|
Post by vjaska on Sept 29, 2018 8:44:36 GMT
Oh it's really bad. I now have to commute once a week on the 176 to Tottenham Court Road. A 'quick' journey from just past Dulwich Library to TCR during the workday now takes 75 minutes (it's timetabled for 77 minutes from my stop) with huge padding between Trafalgar Square and TCR of 15 minutes to go along the Charing Cross Road. Last week, it took me 95 mins to get to TCR at lunchtime with 25 mins of that stuck on Charing Cross Road. I remember when it'd take 45 mins to get to Trafalgar Square during the daytime and 50 to TCR. The 20mph speed limits have a lot to answer for. And with the 176, none of its busy corridors are really being reduced. The 171 will not make a lot of difference along Kingsway. There is a reduction over Waterloo Bridge (4/171/RV1), but this is just a short section. Waterloo-Elephant only loses the 171, and Elephant-Camberwell is very overbused, and has no change at all. One step would be to fully withdraw route 171, with the 172 extended from Brockley to Bellingham (via the 171). The 12/68/172 would continue most links. I know I sound like a broken record but Elephant to Camberwell is not overbussed - there are good reasons why the corridor has many bus routes and that is the links they provide, assistance to other routes and the passengers flows along there.
|
|
|
Post by mondraker275 on Sept 29, 2018 9:01:29 GMT
I wonder how many of the millions saved per year will actually be resourced in Outer London boroughs which is the line TfL keep churning out. That is the question people need to push TfL on. 158 was the example given for NE London. Would like to see if anything happens on that route.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Sept 29, 2018 10:07:41 GMT
I wonder how many of the millions saved per year will actually be resourced in Outer London boroughs which is the line TfL keep churning out. That is the question people need to push TfL on. 158 was the example given for NE London. Would like to see if anything happens on that route. Very little if any at all as a number of routes running through outer London boroughs have received cuts already - it's just more spin from TfL. Didn't the 158 have a -1 PVR reduction earlier this year from 19 to 18?
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Sept 29, 2018 10:19:54 GMT
I know I sound like a broken record but Elephant to Camberwell is not overbussed - there are good reasons why the corridor has many bus routes and that is the links they provide, assistance to other routes and the passengers flows along there. Agreed! Walworth Road, like Brixton Hill, is just south of terminating tube lines and therefore needs its present bus resources to handle the capacity of punters south of Elephant and Castle and Brixton respectively. Granted not everyone interchanges between bus and tube at those points but considering that buses are the only public transport along Brixton Hill and Walworth Road the level of buses along there are justified. Also adding on that both are surrounded by heavily residential side streets and with Walworth Road there's also the long string of retails and East Street Market to add to the daytime factor.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2018 11:47:11 GMT
I don’t see what bus cuts during peak hours will achieve other than a drop in usage 🤷♂️ Just because people voted for Sadiq Khan, it doesn’t absolve him of responsibility for the outcomes of his policies. Also a vote for a politician or party isn’t necessarily an endorsement of 100% of their policies. Yes, many other capital cities have hopper fares but many (if not most?) also receive a government subsidy so we’re not comparing apples with apples. I don’t blame TfL for these cuts as they are implementing the will of the Mayor. The Mayor’s policies to date have resulted in increased congestion in central and outer London, slower bus journeys, fewer buses, and less money in the TfL coffers to the tune of over £700M over 4 years. The annual cost of the hopper fare was estimated to be £35M. The latest round of bus cuts will bring in tremendous savings added up earlier by another poster to be £22.5M. These cuts are merely TfL balancing the books. I agree that it doesn't absolve Sadiq Khan of any responsibility but most people seem to be quite happy with the fares freeze and hopper fare and probably take the view that cutting under used services in order to keep fares down is a small price to pay. But the question is will those same people feel the same when they reason why they’ve lost in terms compared to four years ago.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Sept 29, 2018 13:10:27 GMT
And with the 176, none of its busy corridors are really being reduced. The 171 will not make a lot of difference along Kingsway. There is a reduction over Waterloo Bridge (4/171/RV1), but this is just a short section. Waterloo-Elephant only loses the 171, and Elephant-Camberwell is very overbused, and has no change at all. One step would be to fully withdraw route 171, with the 172 extended from Brockley to Bellingham (via the 171). The 12/68/172 would continue most links. I know I sound like a broken record but Elephant to Camberwell is not overbussed - there are good reasons why the corridor has many bus routes and that is the links they provide, assistance to other routes and the passengers flows along there. To be honest it only sounds like a broken record because you say the same thing about numerous roads, according to you nowhere is over bussed.
