|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Aug 17, 2018 18:42:41 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by sid on Aug 17, 2018 18:57:24 GMT
Sounds like a cheap publicity stunt quite honestly, the 88 will go to all the places that the C2 does and more and I'm pretty sure everyone will get a seat. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Aug 17, 2018 22:56:00 GMT
Interesting. I saw a comment earlier today that suggested TfL might have made a "wrong choice" in seeking to remove the C2 because so many people who work in the media use it. One bizarre comment from TfL in that article - my old mate Geoff Hobbs is quoted as saying "removing bus on bus congestion will improve reliability". Are TfL now arguing that buses cause congestion in addition to creating "road danger"?? Have they gone nuts or become black cab drivers [1]? [1] they believe one bus on the road constitutes congestion never mind 2 or 3 of them. |
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Aug 17, 2018 23:11:19 GMT
Interesting. I saw a comment earlier today that suggested TfL might have made a "wrong choice" in seeking to remove the C2 because so many people who work in the media use it. One bizarre comment from TfL in that article - my old mate Geoff Hobbs is quoted as saying "removing bus on bus congestion will improve reliability". Are TfL now arguing that buses cause congestion in addition to creating "road danger"?? Have they gone nuts or become black cab drivers [1]? [1] they believe one bus on the road constitutes congestion never mind 2 or 3 of them. This goes back to the Mayor's vision of no bus casualties. Fewer buses means there will be fewer accidents with buses. I'll let you make of that what you will!!!
Buses of course cause congestion and road danger, so the fewer buses the better, the argument goes!! Of course taking this argument to its logical conclusion means getting rid of all buses, for if there are none, they can cause no delay or accidents !!! 
As for objecting to the removal of the C2, they will need to have considerably better arguments. I can see TfL extending the C2 to Clapham and axing the 88 (shades of the 13). Then everyone will be happy as the C2 will have been 'saved' !!! 
|
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Aug 17, 2018 23:19:13 GMT
Interesting. I saw a comment earlier today that suggested TfL might have made a "wrong choice" in seeking to remove the C2 because so many people who work in the media use it. One bizarre comment from TfL in that article - my old mate Geoff Hobbs is quoted as saying "removing bus on bus congestion will improve reliability". Are TfL now arguing that buses cause congestion in addition to creating "road danger"?? Have they gone nuts or become black cab drivers [1]? [1] they believe one bus on the road constitutes congestion never mind 2 or 3 of them. This goes back to the Mayor's vision of no bus casualties. Fewer buses means there will be fewer accidents with buses. I'll let you make of that what you will!!!
Buses of course cause congestion and road danger, so the fewer buses the better, the argument goes!! Of course taking this argument to its logical conclusion means getting rid of all buses, for if there are none, they can cause no delay or accidents !!!
As for objecting to the removal of the C2, they will need to have considerably better arguments. I can see TfL extending the C2 to Clapham and axing the 88 (shades of the 13). Then everyone will be happy as the C2 will have been 'saved' !!!
