|
Post by sid on Jun 24, 2015 5:50:43 GMT
Ah yes, although that still isn't the 8bph that they are complaining about. They also say buses will be running from 6am until midnight 24/7 which is a slight contradiction!! It'd be 8 bph if you took the two way flow which is what they've done. Clearly that only applies to a short section of road given much of the route near the Peabody Estate is one way or on a loop. Still you don't concede these trifling details if you are trying to oppose something. You make it as bad as possible. Anyway it seems the proposal to increase the frequency has been dropped as it's not in the consultation so it will be 6 bph daytime and 4 bph evenings and Sundays. Obviously the hours of operation have also been stretched somewhat to give a worst case but it's broadly 6/7am until midnight daily (Sunday starts later). Maybe the increased frequency has been dropped due to the objections? It would probably help if stand time was taken Balham so that buses can go straight in and out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2015 7:10:18 GMT
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 24, 2015 12:04:25 GMT
Already posted on the previous page.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Oct 19, 2015 0:09:11 GMT
|
|
|
Post by routew15 on Oct 19, 2015 6:09:31 GMT
A tale of two halves. Although I don't live local to the 315, I don't agree with this extension. I think a Mobility bus type of route would be better suited to the Peabody estate. Extending the 315 could end up being more hassle than it is worth, in my opinion. On the points made by the councillors: The service on the route is relatively low and could do with a lift, IM also glad to see a mentioning of a X109, I hope this is championed further.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Oct 19, 2015 9:30:45 GMT
Dearie me - whinge, whinge, whinge, spend money, spend money, spend money. The consultation is about the *extension* not the route or transport in Streatham. Do local councillors always get the wrong end of the stick? Their answer to the consultation was "we agree with the extension" even though the residents allegedly don't want it. Makes me wonder whether the councillors have spoken to the residents on the extension. I'll be astonished if the extension happens anyway. TfL can divert the allocated budget to Waltham Forest instead.
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Oct 19, 2015 11:32:07 GMT
Dearie me - whinge, whinge, whinge, spend money, spend money, spend money. The consultation is about the *extension* not the route or transport in Streatham. Do local councillors always get the wrong end of the stick? Their answer to the consultation was "we agree with the extension" even though the residents allegedly don't want it. Makes me wonder whether the councillors have spoken to the residents on the extension. I'll be astonished if the extension happens anyway. TfL can divert the allocated budget to Waltham Forest instead. The description of this and the P13 as 'hyper-local' made me chuckle.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Oct 19, 2015 11:46:09 GMT
The description of this and the P13 as 'hyper-local' made me chuckle. I got a bit "stabby" when I read that term. It's pointless. Nearly all buses provide a local service and if you define the local area "small enough" then anything can be "hyper local". Yes the 73 is hyper local, yes the 253 is hyper local and yes, going to the opposite extreme, the W10 is hyper local. I've used the 315 once and yes it was pretty well used for a Sunday and yes the hilly nature of roads up from West Norwood clearly cause problems for some local people. The point the councillors miss in demanding a 15 min service is whether it could actually run well given the narrow roads and lots of parked cars (low car ownership or not). No point shoving buses down congested local roads where buses have to sit still for minutes at a time to allow other vehicles to pass. I've been on a lot of such routes recently and it can be horrendous. The wider point is that more car parking spaces have to be removed and there needs to be more enforcement but that is likely to be very unpopular and dangerous to the survival of the councillors supporting it. In short there aren't easy answers and I note the councillors only recommended parking restrictions away from what I think is their area - a touch of self interest there! I also struggled with their rather rudimentary analysis of journey times. Why does someone need to leave their homes 10 mins early on a hail and ride section? It didn't take me an hour to ride the whole route on a Sunday so why it takes an hour when the service is more frequent? Even at peak times the total run time is only 34 mins in one direction and 30 in the other.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Oct 19, 2015 13:24:30 GMT
The description of this and the P13 as 'hyper-local' made me chuckle. I got a bit "stabby" when I read that term. It's pointless. Nearly all buses provide a local service and if you define the local area "small enough" then anything can be "hyper local". Yes the 73 is hyper local, yes the 253 is hyper local and yes, going to the opposite extreme, the W10 is hyper local. I've used the 315 once and yes it was pretty well used for a Sunday and yes the hilly nature of roads up from West Norwood clearly cause problems for some local people. The point the councillors miss in demanding a 15 min service is whether it could actually run well given the narrow roads and lots of parked cars (low car ownership or not). No point shoving buses down congested local roads where buses have to sit still for minutes at a time to allow other vehicles to pass. I've been on a lot of such routes recently and it can be horrendous. The wider point is that more car parking spaces have to be removed and there needs to be more enforcement but that is likely to be very unpopular and dangerous to the survival of the councillors supporting it. In short there aren't easy answers and I note the councillors only recommended parking restrictions away from what I think is their area - a touch of self interest there! I also struggled with their rather rudimentary analysis of journey times. Why does someone need to leave their homes 10 mins early on a hail and ride section? It didn't take me an hour to ride the whole route on a Sunday so why it takes an hour when the service is more frequent? Even at peak times the total run time is only 34 mins in one direction and 30 in the other. Even at peak times when the bus is busy, it does not take an hour end to end. I still think an extension to Crystal Palace would benefit bringing the eastern side of West Norwood a direct link to Streatham but I'd leave it at its current frequency.
|
|
|
Post by Unorm on Oct 19, 2015 15:15:44 GMT
Personally I'd have extended 315 either two ways (one of them as suggested to Crystal Palace to relieve off 322 and those lazy ones that can't be asked to walk 2 bus stops from West Norwood Shops to Martell Road) and the other as proposal but continues from Croxted Road to Herne Hill via 201. If you ask me there isn't a need for three single deck routes to all go Streatham from one not so busy place, and having all three of them serve the same section of road (Thurlow Park Road A205). Extending it to Herne Hill I'd chop 201 to Tulse Hill as I mentioned somewhere 201 isn't used much between Herne Hill and Tulse Hill bar the few who miss a 3 or P13).
