Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2017 9:35:21 GMT
In the report, there is a boxed quote saying to travel from Uxbridge to Hemel Hempstead requires a trip via Central London.
Have they not seen the Carousel route 730 which connects the two towns directly ?
Incidentally, this a lovely route !
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Aug 17, 2017 11:59:21 GMT
In the report, there is a boxed quote saying to travel from Uxbridge to Hemel Hempstead requires a trip via Central London. Have they not seen the Carousel route 730 which connects the two towns directly ? Incidentally, this a lovely route ! And it's that sort of mistake which doesn't help the credibility of reports like this. The world has moved on since the 70s when London Country was hived off. Harking back 40 years does no one any favours at all.
|
|
|
Post by stuckonthe486 on Aug 17, 2017 13:23:15 GMT
I suspect TfL will use the report as bog roll. Even though there's little that hasn't been said before, the changes the assembly committee is demanding will require money - and it's very clear there isn't any new money on the table, which is insane in a growing city, but that's where we are.
At least the committee looks at the broader congestion issue to encompass the the issues surrounding it (frozen congestion charge, ballooning numbers of mini-cabs and the halting emphasis on making more room for walking and cycling) and the issues to come in the future (because once Oxford Street is pedestrianised, Regent Street will want it too) - but even then it doesn't feel enough. A bigger, deeper review is needed here, or perhaps it should have made more specific recommendations that TfL should start publicly projecting what the bus network of, say, 2030 will look like and engage business, the public and politicians in this. (After all, if you build a road or a railway, you have to project at least that far ahead, so there's no reason why this shouldn't be the case with buses). Instead, it's all a little vague.
I chuckled at the mention of orbital bus routes, but why on earth didn't the committee suggest some corridors? "An M25 of the buses!" A quick win would have been adding to the X26 and forthcoming X40 with a south-east route to Bluewater (the eastern side of the old 725/726 should do) and one or two routes in the north/ north-east which with Lakeside as the eastern extremity. Heck, TfL bleats on about river crossings all the time, the committee could have looked at using the Dartford Crossing for one. Otherwise they'll just get fobbed off by TfL saying "well, we run the 119 and that one that goes round the North Circular even though it takes an age..."
Will passengers really understand the concept of feeder/trunk routes? I'm not wholly sure I do. Is the 51 a feeder (to the 53 or to Woolwich Arsenal station) or a trunk (to the shops at Sidcup?). Allowing the hopper fare concept to include tube and rail fares (so your fare from Bank to Woolwich Arsenal lets you take a 51 home at no extra cost) would be really radical and much more easily understood (if expensive, and oh, look, no money in the pot).
Wifi - really? Nice to have, but buses run out in the open most of the time. And for people to work on board - is there really the market for this? Are we looking at table seats? Better to have somewhere to charge your phone.
The points about improving virtual bus stations is a good one, particularly when Lewisham High Street's bus interchange has been large out of action for two weeks in a row because nobody's in a rush to finish work on the pavements. Same with on-bus info - even without fancy Citymapper screens, I'm amazed at how poor TfL is at utilising iBus.
But on the whole, it just seems vague, wishy-washy and a retread of what's been said before. The point about a bus from Uxbridge to Hemel Hempstead did make me laugh, though - they should have just had the bottle to say "we should work with neighbouring authorities to bring back London Country". Ho-hum.
|
|
|
Post by ben on Aug 17, 2017 15:26:37 GMT
|
|
|
Post by ben on Aug 17, 2017 16:06:32 GMT
Having read the whole thing now, its just a talking shop really? No new ideas, skirting around pinpointing the exact causes and reasons. Very vague, as has been pointed out. The few things it does identify properly it avoids elaborating on, or suggesting solutions. If the point of the report was to suggest solutions TfL may wish to try, it doesn't contain many. If its to force TfL's hand, its not clear enough to do so. If its to pinpoint problems, it lack analysis and the forthright sense of acknowledgement. This is a 'report' for people who use Powerpoint for fun, and though it has a series of 'notes' at the end as references, its not exactly academically thorough.
Some specifics: Though it identifies 'urban realm improvements' as sometimes having a detrimental impact on interchange, it doesn't say anything more than bus passengers should in future be 'considered'. Well they always are, but its a question of priority. Unless better priority is given to bus passengers and bus operations, every time a gyratory is taken out bus passage will become less convenient, less straightforward, and lengthier.
Convenience. Barely touched on, and then wilfully subverted. The whole trunk-feeder thing is the perfect example. People prefer direct routes because changing and waiting for a bus is a horrible experience. Noisey, polluted, uncomfortable, difficult, dirty. Even more so with shopping or luggage or rain. So why suggest that the changing can be a good idea?
