|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jan 22, 2018 9:20:14 GMT
I didn't know that about the 68 back in 1994. As the 68 had run as one I guess there was a feeling back then that 2 routes were not needed on the stretch.
|
|
|
|
Post by bengady3 on Jan 22, 2018 9:55:51 GMT
Route 40 - Reduce to every 10 mins, while keeping the 8 mins during peaks, increase the Sunday service to every 15 mins. Route 176 - Withdrawn between Forest Hill and Penge to improve reliability. (Covered by Routes 122 and 197) Route 185 - reduce to every 10 mins, but utilising the spare PVR to increase the 176 to every 8 minutes off-peak. Route 12 - Reduced to every 6/7 minutes, however increase the 197 to every 10 minutes (except evenings) to replace some of the lost services between Peckham and Dulwich Library, along with my proposal to withdraw the 176 past Forest Hill. Route 68 - revised to terminate at Herne Hill with the 468 taking the strain between Herne Hill and West Norwood. Route 356 - Reduced to every 30 mins off-peak except during school open and close to every 20 mins as now. Route 432 - revised to terminate at Crystal Palace. 157 and 358 would still be sufficient between Anerley and Crystal Palace. Route 450 - Withdrawn between Lower Sydenham Sainsbury's and Sydenham Cobbs Corner. Route 202 from Cobbs and Route 194 from Sydenham Road (both deckers) would still provide a service towards Bell Green. New stand space would be required at Cobbs. Route 42 - Withdrawn between East Dulwich Sainsbury's and Camberwell Green. Replaced by a re-routed 484 between Denmark Hill and East Dulwich Goose Green via North Dulwich which I'd increase to every 10 mins (cut recently to 12 mins). Even after a year of the 42, it still mainly carries air on the final part of the route. Another option would be to re-route the 40 between East Dulwich Goose Green and Denmark Hill via the 42 and having the 484 go into East Dulwich Sainsbury's alongside the P13 on it's way to Camberwell. I disagree on some of your ideas. I would leave the 176 as it is because the 197 would struggle if it wasn't for that route. If there was anything I would maybe reduce the 176 frequency slightly. Route 68 idea would be bad because It helps the 468 along that route a lot during the peaks as well. The 450 carries quite a lot of people between Sydenham and Lower Sydenham so I don't know about your idea |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jan 22, 2018 10:16:57 GMT
Route 40 - Reduce to every 10 mins, while keeping the 8 mins during peaks, increase the Sunday service to every 15 mins. Route 176 - Withdrawn between Forest Hill and Penge to improve reliability. (Covered by Routes 122 and 197) Route 185 - reduce to every 10 mins, but utilising the spare PVR to increase the 176 to every 8 minutes off-peak. Route 12 - Reduced to every 6/7 minutes, however increase the 197 to every 10 minutes (except evenings) to replace some of the lost services between Peckham and Dulwich Library, along with my proposal to withdraw the 176 past Forest Hill. Route 68 - revised to terminate at Herne Hill with the 468 taking the strain between Herne Hill and West Norwood. Route 356 - Reduced to every 30 mins off-peak except during school open and close to every 20 mins as now. Route 432 - revised to terminate at Crystal Palace. 157 and 358 would still be sufficient between Anerley and Crystal Palace. Route 450 - Withdrawn between Lower Sydenham Sainsbury's and Sydenham Cobbs Corner. Route 202 from Cobbs and Route 194 from Sydenham Road (both deckers) would still provide a service towards Bell Green. New stand space would be required at Cobbs. Route 42 - Withdrawn between East Dulwich Sainsbury's and Camberwell Green. Replaced by a re-routed 484 between Denmark Hill and East Dulwich Goose Green via North Dulwich which I'd increase to every 10 mins (cut recently to 12 mins). Even after a year of the 42, it still mainly carries air on the final part of the route. Another option would be to re-route the 40 between East Dulwich Goose Green and Denmark Hill via the 42 and having the 484 go into East Dulwich Sainsbury's alongside the P13 on it's way to Camberwell. I disagree on some of your ideas. I would leave the 176 as it is because the 197 would struggle if it wasn't for that route. If there was anything I would maybe reduce the 176 frequency slightly. Route 68 idea would be bad because It helps the 468 along that route a lot during the peaks as well. The 450 carries quite a lot of people between Sydenham and Lower Sydenham so I don't know about your idea I think the 176 should have been left at 8bph between TCR and Forest Hill with 4bph to Penge. I can't see why both the 68 and 468 are needed between Herne Hill and West Norwood, there is also the 196 and 322 over that section. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jan 22, 2018 10:42:52 GMT
