Route 465

[southlondonbus]

Over a month on and TFL have still not launched the consultation. How long do they want to wait for people to create petitions etc. They have awarded the contract already so they should just get on with it.

[snoggle]

Mar 16, 2017 9:45:28 GMT southlondonbus said:

Over a month on and TFL have still not launched the consultation. How long do they want to wait for people to create petitions etc. They have awarded the contract already so they should just get on with it.

Err it's up to TfL when they publish isn't it? Think for a moment about what's going on.

- budget being cut, previous expansion plans out of the window
- every route proposal and change is under review
- every route contract out to tender is being reviewed as to its spec to see if money can be saved
- there is a backlog of tender awards
- there is a backlog of consultation analysis and conclusions
- there has probably been a reduction in staff in several different departments
- TfL may well be in negotiation with Surrey County Council about the 465
- TfL may well be considering the future of the 965 alongside the 465 (I still think they're doing this).
- there is a major strategic review about the future of the bus network underway. You never know - this may conclude that TfL should cancel all cross boundary services.


In short almost everything is up in the air because the network's costs and revenues and usage are all in the wrong place coupled with whatever is going on internally. I've seen all this before - several times. One of the consequences is that some processes, like consultation, slow down to avoid creating commitments that cannot be funded. If public statements are going to be made in a consultation then they need to be accurate and timely. That's difficult if everything is up in the air. We know for a fact that cross boundary bus services are particularly vulnerable to revision.

[westhamgeezer]

Apparently (surprisingly) this has been saved from the chop

[vjaska]

Apr 7, 2017 15:54:07 GMT westhamgeezer said:

Apparently (surprisingly) this has been saved from the chop

Indeed, was mentioned a few weeks ago on here in another thread though I can't remember which one now lol.

[southlondonbus]

It was on the thread of the tender results for the 465 that there is an article from a Surrey Newspaper saying SCC have agreed to keep funding the Dorking section. I'm pleased thou that TFL help them to it as opposed to simply funding the section themselves.

I'm guessing with the 167 Essex CC wouldn't budge so TFL had no choice but to make reductions to the route.

[snoggle]

Apr 7, 2017 18:07:42 GMT southlondonbus said:

I'm guessing with the 167 Essex CC wouldn't budge so TFL had no choice but to make reductions to the route.

That ship has well and truly sailed I'm afraid. I've not heard of any major complaints or issues with the replacement school route despite the predictions that the world would end. As ever people adjust or they stop travelling. I was against the cutback to the 167 but when I used it there was noticeably less traffic beyond Loughton although a lot of people wanted the High Street (2-3 stops beyond the station) but, of course, Loughton Garage closed many decades ago but if it was open buses could have continued to there thus serving the High St effectively and providing a lot of older people with a direct bus rather than an enforced changed or a walk.

[ben]

Attachment Deletedhought I'd add this pic of the route as was in 2001.  Note journeys to Teddington, Effingham and Goodwyns

[snoggle]

May 19, 2017 23:04:33 GMT ben said:

View Attachmenthought I'd add this pic of the route as was in 2001.  Note journeys to Teddington, Effingham and Goodwyns

A scan of the timetable would be more interesting given that the Effingham jnys seemingly only lasted 5-6 months according to Ian Armstrong's site. Back in the 90s the 465 ran to Horsham but it wasn't a TfL contracted route at that point.

[ben]

Ok will do later today. From memory though its just one journey in the morning and one in the evening.

Yes Horsham Carfax, it a country route at that point.

It'd really be amazing if Ian Armstrong started doing route records for LT's country routes too, not doubt the information for such is far more widely scattered and incomplete now after 30 years of deregulation.

[jay38a]

May 20, 2017 0:12:05 GMT snoggle said:

May 19, 2017 23:04:33 GMT ben said:

View Attachmenthought I'd add this pic of the route as was in 2001.  Note journeys to Teddington, Effingham and Goodwyns

A scan of the timetable would be more interesting given that the Effingham jnys seemingly only lasted 5-6 months according to Ian Armstrong's site. Back in the 90s the 465 ran to Horsham but it wasn't a TfL contracted route at that point.

In Surrey cc bus consultations there's calls for the 465 to revisit Great Bookham at least and Fectham (which is never served before) however this was never done as cost is too great.

[planesandtrains]

To me the 465 is a great example how simply the convenience of the Oyster Card keeps the route running with reasonable patronage. If SCC were to have taken over, even at the same frequency, Oyster users being turned away would have gotten them straight back into their cars.

[Deleted]

May 22, 2017 7:18:11 GMT planesandtrains said:

To me the 465 is a great example how simply the convenience of the Oyster Card keeps the route running with reasonable patronage. If SCC were to have taken over, even at the frequency, Oyster users being turned away would have gotten them straight back into their cars.

Exactly...It's a great route for Summer weekend adventures at Box Hill, Dorking, the Vineyard & World of Adventures. Reliability should have improved since the road widening at Malden Rushett

[snoggle]

May 22, 2017 7:18:11 GMT planesandtrains said:

To me the 465 is a great example how simply the convenience of the Oyster Card keeps the route running with reasonable patronage. If SCC were to have taken over, even at the same frequency, Oyster users being turned away would have gotten them straight back into their cars.

To be honest I think it is much more that the route has (or is)

a) a reasonable frequency for a "country" route
b) a good spread of service from early until late
c) a daily service
d) run by a decent operator

that accounts for its ongoing patronage. These are all the attributes you need to sustain patronage because you are giving people a viable alternative to using a car. I doubt many commercial services in Surrey run from 0600-2330 daily. Heck I'd be shocked if any subsidised ones did!

You can argue that cashless buses and Oyster may be dampening down demand in Surrey as there are so few Oyster outlets south of Chessington. Acceptance of contactless bank cards may have eased some of the problems but wasn't there a campaign in the Dorking area against cashless buses because they had no Oyster agent in the town? I think someone eventually set up a facility in Dorking but it isn't open daily nor for long hours. [checks - it's in the Library]

[westhamgeezer]

May 22, 2017 13:53:20 GMT snoggle said:

May 22, 2017 7:18:11 GMT planesandtrains said:

To me the 465 is a great example how simply the convenience of the Oyster Card keeps the route running with reasonable patronage. If SCC were to have taken over, even at the same frequency, Oyster users being turned away would have gotten them straight back into their cars.

To be honest I think it is much more that the route has (or is)

a) a reasonable frequency for a "country" route
b) a good spread of service from early until late
c) a daily service
d) run by a decent operator

that accounts for its ongoing patronage. These are all the attributes you need to sustain patronage because you are giving people a viable alternative to using a car. I doubt many commercial services in Surrey run from 0600-2330 daily. Heck I'd be shocked if any subsidised ones did!

You can argue that cashless buses and Oyster may be dampening down demand in Surrey as there are so few Oyster outlets south of Chessington. Acceptance of contactless bank cards may have eased some of the problems but wasn't there a campaign in the Dorking area against cashless buses because they had no Oyster agent in the town? I think someone eventually set up a facility in Dorking but it isn't open daily nor for long hours. [checks - it's in the Library]

You can add low fares to that list

[southlondonbus]

I'd be slightly annoyed if I was a Surrey resident and my bus services were cut to a minimal level whilst the county were funding a route every 30 mins daily between Leatherhead and Dorking. I still think if TFL do not wish to fund it south of Leatherhead (and quite rightly) the Surrey section should maybe drop to every hour with maybe no late evening service so that the money could be better spent on services around the whole county. It even as it pretty much duplicates the 71 in London scale back the entire route a bit.