TFL & "Managed Decline"

[Snow1964]

Reminds me of the Yes Minister episode with the empty hospital running at perfect efficiency.

Tbf, TfL won't be far off this if they had ended up issuing a s104. What was it, school buses, dial-a-ride and the Woolwich Ferry only left operating?

You mean section 114 Local Government Act

s104 is about disqualification of membership of committees

 

[daodao]

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.

The recent change in representation for the Chesham and Amersham constituency would make it the ideal area to reduce LU services. The Tories would support it to teach the electorate a lesson, Labour (who run London) have no love for the Lib Dems, and TfL aren't really concerned with services outwith Greater London, that have alternative rail services (Chiltern).

Leaving aside the politics, in the longer term, there needs to be some rationalisation/integration of Chiltern/Metropolitan line service provision beyond Harrow-on-the-Hill in the Pinner direction. The Metropolitan line should be left as Uxbridge-Aldgate, with services from Pinner and beyond re-designated as a separate line and only extended during Mon-Fri daytime (0700-1900) east of Baker Street.

In other areas, could not the service frequency be reduced on outer sections of LU. For example, is there really a need for 18 tph to run off peak as far as Cockfosters on the Piccadilly line?

 

[Hadders]

The recent change in representation for the Chesham and Amersham constituency would make it the ideal area to reduce LU services. The Tories would support it to teach the electorate a lesson, Labour (who run London) have no love for the Lib Dems, and TfL aren't really concerned with services outwith Greater London, that have alternative rail services (Chiltern). In the longer term, there needs to be some rationalisation/integration of Chiltern/Metropolitan line service provision beyond Harrow-on-the-Hill in the Pinner direction. The Metropolitan line should be left as Uxbridge-Aldgate, with services from Pinner and beyond re-designated as a separate line and only extended during Mon-Fri daytime (0700-1900) east of Baker Street.

How about forgetting politics and running train services that passengers need?

 

[matt_world2004]

The recent change in representation for the Chesham and Amersham constituency would make it the ideal area to reduce LU services. The Tories would support it to teach the electorate a lesson, Labour (who run London) have no love for the Lib Dems, and TfL aren't really concerned with services outwith Greater London, that have alternative rail services (Chiltern).

Leaving aside the politics, in the longer term, there needs to be some rationalisation/integration of Chiltern/Metropolitan line service provision beyond Harrow-on-the-Hill in the Pinner direction. The Metropolitan line should be left as Uxbridge-Aldgate, with services from Pinner and beyond re-designated as a separate line and only extended during Mon-Fri daytime (0700-1900) east of Baker Street.

In other areas, could not the service frequency be reduced on outer sections of LU. For example, is there really a need for 18 tph to run off peak as far as Cockfosters on the Piccadilly line?

Cutting services that cross the greater london boundary would substantially weaken tfls case for future devolution for national rail services

Secondly it costs roughly the same amount of money to run an Amersham-Baker Street service than an uxbridge -Baker Street service. Yet substantially higher fares are charged for the Amersham service.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Cutting services that cross the greater london boundary would substantially weaken tfls case for future devolution for national rail services

Secondly it costs roughly the same amount of money to run an Amersham-Baker Street service than an uxbridge -Baker Street service. Yet substantially higher fares are charged for the Amersham service.

I recall , around 1999 the costs were estimated at about £17 per service train mile. Generally over the whole network.

There used to be some supplementary funding from "counties" for the services at the network extremities , no idea if that still applies.

As I said before , I doubt there will be massive cuts , particularly in well heeled , well connected and articulate communities. However ..........

 

[ScottGallagher]

What other strings could be attached to any future bailout, no doubt driverless trains will come up like the proverbial bad penny but that's pure fantasy due to the cost of conversion when there's no money.

 

[CyrusWuff]

What other strings could be attached to any future bailout, no doubt driverless trains will come up like the proverbial bad penny but that's pure fantasy due to the cost of conversion when there's no money.

Potentially dumping the bus "Hopper" facility and bringing Oyster/contactless fares up to the same price as paper tickets (which, based on what the Tram Single was before they were withdrawn, would probably be around £2.80 or so for bus and tram fares).

 

[matt_world2004]

I recall , around 1999 the costs were estimated at about £17 per service train mile. Generally over the whole network.

There used to be some supplementary funding from "counties" for the services at the network extremities , no idea if that still applies.

As I said before , I doubt there will be massive cuts , particularly in well heeled , well connected and articulate communities. However ..........

Aren't the costs though mainly based on journey time. It is a similar journey time from Amersham to HotH as it is from Uxbridge to HotH.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Potentially dumping the bus "Hopper" facility and bringing Oyster/contactless fares up to the same price as paper tickets (which, based on what the Tram Single was before they were withdrawn, would probably be around £2.80 or so for bus and tram fares).

