|
Post by DT 11 on Mar 13, 2016 16:58:56 GMT
One thing that this recent round of rejected consultations shows is that moves to actually improve "penetration" of some residential areas are now impossible / virtually impossible as a result of having to consult with local people. The internet and social media also seems to make easier for opposition to be generated. It makes me wonder what on earth the bus network would look like now if, in the 1980s and 90s, LT had had to consult in the same way. I suspect a great many routes that people find genuinely beneficial that serve areas away from main roads simply would not exist at all. Would we have some of the "R", "B", "H" and "W" routes? Would there be routes like the 162, 336, 352/4/6? I think not. Thoughts?? Those that shout loudest and longest are those against proposals, and they wield, generally, an awful lot of power.
You mention the B routes : the biggest kerfuffle when they began back in 1988 wasn't over the B routes : many of those covered roads that already had buses, and the B12 was welcomed over those roads that were new to buses. The B13 had a bit of a bumpy introduction, but that was largely down to Danson Road losing its regular service on the 132 rather than worries about the side roads it ran down. The big battle was over the 422 going down Hythe Avenue : I well remember the posters in nearly every window saying 'Say NO to the T1' - T1 being the number LRT initially used for the route before it became 422. In the end, the 422 had to use single deckers to appease the residents. It was only a year or so later, when Boro'line Maidstone took over that double deckers started to sneak out on the route. ...and sadly only care about themselves and not the people who it will benefit.
|
|
|
Post by Unorm on Mar 13, 2016 19:16:58 GMT
A bit disappointed 315 isn't going down Robson Road (tbh I don't care about the Peabody Hill part). I'm more concerned that the frequency is staying the same which I'm also disappointed at. It took 6 months for them to announce the results as well. Oh well.
|
|
|
Post by riverside on Mar 13, 2016 19:39:43 GMT
It is very sad to see this proposal rejected.It is a case of those people who mainly use cars having no consideration for their neighbours. The elderly, people on low incomes and those with a disability will be most impacted by this decision. Surely under present legislation there should be some sort of Equalities Impact Assessment done that helps more marginalised people to have a voice. TfL were approached by residents of the estate to provide some sort of service, so there are people there who feel isolated from the present bus network.
I agree with Vjaska, that given the area and the socio-economic make up it is surprising that some residents have campaigned so vigorously against a service that would clearly be of benefit to their fellow residents. If I remember correctly the Peabody Trust only exists because an American philanthropist George? Peabody was so appalled by the housing conditions he saw in Victorian London that he started a charitable foundation to provide some form of social housing.
I hope TfL do not let the issue rest here and will re-present the proposal in an amended form at a future date. This is reminiscent of the campaign waged against the C1 running down Blythe Road. However it is ironic that when it suits TfL they will arbitrarily propose withdrawing services along roads e.g. the proposal to no longer serve Spendrift Avenue if the current plan for the Isle of Dogs goes ahead. I have only ever made a few journeys on the D3, but in my limited experience there was a steady stream of passengers boarding and alighting along this section who obviously valued their bus service. So TfL are not always the passengers' friend.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Mar 13, 2016 20:26:05 GMT
It is very sad to see this proposal rejected.It is a case of those people who mainly use cars having no consideration for their neighbours. The elderly, people on low incomes and those with a disability will be most impacted by this decision. Surely under present legislation there should be some sort of Equalities Impact Assessment done that helps more marginalised people to have a voice. TfL were approached by residents of the estate to provide some sort of service, so there are people there who feel isolated from the present bus network. I agree with Vjaska, that given the area and the socio-economic make up it is surprising that some residents have campaigned so vigorously against a service that would clearly be of benefit to their fellow residents. If I remember correctly the Peabody Trust only exists because an American philanthropist George? Peabody was so appalled by the housing conditions he saw in Victorian London that he started a charitable foundation to provide some form of social housing. I hope TfL do not let the issue rest here and will re-present the proposal in an amended form at a future date. This is reminiscent of the campaign waged against the C1 running down Blythe Road. However it is ironic that when it suits TfL they will arbitrarily propose withdrawing services along roads e.g. the proposal to no longer serve Spendrift Avenue if the current plan for the Isle of Dogs goes ahead. I have only ever made a few journeys on the D3, but in my limited experience there was a steady stream of passengers boarding and alighting along this section who obviously valued their bus service. So TfL are not always the passengers' friend. I haven't seen Equality IAs ever mentioned in the context of bus service consultation. One is done for the annual fares revision and there is a commentary as part of the Mayor's Decision. I suspect that even if TfL proposed an electric powered small minibus, like a Transit or similar, running once an hour M-S off peak from West Norwood to the Peabody Estate that a massive furore would still ensue. I'm happy to be corrected but I thought the impetus for the service came from local councillors and not residents directly to TfL. There were certainly some vicious remarks about local politicians from the "antis" in the early days of the campaign as they were seen to be interferring in local matters they did not understand. As you say it is those who struggle to be heard who have lost out here.
|
|