TFL & "Managed Decline"

[Busaholic]

I was sceptical too when I first read this, but I'm stating to see how closing the Jubilee might make sense. TfL need to find ways cut expenditure whilst minimising the loss of fare income that comes from reducing services. Closing an entire line (especially one that is completely segregated from all others) is probably a big reduction in expenditure. In order to minimise loss of fares, you'd want to pick a line that is well served by other lines (with spare capacity) in the hope that displaced passengers will use those lines instead.

Bermondsey and North Greenwich are only two stations on the Jubilee east of Baker Street that aren't served by other lines and there will be extra capacity at Canary Wharf and Stratford when Crossrail opens. More stations would be affected in the west, but it might be possible to reduce the damage if the Metropolitan platforms at a Neasden and Willesden Green can be used for regular service. Other lines becoming crowded as a result of the closure is actually a good thing if the aim is to become more profitable. The ideal line to close is the one that will result the maximum passenger increase on other lines.

I'm not saying I approve of closing the Jubilee (on the contrary, I consider it to be an act of infrastructure vandalism!), but I don't think it's as ridiculous as it first appears. It also comes with the added bonus of being one of the lines whose closure will be most felt in Westminster.

Much of the public transport infrastructure of S.E. London and beyond would be hugely impacted by closing down the Jubilee Line in the area. Canada Water may have the Overground, but without the Jubilee to feed into its use would decline dramatically, particularly in the peaks, and those arriving from the south to change for Canary Wharf etc would face pricier journeys by not being able to use the 'reader' between the lines. North Greenwich, apart from the large crowds generated by intermittent events at the 02, is a huge tube/bus interchange and local bus routes are largely skewed to its existence. Again, some of the reason for people's choice of route is dictated by the potential for lower overall fares. It would be absolutely disastrous for public transport in S.E. London, for so long the poor relation, especially in Underground railway terms.

 

[bramling]

Much of the public transport infrastructure of S.E. London and beyond would be hugely impacted by closing down the Jubilee Line in the area. Canada Water may have the Overground, but without the Jubilee to feed into its use would decline dramatically, particularly in the peaks, and those arriving from the south to change for Canary Wharf etc would face pricier journeys by not being able to use the 'reader' between the lines. North Greenwich, apart from the large crowds generated by intermittent events at the 02, is a huge tube/bus interchange and local bus routes are largely skewed to its existence. Again, some of the reason for people's choice of route is dictated by the potential for lower overall fares. It would be absolutely disastrous for public transport in S.E. London, for so long the poor relation, especially in Underground railway terms.

It has to be remembered the Jubilee crosses the river four times between Green Park and Stratford, in an area where there aren’t that many other cross-river links. The JLE section is very busy at pretty much all times of day, and having been open for 20 years now a lot of traffic flows have built up around it.

Like anything were it to close people would manage because they have to, but it would be hugely disruptive.

The *only* line which has a potential case for mothballing is the Bakerloo, as apart from the comparatively weaker demand compared to elsewhere, it solves other issues not least the ageing fleet issue.

Someone did post that the Bakerloo could simply get a share of the Piccadilly fleet, with the latter line having a scaled-down timetable, and thinking about it I wouldn’t be surprised to see this eventually happen. It isn’t ideal, but it solves the problem.

 

[jfisher21]

I cant see any line closing, the protests would be large from the affected areas! Maybe terminate the Met at Rickmansworth and longer chiltern trains, terminate piccadilly at Rayners Lane, h&c at whitechapel. Richmond branch of the district could maybe go. Hainault to woodford back to rush hours only.