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Sept 29, 2018 13:32:18 GMT
I would like to see a map of the full post-Crossrail/cuts Central London network. Any amateur cartographers out there? Some of the new services look a little peculiar, others look fatally wounded. The new 311 is very similar to the 22: long term, I think one or other will disappear. We've all had our say on the 45 but I think the 19 may be holed below the waterline. You'd be inclined to stay on a 38 to the Angel and change there, as you'd have a chance of a 4 as well. I don't think this is the end of it by any means.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Sept 29, 2018 13:39:07 GMT
I wonder how many of the millions saved per year will actually be resourced in Outer London boroughs which is the line TfL keep churning out. That is the question people need to push TfL on. 158 was the example given for NE London. Would like to see if anything happens on that route. Very little. I asked Tom Edwards of the BBC if he'd been given a number by TfL for the outer london increase. He said "2%" but couldn't say when that would kick in or what base number the 2% increase would be based on. To be honest it looks very like the tiny 7m kms increase that is in the TfL Business Plan for 2022/23 so years away and well beyond the next Mayoral Election. In short it's a pointless, irrelevant number to what may happen now or in the next 12 months. While it's not an outright lie by TfL to refer to it they must now that they are really stretching a point by referring to it as some sort of justification for lopping off 37m kms from the network. It is also 2% of the much reduced network that will be evident by then - assuming no more financial shocks. Nothing is happening to the 158. I got the route spec via FOI for the new tender. There is an option to bump up the peak frequency to 9 buses an hour but TfL have not activated that option as part of the award. I did comment on all the FOI info I got in the relevant tender award thread. I suspect the reference to the 158 in that TfL presentation is to the *last* frequency increase of 7.5bph which (IMO) is only required in the peaks. It's unnecessary largesse when it comes to the off peak period. We may need more buses in the Blackhorse Road area when all the new housing comes on stream but I suspect that an awful lot of the new residents will be using the tube and Overground and not the buses. AIUI a proportion of the housing is for students so they will be commuting to the relevant college or university - most likely on the tube but possibly on the 123/230 which are either standing still in terms of frequency or have been cut.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Sept 29, 2018 13:41:56 GMT
I would like to see a map of the full post-Crossrail/cuts Central London network. Any amateur cartographers out there? Some of the new services look a little peculiar, others look fatally wounded. The new 311 is very similar to the 22: long term, I think one or other will disappear. We've all had our say on the 45 but I think the 19 may be holed below the waterline. You'd be inclined to stay on a 38 to the Angel and change there, as you'd have a chance of a 4 as well. I don't think this is the end of it by any means. Of course it isn't. As I've said before this is Phase 1 of about 3 phases by my estimation to completely rationalise and thin out the radial network. There is a lot worse to come. And when TfL start of the suburbs - oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Goodbye to all those long radial routes like the 114, 182, 183. Hello a rationalised mess and local feeder services.
