On 1 Feb, 20:54, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Tue, 1 Feb 2011 07:17:17 -0800 (PST), George

wrote:
On 31 Jan, 16:21, Paul Corfield wrote:
I also couldn't see your scientific basis or evidence for concluding
that TfL are useless. *Care to set it out for us here? *All you've
offered is your opinion.

As I haven't sampled every other bus operator in the UK I wouldn't be
qualified to make such a statement, I'm sure there are worse operators
and equally I'm sure there are better ones so it's rather a mute point
really.

It is hardly a moot point when your consistent commentary (in another
place) about TfL is that they are no good and that full blown bus
deregulation should be introduced in London in order to fix what you
consider to be their poor performance. Anyway thanks for confirming that
you don't have comparative evidence to support your position.

As I've said before TfL's overall performance should be measured by
the funding they receive compared to other operators.

Money, by itself, is not a measure of performance. *It is what you get
for that money and how well or badly the service quality is delivered
against specification that is the issue.

The bit you fail to ever recognise is that London is the Capital City
and it has unique transport demands that require substantially higher
levels of service than seen elsewhere in the country. *Other regional
cities complain about overcrowded trains and buses but it is extremely
rare that the service levels are comparable.

If trains from Bolton to Manchester were 12 cars long and ran at 5
minute headways and were grossly overcrowded then it would be comparable
to people moaning about trains from Surbiton or East Croydon being
grossly overcrowded. Ditto for trains into Birmingham or Leeds or
Newcastle or Bristol. However services in and around those cities are
not comparable to London in their intensity of frequency and associated
usage levels. *Therefore London and the South East will always have a
disproportionate call on funds.

While some bus services in those conurbations will be busy I doubt any
get close to the highest frequencies in London nor see the same scale of
demand. And that is not decrying the efforts of the bus companies in
those areas although I dare say the locals probably would complain about
what they get. *It is worth noting that the Mayor and TfL seem to have
convinced the DfT and Treasury that broadly maintaining London's bus
network is a "good thing" for the country. *While the budget may well be
trimmed somewhat and fares will rise the essential nature of the network
will be preserved. If the London approach was fatally flawed and
unaffordable surely the government would have demanded an alternative
approach? * It seems to be demanding that in every other sector like
health, education, the BBC, social services etc etc.

Still we could always do what Northamptonshire County Council are
suggesting - abolishing all bus service subsidies (already very low) and
expecting the private sector to cover some of the lost journeys. There
is some residual funding for combined social service / demand responsive
travel for some parts of the county. *I feel genuinely sorry for those
people in Northants who will lose their bus services permanently as a
result of government cuts to council funding.

--
Paul C


Yes it does seem appalling that people in Northants face losing their
bus services whilst TfL continue to throw good money after bad on
Hybrid buses not too mention the Oystercard system which seems to be
attracting more and more complaints from rail users about being
overcharged, although I'll admit it does generally work well on buses
where a flat fare is deducted on entry.