(What if) TFL money saving ideas

[SynthD]

In such situation saving can be made by dead running some buses back to the origin in the reverse peak direction, for example, dead running 3 out of 4 incoming departures back using the motorways from the city back to the suburb in the morning peak.

How much time do you expect that to save? There are so few motorways within bus route distance of the central area. The buses, if as underused as claimed, would already be close to dead running.

 

[CBlue]

In such situation saving can be made by dead running some buses back to the origin in the reverse peak direction, for example, dead running 3 out of 4 incoming departures back using the motorways from the city back to the suburb in the morning peak.

What motorways are these, then?

You write as if most termini have a fast road linking them with a city centre - the majority don't.

 

[Bald Rick]

for example, dead running 3 out of 4 incoming departures back using the motorways from the city back to the suburb in the morning peak.

Which motorways are those? There are precisely none inside the North and South circular roads, barring a couple of slip roads from the M11 and about 300 yards of the Chiswick flyover. There isn’t even a single stretch of road that is remotely close to motorway standards within 5km of Bank station.

 

[miklcct]

What motorways are these, then?

You write as if most termini have a fast road linking them with a city centre - the majority don't.

Then the bus company is doomed in directional flows - the aim is to minimise the time which buses run empty. It isn't uncommon in Hong Kong to have revenue operation taking 75 minutes and dead running taking 30 minutes between the termini, as such, dead running is very common on the contra-peak flow and new routes don't bother serve the contra-peak flow at all but instead dead run all buses back to maximise utilisation on the peak flow. The same can be said in any other cities, which can be found in USA, Singapore, Australia, etc. where motorways head direct into the city centre. Using these motorways bus companies run commuter express routes which run round a few suburbs then head straight into the city centre on motorway, and run dead back to the suburb in the morning peak.

Unfortunately there is none in London so there is no way bus operation can be made profitable.

 

[WideRanger]

Unfortunately there is none in London so there is no way bus operation can be made profitable.

That seems to be a brave assertion: that the only way an operation can be made profitable would be if we were in a different reality.

 

[miklcct]

That seems to be a brave assertion: that the only way an operation can be made profitable would be if we were in a different reality.

The reason why bus operations are profitable in Hong Kong was that the buses are filled full on commuter services for the fixed cost, such that urban services, which are generally unprofitable on its own due to increased congestion, can be provided at marginal cost only with fares attractive to short-haul passengers taking a few stops only. Here, commuter services can be replaced with school services in most part of the country.

The reason why commuter service is profitable is the speed as driver cost is the most significant portion of bus operation, and by running buses fast on motorways, bus service can be provided at a speed comparable to driving at a ticket price much cheaper than car cost, while providing a profit to the bus operator.

In London, due to the lack of motorways, bus services are never going to be attractive to long-haul passengers, unless they are forced to take it to get across places where there aren't direct rail connections. The reliance on railways in London is much more than in Hong Kong as, in Hong Kong, motorway buses (which charges much more than short-haul urban buses, but the operating costs per hour are similar) can be an attractive substitute for long-distance passengers where there is no direct rail connection, but here in London, it is almost always better off to switch to the railway at some point during a long-distance journey.

The over-reliance on Victorian-era railways, combined with the lack of orbital railways / motorways, in London has made all railways into London city centre overcrowded in peak hours (at least before COVID) and turned London into a standstill when the railways fail, e.g. the Tube strike happened recently, but the opposition to motorway-building in the last few decades have resulted in this, where most other cities in the world have built many motorways on viaducts into the city centre.

 

[CBlue]

Then the bus company is doomed in directional flows - the aim is to minimise the time which buses run empty. It isn't uncommon in Hong Kong to have revenue operation taking 75 minutes and dead running taking 30 minutes between the termini, as such, dead running is very common on the contra-peak flow and new routes don't bother serve the contra-peak flow at all but instead dead run all buses back to maximise utilisation on the peak flow. The same can be said in any other cities, which can be found in USA, Singapore, Australia, etc. where motorways head direct into the city centre. Using these motorways bus companies run commuter express routes which run round a few suburbs then head straight into the city centre on motorway, and run dead back to the suburb in the morning peak.

Unfortunately there is none in London so there is no way bus operation can be made profitable.

By that definition, bus operation is not profitable in the majority of UK cities. However pre-covid I certainly know my local operator (Stagecoach East) were profitable despite the lack of motorways connecting central Cambridge with its suburbs.