Theyve identified comfort as being a topic. But they havent gone into any detail or examples. Lack of benches at bus stops? Poor suspension and seating in busses? Wifi and aircon are good ideas, so much so they are already offered by many other operators.
Publicity. This is woeful at the moment. Almost all maps on TfL's site are a year or so out of date, a lot of changes have happened since, and whats more even if they are out of date some contain typos in addition. The report talks of changing tendering or route structures, with the benefit that it'll be easier for people to understand the bus network. This is insane! The real problem is TfL have lost their handle on publicity and rely too much on third party online big-data apps. There just isn't a substitute that works as well, across as many demographs, as a well drawn, thoughtfully annotated map, displayed at points people want to see them, and may need to use them. Especially geographic ones.
Ugh theres more but maybe later...
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Aug 17, 2017 16:11:45 GMT
I suspect TfL will use the report as bog roll. Even though there's little that hasn't been said before, the changes the assembly committee is demanding will require money - and it's very clear there isn't any new money on the table, which is insane in a growing city, but that's where we are. At least the committee looks at the broader congestion issue to encompass the the issues surrounding it (frozen congestion charge, ballooning numbers of mini-cabs and the halting emphasis on making more room for walking and cycling) and the issues to come in the future (because once Oxford Street is pedestrianised, Regent Street will want it too) - but even then it doesn't feel enough. A bigger, deeper review is needed here, or perhaps it should have made more specific recommendations that TfL should start publicly projecting what the bus network of, say, 2030 will look like and engage business, the public and politicians in this. (After all, if you build a road or a railway, you have to project at least that far ahead, so there's no reason why this shouldn't be the case with buses). Instead, it's all a little vague. I chuckled at the mention of orbital bus routes, but why on earth didn't the committee suggest some corridors? "An M25 of the buses!" A quick win would have been adding to the X26 and forthcoming X40 with a south-east route to Bluewater (the eastern side of the old 725/726 should do) and one or two routes in the north/ north-east which with Lakeside as the eastern extremity. Heck, TfL bleats on about river crossings all the time, the committee could have looked at using the Dartford Crossing for one. Otherwise they'll just get fobbed off by TfL saying "well, we run the 119 and that one that goes round the North Circular even though it takes an age..." Will passengers really understand the concept of feeder/trunk routes? I'm not wholly sure I do. Is the 51 a feeder (to the 53 or to Woolwich Arsenal station) or a trunk (to the shops at Sidcup?). Allowing the hopper fare concept to include tube and rail fares (so your fare from Bank to Woolwich Arsenal lets you take a 51 home at no extra cost) would be really radical and much more easily understood (if expensive, and oh, look, no money in the pot). Wifi - really? Nice to have, but buses run out in the open most of the time. And for people to work on board - is there really the market for this? Are we looking at table seats? Better to have somewhere to charge your phone. The points about improving virtual bus stations is a good one, particularly when Lewisham High Street's bus interchange has been large out of action for two weeks in a row because nobody's in a rush to finish work on the pavements. Same with on-bus info - even without fancy Citymapper screens, I'm amazed at how poor TfL is at utilising iBus. But on the whole, it just seems vague, wishy-washy and a retread of what's been said before. The point about a bus from Uxbridge to Hemel Hempstead did make me laugh, though - they should have just had the bottle to say "we should work with neighbouring authorities to bring back London Country". Ho-hum. A few comments. I agree TfL won't be bothered with much of this. The report feels half hearted anyway. I'm not convinced that TfL have implemented all the recommendations from the last T'port Cttee investigation into buses. They've certainly squirmed their way out of one reporting obligation apparently with Mrs Shawcross's blessing even though she asked for the reporting change in the first place! I agree with your comments about "just say what you want". Also this obsessing with "labels" is pointless and means nothing to the average punter. In Hong Kong the hierarchy of routes is pretty clear because of the number system with different groupings for tunnel routes, prefixes and suffixes for MTR or KCR feeder services. The only thing where there is no consistency is that you have duplication of numbers on HK Island and in Kowloon / New Territories. It would take a lot of work to create the same thing in London to no great benefit. The other obvious point to make is that many routes serve multiple purposes and giving them categories or extra identifiers would be pointless in many cases. TfL have refused multiple times, as you will know, to define any real strategy for the bus network or to provide set plans for expansion, contraction or rationalisation. I think part of the issue is that there is no political will from the Mayoralty for such a thing. I also think the bus network is kept as a deliberately flexible part of TfL's budget that can be cut back, paused or accelerated as circumstances allow. Having a strategy with targets, dates and deliverables is far too restrictive. TfL won't expand I-Bus as it currently stands because of the tied contract. Nothing will happen until they've unraveled it and split the system into chunks. Even then I am sceptical we will see any more stop displays despite people wanting them.
