|
Post by 6HP502C on Apr 22, 2014 21:50:06 GMT
Am I missing something here? The proposed changes appear to be breaking links and necessitating PVR increasing route extensions, but I haven't yet grasped what benefits would justify them?
|
|
|
Route 312
Apr 22, 2014 22:07:41 GMT
via mobile
Post by vjaska on Apr 22, 2014 22:07:41 GMT
Am I missing something here? The proposed changes appear to be breaking links and necessitating PVR increasing route extensions, but I haven't yet grasped what benefits would justify them? Anyone wanting to get from Purley to Norwood Junction or Addiscombe without using the train (obviously, Addiscombe only has the tram rather than any train services) would now be able to do so and it increases capacity on the 312 which can be busy during the peaks & school times due to the 197 also being busy. The only link that would be broken is that the 312 would no longer serve South Croydon garage - it would still serve South Croydon. Very few people use the route beyond South Croydon so it wouldn't be a missed link - I did also state this in a post on the previous page. As for the 412 no longer serving West Croydon, it would still serve Katherine Street with George Street tram stop just a short walk away. Alternatively, residents of Selsdon & Sanderstead have the 64, 403 & T33 whilst Purley have a number of routes that serve West Croydon.
|
|
|
Route 312
Apr 22, 2014 22:26:04 GMT
via mobile
Post by Ice Prxnce on Apr 22, 2014 22:26:04 GMT
Is the 312 well used? If not then the 312 can be axed and 197 extended to South Croydon Garage instead which would replace part of the 312.
|
|
|
Route 312
Apr 22, 2014 23:44:41 GMT
via mobile
Post by vjaska on Apr 22, 2014 23:44:41 GMT
Is the 312 well used? If not then the 312 can be axed and 197 extended to South Croydon Garage instead which would replace part of the 312. I just posted above that the 312 is well used in the peaks and during school times and that the 197 is busy enough as it is lol. Axing the 312 and leaving the 197 to cover it is not a good move - it also wouldn't work when the bridge at Woodside re-opens.
|
|
|
Post by ilovelondonbuses on Apr 22, 2014 23:56:12 GMT
I love route 312. It's like TC's heritage route. If I want a ride on an aging DLA, that is the route for that . I can't wait for the electric buses to start service in the route.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Apr 23, 2014 11:28:26 GMT
Am I missing something here? The proposed changes appear to be breaking links and necessitating PVR increasing route extensions, but I haven't yet grasped what benefits would justify them? Yes I think you are missing something here, merging the 312 and 412 into one route would reduce the PVR, not increase it even with the current 412 section being increased to every 12 minutes in line with the current 312. Extending the 197 to South Croydon Garage would cost very little as many buses do the journey now out of service. I'm at a loss to see what argument there is against the change.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Apr 23, 2014 11:30:58 GMT
Presumably the 312 will return to its original route if and when the problem with the bridge in Spring Lane is sorted out? The 119 also links East & South Croydon as far as the old Swan & Sugar Loaf The bridge is being sorted ... Work started end of March, expected to take 3 months ... Bridge totally closed in the meantime That's good news then, the 312 should return to its original route as should the 130, and presumably the much delayed extension of the 130 to Thornton Heath will finally go ahead?