Once again, the Hopper facility is there not to save passengers money, but to allow duplication to be removed in the bus network. The fare should probably go up to about £2.50, though.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Aren't the costs though mainly based on journey time. It is a similar journey time from Amersham to HotH as it is from Uxbridge to HotH.

By "costs" I was referring to actual operational etc costs (admittedly per mile spread over the network as it was then) - nothing to do with journey costs as raised by Oyster or whatever.

 

[leytongabriel]

Whenever I've been on them ( off-peak) there haven't been many people on the outer part of the TfL stopping service to Shenfield.
Case perhaps for alternate off-peak trains to terminate at Gidea Park? Sorry I know it's not Underground, but we are talking about TfL finances.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Whenever I've been on them ( off-peak) there haven't been many people on the outer part of the TfL stopping service to Shenfield.
Case perhaps for alternate off-peak trains to terminate at Gidea Park? Sorry I know it's not Underground, but we are talking about TfL finances.

A very fair comment - services that were brought in at marginal costs by Great Eastern , but an obvious candidate for review if things are tight financially.

 

[Busaholic]

Potentially dumping the bus "Hopper" facility

Sadiq Khan would never agree to that while he was still Mayor, seeing as it was such an important plank of his first manifesto.

 

[camflyer]

Potentially dumping the bus "Hopper" facility and bringing Oyster/contactless fares up to the same price as paper tickets (which, based on what the Tram Single was before they were withdrawn, would probably be around £2.80 or so for bus and tram fares).

Personally I find the Hopp fare to be very useful - especially if you jump on a bus and realise it is the wrong one so you can get off at the next stop before catching the right bus. However, I'd possibly reduce the "unlimited" number of hops to 2 or 3.

I know Londoners won't like it but I think there is scope for increasing the single fare. £1.55 for a single journey for a service which runs every few minutes is cheaper than the rest of the country could dream about.

 

[Busaholic]

I know Londoners won't like it but I think there is scope for increasing the single fare. £1.55 for a single journey for a service which runs every few minutes is cheaper than the rest of the country could dream about.

A necessity imo.

 

[Craig1122]

Everybody here very keen to put the single bus fare up by varying amounts. Yes it could probably take a small increase, but not sure if people have noticed what's happened in many other areas of the country where bus fares are so expensive that paying customers have abandoned them and they exist mainly for school runs and concession pass holders.

People seem to be assuming that if you increase fares then passenger numbers will stay the same. They won't, you'll be left with a lower numbers and the same central overheads. Reading is an interesting comparison as it's also in effect a not for profit network. £2 single/£2.50 hopper/£4 day. So a bit more than London for single journeys, a bit less for the day.

Similar for many of the crayonista suggestions here. They're likely to just leave you with less revenue in exchange for the reduction in operating costs. So back to square one.

Discussion earlier about cross border services, as per this article Tfl were already seeking local authority contributions even pre covid (Surrey in this case). As has been pointed out up thread that's something that can usually only happen when it's contract renewal time:

TfL faces £1billion loss

LOOK IN ON LONDON Reports carried by the BBC and The Financial...

www.keybuses.com

 

[Recessio]

You mean section 114 Local Government Act

s104 is about disqualification of membership of committees

I do indeed, thank you for the correction

There used to be some supplementary funding from "counties" for the services at the network extremities , no idea if that still applies.

If I recall correctly, Essex subsidise the eastern end of the Central to be Greater London prices (ie in Zones 1-6 not 7+).

 

[The Ham]

Everybody here very keen to put the single bus fare up by varying amounts. Yes it could probably take a small increase, but not sure if people have noticed what's happened in many other areas of the country where bus fares are so expensive that paying customers have abandoned them and they exist mainly for school runs and concession pass holders.

People seem to be assuming that if you increase fares then passenger numbers will stay the same. They won't, you'll be left with a lower numbers and the same central overheads. Reading is an interesting comparison as it's also in effect a not for profit network. £2 single/£2.50 hopper/£4 day. So a bit more than London for single journeys, a bit less for the day.

Similar for many of the crayonista suggestions here. They're likely to just leave you with less revenue in exchange for the reduction in operating costs. So back to square one.

Discussion earlier about cross border services, as per this article Tfl were already seeking local authority contributions even pre covid (Surrey in this case). As has been pointed out up thread that's something that can usually only happen when it's contract renewal time:

TfL faces £1billion loss

LOOK IN ON LONDON Reports carried by the BBC and The Financial...

www.keybuses.com

TfL had about £5bn in fare income pre Covid, if they are now about £1bn sort even if you could retain all your customers you'd need to increase that back from £4bn to £5bn, so a £1.55 fare would been to increase to £1.95 (£1.9375) however you would almost certainly reduce customer numbers with such a significant rise in price. Which means either rising it more or still having a shortfall.