 

[Wolfie]

If I was TFL I would:

1. Close the Emirates Air Line temporarily, but investigate selling to a private company.
2. Introduce a nominal charge (Upto £3) for Woolwich Ferry.
3. Reduce services on Circle, H&C, District, and Met lines so that on shared parts of the lines there are fewer services but on unique sections maintain a good service. E.g. Do we need both H&C and District to Barking?
4. Stop Bakerloo Line services from travelling north of Queens Park. It's a cross platform change at Queens Park so easy for people to do.
5. Raise bus prices to £2, and reduce hopper time to a strict 60 minutes rather than 70 minutes. (For example Orpington to Heathrow shouldn't be £1.55 but is possible due to Hopper) £3 bus fares that cross boundaries such as any to Bluewater, Dorking, Redhill, Lakeside, Watford Junction, Slough.
6. Reduce TFL rail services outside of Greater London authority areas unless funding is received from the relevant local authorities.
7. Extend the ULEZ and Congestion Charge to cover the whole of Greater London Authority areas (e.g. all London Boroughs).
8. Remove railcard discounts from Oyster cards (I benefit, but this might save some money).
9. Restrict free travel for under 18s to between 6am and 7pm Monday to Friday. Over times make them pay a fare.
10. Remove travelcard discounts on Uber boats (TfL must be subsidising this - is it needed? No)

Re your bullet 6 why only TfL rail services? What about Underground services outside Greater London? Why should Essex, for example, fares be subsidised?

I would add major price rises at car parks at stations on boundaries of London.

 

[bramling]

Re your bullet 6 why only TfL rail services? What about Underground services outside Greater London? Why should Essex, for example, fares be subsidised?

I would add major price rises at car parks at stations on boundaries of London.

The more I think about all this the more I come to the conclusion that divisive parochial institutions like the Mayor of London should be abolished.

London and the south-east complement each other, and having an artificial barrier round London is proving disastrous, to people with interests both sides of it.

Another problem which ultimately traces back to a certain Anthony Blair’s government.

 

[AlbertBeale]

The last quoted data I saw put it around 60% of households without a car, ie a majority. Were else is that the case?

And remember that the proportion of people without use of a car is much higher than the proportion of households without one. It's common for a car to be used for a commute, say, and for several other people in the same family/household then to use public transport for their journeys. So cutting road provision for private cars, in lieu of public transport, cycleways, etc, is actually a good option in London. Indeed, it was said that it was precisely because such a large proportion of Londoners didn't rely on - or even use - private cars that Ken Livingstone found it politically possible to introduce the congestion charge; in other places, selfish car-owners would have made it too electorally difficult..

If I was TFL I would:

1. Close the Emirates Air Line temporarily, but investigate selling to a private company.
2. Introduce a nominal charge (Upto £3) for Woolwich Ferry.
3. Reduce services on Circle, H&C, District, and Met lines so that on shared parts of the lines there are fewer services but on unique sections maintain a good service. E.g. Do we need both H&C and District to Barking?
4. Stop Bakerloo Line services from travelling north of Queens Park. It's a cross platform change at Queens Park so easy for people to do.
5. Raise bus prices to £2, and reduce hopper time to a strict 60 minutes rather than 70 minutes. (For example Orpington to Heathrow shouldn't be £1.55 but is possible due to Hopper) £3 bus fares that cross boundaries such as any to Bluewater, Dorking, Redhill, Lakeside, Watford Junction, Slough.
6. Reduce TFL rail services outside of Greater London authority areas unless funding is received from the relevant local authorities.
7. Extend the ULEZ and Congestion Charge to cover the whole of Greater London Authority areas (e.g. all London Boroughs).
8. Remove railcard discounts from Oyster cards (I benefit, but this might save some money).
9. Restrict free travel for under 18s to between 6am and 7pm Monday to Friday. Over times make them pay a fare.
10. Remove travelcard discounts on Uber boats (TfL must be subsidising this - is it needed? No)

Re 2. Isn't there some historic/legal obligation to provide a free ferry for passengers at Woolwich? Isn't that why it has always been free??

I cant see any line closing, the protests would be large from the affected areas! Maybe terminate the Met at Rickmansworth and longer chiltern trains, terminate piccadilly at Rayners Lane, h&c at whitechapel. Richmond branch of the district could maybe go. Hainault to woodford back to rush hours only.

There's now nowhere to turn back trains at Whitechapel - the extra platforms which used to be used for precisely that were lost when the station was remodelled to make space to build lifts etc for the link to Crossrail below.

The more I think about all this the more I come to the conclusion that divisive parochial institutions like the Mayor of London should be abolished.

London and the south-east complement each other, and having an artificial barrier round London is proving disastrous, to people with interests both sides of it.

Another problem which ultimately traces back to a certain Anthony Blair’s government.

