|
Post by busman on Apr 25, 2024 14:50:47 GMT
The important bit is how competent the governance and management will be. Public sector or private sector…as long as buses are frequent, reliable, clean etc then from a passenger perspective it is all good. What does TfL think it can do better than the private sector bus operators? What cost benefits will be delivered by a conversion to public sector ownership?
From a taxpayer perspective, if London buses are brought into public ownership then it has to be run excellently as a professional company with an aim to generate a surplus each year to reinvest in bus services and infrastructure. It should be financed without any additional burden on local taxes. If anything taxes should reduce as the share of profits due to the private operators is retained by TfL. There should be adequate protections in place to protect services from financial mismanagement in other public sector departments unrelated to transport or from being radically changed unilaterally by any mayor.
Until I see a concrete plan for how London’s buses will be run as a successful public sector service with transparency into the financial projections of making such a change, I think they should remain privatised under the current system.
Would be interested to hear what employees of bus operators think of this latest political campaigning sound bite.
|
|
|
Post by busman on Apr 17, 2024 15:15:20 GMT
Read the topic of the thread. If the subjective responses annoy you so much, stay off it. Also thank you for repeating the point I acknowledged in my post about the use case for the route 👍 Yes, a horrible convoluted route on the map, and must be awful to drive and one e2e that I couldn't face when I wanted to travel from Woolwich to Blackheath. However, and as you acknowledge useful, may be even a life-line for local people living on roads solely by the route. As someone whose local bus stop is served by just one route, but that's blessed with 5bph I'm always happy to 'bang a drum' for routes on roads solely served by one route. Some 2023 pax numbers for the 'unique' sections served by the 386: 1) Vanbrugh Hill / Westcombe Park Road 114k 2) The loop in Kidbrooke off / returning to Shooter's Hill Road 126k 3) Woolwich Common / Herbert Road 131k Total PAX on 386 1.54m so the numbers serving 'unique' roads represent around 25%, and assuming most if not all return home on a 386 from Greenwich, Woolwich, Blackheath, QEH than you can pretty much double this number The route also has some lovely bus stop names, including: Ha Ha Road Greenwich Heights Begbie Road Ulundi Road Zangwill Road Corelli College Old Royal Military Academy Wat Tyler Road I totally bang the drum for hyper local routes. For many years until last week I lived next to the 469 LOR on a section that was uniquely served. Elderly neighbours, people with heavy shopping, me and my own preferences to travel door to door to nearby meaningful destinations… trust me, I get it. I really do. However, again I refer back to the title of the thread and my post. I said the 386 was annoying. Annoying does not mean the same as useless. Whether a route is annoying or not is entirely personal and completely subjective. Throw out all the stats you like on ridership levels to prove the usefulness of the 386. I wasn’t saying the route is useless or advocating to change it in any way.
|
|
|
Post by busman on Apr 17, 2024 14:01:03 GMT
The 386 is really annoying with the dizzy routing, small roads and speed humps. Woolwich to Blackheath via 90% of the borough of Greenwich. I guess it provides useful links to people living on roads solely served by the 386, but other than that….it’s actually quicker to walk from Hare Street or the Royal Standard to Blackheath Royal Parade than to take the 386! On a bad day I think I could outwalk it between QE Hospital and Royal Parade too. That’s how crazy the routing is. With due respect - unless a traveller was supremely unaware, they would use the 54 to get from Hare Street or Royal Standard to get to Blackheath Royal Parade. The 386 is not designed for that kind of journey. "I guess it provides useful links to people living on roads solely served by the 386" - yes, that's what it is for. If the route annoys you so much, stay off it. Read the topic of the thread. If the subjective responses annoy you so much, stay off it. Also thank you for repeating the point I acknowledged in my post about the use case for the route 👍
|
|
|
Post by busman on Apr 17, 2024 13:43:47 GMT
The 386 is really annoying with the dizzy routing, small roads and speed humps. Woolwich to Blackheath via 90% of the borough of Greenwich. I guess it provides useful links to people living on roads solely served by the 386, but other than that….it’s actually quicker to walk from Hare Street or the Royal Standard to Blackheath Royal Parade than to take the 386! On a bad day I think I could outwalk it between QE Hospital and Royal Parade too. That’s how crazy the routing is.
