|
Post by busman on Oct 16, 2018 1:25:11 GMT
As I've said before we are catching up on years of under investment, well no investment at all, in cycling infrastructure so there is going to be a disproportionately high level of spending on cycle lanes and such like. London has finally woken up to the benefits of making cycling a viable alternative to motor vehicles. I don't know how many are 'middle class or white' but there are a disproportionately high number of male cyclists in London simply because it's seen as dangerous and you have to be fairly macho to do it, that view seems to be gradually changing. Inevitably some cycle lanes will be empty at certain times just as some bus lanes are. The answer you gave is as I expected and its the same reason why John and many others wouldn't respect cyclists. Due to the nature of the arrogant pro cyclists. Its that left wing vegan type attitude, that anyone centre ground or right wing are evil and should be punished the same goes for anyone eating meat. This post wins the forum today đđđ
|
|
|
Post by busman on Oct 11, 2018 6:30:14 GMT
I strongly support this latest proposal. Unlike TfLâs consultations, I actually bothered to respond to this one!
|
|
|
Post by busman on Oct 11, 2018 6:27:01 GMT
Taking Geoff Hobbs statement to its logical conclusion there should be buses coming when I want to take me where I want more of the time, otherwise buses won't be 'in the right place at the right time'.
Not sure how this can be achieved with wider frequencies and lost links, but then I can't defy gravity nor am I a magician. Good luck to Geoff Hobbs and TfL in achieving this and I look forward to them having buses in the right place at the right time for my future bus journeys!!Â
It seems a somewhat unremarkable statement from Mr Hobbs quite honestly, if TfL want to stop the decline in bus usage they should be looking at ways to make the product more attractive but is anybody really bothered? I think that City Hall are no fans of buses. From TfLâs rhetoric over the past 1-2 years, they see buses as expensive pollution causing death traps for cyclists. All these cuts are doing are encouraging me to take the car or stay at home. The real victims in this are passengers who have no alternative but to take the bus.
|
|
|
Post by busman on Oct 8, 2018 19:54:18 GMT
The 129 is on the SEN blinds at MG, does anyone know why..? Also does that mean 291 and 178 will be on there or not The 129 has always been on the blinds of all the single deckers both at NX and MG. Presumably a precautionary measure however I was on the 129 once and didn't have a bus in the morning, and there was a WS sitting the yard that was serviceable, and I said to the engineers to give me that and they said no. They'd rather lose the mileage. Another thing I've noticed that has changed is the attitude towards blinds. I've had two loan spells at MG recently, one late last year and one now. The engineering manager has changed between these spells. The previous EM would rather send out the bus with no blinds than lose mileage, which I agree with. No point losing mileage as TfL only fine when they see it but 90% of the time they don't see it. The new EM however has said ALL the blinds need to be working for the bus to go out, even the back blind! Very stupid IMO to lose the mileage over sending the bus out with no blinds. I was on the 286 once and was waiting for a bus as no bus in the morning. E127 was in the garage. They were going to give me it but the EM said no because the back blind was stuck on 180. Glad to hear this and it explains why so few bandits have appeared on the 180 lately. Seeing 180âs with the front, side and rear blinds set to 129 to Catford and 180âs blinded for Eltham was beyond a joke. Happy that someone at MG is raising standards.
|
|
|
Post by busman on Oct 8, 2018 15:34:47 GMT
The 129 is on the SEN blinds at MG, does anyone know why..? Also does that mean 291 and 178 will be on there or not The 129 has always been on the blinds of all the single deckers both at NX and MG. Presumably a precautionary measure however I was on the 129 once and didn't have a bus in the morning, and there was a WS sitting the yard that was serviceable, and I said to the engineers to give me that and they said no. They'd rather lose the mileage. Another thing I've noticed that has changed is the attitude towards blinds. I've had two loan spells at MG recently, one late last year and one now. The engineering manager has changed between these spells. The previous EM would rather send out the bus with no blinds than lose mileage, which I agree with. No point losing mileage as TfL only fine when they see it but 90% of the time they don't see it. The new EM however has said ALL the blinds need to be working for the bus to go out, even the back blind! Very stupid IMO to lose the mileage over sending the bus out with no blinds. I was on the 286 once and was waiting for a bus as no bus in the morning. E127 was in the garage. They were going to give me it but the EM said no because the back blind was stuck on 180. So I had to go down to Vanbrugh Hill with the run out controller to swap over a WVL from the 180 so I could take it on the 286. I lost Cutty Sark - Vanbrugh Hill and got an Avery Hill turn. Re. 291 I've heard failed the route test miserably with doubles last week. None of the managers who went out on that route test were satisfied it was safe for doubles. Now this will be a big farce as it may now not be going DD. Would need to find some singles from somewhere. The singles should get new blinds with the arrival of the 244 at MG next year when Crossrail opens. They would probably contain 291 and possibly 178 I imagine. The 291 failing a route test surprises me, but at the same time it doesnât. As part of the consultation I thought decking would result in additional parking restrictions being put in place around Woodlands namely double yellow lines. It doesnât take a genius let alone a physical test to see that deckers wouldnât get round the area at night when all cars are parked up. It doesnât surprise me that TfL and Greenwich Council havenât sorted out implementing those parking restrictions. Both organisations are somewhat shambolic at the moment. Really all the 291 needs is additional with flow peak journeys. Deckers at all times of the day would be overkill.
