|
Post by marlon101 on Jan 5, 2014 18:16:28 GMT
The 53 is the second busiest bus route serving South East London behind the 12. Where is your evidence? I merely ask out of interest to see such data on route usage.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jan 5, 2014 18:18:57 GMT
It is silliness to suggest the 25 needs cuts - If anything, It could do with more buses! I think it's far more sensible to cut that than routes in the outer parts of London - I've seen the 492 mentioned twice and despite me living in Inner London (Brixton), I think it should be saved because there are less alternatives to use for locals. I think the cuts should be more centred on Central & Inner Lindon where they are less likely to hurt local people than cutting or removing routes on the outskirts where they are far less alternatives available. Sorry to say but to me, the usually more important routes become less important during cash strapped times especially when the less important but are a lifeline to some communities routes are threatened. That means Romford is safe btw lol.
|
|
|
Post by 6HP502C on Jan 5, 2014 18:41:46 GMT
If something had to be done then the 482 could be downgraded to single deck I think. That's not going to happen. Doing so would cause a selective inadequacy issue for people travelling across Hounslow West. The capacity is required on the busy common section with the H32. It is seldom ideal to have midibuses paralleling busy double decker routes for long distances, especially where there is a high frequency interchange point at one end. In this case, there are passengers on the Southall to Hounslow West section who will take the 482 then change at Hounslow West, where there are at least 20 bph running into Hounslow.
|
|
|
Post by Mokujin on Jan 5, 2014 18:42:43 GMT
53 Extended Whitehall to Oxford Circus via 12. Withdrawn Woolwich Arsenal Station to Plumstead. Increased service. 54 Extended Woolwich to Plumstead via 53. 453 Withdrawn Disagree with all of this. Why should 53 be extended to Oxford Circus when there are plently routes at Whitehall to take you to Oxford Circus? 53 should also NOT be withdrawn between Woolwich and Plumstead Common as there are people there who use the route and it's a better link from there for people who are going to Central London. 54 doesn't need to be extended to Plumstead as it is fine at Woolwich and the route is long enough already. Why should 453 be withdrawn? 453 relieves overcrowding on the 53 and is used by a lot of people. Even on weekdays at nighttimes, the 453 can be overcrowded and I also observed this on Thursday. If you withdraw 453, what route would replace the Oxford Circus - Marylebone section?
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Jan 5, 2014 18:42:55 GMT
It is silliness to suggest the 25 needs cuts - If anything, It could do with more buses! I think it's far more sensible to cut that than routes in the outer parts of London - I've seen the 492 mentioned twice and despite me living in Inner London (Brixton), I think it should be saved because there are less alternatives to use for locals. I think the cuts should be more centred on Central & Inner Lindon where they are less likely to hurt local people than cutting or removing routes on the outskirts where they are far less alternatives available. Sorry to say but to me, the usually more important routes become less important during cash strapped times especially when the less important but are a lifeline to some communities routes are threatened. That means Romford is safe btw lol. The section of 492 I proposed for cutting (Dartford-Bluewater) is well covered by other (Kent) services.
|
|
|
Post by Mokujin on Jan 5, 2014 18:46:22 GMT
I think it would be better if the 453 was extended to Lewisham, Jerrard Street or Lewisham Station which could provide a link between Lewisham and Elephant & Castle and then route 1 could take route 453's place at Deptford Bridge. I like your idea though. Thanks. I like that idea too. But aren't people better off getting 1 of 4 buses (21, 136, 321, 136) that go to New Cross, then get either a 53, 172, or 453 to Elephant from there? Or people can even get a 225 to New Cross Road and get a 53 or 453 from there Because it would be much better for Lewisham to have a link between Lewisham and Elephant rather people changing buses. This could also relieve overcrowding on the 225 aswell.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jan 5, 2014 18:51:19 GMT
I think it's far more sensible to cut that than routes in the outer parts of London - I've seen the 492 mentioned twice and despite me living in Inner London (Brixton), I think it should be saved because there are less alternatives to use for locals. I think the cuts should be more centred on Central & Inner Lindon where they are less likely to hurt local people than cutting or removing routes on the outskirts where they are far less alternatives available. Sorry to say but to me, the usually more important routes become less important during cash strapped times especially when the less important but are a lifeline to some communities routes are threatened. That means Romford is safe btw lol. The section of 492 I proposed for cutting (Dartford-Bluewater) is well covered by other (Kent) services. Kent services are not TfL services though - there is no guarantee that those services would remain or last given how the bus industry is outside of London. They are also no help to passengers west of Dartford. Now if the 96 became a stopping service between Dartford & Bluewater, then I could be far more in agreement on that particular change.
