|
Post by overgroundcommuter on Dec 16, 2014 18:26:27 GMT
Option A. I've seen the benefits this year to the P13 and 185 due to the increased frequency.
|
|
|
Post by ThinLizzy on Dec 16, 2014 19:40:26 GMT
I think little bits of options A and C for me. Looking at East London (my area) I'd go for a couple of the following:
1. Frequency enhancements for the 5 OR a new route serving Barking Riverside and Longbridge Road (supports the continuing development at Barking Riverside and adds much needed capacity on the 5 corridor, two birds one stone)
2. New route to support the development at the former May & Baker site at Dagenham East
3. Additional vehicle on some routes to improve reliability
4. Finally extend the 330 to Canary Wharf
|
|
|
Post by 6HP502C on Dec 16, 2014 20:47:31 GMT
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. It is really strategic that it's mostly single decks running over Richmond Bridge, or just force of circumstance? After all, 2 of the routes have a physical restriction elsewhere, 3 don't really warrant double deck vehicles (H22/R68/R70) and one is a double decker. There doesn't seem to be any issue with double deck rail replacement services running over it (and they are often busy at that point)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2014 23:34:59 GMT
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. It is really strategic that it's mostly single decks running over Richmond Bridge, or just force of circumstance? After all, 2 of the routes have a physical restriction elsewhere, 3 don't really warrant double deck vehicles (H22/R68/R70) and one is a double decker. There doesn't seem to be any issue with double deck rail replacement services running over it (and they are often busy at that point) London United started this off by the harrier network. The Wandsworth scheme saw off the 37 & Hammersmith bridge issues saw off Metrobuses from the 33. Interesting point about Twickenham bridge but to then serve Richmond station whatever route that was diverted would have to find somewhere to stand in the very small town centre. Kew Green could be a more useful terminus for the H22/H37/R70.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2014 21:20:38 GMT
Actually, vast swathes of London need to be redesigned. Virtually every part of London is constrained by 19th Century railway networks, bridges, level crossings etc, which provide countless pinch points for congestion and limited expansion possibilities
What's the point in putting 500 extra buses on the roads ?
Catford Bridge is solid even now At 2115 hrs
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Dec 17, 2014 23:35:18 GMT
An interesting set of replies with the emphasis very much on option A. Without saying too much "a little bird" has suggested that the approach in option A is most likely to happen with better frequencies and more DD conversions. The key is to run more mileage where it is needed with the emphasis in the suburbs rather than closer in which could be quite interesting given you can argue some areas are overbussed now and some boroughs are not overly enthused about buses. I do wonder just how much hospitals, health facilities and schools are going to be major influences on how / where the extra resources are distributed. Could be interesting to see how the Boroughs respond given the stated intention to work more openly with them. I don't think the "rip it up and start again" approach is going to feature at all although New Addington is an interesting example of the "area scheme" reappearing although the emphasis is clearly to get rid of excess capacity and redeploy some of the savings in some better coverage where it is justified. It will be interesting to see where else gets this approach to remove excess capacity so the money can go on more worthwhile routes - I can certainly see Bromley, Havering and Barnet being in the firing line for reviews to take out "waste". Those boroughs are just my musings, not from anyone else. Oh and "tweet tweet" the Night Tube bus changes will be worth watching.
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Dec 18, 2014 0:06:07 GMT
It will be interesting to see where else gets this approach to remove excess capacity so the money can go on more worthwhile routes I seem to remember reading that the 49 was awarded with a surprisingly high-daytime frequency. If it's proven in time to be over bused the 'extras' could be transferred to the 109 if that still suffers capacity issues.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2014 4:53:28 GMT
An interesting set of replies with the emphasis very much on option A. Without saying too much "a little bird" has suggested that the approach in option A is most likely to happen with better frequencies and more DD conversions. The key is to run more mileage where it is needed with the emphasis in the suburbs rather than closer in which could be quite interesting given you can argue some areas are overbussed now and some boroughs are not overly enthused about buses. I do wonder just how much hospitals, health facilities and schools are going to be major influences on how / where the extra resources are distributed. Could be interesting to see how the Boroughs respond given the stated intention to work more openly with them. I don't think the "rip it up and start again" approach is going to feature at all although New Addington is an interesting example of the "area scheme" reappearing although the emphasis is clearly to get rid of excess capacity and redeploy some of the savings in some better coverage where it is justified. It will be interesting to see where else gets this approach to remove excess capacity so the money can go on more worthwhile routes - I can certainly see Bromley, Havering and Barnet being in the firing line for reviews to take out "waste". Those boroughs are just my musings, not from anyone else. Oh and "tweet tweet" the Night Tube bus changes will be worth watching. Well you have teased us all there haven't you ! Bromley (Tory run - pro car - got rid of Fares Fare ) and Barnet - tory run also pro car, are huge boroughs with areas of quite sparse population. How long Bromley can continue to protect its green belt land I don't know, but it can't last forever. The SE20/BR3/SE19/SE26 parts of the borough probably user far more buses than the southern parts. And night bus changes will be interesting indeed. I hope the X26 is put on the list for an option A revamp.
|
|
|
Post by southeastlondonbus on Dec 18, 2014 9:35:40 GMT
Well if option A is preferred I would like to nominate the 492 for a frequency increase after having to use the service last week and studying the timetable where there are sheduled 35 minute gaps in service during the day it is desperate need of a rethink and frequency increase.
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Dec 18, 2014 9:59:24 GMT
Well if option A is preferred I would like to nominate the 492 for a frequency increase after having to use the service last week and studying the timetable where there are sheduled 35 minute gaps in service during the day it is desperate need of a rethink and frequency increase. Also needs no single deckers on the route... 4028 on it at the moment. Contract awarded to London Central written allover it..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2014 12:29:07 GMT
Well if option A is preferred I would like to nominate the 492 for a frequency increase after having to use the service last week and studying the timetable where there are sheduled 35 minute gaps in service during the day it is desperate need of a rethink and frequency increase. Also needs no single deckers on the route... 4028 on it at the moment. Contract awarded to London Central written allover it.. We could see an entry into the TfL market by Go Coach Hire , or Arriva KS could do the unimaginable and retain it with the B routes
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Dec 18, 2014 15:07:10 GMT
Also needs no single deckers on the route... 4028 on it at the moment. Contract awarded to London Central written allover it.. We could see an entry into the TfL market by Go Coach Hire , or Arriva KS could do the unimaginable and retain it with the B routes Go Coach could only enter the TfL market if they are approved by TfL. Has anyone got a list of provincial operators that are approved by TfL to bid for TfL work other than Ensignbus & Uno?
|
|