|
|
Post by redbus on Nov 15, 2018 20:44:04 GMT
What a shameful situation........... This is similar to the 25 where >50% opposed but it still is planned to be cut back to the middle of nowhere (aka Holborn Circus) Do you honestly expect the majority of people to be in favour of any cut(s) announced? Plus the is at old adage, that protesters always shout louder than those who agree. I think it is a little more complicated. First of all as I am reminded it is a consultation not a referendum, so in a sense it doesn't mater how many people object, TfL can still progress. Having said that I think it is good to properly find out what people really think and to what extent the changes are supported. Another factor is that people aren't given the full picture and they are forced to look at any cuts in isolation, rather than the whole bigger picture. |
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Nov 15, 2018 20:48:16 GMT
Do you honestly expect the majority of people to be in favour of any cut(s) announced? Plus the is at old adage, that protesters always shout louder than those who agree. I think it is a little more complicated. First of all as I am reminded it is a consultation not a referendum, so in a sense it doesn't mater how many people object, TfL can still progress. Having said that I think it is good to properly find out what people really think and to what extent the changes are supported. Another factor is that people aren't given the full picture and they are forced to look at any cuts in isolation, rather than the whole bigger picture. OK ... so at what percentage to you think people should be listened to ... when you know they are anti cuts, but there is no money? |
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Nov 15, 2018 21:28:43 GMT
I think it is a little more complicated. First of all as I am reminded it is a consultation not a referendum, so in a sense it doesn't mater how many people object, TfL can still progress. Having said that I think it is good to properly find out what people really think and to what extent the changes are supported. Another factor is that people aren't given the full picture and they are forced to look at any cuts in isolation, rather than the whole bigger picture. OK ... so at what percentage to you think people should be listened to ... when you know they are anti cuts, but there is no money? The consultation is a useful valve for people to provide their opinions. No one including TfL are always right, and perhaps improvements to whatever is being proposed might be made. I disagree that there is no money, even if you accept the current budgets there are choices how you spend that money so it comes down to priorities. I am not suggesting it's a question of who shouts loudest, but that people should be involved in those priorities. I also think people should be given real choices, eg higher bus fares and no cuts or the situation we have today, although that is of course beyond a single bus consultation. So I think it is more complicated than a specified percentage and arguably that's partly why it's a consultation not a referendum. |
|
|
|
Post by riverside on Nov 18, 2018 19:00:52 GMT
This consultation report fills me with despair for the future of the bus network. At the start of September I started a thread commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Reshaping Plan and drawing comparisons with looming bus cuts. Once again I see shades of 1968 and once again I feel that the proposals are for the economic benefit of the transport authority rather than the passenger. A crucial difference between 1968 and 2018 is that fifty years ago London Transport was very upfront about what it wanted to achieve and why. All their public relations was focussed on the need to redesign the bus network so as to reduce costs. In 2018 we blatantly have important timeservers at TfL(when rumbled about cuts to Central London services), blatantly telling untruths to camera on BBC London News and denying any links to cost cutting.
In 1968 London Transport clearly identified transport hubs/interchanges where passengers would be forced to change from bus to bus or tube. Turnpike Lane and Walthamstow were probably the biggest example. The 217/217A and 231 were all withdrawn between Alexandra Park and Turnpike Lane. Passengers wishing to make a cross Turnpike Lane journey would in future be forced onto the W2. Many years later LT saw sense and the 144 was extended west of Turnpike Lane so that long established passenger flows could be moved more smoothly.
The 27 changes are one of the final parts of the jigsaw to make Hammersmith such a hub. Hammersmith always had terminating services but they were complemented by a multitude of through services on routes that had well established passenger flows. The structural weaknesses of Hammersmith Bridge forced TfL to forensically examine services from Barnes so that now apart from the 72 all routes terminate northbound at Hammersmith. The withdrawal of the 27 between Hammersmith and Chiswick(Business Park) coupled with the proposed 218/306/391 proposals will mean the total severing of W/E,E/W services,(apart from the night service on the N9). When the 27 travels through Hammersmith Bus Station it does not completely empty out, usually there are a reasonable number of continuing passengers. Now all passengers wanting to travel by public transport W to E or vice versa will be forced onto the tube if they want a seamless journey.
