|
Post by busman on Aug 1, 2017 16:29:27 GMT
Was thinking of finally filling in the consultation, but I still have a conflict of interest with the 427 proposals. I'm sure that the 427 capacity would still be required east of Southall. But the around-the-corner link from The Broadway towards South Road would be quite popular, even more so if instead of terminating at Merrick Road it was extended to Norwood Green (Tentelow Lane) using the full length of Merrick Road. I wonder if the lack of replacement for the 427 east of Southall has something to do with TfL wanting to provide a direct link between Hillingdon Hospital and Ealing Hospital. This would almost certainly pass through Southall Broadway if it ever went ahead.
|
|
|
Post by ben on Aug 1, 2017 23:48:56 GMT
Well someone suggested elsewhere in the hospital thread that route U7 could be extended to provide a link Hillingdon-Ealing. That would only provide an extra single deck every half hour, so even though it would be a tiny increase on things after the withdrawl of the 427, its still far far less capacity than otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by riverside on Aug 2, 2017 10:49:09 GMT
Thanks for the clarification. I will make the point that the system is not only open to abuse, but is very rigid if the driver is inundated with shift workers who may/will want to get a free ride home. Observed it myself doing an end-to-end on the 105 last year; a Heathrow worker grabbed the front row of seats I wanted and they were only vacant when he departed on Somerset Road. Watched him flaunt his work lanyard to get on for free and swiftly remove it afterwards when upstairs. Maybe TfL want to nip in the bud the idea of workers copping a free ride all the way to Harrow? I've seen the same on the 140, people boarding and just walking straight past the driver and going well beyond the free travel zone. I can quite believe that people chance their arm and ride well beyond the Heathrow free travel area. Surely TfL Revenue Protection should be regularly checking routes 105 and 140 soon after they leave the free travel zone. Human nature being what it is, unfortunately there will always be some people trying it on. Regular ticket checks would not totally eliminate abuse of the system but it would increase the likelihood of getting caught.
|
|
|
Post by RandomBusesGirl on Aug 2, 2017 12:30:34 GMT
I always tell Revenue Inspectors they should also check BorisBuses, but the nice ones tell me they do all the buses, whilst many just shrug, and recently had a rude one mumble something about knowing how to do her own job. Woman, it's feedback not criticism There already are ridiculously few R.Is for a city of this size (there are tons in Poland, hence nobody with more than half a brain ever fare dodges!), surely if they want some efficiency (do they get a bonus for more people caught??) they should target LTs, Red Arrows and Heathrow routes as priority. But then again common sense is something of an extremely rare working in the TfL realm
|
|
|
Post by sid on Aug 2, 2017 13:15:25 GMT
I've seen the same on the 140, people boarding and just walking straight past the driver and going well beyond the free travel zone. I can quite believe that people chance their arm and ride well beyond the Heathrow free travel area. Surely TfL Revenue Protection should be regularly checking routes 105 and 140 soon after they leave the free travel zone. Human nature being what it is, unfortunately there will always be some people trying it on. Regular ticket checks would not totally eliminate abuse of the system but it would increase the likelihood of getting caught. Yes you would think revenue checks on buses leaving Heathrow might be a good idea although I don't know how many revenue staff TfL actually have but I can't remember the last time I saw one.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 2, 2017 13:53:10 GMT
I always tell Revenue Inspectors they should also check BorisBuses, but the nice ones tell me they do all the buses, whilst many just shrug, and recently had a rude one mumble something about knowing how to do her own job. Woman, it's feedback not criticism There already are ridiculously few R.Is for a city of this size (there are tons in Poland, hence nobody with more than half a brain ever fare dodges!), surely if they want some efficiency (do they get a bonus for more people caught??) they should target LTs, Red Arrows and Heathrow routes as priority. But then again common sense is something of an extremely rare working in the TfL realm You say it's not criticism which from yourself I suspect it isn't but put yourself in their shoes - I've people coming up to me daily telling me how to do my job despite me being there nearly 9 years now and you get sick of hearing self appointed 'experts' telling you crap you already know. Most likely the revenue inspectors get told by their bosses what routes and stops to target hence why one unfortunately gave you a rude reply - not condoning the rude part at all but if it was me, you'd of probably got a similar reply but nicely put instead.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Aug 2, 2017 13:57:53 GMT