If you are looking to increase income you are better off doubling the income from congestion charges, as if people stop paying that they'll likely be using public transport so your income increases anyway.

However even if more cycle that would reduce congestion, which then reduces the costs of running the bus services, so you still win.

Whilst many car drivers will be grumpy about it, unfortunately it's the only outcome where you can be sure that income will rise. Unless there's another viable option which can be put forwards.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Everybody here very keen to put the single bus fare up by varying amounts. Yes it could probably take a small increase, but not sure if people have noticed what's happened in many other areas of the country where bus fares are so expensive that paying customers have abandoned them and they exist mainly for school runs and concession pass holders.

London is different from everywhere else in the UK in being so anti-car. The main reason people don't use buses elsewhere in the UK is because the car is (often massively) quicker, not because the fares are expensive.

Of course free does serve as an encouragement, but that requires it to be actually free. Notice how most people don't take carrier bags now they are 10p. 10p won't make much of a dent in anyone's wallet, but it costing something rather than nothing is enough to make people think.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Not surprisingly , the Sunday Times business section carries an article on this ....on the prospect / requirement of a bailout in 2 stages.

 

[Cbob]

London is different from everywhere else in the UK in being so anti-car. The main reason people don't use buses elsewhere in the UK is because the car is (often massively) quicker, not because the fares are expensive.

Of course free does serve as an encouragement, but that requires it to be actually free. Notice how most people don't take carrier bags now they are 10p. 10p won't make much of a dent in anyone's wallet, but it costing something rather than nothing is enough to make people think.

London is very different from much of the rest of the UK in its density meaning that cars are not an option for many journeys (and rightly so). Although I think that tube and bus fares are already expensive, fares could be put up significantly without a huge dent in ridership. I imagine why Khan presumably resists this is because it would affect those who can't work from home (a large proportion of his core supporters) significantly more than those who can.

 

[JonathanH]

I imagine why Khan presumably resists this is because it would affect those who can't work from home (a large proportion of his core supporters) significan

This can be dealt with though - key workers and those on lower income could be made eligible for a discount in fares and fares could be increased for everyone else.

 

[johncrossley]

How are other big cities around the world dealing with reduced patronage as a result of the pandemic? Unless patronage has recovered, and if so, how?

 

[deltic]

How are other big cities around the world dealing with reduced patronage as a result of the pandemic? Unless patronage has recovered, and if so, how?

Paris Metro significantly reduced services operating and closed quite a lot of stations during major lockdowns. Figures I saw from earlier in the year suggested demand on many European metro systems recovered faster than in London, home working does not seem to have taken off so much as here.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This can be dealt with though - key workers and those on lower income could be made eligible for a discount in fares and fares could be increased for everyone else.

Agreed. Indeed, this could allow removal of the bizarre system of "Tube for the rich, bus for the poor" by instead offering those of limited means a discount on all modes, allowing further removal of bus routes where they duplicate the Tube, and charging those with greater means a higher price.

Integrating fares isn't just about making it easier for people. Where you have a big rapid transit rail system, as London does, and one that after the near death of office commuting is no longer chock-full, you might as well use it and thus turn buses into purely a means of connecting people to it, give or take some central London routes for accessibility reasons.

 

[camflyer]

How are other big cities around the world dealing with reduced patronage as a result of the pandemic? Unless patronage has recovered, and if so, how?

Isn't the problem with TfL not just the pandemic but the double whammy of a delay to the expected income from Crossrail?

 

[philosopher]

How are other big cities around the world dealing with reduced patronage as a result of the pandemic? Unless patronage has recovered, and if so, how?

Most other urban public transport systems are far less dependent on fares then London, so reduced patronage will have a proportional lesser impact.

 

[SynthD]

How are other big cities around the world dealing with reduced patronage as a result of the pandemic? Unless patronage has recovered, and if so, how?

They didn't go into the pandemic being used as a political football, therefore came out of it in a better position, cushioned by greater central government funding.

 

[Acton1991]

I have a real issue with raising bus fares - the bus is generally ridden by those who are less well-off, and by charging them more money, it will push them further down the poverty line.

And I don’t believe the argument that key workers and such could receive lower fares - how would this work in practise? TfL can even register railcards to your contactless card, or give the western section of Crossrail Oyster zones, let alone manage a two-tiered fare system. Who checks income for eligibility? Where does it start and stop? It wouldn’t work.

 

[Busaholic]

,
And I don’t believe the argument that key workers and such could receive lower fares - how would this work in practise? TfL can even register railcards to your contactless card, or give the western section of Crossrail Oyster zones, let alone manage a two-tiered fare system. Who checks income for eligibility? Where does it start and stop? It wouldn’t work.

I agree with you on that (assume you meant can't rather than can!) A bit like when Nick Clegg proposed means testing bus passes, a process which would have cost a fortune and effectively sealed their eventual doom.