• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

TFL & "Managed Decline"

Status
Not open for further replies.

Goldfish62

Established Member
Joined
14 Feb 2010
Messages
9,934
How about an Oyster card for key workers, or even workers in general, that gives a discount to people who work in London? Then you can increase fares for everyone else (including tourists) without impacting those on low incomes.

It could be a scheme operated through employers, although obviously this introduces red tape and the chance of abuse (but perhaps no more so than people sharing free Oyster cards with family and friends illegally today - something you can protect through proper enforcement).
Employers can already bulk-buy Oyster cards and fund them for employees on whatever basis they see fit.

As for the suggestion of distinguishing "key" workers from others, don't even go there! That ridiculous term is discriminatory enough as it is.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,529
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
TfL not offering good bus+rail interchange fares (other than capping) might potentially be a false economy. By creating an incentive to use one mode of transport as much as possible, they may find themselves having to provide more buses for longer routes than would otherwise be necessary, in order to meet induced passenger demand; especially in the off peak.

Agreed. Fully integrated ticketing allows you to reduce buses to being provided only where they are necessary to connect people to distant railway stations. For instance, you could get rid of almost all buses in zone 1 because rail coverage is excellent. Hamburg, for instance, had last time I looked fewer than 10 bus routes that penetrate the city centre.

Or you could but for one thing - wheelchair access - which on the Tube is woeful. That necessitates providing some level of parallel bus services.

How about an Oyster card for key workers, or even workers in general, that gives a discount to people who work in London? Then you can increase fares for everyone else (including tourists) without impacting those on low incomes.

If they want to hit tourists, a tourist tax would be the way. We're one of the few European countries not to have one.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,882
Location
Reston City Centre
This isn't so true for Londoners as it is says the Home Counties - sure there's still big swathes in both groups and this is a generalisation, but more Londoners are likely to be in "key worker" type jobs compared to those who commuted in from the suburbs and wider South East every day to their office jobs

Worth repeating

As someone who's lived in Yorkshire for many years, I'm tired of the "Londoner-bashing" that goes on

There's this assumption (on the Forum, but elsewhere in society too) that "Londoner" = "Rich", whereas, certainly in public transport terms, a significant amount of the wealth is the people commuting into London from Milton Keynes/ Didcot/ Basingstoke etc on expensive season tickets, whilst some of the actual Londoners are Key Workers using the bus because they can't afford the Tube fare

It's a broad generalisation, sure, but a lot of the expensive spending in London benefits people who work in London but commute there from elsewhere, rather than just benefiting yer actual Londoners

That's the problem though when people try to divide the infrastructure budget for spending in London between the population of London, because this ignores that a lot of the people using it live outside the M25 (e.g. the London Bridge remodelling will have benefitted a lot of people in Sussex/ Kent, but we talk of how low the infrastructure spending is in Sussex/ Kent and how high it is in London!)

As a Londoner it is reasonable to say Mayor Khan has failed to deliver immediate budget savings including some cuts. There are too many buses running on the same stretches of road causing lots of congestion.
Mayor Khan should be held responsible as during Covid he was running as full service as possible with no passengers or a couple at best. He should have thinned out the buses to save some cash

How much cash would it have saved?

He'd have had to sit down with Arriva/ Go Ahead/ whoever and negotiate revised contracts, at which talks the private companies would have little incentive to reduce their tender prices - if you were a bus operator in London, would you accept significantly lower money from Tf (and put staff on furlough) if you didn't have to?

I'm assuming that this is aimed at the ULEZ expansion. Yes, Khan started this back in his last mayoral term but again this was part of the government bailout conditions. Road closures for LTNs were also happening across the country at the suggestion of the government.

Yeah, they are happening here in Yorkshire too (it's just that they are a bigger political issue when they happen in London because they are noticed more by people with media presence) - it's not something Khan invented or something that only Khan does, but it seems to be something that Khan tends to get blamed, for, which seems unfair

It's amazing just how much has changed in less than 10 years. I remember the halcyon days of 2011-2016, when London needed something like "1 trillion pounds worth of rail upgrades to meet 2050 demands". The R25 was a thing, the "high-speed doughnut" line around London was thrown about by the then Mayor (name escapes me), London Recconections were churning out exciting articles about the future - "the Bromley North branch will need to be six-tracked by 2030" etc etc. Sad to see things go the other way so very quickly. But oh well, so is life.

