|
Post by rmz19 on Jun 13, 2017 10:46:20 GMT
In principle, this idea would be great if it was for all routes that cross over Bricklayers Arms. However, I find it quite strange that TFL are including the 363 too. The 53 is understandable given its relatively longer running time and route length, but the 453 should've been selected instead of the 363. Generally, I'm not keen on prioritisation in these kind of situations, I'm biased to an 'all or nothing' approach within reason i.e. prioritising express routes. TFL's rational has always been quite strange anyway. But if all routes went that way there would be no service at all from Elephant & Castle to stops either side of Bricklayers Arms roundabout. Likewise if the 453 went that way there would be no service from the Westminster area. The 363 won't effect any alighting passengers and it seems a sensible choice of routes to me. You would still have the 1 and 188 which diverge from Bricklayers Arms. The 168 and 415 can also be exempt from using the fly-over as they terminate a short distance down the OKR.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jun 13, 2017 11:43:31 GMT
But if all routes went that way there would be no service at all from Elephant & Castle to stops either side of Bricklayers Arms roundabout. Likewise if the 453 went that way there would be no service from the Westminster area. The 363 won't effect any alighting passengers and it seems a sensible choice of routes to me. You would still have the 1 and 188 which diverge from Bricklayers Arms. The 168 and 415 can also be exempt from using the fly-over as they terminate a short distance down the OKR. I see what you mean but I can't imagine that going down too well as the two stops in question would lose a few links. I think what has suggested is an ideal compromise, obviously the 363 section from E&C is covered by other routes and the 53 from Whitehall by the 453, it would only be passengers going beyond Deptford or Honor Oak that would really be inconvenienced.
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Jun 13, 2017 13:34:58 GMT
There was talk from TfL a little while ago of the Bricklayers Arms flyover being demolished. I assume this has come to nothing.
Curiously, TfL has made no attempt in this consultation to quantify the benefits. I would have expected them to say that 'we expect this to save around x minutes per journey for through passengers at peak times'.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jun 13, 2017 14:28:39 GMT
There was talk from TfL a little while ago of the Bricklayers Arms flyover being demolished. I assume this has come to nothing. Curiously, TfL has made no attempt in this consultation to quantify the benefits. I would have expected them to say that 'we expect this to save around x minutes per journey for through passengers at peak times'. I suspect they are being cagey because this consultation rather begs the question about why it is necessary in the first place. The reason, clearly, is the monstrous mess TfL has made of the Elephant and Castle and its approaches and its own decisions to remove bus priority or create signalled junctions, including cycle priority, that slow buses to a crawl. I also suspect that TfL are not entirely certain what the time saving will be and I expect there is a range of possible outcomes. A reasonable hypothesis is that the most likely outcome gives an overall benefit hence why TfL have decided to go for it. What is interesting is that I suspect we may be talking of a matter of seconds per passenger which the average person would "poo poo" if they saw it in consultation material. "What can anyone do with an extra 5 seconds HA HA HA" would be the sort of response. Of course TfL's business case modelling is often predicated on small individual savings but accuring to thousands or millions of users thus giving a genuine aggregate improvement. This is a bit difficult to convey to the "average punter" but if, as I have done, you've worked with the TfL / LT Business Case Methodology then it all makes sense. TfL have clearly opted to divert "longer" distance services over the flyover so as to try to segregate local trips and longer ones. It also involves the very high usage 53 and not so well used 363 giving a spread of benefits to two corridors but not overly disadvantaging those people who interchange / catch buses at Bricklayers Arms. One thing that is not evident in the TfL case is ease (or not) of interchange between the diverted services and routes like the 1, 188 and 42 which head north at the Bricklayers Arms. The other aspect that's just dawned on me, as a non local, is the the diversion only applies heading east! Talking about complication given the 53 and 363 will still serve the roundabout stops heading north. Don't know why they're bothering really. What a load of complication.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jun 13, 2017 14:38:37 GMT
There was talk from TfL a little while ago of the Bricklayers Arms flyover being demolished. I assume this has come to nothing. Curiously, TfL has made no attempt in this consultation to quantify the benefits. I would have expected them to say that 'we expect this to save around x minutes per journey for through passengers at peak times'. I suspect they are being cagey because this consultation rather begs the question about why it is necessary in the first place. The reason, clearly, is the monstrous mess TfL has made of the Elephant and Castle and its approaches and its own decisions to remove bus priority or create signalled junctions, including cycle priority, that slow buses to a crawl. I also suspect that TfL are not entirely certain what the time saving will be and I expect there is a range of possible outcomes. A reasonable hypothesis is that the most likely outcome gives an overall benefit hence why TfL have decided to go for it. What is interesting