|
|
|
Post by busman on Apr 15, 2024 9:56:07 GMT
Feels like the Tories really threw away this election. I suspect any strong candidates decided to sit this one out as they feared backlash against the abysmal performance of the government. Khan really does not deserve another term. The most ineffective MoL we have had since powers were devolved and his virtue signalling nonsense really shows his priorities are not in the right place.
Bojo doesn’t seem so bad in comparison.
|
|
|
Post by busman on Apr 5, 2024 22:10:49 GMT
The 92 being converted to single decker in the 90’s. Horrible times. Also around the same time the 105 being run by London & Country from Addlestone bus garage (or somewhere nearby). Probably the worst breakdown in service I’ve experienced. The first week of operations was a nightmare. You could be waiting for an hour in Greenford before a single bus appeared.
|
|
|
Post by busman on Apr 5, 2024 16:58:40 GMT
I’m moving at the start of next week. I’m parting company with many items including some old bus maps. They are all in *excellent* condition and the whole lot is available for £10 as long as they go to a good home to someone who will appreciate them. The local maps have details of frequencies and operators of each route. There is also a couple of rogue Nottingham items in the mix too.
If you’re interested and can collect this weekend, please PM me. I’m based a short bus hop away from Woolwich DLR/Lizzie Line/South Eastern.
Maps are as follows: Sutton area – November 1994 Kingston/New Malden/Surbiton – 1993 Barnet area – November 1994 Kilburn area – September 1994 Ealing/Acton/Greenford/Southall – 1992/3 Harrow area – October 1994 Kingston area – September 1994 Barnet/Finchley/Golders Green – 1992 Richmond area – May 1994 Croydon/Thornton Heath/Purley – 1992 Tottenham/Stoke Newington/Stamford Hill/Finsbury Park – 1993 Wood Green/Hornsey/Palmers Green – 1993 Peckham area – April 1995 Uxbridge area – April 1994 Enfield/Edmonton/Southgate – 1992 Wood Green area – April 1995 Wembley area – July 1994 (x2) Bromley/Orpington/Beckenham – 1992 Wimbledon/Tooting/Mitcham – 1992 Ealing area – July 1994 Islington area – October 1994 The All London bus guide – January 1994, April 1994, August 1994 (x2) North West London bus guide – July 2001 South West London’s Night Buses – Leaflet May 1995 Nottingham City Centre Map – 1997 South Notts Bus Leaflet & Timetable – 1, 1X and 507
|
|
|
Post by busman on Mar 25, 2024 10:39:45 GMT
N507 Running between Holborn and Heathrow Terminal 5. Via: High Holborn Route N207 to Hayes By-Pass Uxbridge Road Hayes The Grapes Coldharbour Lane Route N140 to Heathrow Central Route N9 to Heathrow Terminal 5 Purpose: To link Ealing with Heathrow at night. I was looking at the Greater London maps and saw route called N40 and I googled it it's route operated by National Express and it runs at night and I wondered what if TfL operated a route like that and also made think why TfL done a routing like this. It's basically renumbering of the N207 workings between Holborn and Hayes By-Pass. Reminiscent of the predecessor of the N207, the N89. It had odd occasional workings to Uxbridge via Heathrow Airport. Buses would turn left at Southall Town Hall and run via Brent Road, into Heathrow and then up to Uxbridge via West Drayton. I think all Heathrow journeys (I think it was like 1 or 2 journeys on Sunday around 5am) used to run through to Uxbridge. Additional journeys used to terminate at Southall Brent Road.
