Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

BorisWatch

flash

I am simply not there....
The true cost of a bus journey in London only a couple of years ago, given the level of investment was in excess of £4. This I'm sure was reported in several papers. 20% is a steep hike, but given the actual cost of running that bus it is relatively cheap. This however is the wrong way to go about pushing the shift that they want to encourage towards sustainable transport. The only thing it may push is an increase in cycling and cycling fatalities.

Boris has to visit the outer boroughs, Ken never did and they didn't vote for him. Boris visited my borough more times during the election campaign than Ken did during 8 years. I also had the misfortune to be on a train with him once to Richmond when he was doing the Tory thing for some local councillors.
 

ovaltina

Well-Known Member
This however is the wrong way to go about pushing the shift that they want to encourage towards sustainable transport.
Exactly. Less than a quid and no parking charges makes the bus a very attractive proposition compared to driving a car, even in the suburbs. £1.20 is still cheap compared to running a car, but it's over the £1 barrier, which I reckon will put some people off.

Right now I'm sitting in San Francisco airport, waiting for my flight back to London. Over here you pay $2 for a tranfer ticket which you can use on buses, street cars and the subway unlimited for three hours. And that's tourist prices. A monthly pass for locals costs about $60 (or $15 concessions).

Plus they've got the BART train service which whips you to the airport in about 30 mins for $8. And this is in the car-crazy USA!
 

PacificOcean

Unhinged User
Right now I'm sitting in San Francisco airport, waiting for my flight back to London. Over here you pay $2 for a tranfer ticket which you can use on buses, street cars and the subway unlimited for three hours. And that's tourist prices. A monthly pass for locals costs about $60 (or $15 concessions).

Plus they've got the BART train service which whips you to the airport in about 30 mins for $8. And this is in the car-crazy USA!
Someone has to pay for that surely though?

What's the schools like there? Is there proper care for the elderly, etc?
 

ovaltina

Well-Known Member
Someone has to pay for that surely though?

What's the schools like there? Is there proper care for the elderly, etc?
Schools are, apparently, fucked, and I don't know about care for the elderly but I'd guess it's fairly bad. The state of California is practically broke.

However, the city is still able to provide a decent transport system aimed at getting people out of their cars. Plus, city buses run on a hybrid of biodiesel and electricity. And the street cars date back to the 1930s but you ride them on an everyday ticket.

It's really impressive stuff.

 

PacificOcean

Unhinged User
Schools are, apparently, fucked, and I don't know about care for the elderly but I'd guess it's fairly bad. The state of California is practically broke.

However, the city is still able to provide a decent transport system aimed at getting people out of their cars. Plus, city buses run on a hybrid of biodiesel and electricity. And the street cars date back to the 1930s but you ride them on an everyday ticket.

It's really impressive stuff.

So it's cheap to get to your shitty school or visit your mum sitting in her own piss as their is no-one to look after her?

This is a good thing?
 

ovaltina

Well-Known Member
So it's cheap to get to your shitty school or visit your mum sitting in her own piss as their is no-one to look after her?

This is a good thing?
It's a seperate issue. Or two seperate issues.

The point is, Ken put massive resources into extra frequency for buses and keeping the oyster single fare low, to get people out of their cars and onto buses. It worked - passenger journeys increased by a big margin.

Now that's being reversed, which means more people behind the wheel and fewer bus journeys. More pollution, more congestion, a less efficient city.
 

PacificOcean

Unhinged User
It's a seperate issue. Or two seperate issues.

The point is, Ken put massive resources into extra frequency for buses and keeping the oyster single fare low, to get people out of their cars and onto buses. It worked - passenger journeys increased by a big margin.

Now that's being reversed, which means more people behind the wheel and fewer bus journeys. More pollution, more congestion, a less efficient city.
I don't buy this argument.

If you can afford a car, tax, insurance and petrol - then why would an extra 20p on a bus fare make any difference to the way you decide to travel to work?
 

London_Calling

Pleasant and unpatronising
Now that's being reversed
No, it's being slowed. Reason: Recession.

Use of the tube, for example, is 6% down year on year - that's a big blow in itself. Just like any business TfL are having to reevaluate their investment and maintenance programmes.

Some observers are questioning the decision to 'front load' the revenue raising exercise so it doesn't impact on a re-election campaign years down the road, largely they argue revenue raising should be done once recovery begins and not while the recession is still in full swing.

It still needs to be done though.
 

flash

I am simply not there....
Some observers are questioning the decision to 'front load' the revenue raising exercise so it doesn't impact on a re-election campaign years down the road, largely they argue revenue raising should be done once recovery begins and not while the recession is still in full swing.