 

[RT4038]

The reason why bus operations are profitable in Hong Kong was that the buses are filled full on commuter services for the fixed cost, such that urban services, which are generally unprofitable on its own due to increased congestion, can be provided at marginal cost only with fares attractive to short-haul passengers taking a few stops only. Here, commuter services can be replaced with school services in most part of the country.

The reason why commuter service is profitable is the speed as driver cost is the most significant portion of bus operation, and by running buses fast on motorways, bus service can be provided at a speed comparable to driving at a ticket price much cheaper than car cost, while providing a profit to the bus operator.

In London, due to the lack of motorways, bus services are never going to be attractive to long-haul passengers, unless they are forced to take it to get across places where there aren't direct rail connections. The reliance on railways in London is much more than in Hong Kong as, in Hong Kong, motorway buses (which charges much more than short-haul urban buses, but the operating costs per hour are similar) can be an attractive substitute for long-distance passengers where there is no direct rail connection, but here in London, it is almost always better off to switch to the railway at some point during a long-distance journey.

The over-reliance on Victorian-era railways, combined with the lack of orbital railways / motorways, in London has made all railways into London city centre overcrowded in peak hours (at least before COVID) and turned London into a standstill when the railways fail, e.g. the Tube strike happened recently, but the opposition to motorway-building in the last few decades have resulted in this, where most other cities in the world have built many motorways on viaducts into the city centre.

However, building motorways into the City Centre will also attract more people to use their cars rather than the public transport offer. So a bit of a double edged sword.

 

[miklcct]

However, building motorways into the City Centre will also attract more people to use their cars rather than the public transport offer. So a bit of a double edged sword.

And I can't imagine how much £ is TfL losing on its so-called "express" X26 route which takes nearly 2 hours to run about 38 km, with a significant portion of passengers sucking up the congestion on the inner city roads between Croydon and Heathrow because there aren't any sensible alternatives along the route, with no railway connection and driving a car taking as long as the bus because there is no motorway.

 

[Bald Rick]

And I can't imagine how much £ is TfL losing on its so-called "express" X26 route which takes nearly 2 hours to run about 38 km, with a significant portion of passengers sucking up the congestion on the inner city roads between Croydon and Heathrow because there aren't any sensible alternatives along the route, with no railway connection and driving a car taking as long as the bus because there is no motorway.

very few between Croydon and Heathrow. More intermediately.

Anyway shortly Croydon to Heathrow will be about an hour with a change at Farringdon.

 

[RT4038]

And I can't imagine how much £ is TfL losing on its so-called "express" X26 route which takes nearly 2 hours to run about 38 km, with a significant portion of passengers sucking up the congestion on the inner city roads between Croydon and Heathrow because there aren't any sensible alternatives along the route, with no railway connection and driving a car taking as long as the bus because there is no motorway.

But the X26 is not a route that is going to have full loads of A to B traffic that could use a motorway

 

[CBlue]

And I can't imagine how much £ is TfL losing on its so-called "express" X26 route which takes nearly 2 hours to run about 38 km, with a significant portion of passengers sucking up the congestion on the inner city roads between Croydon and Heathrow because there aren't any sensible alternatives along the route, with no railway connection and driving a car taking as long as the bus because there is no motorway.

London isn't Hong Kong.

Good grief, I thought you'd have figured out by now that what works in one area or region doesn't necessarily apply to another - if you truly aspire to get into transport planning then it's something you'll have to learn pretty quickly!

 

[miklcct]

very few between Croydon and Heathrow. More intermediately.

Anyway shortly Croydon to Heathrow will be about an hour with a change at Farringdon.

Croydon is in South London. Heathrow is in West London. Are you seriously suggesting getting into zone 1 to get an L-shaped change?! If we have to get into zone 1 to make a quicker journey than going direct, the transport network is seriously flawed, making unnecessary congestion in zone 1 overloading the central rail network!

 

[Bald Rick]

Croydon is in South London. Heathrow is in West London. Are you seriously suggesting getting into zone 1 to get an L-shaped change?! If we have to get into zone 1 to make a quicker journey than going direct, the transport network is seriously flawed, making unnecessary congestion in zone 1 overloading the central rail network!

South Horizons is on Hong Kong Island. Are you seriously suggesting getting into Hong Kong Central to get an L-shaped change to get to the airport?! If we have to change twice and get into central HK to make a quicker journey than going direct, the transport network is seriously flawed, making unnecessary congestion in central HK overloading the central MTR network!

