|
Post by SILENCED on Jan 18, 2018 15:24:21 GMT
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. Hopper fare cures all these days, but I was thinking 463 to chipstead and 434 taking over the 463 Woodmansterne section
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jan 18, 2018 15:34:54 GMT
Possibly but I think there would be an outcry, just a half hourly service and no direct link to Croydon. Hopper fare cures all these days, but I was thinking 463 to chipstead and 434 taking over the 463 Woodmansterne section I don't see anything as draconian as that taking place, if TfL want to make savings in the area the 466 would be more appropriate, no way is x10 minute frequency to Caterham on the Hill justified.
|
|
|
Post by 725DYE on Jan 18, 2018 16:47:52 GMT
I don't want to sound especially biased but the 166 is my favourite TFL route. But taking my opinion out of the matter, a cut of the 166 between Banstead and Epsom Hospital will be very detrimental. I have used it countless times with friends, it has many shoppers going to the Ashley Centre, as well as school kids going to Epsom College and other schools too. I have to say that I am 100% backing Chris Grayling under this consultation. A total withdrawal of the route would be unbelievable. I just got off a 166 about 30 mins ago and as usual it was packed, so what is the point of cutting a route in demand. Not only would it further worsen the capacity crisis along the Brighton Road, but it would also put stress on certain routes further up the line in Coulsdon. A supplementary extension of the 434 or 404(?) would in no manner be adequate to provide a service with the amount of capacity that is provided at this current time. In my opinion, this is the last straw with cutting TFL services..... not to mention where does the 166 terminate? Epsom * Hospital*
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jan 18, 2018 16:59:44 GMT
I don't want to sound especially biased but the 166 is my favourite TFL route. But taking my opinion out of the matter, a cut of the 166 between Banstead and Epsom Hospital will be very detrimental. I have used it countless times with friends, it has many shoppers going to the Ashley Centre, as well as school kids going to Epsom College and other schools too. I have to say that I am 100% backing Chris Grayling under this consultation. A total withdrawal of the route would be unbelievable. I just got off a 166 about 30 mins ago and as usual it was packed, so what is the point of cutting a route in demand. Not only would it further worsen the capacity crisis along the Brighton Road, but it would also put stress on certain routes further up the line in Coulsdon. A supplementary extension of the 434 or 404(?) would in no manner be adequate to provide a service with the amount of capacity that is provided at this current time. In my opinion, this is the last straw with cutting TFL services..... not to mention where does the 166 terminate? Epsom * Hospital* Epsom to Coulsdon is very nice but the Brighton Road section into Croydon is a bit non descript. Buses have always been busy in and out of Epsom when I've used it although lack of usage isn't the problem here. I'm not surprised that the bus you got off was packed, maybe it will get double deckers if, as seems likely, it is curtailed at Chipstead Valley? I can't imagine it being withdrawn without replacement but extending the 312 to Chipstead Valley is a possibility, we'll just have to wait and see.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 18, 2018 18:13:55 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. Not really a solution though. A private operation on the Epsom leg was tried years ago but was eventually pulled and incorporated into the 166. I assume it struggled then and its prospects will be vastly worse now. If we assume that freedom pass / ENCTS pass holders are a significant proportion of users on the Epsom leg then charging "commercial fares" just shoves up the reimbursement issue for SCC who may end up worse off than now financially and may need to part support any "commercial" route anyway. I strongly suspect that the link to Epsom Hospital on the 166 will be "traded" for the proposed extension of route 470 to the hospital. I expect that to figure in the upcoming consultation. I also suspect the 166 will be reduced in frequency to half hourly regardless of whether the Epsom leg is retained. I do fear the whole thing is going to become embroiled in some rather difficult politics - some of which will be justified and some not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2018 16:55:31 GMT
Much of the issue with funding is politics at play. Having a labour mayor and a tory government is not conducive to the public good. Bickering about money , cutting services, putting taxes up don't help politicians at all. You then get a divide within the public with Londoners not wanting to pay for a bus route that dares to trundle "out county" It's short sighted nonsense, and typical of this countries rubbish ability at coordinated transport policies.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Feb 12, 2018 23:05:54 GMT
Have just seen something posted up on The Londoner group - someone has received a reply to their message they sent to what looks like Surrey County Council. The reply states that they've agreed a deal with TfL to continue to support the 166 financially for the next 5 years with the words, "meaning it will continue unaltered" So 725DYE can breathe a sigh of relief it seems.
|
|
|
Post by 725DYE on Feb 12, 2018 23:24:01 GMT
Have just seen something posted up on The Londoner group - someone has received a reply to their message they sent to what looks like Surrey County Council. The reply states that they've agreed a deal with TfL to continue to support the 166 financially for the next 5 years with the words, "meaning it will continue unaltered" So 725DYE can breathe a sigh of relief it seems. Indeed I can. Many a sleepless night have occurred since the rumours began
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Feb 13, 2018 0:46:40 GMT
|
|
|
Post by ServerKing on Feb 13, 2018 6:39:52 GMT
That's good news, they can put those ENLs off the 268 to good use once they move
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Feb 13, 2018 10:00:38 GMT
Err note the article says the 216 runs to Ashford hospital not Staines. Not sure that is "saved".
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Feb 13, 2018 10:41:25 GMT
Err note the article says the 216 runs to Ashford hospital not Staines. Not sure that is "saved". I'm aware of that but the way the article is written it seems to be a typo - we'll have to wait & see I guess.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Feb 13, 2018 14:04:28 GMT
Err note the article says the 216 runs to Ashford hospital not Staines. Not sure that is "saved". I'm aware of that but the way the article is written it seems to be a typo - we'll have to wait & see I guess. Well as you say we will see. I can't see £120,000 going very far in supporting two routes that run to TfL frequencies over a 5 year period. I suspect the 166 has been saved but the 216 will still be cut back to Ashford Hospital.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2018 20:54:02 GMT
I'm aware of that but the way the article is written it seems to be a typo - we'll have to wait & see I guess. Well as you say we will see. I can't see £120,000 going very far in supporting two routes that run to TfL frequencies over a 5 year period. I suspect the 166 has been saved but the 216 will still be cut back to Ashford Hospital. Yes I think of the two the 166 was perhaps more important. The 290 will be busier now , hope it gets a re route via the 216 and a sensible coordination of the timetable as much as possible
|
|