Good points
 

Goldfish62

Established Member
Joined
14 Feb 2010
Messages
9,934
As a Londoner it is reasonable to say Mayor Khan has failed to deliver immediate budget savings including some cuts. There are too many buses running on the same stretches of road causing lots of congestion.
In case you hadn't noticed there are currently weekly service changes leading to frequency reductions across the network. It's not the buses that cause congestion. It's private cars and delivery vans.

Mayor Khan should be held responsible as during Covid he was running as full service as possible with no passengers or a couple at best. He should have thinned out the buses to save some cash as well as thinning out the tube.
Completely incorrect. Services will thinned out dramatically during the first lockdown and only a maximum of 30 pax per double deck were allowed due to social distancing. Services have been increased again to meet demand and are now being cut due to budgetary constraints.

All what Khan can do is to clobber motorists.
Ah, behold the poor downtrodden motorist. :lol:
 

Julia

Member
Joined
19 Jun 2011
Messages
293
But it's old enough and they have all the drawings so you can simply. "Make more of something". There's just a lot of lacking in will.

For components that can be replaced, perhaps - although I suspect quite a lot have grandfather rights (so you can carry on using the ones that exist but you can't manufacture more, they don't comply with standards that have changed a lot in 50 years). However, I'm pretty sure the last round of work on the 1972s was patching up to stave off major structural failures for a few years more, and you can't keep doing that indefinitely. Ownership of the drawings is irrelevant - you couldn't sensibly build clones of the 1972s today.
 

joncombe

Member
Joined
6 Nov 2016
Messages
765
The BBC posted this to the live feed.

Transport for London - which runs the Tube network - said it has 500 enforcement officers to ask customers to comply with its mask rules.

It says it has refused entry to 408 people and asked 126 to leave services since national rules were relaxed in July.

I find these statistics astonishing.

TFL have *500* enforcement officers and in approx. 5 months and have refused entry to 408 people and asked 126 to leave. That's only slightly over 1 "offence" per enforcement officer in 4-5 months. I assume they must have other enforcement duties too but I was still amazed at these numbers.
 

Nym

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2007
Messages
9,098
Location
Somewhere, not in London
For components that can be replaced, perhaps - although I suspect quite a lot have grandfather rights (so you can carry on using the ones that exist but you can't manufacture more, they don't comply with standards that have changed a lot in 50 years). However, I'm pretty sure the last round of work on the 1972s was patching up to stave off major structural failures for a few years more, and you can't keep doing that indefinitely. Ownership of the drawings is irrelevant - you couldn't sensibly build clones of the 1972s today.
You can't, but you can build the replacement parts for it.
 

Goldfish62

Established Member
Joined
14 Feb 2010
Messages
9,934
The BBC posted this to the live feed.



I find these statistics astonishing.

TFL have *500* enforcement officers and in approx. 5 months and have refused entry to 408 people and asked 126 to leave. That's only slightly over 1 "offence" per enforcement officer in 4-5 months. I assume they must have other enforcement duties too but I was still amazed at these numbers.
They also conduct revenue enforcement and issue PCNs on red routes.
 

Wolfie

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2010
Messages
6,047
I dont think many people would notice the impact of managed decline for some years. We have already seen steady reductions in bus frequencies without it causing much stir. In most areas the tube could run at off-peak frequencies without impacting on passengers - the only crowded tubes I have seen have been on Saturdays.
The Kings Cross fire was the ultimate consequence of previous managed decline for London's transport. Trash London, gloat and then suffer for years as the tax take which subsidises the rest of this country plummets.

Other areas need to become more like London in terms of public transport, rather than forcing London down. Everyone being in the same mire helps no-one.
Agreed.
 

