|
Post by routew15 on Jun 13, 2016 11:46:03 GMT
TfL has launched a consultation today to make curtail of route 167 in the Loughton area 167 consultation page -source: TfL consultation page So as predicted by a few members, here is the out of London curtailments I wonder whom else shall fall victim of the flab-axe? Consultation closes Friday 22 July 2016
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Jun 13, 2016 11:54:33 GMT
I think this was expected soon. I think whatever the responses TfL will continue to go ahead with this as there is decreased funding.
|
|
|
Post by routew15 on Jun 13, 2016 12:02:22 GMT
I think this was expected soon. I think whatever the responses TfL will continue to go ahead with this as there is decreased funding. I agree. I was kind of expecting the 397 to get the lobe as well but it seems to of escaped ... for now! I'm glad to see that Tfl mentioned the funding from ECC and I'm very pleased they were upfront and honest on why the cuts are being made.
|
|
|
Post by jay38a on Jun 13, 2016 12:07:39 GMT
Shame the 167 couldn't have at least have gone to Loughton Library on Trap's Hill so at least it would still serve the High Street
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jun 13, 2016 12:25:40 GMT
No great shock there although I expected a frequency reduction as well. I note that TfL have only said the 20 will not have any changes leaving it open for the 549 and 397 to be the subject of more change. Bemused by the 677 school route - I would have thought that a matter for Essex County Council but I don't know how many school kids travel from Greater London to schools in Debden.
How long before the Herts CC cross boundary services run by TfL are also up for consultation?
|
|
|
Post by RT3062 on Jun 13, 2016 13:15:23 GMT
No great shock there although I expected a frequency reduction as well. I note that TfL have only said the 20 will not have any changes leaving it open for the 549 and 397 to be the subject of more change. Bemused by the 677 school route - I would have thought that a matter for Essex County Council but I don't know how many school kids travel from Greater London to schools in Debden. How long before the Herts CC cross boundary services run by TfL are also up for consultation? not long i would think there have been some pretty heavy cuts here in hatfield already.the nearest route to me has gone from x20 till 2300 to x30-40 finshing at 1940 and nothing on a sunday
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Jun 13, 2016 14:21:52 GMT
No great shock there although I expected a frequency reduction as well. I note that TfL have only said the 20 will not have any changes leaving it open for the 549 and 397 to be the subject of more change. Bemused by the 677 school route - I would have thought that a matter for Essex County Council but I don't know how many school kids travel from Greater London to schools in Debden. How long before the Herts CC cross boundary services run by TfL are also up for consultation? Loads of school kids from Greater London travel to Debden/Loughton. Also to Epping Forest College.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 13, 2016 18:04:34 GMT
Still think it's a silly decision even though we know why it's being done. If enough people do disagree, then I think it would be hypocritical of TfL to still go ahead with it given they were happy to go with the disagreements of the Peabody Estate in regards to the 315 proposal.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jun 13, 2016 18:35:45 GMT
Still think it's a silly decision even though we know why it's being done. If enough people do disagree, then I think it would be hypocritical of TfL to still go ahead with it given they were happy to go with the disagreements of the Peabody Estate in regards to the 315 proposal. The problem is if the complaints come from Essex then there's no reason for TfL to pay much attention to them. The issue is an Essex CC one and TfL is under no great obligation to provide services in Essex. If there are loads of complaints within Greater London then things may be a bit different but I am doubtful about that actually happening. I think any cuts to services into Herts will be much more difficult to deal with because I suspect that plenty of people in Barnet, Edgware, Stanmore do use buses to make cross boundary trips and plenty of them. We also know Mr Dismore has already been vocal and he will have a more direct link to Mayor Khan and Val Shawcross thus upping the political ante. How TfL "fixes" that I don't know.
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Jun 13, 2016 18:57:56 GMT
Still think it's a silly decision even though we know why it's being done. If enough people do disagree, then I think it would be hypocritical of TfL to still go ahead with it given they were happy to go with the disagreements of the Peabody Estate in regards to the 315 proposal. The problem is if the complaints come from Essex then there's no reason for TfL to pay much attention to them. The issue is an Essex CC one and TfL is under no great obligation to provide services in Essex. If there are loads of complaints within Greater London then things may be a bit different but I am doubtful about that actually happening. I think any cuts to services into Herts will be much more difficult to deal with because I suspect that plenty of people in Barnet, Edgware, Stanmore do use buses to make cross boundary trips and plenty of them. We also know Mr Dismore has already been vocal and he will have a more direct link to Mayor Khan and Val Shawcross thus upping the political ante. How TfL "fixes" that I don't know. The logical way to fix it is to have a premium fare, could easily make the stops outside London in fare zone 7 and limit the current pass to zones 1-6. There is no logical reason why the flat fare can't be restricted to TfL boundary and a commercial fare charged outside it. In reality could probably only charge the premium in one direction, as journeys out of London will have been paid at standard rate before the bus passes the boundary. Zone 6 boundaries are all over the place (try drawing it on a map, there is a reason why TfL never publishes the boundary except in diagramatic form) so there is loads of revenue cross-subsidy from towns in wrong zone (mainly travelcards, not bus passes). This means very difficult to say if a route looses money as it is arbitrary accounting prorate that affects the loss level. I guess there will be one of two results, either the extra revenue makes continuing viable, or it discourages use so you have a strong reason to discontinue.
