|
|
Post by sid on Jul 15, 2016 15:43:28 GMT
Perhaps they could call it 'Reshaping London Buses'... More seriously, I hope the lessons of that are remembered, such as ensuring that forced interchanges are safe and able to cope with the numbers. Just dumping people at the side of the road so there's a massive bunfight to get on a bus that may already be busy may not be good enough. I can certainly see the need for some rationalisation if Oxford Street is pedestrianised; I've said before on this that if you run the 73 via Piccadilly, it starts to look very similar to the 19 and 38. Similarly, from the west, the 14, 19 and 22 have significant similarities. But then how does all this fit with the lobbying that places like Roehampton and the White City Estate must have direct services to central London. Yes, the Hopper ticket will help, but breaking the journey at the other end doesn't seem to help a great deal. I think it would be better to send the 73 along to Great Portland Street and then via the current C2 route to Victoria with the 88 replacing the PHF section. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2016 15:43:59 GMT
Agree 100%, oyster has been upgraded several times since it launched and introducing a 'bus-train' single fare would be a good profit, the technology is there for it. Those of us who were responsible for the original spec for Prestige / Oyster included full multi modal single journey through ticketing in it. Why it's never been used other than for Tramlink is a separate debate. The desire not to dilute revenues is probably the key concern. Moving to Snowman's comment about only having multi modal seasons then you have real problems about how you price it. If the price was higher than the current Bus and Tram Pass then the Mayor's pledge on fares would be broken. If the price was reduced to match the bus and tram pass (hooray cry Travelcard users) then TfL would undermine umpteen rail franchise revenue streams and would be forced to make compensating payments to the DfT. This would run into many tens, possibly hundreds, of millions of pounds. There is no scope for that. Furthermore a price cut is counter intuitive when you have a capacity crisis due to burgeoning demand. The only middle path is to bring back TfL only tickets (like the old LT Card) but that again will affect the Travelcard market share and revenues so you're back into problem territory with the DfT and Treasury. I'm sure they can get around it by introducing it as a separate package. Bus fare only would remain the same, tube only would remain the same, but they could introduce a scheme where, if one would use the bus and then the tube, the cost would be somewhere between the cost of a single bus + tube fare. That way, the people are still forced off the buses onto rail (mid-journey, at the hubs we predict would create turns before the central zone for example), but passengers 'save' money because as far as I'm aware the current system counts the bus and tube fares separately. I may of course have missed something but for me this equals win win for TfL if more travel into London is by rail. |
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Jul 15, 2016 16:20:36 GMT
Those of us who were responsible for the original spec for Prestige / Oyster included full multi modal single journey through ticketing in it. Why it's never been used other than for Tramlink is a separate debate. The desire not to dilute revenues is probably the key concern. Moving to Snowman's comment about only having multi modal seasons then you have real problems about how you price it. If the price was higher than the current Bus and Tram Pass then the Mayor's pledge on fares would be broken. If the price was reduced to match the bus and tram pass (hooray cry Travelcard users) then TfL would undermine umpteen rail franchise revenue streams and would be forced to make compensating payments to the DfT. This would run into many tens, possibly hundreds, of millions of pounds. There is no scope for that. Furthermore a price cut is counter intuitive when you have a capacity crisis due to burgeoning demand. The only middle path is to bring back TfL only tickets (like the old LT Card) but that again will affect the Travelcard market share and revenues so you're back into problem territory with the DfT and Treasury. I'm sure they can get around it by introducing it as a separate package. Bus fare only would remain the same, tube only would remain the same, but they could introduce a scheme where, if one would use the bus and then the tube, the cost would be somewhere between the cost of a single bus + tube fare. That way, the people are still forced off the buses onto rail (mid-journey, at the hubs we predict would create turns before the central zone for example), but passengers 'save' money because as far as I'm aware the current system counts the bus and tube fares separately. I may of course have missed something but for me this equals win win for TfL if more travel into London is by rail. The mayors fare pledge is already broken, because he said all Londoners in his election speaches, and he hasn't been able to keep travelcard seasons frozen. |
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jul 15, 2016 16:24:28 GMT
