|
Post by rhys on Mar 19, 2018 8:22:32 GMT
I agree, there is a high demand for the 68, especially in the southern regions. It’s one route that proves to be very useful in connecting areas like Herne Hill and West Norwood to places like Waterloo, Aldwych and Holborn. Now, I personally think many who are suggesting it’s withdrawal are not even locals to the route. I personally cannot see the 68 being withdrawn. Even during off peak hours, the 68 does carry a little more than ‘fresh air’. More importantly, if such as case were to happen, I agree with you, I cannot see the 468 being altered. The 468 is one of London’s longest non-express routes, at 12 miles. Any form of extension could potentially throw its reliability out the window. That’s just my opinion, though. I could quite conceivably see the 68 reduced to a Mon-Fri peak hour only route, the links you mentioned are also provided by the 171 and 468. Just my opinion of course. Of course the hopper fare does come into the equation, but it's not so much just about "the links". As the 68's purpose is also to provide aid along the corridors it serves. Shunting everyone onto the 468 isn't the best option, in my opinion. The 468 is already a rather busy route in itself. Are you a local to either one of those said routes? If not, I'm not sure why you/some others are so in-favour to get rid of the 68? The evidence isn't in the pudding, nor is it correlating with each other. It's a bit like a lot of other London bus routes. They'd be rather busy in the Monday to Saturday peaks, but wouldn't be as busy during any other time. It doesn't warrant it's removal though.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Mar 19, 2018 8:28:17 GMT
I could quite conceivably see the 68 reduced to a Mon-Fri peak hour only route, the links you mentioned are also provided by the 171 and 468. Just my opinion of course. Of course the hopper fare does come into the equation, but it's not so much just about "the links". As the 68's purpose is also to provide aid along the corridors it serves. Shunting everyone onto the 468 isn't the best option, in my opinion. The 468 is already a rather busy route in itself. Are you a local to either one of those said routes? I see quite a bit of these routes and ironically West Norwood to Croydon is usually the busiest section where the 468 is on its own.
|
|
|
Post by rhys on Mar 19, 2018 8:34:18 GMT
Of course the hopper fare does come into the equation, but it's not so much just about "the links". As the 68's purpose is also to provide aid along the corridors it serves. Shunting everyone onto the 468 isn't the best option, in my opinion. The 468 is already a rather busy route in itself. Are you a local to either one of those said routes? I see quite a bit of these routes and ironically West Norwood to Croydon is usually the busiest section where the 468 is on its own. I'm not sure if I agree with that. I'm local to both routes, in Herne Hill. The 468 is a nightmare to get during peak hours. Especially between Elephant & Castle - Norwood. Where the route passes several schools. Unless there was to be additional aid provided to the other routes in the 68 group. I cannot see it being removed, anytime soon. I could, however, see the 68 being altered to terminate elsewhere, north of the river. That's just about it.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Mar 19, 2018 8:55:33 GMT
I see quite a bit of these routes and ironically West Norwood to Croydon is usually the busiest section where the 468 is on its own. I'm not sure if I agree with that. I'm local to both routes, in Herne Hill. The 468 is a nightmare to get during peak hours. Especially between Elephant & Castle - Norwood. Where the route passes several schools. Unless there was to be additional aid provided to the other routes in the 68 group. I cannot see it being removed, anytime soon. I could, however, see the 68 being altered to terminate elsewhere, north of the river. That's just about it. Yes I was suggesting leaving things pretty much as they are at peak times but the same level of capacity is just not needed off peak.
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Mar 19, 2018 10:09:17 GMT
>>> Chanting 'hopper fare' when not chanting 'Elizabeth Line' is not only inappropriate but grossly insulting to anyone with half a brain, but it does seem to be becoming the stock answer to any criticism from TfL, the Mayor and his acolytes.. <<<
But then saying that the Hopper Fare and the Elizabeth Line should not be a reason for any bus service to change is equally insulting. The reality is that they DO provide Transport for London with opportunities to look afresh at the bus network and see how it is meeting current and future needs - and priorities. Transport is dynamic, and needs to adapt.
With the current need to rein in spending and increasing public awareness of service cuts as they start to bite, Transport for London is going to be increasingly sensitive to accusations of buses running around "carrying fresh air" - once a common complaint in enthusiast forums and indeed a phrase which has been used elsewhere (re route 68) in this very thread. Indeed the over-provision of bus services was frequently used to knock the pro-bus expansionist policies of a previous London Mayor. We may question the wisdom of particular individual changes, but whether we like it or not, in the current circumstances some routes have to be reduced, drastically restructured and even culled over the next few years.
