http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/n..._ca meras.php

According to the above story, TfL spent about £14m on bus lane
enforcement and received about £15m in penalty charges, resulting in a
"small" profit of around £1m - and a motorists' group is complaining
that they spent so much on it.

Surely if TfL had made a huge profit on penalties, they'd get even more
stick just like the police do with speed cameras?

Mind-boggling.

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 00:26:15 +0100, Dave Arquati wrote:

http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/n..._ca meras.php

According to the above story, TfL spent about £14m on bus lane
enforcement and received about £15m in penalty charges, resulting in a
"small" profit of around £1m - and a motorists' group is complaining
that they spent so much on it.

Surely if TfL had made a huge profit on penalties, they'd get even more
stick just like the police do with speed cameras?

The £14 million wasn't spent to raise revenue from penalty charges, it was spent
to make the buses run to schedule. How effectively was THIS achieved? Did
better running buses increase ridership? Reduce running costs? Increase
profits? If these goals were achieved, then it would have been worth it even if
the penalty charges didn't fully cover the costs of the cameras.

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 07:25:54 +0100, Marc Brett
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 00:26:15 +0100, Dave Arquati wrote:

http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/n..._ca meras.php

According to the above story, TfL spent about £14m on bus lane
enforcement and received about £15m in penalty charges, resulting in a
"small" profit of around £1m - and a motorists' group is complaining
that they spent so much on it.

Surely if TfL had made a huge profit on penalties, they'd get even more
stick just like the police do with speed cameras?

The £14 million wasn't spent to raise revenue from penalty charges, it was spent
to make the buses run to schedule. How effectively was THIS achieved? Did
better running buses increase ridership? Reduce running costs? Increase
profits? If these goals were achieved, then it would have been worth it even if
the penalty charges didn't fully cover the costs of the cameras.

I think it is demonstrably the case that bus ridership has increased,
that running costs due to congestion have fallen and that the bus
companies are making big profits from running in London. How much of
that can be directly lined to bus lane enforcement is hard to say but
more and better bus lanes do help the efficacy of the bus network.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Paul Corfield wrote:

I think it is demonstrably the case that bus ridership has increased,
that running costs due to congestion have fallen and that the bus
companies are making big profits from running in London. How much of
that can be directly lined to bus lane enforcement is hard to say but
more and better bus lanes do help the efficacy of the bus network.

Also, given that we've had congestion charging in place for a while now, and
that bus fares are going up next year, why is this? I'd have thought the
money accumulated from the congestion charge would've meant that fares can
become lower.
--
Ian Tindale

"Ian Tindale" wrote in message
...
Paul Corfield wrote:

I think it is demonstrably the case that bus ridership has
increased,
that running costs due to congestion have fallen and that the bus
companies are making big profits from running in London. How much
of
that can be directly lined to bus lane enforcement is hard to say
but
more and better bus lanes do help the efficacy of the bus network.

Also, given that we've had congestion charging in place for a while
now, and
that bus fares are going up next year, why is this? I'd have thought
the
money accumulated from the congestion charge would've meant that
fares can
become lower.

My understanding was that Congesion charging had been working better
than expected, in deterring motorists from the zone, and therefore the
amount of charge they are getting in isn't as high as expected/hoped
for.

Ian Tindale wrote:
Paul Corfield wrote:

I think it is demonstrably the case that bus ridership has increased,
that running costs due to congestion have fallen and that the bus
companies are making big profits from running in London. How much of
that can be directly lined to bus lane enforcement is hard to say but
more and better bus lanes do help the efficacy of the bus network.

Also, given that we've had congestion charging in place for a while
now, and that bus fares are going up next year, why is this? I'd have
thought the money accumulated from the congestion charge would've
meant that fares can become lower.

It was my understanding that funds from the congestion charge would be used
to provide new buses and other equipment and facilities rather than to keep
fares low. Is this understanding correct?

"Brimstone" wrote in message
...
Ian Tindale wrote:
Paul Corfield wrote:

I think it is demonstrably the case that bus ridership has increased,
that running costs due to congestion have fallen and that the bus
companies are making big profits from running in London. How much of
that can be directly lined to bus lane enforcement is hard to say but
more and better bus lanes do help the efficacy of the bus network.

Also, given that we've had congestion charging in place for a while
now, and that bus fares are going up next year, why is this? I'd have
thought the money accumulated from the congestion charge would've
meant that fares can become lower.

It was my understanding that funds from the congestion charge would be
used
to provide new buses and other equipment and facilities rather than to
keep
fares low. Is this understanding correct?

Fares are likely to go up because the cost of improving buses and tubes over
the next few years will be much higher than the combined income from bus
fares, tube fares, congestion charges, fines etc. In addition to all this -
and government grants - the mayor will have to borrow money and service that
debt.

"Matt Wheeler" wrote in message
...

"Ian Tindale" wrote in message
...
Paul Corfield wrote:

Also, given that we've had congestion charging
in place for a while now, and that bus fares are
going up next year, why is this? I'd have thought
the money accumulated from the congestion
charge would've meant that fares can become lower.

My understanding was that Congesion charging had
been working better than expected, in deterring
motorists from the zone, and therefore the
amount of charge they are getting in isn't as
high as expected/hoped for.

In which case the buses should be running faster than anticipated, and the
same frequency of service can be provided with fewer vehicles and staff, so
fares should still be able to go down. Also the average bus is fuller than
it was, also allowing fares to go down.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 19:25:37 +0100, John Rowland wrote:

In which case the buses should be running faster than anticipated, and the
same frequency of service can be provided with fewer vehicles and staff, so
fares should still be able to go down. Also the average bus is fuller than
it was, also allowing fares to go down.

You may find the conjestion charge zone is just slighty smaller than the
greater london area !

Steve

Brimstone wrote:
Ian Tindale wrote:

Paul Corfield wrote:


I think it is demonstrably the case that bus ridership has increased,
that running costs due to congestion have fallen and that the bus
companies are making big profits from running in London. How much of
that can be directly lined to bus lane enforcement is hard to say but
more and better bus lanes do help the efficacy of the bus network.

Also, given that we've had congestion charging in place for a while
now, and that bus fares are going up next year, why is this? I'd have
thought the money accumulated from the congestion charge would've
meant that fares can become lower.


It was my understanding that funds from the congestion charge would be used
to provide new buses and other equipment and facilities rather than to keep
fares low. Is this understanding correct?

Yes - demonstrated by the fact that higher frequencies and new routes
were introduced for central London as part of the congestion charging
package. Just in my corner of London we had the 360, 414 and N74 (I
can't remember whether the N345 was introduced as part of congestion
charging).

However, I don't think the revenues from the charge were ever intended
to pay completely for the improvements to buses, and since they have
made less money than estimated, they have paid for a smaller proportion
of the improvements.

It is worth noting that some bus fares have merely returned to 2000
levels, like the One Day Bus Pass.

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London