|
|
Post by snoggle on Dec 14, 2014 22:02:57 GMT
Given we appear to have the prospect of the TfL piggy bank releasing some money for bus route improvements what approach do we think TfL should take? Should it a) carefully adjust and improve existing routes - better frequencies, double deck conversions, make more day routes 24 hour services b) "drop a bomb" on the bus network and do big area schemes again with big changes to services c) limit adjustments to existing routes and instead concentrate on adding brand new routes to the network. Being very unfair you're only allowed to choose one option. I'm interested to see how many people think we need to tear up the bus map and start again.   For info the business plan has the following increases in kms (millions) operated :- 2014/15 - 1m extra 2015/16 - 3m extra 2016/17 - 3m extra 2017/18 - 5m extra 2018/19 - 4m extra 2019/20 - 4m extra 2020/21 - 4m extra |
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Dec 15, 2014 1:48:20 GMT
I am in favor of option A on double-decking a few routes, such as the 152, 163, 164, 200, 219 and 355. With so many double-deckers getting withdrawn in connection with hybrid replacements (eg. Arriva's DB250s and Abellio's TAs) the buses could easily be utilised for route conversions. Never mind what reg they are, as long as they are roadworthy for a few more years and fitted with the Eminox system they'll be just as good as a new bus. Arriva, give those DAF/VDLs to Merton.  Also, buy some more electric buses for the ex-Red Arrow routes, enough to release a full complement of MECs to the 170. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve80 on Dec 15, 2014 2:53:32 GMT
I am in favor of option A on double-decking a few routes, such as the 152, 163, 164, 200, 219 and 355. With so many double-deckers getting withdrawn in connection with hybrid replacements (eg. Arriva's DB250s and Abellio's TAs) the buses could easily be utilised for route conversions. Never mind what reg they are, as long as they are roadworthy for a few more years and fitted with the Eminox system they'll be just as good as a new bus. Arriva, give those DAFs to Merton. Also, buy some more electric buses for the ex-Red Arrow routes, enough to release a full complement of MECs to the 170. Yes, some of those routes should be double decked. Last time I did the 152 I had a double deck and I was happy as I did pick up a lot of passengers. The amount of passengers I had led me to believe how on earth do we cope with the single decks. Routes 200 and 163 need double decks immediately. Anyway, as for the options on the thread, I would also choose Option A (although it was a decided between option A and C). Personally, I think some of the bus routes are fine as they are apart from the frequencies of some. Routes like the 197 should be increased surely. Certainly stand space is no problem now the 136 has left Peckham. It would certainly help out the 410 which I still is still leaving passengers behind at East Croydon. 407 can do with a frequency increase. Its not just busy at Croydon towards Purley but also towards Waddon, and also coming from Sutton. In fact, all of these routes that run every 15-30 minutes needs looking at such as the 127, 201, 289, G1 to name a few. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Dec 15, 2014 3:03:09 GMT
Having to choose between option A and C (B is a massive no, no from me - the basis of our current bus network is good, needs many tweaks but not wholesale demolition), I've gone for A because:
A few routes in my local area and slightly beyond could do with decking such as the 289, 355, 407 & P4 as well as some routes upgrading to longer vehicles like the 322 & T33/433. I'd also agree with the routes mentioned by 'PVL371' & 'Steve80'. The 37 could do with some sorting as it can't be relied on to turn up at the correct times. The use of vehicles lying spare from other operators could be utilised to finish off contracts before complient vehicles are drafted in.
