|
|
Post by sid on Feb 28, 2018 13:48:08 GMT
Congestion like that is not uncommon on Anerley Hill. I agree that four routes is excessive, two would be adequate with room to spare. I would suggest rerouting the 358 direct via Birkbeck, the 194 covers the Penge and Beckenham bit, and extending the 176 to Anerley Station. Most likely why there was traffic that day was down to Crystal Palace playing at home - generally, the one way system isn’t too hard to get around. The problem with this is you end up losing the link between Anerley & Beckenham Road which would have a knock on effect to the already very busy 237 & the 358 has been doing this link for many years so I don’t see why you need to change it. The 432 can provide the direct connection between Elmers End, Birkbeck & Crystal Palace leaving the 249 to continue to terminate at Anerley. The 157 & 358 come & go from different directions in any event so four routes is adequate. Crystal Palace were at home on Sunday, the photos I linked were taken Saturday. I agree with 'Palacefan' that two routes between Crystal Palace and Anerley would be more than adequate and the 354 links Anerley and Beckenham Road. |
|
|
|
Post by higthomas on Mar 3, 2018 15:03:35 GMT
So, I've been looking through the route by route bus usage statistics, (http://content.tfl.gov.uk/bus-service-usage.xlsx) and using a simple measure of passenger numbers/bus km operated as my measure of things that need to be done.
Now, the routes right at the bottom, which are presumably losing a fair amount of money are the routes which are socially necessary (R5, R10, H3, 399 etc.) due to connecting otherwise bus-less areas, and night buses near the edge of the city. (N365, N33, N321, N213 etc.)
Now, the socially necessary ones are the sort that we should probably keep, but make one bus daytime only, although they mostly are already. The night buses, I have two thought on. One is that generally, they are the sort of buses whereby they are simply a 24 hour bus on a day route.
In particular the (N)213 and (N)119, I think they would be much better served by some sort of N726, running from Heathrow-Kingston-Croydon-Bromley-?)
Others such as the (N)33 and (N)C2 run fairly nearby other night routes, and should probably go, or at the very least be reduced to 1bph. Others such as the (N)321 and (N)64 I think are socially good for connecting less popular areas, but maintaining them as they are doesn't seem very sensible. I would help this by making sure routes like this come all the way from the city center. Changing buses in Croydon at 3am is unattractive to the vast majority of passengers. I think these are the sort of routes which would be much better served by being continuations of routes from the city centre, (e.g. N109-New Addington) but again with not necessarily all journeys continuing all the way.
I think that the incredible night bus service London currently enjoys is economically probably unsustainable. 31 of the bottom 50 routes by this metric are night routes. I know that daytime routes suffer the same thing, with statistics masked by busy peaks, but ultimately the people of Foots Cray just don't really go out much at night, so a bus every 30 minutes seems excessive. I think every hour should be a more common thing on such routes, and some will have to go I'm afraid.
In the UK outside of London, I am aware of 13 buses which run at least every 30 minutes 24/7! Now partly this is definitely not a good thing, and more should do, but that is partly a reflection of actual demand I'm afraid.
