• 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!

Transport for London will "declare itself bankrupt" by end of today (14 May 2020) without emergency finance

Status
Not open for further replies.

Richard Scott

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2018
Messages
3,673
I bet the city would breathe far better without all those diesel fumes. Civilised European cities don't clog up their centres with fume-belching diesel buses, they have a handful of routes from nearby inner-urban areas where there isn't a logical railway station to connect to.
Buses can be more convenient for some journeys so not an option. Which cities in particular, lots of buses in Paris and Berlin to name but two trundling around the city centre?
 
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
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
But is it actual government policy to keep bus fares lower for the specific reason of reducing overcrowding on an overcrowded metro line?

In India it's more as a means of price differentiation, i.e. the bus is cheap and slow for the poor, the train is expensive and fast for the rich.

Buses can be more convenient for some journeys so not an option. Which cities in particular, lots of buses in Paris and Berlin to name but two trundling around the city centre?

Hamburg is one good example - only about 10 routes penetrate the city centre.

I'd not use France as a good example for anything in public transport, to be honest; people overrate it due to the TGV. Berlin I don't know very well I'm afraid.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,635
Buses can be more convenient for some journeys so not an option.

It's pretty clear that someonehas to lose out.

Massive rationalisation of the bus system woudl enable TfL to survive as a going concern.
Needs of the many and all that.
 

radamfi

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2009
Messages
9,267
In India it's more as a means of price differentiation, i.e. the bus is cheap and slow for the poor, the train is expensive and fast for the rich.

I just looked on Wikivoyage and it says the metro is the least crowded mode of transport in Calcutta, which is the opposite situation to London and tallies.
 

Mike395

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
23 May 2009
Messages
2,894
Location
Bedford
Whilst I appreciate it's tangentially related, please can any continuation of the 'Should buses duplicate rail/tube lines?' chat meander over to its own thread in the relevent subforum. Thank you :D
 

radamfi

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2009
Messages
9,267
I'd not use France as a good example for anything in public transport, to be honest; people overrate it due to the TGV.

Paris is an anomaly in not having integrated fares between bus and metro, although the fares are the same. The same tickets can be used on both, but you are not allowed to transfer between bus and metro on the same ticket. However season tickets are dirt cheap and you can use them on both buses and metro. There is no cheaper "bus only' option.

The bus network in central Paris is nowhere near as comprehensive as in London and services are less frequent. Conversely, the metro network is more dense and stations are closer together than in London. So there is a lot less need for buses in Paris.
 

Busaholic

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Jun 2014
Messages
14,029
Paris is an anomaly in not having integrated fares between bus and metro, although the fares are the same. The same tickets can be used on both, but you are not allowed to transfer between bus and metro on the same ticket. However season tickets are dirt cheap and you can use them on both buses and metro. There is no cheaper "bus only' option.

The bus network in central Paris is nowhere near as comprehensive as in London and services are less frequent. Conversely, the metro network is more dense and stations are closer together than in London. So there is a lot less need for buses in Paris.
Tram/light rail needs to be brought into the discussion too where Paris is concerned: it's so long since I've been there that I've never seen one of these lines, but I follow their development closely in the relevant magazines, and their rapid expansion continued until very recently, and maybe still does. They seem to be mostly 'feeders' to metro and RER stations, and appear especially popular to take people living outside the 'portes' of Paris to connect with traditional metro line termini. We seem incapable as a nation of grasping this concept in any meaningful way, and doubtless we'd screw up if we even attempted to.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Tram/light rail needs to be brought into the discussion too where Paris is concerned: it's so long since I've been there that I've never seen one of these lines, but I follow their development closely in the relevant magazines, and their rapid expansion continued until very recently, and maybe still does. They seem to be mostly 'feeders' to metro and RER stations, and appear especially popular to take people living outside the 'portes' of Paris to connect with traditional metro line termini. We seem incapable as a nation to grasp this concept in any meaningful way, and doubtless we'd screw up if we even attempted to.

Is that not basically what Croydon Tramlink is?
 

