|
Post by snoggle on Mar 22, 2014 18:22:20 GMT
Hmmm - interesting if correct. Not saying anything against you - it's nice of you to share what you've been told. This smacks of a political panic move by Boris to try to counter the never ending criticism of his (lack of) bus policy. Given all the backdrop to express buses and the repeated Mayoral Answers saying they are not justified then this will take some explanation by the Mayor and TfL even if passengers do use the routes. The cynic in me says these routes are likely to benefit Tory run boroughs. I wonder where the funding is coming from. I've always wondered where funding comes from with regards to most things, but in essence all it is is a computerised figure that is toggled and down or edited lol. Like when you get paid, you don't get a the physical money in your hand but a computerised balance appears in your account. Sorry if I've gone completely left-wing lol. You know what I meant. What else has been changed in TfL's budget to find the money for these extra services. I am, of course, assuming they are extra and that other services aren't going to be reduced to fund them. The 2014/15 TfL Budget for Surface Transport has had an increase in the expected bus kilometrage of 1m kms for the year. That's quite a lot given it wasn't in the previous iteration of the Business Plan.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Mar 22, 2014 19:18:45 GMT
Sorry but I don't see it happening. I can't see what has all of a sudden changed for them to revive the orbital express idea and especially using unorthodox vehicles like the NBfL's.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Mar 22, 2014 19:33:46 GMT
Sorry but I don't see it happening. I can't see what has all of a sudden changed for them to revive the orbital express idea and especially using unorthodox vehicles like the NBfL's. I understand your reaction entirely but I can see several things behind this idea. 1. Year of the Bus being declared as a waste of time if there is nothing obviously better at the end of it. 2. A political panic by Boris two years before the next election. Given there is a timelag to getting things done he has always panicked about transport 18-24 months before election. He did it with the Tube where "money fell from the sky" to try to improve reliability and service performance. (£150m was found and managers were thrown into meetings with the Deputy Mayor for Transport to devise improvements and then be held to account to deliver them) 3. TfL struggling to find homes for the delivery of 250 NB4Ls in the next financial year. 4. Using NB4Ls on express routes in the suburbs is a way of presenting the "New Routemaster" as a bus for all of London rather than just the middle bits. Several Tory Assembly Members have been demanding "New Routemasters" in their areas. 5. Creating some express bus routes is a way of buying off moans from many Assembly Members including Tory ones. 6. TfL are due to formally respond to the London Assembly's Bus Report by the end of this March. If this story is true then this is one of those obvious things to provide some "shiny baubles" of good news to disguise the lack of palpable progress on boring things like more buses to Roehampton. We'll see in due course what happens but I admit I did think it was 1 April when David put up his post.
|
|
|
Post by bigbaddom1981 on Mar 22, 2014 21:32:59 GMT
Some of these ideas are so crazy! Can you imagine if there were wholesale changes to the area! Buses on diversion cause confusion to the (average idiot) passengers, imagine what this would do! The only way this would happen is if Will Smirh came from Men In Black and zapped us all of our memories! Crazier still bomb North London and start again!
It's good to have ideas, but these sound made up and a lack of thought and common sense! I for one won't be using the upper deck on a W4!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2014 22:26:12 GMT
I am getting confused just reading it, its a silly idea
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Mar 22, 2014 23:00:15 GMT
And what about the current 398? There is no route 398 within Enfield Council's area. The Herts CC service at Potters Bar has nothing to do with Enfield. The Enfield Bus review mentioned 398/399 instead of 389/399 and I thought they were renumbering the 389 the 398. I was wondering what will happen to the current 398 (Ruislip to Wood End)? But now I think it's a typo.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Mar 22, 2014 23:34:22 GMT
There is no route 398 within Enfield Council's area. The Herts CC service at Potters Bar has nothing to do with Enfield. The Enfield Bus review mentioned 398/399 instead of 389/399 and I thought they were renumbering the 389 the 398. I was wondering what will happen to the current 398 (Ruislip to Wood End)? But now I think it's a typo. OK - I see why you queried it. There are several errors in the documentation so I'm not surprised you spotted one too. I can't see TfL's 398 being touched at all. Still I also can't see why the 389 is being touched either as it's a Barnet route - and yes I know the bus works on the 399 too but it's a bit rich for Enfield to be fiddling with an infrequent local service in Barnet.
|
|
|
Post by Green Kitten on Mar 22, 2014 23:48:06 GMT
I do not like the ideas involving the 121, 298 and 313... I doubt much of this will happen.
Of course, if the proposed change of the 232 did happen... YES!
|
|
|
Post by sid on Mar 23, 2014 11:24:09 GMT
I've only skimmed through the list but changing the 121 and 191 makes sense and a 307 express to Edgware would be useful. I don't know about the 329 and 349 reductions although trunk routes do often seem over bussed to the detriment of back street routes.