|
|
|
Post by Steve80 on Jan 5, 2014 19:15:39 GMT
The 53 is the second busiest bus route serving South East London behind the 12. Where is your evidence? I merely ask out of interest to see such data on route usage. tangytango.proboards.com/post/219525/threadClick on the link above. The 20 busiest routes in London are listed below. The numbers in bold are South London based. 25, 18, 29, 149, 38, 207, 5, 73, 86, 243, 83, 279, 43, 12, 53, 140, 254, 253, 109
|
|
|
Post by Steve80 on Jan 5, 2014 19:28:50 GMT
The 53 is the second busiest bus route serving South East London behind the 12. For a service without a substantial Central London section, that's pretty good going. I sometimes get the feeling that some of the fraternity have a problem with it turning at Whitehall because it's not a traditional terminus. I've had cause to use it on Sundays for the last few weeks and I was amazed how full it was just by the time it reached the end of Whitehall, with standing loads at least as far as Blackheath. The evidence I'm hearing and seeing (which is entirely anecdotal of course) suggests that the problem, if there is one, is with the 453 and that the 53 needs to penetrate further into the West End. So entirely off the top of my head (and perhaps more suitably for another thread), here's a quick idea for restructuring over the 53/453 corridor. 53 Extended Whitehall to Oxford Circus via 12. Withdrawn Woolwich Arsenal Station to Plumstead. Increased service. 54 Extended Woolwich to Plumstead via 53. 453 Withdrawn 13 Extended from Aldwych via 139 to Waterloo 139 Rerouted between Rossmore Road and Oxford Circus via Lisson Grove, Marylebone Station and 453. Withdrawn Trafalgar Square to Waterloo and diverted to Elephant via 12. This would have the added bonus of taking a route out of Oxford Street. I don't support your proposals but I do support your statement about the 53. I don't drive the route 3 anymore but when I did it, it was evident to me how important the 53 was when the 3 and 159 were made to serve the stop in Whitehall Horseguards (southbound) that is also served by routes 12 and 453. You can see many waiting at that stop which to me suggest that by cutting the 53 away from Whitehall is a bad idea. Also, routes that run into central London are always liable to run into problems so its good to have a route that serves as a backup like the 53 and 453, 15 and 115, 14 and 414, etc
|
|
|
Post by sw11simon on Jan 5, 2014 19:39:53 GMT
53 Extended Whitehall to Oxford Circus via 12. Withdrawn Woolwich Arsenal Station to Plumstead. Increased service. 54 Extended Woolwich to Plumstead via 53. 453 Withdrawn Disagree with all of this. Why should 53 be extended to Oxford Circus when there are plently routes at Whitehall to take you to Oxford Circus? 53 should also NOT be withdrawn between Woolwich and Plumstead Common as there are people there who use the route and it's a better link from there for people who are going to Central London. 54 doesn't need to be extended to Plumstead as it is fine at Woolwich and the route is long enough already. Why should 453 be withdrawn? 453 relieves overcrowding on the 53 and is used by a lot of people. Even on weekdays at nighttimes, the 453 can be overcrowded and I also observed this on Thursday. If you withdraw 453, what route would replace the Oxford Circus - Marylebone section? More to the point, what are you going to do with the Old Kent Road, where all routes are always busy and the proposal above is going to remove up to 10 bph? Make the 53 run up to every 2 minutes over the section described? I think costs are spiralling! And I agree, you do not need another bus from Elephant or Whitehall to Oxford Circus. Capacity is comfortable on the routes that exist.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2014 19:59:28 GMT
I don't know what would be achieved by cutting the 25. Such a busy route *ought* to be surplus making - though I don't have firm evidence the subliminal message seems to be it's loss-making (I'm not talking about Tower Transit - I'm talking in terms of TfL's P&L). Of course when even the busiest routes are loss making the more you strengthen it to meet demand the heavier the losses become. If true that would be a problem of a very fundamental nature - it would suggest London buses' operation is *incredibly* inefficient. The first priority should be to put TfL's house in order to ensure that busy routes become profit making and that strengthening overloaded routes become a marginally profit-making exercise as a matter of course. You really don't want to take capacity away from the 25 as the Central Line absolutely has no spare capacity in the peaks.