Busaholic

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Jun 2014
Messages
14,029
Is that not basically what Croydon Tramlink is?
Croydon Tramlink is a stand-alone system that could have been the start of something radical if TfL had shown any interest. It was no coincidence that Peter Hendy was deeply involved in implementing it, but once his star ceased to shine so brightly there was no-one else at senior level in TfL with the courage to advocate any others being built, at least after Ken Livingstone lost the Mayoralty: he was, of course, also up against hostile Tory boroughs like Ealing, and didn't have sufficient powers to overrule them. Anyone who believes even the modest expansion of the Croydon system to Sutton will actually get built is more credulous than a Trump supporter.
 

birchesgreen

Established Member
Joined
16 Jun 2020
Messages
5,044
Location
Birmingham
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.

Pushing people onto trains? Yes in HK, the People Pushing Operatives (or whatever title they have) have nice white gloves!
 

BRX

Established Member
Joined
20 Oct 2008
Messages
3,601
It feels like a lot of people commenting on this thread don't live in or know London. There are loads of journeys that aren't practical by rail or tube. London's not a neatly planned new town where you can design for a "feeder service" network. Buses are an essential part of the public transport system and we don't need them reduced, thanks. In recent years they've been undermined by the unsustainable alternative of Uber and similar operators. It's wrongheaded to talk about rationalising bus services due to congestion in the centre - a much more efficient way to reduce congestion in the centre would be to get shot of a large proportion of the private hire vehicles which use up far more road space per passenger. Uber might be great for a group of 4 friends going to a party but it doesn't provide an affordable alternative for people who need to get to and from low paid jobs on a daily business.
 

radamfi

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2009
Messages
9,267
Buses are an essential part of the public transport system and we don't need them reduced, thanks.

But in central London trains and tubes go pretty much everywhere, with a few exceptions which would obviously be maintained by bus. Surely it makes sense to transfer resources to outer London where the rail alternatives are much more scarce?
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
But in central London trains and tubes go pretty much everywhere, with a few exceptions which would obviously be maintained by bus. Surely it makes sense to transfer resources to outer London where the rail alternatives are much more scarce?

Precisely. Bus people to and from the railway station nearest to their origin/destination and make the through fare the same regardless of modes used. Plus some orbital routes where the railway network is underspecified.

You simply don't need any buses along Oxford St, for example, as it has Tube stations along it and will soon have Crossrail ones too, and it would probably be cheaper and better for wheelchair users if they and up to the taxi's capacity accompanying them received black taxi travel at the price of a standard public transport fare (or free if they have a Freedom Pass).
 

Mikey C

Established Member
Joined
11 Feb 2013
Messages
6,830
Precisely. Bus people to and from the railway station nearest to their origin/destination and make the through fare the same regardless of modes used. Plus some orbital routes where the railway network is underspecified.

You simply don't need any buses along Oxford St, for example, as it has Tube stations along it and will soon have Crossrail ones too, and it would probably be cheaper and better for wheelchair users if they and up to the taxi's capacity accompanying them received black taxi travel at the price of a standard public transport fare (or free if they have a Freedom Pass).
BUT Oxford Street is one of the few east-west routes across London, so is the natural route for many really useful bus journeys. As BRX said above, buses into London aren't just duplicating tube services, they are providing many really useful links, serving corridors which don't have a tube/rail line, or journeys which would be really indirect by tube/rail.

Indeed with retail being killed by the shift to online purchases, and many people preferring to go to the likes of Westfield anyway, is it sensible to massively handicap the central London bus network to prop up dying shops? Especially with electric buses coming in now, which takes out the pollution argument
 

radamfi

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2009
Messages
9,267
BUT Oxford Street is one of the few east-west routes across London, so is the natural route for many really useful bus journeys. As BRX said above, buses into London aren't just duplicating tube services, they are providing many really useful links, serving corridors which don't have a tube/rail line, or journeys which would be really indirect by tube/rail.

You could easily change onto the Tube or Crossrail at stations between Marble Arch and Tottenham Court Road. Even removing buses from that short section would free up a lot of resources that could be used to improve outer London services, or at least save them from being cut.
 

Richard Scott

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2018
Messages
3,673
You could easily change onto the Tube or Crossrail at stations between Marble Arch and Tottenham Court Road. Even removing buses from that short section would free up a lot of resources that could be used to improve outer London services, or at least save them from being cut.
But that would increase journey times no end, lead to more overcrowding on the tube and what about those with restricted mobility, that really would add complications to their journey?
 