Wolfie

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2010
Messages
6,047
That's a highly partial view of the influence of London mayors on TfL operations. I'd like to highlight some (by no means all) of the things that Johnson did which impinged on TfL operations, NOT in any particular order:-

A) Getting rid of bendybuses (this, admittedly, was a feature of his manifesto, so could be said to be done with public approval)
B) Commissioning the building of the 'New Routemaster' bus and signing orders for hundreds of them (again using the manifesto, but this time as a smokescreen when it quickly became clear that hop on/hop off was NEVER going to be reintroduced except in the most limited way and, even then, for a very limited time)
C) Pushing for the extension of the Northern Line branch from Kennington to a derelict site in Battersea that wasn't on TfL's Top Ten list of new Underground projects, that quickly gained approval
D) Refusing to sanction the extra train services to Bellingham that had been agreed as part of the undertakings around the withdrawal of the South London Line
E) Jumping on the Joanna Lumley bandwagon, together with George Osborne, over the Garden Bridge fantasy, which has cost London Council Taxpayers dear
F) The Emirates skilift
G) Agreeing with the Treasury to phase out government subsidies for TfL's public transport operations almost as soon as he knew he'd be out of office

Even the so-called Borisbikes were a Ken Livingstone initiative that Johnson was happy to glory in, aided by his cheerleaders at the Evening Standard.

The elephant in the room which is conveniently (for him and his administration at the Shard) never mentioned is, of course, Crossrail and who knew what before Khan was handed that particular poisoned chalice immediately after his own election. I don't believe for one second that Johnson didn't know everything was not hunky dory.
Spot on. Even the relative success of London Overground was down to Ken Livingstone.

The level of traffic in London suggests that motorists don’t find the current regime of congestion and parking charges to be onerous, so I would keep increasing and expanding these until they pay for the public transport improvements London needs.
Fine, just as long as exactly the same thing is done for EVERY city in UK.
 

jumble

Member
Joined
1 Jul 2011
Messages
1,098
You can't, but you can build the replacement parts for it.
Exactly
Look at the vintage Trams in San Francisco that are from the 1940s and have been completely remanufactured
 

SECR263

Member
Joined
6 Jun 2018
Messages
100
In case you hadn't noticed there are currently weekly service changes leading to frequency reductions across the network. It's not the buses that cause congestion. It's private cars and delivery vans.


Completely incorrect. Services will thinned out dramatically during the first lockdown and only a maximum of 30 pax per double deck were allowed due to social distancing. Services have been increased again to meet demand and are now being cut due to budgetary constraints.


Ah, behold the poor downtrodden motorist. :lol:
If you shut down london Bridge to cars as well as Bank to cars and taxis plus vans and lorries it's no wonder there is traffic congestion. Khan just waffles on about pollution when his own policies cause it. We have a permanently closed Thames Bridge and all he does is duck the issue. A mayor worth his salt would sort it not sit and moan.
 

Wolfie

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2010
Messages
6,047
Though you can flog it a bit harder if it's not exposed to sea water every day, and the IoW ones lasted long enough.

There are also other ways. Sadiq doesn't want to increase fares, but he arguably shouldn't receive national subsidy for his network if, as is the case, bus fares are much lower than the rest of the country and passholders get much more. Those things are local decisions which should be funded locally. The first step needs to be to get the bus fare up to around £2 to £2.20 which would increase income considerably while still being lower than most of the country.

The cash single had already gone up to £2 some years ago, then Oyster reduced it.
You are making the rather large assumption that a fares rise of 50% would not result in a significant decline in passenger journeys and hence income.

As a Londoner it is reasonable to say Mayor Khan has failed to deliver immediate budget savings including some cuts. There are too many buses running on the same stretches of road causing lots of congestion.
Mayor Khan should be held responsible as during Covid he was running as full service as possible with no passengers or a couple at best. He should have thinned out the buses to save some cash as well as thinning out the tube.
Services should only have been beefed up with demand was returning. All what Khan can do is to clobber motorists.