|
|
|
Post by busman on Oct 6, 2018 13:29:18 GMT
Overall now the entire crossrail package being put back another few months, now been confirmed. The actual start dates have not been confirmed. Greenwich Council are currently modifying the road layout at the Arsenal end of Woolwich New Road. This will mean the 161 will have adopt the proposed route change. The operators are putting the vehicles in place for December. TUPE consultations must be ongoing for the drivers. The response report states decking of the 244 may happen in future. The 291 needs the extra capacity. Not so sure about the 178 at the Woolwich end but the housing development at Kidbrooke justifies it. I was thinking that the 161 change might have no choice but to go ahead. The new road layout is nearly finished and that change is not really related to Crossrail at all. Iâm guessing that the 386 will have to be routed via Vincent Road which may actually result in an additional stops on Vincent Road and Burrage Road. Any GAL folks have any news on that?
|
|
|
Post by busman on Oct 6, 2018 12:54:11 GMT
If the 301 goes ahead, that implies that the changes to the 129, 180 and 472 will go ahead as they are all interlinked. Unless TfL are not intending to change the frequency of the 472 for now which I strongly doubt. Iâm still not sure where exactly in Abbey Wood the 472 is supposed to be standing though. Harrow Manorway looks an absolute mess with no obvious stand space. Overall now the entire crossrail package being put back another few months, now been confirmed. The actual start dates have not been confirmed. Appreciate the update đ¤
|
|
|
Post by busman on Oct 2, 2018 17:57:02 GMT
Interesting, I found this particularly significant:
And thatâs a difficult one for us in that if you have a service that inevitably will leave people at the bus stops at the peak because they canât get on, thatâs a concern. If passengers canât get on that first bus and then canât get on the second bus, they start asking themselves, shall I get an Uber, shall I get a bike, shall I walk or shall I actually not even bother travelling?
Great interview. TfL would do well to listen to that guy. John Trayner exactly describes my pattern of thought with regard to travel. Iâm frequently left behind in the morning peaks on the 469 adding an unnecessary 10-15 minutes to my 1hr commute. I insisted on working from home on 1-2 days a week in my current and previous employer, even though I prefer to be in the office. In fact it was the experience of being left behind in the freezing snow unable to board three 472âs in a row due to lack of buggy space that motivated me to drive and get my first car! The slow bus speeds stop me from boarding any bus in the West End. I always walk or take the tube for longer journeys.
|
|
|
Post by busman on Oct 2, 2018 15:08:54 GMT
Strike extras are planned for the 95 (Greenford - Shepherd's Bush) & 487 (Alperton - Willesden Junction) also. Would the 395 get extras even though it goes to two Central Line stations? I would have thought the E7 would be a contender for extras as it runs along the Ruislip/Northolt/Greenford/Ealing corridor. I also hope to see some of Ensignbusâ finest out on the 25.
|
|
|
Post by busman on Oct 2, 2018 1:19:58 GMT
Used to drive the 161 and found the pilot bus way to be unfriendly to buses Well it's going soon. Will become a standard dual carriageway with bus lanes. To make it easier for car drivers. Actually itâs to make it safer for pedestrians. Quite a few people would step into the roads not expecting 2 way traffic. Iâm surprised that the confusing layout has lasted so long. The change should be much better all round for everyone.
|
|
|
Post by busman on Oct 2, 2018 1:08:44 GMT
The point I made in my original post is that buses used to be favoured at the traffic lights because of the busways. This appears to have gone and hence the reason for my post. I've not been to NOG for a fair while but there has been a lot of commentary on social media about the appalling traffic conditions in and around the retail park that the 472 and 486 serve - just past where IKEA will be and before the new Sainsburys. That traffic won't be helping matters. I suspect that every bus service serving the Peninsula or touching East Greenwich / Westcombe Park will have to be rescheduled as development steps up further and IKEA opens. The traffic impact of IKEA will be horrendous as it will suck in people over a wide area. With no money for extra resources you can expect frequency cuts instead. Ironically weekends will be worse than weekdays given the "pulling power" of IKEA. And as for scrapping the busway that's mad. It was never brilliant because of the daft lack of traffic light priority but turning it into a dual carriageway is ludicrous and all because pedestrians are a bit thick and can't cope with two roads in close proximity. Donât forget the new shopping mall opening up at the O2 and the ever increasing housing being built in the area. Iâm fully expecting frequencies âreduced to improve reliabilityâ on 180, 472 and 486 over the next 12 months or so.
