|
Post by redexpress on Jul 18, 2017 11:54:05 GMT
Having now had a look at the report, the first thing that struck me was the choice of cover photo - a poor defenceless cyclist about to be maimed by one of those evil bendy-buses! What I can't see in the report is any indication that speed (of the bus) is a significant factor in these incidents. Yet "intelligent" speed monitoring is touted as essential to reduce collisions . They (rightly IMO) make the point that bus drivers are under too much pressure, but I don't think that treating professional drivers like babies is a good way to reduce stress. I'm dreading the day when my local buses are artificially limited to 20mph on roads where everyone else drives at 25-30mph. If every vehicle on the road was being restricted, that would be another matter, but to put buses at even more of a disadvantage is ridiculous. It has to be accepted that mobility (at anything above walking pace) will always carry a risk. Of course we should try to reduce that risk as far as practical, but when it comes to transport there will always have to be a balance between risk and usefulness. The way things are going, we're in danger of tipping the balance too far the wrong way.
|
|
|
Post by mondraker275 on Jul 18, 2017 13:28:12 GMT
Having now had a look at the report, the first thing that struck me was the choice of cover photo - a poor defenceless cyclist about to be maimed by one of those evil bendy-buses! What I can't see in the report is any indication that speed (of the bus) is a significant factor in these incidents. Yet "intelligent" speed monitoring is touted as essential to reduce collisions . They (rightly IMO) make the point that bus drivers are under too much pressure, but I don't think that treating professional drivers like babies is a good way to reduce stress. I'm dreading the day when my local buses are artificially limited to 20mph on roads where everyone else drives at 25-30mph. If every vehicle on the road was being restricted, that would be another matter, but to put buses at even more of a disadvantage is ridiculous. It has to be accepted that mobility (at anything above walking pace) will always carry a risk. Of course we should try to reduce that risk as far as practical, but when it comes to transport there will always have to be a balance between risk and usefulness. The way things are going, we're in danger of tipping the balance too far the wrong way. Thats the point I was making about finding recommendations for a problem they have not proven exists. The speed is a good example. Stats will show that most, I believe it was 80% of cyclists/pedestrian incidents take place at junctions. What vehicle travels 20mph at a junction? Turning lorries that have killed many are not going 20 mph. A bus going 10mph will kill someone anyway. So why have a speed recommendation for buses or large vehicles?
|
|
|
Post by john on Jul 20, 2017 9:01:11 GMT
For me the answer is making others aware. I've said for a while now that ordinary motorists should have to retake their test every 5 years or so. Now this might not be practical but something along these lines should be looked at personally. Maybe a driver training programme on a bus for those involved in a collision with a bus for example.
The stress on bus drivers can be astronomical at times. It's not the job that's the issue though as such for me, it's the lack of help from other road users to make our life just a touch easier. Not letting us move off from a stop, inconsiderate parking (alot of this from minicabs and black taxis!!), using the bus stop to talk on their phone. When you add all that to gobby 15 year olds who think it's their god given right to ride the bus, oyster or not, or your leader being a douche, you get to see the bigger picture.
People can make these reports as much as they like, but until they come out with us and experience it, no report will help
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Jul 26, 2017 21:31:26 GMT
There is no one sticking up for buses and Leon Daniels seems to have gone soft and Peter Hendy given up. Buses are constantly demonised and then when passenger numbers are dropping they wonder why. TfL and the stupid eco pressure groups are the cause. They do everything to punish the car, but in the end the biggest casualty would always be the bus.
If someone was to drop out of the sky and be hit by a bus, the bus would be in the wrong, and if the same situation happened with a train they wouldn't even bother to question whether the driver could have stopped or not. They remove railing that were meant to stop people from jaywalking, but because people complain and pressure groups won their way about being fenced in like cattle, then they are removed and we get more people getting knocked over and even worse now with brain dead people on smart phones.
These days bus drivers are more cautious than anything else. Companies are very strict compared to say 15-20 years ago. The littlest of thing whether a scratch or a mirror hits another vehicle or street furniture the driver is guaranteed a visit in the office to the manager for a disciplinary caution or suspension. 15-20 years ago drivers were doing far more rest day workings and overtime hours before or after duty than they are now as there was a far greater driver shortage. It was common at most garages for many duties per day not being covered. Although accidents of people being killed was not as high - so its a nonsense imo to blame drivers being overworked.
