|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Jan 18, 2018 11:52:37 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Jan 18, 2018 12:05:38 GMT
This one will be interesting as it is in Transport Secretary Chris Graylings constitency Don't you just love the way the photo of LT1 on its launch tour Dec2011 is used to illustrate a 166 bus |
|
|
|
Post by planesandtrains on Jan 18, 2018 12:11:53 GMT
Seems like it might be the 465 situation all over again, lots of big talk, some big people get behind and then 5 years later the same thing happens all over again.
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jan 18, 2018 12:23:33 GMT
Seems like it might be the 465 situation all over again, lots of big talk, some big people get behind and then 5 years later the same thing happens all over again. I'm not so sure - I reckon this one will go unfortunately as majority of the demand to & from Epsom is between Epsom & Banstead plus the fact it's a particular journey so TfL could simply cut it on this point alone whereas the 465 had demand into TfL land from Surrey which makes it more difficult to remove. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 18, 2018 12:48:24 GMT
Yet another thing for Khan and Grayling to hate each other over! I bet the "discussions" were fun. CG - "You must save the 166 bus" SK - "You have taken all of TfL's revenue grant away" CG - "You have frozen fares and deprived TfL of money. You must save the 166 bus" SK - "That was a manifesto commitment. I keep my promises unlike someone I could mention. You have taken all of TfL's revenue grant away. You don't give me money for services to Epsom" CG - "You must save the 166 bus" SK - "You have taken all of TfL's revenue grant away" Ad infinitum ....   |
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jan 18, 2018 13:04:12 GMT
If indeed so, it's a shame that the Banstead to Epsom section of the 166 is under threat. I can see the 166 being permanently curtailed to Banstead with a local service taking over the section to and from Epsom.
However, if the 166's frequency is altered to 3 BPH throughout the entire route maybe the extra BPH would make a difference in attracting more patronage within the aforementioned section due to the more desirable frequency (despite it currently being a well used section of the route anyway) therefore there will be more resistance against cutting back the 166.
Having said that, I acknowledge it is a funding issue rather than a ridership one, the former of which TFL will always prioritise over anything.
|
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Jan 18, 2018 13:20:46 GMT
If indeed so, it's a shame that the Banstead to Epsom section of the 166 is under threat. I can see the 166 being permanently curtailed to Banstead with a local service taking over the section to and from Epsom. However, if the 166's frequency is altered to 3 BPH throughout the entire route maybe the extra BPH would make a difference in attracting more patronage within the aforementioned section due to the more desirable frequency (despite it currently being a well used section of the route anyway) therefore there will be more resistance against cutting back the 166. Having said that, I acknowledge it is a funding issue rather than a ridership one, the former of which TFL will always prioritise over anything. I could possibly see the whole of the 166 getting cut with a tinkering of other routes in the Coulsdon Chipstead Woodmansterne area. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jan 18, 2018 14:01:07 GMT
If indeed so, it's a shame that the Banstead to Epsom section of the 166 is under threat. I can see the 166 being permanently curtailed to Banstead with a local service taking over the section to and from Epsom. However, if the 166's frequency is altered to 3 BPH throughout the entire route maybe the extra BPH would make a difference in attracting more patronage within the aforementioned section due to the more desirable frequency (despite it currently being a well used section of the route anyway) therefore there will be more resistance against cutting back the 166. Having said that, I acknowledge it is a funding issue rather than a ridership one, the former of which TFL will always prioritise over anything. I could possibly see the whole of the 166 getting cut with a tinkering of other routes in the Coulsdon Chipstead Woodmansterne area. The 312 could be extended to Chipstead Valley or Banstead, assuming that section will remain, but the frequency is higher and I don't know how long the electric buses can stay out without being charged? |
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Jan 18, 2018 14:07:53 GMT
I could possibly see the whole of the 166 getting cut with a tinkering of other routes in the Coulsdon Chipstead Woodmansterne area. The 312 could be extended to Chipstead Valley or Banstead, assuming that section will remain, but the frequency is higher and I don't know how long the electric buses can stay out without being charged? I was not anticipating anything as generous as a replacement. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jan 18, 2018 14:20:29 GMT
The 312 could be extended to Chipstead Valley or Banstead, assuming that section will remain, but the frequency is higher and I don't know how long the electric buses can stay out without being charged? I was not anticipating anything as generous as a replacement. I don't think the Chipstead Valley section can be left unserved even if it withdrawn beyond there and there would be a loss of capacity along Brighton Road. I wouldn't envisage a complete withdrawal although there seems to be so many conflicting rumours floating about at the moment it's hard to know what to think. |
|
|
|
Post by YY13VKP on Jan 18, 2018 14:33:28 GMT
I was not anticipating anything as generous as a replacement. I don't think the Chipstead Valley section can be left unserved even if it withdrawn beyond there and there would be a loss of capacity along Brighton Road. I wouldn't envisage a complete withdrawal although there seems to be so many conflicting rumours floating about at the moment it's hard to know what to think. Could always extend route 434 to Chipstead Valley or Banstead, and route 404 to Ridgemount Avenue/Rickman Hill |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jan 18, 2018 14:39:19 GMT
I don't think the Chipstead Valley section can be left unserved even if it withdrawn beyond there and there would be a loss of capacity along Brighton Road. I wouldn't envisage a complete withdrawal although there seems to be so many conflicting rumours floating about at the moment it's hard to know what to think. Could always extend route 434 to Chipstead Valley or Banstead, and route 404 to Ridgemount Avenue/Rickman Hill Possibly but I think there would be an outcry, just a half hourly service and no direct link to Croydon. |
|
|
|
Post by busman on Jan 18, 2018 14:48:12 GMT
**sits back pulls out the popcorn and beer in readiness for Khan vs Grayling part II**
I think Snoggle has called the narrative of the forthcoming argument very well. There will be a row, but the fact is the financial impact of the government cuts (approx £700M p/a) seems to outweigh Khan’s fare freeze (approx £132M p/a). Even without the fare freeze, TfL would still need to make substantial cuts/cost savings each year.
Ultimately the government’s decision to withdraw funding to TfL has caused the MoL to think more selfishly about where money is spent. As a London taxpayer, if data shows that the overwhelming majority of journeys to and from Epsom start and finish beyond Banstead,I think it’s quite reasonable for Surrey CC to pay for services beyond that point. If there is significant demand to Epsom from within the TfL boundary then I think it would be churlish to cut the 166, just on the basis of where the border is set.
I think TfL have already made their minds up to chop this route back and SCC will have to find an alternative way of maintaining local links as KCC did when Arriva cut back the 402.
|
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jan 18, 2018 14:53:03 GMT
**sits back pulls out the popcorn and beer in readiness for Khan vs Grayling part II** Wow........I think I'd rather watch paint dry quite honestly! |
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Jan 18, 2018 15:04:52 GMT
SCC, instead of paying TfL to operate the 166, would simply tender a route between Chipstead Valley (or preferably, Coulsdon) and Epsom Hospital; maybe it could be an extension of the 408. Or maybe RATP Quality Line or Buses Excetera would take such a route on commercially as they are able to charge realistic fares on it. Then all TfL has to do is decide what operates between Croydon and Chipstead Valley - the 312 seems like the obvious candidate.
|
|