|
|
|
Post by rhys on Sept 29, 2018 13:45:11 GMT
I know I sound like a broken record but Elephant to Camberwell is not overbussed - there are good reasons why the corridor has many bus routes and that is the links they provide, assistance to other routes and the passengers flows along there. To be honest it only sounds like a broken record because you say the same thing about numerous roads, according to you nowhere is over bussed. To be fair, the Walworth Road area does need quite a load of services running through it. Walworth Road is home to East Street Market, which sees thousands of people per day. Walworth Road also doesn’t see any local train or tube services serving it. Buses are often the only mode of transport along Walworth Road. Probably it may be slightly overbussed, but I do think most services along there are justified. More importantly, if you were to start removing services from a Walworth Road, where would you send them? I’ve seen in the past that you’ve suggested that curtailing routes at Camberwell Green would be the best option, but there simply isn’t the space at Camberwell and surrounding local areas.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Sept 29, 2018 19:23:32 GMT
To be honest it only sounds like a broken record because you say the same thing about numerous roads, according to you nowhere is over bussed. To be fair, the Walworth Road area does need quite a load of services running through it. Walworth Road is home to East Street Market, which sees thousands of people per day. Walworth Road also doesn’t see any local train or tube services serving it. Buses are often the only mode of transport along Walworth Road. Probably it may be slightly overbussed, but I do think most services along there are justified. More importantly, if you were to start removing services from a Walworth Road, where would you send them? I’ve seen in the past that you’ve suggested that curtailing routes at Camberwell Green would be the best option, but there simply isn’t the space at Camberwell and surrounding local areas. I suggested curtailing the 468 at Camberwell Green rather than reduce the frequency although I realise stand space might be a problem. The easiest way would probably be to withdraw the 45 as suggested, I can't see much justification for running it just between Elephant & Castle and Clapham Park. I suspect improved train services from Denmark Hill have had an effect, a lot of people getting off buses from the Dulwich direction there in the morning peak.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Sept 29, 2018 19:43:40 GMT
I know I sound like a broken record but Elephant to Camberwell is not overbussed - there are good reasons why the corridor has many bus routes and that is the links they provide, assistance to other routes and the passengers flows along there. To be honest it only sounds like a broken record because you say the same thing about numerous roads, according to you nowhere is over bussed. Just goes to show how much you read my posts - anyway, let’s leave it there because everyone is quite tired of this constant point scoring from both of us.
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Sept 29, 2018 20:27:06 GMT
To be honest it only sounds like a broken record because you say the same thing about numerous roads, according to you nowhere is over bussed. Just goes to show how much you read my posts - anyway, let’s leave it there because everyone is quite tired of this constant point scoring from both of us. At a guess, and it’s only a guess, I can see the 45 heading further west from Clapham Park, and as snoggle has said above : a lot of radial routes in the suburbs look vulnerable- the 57 being one. An extended 45 to somewhere on the 57, and a cut back 57. But time will tell.
|
|
|
Post by VWH1414 on Sept 29, 2018 20:28:08 GMT
I wonder how many of the millions saved per year will actually be resourced in Outer London boroughs which is the line TfL keep churning out. That is the question people need to push TfL on. 158 was the example given for NE London. Would like to see if anything happens on that route. Very little if any at all as a number of routes running through outer London boroughs have received cuts already - it's just more spin from TfL. Didn't the 158 have a -1 PVR reduction earlier this year from 19 to 18? I think this is just something TfL will say but won't actually do, all around outer boroughs have seen many cuts. I mean the 303/305 idea cut links if anything and was not helpful at all, the 240 received a pvr cut, the 292 is pending a severe pvr cut, many other routes have been cut (And this is just in N London). The only bit of money being used into outer boroughs is the 384 consultation which in a way feels rushed and like its just for publicity to make it look like they are doing something in the outer boroughs. I'm curious to see if they bring out any other 'modifications' to outer London routes, if they do I highly doubt they will be put into place without cuts on other routes in the area.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Sept 29, 2018 20:31:59 GMT
Just goes to show how much you read my posts - anyway, let’s leave it there because everyone is quite tired of this constant point scoring from both of us. At a guess, and it’s only a guess, I can see the 45 heading further west from Clapham Park, and as snoggle has said above : a lot of radial routes in the suburbs look vulnerable- the 57 being one. An extended 45 to somewhere on the 57, and a cut back 57. But time will tell. Both the 57 and 333 might be deemed excessive between Tooting Broadway and Streatham?
|
|