People are deserting buses for a very good reason, they do not have all day to just sit around on crawling buses in traffic or sat behind cyclists weaving in and out of buses or the slow ones riding at 5 mph. We are in a time conscious society in London and every minute and second counts! Removal of buses lanes for cycle havens have increased journey times and political correctly 20 zones that are ill thought out. In 20 zones, you generally burn more fuel as most vehicles have to use higher gears and more revs (generally 2nd / 3rd gear, including cars etc), plus it then gives cyclists a chance to be as fast / faster than you It's the Tory mentality of making something crap and unappealing so you can eventually bin it (see NHS), they would love to cut TfL budget down, but wouldn't dare at the minute. I guess it's a push to get people onto the Elizabeth Line and off buses and to pedestrianise large swathes of the city centre, using "pollution" as the reason why they are killing the bus network. If the future of buses is now the outskirts of London then I would create more cross border services like the 465 and 370 rather than cut them (402 goes this week...), at least decent speeds and thrashing is guaranteed Bring back 80% red livery and give operators more creativity to encourage people back onto buses by doing their own branding, but I think we've missed the bus with this now At least the Underground is getting better and I think the future is rail... but passenger numbers for buses will continue to fall. Bad publicity hasn't helped, the LT window fiasco plus the cycle lanes plus congestion, and not seeing that people have changed shopping habits and buy online. TfL need to start looking to the world outside the M25 if they want sensible answers if anyone can still be bothered... This 20 mph nonsense is Labour backward primitive thinking. Most of these so called 20 zones were not Conservative policy. If you also notice it is most of the Labour councils that have done borough wide stupid 20 policy that makes no sense. Political correctness bullshit equality for all. The main reasons why buses are failing is down to punishing cars with these stupid policies and equality for all roads.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 26, 2017 23:16:12 GMT
In 20 zones, you generally burn more fuel as most vehicles have to use higher gears and more revs (generally 2nd / 3rd gear, including cars etc), plus it then gives cyclists a chance to be as fast / faster than you It's the Tory mentality of making something crap and unappealing so you can eventually bin it (see NHS), they would love to cut TfL budget down, but wouldn't dare at the minute. I guess it's a push to get people onto the Elizabeth Line and off buses and to pedestrianise large swathes of the city centre, using "pollution" as the reason why they are killing the bus network. If the future of buses is now the outskirts of London then I would create more cross border services like the 465 and 370 rather than cut them (402 goes this week...), at least decent speeds and thrashing is guaranteed Bring back 80% red livery and give operators more creativity to encourage people back onto buses by doing their own branding, but I think we've missed the bus with this now At least the Underground is getting better and I think the future is rail... but passenger numbers for buses will continue to fall. Bad publicity hasn't helped, the LT window fiasco plus the cycle lanes plus congestion, and not seeing that people have changed shopping habits and buy online. TfL need to start looking to the world outside the M25 if they want sensible answers if anyone can still be bothered...
The main reasons why buses are failing is down to punishing cars with these stupid policies and equality for all roads. Your last line seems to be a bit contradictory - how does punishing cars mean buses are failing. Surely, punishing buses mean buses failing and punishing cars mean cars failing?
|
|
|
Post by ServerKing on Jul 27, 2017 4:40:21 GMT
It seems they now plan to tear up speed humps after it dawned on them that they create more pollution and wreck your car... I just can't imagine an Islington without them though
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Jul 28, 2017 10:45:36 GMT
The main reasons why buses are failing is down to punishing cars with these stupid policies and equality for all roads. Your last line seems to be a bit contradictory - how does punishing cars mean buses are failing. Surely, punishing buses mean buses failing and punishing cars mean cars failing? No, because they are punishing cars with tightening road lanes, speed humps, closing off side roads etc. but in effect, this has a major impact on bus services, as it means slower speeds, more traffic on main roads, very tight pinch point which leads to more accidents.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Aug 11, 2017 13:01:55 GMT
The report on bus route planning from the Transport Cttee is due for publication next Thursday (which is earlier than I anticipated).
There was a tweet from the London Assembly this morning to this effect.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Aug 16, 2017 23:27:55 GMT
|
|
|
Post by joefrombow on Aug 17, 2017 0:38:47 GMT
I'm all for Express Bus Routes along Major Routes around London and more X68 type routes in to the suburbs also Express Orbital routes for example a route along the North Circular from Beckton to Brent Cross with limited stops at the junctions like what is present near Charlie Brown's however this would incur some additional costs due to having to build footbridges etc and bus stops in lay-bys and the like I don't think it would happen but would be good from a Enthusiast view and in creating new links.
