TFL & "Managed Decline"

[johncrossley]

Having said that, the Hopper fare is perhaps over-generous where multiple changes are involved - I was staying in SE London recently, needed to visit Lewisham for a couple of things and Catford for something else, and I managed to do the whole lot within one single fare (I must have got on the bus 'home' from Catford at about 59 minutes after starting.)

Some places don't allow you to return with a single ticket. For example in Paris with the t+ ticket, you can only change onto a route with a different route number.

 

[Roger1973]

Some places don't allow you to return with a single ticket. For example in Paris with the t+ ticket, you can only change onto a route with a different route number.

That seems reasonable enough in theory.

Although in practice it might be complicated. There are some return journeys that can be made by a different route along the same roads, so the tech might not be able to cope with all the options (e.g. Eltham Green to Lewisham on a 321 then back on an eastbound 122 would be a return journey, but Eltham High Street to Lewisham on a 321 then on to Ladywell on a westbound 122 would be a legitimate transfer.)

 

[johncrossley]

That seems reasonable enough in theory.

Although in practice it might be complicated. There are some return journeys that can be made by a different route along the same roads, so the tech might not be able to cope with all the options (e.g. Eltham Green to Lewisham on a 321 then back on an eastbound 122 would be a return journey, but Eltham High Street to Lewisham on a 321 then on to Ladywell on a westbound 122 would be a legitimate transfer.)

Yes the Paris method doesn't block all returns. In other places they just have a rule that you can't travel towards where you started, which can only be detected by a manual check by an inspector.

 

[Wolfie]

The Hopper fare was well overdue anyway. It's standard practice in cities overseas to be able to change between buses (and other modes) without penalty within a certain time eg, an hour.

Absolutely

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Tfl funding extension rolled over to 4th Feb as per DofT press release

Following my statement to the House on 13 December 2021, I am updating the House on a 7 week extension of the current Transport for London funding settlement that was due to expire on 17 December 2021. The Mayor of London and I have agreed to extend the current settlement to 4 February 2022.

We have thus far supported London with over £4 billion funding and these extraordinary funding settlements for Transport for London recognise the reliance of London’s transport network on fare revenue, and government’s commitment now and in the future to mitigating loss of fare revenue because of the pandemic. This extension has provided certainty to Transport for London and to Londoners over the Christmas and New Year period whilst also allowing government and Transport for London to monitor and adapt to the impact of the Omicron variant of the virus.

The extended settlement will continue to support the capital and its transport network – on the same terms as previously agreed – until 4 February 2022, when government expects there to be a new funding settlement in place. The extension letter also includes amendments to the current settlement relating to fares and the Hammersmith bridge ferry.

On 15 December 2021, the Department for Transport received further information and specificity from the Mayor of London relating to his proposals, set out in his letter of 8 December 2021, to raise new income of between £0.5 billion and £1 billion in line with the commitment agreed under the June 2021 emergency settlement. The original deadline for this information was 12 November 2021. Following receipt of the Mayor of London’s 15 December 2021 letter, the government is satisfied that at this stage he has provided sufficient information on his proposals. We have therefore agreed to extend the current Transport for London settlement from 17 December 2021 to 4 February 2022 so that government is able to fully consider these proposals.

The government is committed to supporting London and the transport network on which it depends, whilst balancing that with supporting the national transport network as a whole.

 

[Horizon22]

This government is incapable of doing anything long-term it seems. Lurching from extension to extension.

Interesting to see the Hammersmith Bridge issue lumped in though!

 

[Mojo]

Interesting to see the Hammersmith Bridge issue lumped in though!

Presumably this is the official scrapping of the ferry which was announced at the end of last year (despite £400,000 being spent on feasibility, planning applications for piers, allocation of NLCs for the piers to enable Oyster/CPC charging), rendered useless as the bridge itself reopened to pedestrians last summer.

 

[Horizon22]

Presumably this is the official scrapping of the ferry which was announced at the end of last year (despite £400,000 being spent on feasibility, planning applications for piers, allocation of NLCs for the piers to enable Oyster/CPC charging), rendered useless as the bridge itself reopened to pedestrians last summer.

