|
|
Post by vjaska on Sept 17, 2017 11:51:53 GMT
How close to the hospital do the bus routes have to go because technically, King's College Hospital has 12 if you count the Coldharbour Lane routes (the 35, 40, 42, 45, 68, 176, 185, 345, 468, 484, N68 & X68). I don't think you can count the X68 lol True lol. |
|
|
|
Post by RandomBusesGirl on Sept 17, 2017 12:54:23 GMT
I know the G1 was created by Wandsworth council as a bus route to serve the most hospitals possible - but due to various reroutes and changes since its inception, plus absorption of the G2 (yes there was more than one G-route!), it no longer serves some of them. Well and for starters, the G stands for [St.] George's Hospital in Tooting  |
|
|
|
Post by ben on Sept 18, 2017 15:10:33 GMT
There is an era dimension to this too. In the early 80s, before the then round of hospital cuts and closures was instigated by government, there were a lot of cottage and maternity hospitals, not to mention asylums such as Netherene. Given routes were longer then too, there might be some interesting candidates from the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on May 30, 2018 10:02:42 GMT
TfL have published an update to the Hospital routes review. content.tfl.gov.uk/csopp-20180606-part-1-item06-review-of-bus-services.pdfA number of changes have happened - 96 and 5. A further number are considered possible such as the 470 to Epsom Hospital (due by end 2018 subject to infrastructure works) and 440 to Wembley to give interchange to other routes. An extension to the W10 (!) is mooted to North Middx Hospital but this is unfunded. However a considerable number are dismissed by virtue of forced interchange to routes that already access hospitals. The demand for more routes to the Whittington Hospital are also kicked into the long grass to 2020 at the earliest due to lack of funding. That'll go down well (NOT!) with all those complaining about the mess that is Archway's buses post gyratory changes. |
|
|
|
Post by ben on May 30, 2018 14:50:16 GMT
Section 8.1 "in particular it should be ensured it is clear (where applicable) that there is a route to a hospital with one bus interchange" - this is deliberately not the case with current spider diagrams though?
|
|
|
|
Post by busman on May 30, 2018 15:18:17 GMT
Section 8.1 "in particular it should be ensured it is clear (where applicable) that there is a route to a hospital with one bus interchange" - this is deliberately not the case with current spider diagrams though? As much as I hate spider diagrams they do show interchanges for point to point journeys more clearly than conventional maps. Except if the interchange is in another area 😂 TfL have got themselves into such a muddle over passenger information. I think the old system of a normal map with a list of points of interest and grid references was absolutely fine. All it needed was the addition of info to tell passenger how to get to those POI’s from that particular stop i.e take route xx, change at [insert interchange name and the grid reference to locate point of interchange on the map]. Then take route xx towards xx. A tech proof and cheap solution that would work for all. Oh well. At least TfL are making some improvements to hospital connectivity. The tracking on the use of the 96 change is interesting with 45% of passengers coming from TfL land. Do KCC provide any subsidies for the 96 beyond Dartford? |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on May 30, 2018 15:29:30 GMT
Section 8.1 "in particular it should be ensured it is clear (where applicable) that there is a route to a hospital with one bus interchange" - this is deliberately not the case with current spider diagrams though? As much as I hate spider diagrams they do show interchanges for point to point journeys more clearly than conventional maps. Except if the interchange is in another area 😂 I think the old system of a normal map with a list of points of interest and grid references was absolutely fine. All it needed was the addition of info to tell passenger how to get to those POI’s from that particular stop i.e take route xx, change at xx [insert grid reference to locate point of interchange on the map]. Then take route xx towards xx. TfL have got themselves into such a muddle over passenger information. A tech proof and cheap solution that would work for all. Oh well. At least TfL are making some improvements to hospital connectivity. The tracking on the use of the 96 change is interesting with 45% of passengers coming from TfL land. Do KCC provide any subsidies for the 96 beyond Dartford? To which the TfL answer would be "xx% of passengers use the Journey Planner so we are completely satisfied that no extra information is needed" (where xx is a number higher than 50%) |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on May 30, 2018 23:19:51 GMT
Seems one bit of TfL doesn't know what the other is doing. Hospital review paper is very cautious / borderline non committal re links to N Middx Hospital, Whittington Hosp and Central Middx Hospital. Meanwhile the draft Annual Report (just published) says this. "We are providing....." - oh no you aren't!! Good grief you'd think they could get this sort of thing right. |
|
|
|
Post by COBO on May 31, 2018 1:10:12 GMT
They could have at least done the following:
195: Extended from Brentford County Court to West Middlesex Hospital via route 267. To links Ealing with West Middlesex Hospital
427: rerouted between Hillingdon Hill and Hayes End via route U7. To link Ealing Hospital with Hillingdon Hospital.
H14: Extended from Northwick Park Hospital to Roundwood Park via route 483 to Wembley Triangle, route 18 to Stonebridge Park, route 440 to Central Middlesex Hospital and route 226 to Round wood Park. To link Northwick Park Hospital with Central Middlesex Hospital and Harlesden.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2018 7:21:50 GMT
Seems one bit of TfL doesn't know what the other is doing. Hospital review paper is very cautious / borderline non committal re links to N Middx Hospital, Whittington Hosp and Central Middx Hospital. Meanwhile the draft Annual Report (just published) says this. "We are providing....." - oh no you aren't!! Good grief you'd think they could get this sort of thing right. And our public transport is in the hands of these people ... dear oh dear! |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on May 31, 2018 9:53:13 GMT
Seems one bit of TfL doesn't know what the other is doing. Hospital review paper is very cautious / borderline non committal re links to N Middx Hospital, Whittington Hosp and Central Middx Hospital. Meanwhile the draft Annual Report (just published) says this. "We are providing....." - oh no you aren't!! Good grief you'd think they could get this sort of thing right. And our public transport is in the hands of these people ... dear oh dear! The bit that concerns me is that these somewhat contradictory statements are in official public documents. I wouldn't mind so much if there was some inconsistency in internal documents as that can happen for legitimate reasons. But in the Annual Report and a Committee paper taking somewhat different positions - doesn't look good. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2018 10:03:59 GMT
And our public transport is in the hands of these people ... dear oh dear! The bit that concerns me is that these somewhat contradictory statements are in official public documents. I wouldn't mind so much if there was some inconsistency in internal documents as that can happen for legitimate reasons. But in the Annual Report and a Committee paper taking somewhat different positions - doesn't look good. Not that Joe Public would probably even realise ... |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on May 31, 2018 10:21:22 GMT
The bit that concerns me is that these somewhat contradictory statements are in official public documents. I wouldn't mind so much if there was some inconsistency in internal documents as that can happen for legitimate reasons. But in the Annual Report and a Committee paper taking somewhat different positions - doesn't look good. Not that Joe Public would probably even realise ... Probably not but not everyone is disinterested. Only takes a bit of social media activity in the right place and it would become known. Also MPs, Councillors and Assembly Members (and their researchers) do spot these inconsistent commitments and all it does is generate a whole load of questions and challenges. Seems particularly dumb to say they're doing something about buses to Whittington Hospital when it may be 2020 at the earliest and possibly never before anything happens. That's wrapped in the political controversy over the Archway gyratory changes that no one in that area is going to forget very soon - people in that part of town are not wholly disinterested in such things. |
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Sept 15, 2020 18:15:57 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by greg on Sept 15, 2020 18:22:57 GMT
Most of these are good from TFL, Whittington does not need another bus route though in my opinion, it is a 1 minute walk from Archway Station, which has a huge variety of bus routes! Being to Whittington, I think the 41 and 134 are very popular for passengers going to the hospital. |
|