The fundamental and obvious issue with withdrawing the overlapping 4xx routes would be the lost links that cannot be feasibly covered with re-extending the original route due to reliability, why go back to a worse state when it's clearly better the way it is now? Some curtailments and extensions here and there perhaps, but I just don't see the pedestrianisation or the Elizabeth Line leading to the extent of withdrawing the overlapping 4xx routes. Baring in mind, the 453 and arguably the 10/390 would be the only overlapping routes directly affected by these schemes, that's not to say they would be axing the former and re-extending the 53 to Piccadilly Circus or Great Portland Street, and Marylebone should not even be contemplated...this is the 53 after all! Yes but who decides that overlapping routes should remain? Not us. Who decides that extending routes and 'broken links' would be worse? Not us. All they'll do (as has already been suggested) is paint pretty pictures in their consultations. They don't even need overall support! Whoever decides what should remain or not is besides the point. TFL may be the ultimate decider of what happens but I was subjectively stating what is likely to happen as a consequence of these arguably illogical ideas. We all have the right to express whether something will lead to a positive or negative outcome, in this case I struggle to rationally see any benefit to be gained. |
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Jul 15, 2016 16:40:33 GMT
Agree with sid in terms of overlapping routes, in fact I think we could be seeing the end of the 4xx routes (14 414, 52, 452, 53 453 etc) and have routes merged. Emergency services could almost certainly still use Oxford Street, a ban on vehicles does not apply to blues so even rolling through a crowd of people at extreme caution speed would often be quicker than struggling through Piccadilly or Euston Road (no hold ups at signalled junctions etc). I think most people would move if they saw an emergency vehicle trying to pass anyway, there are always a few idiots which is why they would need to come through very slowly. I think the 53/453 split has been one of the better ones and it puts more buses on the busiest section but I wouldn't be surprised to see these routes cut back to Elephant & Castle and Oxford Circus respectively. I don't think many people would miss the 452 if it were axed, it's 'unique turn' at Knightsbridge could be replaced by another route. I'm not sure that the 414 really needs to shadow the 14 all the way to Putney Bridge or the 476 shadow the 73 to Stokey. There is no point having the 453 terminate at Oxford Circus assuming the 53 gets reinstated to Whitehall. It's just logical to have the 53 extended to Oxford Street and give the extra resources from the 453 to the 53 (different operator I know, but it's implied funding wise). Saying that however, I fear the 53 may lose its current Woolwich-Plumstead section if it does see Oxford Circus and the 453 withdrawn. |
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Jul 15, 2016 16:49:45 GMT
I'm sure they can get around it by introducing it as a separate package. Bus fare only would remain the same, tube only would remain the same, but they could introduce a scheme where, if one would use the bus and then the tube, the cost would be somewhere between the cost of a single bus + tube fare. That way, the people are still forced off the buses onto rail (mid-journey, at the hubs we predict would create turns before the central zone for example), but passengers 'save' money because as far as I'm aware the current system counts the bus and tube fares separately. I may of course have missed something but for me this equals win win for TfL if more travel into London is by rail. The mayors fare pledge is already broken, because he said all Londoners in his election speaches, and he hasn't been able to keep travelcard seasons frozen. It's one thing making promises and another keeping them. Also he never specified travelcards but instead listed keeping Tube, bus, tram, DLR, Overground prices the same. I've observed/studied the comedy that is politics for a long time. First rule: don't say anything that backs you into a corner. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jul 15, 2016 16:50:48 GMT
Those of us who were responsible for the original spec for Prestige / Oyster included full multi modal single journey through ticketing in it. Why it's never been used other than for Tramlink is a separate debate. The desire not to dilute revenues is probably the key concern. Moving to Snowman's comment about only having multi modal seasons then you have real problems about how you price it. If the price was higher than the current Bus and Tram Pass then the Mayor's pledge on fares would be broken. If the price was reduced to match the bus and tram pass (hooray cry Travelcard users) then TfL would undermine umpteen rail franchise revenue streams and would be forced to make compensating payments to the DfT. This would run into many tens, possibly hundreds, of millions of pounds. There is no scope for that. Furthermore a price cut is counter intuitive when you have a capacity crisis due to burgeoning demand. The only middle path is to bring back TfL only tickets (like the old LT Card) but that again will affect the Travelcard market share and revenues so you're back into problem territory with the DfT and Treasury. I'm sure they can get around it by introducing it as a separate package. Bus fare only would remain the same, tube only would remain the same, but they could introduce a scheme where, if one would use the bus and then the tube, the cost would be somewhere between the cost of a single bus + tube fare. That way, the people are still forced off the buses onto rail (mid-journey, at the hubs we predict would create turns before the central zone for example), but passengers 'save' money because as far as I'm aware the current system counts the bus and tube fares separately. I may of course have missed something but for me this equals win win for TfL if more travel into London is by rail. The thing that is being missed is the way the market changes when you change prices, products and availabilities. If something was introduced then it will cause changes in the sales and revenues of other products. The TOCs were terrified about Oyster PAYG because they thought it would steal revenue from them. They hate shared products because they all want as much money dedicated solely to each individual business. Eventually they relented and