As for the night tube, well you can axe that for a start to save some cash. London managed ok before the night tube. Why weren't the fares doubled after midnight to recoup some of the high operating costs?
Trouble with Mayor Khan is that he likes spending bucket loads of tax payers cash. My Council tax element for the Greater London Authority this year went up by 9.5% then the Borough Council and the Social Care precept by another 5% ontop. My Council Tax is touching £2700 a year and the Mayor should be finding ways of cutting services on duplicate routes, reducing overtime and standby, reducing frequency at off peak times and especially on the Grange Hill loop where a service every 30 minutes still would be generous.
@deltic is correct in his opinion above. Thin the buses out and match to demand. Not much of an issue waiting 1 minute longer for a bus to arrive every 5 minutes instead or 4 or a bus every 12 minutes instead of 10.

Another saving that ought to be introduced is to withdraw free universal bus travel for under 16's. Lots of kids using the bus for just one, two or three stops: They could walk that. They should be charged a token rate of say 30p per journey. This would reduce bus planning requirements resulting in further financial savings.

Khan has squanderd income as he has closed down many station car parks. Crazy.
As a fellow Londoner l agree with absolutely nothing that you write. It is particularly ironic that you damn the Mayor for continuing to run services during the pandemic when that is exactly what central Government directed him to do. The "gentleman" who left London's transport finances horribly exposed, almost certainly for his own career benefit, is the one now daring to criticise his successor.

A lot of the service patterns were actually mandated by the government during Covid for "key workers". I agree it was overkill at times but you seem to have a bit of an anti-Khan agenda, yes he / TfL are partly to blame but there's also a significant amount of blame to be placed on the government for trying to politicise it too when they know full well how vital passenger income is to the financial viability of TfL.
Measured
 
Last edited:

Starmill

Veteran Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,224
Location
Bolton
How about an Oyster card for key workers, or even workers in general, that gives a discount to people who work in London? Then you can increase fares for everyone else (including tourists) without impacting those on low incomes.

It could be a scheme operated through employers, although obviously this introduces red tape and the chance of abuse (but perhaps no more so than people sharing free Oyster cards with family and friends illegally today - something you can protect through proper enforcement).
You could switch to charging for public transport through payroll taxes and special tourist taxes on overnight stays in the centre. Travel cards would then be provided for free by employers or hotels as appropriate. That way everyone supports public transport, and if you want to drive or use a taxi you pay again.
 

Busaholic

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Jun 2014
Messages
14,029
As a Londoner it is reasonable to say Mayor Khan has failed to deliver immediate budget savings including some cuts. There are too many buses running on the same stretches of road causing lots of congestion.
Duplication of bus routes along long stretches of road encompassing many areas has gradually been phased out in recent years, with very few exceptions for which there are good reasons e.g. all-day bus passenger demand and lack of suitable parallel railway lines. The latter is particularly relevant in largely Undergroundless South London and around Hackney. If you start requiring bus passengers to keep changing buses to make the same journey that they currently do with no, or only one, change, all but the most poor and/or desperate will abandon them, and then where will all those darned three door buses go?
 

Wolfie

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2010
Messages
6,047
Whilst this is true, he alone is not the only reason why budget cuts have not been made. The government in their bailouts has set out expectations for service levels and he has to follow them or not get any more funding. What we need is City Hall, TFL and DfT to work together to agree rather than a local government vs government or labour vs conservatives.


Yes this is true. But take the buses in my local area, the 180 and 177 run together between Plumstead High Street and Greenwich. This is highly congested but the buses are always (except extremes of the day) really busy so although they could be reduced this would turn people away from public transport and back to their cars. Not everyone can afford trains in London, especially those whose fares are out of TFL control. Another example is the 53 and 453 which run together from Deptford High Street to Lower Marsh (Waterloo), again both busy routes.

As someone who used public transport throughout the pandemic (buses and tube/dlr) the services where definitely reduced. Local bus routes that were every 7/8 minutes went to every 15. Yes there were occasions where these were quiet, but overall reductions were made.

I'm assuming that this is aimed at the ULEZ expansion. Yes, Khan started this back in his last mayoral term but again this was part of the government bailout conditions. Road closures for LTNs were also happening across the country at the suggestion of the government.