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Jun 13, 2016 20:08:24 GMT
Still think it's a silly decision even though we know why it's being done. If enough people do disagree, then I think it would be hypocritical of TfL to still go ahead with it given they were happy to go with the disagreements of the Peabody Estate in regards to the 315 proposal. Personally I think they've escaped lightly. TfL could legitimately withdraw buses from Debden altogether and leave it to the market, as Essex initially seemed to want. Any requirement to ensure services to & from Greater London is surely met by the Central Line.
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Jun 13, 2016 21:01:19 GMT
Such a shame the 167 is being cut. I've ridden it cross-boundary very rarely but when I do; the handful of passengers alighting before the county boundary (from a full loading at Ilford) trumps the dozens that get off in Chigwell and beyond. It's a shame that TfL are relying on statistics* when flipping a coin between the 20 and the 167. I remember when the 20 was every 10 mins; what a waste of money and resources that was! My ideal scenario would be to swap buses for the 20 & 167, but as the consultation reminded me; the low bridge just before Loughton station is the cause of the 167 not being able to accommodate deckers in the route's current structure.
TfL are being very cheeky mentioning the Hopper ticket when it hasn't been implemented yet. We shall wait to see if** the changes happen before the Hopper ticket scheme.
*based on a certain member's spreadsheet, which has been on my laptop long before I joined the forum lool, there are approx. 200k passengers a year more on the 20 than 167. This has been the case in every year of stats, for the past 5 years. I am adamant that those are 'waiving' passengers on the Walthamstow-Whipps Cross section.
**it's a Tfl consultation, which roughly means "we have to give you a chance to be heard cause it's the law...doesn't mean that we'll listen to you though!" and push through with changes anyway. Ahh democracy!!
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 13, 2016 21:11:57 GMT
Still think it's a silly decision even though we know why it's being done. If enough people do disagree, then I think it would be hypocritical of TfL to still go ahead with it given they were happy to go with the disagreements of the Peabody Estate in regards to the 315 proposal. Personally I think they've escaped lightly. TfL could legitimately withdraw buses from Debden altogether and leave it to the market, as Essex initially seemed to want. Any requirement to ensure services to & from Greater London is surely met by the Central Line. Indeed they have escaped mostly which is very good but those who live south of Loughton who go beyond to Debden & the housing area won't feel that same feeling.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jun 13, 2016 23:22:32 GMT
Still think it's a silly decision even though we know why it's being done. If enough people do disagree, then I think it would be hypocritical of TfL to still go ahead with it given they were happy to go with the disagreements of the Peabody Estate in regards to the 315 proposal. Personally I think they've escaped lightly. TfL could legitimately withdraw buses from Debden altogether and leave it to the market, as Essex initially seemed to want. Any requirement to ensure services to & from Greater London is surely met by the Central Line. I think you are supposed to feel "relieved" but I think something a little subtle is going on here. The 167 is the trailblazer for this type of cut. I simply don't believe cutting a bit of the 167 covers all the funding shortfall so TfL will see how this goes and what comments come back. Depending on how easy or difficult the consultation is for the 167 then we will see how rapidly the changes to the 397 and 549 emerge. Only the 20 appears to be "safe" - presumably because it has fairly large freehold section in Greater London and I assume it carries fair numbers at Debden given the density of housing in the estate area. Let's be honest - you could bin the 549 entirely and not many people in Greater London would "suffer". The W14 and 275 run over most of the roads or are close by and only the bit of Hillside Avenue in Woodford would be problematic. On my one ride on the 549 no one boarding or alighted along there. You could turn the 549 at Buckhurst Hill station thus removing much of the mileage in Essex and allowing the return of an hourly fixed headway service. The 397 is more difficult. It has been growing in popularity despite the modest service levels and was pretty busy when I rode it. Given TfL have had to add school day journeys there are obviously reasonably large school journey flows on the route. I guess TfL could simply cut Sunday services or pull the route back to Loughton if they need to save more money. I guess the decision will be linked to the upcoming retender (same applies to the 549 in the same tranche). If the prices for the base route are too high then TfL will need to implement options that I assume are already set out in the tender documentation. It's the potential contract award that will trigger the consultation for further reductions.
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Jun 13, 2016 23:39:19 GMT
Such a shame the 167 is being cut. I've ridden it cross-boundary very rarely but when I do; the handful of passengers alighting before the county boundary (from a full loading at Ilford) trumps the dozens that get off in Chigwell and beyond. It's a shame that TfL are relying on statistics* when flipping a coin between the 20 and the 167. I remember when the 20 was every 10 mins; what a waste of money and resources that was! My ideal scenario would be to swap buses for the 20 & 167, but as the consultation reminded me; the low bridge just before Loughton station is the cause of the 167 not being able to accommodate deckers in the route's current structure. TfL are being very cheeky mentioning the Hopper ticket when it hasn't been implemented yet. We shall wait to see if** the changes happen before the Hopper ticket scheme. *based on a certain member's spreadsheet, which has been on my laptop long before I joined the forum lool, there are approx. 200k passengers a year more on the 20 than 167. This has been the case in every year of stats, for the past 5 years. I am adamant that those are 'waiving' passengers on the Walthamstow-Whipps Cross section. **it's a Tfl consultation, which roughly means "we have to give you a chance to be heard cause it's the law...doesn't mean that we'll listen to you though!" and push through with changes anyway. Ahh democracy!! I don't remember the 20 having a 10 minute headway.
|
|