is that I suspect we may be talking of a matter of seconds per passenger which the average person would "poo poo" if they saw it in consultation material. "What can anyone do with an extra 5 seconds HA HA HA" would be the sort of response. Of course TfL's business case modelling is often predicated on small individual savings but accuring to thousands or millions of users thus giving a genuine aggregate improvement. This is a bit difficult to convey to the "average punter" but if, as I have done, you've worked with the TfL / LT Business Case Methodology then it all makes sense. TfL have clearly opted to divert "longer" distance services over the flyover so as to try to segregate local trips and longer ones. It also involves the very high usage 53 and not so well used 363 giving a spread of benefits to two corridors but not overly disadvantaging those people who interchange / catch buses at Bricklayers Arms. One thing that is not evident in the TfL case is ease (or not) of interchange between the diverted services and routes like the 1, 188 and 42 which head north at the Bricklayers Arms. The other aspect that's just dawned on me, as a non local, is the the diversion only applies heading east! Talking about complication given the 53 and 363 will still serve the roundabout stops heading north. Don't know why they're bothering really. What a load of complication. Firstly I don't agree that Elephant & Castle is a monstrous mess, in fact now people have had time to adjust to the new arrangements it all seems to be working quite well.
I don't think it's about segregating local and long distance trips or anything else scientific, just a simple case of the 53 and 363 being the two routes that will cause the least inconvenience. Obviously the flyover is eastbound only so there wasn't an option for doing the same thing in the other direction.
I suspect the proposal won't happen for one spurious reason or another although I think it has some merit.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jun 13, 2017 15:32:02 GMT
Firstly I don't agree that Elephant & Castle is a monstrous mess, in fact now people have had time to adjust to the new arrangements it all seems to be working quite well.
I don't think it's about segregating local and long distance trips or anything else scientific, just a simple case of the 53 and 363 being the two routes that will cause the least inconvenience. Obviously the flyover is eastbound only so there wasn't an option for doing the same thing in the other direction.
I suspect the proposal won't happen for one spurious reason or another although I think it has some merit.
"Quite well" - talk about d*mning with faint praise. The entire scheme has no business case - it struggled to get through the TfL Board approval process - because the traffic impacts were so negative. The Board were effectively forced by the previous Mayor to break their own rules to approve it. I have yet to see the scheme flowing freely with no jams on the approaches from Bricklayers Arms, St Georges Circus or Borough. I don't think you understand how TfL approach these things. It will have been analysed thoroughly before TfL opted to reroute these two routes. To my mind it is not coincidence that these routes are those that were formally split into paired services (53/453 and 63/363) as part of the 2002/3 bus changes. I am not a local and have been past Bricklayers Arms barely 10 times in my lifetime. I was therefore not familiar with how the traffic lanes are arranged. We are allowed to know that some things are not "obvious". I could no more tell you the traffic lane arrangements at the flyovers at Gallows Corner on the A127 or Ripple Rd / Lodge Avenue on the A13. I would always have to check.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jun 13, 2017 15:45:47 GMT
Firstly I don't agree that Elephant & Castle is a monstrous mess, in fact now people have had time to adjust to the new arrangements it all seems to be working quite well.
I don't think it's about segregating local and long distance trips or anything else scientific, just a simple case of the 53 and 363 being the two routes that will cause the least inconvenience. Obviously the flyover is eastbound only so there wasn't an option for doing the same thing in the other direction.
I suspect the proposal won't happen for one spurious reason or another although I think it has some merit.
"Quite well" - talk about d*mning with faint praise. The entire scheme has no business case - it struggled to get through the TfL Board approval process - because the traffic impacts were so negative. The Board were effectively forced by the previous Mayor to break their own rules to approve it. I have yet to see the scheme flowing freely with no jams on the approaches from Bricklayers Arms, St Georges Circus or Borough. I don't think you understand how TfL approach these things. It will have been analysed thoroughly before TfL opted to reroute these two routes. To my mind it is not coincidence that these routes are those that were formally split into paired services (53/453 and 63/363) as part of the 2002/3 bus changes. I am not a local and have been past Bricklayers Arms barely 10 times in my lifetime. I was therefore not familiar with how the traffic lanes are arranged. We are allowed to know that some things are not "obvious". I could no more tell you the traffic lane arrangements at the flyovers at Gallows Corner on the A127 or Ripple Rd / Lodge Avenue on the A13. I would always have to check. You can't make the previously dangerous Elephant & Castle roundabout safer without reducing capacity. Surely the business case is that it's a d*mn sight safer now? If I had to choose two routes to use the Bricklayers Arms flyover I would have also gone for the 53 and 363 because they would cause the least inconvenience. People can still get there from Westminster on the 453.