The whole Hammersmith Bridge is a farce and again, another bit of political football for Labour London vs Tory Government. I did see in December '21 though they did come up with a £8.9mn plan to fix it shared amongst TfL / government / council (although nothing for vehciles)

 

[Goldfish62]

The whole Hammersmith Bridge is a farce and again, another bit of political football for Labour London vs Tory Government. I did see in December '21 though they did come up with a £8.9mn plan to fix it shared amongst TfL / government / council (although nothing for vehciles)

The whole thing has been a complete and utter farce for the past 30+ years not helped by the IRA trying unsuccessfully twice to blow the bridge up.

 

[leytongabriel]

The Hopper fare was well overdue anyway. It's standard practice in cities overseas to be able to change between buses (and other modes) without penalty within a certain time eg, an hour.

It was long awaited. Floated by the LibDems at one election and then taken up by Labour. More cynically it will enable TfL to say that passengers won't be penalised fare-wise by bus cuts as they did when informing bus 48 users they could take a 55 and hop on a 388 at Shoreditch instead.

 

[Goldfish62]

It was long awaited. Floated by the LibDems at one election and then taken up by Labour. More cynically it will enable TfL to say that passengers won't be penalised fare-wise by bus cuts as they did when informing bus 48 users they could take a 55 and hop on a 388 at Shoreditch instead.

Correct!

 

[Busaholic]

It was long awaited. Floated by the LibDems at one election and then taken up by Labour. More cynically it will enable TfL to say that passengers won't be penalised fare-wise by bus cuts as they did when informing bus 48 users they could take a 55 and hop on a 388 at Shoreditch instead.

Still wouldn't get them to London Bridge!

 

[duncanp]

I bet the Waterloo - Holborn - Euston corridor is next for service cuts "rationalisation".

Wouldn't mind betting that at least one of the 59 and 68, or possibly both, is terminated at Waterloo.

No doubt there will be a lot of guff about "same stop interchange", but the people who sit in offices making these decisions don't realise that changing buses on what used to be a through journey is inconvenient for people, especially those with mobility issues or luggage, or those who are simply unfamiliar with the system.

 

[ScottGallagher]

I bet the Waterloo - Holborn - Euston corridor is next for service cuts "rationalisation".

Wouldn't mind betting that at least one of the 59 and 68, or possibly both, is terminated at Waterloo.

No doubt there will be a lot of guff about "same stop interchange", but the people who sit in offices making these decisions don't realise that changing buses on what used to be a through journey is inconvenient for people, especially those with mobility issues or luggage, or those who are simply unfamiliar with the system.

The 'consultation' on the 168 ends today so that may go this year and be merged with the 1. As the 59 and 68 both terminate at Euston , if terminated at Waterloo together as well then one of them may as well go too and be merged.

 

[Goldfish62]

No doubt there will be a lot of guff about "same stop interchange", but the people who sit in offices making these decisions don't realise that changing buses on what used to be a through journey is inconvenient for people, especially those with mobility issues or luggage, or those who are simply unfamiliar with the system.

They do realise.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

No doubt there will be a lot of guff about "same stop interchange", but the people who sit in offices making these decisions don't realise that changing buses on what used to be a through journey is inconvenient for people, especially those with mobility issues or luggage, or those who are simply unfamiliar with the system.

They do realise, however they also have a budget to meet.

 

[duncanp]

They do realise, however they also have a budget to meet.

....which would be a lot easier to meet if they hasn't frozen fares on the buses and tube for the past four years.

 

[bakerstreet]

....which would be a lot easier to meet if they hasn't frozen fares on the buses and tube for the past four years.

This is true altho City Hall says the fares freeze is paid for in full by tfl efficiencies and during the fare freeze TfL lost around 600/700m- a tiny fraction of what it lost when c.90 per cent of fare box revenue went due to Covid travel changes.

Not saying a fare freeze was the right or wrong political decision but I certainly benefitted from it for a time.

