Routes 53 and 363 consultation

[snoggle]

Another one let out of the cupboard today!

consultations.tfl.gov.uk/buses/routes-53-and-363/

On the face of it a sensible idea but I wonder if it will suffer the same fate as the Bow Flyover consultation which was a rare case of TfL not proceeding with their plans. I also wonder how wheelchair users / those less nimble on their feet will feel about enforced change of buses if they currently travel to / from Bricklayers Arms on the 53 / 363.

[southlondonbus]

I suppose it quite cleverly gives a slightly quicker journey for longer distance passengers such as those from the solo sections on the 53 and 363 whilst not harming people heading from Bricklayers arms heading into town as the 2 routes don't serve many more stops north off Bricklayers Arms.

[Nathan]

Hmm...I personally think that running the 63 over the flyover would be a better option, given that the 363 doesn't get as crowded from Elephant & Castle.

[sid]

Seems a logical move, plenty of other buses still serving the stops that are skipped.

[DT 11]

Nice Proof Reading a spelling error.

"Honour Oak"

[thesquirrels]

Jun 12, 2017 16:11:08 GMT Nathan said:

Hmm...I personally think that running the 63 over the flyover would be a better option, given that the 363 doesn't get as crowded from Elephant & Castle.

In terms of crowding and no. of users stood to benefit the 63 is probably the better of the two routes to skip the Bricklayers Arms, but it would break far more local journeys from points north of the Elephant. I also suspect if people cotton on to the fact the 363 is 'fast' via the flyover people will wait for one if it is due imminently, vs picking up the first 63 - I think the option will drive up patronage.

There will also be a time saving for the 53 and the many long distance users on the route, but I fear buses will load to bursting point at the Elephant when the many users of the OKR corridor clock onto the quicker journey offered, potentially squeezing out users who need to get beyond Deptford, and who could instead board a 453 or 172.

[Nathan]

Jun 12, 2017 16:27:03 GMT thesquirrels said:

Jun 12, 2017 16:11:08 GMT Nathan said:

Hmm...I personally think that running the 63 over the flyover would be a better option, given that the 363 doesn't get as crowded from Elephant & Castle.

In terms of crowding and no. of users stood to benefit the 63 is probably the better of the two routes to skip the Bricklayers Arms, but it would break far more local journeys from points north of the Elephant. I also suspect if people cotton on to the fact the 363 is 'fast' via the flyover people will wait for one if it is due imminently, vs picking up the first 63 - I think the option will drive up patronage.

There will also be a time saving for the 53 and the many long distance users on the route, but I fear buses will load to bursting point at the Elephant when the many users of the OKR corridor clock onto the quicker journey offered, potentially squeezing out users who need to get beyond Deptford, and who could instead board a 453 or 172.

The same argument could be used for the 63/363 pair. From what I've seen in the past, the 63 gets filled up far more and far quicker than the 363 as buses are already populated by the time it reaches Elephant which of course is where the 363 begins it's journey. 

Essentially, 363s will be carrying less than half the load of peak time 63s when going over the flyover. Would it not make sense to make the latter just a bit more speedy?

[T.R.]

Since they are the "outer routes" respective to the 63/453, I agree with this one.
However thesquirrels is right about people wanting 'fast' services (see 607, X26, 521 n/b) which may increase custom on that section.

No doubt TfL will be yelling "Hoppa fare, Hoppa Fare, Just use the Hoppa Fare!" if anyone is inconvenienced.

[redbus]

I think it is a good idea, particularly if it improves journey times. Obviously care needs to be taken over those less mobile and the bus stops skipped, but presumably TfL have a handle on those numbers and that the remaining routes can compensate adequately. If loadings change as a result of this, the routes going over the flyover can always be amended at a future date.

[rmz19]

In principle, this idea would be great if it was for all routes that cross over Bricklayers Arms. However, I find it quite strange that TFL are including the 363 too. The 53 is understandable given its relatively longer running time and route length, but the 453 should've been selected instead of the 363. Generally, I'm not keen on prioritisation in these kind of situations, I'm biased to an 'all or nothing' approach within reason i.e. prioritising express routes. TFL's rational has always been quite strange anyway.