Mike395

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
23 May 2009
Messages
2,894
Location
Bedford
Particularly for people with restricted mobility, getting rid of buses on Oxford Street, even post-Crossrail would be a stupid idea and isn't going to happen. Are you honestly expecting someone with limited mobility (I'm not explicitly talking wheelchair users here - there are plenty of people who aren't in a wheelchair that wouldnt be able to do that walk in a busy encironment for a variety of reasons!) to have to walk to either TCR or Oxford Street if they've just come out of a shop halfway between the two? It's a busy street to negotiate at the best of times. Ditto those coming out of a shop near Oxford Circus and going to a shop near Bond Street - a bus is a far more sensible option for such a journey if unable to walk it.
 
Last edited:

radamfi

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2009
Messages
9,267
But that would increase journey times no end, lead to more overcrowding on the tube and what about those with restricted mobility, that really would add complications to their journey?

The overcrowding on the Tube should be fixed by Crossrail. In reality, most people will be taking the Tube for much longer distances when they no longer have to get the bus to save money. Only a small minority would be using the tube for one or two stops. Most people in that position would walk. Options for the mobility impaired have already been discussed. At worst you could run a limited bus service just between Marble Arch and Tottenham Court Road or just keep one of the existing routes. Certainly no reason for the huge volume of buses.

Even the corridors where TfL have already rationalised still have a huge flow. Why do you need so many buses on Kingsway? Keep the 521 and one of the routes to Euston and bin the rest.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

BRX

Established Member
Joined
20 Oct 2008
Messages
3,601
But in central London trains and tubes go pretty much everywhere, with a few exceptions which would obviously be maintained by bus. Surely it makes sense to transfer resources to outer London where the rail alternatives are much more scarce?
What are you defining as "central London"?

There are plenty of places in Zone 2 where it's just as quick to get a bus to, say, Trafalgar Square, or Marble arch, as it is to use the tube. That's because even if you do use the tube, you likely have to do a substantial first leg on a bus, and then spend time changing modes, possibly with another tube or rail change before you reach your destination.

For a lot of people, including those with mobility problems, that's a fairly major issue.

As for Oxford St particularly - as others have pointed out, the tube doesn't really help you if you want to get from somewhere halfway between Tottenham Court Rd to halfway between Marble arch and Bond St. Personally I would just walk it - but that doesn't apply to everyone. I'm not sure if providing taxis for those with mobility problems is really a practical solution.

There may well be good arguments for reducing the number of buses that use Oxford Street - but as I understand it, this is a very complex thing to sort out because you end up breaking all sorts of east-west journeys. I don't pretend to know the answer here. However I can recommend reading the London Reconnections series of articles which discuss this in the context of the proposed pedestrianisation of Oxford St (ultimately blocked by Westminster Council).


I wouldn't rule out the idea that there are various changes to London's bus network that would be well justified (and some have already been made, in connection with TfL's already reduced funding, and the implications of the Hopper fares) but I'm resistant to the idea that things are as simple as some are suggesting.

Certainly there are a lot of journeys within Zone 2 and 3 (I don't know whether you are including that is "central" or "outer" London) which simply aren't possible by rail or tube, without using lengthy bus legs at each end that would make the whole thing take longer than just getting a bus all the way. Just for example... try getting from Forest Hill to Brixton. It's already rather painfully slow to do this by bus - but at least you can do it directly, or with one change. Trying to do that journey with feeder services to rail stations - it would take even longer, and furthermore it would likely send you via central London where things are even more congested. Or - you prompt a load of people to try and do the journey by car, which is the last thing you want to encourage.
 

radamfi

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2009
Messages
9,267
What are you defining as "central London"?

There are plenty of places in Zone 2 where it's just as quick to get a bus to, say, Trafalgar Square, or Marble arch, as it is to use the tube. That's because even if you do use the tube, you likely have to do a substantial first leg on a bus, and then spend time changing modes, possibly with another tube or rail change before you reach your destination.