I always tell Revenue Inspectors they should also check BorisBuses, but the nice ones tell me they do all the buses, whilst many just shrug, and recently had a rude one mumble something about knowing how to do her own job. Woman, it's feedback not criticism There already are ridiculously few R.Is for a city of this size (there are tons in Poland, hence nobody with more than half a brain ever fare dodges!), surely if they want some efficiency (do they get a bonus for more people caught??) they should target LTs, Red Arrows and Heathrow routes as priority. But then again common sense is something of an extremely rare working in the TfL realm You say it's not criticism which from yourself I suspect it isn't but put yourself in their shoes - I've people coming up to me daily telling me how to do my job despite me being there nearly 9 years now and you get sick of hearing self appointed 'experts' telling you crap you already know. Most likely the revenue inspectors get told by their bosses what routes and stops to target hence why one unfortunately gave you a rude reply - not condoning the rude part at all but if it was me, you'd of probably got a similar reply but nicely put instead. I've seen railway revenue staff get some serious abuse, even death threats aren't unheard of, and deal with it all very calmly and professionally. You need a pretty thick skin to do that job and there is no excuse for being rude to customers whatever the provocation and maybe the woman in question is in the wrong job? I must admit the job wouldn't be for me !
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 2, 2017 14:07:52 GMT
You say it's not criticism which from yourself I suspect it isn't but put yourself in their shoes - I've people coming up to me daily telling me how to do my job despite me being there nearly 9 years now and you get sick of hearing self appointed 'experts' telling you crap you already know. Most likely the revenue inspectors get told by their bosses what routes and stops to target hence why one unfortunately gave you a rude reply - not condoning the rude part at all but if it was me, you'd of probably got a similar reply but nicely put instead. I've seen railway revenue staff get some serious abuse, even death threats aren't unheard of, and deal with it all very calmly and professionally. You need a pretty thick skin to do that job and there is no excuse for being rude to customers whatever the provocation and maybe the woman in question is in the wrong job? I must admit the job wouldn't be for me ! Or could simply be having a bad day - again, not condoning the rudeness but it's never as straightforward as saying she could be in the wrong job. Your observation about not seeing revenue staff in a long while could quite match up with something else you said above regarding being treated dreadfully by the public as well as possible job cuts - that in turn leads to those left behind being overworked and can increase further bouts of rudeness rightly or wrongly.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Aug 2, 2017 14:37:12 GMT
I've seen railway revenue staff get some serious abuse, even death threats aren't unheard of, and deal with it all very calmly and professionally. You need a pretty thick skin to do that job and there is no excuse for being rude to customers whatever the provocation and maybe the woman in question is in the wrong job? I must admit the job wouldn't be for me ! Or could simply be having a bad day - again, not condoning the rudeness but it's never as straightforward as saying she could be in the wrong job. Your observation about not seeing revenue staff in a long while could quite match up with something else you said above regarding being treated dreadfully by the public as well as possible job cuts - that in turn leads to those left behind being overworked and can increase further bouts of rudeness rightly or wrongly. Absolutely, presumably the job must pay quite well or why would any sane minded person want to do it?
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Aug 2, 2017 22:47:22 GMT
I've seen the same on the 140, people boarding and just walking straight past the driver and going well beyond the free travel zone. I can quite believe that people chance their arm and ride well beyond the Heathrow free travel area. Surely TfL Revenue Protection should be regularly checking routes 105 and 140 soon after they leave the free travel zone. Human nature being what it is, unfortunately there will always be some people trying it on. Regular ticket checks would not totally eliminate abuse of the system but it would increase the likelihood of getting caught. While not condoning any overriding behaviour there is a subtle point to bear in mind. We do not know how the zone works in terms of revenue compensation to TfL. I assume there must be some level of check, ETM clicks or surveys to derive a level of revenue foregone. If TfL is compensated by HAL on a reasonable basis then given there is a flat bus fare there is unlikely to be too much loss. I'd argue it's far more of an issue on the commercial / SCC secured routes run by First, Abellio and others. I assume that people who commute regularly will have a Travelcard or Bus Pass for TfL routes. The Heathrow Travelcard products gives discounted travel on non TfL bus, coach and rail (HEX) services.