As for Bendy Buses I do think they have a place in London regardless of what many think for example on the Red Arrow routes I think they should of stayed and short but busy routes the original ELT routes for example or in serving places which have a need for feeder routes and limited rail transport like Harold Hill ..(💭 hmmm a reinstated 374 awarded to EnsignBus with 5 articulated citaros 😁 we can all dream) or New Addington for example , where people don't sit for a long time and there is a mass of people they do make sense also I think Tri-Axle double decks would be good for longer distance routes also WiFi I find it quite hard to believe every other major city across the UK has it and London buses don't . I'd also like to see what they do with the ELT because realistically there is no difference from any other routes apart from a few fancy bus shelters no real Bus priority measures or even a guided busway or anything they could do alot more .
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Aug 17, 2017 4:31:37 GMT
Far too many echoes of Reshaping London's Buses in all this for me, with feeder routes and hub/spoke design. Big redesigns lose passengers and annoy people. I'm not at all convinced that bendies would be the right fit for express services. And there are issues of garage capacity and stop design with bendies that haven't just evaporated. After what happened before, will operators want a premium to run them to avoid being stuck with a useless fleet the next time the wind changes? Or would TfL buy them itself? Just do the basics, we don't need a 'big idea': good information, bus priority and links to the places people need to go. I'm afraid I'd file this report, with the exception of one or two points, straight in the shredder.
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Aug 17, 2017 6:14:21 GMT
Seems a very succinct report to me. States what a lot of people have been saying for years We all know TfL has a blinkered view on the way to run the bus network Basically says TfL needs to change its priorities and thinking. It doesn't waste time why some things are done as they are (for historical reasons), just is blunt that things need to change. Examples of the blunt statements include : Orbital routes, (100 of current 675 routes), but with no policy for orbital routes Virtual bus stations (interchanges that are a collection of stops, some now further apart due to public realm works) Countdown not installed where waits are longer due to low frequency deterring bus use vs car Bendy buses having more capacity Frequency being determined by suburban use, even if it results in excess buses on shared sections in Central London The way I read it is the Transport committee has basically thrown down the gauntlet, and is saying this should be policy, now TfL go and abandon some of your old ways, and start executing this policy, as it is the way forward. Will be interesting to see TfLs response, as they are basically being told to save money by running a simple basic service in Central London and use the money saved to provide an efficient, passenger (and potential passenger who doesn't understand current bus service) attractive network of quicker orbital and feeder routes. Bring it on. One trick they missed is building some bus decks, bus parking areas, perhaps over tube sidings etc. Or mixed mode development sites where bus garages are below public housing blocks (much easier if some new garages are designated for single or bendy only). Let's hope some radical thinking regarding stands takes place so that bus routes end in sensible places not just where a stand was built decades ago (currently too much tinkering goes on, nothing very radical, minor changes just upset regular users as irritations, big changes are understood when explained.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2017 7:27:45 GMT
I've just read the report, here's how I see it.
London's bus network remains essentially intact dating back decades , in some cases almost 100 years.
Some of these trunk routes are as much needed now as they were then.
If TfL are serious about changing , then buses need to have clear priority over other vehicles , so for example, a clear trunk route between Croydon and Camden at tube style frequency with hubs ( covered stations ) along the route with smaller vehicles serving these hubs en route.
London is expanding, and this " cross border " issue on buses is going to need to be addressed. If London Underground and London Overground and TfL rail all cross the border, then buses should as well. The funding system needs to be overhauled and county councils need to have more funding. Effectively. We have a buffer zone on buses circling London which you can't escape from unless you use rail or rely on a very poor frequency , often around the houses , bus route, on a different pay structure from TfL services.
So , Arriva's route 724 should be included in the TfL network. Offering Oyster card users express bus route circumnavigating NW London at attractive frequencies . Ensigns X80 is another example of a strategic link , which could join up with the District Line at Upminster, Crossrail at Brentwood and Southeastern at Greenhithe or , potentially to Ebbslfeet via Bluewater and the new massive housing developments between there and Ebbsfleet.
No mention made in this report of night buses, perhaps we will see more of that in later publications. But more and more places are staying open later, and as such there is a growing night time work force who have to make tedious journeys on buses because no rail services start early enough at weekends.
In Outer London, frequencies do need to be improved . This should be quite simple. TfL should be able to say to their contractors, take five buses from route A and out them on route B please. Tendering every route individually must be a massive burden , well over six hundred different contracts, this just sounds ridiculous to me .