I'm generally thinking of rationalisation of routes within the Circle Line where the Tube network is very dense. There are still gaps within that area, such as Victoria to Marble Arch and Euston - Aldwych - Waterloo so you maintain frequent bus services in those areas. Losing a direct service cannot be an excuse for keeping a service when there is a frequent alternative. Most cities work on the basis of having to change mode yet achieve high modal share for public transport so I wouldn't worry about that. For accessibility reasons you could keep one lower frequency bus route on each bit of bus served road but the assumption would be that most people would change onto the Tube at the earliest opportunity as it would be generally be quicker than waiting for another bus.

For journeys to/from central London there is unlikely to be much loss of patronage to the car as it is not practical to drive in that area and some would be lost to the bike, which is preferable for the environment and for health anyway. Competition from the car, on the other hand, is fierce in outer London so it is necessary to concentrate as much resource here as possible.
 

Horizon22

Established Member
Associate Staff
Jobs & Careers
Joined
8 Sep 2019
Messages
7,448
Location
London
I haven't read all this thread but as a rail worker in London it is concerning to see what might happen especially as so many workers at TOCs and NR in Central London commute in by tube, often from East London. It is clear TfL has been backed into a corner here, but treating TfL differently to the rail industry is odd and almost certainly highly political. Yes TfL have made a number of financial blunders that I sure have been discussed here (populist fare freeze, cycle lanes sequestering demand from buses, endless Crossrail problems), but to have your revenue slashed whilst being told to maintain service provision is a recipe for disaster and here we are. Car journeys are basically at 100% of pre-covid which has made life a hassle for many; there's still a lot (and I include many good and perfectly rational friends in this) of people still oddly concerned by taking public transport.

Councils (red, blue and yellow) across London have absolutely rounded on the government's attempt to impose this and the extension of the CC without consultation. And council taxes are already rather high. Part of me wants to see Khan call the government's bluff and run the statutory minimum (which is a few buses and the Woolwich ferry no?) which will cause such a commotion I bet the funding will be there in 24 hours. That could backfire massively politically though.

Interesting it will be those areas reliant on rail (SE London) shielded the most, which is normally the reverse problem!

Certainly there are a lot of journeys within Zone 2 and 3 (I don't know whether you are including that is "central" or "outer" London) which simply aren't possible by rail or tube, without using lengthy bus legs at each end that would make the whole thing take longer than just getting a bus all the way. Just for example... try getting from Forest Hill to Brixton.

Not the best example - a bus from Forest Hill to Penge East, and Southeastern from there. Or failing that a LO or Southern service to Penge West and walk to Penge East. But I agree lost of orbital South London (and same for North I imagine although am less experienced) journeys are a considerable hassle even with a bus.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Particularly for people with restricted mobility, getting rid of buses on Oxford Street, even post-Crossrail would be a stupid idea and isn't going to happen. Are you honestly expecting someone with limited mobility (I'm not explicitly talking wheelchair users here - there are plenty of people who aren't in a wheelchair that wouldnt be able to do that walk in a busy encironment for a variety of reasons!) to have to walk to either TCR or Oxford Street if they've just come out of a shop halfway between the two? It's a busy street to negotiate at the best of times. Ditto those coming out of a shop near Oxford Circus and going to a shop near Bond Street - a bus is a far more sensible option for such a journey if unable to walk it.

That's an interesting point, but I suspect the answer to that is probably low-speed, low-cost (or free with a Freedom Pass) mobility scooter hire and pedestrianisation (which I support for Oxford and Regent Streets, FWIW, with a 1m-in-each-direction cycle lane down the middle), not a bus service.

That would also solve the "busy" issue as the pavement would gain several metres of width that it presently doesn't have.

So yes, get the buses off Oxford Street, whatever else you do with them. If they have to come in that far, have termini at Tottenham Court Road and Marble Arch.
 

Mike395

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
23 May 2009
Messages
2,894
Location
Bedford
Wouldn't object to that - it'd effectively be acting like a shopping mall at that point (and could then offer electric shopping carts for a nominal hire charge or 'chauffered' mobility shuttles like transport hubs), plus more space for people who just need more time to get from A to B.

However this is going off topic (realise I'm not helping here!) - any further discussion on Oxford Street pedestrianisation needs to go elsewhere please.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,685
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
This would be amusing!

I think BJ would successfully manage to spin it as being down to Khan.