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Jun 13, 2017 16:41:29 GMT
I suspect they are being cagey because this consultation rather begs the question about why it is necessary in the first place. The reason, clearly, is the monstrous mess TfL has made of the Elephant and Castle and its approaches and its own decisions to remove bus priority or create signalled junctions, including cycle priority, that slow buses to a crawl. I also suspect that TfL are not entirely certain what the time saving will be and I expect there is a range of possible outcomes. A reasonable hypothesis is that the most likely outcome gives an overall benefit hence why TfL have decided to go for it. What is interesting is that I suspect we may be talking of a matter of seconds per passenger which the average person would "poo poo" if they saw it in consultation material. "What can anyone do with an extra 5 seconds HA HA HA" would be the sort of response. Of course TfL's business case modelling is often predicated on small individual savings but accuring to thousands or millions of users thus giving a genuine aggregate improvement. This is a bit difficult to convey to the "average punter" but if, as I have done, you've worked with the TfL / LT Business Case Methodology then it all makes sense. TfL have clearly opted to divert "longer" distance services over the flyover so as to try to segregate local trips and longer ones. It also involves the very high usage 53 and not so well used 363 giving a spread of benefits to two corridors but not overly disadvantaging those people who interchange / catch buses at Bricklayers Arms. One thing that is not evident in the TfL case is ease (or not) of interchange between the diverted services and routes like the 1, 188 and 42 which head north at the Bricklayers Arms. The other aspect that's just dawned on me, as a non local, is the the diversion only applies heading east! Talking about complication given the 53 and 363 will still serve the roundabout stops heading north. Don't know why they're bothering really. What a load of complication. Firstly I don't agree that Elephant & Castle is a monstrous mess, in fact now people have had time to adjust to the new arrangements it all seems to be working quite well.
I don't think it's about segregating local and long distance trips or anything else scientific, just a simple case of the 53 and 363 being the two routes that will cause the least inconvenience. Obviously the flyover is eastbound only so there wasn't an option for doing the same thing in the other direction.
I suspect the proposal won't happen for one spurious reason or another although I think it has some merit.
Gosh, this is getting quite heated isn't it? First of all, let's dispell the notion that whatever road layout changes made in central London, will do nothing to eradicate the queueing of traffic; why, because whatever you do you're still going to have congestion in central London! Traffic coming from the Bricklayers Arms has seen an easing of congestion coming up to the Elephant and Castle, so that has got to be something that was done right in the new layout. In fact I haven't seen hideous queues from most approaches apart from St George's Circus, which seems to be in line with rush hour traffic demand. And this is where I part from impartiality and bring in the predilection of my passion for cycling; the new layout is a heck of a ton better than the previous roundabout arrangement. Though I do hate the segregation forcing a 'long way round' approach rather than joining traffic and turning right directly, I appreciate it is for my safety and to aid the flow of traffic by not having pedal power competing with horsepower. So the plans may not have been properly borne in the planning stages, but the new layout certainly does the job! As for the routes selected; there's no point discussing the 53 cause it'll be simple repitition from what others have said. The 363 being chosen will mean passengers will opt for said bus at Elephant & Castle for a quicker journey, leaving the 63 (hopefully) with fewer jams and a quicker journey from all parties be it on the 53, 63 and 363. The only route not seeing any benefits would primarily be the 453; but this is a TfL consultation so only one route being disparaged is a definate plus!
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jun 13, 2017 17:09:36 GMT
Firstly I don't agree that Elephant & Castle is a monstrous mess, in fact now people have had time to adjust to the new arrangements it all seems to be working quite well.
I don't think it's about segregating local and long distance trips or anything else scientific, just a simple case of the 53 and 363 being the two routes that will cause the least inconvenience. Obviously the flyover is eastbound only so there wasn't an option for doing the same thing in the other direction.
I suspect the proposal won't happen for one spurious reason or another although I think it has some merit.
