|
Post by Steve80 on Jan 4, 2014 5:34:18 GMT
Axing the 178 & T33? Both routes suffer from SEVERE overcrowding at all time of the day I wouldn't axe the T33 but it certainly does not suffer from severe overcrowding at all times of the day. It's busy during the peaks and that's about it - at other times, it's is averagely used at best. Tbh, the T33 can get really busy at East Croydon and even at night I would have standees right upto the front. Im always happy when a 64 is in front but more often than not its always behind me Last month, the trams wasn't running towards New Addington due to track works and despite the rail replacement buses, there was one trip when I had to leave passengers behind at East Croydon and South Croydon. In saying this, when leaving Addington Village and especially in the evenings, there have been a few occasions when I drove without picking up anyone until I get to East Croydon where I pick up several although that's understandable as you get many passengers coming off other buses and the station with most wishing to make their way towards West Croydon.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2014 9:48:59 GMT
I'd scrap the 138, 178, 199, 231, 296, 312, 330, 332, 396, B11, T32, T33. If you have ever done the T33 you would know that it picks up people and is a very useful route, I would even go as farit as extending it over the T32 route and then get rid of the T32 Exactly mate, it's very useful, it's Forestdales only bus to Croydon. I think could even do wiv double deckers! It's also a nice route, nice fast adrenaline rushing roads round Forestdale Estate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2014 9:50:40 GMT
Withdraw route 330 or extend it to Poplar, All Saints via East India Dock Road and extend D7 to Canning Town via East India Dock Road aswell. Also withdraw route 353 and replace it with route T32. 353, during the day is quiet wiv a 8.9m, but is extremely busy during school times. I think double deckers should only be used at school times, single decks the rest of the time. It's a very nice route, and there's enough demand for it to stay
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2014 9:53:04 GMT
I would also cut at least one of the 140 and 182 back to Harrow, both if I'm feeling mean. Actually the first thing I would axe is free travel for the under-18s. Nothing wrong with half-fares and you'd also be able to bring adult fares down a little. I'm wiv you on axing free travel, school kids damage the buses the most!
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Jan 4, 2014 10:04:12 GMT
Withdraw route 330 or extend it to Poplar, All Saints via East India Dock Road and extend D7 to Canning Town via East India Dock Road aswell. Also withdraw route 353 and replace it with route T32. 353, during the day is quiet wiv a 8.9m, but is extremely busy during school times. I think double deckers should only be used at school times, single decks the rest of the time. It's a very nice route, and there's enough demand for it to stay That is pointless simply because two sets of vehicles would have to be funded on a daily basis, it would cost a lot more to run plus, where are these single Deckers going to come from? The route should remain contracted with double Deckers, Metrobus regularly put Singles on the 353 anyways as it can cope with them especially weekends. The 353 used to be fully single decker anyways, the main reason it uses double Deckers is because of School Kids in Keston Mark.
|
|
|
Post by marlon101 on Jan 4, 2014 10:11:02 GMT
One route to be scrapped without replacement: 492. I may be tempted to divert the 233 to make a sweep through the North Cray Estate if I was feeling generous but, I'd live without doing so!
A reduction in peak hour services: Raises the interesting question of better traffic management, which TfL are no longer prioritising. If traffic flows improved we could cut left, right and centre. In the meantime I am going to propose a reduction in frequencies for the 91 to 6bph. I'd also cut a chunk off of the 25. Demand on that route will always expand to fill supply, might as well cut out some and force the cheapskates onto the tube.
Routes where I would scrap early and late services or reduce them: I'm in favour of a wholesale reduction in off-peak services. I would contend that with much greater reliability these days and the growth in technology to be able to tell when a bus is coming, maintaining turn up and go frequencies are much less important. Thinking of the routes past my house, I'd cut the 229 from 4bph to 3. I'd even go further if controllers were in a position to streamline services through key corridors. I've mentioned previously that iBus fragments the network an bus frequencies are controlled on a route by route basis. Cross-route thinking would enable further savings.
Section of a route to be scrapped: 89 between Bexleyheath and Slade Green. For no reason in particular but I personally have no need or desire to have a connection to Slade Green.
One route where you would scrap the Sunday service: The 160. DT would be a gost town on a Sunday if I had my way.