|
|
|
|
Post by sid on Mar 3, 2018 15:28:04 GMT
So, I've been looking through the route by route bus usage statistics, (http://content.tfl.gov.uk/bus-service-usage.xlsx) and using a simple measure of passenger numbers/bus km operated as my measure of things that need to be done. Now, the routes right at the bottom, which are presumably losing a fair amount of money are the routes which are socially necessary (R5, R10, H3, 399 etc.) due to connecting otherwise bus-less areas, and night buses near the edge of the city. (N365, N33, N321, N213 etc.) Now, the socially necessary ones are the sort that we should probably keep, but make one bus daytime only, although they mostly are already. The night buses, I have two thought on. One is that generally, they are the sort of buses whereby they are simply a 24 hour bus on a day route. In particular the (N)213 and (N)119, I think they would be much better served by some sort of N726, running from Heathrow-Kingston-Croydon-Bromley-  ) Others such as the (N)33 and (N)C2 run fairly nearby other night routes, and should probably go, or at the very least be reduced to 1bph. Others such as the (N)321 and (N)64 I think are socially good for connecting less popular areas, but maintaining them as they are doesn't seem very sensible. I would help this by making sure routes like this come all the way from the city center. Changing buses in Croydon at 3am is unattractive to the vast majority of passengers. I think these are the sort of routes which would be much better served by being continuations of routes from the city centre, (e.g. N109-New Addington) but again with not necessarily all journeys continuing all the way. I think that the incredible night bus service London currently enjoys is economically probably unsustainable. 31 of the bottom 50 routes by this metric are night routes. I know that daytime routes suffer the same thing, with statistics masked by busy peaks, but ultimately the people of Foots Cray just don't really go out much at night, so a bus every 30 minutes seems excessive. I think every hour should be a more common thing on such routes, and some will have to go I'm afraid. In the UK outside of London, I am aware of 13 buses which run at least every 30 minutes 24/7! Now partly this is definitely not a good thing, and more should do, but that is partly a reflection of actual demand I'm afraid. I like the N726 idea. I'm not sure about a Central London to New Addington service as there are trains to East Croydon throughout the night, I would suggest merging the 64 with the 264 at night which would also provide a link to the weekend night tube at Tooting Broadway. The N21 and 321 provide 4bph between New Cross and Eltham which is a tad excessive to say the least midweek. I'd reroute the N21 to Foots Cray and withdraw the service via Bexley other than the Fri/Sat night 132. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Mar 4, 2018 0:54:38 GMT
So, I've been looking through the route by route bus usage statistics, (http://content.tfl.gov.uk/bus-service-usage.xlsx) and using a simple measure of passenger numbers/bus km operated as my measure of things that need to be done. Now, the routes right at the bottom, which are presumably losing a fair amount of money are the routes which are socially necessary (R5, R10, H3, 399 etc.) due to connecting otherwise bus-less areas, and night buses near the edge of the city. (N365, N33, N321, N213 etc.) Now, the socially necessary ones are the sort that we should probably keep, but make one bus daytime only, although they mostly are already. The night buses, I have two thought on. One is that generally, they are the sort of buses whereby they are simply a 24 hour bus on a day route. In particular the (N)213 and (N)119, I think they would be much better served by some sort of N726, running from Heathrow-Kingston-Croydon-Bromley-?) Others such as the (N)33 and (N)C2 run fairly nearby other night routes, and should probably go, or at the very least be reduced to 1bph. Others such as the (N)321 and (N)64 I think are socially good for connecting less popular areas, but maintaining them as they are doesn't seem very sensible. I would help this by making sure routes like this come all the way from the city center. Changing buses in Croydon at 3am is unattractive to the vast majority of passengers. I think these are the sort of routes which would be much better served by being continuations of routes from the city centre, (e.g. N109-New Addington) but again with not necessarily all journeys continuing all the way. I think that the incredible night bus service London currently enjoys is economically probably unsustainable. 