ended with an enormous windfall as the greater convenience of Oyster encouraged people to travel. A new through ticket would have to provide a discount over the summation of separate single fares so who would fund the discount? Someone has to. the TOCs won't want to nor will the DfT because it costs money. TfL can't because it has £640m to find for the fares freeze. As sales of products change then there are complex formulae to adjust the balance between TfL / NR at top level and then between TOCs inside NR and between modes inside TfL. If sales of Travelcards fell then everyone gets a smaller share of the cake. Rail franchises are predicated on revenue growth and inflation increases including Travelcard sales. To the extent that a party outside NR takes an action that undermines those revenue assumptions then that party has to compensate the TOCs / DfT. This is partly why the Mayor faces problems with his fares freeze. If people divert from TOC services to the tube or buses then expect the DfT to demand compensation. The DfT SoS also has to sign off on Travelcard prices - hence why the Mayor can't freeze their prices. The only possible justification for a new discounted product is if it could guarantee a scale of revenue generation over and above the cost of the discounted fares (and costs to introduce it) and / or provide sufficient operational savings to cover the cost. LU can't reduce its ticket selling costs very much further having closed all the ticket offices. The TOCs could close more but have to get through statutory consultation. Yes TfL might be able to rationalise some parts of the bus network but it's been doing this for years and is about to do it all again. Val Shawcross said he didn't want to see a reduction in the funding of the bus network but that's not quite the same as saying there *won't* be any reduction. Aspiration vs commitment. |
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Jul 15, 2016 16:53:38 GMT
I think the 53/453 split has been one of the better ones and it puts more buses on the busiest section but I wouldn't be surprised to see these routes cut back to Elephant & Castle and Oxford Circus respectively. I don't think many people would miss the 452 if it were axed, it's 'unique turn' at Knightsbridge could be replaced by another route. I'm not sure that the 414 really needs to shadow the 14 all the way to Putney Bridge or the 476 shadow the 73 to Stokey. There is no point having the 453 terminate at Oxford Circus assuming the 53 gets reinstated to Whitehall. It's just logical to have the 53 extended to Oxford Street and give the extra resources from the 453 to the 53 (different operator I know, but it's implied funding wise). Saying that however, I fear the 53 may lose its current Woolwich-Plumstead section if it does see Oxford Circus and the 453 withdrawn. More likely the 53 goes directly to PD rather than via the Common. Much easier to terminate it at PD than find somewhere in Woolwich to terminate a big route like the 53. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2016 16:55:52 GMT
I'm sure they can get around it by introducing it as a separate package. Bus fare only would remain the same, tube only would remain the same, but they could introduce a scheme where, if one would use the bus and then the tube, the cost would be somewhere between the cost of a single bus + tube fare. That way, the people are still forced off the buses onto rail (mid-journey, at the hubs we predict would create turns before the central zone for example), but passengers 'save' money because as far as I'm aware the current system counts the bus and tube fares separately. I may of course have missed something but for me this equals win win for TfL if more travel into London is by rail. The mayors fare pledge is already broken, because he said all Londoners in his election speaches, and he hasn't been able to keep travelcard seasons frozen. Or has he? Unless he used any words to the effect of combined travel costs, fares could mean 'single' journeys, effectively allowing for hikes in travelcards etc |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jul 15, 2016 17:09:19 GMT
I think the 53/453 split has been one of the better ones and it puts more buses on the busiest section but I wouldn't be surprised to see these routes cut back to Elephant & Castle and Oxford Circus respectively. I don't think many people would miss the 452 if it were axed, it's 'unique turn' at Knightsbridge could be replaced by another route. I'm not sure that the 414 really needs to shadow the 14 all the way to Putney Bridge or the 476 shadow the 73 to Stokey. There is no point having the 453 terminate at Oxford Circus assuming the 53 gets reinstated to Whitehall. It's just logical to have the 53 extended to Oxford Street and give the extra resources from the 453 to the 53 (different operator I know, but it's implied funding wise). Saying that however, I fear the 53 may lose its current Woolwich-Plumstead section if it does see Oxford Circus and the 453 withdrawn. But there would be no justification in the whole service going to Plumstead. I think both routes are ok as they are but I wouldn't be surprised to see them both cut back to Elephant and Oxford Circus respectively. Having said that I think the 21 and 453 should swap southern terminals but that's a separate issue. |
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Jul 15, 2016 17:35:30 GMT