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Jan 4, 2014 10:43:04 GMT
One route to be scrapped without replacement: 492. I may be tempted to divert the 233 to make a sweep through the North Cray Estate if I was feeling generous but, I'd live without doing so! A reduction in peak hour services: Raises the interesting question of better traffic management, which TfL are no longer prioritising. If traffic flows improved we could cut left, right and centre. In the meantime I am going to propose a reduction in frequencies for the 91 to 6bph. I'd also cut a chunk off of the 25. Demand on that route will always expand to fill supply, might as well cut out some and force the cheapskates onto the tube. Routes where I would scrap early and late services or reduce them: I'm in favour of a wholesale reduction in off-peak services. I would contend that with much greater reliability these days and the growth in technology to be able to tell when a bus is coming, maintaining turn up and go frequencies are much less important. Thinking of the routes past my house, I'd cut the 229 from 4bph to 3. I'd even go further if controllers were in a position to streamline services through key corridors. I've mentioned previously that iBus fragments the network an bus frequencies are controlled on a route by route basis. Cross-route thinking would enable further savings. Section of a route to be scrapped: 89 between Bexleyheath and Slade Green. For no reason in particular but I personally have no need or desire to have a connection to Slade Green. One route where you would scrap the Sunday service: The 160. DT would be a gost town on a Sunday if I had my way. Id scrap the 160 & 492 altogether, both services are rubbish.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2014 11:29:20 GMT
One route to be scrapped without replacement: 492. I may be tempted to divert the 233 to make a sweep through the North Cray Estate if I was feeling generous but, I'd live without doing so! A reduction in peak hour services: Raises the interesting question of better traffic management, which TfL are no longer prioritising. If traffic flows improved we could cut left, right and centre. In the meantime I am going to propose a reduction in frequencies for the 91 to 6bph. I'd also cut a chunk off of the 25. Demand on that route will always expand to fill supply, might as well cut out some and force the cheapskates onto the tube. Routes where I would scrap early and late services or reduce them: I'm in favour of a wholesale reduction in off-peak services. I would contend that with much greater reliability these days and the growth in technology to be able to tell when a bus is coming, maintaining turn up and go frequencies are much less important. Thinking of the routes past my house, I'd cut the 229 from 4bph to 3. I'd even go further if controllers were in a position to streamline services through key corridors. I've mentioned previously that iBus fragments the network an bus frequencies are controlled on a route by route basis. Cross-route thinking would enable further savings. Section of a route to be scrapped: 89 between Bexleyheath and Slade Green. For no reason in particular but I personally have no need or desire to have a connection to Slade Green. One route where you would scrap the Sunday service: The 160. DT would be a gost town on a Sunday if I had my way. Id scrap the 160 & 492 altogether, both services are rubbish. But that's down to the operator, if Stagecoach ran the 160 from TL and Go Ahead the 492 from BX there would be an immediate improvement
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2014 11:34:35 GMT
Now to do one for routes outside of my own local area One route you'd scrap altogether without replacement. Route 415 is taken as read so can't be nominated. Very controversial but I'd scrap the 411 and extend the 85 to replace it. For me, it's quite hard to think of a useless route to scrap other than the 415 or T32. One route where you'd reduce early morning and evening services. Please say how much you'd reduce services by. You can, if you wish, scrap service at these times completely.Can't answer this one TBH. One route where you'd reduce peak hour services. Please say how much you'd reduce services by.The 38 - has enough buses to cope for a reduction, probably reduce it to a standardised 6 minutes. I'd probably also target a number of other more busy routes around Central London for PVR reductions. One route where you'd scrap a section of route. Please say which section you'd scrap.The 137 between Oxford Circus & Marble Arch would be one candidate, the 468 between South Croydon & Croydon would be another. Another candidate would be the 472's loop around Thamesmead (reduce it to direct via Bentham Road) One route where you'd scrap Sunday services.Again, can't answer this one TBH. No no no to scrapping the 137 between Oxford Circus and Marble Arch, the stop in Park Lane is bad enough now without all the 137 passengers having to make their way there, many buses are packed to full by the time they reach Marble Arch anyway so that's a hell of a lot of people inconvenienced
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jan 4, 2014 11:55:11 GMT
I do find it quite surreal that people would axe the routes around the outer London where there is less backs up rather than pick on ones that cope far more like inner London - T32 aside, I purposely picked on inner London routes as I feel they've less to lose with a reduced service.