It would be silly for there not to be some overall body to co-ordinate things like transport within a conurbation like Greater London, though of course the precise boundary is a matter of debate. But wherever the boundary was there'd be a risk of anomalies ... it's inevitable.

The problem was not the invention of the GLA-plus-Mayor by Blair but the scrapping by Thatcher of its predecessor the GLC (of which the GLA is a pale and less useful imitation).

 

[Envy123]

Hampstead Garden Suburb had (I’m not sure if it still has) poor bus links to a tube station. Felt that I needed to drive to get anywhere else if I lived there.

A shame if one couldn’t park and ride to get to central London more easily.

 

[gaillark]

Two or three buses to the station? Exactly where in the built up area of London requires that?

London is an increasingly anti-car city (and rightly so), so I don't think the removal of these car parks is wrong at all. It is simply incomparable with large regional InterCity stations outside London where public transport is poor or non-existent.

If they are providing parking for anything at Tube stations, it should be genuinely secure parking for bicycles and e-bikes, like the Dutch "bewaakte Fietsenstallingen" with staff there to monitor everything, even if at a fee.

@Bletchleyite
You don't live in London. Its common in the outer suburbs that you need to take two buses or three for your route. As example to get to Woodford would need to get 97 and change onto 179.
It all depends on your destination and how long it takes.

Bicycle parking only? Outer London suburbs do need car parks. You seem to forget something. Parking = revenue. something TfL is a bit short of.

 

[bussnapperwm]

@Bletchleyite
You don't live in London. Its common in the outer suburbs that you need to take two buses or three for your route. As example to get to Woodford would need to get 97 and change onto 179.
It all depends on your destination and how long it takes.

Bicycle parking only - are you communist? Outer London suburbs do need car parks. You seem to forget something. Parking = revenue. something TfL is a bit short of.

But remember public car parks are Borough not TfL controlled

 

[Bletchleyite]

You don't live in London. Its common in the outer suburbs that you need to take two buses or three for your route. As example to get to Woodford would need to get 97 and change onto 179.

Woodford has a station so you don't need to take any buses to get to one, try again. The question was where in London requires two or three buses to reach the station, i.e. the nearest one, not central London.

I just recognise that London is and needs to be increasingly anti car.

 

[Busaholic]

If a line were to close, my suggestion would be the Uxbridge branch of the Met. The peak hour Piccadilly could continue to serve the stations from there to Rayners Lane, the West Ruislip branch of the Central is close, as is Uxbridge to West Drayton, with its (by then) Crossrail trains. The Jubilee could take some of the traffic northwards from Baker Street, and Harrow-on-the-Hill would still have a very good service southbound. Might just concentrate the mind of Uxbridge's MP when his constituents kick off. Just leave the Jubilee alone!

 

[ChiefPlanner]

If a line were to close, my suggestion would be the Uxbridge branch of the Met. The peak hour Piccadilly could continue to serve the stations from there to Rayners Lane, the West Ruislip branch of the Central is close, as is Uxbridge to West Drayton, with its (by then) Crossrail trains. The Jubilee could take some of the traffic northwards from Baker Street, and Harrow-on-the-Hill would still have a very good service southbound. Might just concentrate the mind of Uxbridge's MP when his constituents kick off. Just leave the Jubilee alone!

Clever move ! - who knows who the MP is ?

(My real mind seems to think the Uxbridge line has the heaviest "suburban" traffic on the Met - therefore greatest impact and reaction)

Cannot take closing tube lines seriously - all brinkmanship. Some solid thinning out of the many fresh air trains off peak to places like Stanmore and Watford Met, (other termini are available) would show some willing to cut costs.

 

[Busaholic]

Clever move ! - who knows who the MP is ?

(My real mind seems to think the Uxbridge line has the heaviest "suburban" traffic on the Met - therefore greatest impact and reaction)

Cannot take closing tube lines seriously - all brinkmanship. Some solid thinning out of the many fresh air trains off peak to places like Stanmore and Watford Met, (other termini are available) would show some willing to cut costs.

Absolutely agree. I was playing Devil's Advocate, but would certainly put it forward as a possibility for political purposes if push came to shove in any negotiations. Oh, just remembered, and of course the new Battersea extension.