TfL and its predecessors have had no compunction is severing through routes in the past when it suited them, and until now there was no Hopper Fare to soften the blow to those forced to change, they had to pay again or put up money upfront to buy a bus pass. Also with bus routes being reorganised upon the opening of a new rail line, we have been there before - Victoria Line, Walthamstow, September 1968 anybody?
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Mar 19, 2018 10:48:25 GMT
>>> Chanting 'hopper fare' when not chanting 'Elizabeth Line' is not only inappropriate but grossly insulting to anyone with half a brain, but it does seem to be becoming the stock answer to any criticism from TfL, the Mayor and his acolytes.. <<< But then saying that the Hopper Fare and the Elizabeth Line should not be a reason for any bus service to change is equally insulting. The reality is that they DO provide Transport for London with opportunities to look afresh at the bus network and see how it is meeting current and future needs - and priorities. Transport is dynamic, and needs to adapt. With the current need to rein in spending and increasing public awareness of service cuts as they start to bite, Transport for London is going to be increasingly sensitive to accusations of buses running around "carrying fresh air" - once a common complaint in enthusiast forums and indeed a phrase which has been used elsewhere (re route 68) in this very thread. Indeed the over-provision of bus services was frequently used to knock the pro-bus expansionist policies of a previous London Mayor. We may question the wisdom of particular individual changes, but whether we like it or not, in the current circumstances some routes have to be reduced, drastically restructured and even culled over the next few years. TfL and its predecessors have had no compunction is severing through routes in the past when it suited them, and until now there was no Hopper Fare to soften the blow to those forced to change, they had to pay again or put up money upfront to buy a bus pass. Also with bus routes being reorganised upon the opening of a new rail line, we have been there before - Victoria Line, Walthamstow, September 1968 anybody? No one is not saying transport is not dynamic but equally, the vast majority of the network works because of how it has been structured - many routes of travel have not changed since being introduced many years ago because those same patterns of travel have continued and this applies to the 68. No doubt as the belts tighten, routes will be reduced a little as we have seen with the many PVR cuts but at the same time, you have to be very careful what you cut rather than just removing routes because a certain person who doesn't live along the route likes to play a bus version of Dr Beeching - the more you cut, the harder it becomes to recover patronage when the belt tightening is over. I've said it before but Crossrail shouldnt and isn't there to compete with buses but should compliment and work in tandem with them. Otherwise you end up with ludicrous ideas like the 427 being severed in the West London changes and the loss of more bus passengers. Using the hopper ticket is purely an excuse just to chuck in cuts left, right & centre and isn't a particularly credible excuse either - a number of people still prefer not to change buses and this will simply drive them away from the network as well.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Mar 19, 2018 11:29:17 GMT
>>> Chanting 'hopper fare' when not chanting 'Elizabeth Line' is not only inappropriate but grossly insulting to anyone with half a brain, but it does seem to be becoming the stock answer to any criticism from TfL, the Mayor and his acolytes.. <<< But then saying that the Hopper Fare and the Elizabeth Line should not be a reason for any bus service to change is equally insulting. The reality is that they DO provide Transport for London with opportunities to look afresh at the bus network and see how it is meeting current and future needs - and priorities. Transport is dynamic, and needs to adapt. With the current need to rein in spending and increasing public awareness of service cuts as they start to bite, Transport for London is going to be increasingly sensitive to accusations of buses running around "carrying fresh air" - once a common complaint in enthusiast forums and indeed a phrase which has been used elsewhere (re route 68) in this very thread. Indeed the over-provision of bus services was frequently used to knock the pro-bus expansionist policies of a previous London Mayor. We may question the wisdom of particular individual changes, but whether we like it or not, in the current circumstances some routes have to be reduced, drastically restructured and even culled over the next few years. TfL and its predecessors have had no compunction is severing through routes in the past when it suited them, and until now there was no Hopper Fare to soften the blow to those forced to change, they had to pay again or put up money upfront to buy a bus pass. Also with bus routes being reorganised upon the opening of a new rail line, we have been there before - Victoria Line, Walthamstow, September 1968 anybody? Nice to read some calm, rational pragmatic comment on the subject. Nothing is set in stone and the bus network needs to adapt to changes in demand and Crossrail will inevitably change things just as previous rail schemes have, JLE, Tramlink, LO expansion etc and the new Thameslink services will undoubtedly reduce bus travel as well. The problem with the 68/468 is that the structuring is all wrong, inadequate provision at the Croydon end and excessive capacity on the overlap section. Back in LT days there were short workings between South Croydon Garage and Upper/West Norwood at peak times.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Mar 19, 2018 11:52:18 GMT
I have to say most 468's I see on the solo section between West Norwood and S Croydon are well used. That was partly why I suggested the 168 being diverted to Camberwell to reduce the overlap. Of course like so many changes of the late 90s early 00s is that a need for a large overlap only really exists at the peaks. Look at the 36/436, 63/363, 74/430.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2018 14:33:32 GMT
Often can't get on a 468 to Croydon in the morning, end up taking a 196 to Norwood Junction and something else from there.