I disagree on some of your ideas. I would leave the 176 as it is because the 197 would struggle if it wasn't for that route. If there was anything I would maybe reduce the 176 frequency slightly. Route 68 idea would be bad because It helps the 468 along that route a lot during the peaks as well. The 450 carries quite a lot of people between Sydenham and Lower Sydenham so I don't know about your idea I think the 176 should have been left at 8bph between TCR and Forest Hill with 4bph to Penge. I can't see why both the 68 and 468 are needed between Herne Hill and West Norwood, there is also the 196 and 322 over that section. Because the 68 is used and helps relieve the 196 & 468 whilst the 322 could do with longer buses given its heavy loadings. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jan 22, 2018 10:46:14 GMT
Route 40 - Reduce to every 10 mins, while keeping the 8 mins during peaks, increase the Sunday service to every 15 mins. Route 176 - Withdrawn between Forest Hill and Penge to improve reliability. (Covered by Routes 122 and 197) Route 185 - reduce to every 10 mins, but utilising the spare PVR to increase the 176 to every 8 minutes off-peak. Route 12 - Reduced to every 6/7 minutes, however increase the 197 to every 10 minutes (except evenings) to replace some of the lost services between Peckham and Dulwich Library, along with my proposal to withdraw the 176 past Forest Hill. Route 68 - revised to terminate at Herne Hill with the 468 taking the strain between Herne Hill and West Norwood. Route 356 - Reduced to every 30 mins off-peak except during school open and close to every 20 mins as now. Route 432 - revised to terminate at Crystal Palace. 157 and 358 would still be sufficient between Anerley and Crystal Palace. Route 450 - Withdrawn between Lower Sydenham Sainsbury's and Sydenham Cobbs Corner. Route 202 from Cobbs and Route 194 from Sydenham Road (both deckers) would still provide a service towards Bell Green. New stand space would be required at Cobbs. Route 42 - Withdrawn between East Dulwich Sainsbury's and Camberwell Green. Replaced by a re-routed 484 between Denmark Hill and East Dulwich Goose Green via North Dulwich which I'd increase to every 10 mins (cut recently to 12 mins). Even after a year of the 42, it still mainly carries air on the final part of the route. Another option would be to re-route the 40 between East Dulwich Goose Green and Denmark Hill via the 42 and having the 484 go into East Dulwich Sainsbury's alongside the P13 on it's way to Camberwell. I wouldn't disagree with most of these although I'm not sure about reducing the 12 which still seems quite busy. The 249 and 432 were only extended to Anerley because of the lack of stand space at Crystal Palace rather than for any useful purpose and they now don't serve the bus station towards Clapham Common/Brixton making interchange more difficult. The 157 and 358 certainly are more than adequate to Anerley. Maybe a bit drastic but I think the 194 could be possibly withdrawn between Elmers End and Lower Sydenham, it's covered by the 358,75 and 202. The 68 was originally intended to be Euston to Herne Hill although it ended up going to Norwood Garage probably just for operational convenience? Whatever reason the 249 & 432 were extended for, the link they provide crossing through Crystal Palace is very useful given how everything bar them & the 450 just terminates there and should be left alone. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2018 10:46:18 GMT
I’m interested in seeing how well the frequency cut on the 281 goes. Together with the cut on the 285 , the combined section between Teddington and Kingston has seen a drop of 2.5 buses per hour ( now 11 buses per hour was about 14)
Prior to DT conversion on the 285 this section had only 9 buses per hour.