|
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Dec 15, 2014 6:39:06 GMT
Given we appear to have the prospect of the TfL piggy bank releasing some money for bus route improvements what approach do we think TfL should take? Should it a) carefully adjust and improve existing routes - better frequencies, double deck conversions, make more day routes 24 hour services b) "drop a bomb" on the bus network and do big area schemes again with big changes to services c) limit adjustments to existing routes and instead concentrate on adding brand new routes to the network. Being very unfair you're only allowed to choose one option. I'm interested to see how many people think we need to tear up the bus map and start again. For info the business plan has the following increases in kms (millions) operated :- 2014/15 - 1m extra 2015/16 - 3m extra 2016/17 - 3m extra 2017/18 - 5m extra 2018/19 - 4m extra 2019/20 - 4m extra 2020/21 - 4m extra I'm going to be a cheat and pick all 3 simply because I cannot disagree with any of them. A mixture of all 3 would be quite good. A lot of unreliable routes need to be shortened and lots of reliable ones need to be utilised to create new links, regardless of what links they currently provide. All the underused bus routes need to be redesigned into newer bus services which will actually get a lot more usage. Also some new routes to the network to help assist other ones with overcrowding issues and creating new links. Routes like the 352 & 354 need Sunday Service. Many busy single decker routes need to be double decked especially the X26, couldn't care less about luggage racks, no other TFL route going to Heathrow has them. it needs to return to C, poor operation with Quality Line. |
|
|
|
Post by LX09FBJ on Dec 15, 2014 7:53:58 GMT
Difficult choice, I'd cheat too and choose elements of all three:
A) There is a capacity problem on most services in my view, and routes which can take DDs should be converted, examples of which include 235 and 371. Even some DD routes (e.g. 111) suffer from overcrowding and unreliability. Some areas suffer very badly from a lack of night buses, such as Orpington which only has one night bus, so that would be a good idea too.
B) This is more of a 'fantasy' idea of creating routes as they would've been in the 'good old days' and would mean most Night buses and their 50s/60s equivalents would be to a certain degree restored, thogh in reality this is not feasible (e.g. 1 from Willesden to Lewisham, 9 from Heathrow to Rainham, 15 from Richmond to Romford etc.)
C) I do believe that there should be a fair few new routes launched, such as a Ealing-Houlsow-Heathrow service, as there are some links which don't exist, but are needed, such as an Ealing-Hounslow and Ealing-Heathrow route.
|
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Dec 15, 2014 8:05:40 GMT
I would go with A because there are a lot of routes in the TFL network that need double decking.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2014 8:23:55 GMT
Given we appear to have the prospect of the TfL piggy bank releasing some money for bus route improvements what approach do we think TfL should take? Should it a) carefully adjust and improve existing routes - better frequencies, double deck conversions, make more day routes 24 hour services b) "drop a bomb" on the bus network and do big area schemes again with big changes to services c) limit adjustments to existing routes and instead concentrate on adding brand new routes to the network. Being very unfair you're only allowed to choose one option. I'm interested to see how many people think we need to tear up the bus map and start again. For info the business plan has the following increases in kms (millions) operated :- 2014/15 - 1m extra 2015/16 - 3m extra 2016/17 - 3m extra 2017/18 - 5m extra 2018/19 - 4m extra 2019/20 - 4m extra 2020/21 - 4m extra I would go for A but within that look to provide the links that don't currently exist , ie Hounslow to Ealing as one example. This option also covers the need to address the growing 24/7 nature of the communities in the suburbs. Double decking is also a sensible and cost effective way of increasing capacity without clogging up the roads. |
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Dec 15, 2014 9:47:28 GMT
Given we appear to have the prospect of the TfL piggy bank releasing some money for bus route improvements what approach do we think TfL should take? Should it a) carefully adjust and improve existing routes - better frequencies, double deck conversions, make more day routes 24 hour services b) "drop a bomb" on the bus network and do big area schemes again with big changes to services c) limit adjustments to existing routes and instead concentrate on adding brand new routes to the network. Being very unfair you're only allowed to choose one option. I'm interested to see how many people think we need to tear up the bus map and start again. For info the business plan has the following increases in kms (millions) operated :- 2014/15 - 1m extra 2015/16 - 3m extra 2016/17 - 3m extra 2017/18 - 5m extra 2018/19 - 4m extra 2019/20 - 4m extra 2020/21 - 4m extra I know you only want one option, but I am going to be difficult and say option A for central zones 1 and 2. For all the suburban areas I would go for option B drop the bomb, my