Leon Daniels used to always say that TfL look at passenger flows rather than individual routes but the planning of services is more complex than that. If you just examine passenger flows on a particular section of the network and ignore information about individual routes then the resulting proposals will not be to the benefit of passengers. Although in Inner London for all intents and purposes Hammersmith is becoming a 'border' area for passengers where they are expected to get off the 'central' buses and change to the 'suburban' services. TfL have identified excess capacity between Chiswick and Hammersmith which they want to reduce. I get that, but you should not be trying to deal with that issue by planning to completely sever long established W/E passenger flows that have existed for years and continue to exist. Individual route information cannot just be discarded because it does not fit in with the preconceived outcome.
Another thing that deeply concerns me is the dogmatic approach TfL take to route planning. Yes,you should make the network as simple to understand as possible for passengers, but this should not be at the expense of introducing considerable disbenefits to them. As part of stakeholder engagement many respondents were quite prepared to listen to TfL's need to reduce surplus capacity on the Chiswick/Hammersmith corridor and so put forward a suggestion to meet them halfway. The compromise would be for alternate buses on the 27 to terminate at Hammersmith. This would go some way to help TfL to reduce costs, whilst at the same time provide an element of choice for passengers who did not wish to be forced to interchange at Hammersmith. Historically the passenger suggestion was more in line with passenger flows than that of TfL. For a large part of my life in the Monday to Friday offpeak the 27 ran from Archway to Hammersmith with alternate buses travelling on to Richmond. At weekends the tourist and shopping flows meant that more through buses reached Richmond/Teddington. I don't remember this causing too many problems for passengers. Unfortunately at present TfL are not in listening mode and as the suggestion would not meet the cost saving taget the planners were working towards, it is dismissed out of hand.
Like many on here I am depressed by the charade of consultation, which in its present form just makes passengers cynical. I am well aware that a consultation is not a referendum, but why go through all the time and expense of holding a consultation if you can be so dismissive of a 72% against figure. In 1968 LT just planned, issued their proposals, posted them at bus stops/sides of buses, placed adverts in local papers and if there were to be new OPO buses introduced place some of them at strategic locations for passengers to see. Passengers could comment but basically the proposals were going ahead. Nowadays there is the illusion of listening on the part of TfL, but if they don't like what they are hearing then they just cover their ears.
Generally I see passenger numbers continue to decline as more forced interchanges are foisted upon them, bearing in mind that you are not guaranteed to get to the interchange as the dreaded 'This bus terminates here' jingle might be played and so TfL's new 2 bus journey in fact becomes a 3 bus journey. Our climate, despite the wonderful 2018 is not so clement that waiting at bus stops is a pleasurable experience. Many age groups will continue to migrate to cycling, walking and Uber, when buses increasingly do not take them to where they want to go, and if they do it is often a tediously slow journey that can be suddenly truncated at any moment.
If you look at the geography of the borough of Hammesmith and Fulham and the surrounding area it is fairly uniform. It mainly consists of densely packed streets of terraced houses and estates. The only significant area of open space is Wormwood Scrubs to the north. Surely the geographical reality of the area should be reflected in the nature of the bus network provided by TfL. So why do TfL provide reasonable N/S links, but feel that in the future W/E links are superfluous. I suppose the answer is that the Marie Antoinette of TfL thinks that the W/E passengers can 'eat cake on the tube'.
Shame also on Hammersmith and Fulham Council for not kicking up more of a stink. Maybe they have been dazzled by the new sightseeing tour of the King Street/Glenthorne Road one way system that Londoners and overseas tourist alike will be able to do as the 27 takes them to the Glenthorne Road terminus. They might be having second thoughts now. TfL planned to terminate the 27 at the erstwhile stand in Hammersmith Grove. This section of Hammersmith Grove has now been considerably narrowed with the provision of planters and benches for the use of locals as part of public realm improvements. I don't think they are going to be happy about buses regularly negotiating this area. I wouldn't be surprised if they start lobbying for the 27 to run down to the Brook Green stand.
