|
Post by southlondonbus on Jul 4, 2016 7:07:38 GMT
In a less stadardised era you could have had the 20 continuing beyond Loughton station every 30 mins (2 out of 4 buses) and the 167 every 30 mins (1 out of 3 buses and maybe 1 on sunday) giving a saving but still maintaining all links with a cost saving.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jul 4, 2016 8:27:41 GMT
In a less stadardised era you could have had the 20 continuing beyond Loughton station every 30 mins (2 out of 4 buses) and the 167 every 30 mins (1 out of 3 buses and maybe 1 on sunday) giving a saving but still maintaining all links with a cost saving. Your suggested 1 in 3 service structure is just what happens on the 166 in dealing with a cross boundary issue so could be applied to the 167 but only if the scheduling worked. I haven't looked to see if that's feasible. If it was then fair enough but the savings would be lower and possibly not what TfL are trying to achieve.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2016 18:05:35 GMT
I think that it is absolutely ridiculous that the route is intending to terminate at the Loughton station missing out the main retail area - TFL needs to think smarter and to someone elses point re standardisation era: TFL need to understand that this is not a one size fits all scenario
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2016 17:49:09 GMT
Does anyone know where you can find the consultation results as I see from tender results the changes have gone ahead anyway.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2016 17:50:20 GMT
Being slightly cynical - consultations seem to be a waste of time
|
|
|
Post by John tuthill on Oct 22, 2016 18:23:36 GMT
Being slightly cynical - consultations seem to be a waste of time I've posted this before: "Consultation-we'll ask you, and then we'll do what we were going to do anyway."
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Oct 22, 2016 18:42:08 GMT
Being slightly cynical - consultations seem to be a waste of time In general yes I'd agree. There are occasional victories where the public view is so overwhelming TfL can't ignore it but it's really very poor when they award new contracts entirely predicated on the consultation option going ahead - whether it's a cut or a route change. Obviously people desparate to see the route change implemented will be delighted but it rather cuts across the idea of TfL actually listening. Still I am hatching an evil plan about transparency / consultations about which I shall say no more.
|
|
|
Post by planesandtrains on Oct 22, 2016 22:27:25 GMT
Being slightly cynical - consultations seem to be a waste of time In general yes I'd agree. There are occasional victories where the public view is so overwhelming TfL can't ignore it but it's really very poor when they award new contracts entirely predicated on the consultation option going ahead - whether it's a cut or a route change. Obviously people desparate to see the route change implemented will be delighted but it rather cuts across the idea of TfL actually listening. Still I am hatching an evil plan about transparency / consultations about which I shall say no more. Yep, I agree as well, they did the slapped the poorly planned extension onto the 110 duplicating the 267 and creating no new links when they could have extended round St Margret s and the hospital. Not to mention a direct link to twickenham while taking some pressure off the H37. But its TFL..
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Oct 22, 2016 23:25:17 GMT
In general yes I'd agree. There are occasional victories where the public view is so overwhelming TfL can't ignore it but it's really very poor when they award new contracts entirely predicated on the consultation option going ahead - whether it's a cut or a route change. Obviously people desparate to see the route change implemented will be delighted but it rather cuts across the idea of TfL actually listening. Still I am hatching an evil plan about transparency / consultations about which I shall say no more. Yep, I agree as well, they did the slapped the poorly planned extension onto the 110 duplicating the 267 and creating no new links when they could have extended round St Margret s and the hospital. Not to mention a direct link to twickenham while taking some pressure off the H37. But its TFL.. And, of course, that particular consultation isn't even finished because there is no decision about what to do with the H28 nor getting the E8 closer to West Mddx Hospital. I check every so often to see if TfL and Hounslow Council have made their minds up but it looks like a big old fudge to me.
|
|
|
Post by planesandtrains on Oct 23, 2016 8:29:49 GMT
Yep, I agree as well, they did the slapped the poorly planned extension onto the 110 duplicating the 267 and creating no new links when they could have extended round St Margret s and the hospital. Not to mention a direct link to twickenham while taking some pressure off the H37. But its TFL.. And, of course, that particular consultation isn't even finished because there is no decision about what to do with the H28 nor getting the E8 closer to West Mddx Hospital. I check every so often to see if TfL and Hounslow Council have made their minds up but it looks like a big old fudge to me. But but but, they have more important things to do like messing up the 108 and the 13
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Oct 23, 2016 14:49:51 GMT
And, of course, that particular consultation isn't even finished because there is no decision about what to do with the H28 nor getting the E8 closer to West Mddx Hospital. I check every so often to see if TfL and Hounslow Council have made their minds up but it looks like a big old fudge to me. But but but, they have more important things to do like messing up the 108 and the 13 "Let's launch a consultation to get rid of the 13, don't think people will take notice ." *Public aren't happy & rebel furiously* "Okay that didn't work.....I know! Let's launch a consultation to get rid of the 13, but let's hide that fact profusely by slapping a shed load of other info in there. They'll ever notice...."
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Dec 15, 2016 23:55:49 GMT
Quelle surprise the 167 is being scrapped north of Loughton despite thousands of people opposing the plans. Consultation reportResponse to issues raisedEssex County Council suggested TfL surrender the service from its network and instead allow it to be operated commercially with a permit to run inside London. Bit rich given they axed the funding and caused the cut back in the first place!
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Dec 16, 2016 0:17:06 GMT
Considering TFL's acknowledgement of the fact that the majority opposed this consultation, they couldn't be any more unsympathetic with their response. They may as well not have mentioned the 2,547 people who were against the idea judging by TFL's oblivious reply. It's this exact attitude that highlights the fact that opposing their consultations is completely pointless. Ridiculous
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Dec 16, 2016 1:12:02 GMT
Considering TFL's acknowledgement of the fact that the majority opposed this consultation, they couldn't be any more unsympatheitc with their response. They may as well not have mentioned the 2,547 people who were against the idea judging by TFL's oblivious reply. It's this exact attitude that highlights the fact that opposing their consultations is completely pointless. Ridiculous What I find slightly odd is that TfL were not more stark in setting out their position. The ingredients for that stark response are in the "responses" document but scattered around rather than brought together to make it clear. The basic point is that Essex CC are responsible for buses in Loughton and Debden - document does say this. The second is that ECC cut the funding - again mentioned several times. However TfL say they "had" to make the cut but they don't really say *why* they were compelled to make a cut to the 167. There are lots of "well we do understand" type replies but when you've read the same thing 10 times it is, as you say, not at all sympathetic. It's just a "dismissive hand, go away you annoying person" type response. TfL should have told the truth which is broadly "we could have saved this service but if we did we could be held to ransom by every council that provides funding for a TfL bus route that runs outside Greater London". That is the harsh reality - if TfL had backed off here they'd have established a precedent that would be quoted in every subsequent case where a local authority cuts their share of bus funding. Given the 167 cut how long before we get something more substantive than a little cut to the 298 on services running into Hertfordshire?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2016 4:43:11 GMT
They repeated themselves so much about minimising "as far as possible the section of the route the 167 will no longer serve" they ended up dragging the 163 into it. Merton residents will be furious!
We all know they can't proof read but seriously... they can't even copy and paste now?! 😂
|
|