And in it's current state the 315 doesn't need to take 30 mins nor have a PVR of 4, but that's to balance out stand times and journey time and etc. Otherwise it could take end-end 20 mins-ish with a PVR of 3 or 2 [with further shortening to timetable etc]. Ontop of that I'd add in larger vehicles, e.g 9.3m/9.6m [new] buses or spare 10.2m* to seat all the people and give dual doors. Personally I don't like single door.
* - LDPs for example, until contract renewal except it's happening soon..
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Oct 19, 2015 17:44:29 GMT
Personally I'd have extended 315 either two ways (one of them as suggested to Crystal Palace to relieve off 322 and those lazy ones that can't be asked to walk 2 bus stops from West Norwood Shops to Martell Road) and the other as proposal but continues from Croxted Road to Herne Hill via 201. If you ask me there isn't a need for three single deck routes to all go Streatham from one not so busy place, and having all three of them serve the same section of road (Thurlow Park Road A205). Extending it to Herne Hill I'd chop 201 to Tulse Hill as I mentioned somewhere 201 isn't used much between Herne Hill and Tulse Hill bar the few who miss a 3 or P13). And in it's current state the 315 doesn't need to take 30 mins nor have a PVR of 4, but that's to balance out stand times and journey time and etc. Otherwise it could take end-end 20 mins-ish with a PVR of 3 or 2 [with further shortening to timetable etc]. Ontop of that I'd add in larger vehicles, e.g 9.6m buses or spare 10.2m to seat all the people and give dual doors. Personally I don't like single door. 10.2m buses would be a bit much for a route that is busy but doesn't get too crowded. 9.3m or 9.6m dual door vehicles would be my preferred option - I'm quite surprised that upon contract renewals, not enough existing 9.3m/9.6m vehicles or new 9.6m vehicles are being specified given that roughly, their capacity are similar but the dual door channels passengers getting on & off far better - the 322 & G1 both being good examples where both routes should really of got utilise these particular length vehicles & the 450 being an excellent example of where 9.3m dual door vehicles reduced delays of passengers trying to squeeze on & off - the MPD's could never cope.
|
|
|
Post by Unorm on Oct 19, 2015 21:36:21 GMT
Personally I'd have extended 315 either two ways (one of them as suggested to Crystal Palace to relieve off 322 and those lazy ones that can't be asked to walk 2 bus stops from West Norwood Shops to Martell Road) and the other as proposal but continues from Croxted Road to Herne Hill via 201. If you ask me there isn't a need for three single deck routes to all go Streatham from one not so busy place, and having all three of them serve the same section of road (Thurlow Park Road A205). Extending it to Herne Hill I'd chop 201 to Tulse Hill as I mentioned somewhere 201 isn't used much between Herne Hill and Tulse Hill bar the few who miss a 3 or P13). And in it's current state the 315 doesn't need to take 30 mins nor have a PVR of 4, but that's to balance out stand times and journey time and etc. Otherwise it could take end-end 20 mins-ish with a PVR of 3 or 2 [with further shortening to timetable etc]. Ontop of that I'd add in larger vehicles, e.g 9.6m buses or spare 10.2m to seat all the people and give dual doors. Personally I don't like single door. 10.2m buses would be a bit much for a route that is busy but doesn't get too crowded. 9.3m or 9.6m dual door vehicles would be my preferred option - I'm quite surprised that upon contract renewals, not enough existing 9.3m/9.6m vehicles or new 9.6m vehicles are being specified given that roughly, their capacity are similar but the dual door channels passengers getting on & off far better - the 322 & G1 both being good examples where both routes should really of got utilise these particular length vehicles & the 450 being an excellent example of where 9.3m dual door vehicles reduced delays of passengers trying to squeeze on & off - the MPD's could never cope. When I meant spare 10.2m buses, I meant for example LDPs until contract renewal. Should've been more clearer on that. I know that it doesn't need 10.2m buses as 9.6m would cope well. Just that there are a few LDPs lumbering around and they will do until contract renewal
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Mar 12, 2016 21:42:55 GMT
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Mar 12, 2016 22:40:18 GMT
NIMBYZ RULEZ OK Entirely predictable given the ludicrous reaction to running small buses down a few residential roads. Still no thieves and hoodlums [1] terrorising the domestic bliss of the Birkbeck Triangle. [1] aka bus passengers. EDIT - having read the formal consultation report the following things are striking - some of the residents hired a transport consultancy to draft a response to TfL's proposals. Someone has too much money! - none of the local councillors consulted nailed their colours to the mast by formally responding! They were only involved in earlier phases of the process. Cowards. - residents groups from Bromley and West Wickham responded against this proposal instead demanding money be spent in their area and on the 162! - actual bus users and people more reliant on public transport supported the proposal. - people who don't use buses were those who were opposed. - there seemed to be a general lack of understanding of modern bus design and environmental performance leading to irrational (IMO) concerns about buses running down certain roads. - there was an explicit fear that gang members in South London would use the bus to attack youths on the Peabody Estate. Do gang members really use buses? I thought they had access to cars and rather flash motorcycles.
|
|
|
Post by Nathan on Mar 12, 2016 22:42:56 GMT
All these proposals that aren't going through gives me hope that the 436 won't be re-routed towards Battersea...
|
|