripples it with traffic, then the buses suffer more, because they remove filter lanes at Bakers Arms junction, obliterate the bus lanes on Hoe Street and Selborne Road. It then means people are stuck on crawling or gridlocked buses.
Apart from the decent bus types, the 70's & 80's was pretty dire and saw the bus network sliced and diced to pieces and run right into the ground which continued right through the 90's as well - I only know too well from using the 196. I know I'd much rather today's network myself.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Oct 18, 2016 22:59:46 GMT
I thought you worked for a bus company? Fail to see why you should be pleased that the TfL network is in decline. At some point job losses will be required to reduce costs. We know all your favourite "rants" but falling bus patronage is not a good thing. In your preferred world of unrestrained car use and vast motorways everywhere we would also see falling bus use - it was called the 1970s and 1980s if we need a lesson from history. Those decades were not a good time for London or London Transport. We 1970s ad 80s were good for LT, we got buses like the Leyland Titan and MCW Metrobus I have no sympathy for many at TfL. They do not listen to anyone, just go on like a dictatorship regime and expect everyone to crumble begging for mercy on their knees. The end of the day they promote these stupid urban realm projects without properly looking at the way it would affect buses. Walthamstow is a perfect example with the idiotic mini Holland. Close off all the side roads, then all the traffic goes on the main roads and cripples it with traffic, then the buses suffer more, because they remove filter lanes at Bakers Arms junction, obliterate the bus lanes on Hoe Street and Selborne Road. It then means people are stuck on crawling or gridlocked buses. Err a couple of corrections. The Mini Holland idea was from Boris Johnson in response to the cycle lobby and pressure from local authorities. The local authorities are responsible for the schemes and their implementation. They are not TfL schemes. The money for them has come from City Hall AIUI, not TfL. The accountability for the schemes is with local councils and we will see what happens in 2018 when there are local elections as to how their implementation is viewed by local residents. I agree there are horrendous traffic problems at school kick out time and in the peaks as main roads are hopelessly overloaded. I do wonder, though, if the people living in now quieter side streets would *really* want the rat running back. I doubt it somehow no matter how vociferous they might have been before it was done. I am seeing a few more cyclists around the place but not in massive numbers. I also agree there is a policy contradiction when some transport projects result in damage to other parts of the public transport service. The slowing down of buses is one of those problems / failings. TfL don't seem to know what to do to "fix" it.
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Oct 19, 2016 9:33:47 GMT
TfL mini Holland is worse than local councils. Take a look at the cycle super highway that has messed up Whitechapel high road. Aldgate, elephant and castle, Highbury and Islington which would affect the 277. Tower Hill etc the list is endless. It has cost various routes a lot of time with road layout or reduced traffic light phasing. We 1970s ad 80s were good for LT, we got buses like the Leyland Titan and MCW Metrobus I have no sympathy for many at TfL. They do not listen to anyone, just go on like a dictatorship regime and expect everyone to crumble begging for mercy on their knees. The end of the day they promote these stupid urban realm projects without properly looking at the way it would affect buses. Walthamstow is a perfect example with the idiotic mini Holland. Close off all the side roads, then all the traffic goes on the main roads and cripples it with traffic, then the buses suffer more, because they remove filter lanes at Bakers Arms junction, obliterate the bus lanes on Hoe Street and Selborne Road. It then means people are stuck on crawling or gridlocked buses. Err a couple of corrections. The Mini Holland idea was from Boris Johnson in response to the cycle lobby and pressure from local authorities. The local authorities are responsible for the schemes and their implementation. They are not TfL schemes. The money for them has come from City Hall AIUI, not TfL. The accountability for the schemes is with local councils and we will see what happens in 2018 when there are local elections as to how their implementation is viewed by local residents. I agree there are horrendous traffic problems at school kick out time and in the peaks as main roads are hopelessly overloaded. I do wonder, though, if the people living in now quieter side streets would *really* want the rat running back. I doubt it somehow no matter how vociferous they might have been before it was done. I am seeing a few more cyclists around the place but not in massive numbers. I also agree there is a policy contradiction when some transport projects result in damage to other parts of the public transport service. The slowing down of buses is one of those problems / failings. TfL don't seem to know what to do to "fix" it.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Oct 19, 2016 10:32:10 GMT
