|
Post by busman on Nov 6, 2018 20:46:39 GMT
Back in the late 80’s/90’s there used to be some crazy one-off routes running on boxing day. I’m sure I even remember 82’s to North Finchley turning up in Ealing one year. I think I’ve asked before but to no avail, but I would love to see records of what boxing day routes ran each year during that period. They were truly the stuff of fantasy but unfortunately I never got to ride any of them due to being either too young or too busy blagging my way into pubs with my fake ID 🤣
|
|
|
Post by busman on Nov 4, 2018 8:44:43 GMT
I don’t think long routes are inherently bad, but perhaps some people on here have been conditioned to thinking that way by TfL using that sentiment as a battering ram to justify bus cuts in other places. If the timetable is set correctly there is no reason why it cannot run reliably. But that’s just it. This 110 extension directly contradicts the reasons TfL have given for shortening other routes. That is, if you really believe those other cuts are really related to improving reliability 😏 It's not that they're bad so to speak but that, as a result of congestion significantly rising for decades, long routes simply can't function effectively apart from a few exemptions which have favorable conditions or a slightly quieter corridor to run along. I've not been conditioned by TfL or anyone else - I firmly believe that nowadays, long routes are simply dying relics and whilst it's sad (I wish the 109 was still a Purley to Trafalgar Square route), realism is what is needed and as no one is willing to combat congestion significantly, then shorter routes will be the better option and it's why I support the splitting of the 11. I can see the revised 110 running into problems during busy times as a result as well. I believe the odd cut maybe for reliability but probably not as it's primary reason - the 493 does seem to have some hint of reliability saving in it giving the nature & length of the route. The problem is that it breaks up journeys and necessitates a change of bus. That’s fine if both buses are frequent, but when we are looking at frequencies of every 15 minutes, in theory you could wait 15 minutes for each bus. For many reasons this makes bus travel less attractive. This is London and many people are time poor enough without wasting our lives waiting longer, sitting in traffic longer or trying to figure out where the buses actually go in the absence of a map. My only consolations are that TfL aren’t asking us to pay more for a worse service plus I have a car, rail options and the ability to walk for long distances.
|
|
|
Post by busman on Nov 2, 2018 7:22:04 GMT
This is a poor move by Flickr to penalise existing users. I enjoy following accounts by snoggle, RandomBusesGirl and many others. Hopefully another provider steps into this space to offer an alternative solution.
|
|
|
Post by busman on Nov 2, 2018 7:13:13 GMT
I'm all for BRT in London think it's a fantastic idea especially with zero emission buses would save a lot of money instead of building a heavy or even Light rail system , but can we have the ELT finished or upgraded in certain places to this standard first before we move to Sutton I know I'm biased being an East Londoner but if you start something finish it properly lol ! BRT is not cheaper than tram. The consultation makes the point that trams have a higher initial setup cost, but once operational and maintenance costs are factored in tram is cheaper than BRT. In addition each tram has greater capacity, faster journeys and has less of a knock on impact on conventional traffic. Also it is normal and sensible to have multiple infrastructure projects running simultaneously. Why should developments in other parts of London be put on hold until the ELT is finished? The ELT is no more than a branded bus network. It can only be fully rolled out in conjunction with new housing developments and isn’t going to be anything like the Sutton scheme. East London has the ELT, SE London has the 472, but let’s not begrudge anyone else faster public transport links 😆
|
|
|
Post by busman on Nov 1, 2018 5:04:01 GMT
133 - Liverpool Street station to Streatham Station. Would this work? H28 Bulls Bridge Tesco to Osterley Tesco (same idea) H9, H10, H18, H19 Harrow Bus Station to Harrow Bus Station 🙂(blinded for plain old “Harrow”)
|
|
|
Post by busman on Oct 31, 2018 17:53:29 GMT
TfL have form in the area of developing infrastructure. In south east London we were supposed to have some kind of rapid transport system and ended up with the 472. We were twice consulted on a proper road crossing to replace the appalling Woolwich ferry. Instead we get replacement ferries and an unsolved problem. As someone aluded to earlier I wouldn’t be surprised at all if this ends up with an express bus service with priority at certain junctions. And a really budget livery to promote the service.