|
|
|
Post by Hassaan on Aug 2, 2017 23:28:06 GMT
I can quite believe that people chance their arm and ride well beyond the Heathrow free travel area. Surely TfL Revenue Protection should be regularly checking routes 105 and 140 soon after they leave the free travel zone. Human nature being what it is, unfortunately there will always be some people trying it on. Regular ticket checks would not totally eliminate abuse of the system but it would increase the likelihood of getting caught. While not condoning any overriding behaviour there is a subtle point to bear in mind. We do not know how the zone works in terms of revenue compensation to TfL. I assume there must be some level of check, ETM clicks or surveys to derive a level of revenue foregone. If TfL is compensated by HAL on a reasonable basis then given there is a flat bus fare there is unlikely to be too much loss. I'd argue it's far more of an issue on the commercial / SCC secured routes run by First, Abellio and others. I assume that people who commute regularly will have a Travelcard or Bus Pass for TfL routes. The Heathrow Travelcard products gives discounted travel on non TfL bus, coach and rail (HEX) services. Drivers do press some sort of button on the machine when people make use of the free travel area on the bus.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Aug 2, 2017 23:28:54 GMT
I always tell Revenue Inspectors they should also check BorisBuses, but the nice ones tell me they do all the buses, whilst many just shrug, and recently had a rude one mumble something about knowing how to do her own job. Woman, it's feedback not criticism There already are ridiculously few R.Is for a city of this size (there are tons in Poland, hence nobody with more than half a brain ever fare dodges!), surely if they want some efficiency (do they get a bonus for more people caught??) they should target LTs, Red Arrows and Heathrow routes as priority. But then again common sense is something of an extremely rare working in the TfL realm I think you are slightly underestimating the knowledge and research which goes on around fare evasion issues. Obviously buses are different to the Tube network which I am more familiar with but there is a lot of research that goes into spotting and dealing with fraud of various kinds. What might look "common sense" may not necessarily hold true in all cases. I'd also just say that London has done a lot of things with technology and the actual fare structure to remove a whole load of frauds that exist on other systems. A flat bus fare removes over-riding fraud. Non issue of tickets on buses removes staff fraud via ETMs and cashing errors. Free child travel removes a lot of child fare based fraud. Use of smartcard technology allows the cancellation of lost and stolen cards (when reported to TfL). The issue of Zip cards with photo IDs removes a lot of "child impersonation" fraud. Automatic daily capping removes / reduces "recycling" fraud around one day travelcards and the old Saver ticket. The ability to combine season tickets and cash balances for rail mode travel means automatic fare extensions are deducted. This reduces the scope of over-riding fraud and means people don't need to buy extension tickets first (in the Oyster area). I am certainly not saying the system is perfect and clearly there are other forms of fraud which I'm not going to list out on a public forum. By removing a lot of the old "high volume" easy frauds from the system this allows staff to concentrate on the remainder.
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Aug 26, 2017 22:06:12 GMT
Was thinking of finally filling in the consultation, but I still have a conflict of interest with the 427 proposals. I'm sure that the 427 capacity would still be required east of Southall. But the around-the-corner link from The Broadway towards South Road would be quite popular, even more so if instead of terminating at Merrick Road it was extended to Norwood Green (Tentelow Lane) using the full length of Merrick Road. I wonder if the lack of replacement for the 427 east of Southall has something to do with TfL wanting to provide a direct link between Hillingdon Hospital and Ealing Hospital. This would almost certainly pass through Southall Broadway if it ever went ahead. Maybe route 607 could be rerouted via Hillingdon Hospital?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2017 12:11:23 GMT
Here are my thoughts on the West London proposals one by one (sorry if I’m duplicating what others said, I joined this party fashionably late)
95/E5: No issues, can’t see any bother rerouteing in Southall/Greenford but then again I’m not resident there.
218/266: Pointless ‘new route’. Sorry but the proposals for the equally hopeless 306 wouldn’t be necessary if they simply ran the 218 as a DD to completely replace the 266 between Hammersmith and North Acton. And as a decker it could be used even further to assist the busy Harlesden and Craven Park areas. I agree the 266 needs to be cut and it’s good it will still run to Acton but what shouldn’t be happening is a two mile overlap, too short. Even if they insisted on a North Acton terminus why overlap this with another ‘token’ route (306)?! North Acton - Sands End would not be that long.