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Aug 17, 2017 23:43:58 GMT
I do sometimes wonder what the point of the London Assembly actually is. I know it's meant to act as a check and balance on the Mayor, but all it seems to do is tut vaguely, ask questions that don't get answered, issue half-baked reports and let Caroline Pidgeon get on the telly.
Let's axe it and put the money into the transport network - you could even put that on the side of a bus...
Leaden satire aside, I'm really not sure what it's achieving in its current form.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Aug 18, 2017 0:02:05 GMT
I do sometimes wonder what the point of the London Assembly actually is. I know it's meant to act as a check and balance on the Mayor, but all it seems to do is tut vaguely, ask questions that don't get answered, issue half-baked reports and let Caroline Pidgeon get on the telly. Let's axe it and put the money into the transport network - you could even put that on the side of a bus... Leaden satire aside, I'm really not sure what it's achieving in its current form. To offer a little balance I'd say 1. they offer voters a chance to put questions directly to the Mayor. I feel I know my AM far, far more than my local councillors or MP. 2. they offer voters a chance to raise issues of concern to them 3. they are elected representatives on a wide range of different political platforms unlike in the House of Commons. 4. I could not support an unfettered, unaccountable Mayoralty. If anything the Assembly's powers need to be strengthened not weakened. 5. It is worth bearing in mind that most of the large organisations under Mayoral control have vastly longer histories than the Mayoralty. Therefore those organisations are very adept at "controlling" each Mayor and bringing them "on side" while delivering a few headline initiatives to keep the manifesto watchers happy. More scrutiny and more challenge might put the right pressure on those organisations and stop their arrogant behaviour. 6. The current Transport Cttee is not as good as the previous one because several key members left City Hall in the 2016 elections. Several AMs are still finding their way into the job - the current Green Party AMs are not a patch on Jenny Jones and Darren Johnson for example. Those two learnt how to ask the right questions and apply pressure in the right places and had quite a number of policy successes even under Boris. 7. There are many examples where the Assembly as a whole and via its Committees have dug out serious issues and put them under the public spotlight for attention or even just ensured a lot of information has ended up in the public domain. We wouldn't have got half the info we did on the NB4L without concerted action across 2 or 3 Committees to drag information out of the Mayor and TfL Directors. I know a lot of people are fed up with politicians and politics but the last thing we need right now is to reduce scrutiny and accountabililty and allow people in control to ride roughshod over the voters. And that applies irrespective of which party is in control in case anyone thinks I'm being partisan.
|
|
|
Post by ben on Aug 18, 2017 13:42:33 GMT
Just to add to snoggles very valid points on this, the unfamiliarity of committee members with aspects of transport which they are tasked with scrutinising is at times quite frustrating. I've sure we've all watched a webcast where a spokesman has given some half hearted reply and thought 'Thats not a real answer! Why aren't you ripping it apart!' I do wonder whether someone who actually has a bit of knowledge of the history, development, and current state of TfL would be able to do a better job of routing out answers and deficiencies, but then again evasion works to the level it is up against; if TfL or indeed any organisation do not want to provide a straight answer, there is very little to ultimately stop them, short of having proof of the answer before asking. But yeah, starting a 'gofundme' to send secondhand books on London's transport to committee members for their own good would be a start!