 

[miklcct]

South Horizons is on Hong Kong Island. Are you seriously suggesting getting into Hong Kong Central to get an L-shaped change to get to the airport?! If we have to change twice and get into central HK to make a quicker journey than going direct, the transport network is seriously flawed, making unnecessary congestion in central HK overloading the central MTR network!

The L here has one extremely short leg (Admiralty - Central), which isn't comparable to East Croydon - Heathrow via Farringdon situation where both legs of the L have comparable length. A similar comparison in Hong Kong will be Tung Chung - Yuen Long via Nam Cheong, first going east all the way from the suburb to the city, then going north all the way out. Such journey was considered ridiculous in the past when a bus ran on motorways without entering the city, but since a more direct route than the motorways (via Tuen Mun) was built and the bus modified to run there, the journey actually took longer than the original route in peak hours due to a bottleneck causing frequent congestion on the short route, some passengers started using the ridiculous railway routing. The old motorway route involved a tunnel with high tolls, therefore it was in bus company's interest to use the more direct route which didn't involve any tolls. The bus company has then reintroduced some peak hour journeys running on the old motorways.

The situation between East Croydon - Heathrow can be described as the above, minus the existence of the old motorway (i.e. having only railways with ridiculous routing and frequently-congested direct road route where the X26 operates).

 

[MotCO]

But the X26 is not a route that is going to have full loads of A to B traffic that could use a motorway

When the Olympics were in London, the road cycling route took in a lot of SW London. As a result, the X26 could not run via Kingston, and ran from New Malden non-stop via the A3 and M25 to Heathrow. Maybe that's the answer?

 

[miklcct]

As a result, the X26 could not run via Kingston, and ran from New Malden non-stop via the A3 and M25 to Heathrow. Maybe that's the answer?

but this route is still a large V shape, not as direct as the normal X26 route. My point is that there is a complete lack of orbital routes which make London Buses difficult to serve areas not connected by railway routes efficiently, as evidenced by the X26 that a direct, limited-stop bus route in outer London, is still slower than going all the way into central London and making an L-shaped interchange back out to the destination on the railways. As such, there isn't a way for TfL to profit on its bus operation in areas not served by the railways.

 

[philthetube]

Here goes:

1: Cut the Bakerloo north of Stonebridge Park, 3tph to Stonebridge, 3tph to Queens Park, 6tph overall on the Bakerloo line, the Watford Overground line is more than adequate to replace the Bakerloo up to Harrow & Wealdstone.

2: Cut Amersham & Chesham branches from the Met, concentrate only on Watford/Uxbridge and run the Met into Baker Street, maybe have Chiltern take over the Chesham branch either as a shuttle to and from Chalfont or the train splits into an Amersham/Aylesbury and Chesham portion (2 coaches to Chesham, 2/4 to Aylesbury)

3: Make the Waterloo & City peak hours only, no off peak or Weekend service

4: Piccadilly cut back to Rayners Lane at all times.

5: Make Covent Garden a peak hour only station, no weekends either

6: Merge the Hammersmith & City and Circle lines into one, as the Hammersmith & Circle following the current Circle line route.

7: Controversial but maybe reduce the weekend opening hours on certain City stations on the District and Hammersmith & Circle lines.

Chilterns trains won't go round the curves on the Chesham branch.

South Horizons is on Hong Kong Island. Are you seriously suggesting getting into Hong Kong Central to get an L-shaped change to get to the airport?! If we have to change twice and get into central HK to make a quicker journey than going direct, the transport network is seriously flawed, making unnecessary congestion in central HK overloading the central MTR network!

 

[Mikey C]

Reducing expenditure on cycle infrastructure? Indeed discouraging cycling...

From a financial point of view, TfL is spending money to encourage a form of transport which brings in NO revenue. Indeed many of the cycle lanes (and the roadworks to create them) are making buses slower, and less attractive, thus reducing income from bus travel...

 

[skyhigh]

As such, there isn't a way for TfL to profit on its bus operation in areas not served by the railways.

That is a very bold statement.

 

[Edsmith]

Croydon is in South London. Heathrow is in West London. Are you seriously suggesting getting into zone 1 to get an L-shaped change?! If we have to get into zone 1 to make a quicker journey than going direct, the transport network is seriously flawed, making unnecessary congestion in zone 1 overloading the central rail network!