|
|
|
Post by routew15 on Mar 19, 2018 18:55:53 GMT
Often can't get on a 468 to Croydon in the morning, end up taking a 196 to Norwood Junction and something else from there. The 468 is quite busy even from as far up as Camberwell heading south in the morning if im honest.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Mar 19, 2018 20:54:12 GMT
>>> Chanting 'hopper fare' when not chanting 'Elizabeth Line' is not only inappropriate but grossly insulting to anyone with half a brain, but it does seem to be becoming the stock answer to any criticism from TfL, the Mayor and his acolytes.. <<< But then saying that the Hopper Fare and the Elizabeth Line should not be a reason for any bus service to change is equally insulting. The reality is that they DO provide Transport for London with opportunities to look afresh at the bus network and see how it is meeting current and future needs - and priorities. Transport is dynamic, and needs to adapt. With the current need to rein in spending and increasing public awareness of service cuts as they start to bite, Transport for London is going to be increasingly sensitive to accusations of buses running around "carrying fresh air" - once a common complaint in enthusiast forums and indeed a phrase which has been used elsewhere (re route 68) in this very thread. Indeed the over-provision of bus services was frequently used to knock the pro-bus expansionist policies of a previous London Mayor. We may question the wisdom of particular individual changes, but whether we like it or not, in the current circumstances some routes have to be reduced, drastically restructured and even culled over the next few years. TfL and its predecessors have had no compunction is severing through routes in the past when it suited them, and until now there was no Hopper Fare to soften the blow to those forced to change, they had to pay again or put up money upfront to buy a bus pass. Also with bus routes being reorganised upon the opening of a new rail line, we have been there before - Victoria Line, Walthamstow, September 1968 anybody? Goodness where to start with this. 1. The problem with Crossrail is that it is being used as an excuse for cuts. It is not even operating and TfL have culled buses between Paddington and Oxford St over several years with more cuts planned. It is now being used as both cover *and* justification for removing buses from Oxford St when the reason is an entirely different policy objective. If we look elsewhere no large scale cuts are (currently) planned for the 25 and 86 which you'd imagine were prime candidates if you use your Victoria Line analogy. I've no problem with TfL setting clear, rational objectives for doing things but none of that has emerged with the Crossrail bus changes. It's all a gigantic, illogical muddle. Most of the East London changes are nothing to do with Crossrail at all and far more to do with a stepping stone to a later recast for the Silvertown Tunnel. Most of the West London changes are to try to serve some new housing development and to create a new "Express" route to shut certain Assembly Members up. Things like the cut to the 427 and curtailing the 140 at Hayes and the shambles with the 95/105/E5 in North Southall are just stupid IMO. 2. Yes transport is dynamic but TfL are not making changes due to dynamism. They are making cuts in my area because the loss of road and junction capacity from cycle lane works has completely screwed over the bus network and there is no funding to maintain frequencies. I had that confirmed by someone from TfL! Bad, conflicting policy objectives that had not been properly assessed alongside one another. If we look elsewhere there are virtually no improvements being made at all even where demand genuinely warrants it. No extra money is flowing into Outer London services - some of the busiest most successful routes have had their frequencies taken back to levels from over 20 years ago. Central and Inner London are having their bus network unwound for reasons no one really understands as yet but finances dictate that changes have to be made. Again nothing wrong with change if it is properly planned and for understood reasons. None of this is clear - TfL's own London Travel Report 10 states that they don't know what is going on with trip rate reductions on public transport services. 3. I am afraid I get rather bored with the "fresh air" claims. This harks back to the ludicrous ramblings of Nicholas Ridley when he advocated that buses should only run in busy directions and should run out of service back out of town to reach the outer terminus to take up a busy trip back to the centre. As if demand only existed in one direction. Demand quite naturally varies by day, time and along a route. Any bus on a route can be seen with "fresh air" but within 10 minutes it could quite easily be full to the brim. That is the nature of things and people saying "cut that bus" just because they see buses *in the same place* being less than full are not assessing the full picture of how that route actually performs. To be frank enthusiasts are probably the least qualified people to comment because they come with their own set of biases as