[Deleted]

It sounds like a good idea. And with the hopper of course, those missed stops won't matter half as much as before.

I have to say that being stuck on a 172 at Friday closing time for around 45 minutes at that section the 53 and 363 will now avoid makes me think many will like the new changes rather than oppose them. On a tangent now but the 172 is now even longer with the changes to extend it to Clerkenwell Green... I like the idea of creating new links but it is unreliable as it is in my experience. Does anyone else share the same view? Maybe it was a one-off on the few occasions I've ridden it.

[twobellstogo]

Jun 12, 2017 20:58:56 GMT rmz19 said:

In principle, this idea would be great if it was for all routes that cross over Bricklayers Arms. However, I find it quite strange that TFL are including the 363 too. The 53 is understandable given its relatively longer running time and route length, but the 453 should've been selected instead of the 363. Generally, I'm not keen on prioritisation in these kind of situations, I'm biased to an 'all or nothing' approach within reason i.e. prioritising express routes. TFL's rational has always been quite strange anyway.

And here is the issue. As soon as people realise these routes are quicker, they'll wait for said routes and they will hang around longer at places like E&C negating much of the time savings they'd get by going over the flyover.
There may just about be a case for the long 53 to use the flyover, but even then it's not an amazing case. Anything else, sorry, no : a poorly thought through idea, TfL.

[vjaska]

Jun 12, 2017 22:04:05 GMT @eli997 said:

It sounds like a good idea. And with the hopper of course, those missed stops won't matter half as much as before.

I have to say that being stuck on a 172 at Friday closing time for around 45 minutes at that section the 53 and 363 will now avoid makes me think many will like the new changes rather than oppose them. On a tangent now but the 172 is now even longer with the changes to extend it to Clerkenwell Green... I like the idea of creating new links but it is unreliable as it is in my experience. Does anyone else share the same view? Maybe it was a one-off on the few occasions I've ridden it.

Although the extension to the 172 does make it longer, it's not the longest route to begin with anyway - I mean it's numerical friend, the 171, runs from Holborn to Catford Bus Garage which is longer than the 172 especially as it runs via Camberwell Green rather than the Old Kent Road. The extension to Clerkenwell Green isn't too much longer to affect reliability so it shouldn't be an issue.

[sid]

Jun 12, 2017 20:58:56 GMT rmz19 said:

In principle, this idea would be great if it was for all routes that cross over Bricklayers Arms. However, I find it quite strange that TFL are including the 363 too. The 53 is understandable given its relatively longer running time and route length, but the 453 should've been selected instead of the 363. Generally, I'm not keen on prioritisation in these kind of situations, I'm biased to an 'all or nothing' approach within reason i.e. prioritising express routes. TFL's rational has always been quite strange anyway.

But if all routes went that way there would be no service at all from Elephant & Castle to stops either side of Bricklayers Arms roundabout. Likewise if the 453 went that way there would be no service from the Westminster area. The 363 won't effect any alighting passengers and it seems a sensible choice of routes to me.

[sid]

Jun 12, 2017 22:10:45 GMT twobellstogo said:

Jun 12, 2017 20:58:56 GMT rmz19 said:

In principle, this idea would be great if it was for all routes that cross over Bricklayers Arms. However, I find it quite strange that TFL are including the 363 too. The 53 is understandable given its relatively longer running time and route length, but the 453 should've been selected instead of the 363. Generally, I'm not keen on prioritisation in these kind of situations, I'm biased to an 'all or nothing' approach within reason i.e. prioritising express routes. TFL's rational has always been quite strange anyway.

And here is the issue. As soon as people realise these routes are quicker, they'll wait for said routes and they will hang around longer at places like E&C negating much of the time savings they'd get by going over the flyover.
There may just about be a case for the long 53 to use the flyover, but even then it's not an amazing case. Anything else, sorry, no : a poorly thought through idea, TfL.

It seems a thoughly sensible idea to me, are people really going to wait specifically for a 53 or 363 just to save a minute or two? Personally if I was going from Elephant & Castle to New Cross I'd just get whatever came first and I would imagine most people would be the same?