thenorthern
Established Member
- Joined
- 27 May 2013
- Messages
- 4,123
All exemptions for low emission and electric vehicles are being gradually phased out and will be gone by 2025
That is good news.
All exemptions for low emission and electric vehicles are being gradually phased out and will be gone by 2025
Which public transport service in the world is not subsidised?Its fair enough to be borrowing to support a capital expenditure shortfall as you are investing in an asset that retains value and potentially generates new revenue but you should never be borrowing money to provide a service.
How about something really radical , abolish the Mayor of London and all the deadweight that comes with it, should save a few quid. As a Londoner it will make zero difference to my life and many others.
Taking TFL back under Government control all depends on the level of control. Spending will be more scrutinised thats for sure.
I doubt TfL has ever covered its operating costs and TfL is not able by law to use borrowing to cover operating expenditureTfL has been operating at a loss on their revenue services for several years and they indeed did nothing to adjust their spending after their austerity cut simply borrowing to plug the shortfall. Bus and tram fares in London are way lower than most of the rest of the country, Underground fares are reasonable, Docklands is a bit expensive but the fare cap means you will be rarely suffering it if you make other journeys as well.
Its fair enough to be borrowing to support a capital expenditure shortfall as you are investing in an asset that retains value and potentially generates new revenue but you should never be borrowing money to provide a service.
Prices by City of One-way Ticket (Local Transport) (Transportation)
See current prices by city. These data are refreshed continuously. It is showing prices for cities for which we have full data set.www.numbeo.com
London is 6th of 33 UK cities by one way ticket price behind
(Prices in USD)
1 Swansea, United Kingdom 4.60 2 Peterborough, United Kingdom 4.54 3 Plymouth, United Kingdom 3.89 4 Manchester, United Kingdom 3.83 5 Portsmouth, United Kingdom 3.70 6 London, United Kingdom 3.68
And 4th by Taxi Start
1 Leicester, United Kingdom 4.15 2 Belfast, United Kingdom 4.02 3 Glasgow, United Kingdom 3.95 4 London, United Kingdom 3.94
The One month season ticket for London isnt really comparable with other cities (user submitted journey from CBD to nearest purely Residential neighbourhood), however its fallen 9% 2018/19 and 16% over the last five years.
As the government is trying to play "divide and rule" concerning London and the rest of the country, maybe London should have a fare surcharge for those living outside London
Phew.... thank god the Tories never did anything like that, like having a dry run in Scotland with the poll taxLooking back with hindsight it’s amazing just how much divisiveness was triggered by some of Tony Blair’s policies.
Londons modal share is already pretty damn good:
Yes it is annoying that they can't change between bus and tube on one ticket, but bus passengers do also benefit from much lower prices. Indeed that's been a deliberate policy, bothAgain, so your solution is to reduce modal share? Your aim ought to be to improvement everywhere. Ruining London is unlikely to make it better outside London.
If there is to be a fare rise in London then they could at least take the opportunity to create a proper integrated multi-modal fare system instead of having distinct fare systems for bus, Tube and National Rail, so it doesn't cost any more to change mode than to stay on the same mode.
Which public transport service in the world is not subsidised?
Yes it is annoying that they can't change between bus and tube on one ticket, but bus passengers do also benefit from much lower prices. Indeed that's been a deliberate policy, both
a) because many bus users are poorer, and
b) to ease pressure on the tube.
With the revenue from the first congestion charge, Ken invested in the bus network. These days TfL seems far more anti bus
Taken together these would both reduce the market for bus travel. The hopper fare helps the bus to remain competitive for some journeys.
Buses and tubes are (or at least should be) completely integrated as one transport system so it is absurd to make one mode cheaper than the other for social reasons. No other big city does this. If people can't afford transport then that should be addressed by having affordable fares across all modes.
Several other do, actually. To name two, in both Merseyside and Greater Manchester, a bus-only season is cheaper than an all-modes one.
It is a curious UK thing, though, and it could do with going away. It perpetuates the idea of duplicating everything with buses; buses should be used to take people to trains if their origin/destination is too far from a station. Traditionally London didn't have the capacity to do that, but post-COVID it may well have.
The hopper fare is much needed and stops people being penalised for having to change bus, but to make it revenue neutral it probably should have come alongside a price increase.