to how buses should work. I include myself in that remark just for the sake of clarity. Most enthusiasts will never see the full picture or appreciate the nuances and issues that TfL actually face day to day. 4. Yes we have been here before. And do you know what LT were still faffing around with Waltham Forest's buses in the 1980s and 1990s trying to cope with the aftermath of the 1968 changes. The bus reshaping plan was not really considered much of a success for a while variety of reasons - many of them down to poor vehicle and ticketing technology and an expectation that passengers would bend to LT's will. That basic expectation was wrong then and I think it's wrong now. If Auntie Val is dreaming up some mass bus route rationalisation exercise at City Hall she may find herself with a very poisoned legacy indeed. The fact that TfL are just ploughing ahead with cuts and cuts with no consultation, no engagement with stakeholders and no publically declared rationale makes the entire process extremely dubious. If they have a genuine and justified case then put it to the public with ideas for changes and see what they say about it. They might actually get a fright in that some sensibly put together plans for more coherent, reliable and effective bus services might actually get public support. At the moment all we get is a fait accompli and nothing else.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Mar 19, 2018 21:13:23 GMT
Maybe with the 415 providing some extra capacity down the Old Kent Road the 168 could get diverted to Camberwell to maintain links on the 68. The 468 maybe extended to Waterloo and renumbered 68 in the spirit of the 13. I may be wrong, as I don't get to the Old Kent Road very often, but I thought the link the 168 provides from there through Waterloo and up past Holborn was pretty well used across the day and especially in the peaks. Given the lack of a tube on the Old Kent Road and the local housing density there is more than enough bus demand to support links that veer off in all sorts of directions without forcing people to change at Elephant and Castle which is already an extremely busy transport hub. If the 168's extension hadn't worked I'd have expected TfL to have pulled it a fair while ago but they haven't done so. They haven't done so because there is no stand space for the 168 at either Waterloo or Elephant & Castle, in fact if I recall correctly that's why it was extended to OKR Tesco in the first place? I'm sure the extra capacity is useful at peak times but it's hardly essential, the 172 duplicates it as far as Aldwych.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Mar 19, 2018 21:20:58 GMT
>>> Chanting 'hopper fare' when not chanting 'Elizabeth Line' is not only inappropriate but grossly insulting to anyone with half a brain, but it does seem to be becoming the stock answer to any criticism from TfL, the Mayor and his acolytes.. <<< But then saying that the Hopper Fare and the Elizabeth Line should not be a reason for any bus service to change is equally insulting. The reality is that they DO provide Transport for London with opportunities to look afresh at the bus network and see how it is meeting current and future needs - and priorities. Transport is dynamic, and needs to adapt. With the current need to rein in spending and increasing public awareness of service cuts as they start to bite, Transport for London is going to be increasingly sensitive to accusations of buses running around "carrying fresh air" - once a common complaint in enthusiast forums and indeed a phrase which has been used elsewhere (re route 68) in this very thread. Indeed the over-provision of bus services was frequently used to knock the pro-bus expansionist policies of a previous London Mayor. We may question the wisdom of particular individual changes, but whether we like it or not, in the current circumstances some routes have to be reduced, drastically restructured and even culled over the next few years. TfL and its predecessors have had no compunction is severing through routes in the past when it suited them, and until now there was no Hopper Fare to soften the blow to those forced to change, they had to pay again or put up money upfront to buy a bus pass. Also with bus routes being reorganised upon the opening of a new rail line, we have been there before - Victoria Line, Walthamstow, September 1968 anybody? Goodness where to start with this. 1. The problem with Crossrail is that it is being used as an excuse for cuts. It is not even operating and TfL have culled buses between Paddington and Oxford St over several years with more cuts planned. It is now being used as both cover *and* justification for removing buses from Oxford St when the reason is an entirely different policy objective. If we look elsewhere no large scale cuts are (currently) planned for the 25 and 86 which you'd imagine where prime candidates if you use your Victoria Line analogy. I've no problem with TfL setting clear, rational objectives for doing things but none of that has emerged with the Crossrail bus changes. It's all a gigantic, illogical muddle. Most of the East London changes are nothing to do with Crossrail at all