It still needs to be done though.
So many points. The Metronet crowd are still operating as individual solvent companies (e.g. Atkins, Thames Water, Mott's etc.). They contributed to the "£84 million black hole", so why should we be expected to bail them out - how comes they are not suffering a bit more? Front loading is needed your right though as it could go off of a cliff and potential damage London over the longer term (long and different story) if the network was to stop being developed (given population growth and demand).

Also by Front Loading it will help force the 5% modal shift to cycling that is required in London based upon the current transport network (without some of the comedy options in Boris's MTS) by 2020-ish.
 

flash

I am simply not there....
It's a seperate issue. Or two seperate issues.

The point is, Ken put massive resources into extra frequency for buses and keeping the oyster single fare low, to get people out of their cars and onto buses. It worked - passenger journeys increased by a big margin.
Agreed but as mentioned it was at a heavily subsidised cost. Sure this would decrease over time as the network needs less development but where do you draw the line?
 

malice

Well-Known Member
The thing that annoys me is that bus fares are going up most, and there seems to be an incredibly vague mention of bus services being reduced - no details as far as I can work out. For me this seems at a very basic level wrong to raise the fares on the very service you're reducing. It also obviously has a disproportionate affect on some areas - much of south london for example.

Also, what annoys me is the way he peddles [sorry] cycling instead. Better cylcle routes - proper, safe ones - is obviously a great thing, but his ideas seem fairly token, and they don't replace the basic majority services of public transport. What about those who aren't able to cycle? What about when it rains and cycle numbers reduce massively?
 

teuchter

je suis teuchter
The good news is that almost all 7-day travelcards will remain at the same price.

I can't see anything specifically mentioning monthly travelcards though.
 

quimcunx

protestant traybake
The thing that annoys me is that bus fares are going up most, and there seems to be an incredibly vague mention of bus services being reduced - no details as far as I can work out. For me this seems at a very basic level wrong to raise the fares on the very service you're reducing. It also obviously has a disproportionate affect on some areas - much of south london for example.
Is this because the recession has led to fewer people using the tube, and perhaps turning to the bus because it's cheaper? Reduce buses and reduce put prices up and people will pay the extra for the tube after all?
 

London_Calling

Pleasant and unpatronising
Also by Front Loading it will help force the 5% modal shift to cycling that is required in London based upon the current transport network (without some of the comedy options in Boris's MTS) by 2020-ish.
It is an interesting point though, imo, more of a happy consequence of an approach that is far more concerned with the mayor's self-interest.
 

flash

I am simply not there....
It is an interesting point though, imo, more of a happy consequence of an approach that is far more concerned with the mayor's self-interest.
Totally, in every which way. A freak series of circumstances which has forced a lot of things which in the long term will go Boris's way. In the short term it looks awful, but at the end of the day with everything from 7 day travelcards and up largely being frozen, the potential gains (Boris seen to be making tough decision, investment being protected, and getting the 5% shift which is allegedly essential for London and it being to his preferred method of transport) for him must outweigh the downside. I just wonder how much he and Kulveer know about it.
 

BarryB

New Member
Totally, in every which way. A freak series of circumstances which has forced a lot of things which in the long term will go Boris's way. In the short term it looks awful, but at the end of the day with everything from 7 day travelcards and up largely being frozen, the potential gains (Boris seen to be making tough decision, investment being protected, and getting the 5% shift which is allegedly essential for London and it being to his preferred method of transport) for him must outweigh the downside. I just wonder how much he and Kulveer know about it.
We dont yet know the extent of cuts into services on the buses and tubes and what the public reaction will be. So to early to say that things in the long term will go Boris's way.
 

flash

I am simply not there....
We dont yet know the extent of cuts into services on the buses and tubes and what the public reaction will be. So to early to say that things in the long term will go Boris's way.
Totally but it shows that he's not afraid to make the difficult decisions that in the long term may be for the best for London (whether or not that was his intention is questionable). Even though I don't like the guy or his administration, it sets his stall out and that's something that can only be respected. As you say though whether or not the public go with that as it's our pocket is a whole different matter.
 

HackneyE9

Active Member
Totally but it shows that he's not afraid to make the difficult decisions that in the long term may be for the best for London (whether or not that was his intention is questionable). Even though I don't like the guy or his administration, it sets his stall out and that's something that can only be respected. As you say though whether or not the public go with that as it's our pocket is a whole different matter.
I smell troll. :hmm:

"Not afraid to make difficult decisions" - what, like holding zero press conferences, putting out awkward decisions by press release just before Christmas, hiding when things go wrong, taking his manifesto offline so noone can check whether the few pitiful promises he made are kept? :rolleyes:

You totally sure you "don't like the guy or his administration"? ;)
 
Top