They can say the C stood for Clapham all along.  |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Aug 17, 2018 23:20:02 GMT
As for objecting to the removal of the C2, they will need to have considerably better arguments. I can see TfL extending the C2 to Clapham and axing the 88 (shades of the 13). Then everyone will be happy as the C2 will have been 'saved' !!! Oh sure. I don't think their arguments are very strong at all. They also seem unaware that TfL are cutting the frequency in the near future so they'll all be having longer waits soon. I don't particularly like the 88 / C2 change for obvious reasons but it was hardly a surprise. The only real point they have is a genuine concern about service reliability as the 88 does have to get through a number of difficult areas and we know Vauxhall gyratory works will have a big impact on bus routes in that area. As Mr Busaholic has said the likelihood of route 88 curtailments affecting the north end of the route will rise for as long as the operating garage is in South London. The reverse would apply if, at a future date, Metroline gained the contract and ran it from North London. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 18, 2018 0:37:26 GMT
Interesting. I saw a comment earlier today that suggested TfL might have made a "wrong choice" in seeking to remove the C2 because so many people who work in the media use it. One bizarre comment from TfL in that article - my old mate Geoff Hobbs is quoted as saying "removing bus on bus congestion will improve reliability". Are TfL now arguing that buses cause congestion in addition to creating "road danger"?? Have they gone nuts or become black cab drivers [1]? [1] they believe one bus on the road constitutes congestion never mind 2 or 3 of them. On the ITV News, Sadiq Kahn made the same argument about buses causing congestion so it looks like thats the stance they are adopting here when it's actually completely false. |
|
|
|
Post by ServerKing on Aug 18, 2018 0:58:40 GMT
Interesting. I saw a comment earlier today that suggested TfL might have made a "wrong choice" in seeking to remove the C2 because so many people who work in the media use it. One bizarre comment from TfL in that article - my old mate Geoff Hobbs is quoted as saying "removing bus on bus congestion will improve reliability". Are TfL now arguing that buses cause congestion in addition to creating "road danger"?? Have they gone nuts or become black cab drivers [1]? [1] they believe one bus on the road constitutes congestion never mind 2 or 3 of them. On the ITV News, Sadiq Kahn made the same argument about buses causing congestion so it looks like thats the stance they are adopting here when it's actually completely false. Although buses are carrying oxygen alot in central London, removing them won't help... but we know the cupboard is bare. We never hear anything of Leon Daniels successor, is the buses division running itself now? Doesn't seem to be going well, mind you Remove the commuter cycle lanes to improve congestion, fine utilities for overrunning road works, especially unnattended ones or badly planned ones i.e large section of road closed by cones / temporary lights near a tiny hole that's been dug  |
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Aug 18, 2018 8:36:11 GMT
Interesting. I saw a comment earlier today that suggested TfL might have made a "wrong choice" in seeking to remove the C2 because so many people who work in the media use it. One bizarre comment from TfL in that article - my old mate Geoff Hobbs is quoted as saying "removing bus on bus congestion will improve reliability". Are TfL now arguing that buses cause congestion in addition to creating "road danger"?? Have they gone nuts or become black cab drivers [1]? [1] they believe one bus on the road constitutes congestion never mind 2 or 3 of them. On the ITV News, Sadiq Kahn made the same argument about buses causing congestion so it looks like thats the stance they are adopting here when it's actually completely false. This is classic spin to support an argument Of course the reality is that anything else using the road adds to its busyness What it very true of the modern era is that some bus priority now cause congestion (because they push all other traffic into one lane, which then tails back before startof bus lane). Generally this has happened where 3 former lanes now converted to a cycle lane, a bus lane, and one lane for all other traffic. There is a mathematical theory (forgot its name) where offering 3 routes/lanes results in random usage that is roughly even and self regulating, to optimise flow. Now opposite is “planned”. Look at the (lack of) road markings on that bit of 1920s film, snoggle posted and see how traffic flows around obstructions |
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Aug 18, 2018 11:20:13 GMT
Sounds like a cheap publicity stunt quite honestly, the 88 will go to all the places that the C2 does and more and I'm pretty sure everyone will get a seat.You can't be so sure about that unless the 88 subsequently receives a frequency increase, which it should do. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Aug 18, 2018 12:20:06 GMT
Sounds like a cheap publicity stunt quite honestly, the 88 will go to all the places that the C2 does and more and I'm pretty sure everyone will get a seat.You can't be so sure about that unless the 88 subsequently receives a frequency increase, which it should do. From what I've seen of the 88 the current level of service is more than adequate and a reduction is more likely than an increase, outside of London a road with the usage level of Albany Street would be lucky to see two buses an hour. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 18, 2018 14:13:39 GMT
You can't be so sure about that unless the 88 subsequently receives a frequency increase, which it should do. From what I've seen of the 88 the current level of service is more than adequate and a reduction is more likely than an increase, outside of London a road with the usage level of Albany Street would be lucky to see two buses an hour. It's an unfair comparison to compare London with outside London given the population in London is far bigger, bus use is still far more even with the decline & demand in London is far more unpredictable than outside where demand is generally far easier to predict. |
|