The government themselves have been lobbying for the reintroduction of the night tube. The Night Tube could bring in a large income if marketed well and connections from key stations used well.

Last week Minister for London, Paul Scully, urged Khan to reinstate the night tube. Speaking to The Telegraph he said: “The Mayor needs to give people convenient, affordable choices about how to travel home safely at night. It’s not enough to talk tough on social media. Leadership in London requires action.”


Whilst this is true, the same could be said for all previous Mayor's of London (Boris - Cable Cars, Garden Bridge, NBfL..., I was too young to understand what Livingstone did but I am sure similar).

Rather than withdraw free travel for under 16s why not restrict it to Monday to Friday from 6am - 7pm. Any other time, they have to pay a reduced fare. Not only that but at the same time reduce/remove the railcard discounts (travel is already cheap), make free travel for those over the age of retirement.
A very useful post.

Exactly
Look at the vintage Trams in San Francisco that are from the 1940s and have been completely remanufactured
There is a rather big difference between an essentially heritage service and front-line public transport in the biggest city in Europe.
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,224
Location
Bolton
I personally think that significantly more than the managed decline funding should be provided, although doubtless this will amount to less spending than TfL might have expected to have been able to make without the pandemic.

But my view is that all other cities in England should receive a similar rate per capita, and perhaps some adjustments upwards applied for visitor-intensive areas like York and Bath. Then of course there would be consequent additional spending to send to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. All together this would come into the tens of billions. But it's vitally necessary.
 

matt_world2004

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2014
Messages
4,504
Mayor Khan should be held responsible as during Covid he was running as full service as possible with no passengers or a couple at best. He should have thinned out the buses to save some cash as well as thinning out the tube.
How would temporary reduction in bus services have saved money. TfL don't directly pay the drivers. They specify a contracted frequency which a bus company then provides. TfL cannot unilaterally reduce bus frequencies temporarily as a tool to save money.

Planned changes are often written into the tender documents and temporary frequency increases (eg for rail closures) are paid on a premium fixed price basis.

Permanent contract changes are often negotiated with the bus company where by tfl negotiate a reduction in the contract price for a service frequency reduction. This does not happen overnight and would have been inappropriate for a short term frequency reduction due to covid. Particularly with the unpredictable nature of the pandemic.

Crosslinks also mean bus changes are often not simple to just cut. The driver of the night bus . May also drive the early morning school bus, or a non london bus for example with sullivan buses.
 

deltic

Established Member
Joined
8 Feb 2010
Messages
3,201
The Kings Cross fire was the ultimate consequence of previous managed decline for London's transport. Trash London, gloat and then suffer for years as the tax take which subsidises the rest of this country plummets.


Agreed.

The Fennel report stated "In my judgement there is no evidence that the overall level of subsidy available to London Regional Transport was inadequate to finance necessary safety-related spending and maintain safety standards" So its not evident that Kings Cross fire was the ultimate consequence of managed decline.

Demand on London's transport system has fallen by 20-30% negating the need for a lot of capacity enhancements and bus use was in decline before the pandemic. Its not a case of trashing London it is about better matching supply to demand.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,529
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
The Fennel report stated "In my judgement there is no evidence that the overall level of subsidy available to London Regional Transport was inadequate to finance necessary safety-related spending and maintain safety standards" So its not evident that Kings Cross fire was the ultimate consequence of managed decline.

Demand on London's transport system has fallen by 20-30% negating the need for a lot of capacity enhancements and bus use was in decline before the pandemic. Its not a case of trashing London it is about better matching supply to demand.

The main cause of the Kings Cross fire was really smoking being permitted in an underground railway system, something which is utterly unthinkable today. As well as procedural failures in e.g. not cleaning the gunk from under the escalator, and not evacuating as soon as smoke became evident. All things that were different in the 80s.

Marylebone Tube had wooden escalators up to about 2005, so they were not in and of themselves a problem.
 

Horizon22

Established Member
Associate Staff
Jobs & Careers
Joined
8 Sep 2019
Messages
7,444
Location
London
The main cause of the Kings Cross fire was really smoking being permitted in an underground railway system, something which is utterly unthinkable today. As well as procedural failures in e.g. not cleaning the gunk from under the escalator, and not evacuating as soon as smoke became evident. All things that were different in the 80s.