L shaped or not that will surely be the quickest way from Croydon to Heathrow? Or Victoria and then District and Piccadilly Lines? I think there may well be a question mark over the long term future of the X26 bus route anyway.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

L shaped or not that will surely be the quickest way from Croydon to Heathrow? Or Victoria and then District and Piccadilly Lines? I think there may well be a question mark over the long term future of the X26 bus route anyway.

If I were driving from Croydon to Heathrow, I'd go south onto the M25. In a car you can use side roads to avoid the worst traffic hold-ups and most times it doesn't take too long. Obviously a bus does not have that flexibility. The M25 itself can problematic though!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Mar 2022 ==

Reducing expenditure on cycle infrastructure? Indeed discouraging cycling...

From a financial point of view, TfL is spending money to encourage a form of transport which brings in NO revenue. Indeed many of the cycle lanes (and the roadworks to create them) are making buses slower, and less attractive, thus reducing income from bus travel...

Heretics used to be burned at stake.

 

[Bald Rick]

Reducing expenditure on cycle infrastructure? Indeed discouraging cycling...

From a financial point of view, TfL is spending money to encourage a form of transport which brings in NO revenue. Indeed many of the cycle lanes (and the roadworks to create them) are making buses slower, and less attractive, thus reducing income from bus travel...

The justification for improving cycling facilities - other than improving the health of those who switch to cycling - was* partly that it was a cheap way t9 relieve the tube and bus network and thus delay the need for investment to increase capacity. And thu save money overall.

* pre covid. That line of argument is perhaps a little fragile now.

 

[MotCO]

Reducing expenditure on cycle infrastructure? Indeed discouraging cycling...

From a financial point of view, TfL is spending money to encourage a form of transport which brings in NO revenue. Indeed many of the cycle lanes (and the roadworks to create them) are making buses slower, and less attractive, thus reducing income from bus travel...

Fully endorse this. A cycle lane has recently been installed outside my house, which has narrowed the road just where buses change drivers. So for the five minutes it takes to change drivers, and this happens on three routes around 5 times an hour each way, there is gridlock. And this is on a main route to a hospital so ambulances regularly get stuck.

So far I have seen no more than a dozen cyclists use the cycle path in probably 18 months; indeed, I've probably seen more cyclists use the road. A complete waste of money!

 

[SynthD]

Fully endorse this. A cycle lane has recently been installed outside my house, which has narrowed the road just where buses change drivers. So for the five minutes it takes to change drivers, and this happens on three routes around 5 times an hour each way, there is gridlock. And this is on a main route to a hospital so ambulances regularly get stuck.

That's one worth reporting to TfL or the newspapers. It's such a combination of perfect series of negatives that I struggle to believe it, due to the planning process.

 

[MotCO]

That's one worth reporting to TfL or the newspapers. It's such a combination of perfect series of negatives that I struggle to believe it, due to the planning process.

TfL probably funded it!

I forgot to mention that one of the bus stops is on a gentle left hand bend, so you cannot clearly see if it is safe to overtake the parked bus, and traffic is coming downhill towards you. Further, two zebra crossings have been installed, one near a blind corner, the other just over the brow of a hill.
I have no idea how professional road planners felt that this was a safe scheme - apparently they did not know buses change drivers there!

 

[Mikey C]

The justification for improving cycling facilities - other than improving the health of those who switch to cycling - was* partly that it was a cheap way t9 relieve the tube and bus network and thus delay the need for investment to increase capacity. And thu save money overall.

* pre covid. That line of argument is perhaps a little fragile now.

Indeed, but worrying about the tube and bus network getting completely overwhelmed is no longer the issue. Whereas TfL were previously worried that they wouldn't be able to afford the tube upgrades, now they're desperate to get more people on the network, paying fares...

TfL encouraging cycling is financially like British Airways encouraging business travellers to use Zoom instead!

 

[SynthD]

That’s a poor analogy. LU would fit better, but *transport* for London has long promoted free modes of travel.

 

[miklcct]

I've just caught a tube in central London. It runs so frequent on a Sunday morning that it needs to wait for signal to enter the station! Is it really necessary to run empty trains at 2-minute interval on Sunday morning?

 

[Goldfish62]

I've just caught a tube in central London. It runs so frequent on a Sunday morning that it needs to wait for signal to enter the station! Is it really necessary to run empty trains at 2-minute interval on Sunday morning?

Which line was this and where?