 

[AlbertBeale]

Absolutely agree. I was playing Devil's Advocate, but would certainly put it forward as a possibility for political purposes if push came to shove in any negotiations. Oh, just remembered, and of course the new Battersea extension.

Close the Battersea extension - yes yes yes!!

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Absolutely agree. I was playing Devil's Advocate, but would certainly put it forward as a possibility for political purposes if push came to shove in any negotiations. Oh, just remembered, and of course the new Battersea extension.

Would certainly rattle the cage , and create a wonderful postbag for him. Doubt he has ever travelled on the line.

Knocking out Chesham and Amersham might have been another one , had not a recent change in representation changed the political map. Battersea another good one.

None of this would ever happen , but good sport.

 

[bramling]

If a line were to close, my suggestion would be the Uxbridge branch of the Met. The peak hour Piccadilly could continue to serve the stations from there to Rayners Lane, the West Ruislip branch of the Central is close, as is Uxbridge to West Drayton, with its (by then) Crossrail trains. The Jubilee could take some of the traffic northwards from Baker Street, and Harrow-on-the-Hill would still have a very good service southbound. Might just concentrate the mind of Uxbridge's MP when his constituents kick off. Just leave the Jubilee alone!

Love it! If Khan could actually pull that one off, I'd actually start to like him.

 

[bussnapperwm]

Would certainly rattle the cage , and create a wonderful postbag for him. Doubt he has ever travelled on the line.

Knocking out Chesham and Amersham might have been another one , had not a recent change in representation changed the political map. Battersea another good one.

None of this would ever happen , but good sport.

Just withdraw all bike services from Uxbridge and South Ruislip

 

[Bletchleyite]

Just withdraw all bike services from Uxbridge and South Ruislip

Bike services? Do you mean Santander cycles? I thought they paid the losses of those, not TfL.

 

[bussnapperwm]

Bike services? Do you mean Santander cycles? I thought they paid the losses of those, not TfL.

Yeah but who's the member for Uxbridge (and self announced cycle enthusiast and self proclaimed inventor of the scheme)...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yeah but who's the dishonourable member for Uxbridge (and self announced cycle enthusiast and self proclaimed inventor of the scheme)...

Ah

Yes, self-proclaimed. The scheme was well under development before his mayoralty, so in a way they are actually Uncle Ken's Pushbikes or somesuch

 

[hkstudent]

Re your bullet 6 why only TfL rail services? What about Underground services outside Greater London? Why should Essex, for example, fares be subsidised?

I would add major price rises at car parks at stations on boundaries of London.

LU services out of Greater London are subsidised by the local authorities. Most notably, Central Line Essex section are heavily subsidised by Essex and hence Epping is being in zone 6, not zone 9 like Amersham.

Close the Battersea extension - yes yes yes!!

TfL cannot. It was with funding agreement from the Battersea Development Corporation to keep a minimum number of services there.

 

[Busaholic]

Ah

Yes, self-proclaimed. The scheme was well under development before his mayoralty, so in a way they are actually Uncle Ken's Pushbikes or somesuch

And, of course, were sponsored by Barclays Bank at the start: maybe they decided they no longer wanted to be associated with Eton's finest.

 

[AlbertBeale]

And, of course, were sponsored by Barclays Bank at the start: maybe they decided they no longer wanted to be associated with Eton's finest.

The TfL hire bikes don't go out as far as Ruislip/Uxbridge, unfortunately. They don't go very far beyond central London at all in fact, in most directions ... and there are a few glaring gaps in provision that need filling in even there.

 

[rebmcr]

The TfL hire bikes don't go out as far as Ruislip/Uxbridge, unfortunately. They don't go very far beyond central London at all in fact, in most directions ... and there are a few glaring gaps in provision that need filling in even there.

I saw a man riding one in central Cambridge once.

 

[Recessio]

The more I think about all this the more I come to the conclusion that divisive parochial institutions like the Mayor of London should be abolished.

London and the south-east complement each other, and having an artificial barrier round London is proving disastrous, to people with interests both sides of it.