Sadly there is a clear lack of expertise at the top of London Buses. They have got difficult decisions to make, but sadly at present we do not seem to have the calibre of mananagement that is up to the task in hand.
|
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Nov 18, 2018 22:43:40 GMT
This consultation report fills me with despair for the future of the bus network. At the start of September I started a thread commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Reshaping Plan and drawing comparisons with looming bus cuts. Once again I see shades of 1968 and once again I feel that the proposals are for the economic benefit of the transport authority rather than the passenger. A crucial difference between 1968 and 2018 is that fifty years ago London Transport was very upfront about what it wanted to achieve and why. All their public relations was focussed on the need to redesign the bus network so as to reduce costs. In 2018 we blatantly have important timeservers at TfL(when rumbled about cuts to Central London services), blatantly telling untruths to camera on BBC London News and denying any links to cost cutting. In 1968 London Transport clearly identified transport hubs/interchanges where passengers would be forced to change from bus to bus or tube. Turnpike Lane and Walthamstow were probably the biggest example. The 217/217A and 231 were all withdrawn between Alexandra Park and Turnpike Lane. Passengers wishing to make a cross Turnpike Lane journey would in future be forced onto the W2. Many years later LT saw sense and the 144 was extended west of Turnpike Lane so that long established passenger flows could be moved more smoothly. The 27 changes are one of the final parts of the jigsaw to make Hammersmith such a hub. Hammersmith always had terminating services but they were complemented by a multitude of through services on routes that had well established passenger flows. The structural weaknesses of Hammersmith Bridge forced TfL to forensically examine services from Barnes so that now apart from the 72 all routes terminate northbound at Hammersmith. The withdrawal of the 27 between Hammersmith and Chiswick(Business Park) coupled with the proposed 218/306/391 proposals will mean the total severing of W/E,E/W services,(apart from the night service on the N9). When the 27 travels through Hammersmith Bus Station it does not completely empty out, usually there are a reasonable number of continuing passengers. Now all passengers wanting to travel by public transport W to E or vice versa will be forced onto the tube if they want a seamless journey. Leon Daniels used to always say that TfL look at passenger flows rather than individual routes but the planning of services is more complex than that. If you just examine passenger flows on a particular section of the network and ignore information about individual routes then the resulting proposals will not be to the benefit of passengers. Although in Inner London for all intents and purposes Hammersmith is becoming a 'border' area for passengers where they are expected to get off the 'central' buses and change to the 'suburban' services. TfL have identified excess capacity between Chiswick and Hammersmith which they want to reduce. I get that, but you should not be trying to deal with that issue by planning to completely sever long established W/E passenger flows that have existed for years and continue to exist. Individual route information cannot just be discarded because it does not fit in with the preconceived outcome. Another thing that deeply concerns me is the dogmatic approach TfL take to route planning. Yes,you should make the network as simple to understand as possible for passengers, but this should not be at the expense of introducing considerable disbenefits to them. As part of stakeholder engagement many respondents were quite prepared to listen to TfL's need to reduce surplus capacity on the Chiswick/Hammersmith corridor and so put forward a suggestion to meet them halfway. The compromise would be for alternate buses on the 27 to terminate at Hammersmith. This would go some way to help TfL to reduce costs, whilst at the same time provide an element of choice for passengers who did not wish to be forced to interchange at Hammersmith. Historically the passenger suggestion was more in line with passenger flows than that of TfL. For a large part of my life in the Monday to Friday offpeak the 27 ran from Archway to Hammersmith with alternate buses travelling on to Richmond. At weekends the tourist and shopping flows meant that more through buses reached Richmond/Teddington. I don't remember this causing too many problems for passengers. Unfortunately at present TfL are not in listening mode and as the suggestion would not meet the cost saving taget the planners were working towards, it is dismissed out of hand. Like many on here I am depressed by the charade of consultation, which in its present form just makes passengers cynical. I am well aware that a consultation is not a referendum, but why go through all the time and expense of holding a consultation if you can be so dismissive of a 72% against figure. In 1968 LT just planned, issued their proposals, posted them at bus stops/sides of buses, placed adverts in local papers and if there were to be new OPO buses introduced place some of them at strategic locations for passengers to see. Passengers could comment but basically the proposals were going ahead. Nowadays there is the illusion of listening on the part of TfL, but if they don't like what they are hearing then they just cover their