(Prior to LRT tendering the 281 ran every 8 mins in Saturday shopping hours)
So it’s not that far off late 1980 levels, however back then there wasn’t the 481 & X26 albeit they take a different route between the two towns. The 726 used to run via Hampton Court. And Sandy Lane had Westlink’s infrequent BL operated 592.
There has been no increase in train frequency at all either.
When DT’s converted the 285, it ran every 10 mins as far as Feltham, with these short journeys extended to Hatton Cross during peak hours only.
The local press were always quite quick to pick up bus issues. I haven’t seen any articles on these cuts (yet).
I personally think TfL should have not reduced the 281. An alternative could have been to reduce the 406 & 418 back to two buses per hour each which would have cut two buses per hour between Tolworth and Kingston. It would have left Surbiton Stn stops unaffected ( these stops get very busy with students and people arriving in Surbiton via train travelling to Kingston which is quicker from Waterloo than getting an all stations train to Kingston)
I would like to think that once TfL are through wielding their axe, some sort of review will take place. Passenger numbers v bus seats should see where they’ve cut too far, and perhaps where cuts could still be made.
Anecdotally, the [N]14’s I saw towards Putney on Sunday morning were very busy arriving at Fulham Broadway and then had crowds to collect there. Here I think they’ve balanced it very finely. As another poster commented, these buses are now busy to the point I recall night buses being in their hey day. This can really only be a good thing. I just hope people aren’t put off by waiting a bit longer and then having to sit next to someone upstairs at the back of the bus ( not always an attractive option when everyone on board is as drunk as a skunk, or high)
|
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jan 22, 2018 10:49:29 GMT
I wouldn't disagree with most of these although I'm not sure about reducing the 12 which still seems quite busy. The 249 and 432 were only extended to Anerley because of the lack of stand space at Crystal Palace rather than for any useful purpose and they now don't serve the bus station towards Clapham Common/Brixton making interchange more difficult. The 157 and 358 certainly are more than adequate to Anerley. Maybe a bit drastic but I think the 194 could be possibly withdrawn between Elmers End and Lower Sydenham, it's covered by the 358,75 and 202. The 68 was originally intended to be Euston to Herne Hill although it ended up going to Norwood Garage probably just for operational convenience? Whatever reason the 249 & 432 were extended for, the link they provide crossing through Crystal Palace is very useful given how everything bar them & the 450 just terminates there and should be left alone. Quite honestly the 249 and 432 carry little more than fresh air up and down Anerley Hill, there is just no justification for four routes on that section. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2018 11:20:14 GMT
I wouldn't disagree with most of these although I'm not sure about reducing the 12 which still seems quite busy. The 249 and 432 were only extended to Anerley because of the lack of stand space at Crystal Palace rather than for any useful purpose and they now don't serve the bus station towards Clapham Common/Brixton making interchange more difficult. The 157 and 358 certainly are more than adequate to Anerley. Maybe a bit drastic but I think the 194 could be possibly withdrawn between Elmers End and Lower Sydenham, it's covered by the 358,75 and 202. The 68 was originally intended to be Euston to Herne Hill although it ended up going to Norwood Garage probably just for operational convenience? Whatever reason the 249 & 432 were extended for, the link they provide crossing through Crystal Palace is very useful given how everything bar them & the 450 just terminates there and should be left alone. The 249 & 432 are quite well used between Anerley and Crystal Palace actually. Don’t forget it links Anerley Station itself and serves the high density housing in the Groves Estate in Penge. But whether both are needed, well I would like to keep both but perhaps that is too much. There is a new big development being built off William Booth Rd. Now whether one of these routes could terminate on that new complex would be worth considering. I wouldn’t chop the Penge section of the 176 either, but would extend it to Anerley Stn taking up the space vacated by either the 249 or 432. 194 withdraw it between Penge & L Sydenham but extend to Crystal Palace via 358. I would then withdraw the 358 between Beckenham Junc and Crystal Palace. cut the 227 off peak to every 10 mins and to every 15 mins Sunday shopping hours. Reduce 356 to every 30mins |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jan 22, 2018 11:26:17 GMT