31 of the bottom 50 routes by this metric are night routes. I know that daytime routes suffer the same thing, with statistics masked by busy peaks, but ultimately the people of Foots Cray just don't really go out much at night, so a bus every 30 minutes seems excessive. I think every hour should be a more common thing on such routes, and some will have to go I'm afraid. In the UK outside of London, I am aware of 13 buses which run at least every 30 minutes 24/7! Now partly this is definitely not a good thing, and more should do, but that is partly a reflection of actual demand I'm afraid. Not sure you are quite appreciating how TfL would look at the provision of night time transport and accessibility for certain areas. Yes we have had some trimming of routes over the years (N58, N75, N274) but you simply cannot just take a ranking over 700+ routes and because, for very obvious reasons, patronage is comparatively low on night routes then conclude they have no value. I have a spreadsheet that has almost 20 years of TfL patronage data on it plus a vast array of other calculations and data (send me a DM with your E Mail if you would like a copy). That gives a better feel for how demand has varied year by year over a longer period. It is actually slightly dangerous, in evaluatory terms, to just focus on a couple of recent years and draw conclusions. Obviously there are considerable weaknesses in the data that TfL make public - annual numbers with no spatial or temporal breakdown doesn't really convey *where* the demand on any given route is and *when* people make best use. TfL do possess that data and interpolate other factors from Oyster / contactless data. Once you get to the point of offering people an hourly night service you might as well not bother - despite everything this is not the 1970s or early 80s when such poor service levels were tolerated. Even with competition from night tubes and Uber etc there is decent volume for night time travel and a lot of poorer people have very awkward working hours and need effective public transport to get them to and from work. It's not all about p*ssed people staggering home from pubs and clubs. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2018 13:57:25 GMT
358. No way. Not only do you remove all bus services from Farnborough Village, and the A21 up to the hospital, but removes the direct link from Green Street Green to Orpington Station. ( You can’t count the once in a blue moon R8 and R5/10!) Also removes the well used service from GSG to Bromley. Don’t want to be rude, but this suggestion is plain daft. When we had the farcical Orpington consultation I suggested diverting the R11 via Farnborough Village to terminate at Farnborough Hospital. Suggestion was ignored. I hate the 358 it's too long for an around the world route. I'd at least cut it in two from Bromley or Beckenham. I would reroute the 358 between Elmers End and Anerley direct via Birkbeck. The 194 covers the Beckenham and Penge bit anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Mar 6, 2018 14:24:16 GMT
I hate the 358 it's too long for an around the world route. I'd at least cut it in two from Bromley or Beckenham. I would reroute the 358 between Elmers End and Anerley direct via Birkbeck. The 194 covers the Beckenham and Penge bit anyway. The problem with that is the 358 currently provides a nice bit of help to the 227 for Crystal Palace bound passengers - take that away from Beckenham Road and the 227 becomes even more busy than it is currently. The direct link can be easily provided by extending the 432 which creates some nice new links with Birkbeck from within Lambeth. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Mar 6, 2018 14:48:50 GMT
I hate the 358 it's too long for an around the world route. I'd at least cut it in two from Bromley or Beckenham. I would reroute the 358 between Elmers End and Anerley direct via Birkbeck. The 194 covers the Beckenham and Penge bit anyway. I certainly agree with that, speeds up the 358 a bit and gives a direct link between Crystal Palace and Elmers End without further expense and quite honestly Beckenham Road is overbussed anyway. I'd go a bit further and suggest axing the 356, a funny little route that doesn't serve any major town centres and reroute the 354 via Marlow Road and extend it from Penge to Sydenham Hill. The Elmers End to Shirley bit is covered by the 194, apart from Monks Orchard Road, which is more than adequate. Extend the 176 to Anerley Station and cut the 249 and 432 back to Crystal Palace with more stand space on the parade and a u turn facility for buses like at Waterloo. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2018 15:32:57 GMT
I would reroute the 358 between Elmers End and Anerley direct via Birkbeck. The 194 covers the Beckenham and Penge bit anyway. I certainly agree with that, speeds up the 358 a bit and gives a direct link between Crystal Palace and Elmers End without further expense and quite honestly Beckenham Road is overbussed anyway. I'd go a bit further and suggest axing the 356, a funny little route that doesn't serve any major town centres and reroute the 354 via Marlow Road and extend it from Penge to Sydenham Hill. The Elmers End to Shirley bit is covered by the 194, apart from Monks Orchard Road, which is more than adequate. Extend the 176 to Anerley Station and cut the 249 and 432 back to Crystal Palace with more stand space on the parade and a u turn facility for buses like at Waterloo. Sounds good to me. |
|
|
|
Post by john on Mar 6, 2018 15:55:19 GMT
It's been a while since the cuts have started to take a hold but the more i think about it, The more I think that bringing back child fares is an option. Firstly I'm not saying withdraw free travel. A way of means test COULD be introduced for those that do need it. However, I see some points from this.