Marylebone Tube had wooden escalators up to about 2005, so they were not in and of themselves a problem.

There was also fundamental misunderstanding of how fire would spread up a moving escalator. In many ways it altered the way in which fire management would be applied and added research into fire dynamics.
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
15,160
How would temporary reduction in bus services have saved money. TfL don't directly pay the drivers. They specify a contracted frequency which a bus company then provides. TfL cannot unilaterally reduce bus frequencies temporarily as a tool to save money.
So there's no "force majeure" clause in the contracts that could have been used?

I would bet there are numerous contracts for services around the UK that had a contracted service level with no unilateral mechanism for change during the contract period, that were in fact varied by agreement during the pandemic. Are we saying the TfL didn't have the nous or capability to do this?
 

Peter Mugridge

Veteran Member
Joined
8 Apr 2010
Messages
14,751
Location
Epsom
Marylebone Tube had wooden escalators up to about 2005, so they were not in and of themselves a problem.
The sides to the escalators at Marylebone were replaced by metal ones coloured to look like wood in the aftermath of King's Cross; it was only the treads which remained wood until 2005.
 

MikeWh

Established Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
15 Jun 2010
Messages
7,865
Location
Crayford
but perhaps no more so than people sharing free Oyster cards with family and friends illegally today
Oyster cards being used solely for PAYG are legally allowed to be shared, even if they've capped.
For instance, you could get rid of almost all buses in zone 1 because rail coverage is excellent.
I'm sorry but that is rubbish. There are thousands of bus stops in zone 1 compared to less than 100 stations.
You could switch to charging for public transport through payroll taxes and special tourist taxes on overnight stays in the centre. Travel cards would then be provided for free by employers or hotels as appropriate. That way everyone supports public transport, and if you want to drive or use a taxi you pay again.
How would non-working residents pay for their travel?
 

matt_world2004

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2014
Messages
4,504
So there's no "force majeure" clause in the contracts that could have been used?

I would bet there are numerous contracts for services around the UK that had a contracted service level with no unilateral mechanism for change during the contract period, that were in fact varied by agreement during the pandemic. Are we saying the TfL didn't have the nous or capability to do this?
Why would there have been a force majure element in the contracts? And earthquake or other natural disaster would have still required the bus companies to pay the drivers.

The whole point of the bus service contracts is that tfl takes on the revenue risk.
 

Goldfish62

Established Member
Joined
14 Feb 2010
Messages
9,934
Why would there have been a force majure element in the contracts? And earthquake or other natural disaster would have still required the bus companies to pay the drivers.

The whole point of the bus service contracts is that tfl takes on the revenue risk.
Ah good, someone who know what they're talking about!

TfL made reduced payments to the operators as a result of reduced services during the height of the pandemic. However, the operators still had to pay for their staff, buses and premises so the cost savings weren't huge.

The only way to get significant cost savings is through the tendering mechanism.
 

matt_world2004

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2014
Messages
4,504
Ah good, someone who know what they're talking about!

TfL made reduced payments to the operators as a result of reduced services during the height of the pandemic. However, the operators still had to pay for their staff, buses and premises so the cost savings weren't huge.

The only way to get significant cost savings is through the tendering mechanism.
I believe the reduced payments to operators were in circumstances where operators could not provide the full service due to drivers either self isolating to being vulnerable or were sick themselves with suspected covid. Remembering at the time there was no testing mechanism so anyone with any symptoms resembling covid was required to stay home.

Some buses were also redeployed to increase frequencies on late evening/ early morning services as the peak moved to an earlier time and a later finish

Also drivers were pulled off duties to prepare a shuttle bus from canning Town to the nightingale hospital.

Not being paid the same for failing to fulfill the contract verses the other party refusing to pay because they no longer needed the contract fulfilled are two different things.

Tfl Rail managed to run a full service during covid because they had a reserve pool of drivers because of the crossrail core being closed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top