He unfortunately opened himself wide open earlier in the year with some comments about how with reduced passenger numbers it was sensible to reduce the service. This was just as social distancing was starting to become part of the national vocabulary, so it wasn’t long before the Evening Standard was able to show packed trains with people criticising the decision to ramp down. In reality of course the ramping down of the service was largely in response to shielding and the possibility of a tsunami of Covid-related absences.
 

BRX

Established Member
Joined
20 Oct 2008
Messages
3,601
Not the best example - a bus from Forest Hill to Penge East, and Southeastern from there. Or failing that a LO or Southern service to Penge West and walk to Penge East. But I agree lost of orbital South London (and same for North I imagine although am less experienced) journeys are a considerable hassle even with a bus.

But both those options would likely take longer, and have a lower frequency of departures, though, plus involve a change of mode which is a hassle for anyone elderly, or with a load of shopping, or a pushchair.

Another issue with multileg journeys is that there are more potential points of failure... And if one leg relies on a service with a half hour frequency say, then one cancellation can lead to a big delay.
 

317 forever

Established Member
Joined
21 Aug 2010
Messages
2,544
Location
North West
Redcar... not the end of the world, but you can see it from there! (as my dad says) :D

Redcar might not be the end of the world, but it is now the end of one of the TransPennine branches :lol:

Apparently the government is thinking of taking control of TFL from the Greater London Authority according to some press reports. It's rather like what happened with councils in 1986 when the GLC and other councils were abolished for not doing what Thatcher wanted.

Really though Khan has been running TFL badly as he has the wrong priorities.

At least then it was in their manifesto, and for good measure the Conservatives won a majority of London seats.

However, the creation of the post of London Mayor with responsibilities including local transport was approved in the 1998 referendum. So for the government now to take control of TfL would be an anti-democratic power grab. <(
 

BRX

Established Member
Joined
20 Oct 2008
Messages
3,601
Can anyone point me to a clear explanation of how funding to TfL changed in 2014/2015?

As I understand it, prior to that, it received an annual grant of around £700m from central government.

That then stopped - but it didn't disappear entirely, because it was replaced by a grant from the GLA, and that was facilitated by the GLA being allowed to keep a higher proportion of business rates than previously - is that right?

When I look at the last TfL budget it looks like about £900m comes from the GLA - which at first sight is more than the £700m that used to come from central government. But pre 2014 did it also get a grant from the GLA?

What's the actual change in funding that TfL receives, as a result of the changes that came about around 2015?
 

deltic

Established Member
Joined
8 Feb 2010
Messages
3,201
Can anyone point me to a clear explanation of how funding to TfL changed in 2014/2015?

As I understand it, prior to that, it received an annual grant of around £700m from central government.

That then stopped - but it didn't disappear entirely, because it was replaced by a grant from the GLA, and that was facilitated by the GLA being allowed to keep a higher proportion of business rates than previously - is that right?

When I look at the last TfL budget it looks like about £900m comes from the GLA - which at first sight is more than the £700m that used to come from central government. But pre 2014 did it also get a grant from the GLA?

What's the actual change in funding that TfL receives, as a result of the changes that came about around 2015?
The grant funding for operations that TfL gets fluctuates considerably from year to year - the table below shows the figures presented in the annual accounts in £million. The 2014 GLA grant figures also includes other revenue grant most (all?) comes from the GLA each year.

2012​
2013​
2014​
2015​
2016​
2017​
2018​
2019​
2020​
DfT grant
1634.1​
2058.2​
632.8​
104.4​
40.9​
311.2​
255.1​
27.1​
27.1​
GLA grant from business rate retention
846​
828.5​
772.5​
854.3​
1036.5​
1704​
913.5​
Other revenue grant
67.7​
148.8​
132​
28.9​
19.6​
50.8​
93.8​
89.9​
Council tax precept
6​
6​
6​
6​
6​
6​
6​
6​
6​
1707.8​
2213​
1484.8​
1070.9​
848.3​
1191.1​
1348.4​
1830.9​
1036.5​
 

Daniel740

On Moderation
Joined
8 Aug 2020
Messages
113
Location
Taplow
So I’m guessing that the Tube and buses will be running tomorrow? A deal must have been thrashed out otherwise the news about TFL withdrawing services would’ve been reported by now...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top