 

[Busaholic]

I bet the Waterloo - Holborn - Euston corridor is next for service cuts "rationalisation".

Wouldn't mind betting that at least one of the 59 and 68, or possibly both, is terminated at Waterloo.

No doubt there will be a lot of guff about "same stop interchange", but the people who sit in offices making these decisions don't realise that changing buses on what used to be a through journey is inconvenient for people, especially those with mobility issues or luggage, or those who are simply unfamiliar with the system.

If that were to happen to the 59 it would in effect just become a short version of the 159, a very poor result considering the success of the 59 in bringing new custom to buses from the Streatham/Brixton areas: if anything, it should be re-extended to Kings Cross, but it won't be. The 468 could be extended from Elephant to Waterloo and the 68 withdrawn. Personally, I'd then renumber 468 as 68 and introduce peak shorts to West Norwood (with Hopper fare there really should be no reason why scheduled short workings continue to be outlawed by TfL.) Consideration to introducing a between peak Monday to Friday service on the X68, every 20 minutes, would also be part of the package - I see no reason why this wouldn't be a success.

 

[JonathanH]

The 468 could be extended from Elephant to Waterloo and the 68 withdrawn. Personally, I'd then renumber 468 as 68 and introduce peak shorts to West Norwood (with Hopper fare there really should be no reason why scheduled short workings continue to be outlawed by TfL.) Consideration to introducing a between peak Monday to Friday service on the X68, every 20 minutes, would also be part of the package - I see no reason why this wouldn't be a success.

468 is already too long and arguably should terminate at Tulse Hill or Camberwell Green from the south (and possibly West Croydon Bus Station from the north). No other route from Croydon gets as far north as it does. Until such time as higher fares are charged for express services an all-day X68 would lose money because £1.55 is not enough to charge for West Croydon to Central London. The peak X68 should be changed to start from Norwood Junction. I agree that, in isolation, the 68 can be cancelled.

There are so many places around London where these sort of simplifications could be made to reduce duplications and running miles that cutting 100 routes may not be the disaster it is portrayed as being.

 

[Goldfish62]

....which would be a lot easier to meet if they hasn't frozen fares on the buses and tube for the past four years.

TfL has no say over fares levels. That's the mayor and as already pointed out the freeze resulted in a fraction of the losses that Covid has caused. I wonder how many more times this simple fact has to be pointed out.

 

[Nym]

Except that TfL have been bloated in the wrong places for a long time now.
The assets have run out and there's nothing marketable left to strip.

 

[bramling]

Except that TfL have been bloated in the wrong places for a long time now.
The assets have run out and there's nothing marketable left to strip.

TfL has been bloated from the moment it was created. A horribly political construct, a typical Blair-era creation.

If Johnson really wanted to do something useful, as opposed to playing Eton Debating Society politics, he could ditch TfL and return it to what it was with LT - essentially a provider of transport. He won’t do it of course, firmly in the “too difficult” box.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

TfL has no say over fares levels. That's the mayor and as already pointed out the freeze resulted in a fraction of the losses that Covid has caused. I wonder how many more times this simple fact has to be pointed out.

Yes , obviously , but no freeze on fares pre Covid would have allowed some flexibility / cash to fund some much needed investment in part of the operations. Maybe not a new shiny fleet for say the Bakerloo , but some worthwhile improvements (Piccadilly line resignalling of the very oldest bits for example)

One is reminded partly of the cancellation of the Channel Tunnel project in the early 1970's and the savings were used (apparently) to subsidise ex EU butter imports in the shops. A factor , if true, would have been taken for granted by a few , and forgotten about in weeks.....

 

[Goldfish62]

TfL has been bloated from the moment it was created. A horribly political construct, a typical Blair-era creation.

If Johnson really wanted to do something useful, as opposed to playing Eton Debating Society politics, he could ditch TfL and return it to what it was with LT - essentially a provider of transport. He won’t do it of course, firmly in the “too difficult” box.