If TfL want to take the long view then tram is the obvious winner. Faster journeys for less money. Plus the BRT will increase local traffic even more further slowing traffic speeds for road users.
Option 3 looks dead on arrival. Linked to a Crossrail 2 project that isn’t even guaranteed to start, no new links created, existing links lost and probably more expensive by the time works begin.
Option 1 would be best for spreading additional footfall on the Northern line. Northbound tram passengers can alight the tram at Morden and get a seat on the tube. Southbound tube passengers can alight at South Wimbledon and get a seat on the tram.
Option 2 seems best for creating more new links but only has one point of interchange with the Northern line at Colliers Wood. Not sure if this will be an issue for this station though, as I’ve never used it before.
|
|
|
Post by busman on Oct 31, 2018 11:14:37 GMT
Ok, I was asked by Paulo what the perceived reasons for the H22 and I gave my the answer most likely in TFLs mind. I don't think any of us belive the reason is to 'bring the H22 closer to Twickenham Station'. Remember a proportion of people currently using the H22 along with withdrawn section would have boarded in Whitton and those will now be taking the 110 and not trying to cram onto the remaining routes. Also the 490 can easily be Double decked at some point and potentially the 33 if the Hammersmith Bridge gets sorted. I don't like words like disturbing used about comments I make! It's not be declaring spare capacity but TFL who can probably provide figures like with Chiswick High Road and the 88/C2. The problem with big data sets is how to correctly interpret them i.e. discern what it does show and does not. Just seeing falling or rising numbers doesn’t paint the full picture of what is driving observed trends. TfL are making short term reactionary changes without fully understanding the cause of declining use or the effect of their changes. I don’t think they are really concerned with the effects of their changes right now as cost saving looks to be the most important priority with regards to bus policy.
|
|
|
Post by busman on Oct 31, 2018 11:04:19 GMT
PVR wise, I would imagine a plus 8 onto the 110 , minus 6 on the 419 , minus 3 on the H37 minus 3 on the H22 ,and plus 4 on the 267 . Rugby days will be a massive issue for the new 110. It will have to run direct via the A316 from Hospital Bridge Road rather than Warren Road, bringing lengthy delays. It is interesting that the 110 is being elevated in this nature, there was once a proposal for it to replace the 111 to Heathrow. Plus 4 on the 267? Why? Perhaps you might look at the 493 which might see a PVR decrease or retain PVR if there are currently reliability issues.
|
|
|
Post by busman on Oct 31, 2018 7:44:17 GMT
Interesting set of changes. Firstly the consultation maps are poor. Why not have changes overlaid upon the current routes as previously done. Why make reviewers play “spot the difference” between 2 documents? Also in the map showing the Twickenham changes, 110 should be written alongside H22 next to Whitton Station. Sloppy work by TfL.
I think we can see that there is no coherent TfL strategy for buses beyond making cost savings. So the undoing of recent changes to the 110 doesn’t surprise me.
I don’t think long routes are inherently bad, but perhaps some people on here have been conditioned to thinking that way by TfL using that sentiment as a battering ram to justify bus cuts in other places. If the timetable is set correctly there is no reason why it cannot run reliably. But that’s just it. This 110 extension directly contradicts the reasons TfL have given for shortening other routes. That is, if you really believe those other cuts are really related to improving reliability 😏
My big objection here is the removal of long established links. A quick check tells me that the 110 has run between Hounslow and Twickenham since around 1936. Breaking up long established links and direct journeys seems a sure way of reducing patronage. Just assuming passengers will simply look at a silly spider map and figure out what happened to their direct link won’t cut it. Cue more people using cars and working from home. TfL swapped the 110’s fast link between Hounslow and West Middlesex Hospital a few years ago for a duplication of the 267. Now they want to remove the hospital link altogether. I think they should leave the 110 alone.