reasoning is that most of these have irrelevant routings that were bodged in 1980s and 1990s often by splitting old routes that bear no resemblance to today's journey patterns. Some examples : some hospitals have been closed and services concentrated at other hospitals but new catchment not served; Some shopping areas have moved but buses still go down quiet bypassed High Street; commuters now go to West End and Canary Wharf as well as City so have changed the station they use to be on right line but the buses still serve old pattern. I will give you an example near me, Richmond has a lot of buses many of which use Richmond Bridge (which is weight restricted so can't take deckers carrying more than about 70) so there are lots of single deck routes, now we have travelcards why not divert them to Twickenham station which is getting upgraded. Because Richmond station is one end of the town and there is nowhere to park the buses at the station you also get lots of virtually dead extensions to places like Manor Circus which wastes money. Not many people choose to shop in Richmond over other towns like Kingston so running shopping buses there results in lots of nearly empty buses running around midday. What is the obsession with running single decks over Richmond Bridge, when Twickenham bridge can take deckers and also serve the station. Anyone who has read the SW London / Wessex rail study knows the Richmond rail route is at capacity (limited by level crossing barriers already down upto 40 min per hour) and the extra trains to ease overcrowding will run via Syon Lane / Brentford so maybe the peak hour buses from Fulwell, Hampton etc should go via these stations instead, why not join them to some of the E routes which end at Brentford and open up some new journey opportunities at same time. Alternatively run some buses to other stations eg Hampton Court, Teddington or Surbiton during the peaks. There is one caveat, the anomaly where you can use a bus without the travelcard zone needs fixing so need correct zone at boarding point, it will stop people taking bus to station in next cheapest zone when there is a more suitable station that could be served. EDIT. Just occurred to me, the Richmond bridge problem could be solved by using the lightweight metrodecker as that is 2000kg lighter than existing deckers |
|
|
|
Post by mondraker275 on Dec 15, 2014 10:00:06 GMT
I know there is a separate fund for Bus Priority schemes, but I would invest more in reducing or maintaining bus journey times and reliability. This will also help out overcrowding. Especially as a lot of bus priority will be lost in favor of cycling initiatives.
The only aspect of A, I dont like, is we are going to get unnecessary PVR increases to help out operators run the route rather than increase frequency, e.g. 275 from 10 to 13 without a change in frequency.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2014 10:49:54 GMT
Given we appear to have the prospect of the TfL piggy bank releasing some money for bus route improvements what approach do we think TfL should take? Should it a) carefully adjust and improve existing routes - better frequencies, double deck conversions, make more day routes 24 hour services b) "drop a bomb" on the bus network and do big area schemes again with big changes to services c) limit adjustments to existing routes and instead concentrate on adding brand new routes to the network. Being very unfair you're only allowed to choose one option. I'm interested to see how many people think we need to tear up the bus map and start again. For info the business plan has the following increases in kms (millions) operated :- 2014/15 - 1m extra 2015/16 - 3m extra 2016/17 - 3m extra 2017/18 - 5m extra 2018/19 - 4m extra 2019/20 - 4m extra 2020/21 - 4m extra I know you only want one option, but I am going to be difficult and say option A for central zones 1 and 2. For all the suburban areas I would go for option B drop the bomb, my reasoning is that most of these have irrelevant routings that were bodged in 1980s and 1990s often by splitting old routes that bear no resemblance to today's journey patterns. Some examples : some hospitals have been closed and services concentrated at other hospitals but new catchment not served; Some shopping areas have moved but buses still go down quiet bypassed High Street; commuters now go to West End and Canary Wharf as well as City so have changed the station they use to be on right line but the buses still serve old pattern. I will give you an example near me, Richmond has a lot of buses many of which use Richmond Bridge (which is weight restricted so can't take deckers carrying more than about 70) so there are lots of single deck routes, now we have travelcards why not divert them to Twickenham station which is getting upgraded. Because Richmond station is one end of the town and there is nowhere to park the buses at the station you also get lots of virtually dead extensions to places like Manor Circus which wastes money. Not many people choose to shop in Richmond over other towns like Kingston so running shopping buses there results in lots of nearly empty buses running around midday. What is the obsession with running single decks over Richmond Bridge, when Twickenham bridge can take deckers and also serve the station. Anyone who has read the