TfL mini Holland is worse than local councils. Take a look at the cycle super highway that has messed up Whitechapel high road. Aldgate, elephant and castle, Highbury and Islington which would affect the 277. Tower Hill etc the list is endless. It has cost various routes a lot of time with road layout or reduced traffic light phasing. You mean Cycle SuperHighway. Mini Holland is something different again. Yes some routes have been affected but as with so many things the traffic will sort itself out into a revised equilibrium - it always does. I'm afraid I don't think slapping blue paint on a road and then having cyclists mown down by lorries every few weeks was a viable ongoing situation. The Mayor had to do something. I think it is pretty clear that the volume of construction trucks on the roads is high and their design causes real issues about visibility of cyclists. I also don't think there is a single case where it has been proven to a level of legal evidential proof that the cyclists who were killed were at fault. I'll put that there before we get to the "stupid cyclists riding through red lights, filtering in the wrong place, they deserve to die because they're morons" level of argument.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Oct 31, 2016 22:54:40 GMT
The Period 6 TfL Financial Report is now available. Nearly all the revenue and patronage numbers are behind budget numbers for every mode except Trams and TfL Rail (depending on the time period / metric you use). content.tfl.gov.uk/board-20161108-item06-finance-report.pdfAnd the understatement about the bus network's numbers continues. TfL have now given up predicting that the trend might be reversed. Seems that there is some more info in the Commissioner's Report on what TfL are doing to try to recover patronage losses. So the above begs the questions - anyone noticed any improvements on their journeys on route 3? Anyone noticed any campaign info from TfL that might encourage them on to the bus network? I certainly have noticed anything local to me about getting people back on the buses. No info about the improved frequency on the 158 which is the only recent improvement in the area other than weekend night buses (shock horror the night bus quadrant map has been replaced at one of my local stops).
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Nov 1, 2016 6:25:13 GMT
I also see in the period 6 financials thar £6m less than expected was paid out to bus Operators under Quality incentives, this is bound to hurt Operators. Or to put it another way (cut through the spin), quality has fallen drastically.
The Capital section says £10m extra has been spent on buses, due to quicker delivery to secure a lower price. Looks like they are indirectly assisting Wrightbus with their cash flow. There is something hidden here, why would Wrightbus offer a discount for early delivery unless they are lacking other work. If they haven't got other orders, what's with trying to buy the large factory on a 100 acre site from Japan Tobacco. My gut feeling is that a massive new deal is being put together off record, probably for SRMs. (Leon Daniels is planning to launch the partly electric SRM today, and the Head of Volvo is not going to turn up for a 2 bus order)
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Nov 1, 2016 6:42:50 GMT
I think they shot themselves in the foot with all the cycle works and superhighways. People are not stupid as TfL seems to think.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 1, 2016 10:15:47 GMT
I also see in the period 6 financials thar £6m less than expected was paid out to bus Operators under Quality incentives, this is bound to hurt Operators. Or to put it another way (cut through the spin), quality has fallen drastically. The Capital section says £10m extra has been spent on buses, due to quicker delivery to secure a lower price. Looks like they are indirectly assisting Wrightbus with their cash flow. There is something hidden here, why would Wrightbus offer a discount for early delivery unless they are lacking other work. If they haven't got other orders, what's with trying to buy the large factory on a 100 acre site from Japan Tobacco. My gut feeling is that a massive new deal is being put together off record, probably for SRMs. (Leon Daniels is planning to launch the partly electric SRM today, and the Head of Volvo is not going to turn up for a 2 bus order) You may well be correct but two things - "EU procurement rules" and "money". Any large scale order would require Board authority - it's not been sought. You can't negotiate a massive bus order outside of EU procurement rules. It's not as if Volvo are the only supplier of electric vehicles - we have stuff from two manufacturers in service already and others imminent. If TfL go to Wrights without open tender someone will start asking serious questions about what's going on.