Gosh, this is getting quite heated isn't it? First of all, let's dispell the notion that whatever road layout changes made in central London, will do nothing to eradicate the queueing of traffic; why, because whatever you do you're still going to have congestion in central London! Traffic coming from the Bricklayers Arms has seen an easing of congestion coming up to the Elephant and Castle, so that has got to be something that was done right in the new layout. In fact I haven't seen hideous queues from most approaches apart from St George's Circus, which seems to be in line with rush hour traffic demand. And this is where I part from impartiality and bring in the predilection of my passion for cycling; the new layout is a heck of a ton better than the previous roundabout arrangement. Though I do hate the segregation forcing a 'long way round' approach rather than joining traffic and turning right directly, I appreciate it is for my safety and to aid the flow of traffic by not having pedal power competing with horsepower. So the plans may not have been properly borne in the planning stages, but the new layout certainly does the job! As for the routes selected; there's no point discussing the 53 cause it'll be simple repitition from what others have said. The 363 being chosen will mean passengers will opt for said bus at Elephant & Castle for a quicker journey, leaving the 63 (hopefully) with fewer jams and a quicker journey from all parties be it on the 53, 63 and 363. The only route not seeing any benefits would primarily be the 453; but this is a TfL consultation so only one route being disparaged is a definate plus! I don't know about anybody else but I'm certainly not getting heated. The traffic from Bricklayers Arms towards Elephant & Castle has reduced as people have made alternative arrangements, some have probably switched to public transport which surely is a good thing? The thinking behind the 53 and 363 proposal seems simple enough to me although if the reaction on here is anything to go by it probably won't happen.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jun 13, 2017 17:26:55 GMT
Gosh, this is getting quite heated isn't it? First of all, let's dispell the notion that whatever road layout changes made in central London, will do nothing to eradicate the queueing of traffic; why, because whatever you do you're still going to have congestion in central London! Traffic coming from the Bricklayers Arms has seen an easing of congestion coming up to the Elephant and Castle, so that has got to be something that was done right in the new layout. In fact I haven't seen hideous queues from most approaches apart from St George's Circus, which seems to be in line with rush hour traffic demand. And this is where I part from impartiality and bring in the predilection of my passion for cycling; the new layout is a heck of a ton better than the previous roundabout arrangement. Though I do hate the segregation forcing a 'long way round' approach rather than joining traffic and turning right directly, I appreciate it is for my safety and to aid the flow of traffic by not having pedal power competing with horsepower. So the plans may not have been properly borne in the planning stages, but the new layout certainly does the job! As for the routes selected; there's no point discussing the 53 cause it'll be simple repitition from what others have said. The 363 being chosen will mean passengers will opt for said bus at Elephant & Castle for a quicker journey, leaving the 63 (hopefully) with fewer jams and a quicker journey from all parties be it on the 53, 63 and 363. The only route not seeing any benefits would primarily be the 453; but this is a TfL consultation so only one route being disparaged is a definate plus! The thinking behind the 53 and 363 proposal seems simple enough to me although if the reaction on here is anything to go by it probably won't happen.Since when does TFL not proceed with their proposals because of negative reaction? Surely it's well known by now that they couldn't care less about what the majority think. With some of the *arguably ridiculous* proposals they have come up with lately, I certainly hope your suggestion is true, because logic would ultimately prevail and some proposals would've not gone ahead, but usually this isn't the case.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 13, 2017 17:40:59 GMT
Gosh, this is getting quite heated isn't it? First of all, let's dispell the notion that whatever road layout changes made in central London, will do nothing to eradicate the queueing of traffic; why, because whatever you do you're still going to have congestion in central London! Traffic coming from the Bricklayers Arms has seen an easing of congestion coming up to the Elephant and Castle, so that has got to be something that was done right in the new layout. In fact I haven't seen hideous queues from most approaches apart from St George's Circus, which seems to be in line with rush hour traffic demand. And this is where I part from impartiality and bring in the predilection of my passion for cycling; the new layout is a heck of a ton better than the previous roundabout arrangement. Though I do hate the segregation forcing a 'long way round' approach rather than joining traffic and turning right directly, I appreciate it is for my safety and to aid the flow of traffic by not having pedal power competing with horsepower. So the plans may not have been properly borne in the planning stages, but the new layout certainly does the job! As for the routes selected; there's no point discussing the 53 cause it'll be simple repitition from what others have said. The 363 being chosen will mean passengers will opt for said bus at Elephant & Castle for a quicker journey, leaving the 63 (hopefully) with fewer jams and a quicker journey from all parties be it on the 53, 63 and 363. The only route not seeing any benefits would primarily be the 453; but this is a TfL consultation so only one route being disparaged is a definate plus! I don't know about anybody else but I'm certainly not getting heated. The traffic from Bricklayers Arms towards Elephant & Castle has reduced as people have made alternative arrangements, some have probably switched to public transport which surely is a good thing? The thinking behind the 53 and 363 proposal seems simple enough to me although if the reaction on here is anything to go by it probably won't happen. Sorry but the traffic from Bricklayers Arms to Elephant & Castle has not decreased at all - I've been through there many times since it's done at different times of the day and it's an absolute nightmare. I've seen next to no improvement in traffic levels at Elephant & Castle since the changes so to say that is blissfully ignoring the issues. The current layout would only be workable if congestion was significantly reduced but sadly, no one is bold enough to do so.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jun 13, 2017 17:58:34 GMT
The thinking behind the 53 and 363 proposal seems simple enough to me although if the reaction on here is anything to go by it probably won't happen.Since when does TFL not proceed with their proposals because of negative reaction? Surely it's well known by now that they couldn't care less about what the majority think. With some of the *arguably ridiculous* proposals they have come up with lately, I certainly hope your suggestion is true, because logic would ultimately prevail and some proposals would've not gone ahead, but usually this isn't the case. Well that's another issue, a lot of people were not in favour of the 36/436 change or the Finchley Road changes but I don't hear too many complaints now and I do think that this proposal for the 53 and 363 should go ahead.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jun 13, 2017 18:03:03 GMT
I don't know about anybody else but I'm certainly not getting heated. The traffic from Bricklayers Arms towards Elephant & Castle has reduced as people have made alternative arrangements, some have probably switched to public transport which surely is a good thing? The thinking behind the 53 and 363 proposal seems simple enough to me although if the reaction on here is anything to go by it probably won't happen. Sorry but the traffic from Bricklayers Arms to Elephant & Castle has not decreased at all - I've been through there many times since it's done at different times of the day and it's an absolute nightmare. I've seen next to no improvement in traffic levels at Elephant & Castle since the changes so to say that is blissfully ignoring the issues. The current layout would only be workable if congestion was significantly reduced but sadly, no one is bold enough to do so. EnviroPB said traffic had eased and I would certainly concur with that, it's certainly no worse than it was before and the predictions of it being an unmitigated disaster just haven't come to fruition. The purpose of the scheme was of course to make the place safer and that has certainly been achieved.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jun 13, 2017 18:14:31 GMT
Gosh, this is getting quite heated isn't it? First of all, let's dispell the notion that whatever road layout changes made in central London, will do nothing to eradicate the queueing of traffic; why, because whatever you do you're still going to have congestion in central London! Traffic coming from the Bricklayers Arms has seen an easing of congestion coming up to the Elephant and Castle, so that has got to be something that was done right in the new layout. In fact I haven't seen hideous queues from most approaches apart from St George's Circus, which seems to be in line with rush hour traffic demand. And this is where I part from impartiality and bring in the predilection of my passion for cycling; the new layout is a heck of a ton better than the previous roundabout arrangement. Though I do hate the segregation forcing a 'long way round' approach rather than joining traffic and turning right directly, I appreciate it is for my safety and to aid the flow of traffic by not having pedal power competing with horsepower. So the plans may not have been properly borne in the planning stages, but the new layout certainly does the job! When you've *quite* finished trying to pour oil on the extinguished embers of the non existent "fire"? It isn't / wasn't heated. I think it is clear by now that Sid and I disagree 99% of the time. That does not mean there is any "heat" in the discussion. It simply means opposed or different views are being stated. That happens in discussions doesn't it? I note your comments about E&C. I can only relay what I have seen when I have been there. I am not going to argue as to whether other people have seen different things when they have been there especially as they are likely to have been far more than I have. I thought we took it as read on this forum that people speak from their experience and knowledge and there is an acceptance that there will be a divergence of these things? I am mature enough to accept / acknowledge when I am wrong or not up to date (as would appear to be the case with E&C).
|
|
|
Post by overgroundcommuter on Jun 18, 2017 1:51:11 GMT
My only concern is that for passengers that use those two stops, they'll be forced onto already busy 63's to Peckham with a cut in capacity with the loss of the 363s.
However, if it improves the reliability of the 363 south of Honor Oak, then it should go ahead.
|
|