|
|
|
Post by busman on Sept 29, 2018 7:07:26 GMT
It was Sadiq Khanâs policy to implement a fare freeze and the hopper fare. Thatâs not a Labour or Tory policy, but something that he personally committed to in full knowledge of the imminent cuts put in place by Boris Johnson and George Osborne. An awful decision that shows what happens when you give things away - they eventually have to be paid for somehow. I did have a wry smile as I read in every single area consultation âOur Hopper fare means there is no longer an additional fare for changing onto additional buses within one hourâ being used to stick 2 fingers up at passengers who would be inconvenienced by the cuts. Itâs almost like someone in TfL was trying to make a point. Clearly Sadiq Khanâs policy has made this outcome possible wouldnât you agree? A fares freeze and hopper fare were in Sadiq Khan's manifesto and he was voted into office according and most people seem quite happy with it, I don't see too many demands for a fares increase. Many other capital cities have a one hour ticket or something similar and clearly hopper fare is here to stay, I don't see what a fare increase will achieve other than a further drop in usage. I donât see what bus cuts during peak hours will achieve other than a drop in usage đ¤ˇââď¸ Just because people voted for Sadiq Khan, it doesnât absolve him of responsibility for the outcomes of his policies. Also a vote for a politician or party isnât necessarily an endorsement of 100% of their policies. Yes, many other capital cities have hopper fares but many (if not most?) also receive a government subsidy so weâre not comparing apples with apples. I donât blame TfL for these cuts as they are implementing the will of the Mayor. The Mayorâs policies to date have resulted in increased congestion in central and outer London, slower bus journeys, fewer buses, and less money in the TfL coffers to the tune of over ÂŁ700M over 4 years. The annual cost of the hopper fare was estimated to be ÂŁ35M. The latest round of bus cuts will bring in tremendous savings added up earlier by another poster to be ÂŁ22.5M. These cuts are merely TfL balancing the books.
|
|
|
Post by busman on Sept 28, 2018 22:42:01 GMT
The 853 blog let the cat out of the bag already, but these changes will do nothing to attract people to the bus network. Obviously TfL need to make cost savings, which is highlighted in their analysis of each cut, but the irony is that the hopper fare has made these cuts possible and the fare freeze has made the cuts deeper than if TfL were able to increase fares. Thank you Sadiq đ What's to say that a Tory Mayor wouldn't have the same issues as Sadiq has?  TfL has lost funding from central Government, fares freeze and hopper fare or not, something had to give. The congestion charge no longer works, considering how bad traffic is in Zone 1, passengers by their own choice have switched to rail modes as standing on a cramped tube or train is preferable to sitting in a traffic jam to go a mile down the road for 25-30 minutes. It was Sadiq Khanâs policy to implement a fare freeze and the hopper fare. Thatâs not a Labour or Tory policy, but something that he personally committed to in full knowledge of the imminent cuts put in place by Boris Johnson and George Osborne. An awful decision that shows what happens when you give things away - they eventually have to be paid for somehow. I did have a wry smile as I read in every single area consultation âOur Hopper fare means there is no longer an additional fare for changing onto additional buses within one hourâ being used to stick 2 fingers up at passengers who would be inconvenienced by the cuts. Itâs almost like someone in TfL was trying to make a point. Clearly Sadiq Khanâs policy has made this outcome possible wouldnât you agree?
|
|
|
Post by busman on Sept 28, 2018 21:34:24 GMT
The 853 blog let the cat out of the bag already, but these changes will do nothing to attract people to the bus network. Obviously TfL need to make cost savings, which is highlighted in their analysis of each cut, but the irony is that the hopper fare has made these cuts possible and the fare freeze has made the cuts deeper than if TfL were able to increase fares. Thank you Sadiq đ
|
|
|
Post by busman on Sept 26, 2018 14:42:47 GMT
I'm not suggesting all cyclists are perfect but there is far too much stigmatising here, in any cyclist/pedestrian collision both are likely to be injured. A cyclist had crashed into a friend of mine in Whitechapel (the cyclist was at speed, couldnât stop and promptly cycled away). My friend was left with a broken leg (in two places), which took months to reset as expected I havnt seen too many cyclists getting injured when they hit people . Trouble is, thereâs simply no way of tracking a cyclist down. One can trace a car but cyclist - please suggest a method. And I think the other reason why cyclists are being âstigmatisedâ is that thereâs a perception that too much is being done to cater to their whims while neglecting other means of public transport. I have never seen a crowded cycle lane till date. In these times of austerity, wouldnât that money have been better spent elsewhere? I get angry each time I use embankment eastbound and have to sit crawling in traffic watching absolutely empty cycle lanes Cyclists injuring pedestrians or going through red lights and crossings are a persistent nuisance for pedestrians as well as endangering their own lives. We need a way to help cyclists comply with road and pavement laws without making it difficult for new cyclists to get on the road. I donât have any ideas on how that can be done, but itâs not right that at present cyclists can mow someone down, breaking their legs and cycling off without any reprisals.
|
|