There is no point having the 453 terminate at Oxford Circus assuming the 53 gets reinstated to Whitehall. It's just logical to have the 53 extended to Oxford Street and give the extra resources from the 453 to the 53 (different operator I know, but it's implied funding wise). Saying that however, I fear the 53 may lose its current Woolwich-Plumstead section if it does see Oxford Circus and the 453 withdrawn. But there would be no justification in the whole service going to Plumstead. I think both routes are ok as they are but I wouldn't be surprised to see them both cut back to Elephant and Oxford Circus respectively. Having said that I think the 21 and 453 should swap southern terminals but that's a separate issue. I can see the 453 and 21 swapping termini; as per the ludicrous 436 consultation and documents proposing the 115 going via Whitechapel to Aldgate. What I cannot see happening is TfL justifying routes that mirror each other for the majority of its routing. In plain terms, I can't see TfL justifying the 453 if it's just the 53 route from Deptford to Whitehall & only that bit up to Oxford Circus. It's either the 53 goes direct to Plumstead (instead of via the Common) & gets extended to Oxford Circus thus killing the 453; or the 453 will remain unchanged and the 53 unchanged at its south-eastern end but a revised western terminus. Chances are the latter will happen as I doubt the Oxford Street/Regent Street intersection will get pedestrianised over. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2016 18:13:20 GMT
Yes but who decides that overlapping routes should remain? Not us. Who decides that extending routes and 'broken links' would be worse? Not us. All they'll do (as has already been suggested) is paint pretty pictures in their consultations. They don't even need overall support! Whoever decides what should remain or not is besides the point. TFL may be the ultimate decider of what happens but I was subjectively stating what is likely to happen as a consequence of these arguably illogical ideas. We all have the right to express whether something will lead to a positive or negative outcome, in this case I struggle to rationally see any benefit to be gained. Yes and you will note I have said nothing whatsoever to contradict anybody's right to speak up either way. However ridiculous (or not) these changes seem, if I were tasked at cutting expenditure on routes due to funding cuts and Crossrail, the overlapping routes are one of the FIRST routes I'd chop. Here are some examples (sorry if already suggested): - Withdraw 14, extend 414 to Putney Heath - Withdraw 436. Extend 36 back to Lewisham or even withdraw 36 and send another route from Marble Arch to Queens Park and leave the 436 - Withdraw 453. Extend 53 back to Regent Street - Withdraw 430. Extend 74 back to Roehampton, withdraw Marble Arch/Hyde Park to Baker Street, other routes to deputise - Wirhdraw 390. Use another route to serve Kings X to Archway - Withdraw 9. Use another route to serve Pall Mall - Not my area but a merge of 73/476 also suggested elsewhere. Which these suggestions you can see that some routes (eg 53 and 414) don't have to travel much further at all. Some links to central London would indeed be broken but this is in anticipation of lower numbers and as already said there will inevitably be cuts to central London. In some cases, new links will be made (in my suggestions alone, people will be able to travel from Roehampton, possibly south London to the fringes of the central zone once more. I think the number of routes through the heart of zone one will be at a premium, how they select these will be interesting if the cuts are as savage as many think. The other thing about cutting parallel routes is the sneaky and shrewd way TfL could set their stall out in consultation. They could on one hand say 'this route will no longer run' but then say 'we will extend this route meaning passengers from this area can travel this far' etc. They can also blah a frequency increase to lure punters into agreeing. So if you have two parallel routes running every 8 minutes each (average headway 4 mins) then you say 'We will increase the frequency to every six minutes' but on one route the people could be drawn in by the increase rather than the number of routes, when in real terms it's a decrease in service. |
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Jul 15, 2016 18:19:26 GMT
Whoever decides what should remain or not is besides the point. TFL may be the ultimate decider of what happens but I was subjectively stating what is likely to happen as a consequence of these arguably illogical ideas. We all have the right to express whether something will lead to a positive or negative outcome, in this case I struggle to rationally see any benefit to be gained. Yes and you will note I have said nothing whatsoever to contradict anybody's right to speak up either way. However ridiculous (or not) these changes seem, if I were tasked at cutting expenditure on routes due to funding cuts and Crossrail, the overlapping routes are one of the FIRST routes I'd chop. Here are some examples (sorry if already suggested): - Withdraw 14, extend 414 to Putney Heath - Withdraw 436. Extend 36 back to Lewisham or even withdraw 36 and send another route from Marble Arch to Queens Park and leave the 436 - Withdraw 453. Extend 53 back to Regent Street - Withdraw 430. Extend 74 back to Roehampton, withdraw Marble Arch/Hyde Park to Baker Street, other routes to deputise - Wirhdraw 390. Use another route to serve Kings X to Archway - Withdraw 9. Use another route to serve Pall Mall - Not my area but a merge of 73/476 also suggested elsewhere. . Keep 9. Withdraw it Traf. Sq - Aldwych, extend via Charing Cross Road and route 10 to KX, withdraw 10.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2016 18:29:15 GMT
Withdraw 9. Use another route to serve Pall Mall. . Keep 9. Withdraw it Traf. Sq - Aldwych, extend via Charing Cross Road and route 10 to KX, withdraw 10. Good idea, and it maintains the status quo of cutting routes to suit budget costs. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2016 18:31:03 GMT
Just wondering if I should start a new thread about suggestions people have about changes they would make to services in light of the service review and pedestrianisation of Oxford street or leave it here, what does everyone think?
|
|