The boundaries of Greater London were drawn up nearly 50 years ago, and even then didn't include all the the contiguous urban sprawl where Tory voters didn't want to be considered in London (look at areas like most of NE Surrey such as Epsom, Ewell, Staines, Shepperton. Same in Chigwell, Knockholt, Dartford).

Would make much more sense to enlarge (or in the case of North Ockendon, shrink) Greater London's boundary to the be the utterly inescapable physical barrier of the M25.

In one way I wish Blair's (well, Prescott's) regional assemblies hadn't fallen through, then we could have better coordination between London and the rest of the SE over transport and funding issues.

I saw a man riding one in central Cambridge once.

I've seen a video of a bloke riding one in Scotland, declaring "Am on a stealers!"

 

[bramling]

Ah

Yes, self-proclaimed. The scheme was well under development before his mayoralty, so in a way they are actually Uncle Ken's Pushbikes or somesuch

Much as I’m not a fan of Ken (and even less so after some of the odd stuff that’s happened since he left office), he did at least have some practicable ideas.

The London mayor position has gone *very* stale since, firstly with Johnson, and even more so under Khan. Likewise the opposition candidates are just as dire, Bailey in particular.

Without wishing to keep playing the same record, with the standard now being *so* low, and with little prospect of it picking up, what on earth is the point of the whole thing?

 

[bussnapperwm]

The TfL hire bikes don't go out as far as Ruislip/Uxbridge, unfortunately. They don't go very far beyond central London at all in fact, in most directions ... and there are a few glaring gaps in provision that need filling in even there.

Damn. OK, withdraw all buses from there. Especially if they're a certain type introduced under the member for that area

 

[AlbertBeale]

The boundaries of Greater London were drawn up nearly 50 years ago, and even then didn't include all the the contiguous urban sprawl where Tory voters didn't want to be considered in London (look at areas like most of NE Surrey such as Epsom, Ewell, Staines, Shepperton. Same in Chigwell, Knockholt, Dartford).

Would make much more sense to enlarge (or in the case of North Ockendon, shrink) Greater London's boundary to the be the utterly inescapable physical barrier of the M25.

In one way I wish Blair's (well, Prescott's) regional assemblies hadn't fallen through, then we could have better coordination between London and the rest of the SE over transport and funding issues.

Nearly 60 years ago, in fact - current [give or take an odd acre] Greater London became a unit in 1965.

Yes - some places kicked up a fuss about being administratively in Greater London rather than in, eg, Surrey ... hence the silly shape at the bottom of the borough of Kingston.

Much as I’m not a fan of Ken (and even less so after some of the odd stuff that’s happened since he left office), he did at least have some practicable ideas.

The London mayor position has gone *very* stale since, firstly with Johnson, and even more so under Khan. Likewise the opposition candidates are just as dire, Bailey in particular.

Without wishing to keep playing the same record, with the standard now being *so* low, and with little prospect of it picking up, what on earth is the point of the whole thing?

Yes - Ken's bikes and the congestion charge were great initiatives. (His lethal-to-cyclists bendy bus - known as the free bus in some areas - on the other hand...) And some of the (especially transport) things he'd done years earlier when he led the GLC were excellent too.

The GLA problem is more to do with the structure - ie an executive mayor, with the assembly members having almost no power, compared with a normal council with committees and so on as in the old GLC. When the London referendum was being held to approve the reintroduction of a GLC/GLA-type body, there was a campaign to vote yes for an assembly but no to a mayor (and a few Tories calling for the opposite combination). When it seemed at least possible that a vote might result in "assembly - yes" and "mayor - no", the relevant legislation was changed so that you only got one vote for the overall package (ie both assembly and mayor, or neither). There were quite a lot of spoilt papers.

 

[birchesgreen]

Someone did post that the Bakerloo could simply get a share of the Piccadilly fleet, with the latter line having a scaled-down timetable, and thinking about it I wouldn’t be surprised to see this eventually happen. It isn’t ideal, but it solves the problem.

Why on Earth would you go through the expense of transferring stock to a line that are at best a couple of years younger (and are longer anyway so probably won't fit)? Makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[brstd4260]

They will cough up, but we wait to see what conditions will be attached this time. It’s pretty much a given that there will be something in there designed to shaft Khan

....and that's a problem because...?