I worked for both LT and TfL and as far as I'm concerned it only started going wrong under Johnson. Prior to that were the massive improvements to the bus network, the inception of London Overground and Congestion Charging. He cancelled the western extension of the Congestion Charging zone to please his Borough mates, cancelled the cross-river tram, halted further expansion of DLR and Tramlink and instead wasted money on that stupid bus and ill-conceived and rushed cycling schemes. Unfortunately the current mayor has not been wishy-washy at best.

 

[AlbertBeale]

If that were to happen to the 59 it would in effect just become a short version of the 159, a very poor result considering the success of the 59 in bringing new custom to buses from the Streatham/Brixton areas: if anything, it should be re-extended to Kings Cross, but it won't be. The 468 could be extended from Elephant to Waterloo and the 68 withdrawn. Personally, I'd then renumber 468 as 68 and introduce peak shorts to West Norwood (with Hopper fare there really should be no reason why scheduled short workings continue to be outlawed by TfL.) Consideration to introducing a between peak Monday to Friday service on the X68, every 20 minutes, would also be part of the package - I see no reason why this wouldn't be a success.

Yes - the 59 goes to places that none of the other Holborn-Waterloo routes do ... it should be the last to go if de-duplication is the idea. And the 59 cut-back from Kings Cross to Euston has now removed the only direct public transport link between Waterloo and KX/StP - so yes, it should be re-extended.

The 'consultation' on the 168 ends today so that may go this year and be merged with the 1. As the 59 and 68 both terminate at Euston , if terminated at Waterloo together as well then one of them may as well go too and be merged.

The idea seems to be for the 1 to take over the 168 route in the north and centre, with the latter being scrapped, which means that some places at the very southern end of the 168 route will no longer have their current direct service. That will also remove the last bus from Waterloo Bridge which turns left at Holborn to Tottenham Court Road (ie the last northern part of the existing 1 route); to deal with that, they're also proposing to cut back the 188 route from Russell Square, and send that west from Holborn instead - hence reducing even further the number of buses covering part of the major north-south route there.

There are so many places around London where these sort of simplifications could be made to reduce duplications and running miles that cutting 100 routes may not be the disaster it is portrayed as being.

What is a "simplification" to a well-heeled planner looking at neat lines on a map is the exact opposite - a complication (not to mention a significant slowing of the overall journey) - for someone struggling (on account of disability, luggage, kids, shopping, whatever) to make a journey on a wet winter evening. Those "simplifying"/"rationalising" public transport routes rarely seem to have any real-world experience of the struggles of some of those relying on the services.

I worked for both LT and TfL and as far as I'm concerned it only started going wrong under Johnson. Prior to that were the massive improvements to the bus network, the inception of London Overground and Congestion Charging. He cancelled the western extension of the Congestion Charging zone to please his Borough mates, cancelled the cross-river tram, halted further expansion of DLR and Tramlink and instead wasted money on that stupid bus and ill-conceived and rushed cycling schemes. Unfortunately the current mayor has not been wishy-washy at best.

The "stupid" bus was one good thing that happened in that era - while the rear platforms were open, it cut up to 30% off of many end-to-end journey times. But of course bus passengers are not considered important enough for the value of their time to be included in any cost-benefit analysis. The cycling schemes haven't been all bad either - mostly they've been too unambitiions because of fear of alienating car drivers (who shouldn't be in much of London anyway).

 

[matt_world2004]

Yes - the 59 goes to places that none of the other Holborn-Waterloo routes do ... it should be the last to go if de-duplication is the idea. And the 59 cut-back from Kings Cross to Euston has now removed the only direct public transport link between Waterloo and KX/StP - so yes, it should be re-extended.



The idea seems to be for the 1 to take over the 168 route in the north and centre, with the latter being scrapped, which means that some places at

The "stupid" bus was one good thing that happened in that era - while the rear platforms were open, it cut up to 30% off of many end-to-end journey times. But of course bus passengers are not considered important enough for the value of their time to be included in any cost-benefit analysis. The cycling schemes haven't been all bad either - mostly they've been too unambitiions because of fear of alienating car drivers (who shouldn't be in much of London anyway).