391/306: You may as well kiss the 391 goodbye. It will become a RRB service for the District which we all know TfL don’t want... they’ll view their ATO project a success when it’s rolled out, not to mention the amount of duplication along Chiswick High Road. It’s already had a frequency cut and the Kew section can (and probably will in my view) be covered by a Manor Circus extension on an existing route (which would link places south of Richmond better with Kew/Gunnersbury. Wouldn’t surprise me at all to see an extension on something like H22 as people mentioned on suggestions up to Kew as a replacement or maybe even Gunnersbury/Ealing. My issue with the 306 is how unnecessary it is. It replaces a modestly, somewhat busy section which the current 391 can handle (especially DDs) but the reason I think TfL introduces it is to placate Askew Ward residents. They have been s*** hot about 266 reliability and TfL see 218 as SD just so they can run it down Twyford Avenue which isn’t necessary if they leave the decent 440 alone. So they get to say they put two bus routes down there to placate people and it only goes up to Acton Vale... how useful is that going to be to people who live there? Poor planning IMO... they’re just turning it round there because there is a stand there but no thought goes into it’s usefulness.
440: TfL banging on about ‘indirect’... if that’s such an issue reroute it via Chiswick High Road and put the H91 back to the rear of Gunnersbury then, no? Seriously though if you look at the map it’s not THAT indirect so rather than putting it round Acton Main Line just leave it and run the 218 up there, since they’re gonna have it SD anyway. The ASDA change will negatively affect shoppers and wouldn’t save a great deal of time anyway and although I never see it busy around Fishers Way the diversion around Chiswick Park would take it away from a community health centre there. Agree with the wide sentiment to send it to Wembley.
112: I like this one... it would help the 65 at its busiest section and also to a degree the E8 but someone mentioned it would make the route long. I’m not sure about that, it’s a fairly straight route which only gets hampered by the A406 when it’s clogged up. Reliability could be an issue perhaps but then again what’s new? Running it to Osterley Tesco is interesting but I’m not sure where it would stand with H28 being there.
427: Another sceptical one. Makes the route very short and I’m not sure, just like the 306 idea, whether they thought this one over properly running it to no-mans-land Merrick Road just because there is a stand there. I know they want better connections to Southall station but is that the extent they are prepared to go? Just shove it in there. I’d have looked at extensions, as far as Hounslow even just Norwood Green to help the 120.
H32: Agree
140/X140: I kinda thought there might be ‘X’ routes on TfL infrastructure eventually (I even suggested some long ago and 140 was one of them) but my god I’m stunned they’d go as far as to cut the 140, much as I see the 278 idea as interesting. I always envisaged X routes complimenting the normal stopper routes and therefore easing the pressure on these routes. I know the 140 is long and does hit traffic hotspots but I can’t agree with the slaughter of a trunk route and putting what looks like a residential hopper like service in its place, even if it will be DD
Overall, some good but some very poor, the 218/266/306/391/440 mishmash in particular looks like a 3-year old’s circuit diagram to me
|
|
|
Post by CircleLineofLife on Jan 9, 2018 22:37:26 GMT
the 427 and 112 change is the worst bus change that they have proposed in a while. I think they should keep the 112 as it is and reroute the 427 from ealing broadway to Osterley via the golden mile instead of the 112. yh it breaks the uxbridge road bus thing they have going on but stopping at southall is a misallocation of resources. North circular road is too unreliable. 278 is the best thing that they have proposed I was expecting them to combine the U1 and U3 and make it 24 hour. but does it really have to be at the cost of the 140. I think the N140 has to be extend to edgware via the 340 relive the old days of edgware to heathrow. the 218 and 306 should just be combined tbh. extend the U4 or U5 to southall instead it would put the double deckers on the U5 to good use. connects south to Hillingdon hospital which they are planning to do. Extend the 90 to south Ruislip asda connects south Ruislip and Eastcote lane part of harrow with crossrail. the 350 should get a frequency increase when crossrail comes to cater for extra people using stockley park +1 AM bus
|
|