ears. Generally I see passenger numbers continue to decline as more forced interchanges are foisted upon them, bearing in mind that you are not guaranteed to get to the interchange as the dreaded 'This bus terminates here' jingle might be played and so TfL's new 2 bus journey in fact becomes a 3 bus journey. Our climate, despite the wonderful 2018 is not so clement that waiting at bus stops is a pleasurable experience. Many age groups will continue to migrate to cycling, walking and Uber, when buses increasingly do not take them to where they want to go, and if they do it is often a tediously slow journey that can be suddenly truncated at any moment. If you look at the geography of the borough of Hammesmith and Fulham and the surrounding area it is fairly uniform. It mainly consists of densely packed streets of terraced houses and estates. The only significant area of open space is Wormwood Scrubs to the north. Surely the geographical reality of the area should be reflected in the nature of the bus network provided by TfL. So why do TfL provide reasonable N/S links, but feel that in the future W/E links are superfluous. I suppose the answer is that the Marie Antoinette of TfL thinks that the W/E passengers can 'eat cake on the tube'. Shame also on Hammersmith and Fulham Council for not kicking up more of a stink. Maybe they have been dazzled by the new sightseeing tour of the King Street/Glenthorne Road one way system that Londoners and overseas tourist alike will be able to do as the 27 takes them to the Glenthorne Road terminus. They might be having second thoughts now. TfL planned to terminate the 27 at the erstwhile stand in Hammersmith Grove. This section of Hammersmith Grove has now been considerably narrowed with the provision of planters and benches for the use of locals as part of public realm improvements. I don't think they are going to be happy about buses regularly negotiating this area. I wouldn't be surprised if they start lobbying for the 27 to run down to the Brook Green stand. Sadly there is a clear lack of expertise at the top of London Buses. They have got difficult decisions to make, but sadly at present we do not seem to have the calibre of mananagement that is up to the task in hand. A very interesting post, which I entirely agree with, although I've no local knowledge of the Chiswick/Hammersmith corridor. Just like to add a couple of points. In 1968, shortening of routes was very much bound up with the introduction of OMO (as OPO was known then) both to cut staff costs but also because of a 7 to 10 per cent crew shortage, particularly among conductors. Given that flat fare operation was confined to the pioneering Red Arrow 500, 'satellite' networks were a huge and bold gamble which, in my estimation, brought mixed results rather than the somewhat negative overview that is ascribed now. Yes, the 36 feet Merlins had their problems, but they were as much to do with junctions not being altered and driver training as mechanical unreliability. The MB was, in LTE's hands, a more reliable bus than its successor. the 33 ft Swift with its underpowered engine. For all its teething problems, the Ealing flat fare network, for instance, although much built on, is still recognisable today, 50 years on! Also, LT were adamant in their planning that interchange hubs like Turnpike Lane and Walthamstow Central should be at purpose-built bus stations, preferably under cover. The fact that so many weren't was not exactly LT's fault, particularly when they weren't controlled by the GLC. Finally, I'm sure there was some expertise at the top and in middle management at LT in 1968, amongst the 'dead wood' that exists in all large organisations. I got immensely frustrated in my short time there, but I knew who cared, who put their back into it, and who was knowledgeable about bus services: unfortunately, there perhaps weren't too many who combined those attributes. I should add, there were some who considered the passenger to be of prime importance, perhaps a darned sight more than in the modern organisation. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 19, 2018 1:32:48 GMT
riverside - an interesting post. I haven't read the consultation report but I'm aware of the conclusion re route 27 and the scale of opposition. I'm not particularly familiar with the Hammersmith network as I only get there occasionally. TfL consult because they have to under the terms of the GLA Act. That obligation is broadly set and the process is for TfL to design and run. I agree it's now descended into farce and the Mayor's promised reform has not materialised. I think I may need to poke my Assembly Member on that issue as she prompted the Mayor to make the commitment for a review but there's been zero follow through that I can see. You know my views about TfL management following their targets and how that all works. Sadly the financial side of things grows worse by the week so it will be pressurising everyone and everything to be even more obsessive about it to the detriment of everything else. I suspect the route 27 decision is very much a live example of that obsession. The other aspect you didn't touch on but is highly relevant is the new unstated policy of TfL to remove bus capacity well in advance of major Cycle Superhighway works. Chiswick High Road is due to get CS9 so it was inevitable that bus movements will be reduced. By making bus travel more awkward it makes cycling more attractive - no doubt a policy objective but an unstated one. The existence of the tube within walking distance of much of Chiswick High Rd / parts of