|
|
|
Post by busman on Mar 23, 2024 21:35:08 GMT
469 back to Stagecoach
|
|
|
Post by busman on Mar 18, 2024 10:19:25 GMT
A small change that somebody in Bexleyheath suggested is the 269 and B14 swapping routes between the Hurst Road/Penhill Road roundabout and Bexleyheath. A better service via Crook Log and Danson Road and the B14 should be adequate via Bexley with the SL3 having taken a lot of the 269 custom. That’s not a bad idea, as I think there is a lot of latent demand along Danson Road and Penhill Road catchment areas. The B14 would need to be augmented with more decker school journeys to account for Townley loadings. The one downside is that reliability of the 269 maybe impacted as it would be forced to contend with traffic along Danson Road and Penhill Road. All things considered, I would favour a small increase to the B14 perhaps to every 20 minutes daily during the daytime, introduce a full time service on Sundays, and implement fixed stops along Penhill if possible. Also keep the B14 as it is, retaining the R6. As someone else mentioned, extending the R6 to Foots Cray Tesco would be a good option. It’s ridiculous how difficult it is to get from Orpington and St Mary’s Cray to Tesco around the corner.
|
|
|
Post by busman on Mar 7, 2024 18:32:50 GMT
2027? I’m questioning whether the E1 is the right route to serve the development. Residents will have access to Hounslow and the Piccadilly Line via the H28 and H91. Access to Ealing Broadway via a connection to the E8. What is missing is a connection to Southall and the Lizzie Line station. It will be easier grabbing a seat at Southall than at Ealing Broadway for sure. If/when the Southall bus changes take place, maybe TfL should consider routing the E5 to the Osterley development instead of the current proposal to loop it back on Merrick Road. E5 buses could instead continue along Norwood Road serving Tentelow Lane, Windmill Lane and Syon Lane down to the new development. There are numerous schools and facilities along that route which would benefit from a direct service. It looks like a long extension on paper, but the journey time will be quite reliable and quick due to a relatively long distance between stops along the top part of Windmill Lane after Warren Farm. The frequency of the E5 would probably be more appropriate for the development and it would avoid risking reliability of the high frequency E1 just for the sake of serving some densely packed high rises nowhere near its current catchment area. I think Hounslow and Ealing will likely be the main destinations from the redevelopment. Something like the E1 extension will be needed, as the E8 doesn't stop that close to the development - though I am unsure if there will be the demand for a high frequency DD route. I think Ealing Broadway is fine for an Elizabeth Line connection, certainly closer than Southall. And in terms of rail links generally, if anything the priority should be to reinstate a higher frequency on SWR services at Syon Lane Station to/from Waterloo. Would this be possible once all of the new 701s enter service? Ideally a more direct bus link to Hounslow should be looked into as well - compared to the current H28 service. I've suggested before that the 117 could divert up to terminate at Osterley, then send the 235 to West Middlesex, and introduce a new DD route covering Brentford-Hounslow. A local link between Osterley and Brentford would be useful too. Maybe amend the H28 somehow, or could even loop the 195 up to Osterley from Brentford (via Syon Lane Station) - this would also link Osterley to Boston Manor Station, Ealing Hospital and Southall, and stop close by to Hanwell Station. I agree with your point about SWR services from Syon Lane. A development of that size and the existing residents could do with a few extra stopping services at busier times. Call me cynical, but I think this E1 extension is no longer linked to solid demand. The developer is probably paying for a bus link to Ealing Broadway, hence the delay until 2027. Splashing “direct to Ealing Broadway in x minutes” sounds sexier on a marketing brochure than “Southall in 10 minutes”. Gotta sell those apartments hard to foreign investors… If Ealing is a major travel destination for residents of the new development, I still don’t see how extending the E1 is the best way to do that. Given the E1 extension isn’t happening until the first homes are ready indicates that the aforementioned role of supporting the 65 is no longer an objective. Also GSK are vacating the Brentford building, which further dampens demand. So why make the high frequency E1 contend with traffic on the A4 and disruption during Brentford games just to serve this development? IMHO linking the development with Ealing would be better done by a short extension of the E2. It would require a lower PVR increase and would actually create better links to serve Brentford, West Ealing, as well as the main Ealing Broadway shopping area.
|
|
|
Post by busman on Mar 7, 2024 15:15:01 GMT
2027? I’m questioning whether the E1 is the right route to serve the development. Residents will have access to Hounslow and the Piccadilly Line via the H28 and H91. Access to Ealing Broadway via a connection to the E8. What is missing is a connection to Southall and the Lizzie Line station. It will be easier grabbing a seat at Southall than at Ealing Broadway for sure.
