"Paul Corfield" wrote:

While I am sure that you could notionally allocate a level of revenue to
a route and then set it against the tendered cost of operation I am not
sure what it would tell you.

Is one of the problems here that TfL wish to run most routes for 19 hours a
day, usually at a (say) 15 minute frequency until end of service?

Using the example of our IKEA bus, this might generate a notional profit if
operated from 8am to 7pm Mon-Sat, and 10 am to 4pm on Sunday. But then going
on to run a bus every fifteen minutes from 7pm until midnight, largely
carrying fresh air, tips it back to a loss. I appreciate this is overly
simplistic, as each route has multiple traffic objectives, but if TfL are
looking for cost cuts, I propose that the frequency of some non-core routes
after the evening peak would be a good place to start.

I believe, as a youth*, the 248 used to convey friends and I from Upminster
to Romford at a circa 30 minute evening frequency. I don't think anyone
found this especially constricting. I see the 248 is now, sure enough, every
15 minutes until after midnight.

Despite protestations (elsewhere in this
thread) that London bus fares are high all the evidence points to the
opposite.

Two weeks ago I used a commercial service to travel approximately eight
miles in East Sussex, off peak. £4.00 single. On a fairly full bus, I was
the only fare paying passenger. Anyone who says London bus fares are high
has clearly never travelled outside London or the less developed world.

Chris
* In the days when the 248 was run (badly) under tender by a Nottingham
outfit.

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 20:36:20 +0000, Paul Corfield
wrote:

I don't doubt there may be some genuine opportunities to trim services
but if it goes too far you will deter people from the public transport
system full stop. That is not a sensible policy if it dumps people into
cars.

This is true, but serious overcrowding also has the same effect, at a
time of day when it is rather more of a problem.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

"Paul Corfield" wrote:

My main comment here is "hands off decent evening bus frequencies". The
problem with taking an axe to things like this is that you remove an
important incentive for people to make trips on public transport. If
you can only get in to town but not back again in a convenient way why
would you make the outward trip on public transport?

Any cuts will hurt, so it's a question of what hurts least.

As it happens, I would rather retain existing service levels, London-wide
(barring a few extreme examples of low use), and bridge the budget gap
through cutting back concessions for the elderly, teenagers and those on
benefits. Allowing pensioners who live in £500k houses, with £100k plus in
the bank, totally free travel, whilst charging full rate to a supermarket
worker on £6 an hour, is an interesting take on social justice. But there is
no political will to challenge the status quo here.

Chris

In message , Chris Read
writes

Allowing pensioners who live in £500k houses, with £100k plus in
the bank, totally free travel, whilst charging full rate to a supermarket
worker on £6 an hour, is an interesting take on social justice. But there is
no political will to challenge the status quo here.

Politicians also have to remember the environmental issue: pensioners in
that position have cars, which many would undoubtedly use if free travel
was withdrawn, thus adding to congestion and pollution.
--
Paul Terry

In message
Paul Terry wrote:

In message , Chris Read
writes

Allowing pensioners who live in £500k houses, with £100k plus in the
bank, totally free travel, whilst charging full rate to a supermarket
worker on £6 an hour, is an interesting take on social justice. But there
is no political will to challenge the status quo here.

Politicians also have to remember the environmental issue: pensioners in
that position have cars, which many would undoubtedly use if free travel
was withdrawn, thus adding to congestion and pollution.

There are far more pemsioners who are emphatically not in that bracket, he
said feelingly! The point being that the cost, both economically and
politically, of discriminating against your favourite hate-group is far
higher than any savings you might notionally make.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

"Paul Terry" wrote:

Chris Read wrote:

Allowing pensioners who live in £500k houses, with £100k plus in
the bank, totally free travel, whilst charging full rate to a supermarket
worker on £6 an hour, is an interesting take on social justice. But there
is
no political will to challenge the status quo here.

Politicians also have to remember the environmental issue: pensioners in
that position have cars, which many would undoubtedly use if free travel
was withdrawn, thus adding to congestion and pollution.

I'm not necessarily suggesting that pensioners are charged full fare. I
would favour a flat rate of 50p or £1 per journey.

I don't buy the supposed environmental case, that people who have a choice
of modes will use public transport only if it's *completely* free.

There aren't, and never have been, valid social justice or environmental
arguments to support free bus travel for all pensioners. It was purely a
matter of poltical calculation. In fact, on grounds of both social justice
and environmental protection, the arguments for free bus travel for
teenagers are much stronger, although in my view not strong enough.

Chris