If these changes must go ahead in any form then I would rather see the following:
110: Withdrawn between Twickenham and West Middlesex Hospital 419: Withdrawn 493: Change as stated H22: Extended to Hammersmith via 419. Frequency reduced to every 15 minutes H37: No change
I haven’t done net PVR calculations or vehicle allocations with the above, so if not feasible then just withdraw the 110 between Twickenham and the hospital leaving other routes untouched.
|
|
|
Post by busman on Oct 25, 2018 14:18:16 GMT
All these lovely changes to improve space for pedestrians and cyclists and they are going to wonder why there are more cars than ever on our roads. Why TfL, why? 🙄
All these changes make me want to do is trade in my current car (it’s petrol, low emission, ULEZ compliant for you green heads out there) for a Tesla. I love buses, yet TfL’s policies have made me want to avoid them at all costs. .
|
|
|
Post by busman on Oct 24, 2018 12:30:10 GMT
I imagine that the mainline into Paddington and the District Line will be very cosy on that day....
|
|
|
Post by busman on Oct 22, 2018 13:53:42 GMT
It was not binding, it was simply an advisory. I always say one thing about Brexit, people will not change their minds until it starts affecting them, the money in their purse, the food prices, their jobs... It was a one off vote, it wasn't some sort of dry run with a view to doing the real thing at a later date and maybe make it the best of three. There's a clear mandate to leave the EU and anything else would make a mockery of democracy in this country. So when are these problems going to happen? According to many doom mongers these problems were going to happen as soon as the vote was known but two years on there's no sign of them. What we've had is constant 'project fear', it amazes me how little faith some people have in this country. I agree. The whinging has been ridiculous. I voted to remain and I still believe we would be better off within the EU. However the vote was won by the Brexiteers, so we must leave. I favour a so called “hard Brexit” rather than remaining partly in, contributing money and following EU rules without having a say. The UK can stand on its own feet for sure. The biggest threat to our success is our people. We need to lose our sense of entitlement and get serious about upgrading the skills we have and maximising wealth creation. We should be teaching about personal financial management and entrepreneurship in schools. Vocational education should also become more mainstream. The UK no longer has cheap labour from the Commenwealth to prop it up so we have to roll up our sleeves and graft for every penny and every customer - much like people in many countries outside the EU already do. Let’s not pretend that the UK is going to get a good deal with the likes of the EU, US, China and India. Those markets are too big to be pushed around by us and will demand considerable concessions as part of any trade agreement. The only way to counter that is for the UK to create an environment with significant spending power and intellectual capital that international businesses cannot afford not to do business in.
|
|
|
Post by busman on Oct 19, 2018 16:53:07 GMT
Is the right answer. The consultation is an utter farce. We all know this is going ahead in its entirety regardless of what any bus users say. It will only be real political pain for the Mayor that will force any change of mind. It's not the right answer, we all know that a consultation is just that, it's not a referendum, and some people seem to have trouble accepting the result of them but that's another subject. We all have a choice as to whether we reply to said consultation, personally I don't bother. TfL show complete disdain for respondents to their “consultations”. I think it’s absolutely right that passengers seek intervention from their elected representatives. That’s the only method that may influence the outcome. Write to your councils, local MP’s and London Assembly Member and do not give this consultation the time of day. You can site the recent 25 results and Elizabeth Line results as evidence of TfL’s dismissive attitude. It took lobbying of Westminster Council to bring down the silly Oxford Street pedestrianisation idea. Something similar needs to happen for this consultation.
|
|
|
Post by busman on Oct 18, 2018 23:23:16 GMT
I notice the c london consultation dosent even ask if you oppose or agree just simply will your journey be affected and by how much without giving an option for each route just each group like 67, 149, 242. For this reason and because of how TfL ignore tge results (as per the 25 consultation and many others), I’m not wasting my time filling it out. They have made their choice. People are better off writing directly to their MP’s, councils and London Assembly representative of they will suffer as a result of these cuts.
|
|
|
Post by busman on Oct 18, 2018 23:10:06 GMT
It is not general etiquette it is the law. The fact it is rarely ever enforced does not change this fact! If you don't stop and hit someone you WILL be prosecuted. It is not the pedestrians fault. You are right, and if you are 'unlucky' enough to be caught by a policeman for failing to stop at a zebra crossing you can be prosecuted even if there's no accident. I suspect you'll never hear about the vast majority of prosecutions as they don't make the news. Problem is that many cyclists treat stopping at any pedestrian crossing as “general etiquette”. It is indeed the law and more needs to be done to educate cyclists about the relevant highway code rules. Obviously no need to learn about motorways, caravan towing etc, just the relevant stuff. It would help keep cyclists and pedestrians safer.
|
|