If/when the Southall bus changes take place, maybe TfL should consider routing the E5 to the Osterley development instead of the current proposal to loop it back on Merrick Road. E5 buses could instead continue along Norwood Road serving Tentelow Lane, Windmill Lane and Syon Lane down to the new development. There are numerous schools and facilities along that route which would benefit from a direct service. It looks like a long extension on paper, but the journey time will be quite reliable and quick due to a relatively long distance between stops along the top part of Windmill Lane after Warren Farm. The frequency of the E5 would probably be more appropriate for the development and it would avoid risking reliability of the high frequency E1 just for the sake of serving some densely packed high rises nowhere near its current catchment area.
|
|
|
Post by busman on Mar 7, 2024 8:09:47 GMT
Nice bit of variety from Go-Ahead currently heading through Sidcup this morning: MHV69 on the 625, closely followed by WHV182 on the 286.
|
|
|
Post by busman on Mar 4, 2024 13:47:48 GMT
Perhaps we need a politics channel on this forum.
As with most other countries, politics and politicians suck. Neither the right nor the left has the monopoly on what is right vs. wrong, good vs. evil etc. Just hold your nose and vote for whoever you most agree with.
As an enthusiast with low tolerance for long waiting times, dirty vehicles, slow journeys etc I’m happy that bus services are finally receiving some attention and investment. I’m dismayed at seeing comments about withdrawing routes when wheels have barely hit the ground. The 269…I’ve driven up and down the SL3 route between Abbey Wood and Bromley a few times. What struck me was how many more buses the SL3 provides along that Sidcup - Bromley corridor. If you’re local, you cannot fail to notice that the SL3 is now the dominant route and it has prominent branding to show people where it goes. In the early evening around 6pm on Saturday it was noticeable how much busier the SL3 was compared to how the 269 used to be. I’ve only observed the SL3 in person since Friday, but it looks to me like the SL3 is already inducing new demand. Whether passengers are ditching rail or car is unclear, but it isn’t all coming from passengers switching from the 160 and 269.
It’s far too early to start talking about withdrawing the 269, similar to how people were talking about withdrawing the B11 when the 301 was launched. The 301 introduced new and more frequent links between important destinations and has massively boosted non-Lizzie line ridership along the route. The B11 is as busy as ever and the 301 is still heaving in the peak hours between Abbey Wood and Bexleyheath. On Friday morning buses in both directions along Brampton Road were packed, with passengers still standing towards Abbey Wood. The B11 has now evolved to providing essential support to the 301 and will probably fulfil the same role for the SL3. Note that the 301 is really well run by DT…it’s just that it’s so popular, the B11 looks fine in its current form. It looks to me like the SL3 is generating similar demand. Chislehurst, Bickley and Sidcup are solid car territories, so there is plenty of scope to induce passenger growth. Let’s wait a while before drawing conclusions and rewriting the bus map in the area. Put your crayons back in the box, or at least play in the correct area of the forum.
|
|
|
Post by busman on Feb 29, 2024 7:43:22 GMT
What a surprise. Did the councils think that we would just leave our cars at home? LTNs do not encourage people to abandon the car for other forms of transport. They just contribute to standing traffic creating more pollution, more delays and further reduces the appeal of shopping in these areas - which impacts local businesses. End LTNs that have not been voted by people living in the impacted areas. End blanket 20mph speed limits.
|
|