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Nov 11, 2016 9:42:55 GMT
The Period 6 TfL Financial Report is now available. Nearly all the revenue and patronage numbers are behind budget numbers for every mode except Trams and TfL Rail (depending on the time period / metric you use). content.tfl.gov.uk/board-20161108-item06-finance-report.pdfAnd the understatement about the bus network's numbers continues. TfL have now given up predicting that the trend might be reversed. Seems that there is some more info in the Commissioner's Report on what TfL are doing to try to recover patronage losses. . Obviously the bus finances are in a mess when one period P6 is £9m below budget. This is 7% which is clearly a big shortfall. The £9m compared to an average of £2.8m for previous 5 periods. Will be interesting to see how P7 turns out, if shortfall is similar, the year shortfall will grow. If revenue isn't recovered could end up approx £70m short by end of year.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 16, 2016 21:00:39 GMT
London Datastore info has been updated for Period 7 (mid Sept - mid Oct) so within the period when the Hopper ticket started but also when schools went back. Traditionally there is a big step in usage as the holiday period ends. Bus patronage was 187m pass jnys in P7, up 20.5m on P6 (in line with previous years). Compared to 1 year ago P7 patronage is down 3.8m pass jnys although the rate of decline appears to be slowing. Cumulatively bus patronage is 53.4m down compared to P1-7 last year. Obviously we need to see some more data to decide if things are slowly starting to recover or not. I can't imagine the Tower Bridge fall out is going to help much. Interestingly tube patronage in P7 is up 11.6m *but* down 1.3m compared to last year. Now that's really quite a surprise as the tube has been on a broad upward trend year on year for many years and P7 never usually glitches (Easter and Christmas holidays usually cause any dips especially as the former moves its date each year). The dip is even more interesting given the Night Tube was in operation on 3 lines at this point. Trams and DLR continue to see modest growth while the Overground is piling on journeys despite an entire line being shut for electrification (up 38.9m pass jnys year on year P1-7).
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Nov 17, 2016 6:35:08 GMT
London Datastore info has been updated for Period 7 (mid Sept - mid Oct) so within the period when the Hopper ticket started but also when schools went back. Traditionally there is a big step in usage as the holiday period ends. Bus patronage was 187m pass jnys in P7, up 20.5m on P6 (in line with previous years). Compared to 1 year ago P7 patronage is down 3.8m pass jnys although the rate of decline appears to be slowing. Cumulatively bus patronage is 53.4m down compared to P1-7 last year. Obviously we need to see some more data to decide if things are slowly starting to recover or not. I can't imagine the Tower Bridge fall out is going to help much. Interestingly tube patronage in P7 is up 11.6m *but* down 1.3m compared to last year. Now that's really quite a surprise as the tube has been on a broad upward trend year on year for many years and P7 never usually glitches (Easter and Christmas holidays usually cause any dips especially as the former moves its date each year). The dip is even more interesting given the Night Tube was in operation on 3 lines at this point. Trams and DLR continue to see modest growth while the Overground is piling on journeys despite an entire line being shut for electrification (up 38.9m pass jnys year on year P1-7). Agree to early to tell if bus use has turned a corner, or if it is a statistical blip. Regarding the hoppa ticket, if the second journey is just a few stops that used to be walked, will increase journeys but not revenue. Going to need the financial report to decide if this smaller loss is a benefit to TFL I suspect the tube has suffered because of the Southern strike days. Probably something like upto 50000 commuters who would have joined tube at Victoria and London Bridge who stayed at home on each strike day. There may also be a move to the Overground where it parallels the strike route. The real problem for buses will be when travelcards are next due for reapportionment review (don't know when this is) because if they have lower journeys and other modes have gone up, going to lose a percentage of travelcard revenue.
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Nov 17, 2016 9:55:47 GMT
London Datastore info has been updated for Period 7 (mid Sept - mid Oct) so within the period when the Hopper ticket started but also when schools went back. Traditionally there is a big step in usage as the holiday period ends. Bus patronage was 187m pass jnys in P7, up 20.5m on P6 (in line with previous years). Compared to 1 year ago P7 patronage is down 3.8m pass jnys although the rate of decline appears to be slowing. Cumulatively bus patronage is 53.4m down compared to P1-7 last year. Obviously we need to see some more data to decide if things are slowly starting to recover or not. I can't imagine the Tower Bridge fall out is going to help much. Interestingly tube patronage in P7 is up 11.6m *but* down 1.3m compared to last year. Now that's really quite a surprise as the tube has been on a broad upward trend year on year for many years and P7 never usually glitches (Easter and Christmas holidays usually cause any dips especially as the former moves its date each year). The dip is even more interesting given the Night Tube was in operation on 3 lines at this point. Trams and DLR continue to see modest growth while the Overground is piling on journeys despite an entire line being shut for electrification (up 38.9m pass jnys year on year P1-7). Unless Brexit had an effect on tube travel.
|
|