First, I can see the negative comments already. Yes they're all valid but the that situation was present 10, 20, 30 years ago. A half rate (50-70p) could be introduced (bus ride or sweets, that could be the choice 😂😂). School times stay free (Mon-Fri 0730 until 1630) while weekends you pay.
"Not that much will come back from that". "My parents couldn't afford that, how can others", "what about those who do after school clubs/weekend events". All valid points but at this rate, littke Joey might not have the bus route to get there.
Now, because of this you may be thinking "oh but that'll just make numbers drop more". In the short term, yes possibly. However, what if the reduction in the more problematic element of the younger population actually increases the adult numbers? It's all very hit and miss and it's and buts BUT I still think it needs looking at in a serious way. More so in today's climate
|
|
|
|
Post by sid on Mar 6, 2018 17:12:38 GMT
It's been a while since the cuts have started to take a hold but the more i think about it, The more I think that bringing back child fares is an option. Firstly I'm not saying withdraw free travel. A way of means test COULD be introduced for those that do need it. However, I see some points from this. First, I can see the negative comments already. Yes they're all valid but the that situation was present 10, 20, 30 years ago. A half rate (50-70p) could be introduced (bus ride or sweets, that could be the choice 😂😂). School times stay free (Mon-Fri 0730 until 1630) while weekends you pay. "Not that much will come back from that". "My parents couldn't afford that, how can others", "what about those who do after school clubs/weekend events". All valid points but at this rate, littke Joey might not have the bus route to get there. Now, because of this you may be thinking "oh but that'll just make numbers drop more". In the short term, yes possibly. However, what if the reduction in the more problematic element of the younger population actually increases the adult numbers? It's all very hit and miss and it's and buts BUT I still think it needs looking at in a serious way. More so in today's climate I totally agree, I've said on here before that free travel should be abolished and the same criteria as in the rest of the country should apply regarding travel for educational purposes. Two of my own grandchildren currently benefit from free travel but I can see the bigger picture and I'd also scrap free travel for over 60's inline with the rest of the country, even though I'll qualify for it myself in a few years, they are luxuries that just cannot be justified in the current climate. I think you're spot in that there will initially be a sharp drop in usage (but not in revenue!) but in the long term it will encourage more fare paying adults onto buses, I wouldn't mind a pound for every time I've heard how "you can't get on buses round here in the morning because they're packed with school kids". |
|
|
|
Post by kmkcheng on Mar 6, 2018 17:37:42 GMT
It's been a while since the cuts have started to take a hold but the more i think about it, The more I think that bringing back child fares is an option. Firstly I'm not saying withdraw free travel. A way of means test COULD be introduced for those that do need it. However, I see some points from this. First, I can see the negative comments already. Yes they're all valid but the that situation was present 10, 20, 30 years ago. A half rate (50-70p) could be introduced (bus ride or sweets, that could be the choice 😂😂). School times stay free (Mon-Fri 0730 until 1630) while weekends you pay. "Not that much will come back from that". "My parents couldn't afford that, how can others", "what about those who do after school clubs/weekend events". All valid points but at this rate, littke Joey might not have the bus route to get there. Now, because of this you may be thinking "oh but that'll just make numbers drop more". In the short term, yes possibly. However, what if the reduction in the more problematic element of the younger population actually increases the adult numbers? It's all very hit and miss and it's and buts BUT I still think it needs looking at in a serious way. More so in today's climate I totally agree, I've said on here before that free travel should be abolished and the same criteria as in the rest of the country should apply regarding travel for educational purposes. Two of my own grandchildren currently benefit from free travel but I can see the bigger picture and I'd also scrap free travel for over 60's inline with the rest of the country, even though I'll qualify for it myself in a few years, they are luxuries that just cannot be justified in the current climate. I think you're spot in that there will initially be a sharp drop in usage (but not in revenue!) but in the long term it will encourage more fare paying adults onto buses, I wouldn't mind a pound for every time I've heard how "you can't get on buses round here in the morning because they're packed with school kids". Free travel for school kids in my neck of the woods at Bushey and Watford is extremely annoying as the 142 and 258 are packed full of Herts kids going to herts schools getting free travel just because they happen to live along a tfl route whilst other kids in herts having to pay for travel to school as they don’t happen to live along a tfl route |