Value of time is counted in all planning decisions tfl make. Iirc it was about £7 per hour back in 2019. It might be different now.

It was based on the value that TfL worked out people would be willing to pay to save time (Ie they would be willing to pay an additional £7 to save an hour.

There is also the journey time metric which works out total journey time . And adds penalties for jnterchange into that metric. Wait time is worked out at 1/2 the headway measure ( so a bus with a 7 minute frequency would have a wait time measure of 3.5 minutes )

 

[AlbertBeale]

Value of time is counted in all planning decisions tfl make. Iirc it was about £7 per hour back in 2019. It might be different now.

It was based on the value that TfL worked out people would be willing to pay to save time (Ie they would be willing to pay an additional £7 to save an hour.

There is also the journey time metric which works out total journey time . And adds penalties for jnterchange into that metric. Wait time is worked out at 1/2 the headway measure ( so a bus with a 7 minute frequency would have a wait time measure of 3.5 minutes )

I'm not aware that the person-hours saved by people's ability to hop on and off at traffic lights, and to change routes at junctions without waiting for bus stops, etc, which was possible with open platforms, was ever counted (timings, I thought, were on the assumption that people sat obediently until they reached a bus stop). And even people not personally availing themselves of the hop on and off facility had quicker journeys because of lower bus stop dwell times.

And anyway, counting the value of people's time in terms of what they'd pay for it - well, that of itself undervalues the time of many poor people who have no financial choice; they couldn't afford to pay extra for a quicker journey anyway, which makes their time worthless by that reckoning. If people on trains are richer than people on buses, then a transport provider saving time on a train journey is seen as more valuable than saving time on a bus journey because the time of a passenger on the former is "worth" more. But to the individuals concerned, their time is as important to them as anyone else's. And maybe important to the family they're have less time to care for because their bus journey is slower. And the idea that the need for extra changes is just a matter of counting the extra minutes - no, it's also the stress and discomfort, and (in some cases) the impossibility of then making such a journey at all.

 

[SynthD]

Yes , obviously , but no freeze on fares pre Covid would have allowed some flexibility / cash to fund some much needed investment in part of the operations. Maybe not a new shiny fleet for say the Bakerloo , but some worthwhile improvements (Piccadilly line resignalling of the very oldest bits for example)

Still no I’m afraid, it wasn’t big enough to affect those. The far larger grant that Johnson took away may have made the difference you’re looking for but I doubt it.

 

[Goldfish62]

Yes - the 59 goes to places that none of the other Holborn-Waterloo routes do ... it should be the last to go if de-duplication is the idea. And the 59 cut-back from Kings Cross to Euston has now removed the only direct public transport link between Waterloo and KX/StP - so yes, it should be re-extended.



The idea seems to be for the 1 to take over the 168 route in the north and centre, with the latter being scrapped, which means that some places at the very southern end of the 168 route will no longer have their current direct service. That will also remove the last bus from Waterloo Bridge which turns left at Holborn to Tottenham Court Road (ie the last northern part of the existing 1 route); to deal with that, they're also proposing to cut back the 188 route from Russell Square, and send that west from Holborn instead - hence reducing even further the number of buses covering part of the major north-south route there.

The "stupid" bus was one good thing that happened in that era - while the rear platforms were open, it cut up to 30% off of many end-to-end journey times. But of course bus passengers are not considered important enough for the value of their time to be included in any cost-benefit analysis. The cycling schemes haven't been all bad either - mostly they've been too unambitiions because of fear of alienating car drivers (who shouldn't be in much of London anyway).

You do realise that the superfluous "conductors" on that stupid bus were principally employed to prevent people getting on and off between stops? The whole concept was a ridiculous anachronism viewed through nostalgic rose tinted glasses while costing a disproportionate amount of money. Incidentally, only the first couple of hundred were built with the ability to have open backs. There was never any intention to expand that ludicrous concept any further.

Regarding the cycle schemes they had a significant adverse impact on the bus network. Road user charging is the right way to deter car usage.