Whatever reason the 249 & 432 were extended for, the link they provide crossing through Crystal Palace is very useful given how everything bar them & the 450 just terminates there and should be left alone. Quite honestly the 249 and 432 carry little more than fresh air up and down Anerley Hill, there is just no justification for four routes on that section. They've only just come from Anerley - a good link is not always determined by having buses rammed to death and after all, not every bus right from the terminus is full of people. There is demand to & from Anerley across Crystal Palace on both routes. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jan 22, 2018 11:29:34 GMT
Whatever reason the 249 & 432 were extended for, the link they provide crossing through Crystal Palace is very useful given how everything bar them & the 450 just terminates there and should be left alone. The 249 & 432 are quite well used between Anerley and Crystal Palace actually. Don’t forget it links Anerley Station itself and serves the high density housing in the Groves Estate in Penge. But whether both are needed, well I would like to keep both but perhaps that is too much. There is a new big development being built off William Booth Rd. Now whether one of these routes could terminate on that new complex would be worth considering. I wouldn’t chop the Penge section of the 176 either, but would extend it to Anerley Stn taking up the space vacated by either the 249 or 432. 194 withdraw it between Penge & L Sydenham but extend to Crystal Palace via 358. I would then withdraw the 358 between Beckenham Junc and Crystal Palace. cut the 227 off peak to every 10 mins and to every 15 mins Sunday shopping hours. Reduce 356 to every 30mins Exactly, when I'm generally coming from that direction, I prefer to grab the 432 and there's generally a small crowd waiting at Anerley for either the 249 or 432 whilst very few are interested in the 157 or 358. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jan 22, 2018 11:30:26 GMT
Whatever reason the 249 & 432 were extended for, the link they provide crossing through Crystal Palace is very useful given how everything bar them & the 450 just terminates there and should be left alone. The 249 & 432 are quite well used between Anerley and Crystal Palace actually. Don’t forget it links Anerley Station itself and serves the high density housing in the Groves Estate in Penge. But whether both are needed, well I would like to keep both but perhaps that is too much. There is a new big development being built off William Booth Rd. Now whether one of these routes could terminate on that new complex would be worth considering. I wouldn’t chop the Penge section of the 176 either, but would extend it to Anerley Stn taking up the space vacated by either the 249 or 432. 194 withdraw it between Penge & L Sydenham but extend to Crystal Palace via 358. I would then withdraw the 358 between Beckenham Junc and Crystal Palace. cut the 227 off peak to every 10 mins and to every 15 mins Sunday shopping hours. Reduce 356 to every 30mins Extending the 176 to Anerley Stn is a good call, the current stand in Penge isn't ideal and I would extend the N176 to Croydon over the 197 route. I think your 194/358 idea has some merit too. Another idea I had was to leave the 432 going to Anerley and extend it beyond there replacing the 312 route to Croydon, with the 157 rerouted via South Norwood Hill and Church Road creating some new links. |
|
|
|
Post by busman on Jan 22, 2018 12:35:59 GMT
1. Reduce PVR by 1 on every route with a peak headway of less than 9 minutes.
2. Bring back short workings for newly tendered routes where demand differs greatly at each end of the route. For example route 282 could be set at every 10 minutes between Ealing Hospital and Eastcote and every 20 minutes through to Mount Vernon. In the early evenings the frequency could be set at 15mins and 30mins, with the final 2 hours of service running the full length of the route at every 30 mins. This would lower PVR’s and excess capacity. It would also require operators to blind their buses properly (**GAL ahem**)
3. Make people touch out of buses for the correct fare. The advantages and opportunities are already covered in other posts. Done in conjunction with scrapping the hopper fare and fare cap.
4. Night tube frequencies halved with immediate effect. Public put on notice to “use it or lose it”. Go ahead with complete axing a year down the line regardless of what happens 😈
5. Introduce daytime red routes along key bus lanes and busy single lane sections of the road. Camera enforcement on buses and on the street to issues fines to offending vehicles. This will help keep buses moving - along with an idea already suggested to cut padding out of existing timetables.
6. All London buses run at a minimum of every 30 minutes. Anything less frequent is axed. The exception being mobility bus routes.