|
|
|
Post by Red Dragon on Mar 6, 2018 18:02:49 GMT
It's been a while since the cuts have started to take a hold but the more i think about it, The more I think that bringing back child fares is an option. Firstly I'm not saying withdraw free travel. A way of means test COULD be introduced for those that do need it. However, I see some points from this. First, I can see the negative comments already. Yes they're all valid but the that situation was present 10, 20, 30 years ago. A half rate (50-70p) could be introduced (bus ride or sweets, that could be the choice 😂😂). School times stay free (Mon-Fri 0730 until 1630) while weekends you pay. "Not that much will come back from that". "My parents couldn't afford that, how can others", "what about those who do after school clubs/weekend events". All valid points but at this rate, littke Joey might not have the bus route to get there. Now, because of this you may be thinking "oh but that'll just make numbers drop more". In the short term, yes possibly. However, what if the reduction in the more problematic element of the younger population actually increases the adult numbers? It's all very hit and miss and it's and buts BUT I still think it needs looking at in a serious way. More so in today's climate What about a token system where each student gets two hopper fares a school day? |
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Mar 6, 2018 18:12:12 GMT
It's been a while since the cuts have started to take a hold but the more i think about it, The more I think that bringing back child fares is an option. Firstly I'm not saying withdraw free travel. A way of means test COULD be introduced for those that do need it. However, I see some points from this. First, I can see the negative comments already. Yes they're all valid but the that situation was present 10, 20, 30 years ago. A half rate (50-70p) could be introduced (bus ride or sweets, that could be the choice 😂😂). School times stay free (Mon-Fri 0730 until 1630) while weekends you pay. "Not that much will come back from that". "My parents couldn't afford that, how can others", "what about those who do after school clubs/weekend events". All valid points but at this rate, littke Joey might not have the bus route to get there. Now, because of this you may be thinking "oh but that'll just make numbers drop more". In the short term, yes possibly. However, what if the reduction in the more problematic element of the younger population actually increases the adult numbers? It's all very hit and miss and it's and buts BUT I still think it needs looking at in a serious way. More so in today's climate What about a token system where each student gets two hopper fares a school day? Losing any passenger that does not pay a fare at peak times is no loss to the transport system ... more a plus as it might attract fare paying passengers. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Dragon on Mar 6, 2018 18:31:36 GMT
What about a token system where each student gets two hopper fares a school day? Losing any passenger that does not pay a fare at peak times is no loss to the transport system ... more a plus as it might attract fare paying passengers. However we have to strike a balance, in terms of getting kids used to getting the bus rather than reaching for the car keys. We also want to ensure that congestion doesn't get any worse, which could slow down the fare-paying passengers' journeys. |
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Mar 6, 2018 18:52:50 GMT
Losing any passenger that does not pay a fare at peak times is no loss to the transport system ... more a plus as it might attract fare paying passengers. However we have to strike a balance, in terms of getting kids used to getting the bus rather than reaching for the car keys. We also want to ensure that congestion doesn't get any worse, which could slow down the fare-paying passengers' journeys. And what of any of those points would change if they had to pay 50/75p? None of those points would be affected ... just make the Tfl balance sheet a little healthier. As previous poster says create a an anomaly in border areas where some kids travel free some don't |
|
)