and far more to do with a stepping stone to a later recast for the Silvertown Tunnel. Most of the West London changes are to try to serve some new housing development and to create a new "Express" route to shut certain Assembly Members up. Things like the cut to the 427 and curtailing the 140 at Hayes and the shambles with the 95/105/E5 in North Southall are just stupid IMO. 2. Yes transport is dynamic but TfL are not making changes due to dynamism. They are making cuts in my area because the loss of road and junction capacity from cycle lane works has completely screwed over the bus network and there is no funding to maintain frequencies. I had that confirmed by someone from TfL! Bad, conflicting policy objectives that had not been properly assessed alongside one another. If we look elsewhere there are virtually no improvements being made at all even where demand genuinely warrants it. No extra money is flowing into Outer London services - some of the busiest most successful routes have had their frequencies taken back to levels from over 20 years ago. Central and Inner London are having their bus network unwound for reasons no one really understands as yet but finances dictate that changes have to be made. Again nothing wrong with change if it is properly planned and for understood reasons. None of this is clear - TfL's own London Travel Report 10 states that they don't know what is going on with trip rate reductions on public transport services. 3. I am afraid I get rather bored with the "fresh air" claims. This harks back to the ludicrous ramblings of Nicholas Ridley when he advocated that buses should only run in busy directions and should run out of service back out of town to reach the outer terminus to take up a busy trip back to the centre. As if demand only existed in one direction. Demand quite naturally varies by day, time and along a route. Any bus on a route can be seen with "fresh air" but within 10 minutes it could quite easily be full to the brim. That is the nature of things and people saying "cut that bus" just because they see buses *in the same place* being less than full are not assessing the full picture of how that route actually performs. To be frank enthusiasts are probably the least qualified people to comment because they come with their own set of biases as to how buses should work. I include myself in that remark just for the sake of clarity. Most enthusiasts will never see the full picture or appreciate the nuances and issues that TfL actually face day to day. 4. Yes we have been here before. And do you know what LT were still faffing around with Waltham Forest's buses in the 1980s and 1990s trying to cope with the aftermath of the 1968 changes. The bus reshaping plan was not really considered much of a success for a while variety of reasons - many of them down to poor vehicle and ticketing technology and an expectation that passengers would bend to LT's will. That basic expectation was wrong then and I think it's wrong now. If Auntie Val is dreaming up some mass bus route rationalisation exercise at City Hall she may find herself with a very poisoned legacy indeed. The fact that TfL are just ploughing ahead with cuts and cuts with no consultation, no engagement with stakeholders and no publically declared rationale makes the entire process extremely dubious. If they have a genuine and justified case then put it to the public with ideas for changes and see what they say about it. They might actually get a fright in that some sensibly put together plans for more coherent, reliable and effective bus services might actually get public support. At the moment all we get is a fait accompli and nothing else. You might be bored with the term fresh air but try standing on Waterloo bridge for example in the middle of the day and count how many half/completely empty buses you see. As for poking fun at the late Nicholas Ridley for something he allegedly said, well shock horror that is exactly what happens on the X68! Maybe that's the sort of service he was referring to?
|
|
|
Post by planesandtrains on Mar 19, 2018 21:27:46 GMT
The luxury of a bus isn't speed, it is the convenience of being carried where you want to go. For example, when travelling to Hammermsith on my local route the 33, I would never change at Richmond to use the District Line. Same with the 715, I could travel to Clapham then down to Guildford which might save me 10-20 mins. Or I could simply hop on the next bus to Kingston and change there.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Mar 19, 2018 21:49:00 GMT
Often can't get on a 468 to Croydon in the morning, end up taking a 196 to Norwood Junction and something else from there. The 468 is quite busy even from as far up as Camberwell heading south in the morning if im honest. Hence my suggestion of switching resources from the 68 to the 468. If the 468 was increased to every 5/6mins the 68 could be withdrawn completely. I would extend the 188 to Euston using the vacated stand space (at least until HS2 work starts) with peak hour shorts between Euston and Waterloo to compensate for the loss of the 68. The 468 could then take the 68 number to match up with the N68/X68.
|
|