7. Lift 20mph speed restrictions on main roads throughout London and trial free WiFi on longer commuter routes into zone 1. Year long pilot on routes 18, 25, 36 and 53. Expand to other routes if it has an financially significant impact on ridership. If no impact, then look at cutting these routes and other long distance ones back to the edge of Z1.
|
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jan 22, 2018 13:07:10 GMT
1. Reduce PVR by 1 on every route with a peak headway of less than 9 minutes. 2. Bring back short workings for newly tendered routes where demand differs greatly at each end of the route. For example route 282 could be set at every 10 minutes between Ealing Hospital and Eastcote and every 20 minutes through to Mount Vernon. In the early evenings the frequency could be set at 15mins and 30mins, with the final 2 hours of service running the full length of the route at every 30 mins. This would lower PVR’s and excess capacity. It would also require operators to blind their buses properly (**GAL ahem**) 3. Make people touch out of buses for the correct fare. The advantages are opportunities are already covered in other posts. Done in conjunction with scrapping the hopper fare and fare cap. 4. Night tube frequencies halved with immediate effect. Public put on notice to “use it or lose it”. Go ahead with complete axing a year down the line regardless of what happens 😈 5. Introduce daytime red routes along key bus lanes and busy single lane sections of the road. Camera enforcement on buses and on the street to issues fines to offending vehicles. This will help keep buses moving - along with an idea already suggested to cut padding out of existing timetables. 6. All London buses run at a minimum of every 30 minutes. Anything less frequent is axed. The exception being mobility bus routes. 7. Lift 20mph speed restrictions on main roads throughout London and trial free WiFi on longer commuter routes into zone 1. Year long pilot on routes 18, 25, 36 and 53. Expand to other routes if it has an financially significant impact on ridership. If no impact, then look at cutting these routes and other long distance ones back to the edge of Z1. 1. Disagree, there are many routes that don't justify reductions in fact some justify an increase. 2. Agree about short workings and although the 282 isn't a route I see very often your proposal sounds good to me. 3. Disagree, it would be open to abuse with people getting on and touching in and then touching out as they pass the rear door and staying on board. There would be massive scrums at busy stops with people trying to get to the reader to touch out causing no end of delays. 4. Disagree, I think the night tube is a big positive, shame it can't run 7 nights a week, although possibly make reductions on any poorly used sections. 5. Yes and no, some parking provision is essential for delivery vehicles and such like. 6. Disagree, I wouldn't want to see routes like the 146 and R8 axed. 7. I'm open minded about 20mph speed limits, they are good in some areas but not in others. I certainly think wi-fi and USB charging points should be introduced as standard on all public transport. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 22, 2018 13:09:02 GMT
Exactly, when I'm generally coming from that direction, I prefer to grab the 432 and there's generally a small crowd waiting at Anerley for either the 249 or 432 whilst very few are interested in the 157 or 358. In my very limited experience I too have seen and been part of the Anerley crowd waiting for a cross Crystal Palace bus. As you say the buses are not ram jammed full from there but people do value the facility. The overlap with other routes also allows same stop interchange with the 410, 358 and 157 further along the road. Crystal Palace isn't ideal for interchange especially as several routes pick up on the Parade despite standing in the bus station but it's far from being the worst interchange in London. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jan 22, 2018 13:40:34 GMT
Exactly, when I'm generally coming from that direction, I prefer to grab the 432 and there's generally a small crowd waiting at Anerley for either the 249 or 432 whilst very few are interested in the 157 or 358. In my very limited experience I too have seen and been part of the Anerley crowd waiting for a cross Crystal Palace bus. As you say the buses are not ram jammed full from there but people do value the facility. The overlap with other routes also allows same stop interchange with the 410, 358 and 157 further along the road. Crystal Palace isn't ideal for interchange especially as several routes pick up on the Parade despite standing in the bus station but it's far from being the worst interchange in London. Ironically one of the complaints about interchange at Crystal Palace is that the 249 and 432 don't serve the bus station. Anyway it is evident that four routes, five if we include the 410, up and down Anerley Hill is excessive so people can decide for themselves which route or routes they would rather see go if it comes to the crunch. |
|