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Mar 23, 2014 20:10:47 GMT
Sorry but I don't see it happening. I can't see what has all of a sudden changed for them to revive the orbital express idea and especially using unorthodox vehicles like the NBfL's. I understand your reaction entirely but I can see several things behind this idea. 1. Year of the Bus being declared as a waste of time if there is nothing obviously better at the end of it. 2. A political panic by Boris two years before the next election. Given there is a timelag to getting things done he has always panicked about transport 18-24 months before election. He did it with the Tube where "money fell from the sky" to try to improve reliability and service performance. (£150m was found and managers were thrown into meetings with the Deputy Mayor for Transport to devise improvements and then be held to account to deliver them) 3. TfL struggling to find homes for the delivery of 250 NB4Ls in the next financial year. 4. Using NB4Ls on express routes in the suburbs is a way of presenting the "New Routemaster" as a bus for all of London rather than just the middle bits. Several Tory Assembly Members have been demanding "New Routemasters" in their areas. 5. Creating some express bus routes is a way of buying off moans from many Assembly Members including Tory ones. 6. TfL are due to formally respond to the London Assembly's Bus Report by the end of this March. If this story is true then this is one of those obvious things to provide some "shiny baubles" of good news to disguise the lack of palpable progress on boring things like more buses to Roehampton. We'll see in due course what happens but I admit I did think it was 1 April when David put up his post. I wonder if this is worth a thread of its own?...
|
|
|
Post by goaheadswvlrbest on Mar 23, 2014 23:34:03 GMT
Well what a load of rubbish this it, I do hope its just a load of daft ideas put together by people that don't use buses and it won't materlise. There's no harm in trying a few tweeks to routes, the 307 express is a good idea, but reductions to 329 defiantly not its a busy service and axeing 349 a no no although it duplicates 149, 279 etc it takes an awful lot of pressure off these routes
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Mar 24, 2014 0:24:59 GMT
Well what a load of rubbish this it, I do hope its just a load of daft ideas put together by people that don't use buses and it won't materlise. There's no harm in trying a few tweeks to routes, the 307 express is a good idea, but reductions to 329 defiantly not its a busy service and axeing 349 a no no although it duplicates 149, 279 etc it takes an awful lot of pressure off these routes I don't think I'd call it *all* a load of rubbish as there are some interesting ideas. However there are also some serious flaws and errors in the plans. The fundamental problem is that there is an artificial constraint of having to work within a capped level of resource because of the dear old "there is no money" issue. This is what has caused the butchering of the trunk radial services which is just daft. There is simply not enough spare capacity on the 279 to take up the 349's demand. People would be left behind off peak never mind in the peaks! As you say an alternative approach would have been to identify a small number of strategic improvements, like the hospital links, and then work with TfL to justify these as "stand alone" proposals or to identify a small scale package of adjustments to free up resources to support the creation of new links. Perhaps you do do something to the W9 and the 377 routes to allow the 318 North and the W10 proposals to be done? Perhaps you frame the W10 proposal on a less frequent basis than proposed - moving from 4-5 jnys on M-S to a x30 service north of Enfield is a big step. Running hourly each way round the loop is possibly a better step up and less costly. Diverting the 444 via IKEA and then the housing area south of the A406 is probably an easy tweak (assuming the roads can take a bus) but would probably cost a bus but given the low level of public transport accessibility in that area (according to Enfield's paperwork) then it's probably justified on social policy grounds. I can see direct access to IKEA being a popular facility too and the 444 serves a wide catchment area. Having heard the Enfield Council people wax lyrical about their process and their results I think they think it's all wonderful and should be implemented tomorrow - especially as they view it as a "no cost" option because no extra buses overall are needed. Of course the cuts are to double deck routes and many of the new routes would have to be run with smaller buses so it's almost certainly NOT zero cost at all. You don't get new buses for nothing. Just to depress everyone the London Assembly Transport Committee also think this sort of area review is just what is needed whereas I think the results show it is absolutely NOT what is needed. Perhaps a review process across 2 or 3 adjacent boroughs would make more transport sense but would result in ridiculous "horse trading" as no borough would want to lose buses to be used in another one!
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Mar 24, 2014 1:44:44 GMT
Of course, if the proposed change of the 232 did happen... YES! That's the one change I 100% agree on, certainly needs deckers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2014 0:45:54 GMT
232 going double? Personally I'd like it to go high frequency and remain single and go 7bph
I'm hearing the stand arrangments are being looked at at Chase Farm, the buses going round the one way system to stand in the North West Corner. The current W8 and W9 to stay at Chase Farm with drivers ferried instead of running dead to PB.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2014 21:54:08 GMT
Sounds like a bunch of over-excited councilors drawing disconnected lines on maps. The changes mainly fall into 3 main categories
- Hospitals at the expense of everything else (as snoggle has already suggested); - They want to split suburban routes like the 121 and 191, yet are quite happy to extend trunk routes like the 141 and 231 which are possibly more prone to suffering from compounding delays; - Increased frequencies of (bigger) buses shoved down residential streets by diverting resources from trunk routes (the 313 is effectively becoming a string of local routes instead of an orbital express that it is today).
The 329 would be reduced to be part compensated by the extended 141 - so Wood Green northbound in the PM peak would be at the Mercy of 141s all coming out of sync, instead of the 329 departing like clockwork (maybe over-stylised here). There's an obviously gap in capacity between Enfield and Winchmore Hill with both the 329 and W8 being reduced in frequency. The 349 seems to be loosely replaced with the much loopier 191 between Ponders End and Tottenham Hale. Capacity between Great Cambridge Road and Turnpike Lane falls from 9bph (albeit badly coordinated) to 6bph, so in the morning peak direction the 217s would be leaving people behind while the 231s carry fresh air into North Middlesex Hospital. The 231 becomes a mega long loopy route which is again a series of local routes stitched together without offering new through journey opportunities (because the route is too loopy!).
The northern part of Great Cambridge Road loses its link to Enfield completely (as the 231 is more 191-121-279, so the 317 isn't replaced at all), so do Bell Lane and Brimsdown Avenue.
The only saving grace is the suggestion of diverting the W8 to Tottenham Hale, which is a much better alignment for a trunk route, and leaving the stub to Lea Valley Leisure Complex to the more local W6.
|
|