There are a number of things that can be done to the 25 * Reduce journey time to bendy-era levels * Reduce the number of stops in certain places (Mile End to Aldgate westbound in particular) to enable further journey time and reliability improvements * Re-organise the service to be Oxo - Stratford and St Pauls - Ilford with each section running at every 5 minutes to provide capacity for the busiest section of the route * Lastly and perhaps most controversially, restrict bus travel to Travelcard zones only so people are discouraged to do things like Ilford - Central London on a Z1-3.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 5, 2014 21:23:37 GMT
* Lastly and perhaps most controversially, restrict bus travel to Travelcard zones only so people are discouraged to do things like Ilford - Central London on a Z1-3. I'm not going to do the profitability argument with you again. I am, though, interested to know how you would enforce zonally based fares and bus passes. I would also like to know how you'd manage the risk of longer stop dwell times by moving to a zonal fares system. The present system makes it impossible for anyone to override thus removing a significant source of fare evasion. It also simplifies any cash based transaction on buses.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 5, 2014 21:48:09 GMT
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. It looks like traffic management and bus priority might be making a bit of a comeback. I think TfL have been pricked by criticism of the lack of coherent bus priority and the scrapping of the bus priority unit in the London Assembly's bus report. There is £100m in the Business Plan for enhanced "corridor" bus priority - particularly where serving development areas. Further TfL have allocated £100m to target "pinch points" on the bus network and try to ease or remove them. See items 7 and 8 in this very recent TfL Paper
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2014 22:03:03 GMT
* Lastly and perhaps most controversially, restrict bus travel to Travelcard zones only so people are discouraged to do things like Ilford - Central London on a Z1-3. I'm not going to do the profitability argument with you again. I am, though, interested to know how you would enforce zonally based fares and bus passes. I would also like to know how you'd manage the risk of longer stop dwell times by moving to a zonal fares system. The present system makes it impossible for anyone to override thus removing a significant source of fare evasion. It also simplifies any cash based transaction on buses. Zonally based Travelcards on buses would work just the same way as they did when they were that way.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 5, 2014 22:27:40 GMT
I'm not going to do the profitability argument with you again. I am, though, interested to know how you would enforce zonally based fares and bus passes. I would also like to know how you'd manage the risk of longer stop dwell times by moving to a zonal fares system. The present system makes it impossible for anyone to override thus removing a significant source of fare evasion. It also simplifies any cash based transaction on buses. Zonally based Travelcards on buses would work just the same way as they did when they were that way. So just to confirm you could only travel by bus in the zones ( Central (1), Inner(2) and Outer(3-6) ) that you held on your ticket? So I can get on in Zone 1 with a Z12 Travelcard and ride the 25 to Ilford in Zone 4 with no penalty? Brilliant. How does the driver or the card reader know where you're getting off when you board the bus? I'm sure you can see the point I'm making - how do you pay for an extension fare if you travel outside your zones or board outside the validity of your ticket? Also if you move Travelcard acceptance to a zonal basis on buses do you also introduce zones for Bus and Tram Passes? If you kept a flat PAYG / cash fare but had zonal validity for season ticket holders you would undermine the Travelcard product as people would resent paying more on a season. You'd end up with people just using PAYG for buses and having two Oyster Cards which would be ludicrous. To have a reasonably automatic enforcement of zonal fares / passes on buses you would need to have exit validation and maximum fare deduction on entry to create an incentive for people to touch out and have money added back to their cards. In other words buses would work like the Underground. How many millions would you have to spend to create the exit validation capability?
|
|