Please do cut Central London buses but they must be used elsewhere and not as an excuse to save money.
I don't think money can be saved , all this needs increased centrally allocated funds , and TfL to deliver on a massive radical scale not seen probably since the thirties.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Aug 17, 2017 8:11:17 GMT
I read the report last night but opted to go to bed rather than post something immediately. I should just say that I was involved in helping one of the consultants who did some investigatory work for the Committee. Nothing huge on my part - just prompting thoughts and ideas and proof reading their submission and suggesting tweaks. I wasn't paid either so no financial inducement. I was not able to say anything at the time. I should also add that at no time did the words "bendy bus" feature in anything I said. The reference to bendy buses is no doubt down to a couple of Cttee members who are supporters of the buses.
I am rather underwhelmed by the report to be honest. It churns over old tired issues like "orbital" and "express" buses all over again without recognising that this is a tired debate. If the Boroughs want key links added then just give TfL the list and get them, with Mayoral direction if necessary, to evaluate and cost the idea. Then present a way of funding the change along with the inevitable associated changes to free up the resources. With there being no extra money for anything it is pretty pointless creating a report demanding lots of change (every change costs money) but not also saying the Mayor needs to provide more money / raise fares / impose charges on other modes. The report also completely fails to identify the problem with risk averse scheduling by operators and TfL and the fact this could save money and speed up journeys if the contractual risk was better understood / shared. This is a major issue the Cttee has missed.
I fear that what the Cttee has done is latch on to some old ideas (e.g. hub and spoke) or been "dazzled" by what's done in Hong Kong. The existing TfL network already has a tiered structure if only they had bothered to think about it. You can't exactly call the W11 or the R6 or the E1 trunk services. They are local feeder routes to town centres and a main rail / tube hub. The enormous difference between London and Hong Kong is population density. Each area has a reasonable level of local amenity because sheer numbers can sustain it. Small property sizes mean small or no kitchens which supports a lot of local eating places or daily shopping trips. A lot of Hong Kong industry is in specific centres and all clustered together. This creates extra transport demand. Where people need to travel to work you have immense flows - unlike London these stretch in all sorts of directions. Hong Kong is still growing its rail network so there are many links where only buses can run and, again, you have huge flows which are very profitable. There is little concept of "suburbs" as we understand them unless you are immensely rich and can afford the land. So many people live in flats that it is physically impossible for them to own 1 car never mind 2 or 3 as we get in our suburbs. Trying to impose a HK network structure in London is daft because the underlying societal structure (and therefore transport needs) is very different.
Until we get away from a mindset where "making TfL more efficient" is just an excuse for cuts everywhere then we will not see any meaningful change in outer London buses because savings elsewhere are going to fund grant and fare revenue cuts. The underlying strategy is wrong. The reason why TfL and City Hall have not committed to dates or firm ideas in the Transport Strategy is because (a) it's a strategy NOT A PLAN!!! and (b) they have no idea when they will have the funds to trial some of the things they have suggested. The Committee want a list of schemes and dates because it gives them something to track and then to criticise when things are not delivered as expected. One can hardly blame TfL for avoiding that trap.
I doubt TfL will propose anything very radical here unless Val and Sadiq force them to. I suspect there may be pretty tough discussions between City Hall and Windsor House (TfL HQ) because radical ideas cost money, take time and may well not work. Worse, in political terms, they may end up not working just at the wrong point in the electoral cycle. TfL have long established form for "dealing with" these sorts of reports and making sure nothing much changes. I doubt this one is going to make much difference without very strong political backing.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Aug 17, 2017 8:48:04 GMT
Far too many echoes of Reshaping London's Buses in all this for me, with feeder routes and hub/spoke design. Big redesigns lose passengers and annoy people. I'm not at all convinced that bendies would be the right fit for express services. And there are issues of garage capacity and stop design with bendies that haven't just evaporated. After what happened before, will operators want a premium to run them to avoid being stuck with a useless fleet the next time the wind changes? Or would TfL buy them itself? Just do the basics, we don't need a 'big idea': good information, bus priority and links to the places people need to go. I'm afraid I'd file this report, with the exception of one or two points, straight in the shredder. You're right to point out the pitfalls of bendy buses which often get overlooked, they're certainly not suitable for express routes where people will be travelling considerable distances, surely a seat is a minimum requirement? Routes like the 108 would be ok, subject to clearance tests, but TfL would surely have to supply the buses to prevent operators being saddled with buses that they have no further use for once the contract ends.
|
|