|
|
|
Route 312
Apr 23, 2014 13:33:14 GMT
via mobile
Post by vjaska on Apr 23, 2014 13:33:14 GMT
The bridge is being sorted ... Work started end of March, expected to take 3 months ... Bridge totally closed in the meantime That's good news then, the 312 should return to its original route as should the 130, and presumably the much delayed extension of the 130 to Thornton Heath will finally go ahead? Should also see the 130 run a bit more reliably as it would miss the peak hour traffic in Addiscombe & along the Lower Addiscombe Road. As for the extension, has it not gone ahead due to issues with Park Road? Personally, I'd of routed it via South Norwood Hill & Whitehorse Lane.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Route 312
Apr 23, 2014 16:53:23 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2014 16:53:23 GMT
Am I missing something here? The proposed changes appear to be breaking links and necessitating PVR increasing route extensions, but I haven't yet grasped what benefits would justify them? Yes I think you are missing something here, merging the 312 and 412 into one route would reduce the PVR, not increase it even with the current 412 section being increased to every 12 minutes in line with the current 312. Extending the 197 to South Croydon Garage would cost very little as many buses do the journey now out of service. I'm at a loss to see what argument there is against the change. Surely increase frequency on one section of the route will increase PVR and hence cost. If the 312 end is being converted to dd ... then the frequency on the 312 section should be reduced to match that of the 412
|
|
|
Route 312
Apr 23, 2014 18:52:50 GMT
via mobile
Post by sid on Apr 23, 2014 18:52:50 GMT
Yes I think you are missing something here, merging the 312 and 412 into one route would reduce the PVR, not increase it even with the current 412 section being increased to every 12 minutes in line with the current 312. Extending the 197 to South Croydon Garage would cost very little as many buses do the journey now out of service. I'm at a loss to see what argument there is against the change. Surely increase frequency on one section of the route will increase PVR and hence cost. If the 312 end is being converted to dd ... then the frequency on the 312 section should be reduced to match that of the 412 No the PVR would obviously be reduced.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Apr 23, 2014 18:58:05 GMT
Yes I think you are missing something here, merging the 312 and 412 into one route would reduce the PVR, not increase it even with the current 412 section being increased to every 12 minutes in line with the current 312. Extending the 197 to South Croydon Garage would cost very little as many buses do the journey now out of service. I'm at a loss to see what argument there is against the change. Surely increase frequency on one section of the route will increase PVR and hence cost. If the 312 end is being converted to dd ... then the frequency on the 312 section should be reduced to match that of the 412 That was the basis of the TfL proposal to merge the 312 and 412 - the proposal that was cancelled by TfL as a result of the response to the consultation. For whatever reason the users of the routes did not like the idea of the change and (amazingly) TfL backed down. Normally this sort of thing would be railroaded through regardless.
|
|
|
Route 312
Apr 23, 2014 19:02:47 GMT
via mobile
Post by sid on Apr 23, 2014 19:02:47 GMT
That's good news then, the 312 should return to its original route as should the 130, and presumably the much delayed extension of the 130 to Thornton Heath will finally go ahead? Should also see the 130 run a bit more reliably as it would miss the peak hour traffic in Addiscombe & along the Lower Addiscombe Road. As for the extension, has it not gone ahead due to issues with Park Road? Personally, I'd of routed it via South Norwood Hill & Whitehorse Lane. I read somewhere that the extension didn't go ahead as the extra buses had to be used to cover the diversion route. It may be put off now until the route is retendered? Yes I thought South Norwood Hill and Whitehorse Lane would be a more logical route
|
|
|
Route 312
Apr 23, 2014 19:06:02 GMT
via mobile
Post by sid on Apr 23, 2014 19:06:02 GMT
Surely increase frequency on one section of the route will increase PVR and hence cost. If the 312 end is being converted to dd ... then the frequency on the 312 section should be reduced to match that of the 412 That was the basis of the TfL proposal to merge the 312 and 412 - the proposal that was cancelled by TfL as a result of the response to the consultation. For whatever reason the users of the routes did not like the idea of the change and (amazingly) TfL backed down. Normally this sort of thing would be railroaded through regardless. Do we know what the objections were?
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Apr 23, 2014 20:15:57 GMT
That was the basis of the TfL proposal to merge the 312 and 412 - the proposal that was cancelled by TfL as a result of the response to the consultation. For whatever reason the users of the routes did not like the idea of the change and (amazingly) TfL backed down. Normally this sort of thing would be railroaded through regardless. Do we know what the objections were? No and I rechecked the consultation page yesterday given this thread. There is no statement from TfL or consultation result report on the Consultation hub.
|
|
|
Route 312
Apr 23, 2014 20:43:02 GMT
via mobile
Post by vjaska on Apr 23, 2014 20:43:02 GMT
Surely increase frequency on one section of the route will increase PVR and hence cost. If the 312 end is being converted to dd ... then the frequency on the 312 section should be reduced to match that of the 412 That was the basis of the TfL proposal to merge the 312 and 412 - the proposal that was cancelled by TfL as a result of the response to the consultation. For whatever reason the users of the routes did not like the idea of the change and (amazingly) TfL backed down. Normally this sort of thing would be railroaded through regardless. I remember the local MP at the time was also against it as well.
|
|