SW London / Wessex rail study knows the Richmond rail route is at capacity (limited by level crossing barriers already down upto 40 min per hour) and the extra trains to ease overcrowding will run via Syon Lane / Brentford so maybe the peak hour buses from Fulwell, Hampton etc should go via these stations instead, why not join them to some of the E routes which end at Brentford and open up some new journey opportunities at same time. Alternatively run some buses to other stations eg Hampton Court, Teddington or Surbiton during the peaks. There is one caveat, the anomaly where you can use a bus without the travelcard zone needs fixing so need correct zone at boarding point, it will stop people taking bus to station in next cheapest zone when there is a more suitable station that could be served. Very valid points about hospitals etc. I feel I'm changing my mind now... Take Queen Marys Hospital in Sidcup. Served by three high frequency routes plus R11,B14 & 160. But its lost its 24 hr A&E. PRUH in Locksbottom does, it doesn't even have a night route. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Dec 15, 2014 11:09:24 GMT
Given we appear to have the prospect of the TfL piggy bank releasing some money for bus route improvements what approach do we think TfL should take? Should it a) carefully adjust and improve existing routes - better frequencies, double deck conversions, make more day routes 24 hour services b) "drop a bomb" on the bus network and do big area schemes again with big changes to services c) limit adjustments to existing routes and instead concentrate on adding brand new routes to the network. Being very unfair you're only allowed to choose one option. I'm interested to see how many people think we need to tear up the bus map and start again. For info the business plan has the following increases in kms (millions) operated :- 2014/15 - 1m extra 2015/16 - 3m extra 2016/17 - 3m extra 2017/18 - 5m extra 2018/19 - 4m extra 2019/20 - 4m extra 2020/21 - 4m extra I know you only want one option, but I am going to be difficult and say option A for central zones 1 and 2. For all the suburban areas I would go for option B drop the bomb, my reasoning is that most of these have irrelevant routings that were bodged in 1980s and 1990s often by splitting old routes that bear no resemblance to today's journey patterns. Some examples : some hospitals have been closed and services concentrated at other hospitals but new catchment not served; Some shopping areas have moved but buses still go down quiet bypassed High Street; commuters now go to West End and Canary Wharf as well as City so have changed the station they use to be on right line but the buses still serve old pattern. I will give you an example near me, Richmond has a lot of buses many of which use Richmond Bridge (which is weight restricted so can't take deckers carrying more than about 70) so there are lots of single deck routes, now we have travelcards why not divert them to Twickenham station which is getting upgraded. Because Richmond station is one end of the town and there is nowhere to park the buses at the station you also get lots of virtually dead extensions to places like Manor Circus which wastes money. Not many people choose to shop in Richmond over other towns like Kingston so running shopping buses there results in lots of nearly empty buses running around midday. What is the obsession with running single decks over Richmond Bridge, when Twickenham bridge can take deckers and also serve the station. Anyone who has read the SW London / Wessex rail study knows the Richmond rail route is at capacity (limited by level crossing barriers already down upto 40 min per hour) and the extra trains to ease overcrowding will run via Syon Lane / Brentford so maybe the peak hour buses from Fulwell, Hampton etc should go via these stations instead, why not join them to some of the E routes which end at Brentford and open up some new journey opportunities at same time. Alternatively run some buses to other stations eg Hampton Court, Teddington or Surbiton during the peaks. There is one caveat, the anomaly where you can use a bus without the travelcard zone needs fixing so need correct zone at boarding point, it will stop people taking bus to station in next cheapest zone when there is a more suitable station that could be served. Not sure if you realised but at least a couple of journeys on the 33 over the last few years have resulted in a TA being used and using Richmond Bridge as they terminate at Richmond and/or Barnes Common. |
|
|
|
Post by wivenswold on Dec 15, 2014 19:35:20 GMT
I think the Big-Bang idea will be avoided after London Transport's experience with the 1970's Reshaping plan.
|
|
|
|
Post by moz on Dec 16, 2014 15:21:52 GMT
I think the Big-Bang idea will be avoided after London Transport's experience with the 1970's Reshaping plan. Strangely enough, had the entire reshaping plan gone ahead then the network would have quite similar to what we have now. There is a list of one set of proposals in the the back of "Reshaping London's Buses", the book by Barry Arnold and Mike Harris - well worth the read but quite rare. EDIT: Just checked and there are 4 available on Amazon - one for less than £7 - bargain! Moz |
|
|
|
Post by rambo on Dec 16, 2014 17:33:31 GMT
More RPI's please.
|
|