Unless things have changed recently I don't think an "all-modes season" exists in GM at all. The "county card" covers all busses and trains but only the "city zone" of metrolink. The only "all modes" ticket is a 1 day off peak one.Several other do, actually. To name two, in both Merseyside and Greater Manchester, a bus-only season is cheaper than an all-modes one.
Yes it is annoying that they can't change between bus and tube on one ticket, but bus passengers do also benefit from much lower prices. Indeed that's been a deliberate policy, both
a) because many bus users are poorer, and
b) to ease pressure on the tube.
With the revenue from the first congestion charge, Ken invested in the bus network. These days TfL seems far more anti bus
Which public transport service in the world is not subsidised?
The MTR is one of the most profitable metro systems in the world; it had a farebox recovery ratio of 187 per cent in 2015, the world's highest.
It is a curious UK thing, though, and it could do with going away. It perpetuates the idea of duplicating everything with buses; buses should be used to take people to trains if their origin/destination is too far from a station. Traditionally London didn't have the capacity to do that, but post-COVID it may well have.
Unless things have changed recently I don't think an "all-modes season" exists in GM at all. The "county card" covers all busses and trains but only the "city zone" of metrolink. The only "all modes" ticket is a 1 day off peak one.
The London Underground is (was) not the only crowded metro service in the world. But I've never heard of anywhere else trying to relieve the pressure by running loads of buses on parallel routes. What about the famous train in Tokyo where people are employed to push people onto the train? Genuine question, I'm curious if such a policy exists anywhere else.
It may have the capacity, post Covid, but it would be a dangerous precedent to set until the effects are well established. A big problem is that many journeys bus fares are considerably cheaper than that of the tube. Sharp bus fare increases would not be viewed positively by the travelling public, the abolition of bus flat fares (because bus routes would cross zone boundaries) would be a logistical problem to be solved and fare decreases on tube journeys unaffordable.
In the densely populated urban and suburban areas the network would not lend itself to a clean feeder system to and from stations, (certainly without major inconvenience to existing users) and there would be lots of anomalies, which could only be solved by increased funding, which is unlikely to be available.
I expect similar policies have been/are being followed all over the world, in one way or another. Increased capacity of rail systems takes a long time to come to fruition and costs a lot of money. How long did the Victoria Line take to build from inception (20 years?). Parallel bus services were then reduced.
How long has Crossrail taken, and still not open? Again, bus services are expected to reduce following opening.
London bus services were particularly increased following the introduction of the congestion charge, which anticipated a switch to public transport. If they had waited for increased rail capacity to come on stream, the congestion charge would still be a pipe dream.
Not sure that pushing people into trains is really a policy we wish to emulate culurally?
Hong Kong, I think, at least up to the point when the "trouble" started last year.
At least MTR makes a healthy profit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTR
They do have major advantages in terms of population density and low car ownership.
So really TfL just need to "sort out" its buses as LU, DLR & LO themselves are sustainable.
Given that bus fares are not normally cheaper than metro fares in other world cities (again I'm curious to see examples) I'd be surprised if people are using buses instead of metro to any large extent.
There must be some cities where tourists choose buses over the metro because they can view their surroundings on a bus, which you cannot do when you are underground.
In London, if they work out where the bus is going, this advantage of buses for tourists will be greater than elsewhere as London's double deckers give a far better view then the single deckers found in most other large cities.
Touch in and touch out is used on bus services in many places, even in some British towns nowadays, so I don't see that being a major issue. If central government regains control over TfL then that may be a way of getting the much needed fare reform in place, as there won't be a mayor to worry about adverse publicity.
As I mentioned earlier, Livingstone expanded the bus service as a one off event while Tube enhancements were carried out. That was a long time ago and most of the enhancements have been done or are in construction.
Given that bus fares are not normally cheaper than metro fares in other world cities (again I'm curious to see examples) I'd be surprised if people are using buses instead of metro to any large extent.
My point was, if there is a need for a parallel bus service to relieve pressure off a train, then that surely would be the one?
I have never been to Japan, and know very little about their public transport systems, so cannot comment. I have been to Calcutta, where they have a nice metro line, with parallel bus services at cheaper fares.
I have been to Calcutta, where they have a nice metro line, with parallel bus services at cheaper fares.