|
|
|
Post by sw11simon on Jan 4, 2014 12:57:09 GMT
We spend a lot of time coming up with ideas to improve bus routes on the forum. However a New Year means we can't keep raiding the piggy bank and have to, instead, sharpen the axe and start cutting services to save money. Therefore your ideas for saving money are requested. Please nominate :- One route you'd scrap altogether without replacement. Route 415 is taken as read so can't be nominated. One route where you'd reduce early morning and evening services. Please say how much you'd reduce services by. You can, if you wish, scrap service at these times completely. One route where you'd reduce peak hour services. Please say how much you'd reduce services by. One route where you'd scrap a section of route. Please say which section you'd scrap. One route where you'd scrap Sunday services. Clearly passengers may be inconvenienced by your proposals but we don't care. We must save money!! I find it quite interesting that whenever we have a post for new route ideas, people always want to extend a route that adds "new links" over existing sections (like the 220 extension to Tooting recently mentioned) but the 415, which provides exclusive links from Tulse Hill to Kennington/Elephant, always gets in the firing line for withdrawal in this of post (I know you are only avoiding a very predictable answer with your post Snoggle!)! Albeit not a very busy route for the areas it serves. One route you'd scrap altogether without replacement: This is difficult, someone is always going to be inconvenienced as I cannot think of a route that completely mirrors other routes. So thinking of routes where alternatives (changes) are viable to do the same journey in general I am going to plump for route 452. One route where you'd reduce early morning and evening services: This will sound like I am picking on a certain garage, and as a route I regularly use I would not really want it to happen, but the C3 would easily cope with a reduced frequency at these times. One route where you'd reduce peak hour services: A few months ago I would have said route 12 but it has been done! So I'll go for the C3 again - the double deckers never a full load so a reduction would cope without leaving people behind. One route where you'd scrap a section of route: I'll wind a few people up here... route 53 between Elephant and Whitehall. There is capacity on 12/453 to take the people that travel north of Elephant and as far as I can tell most people boarding a Whitehall to travel south change off other buses anyway and could continue to Elephant to make this change. One route where you'd scrap Sunday services: Focussing on routes where other options are generally available (even if it means a change of buses) & linking it to a route that goes to an area of lower demand (The City) I am going to plump for route 11 for low(ish) overall realistic effect.
|
|
|
Post by marlon101 on Jan 4, 2014 13:16:55 GMT
Id scrap the 160 & 492 altogether, both services are rubbish. But that's down to the operator, if Stagecoach ran the 160 from TL and Go Ahead the 492 from BX there would be an immediate improvement The 96 could do with a bump but I would agree with you. Not only is the service poor but it just doesn't serve that many people ever in the case of the 492 and the 160 is pretty limited anywhere between Eltham and Sidcup outside of the peaks. My only concern would be the bus service that the people of the North Cray Estate would receive. Could we scrap the B14 from Sidcup to Orpington and have it run on a loop Bexleyheath -> Albany Park -> Sidcup -> North Cray -> Bexleyheath?
|
|
|
Post by slr on Jan 4, 2014 13:39:54 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2014 13:46:55 GMT
I would also cut at least one of the 140 and 182 back to Harrow, both if I'm feeling mean. Actually the first thing I would axe is free travel for the under-18s. Nothing wrong with half-fares and you'd also be able to bring adult fares down a little. Very silly thing to do would be to shorten both routes to Harrow Bus Station. Both routes are well used all the way up to Harrow Weald and the infrequent Nd non reliable 258 and 340 can not make up for these losses if they were to materialise. Also the 182 serves western side of Uxbridge Road in the Harow Weald area ans axing it from there would mean a 15 minute walk at least to the nearest bus stop, needless to say most of the residents in that area are elderly, so it's at least a 25 minute walk for them. Those at Uxbridge Road / Oxhey Lane could also use the H14. But that said I'd probably keep the 182 but cut the section of 140 north of Harrow. I'd also be tempted to increase the 258 to every 12 so that it can be properly coordinated with the 142 and 340. What one could also do is to only send 5 out of the 7 or 8 bph from the 182 to north of Harrow you have three 5-bph routes to the roundabout offering a combined uniform 4-minute headway.
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Jan 4, 2014 13:59:05 GMT
Very silly thing to do would be to shorten both routes to Harrow Bus Station. Both routes are well used all the way up to Harrow Weald and the infrequent Nd non reliable 258 and 340 can not make up for these losses if they were to materialise. Also the 182 serves western side of Uxbridge Road in the Harow Weald area ans axing it from there would mean a 15 minute walk at least to the nearest bus stop, needless to say most of the residents in that area are elderly, so it's at least a 25 minute walk for them. Those at Uxbridge Road / Oxhey Lane could also use the H14. But that said I'd probably keep the 182 but cut the section of 140 north of Harrow. I'd also be tempted to increase the 258 to every 12 so that it can be properly coordinated with the 142 and 340. What one could also do is to only send 5 out of the 7 or 8 bph from the 182 to north of Harrow you have three 5-bph routes to the roundabout offering a combined uniform 4-minute headway. That's a good idea the 258 could do with a frequency. But the problem is I don't think Harrow Bus Station can take on another route due the lack of stand space and is close capacity.
|
|