|
|
|
Post by stuckonthe486 on Aug 18, 2017 15:07:06 GMT
I do sometimes wonder what the point of the London Assembly actually is. I know it's meant to act as a check and balance on the Mayor, but all it seems to do is tut vaguely, ask questions that don't get answered, issue half-baked reports and let Caroline Pidgeon get on the telly. Let's axe it and put the money into the transport network - you could even put that on the side of a bus... Leaden satire aside, I'm really not sure what it's achieving in its current form. To offer a little balance I'd say 1. they offer voters a chance to put questions directly to the Mayor. I feel I know my AM far, far more than my local councillors or MP. 2. they offer voters a chance to raise issues of concern to them 3. they are elected representatives on a wide range of different political platforms unlike in the House of Commons. 4. I could not support an unfettered, unaccountable Mayoralty. If anything the Assembly's powers need to be strengthened not weakened. 5. It is worth bearing in mind that most of the large organisations under Mayoral control have vastly longer histories than the Mayoralty. Therefore those organisations are very adept at "controlling" each Mayor and bringing them "on side" while delivering a few headline initiatives to keep the manifesto watchers happy. More scrutiny and more challenge might put the right pressure on those organisations and stop their arrogant behaviour. 6. The current Transport Cttee is not as good as the previous one because several key members left City Hall in the 2016 elections. Several AMs are still finding their way into the job - the current Green Party AMs are not a patch on Jenny Jones and Darren Johnson for example. Those two learnt how to ask the right questions and apply pressure in the right places and had quite a number of policy successes even under Boris. 7. There are many examples where the Assembly as a whole and via its Committees have dug out serious issues and put them under the public spotlight for attention or even just ensured a lot of information has ended up in the public domain. We wouldn't have got half the info we did on the NB4L without concerted action across 2 or 3 Committees to drag information out of the Mayor and TfL Directors. I know a lot of people are fed up with politicians and politics but the last thing we need right now is to reduce scrutiny and accountabililty and allow people in control to ride roughshod over the voters. And that applies irrespective of which party is in control in case anyone thinks I'm being partisan. Completely agree with this. The Lib Dems and Greens used to be the most effective assembly members and understand that it's more about scrutiny than confrontational politics but there's now just one Lib Dem - Caroline Pidgeon, who is probably the best of the lot - and I'd agree that the Greens are still learning on the job. In scrutiny, there are rarely quick wins - you have to take it carefully and smartly. And I think that's why this report is so disappointing - it seems to be pushing old hobby horses rather than seeking answers and tangible improvements.
|
|
|
Post by stuckonthe486 on Aug 18, 2017 15:18:22 GMT
But yeah, starting a 'gofundme' to send secondhand books on London's transport to committee members for their own good would be a start! Heh - I see what you're getting at. But so much of this, like with all politics, is going to be in the life experiences of the politicans themselves. So the Green politician who lives in Islington and cycles everywhere is going to struggle to identify with someone who has to put up with a rubbish bus service on a Sunday morning in zone 4, for example. Very, very few of us are familiar with the whole capital and it the issues that bind and divide different areas (and even areas within boroughs), and you'll see that reflected in the assembly and the broad-brush approach of City Hall. (In fact, I'd argue that many bus enthusiasts should have a better knowledge of London than most as a result of travelling around the place a fair bit... get standing for election!)
|
|
|
Post by ian on Aug 19, 2017 9:41:42 GMT
The report says "The Hopper ticket has proven to be popular: 50 million hopper journeys were made within six months of introduction". And there have been similarly-worded claims elsewhere. But is there any evidence that behaviour has shifted? Or is this almost all just not charging people who were 'hopping' onto a second bus already? The wording makes it sound like it is the former; I am guessing it is almost all the latter...
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Aug 19, 2017 10:58:03 GMT
The report says "The Hopper ticket has proven to be popular: 50 million hopper journeys were made within six months of introduction". And there have been similarly-worded claims elsewhere. But is there any evidence that behaviour has shifted? Or is this almost all just not charging people who were 'hopping' onto a second bus already? The wording makes it sound like it is the former; I am guessing it is almost all the latter... It is still too early to know with any real certainty. We are just coming up to a year's worth of Hopper ticket usage. TfL have been deliberately vague as so much is going on I suspect it is nigh on impossible to isolate the effects of the Hopper ticket. The bus network in Central London keeps changing, patronage is still flat, I suspect the economy is wobbling too. All of this makes it difficult to assess data properly. All TfL have said publicly is that in some places people are "hopping" buses where they can get home by changing at a point where two sets of high frequency services meet. This is instead of waiting at their origin for a through bus as they would have done in the past.
|
|
|
Post by ben on Aug 19, 2017 11:40:38 GMT
I've used the hopper fare a few times to get to work, changing between two low frequency routes (even though I tend to have just missed the second). This replaced bus+train, however I still find myself doing this a lot because the hopper won't allow you to take a second journey if the first was issued on an emergency fare, and the nearest place to top up is the station.
|
|
|
Post by john on Aug 21, 2017 17:33:27 GMT
I've used the hopper fare a few times to get to work, changing between two low frequency routes (even though I tend to have just missed the second). This replaced bus+train, however I still find myself doing this a lot because the hopper won't allow you to take a second journey if the first was issued on an emergency fare, and the nearest place to top up is the station. That's a standard thing across all ticketing. If you're Oyster had a negative value, you can't use it, including the 16+ zip. Also won't allow you to add a new season ticket until you have a positive balance (happened to me at Stratford). So it's not just the Hopper fare, it's general Oyster settings
|
|