Hammersmith is, as you say, an important factor too. Subtle moves to push people to higher yielding modes with much higher daily caps than the buses are probably another unstated TfL policy too. The lack of candid communication about all of these policies (stated and unstated) working together is not helpful. It means people speculate as I have just done about the motivations of individuals and the "body corporate" of TfL. At some point a number of these things will unravel because they have to and will do so. Someone will be brave enough to speak up and show that there is a variant of "emperor's new clothes" syndrome in action and that it is leading to stupid and damaging decisions. The problem is that we're not quite there yet. I do think the next TfL business plan and the Assembly's scrutiny of it may be crucial. The political atmosphere is starting to heat up as the Mayoral election is barely 18 months away - that's no time at all really and an awful lot can go wrong (or well) in that time. The next year or so for TfL will be crucial and will be hugely influential on the party manifestos for 2020. The main problem for bus users is that the Tories are traditionally utterly clueless on transport generally and wouldn't recognise a bus if it ran them over. It's all about automatic trains on the tube and banning strikes for the Tories and not much else. I do wonder how many Labour AMs are saying really nasty things about TfL's bus plans behind closed doors and when that will erupt on the Mayor's doorstep. The whole road space / Uber / taxi trade thing is another ticking time bomb for all the political parties. It has to be sorted but it's nigh on impossible to do without someone squealing. PS - it was very hard to read your excellent post due to the lack of white space between paras. A few carriage returns between paras would make it much easier to read if you're willing to go back and give it a quick edit. 
|
|
|
|
Post by riverside on Nov 19, 2018 10:07:45 GMT
riverside - an interesting post. I haven't read the consultation report but I'm aware of the conclusion re route 27 and the scale of opposition. I'm not particularly familiar with the Hammersmith network as I only get there occasionally. TfL consult because they have to under the terms of the GLA Act. That obligation is broadly set and the process is for TfL to design and run. I agree it's now descended into farce and the Mayor's promised reform has not materialised. I think I may need to poke my Assembly Member on that issue as she prompted the Mayor to make the commitment for a review but there's been zero follow through that I can see. You know my views about TfL management following their targets and how that all works. Sadly the financial side of things grows worse by the week so it will be pressurising everyone and everything to be even more obsessive about it to the detriment of everything else. I suspect the route 27 decision is very much a live example of that obsession. The other aspect you didn't touch on but is highly relevant is the new unstated policy of TfL to remove bus capacity well in advance of major Cycle Superhighway works. Chiswick High Road is due to get CS9 so it was inevitable that bus movements will be reduced. By making bus travel more awkward it makes cycling more attractive - no doubt a policy objective but an unstated one. The existence of the tube within walking distance of much of Chiswick High Rd / parts of Hammersmith is, as you say, an important factor too. Subtle moves to push people to higher yielding modes with much higher daily caps than the buses are probably another unstated TfL policy too. The lack of candid communication about all of these policies (stated and unstated) working together is not helpful. It means people speculate as I have just done about the motivations of individuals and the "body corporate" of TfL. At some point a number of these things will unravel because they have to and will do so. Someone will be brave enough to speak up and show that there is a variant of "emperor's new clothes" syndrome in action and that it is leading to stupid and damaging decisions. The problem is that we're not quite there yet. I do think the next TfL business plan and the Assembly's scrutiny of it may be crucial. The political atmosphere is starting to heat up as the Mayoral election is barely 18 months away - that's no time at all really and an awful lot can go wrong (or well) in that time. The next year or so for TfL will be crucial and will be hugely influential on the party manifestos for 2020. The main problem for bus users is that the Tories are traditionally utterly clueless on transport generally and wouldn't recognise a bus if it ran them over. It's all about automatic trains on the tube and banning strikes for the Tories and not much else. I do wonder how many Labour AMs are saying really nasty things about TfL's bus plans behind closed doors and when that will erupt on the Mayor's doorstep. The whole road space / Uber / taxi trade thing is another ticking time bomb for all the political parties. It has to be sorted but it's nigh on impossible to do without someone squealing. PS - it was very hard to read your excellent post due to the lack of white space between paras. A few carriage returns between paras would make it much easier to read if you're willing to go back and give it a quick edit. Thanks for your comments. I also hope that there are under the radar some political representatives who are beginning to understand what is happening to the bus network and will begin to more effectively lobby on behalf of passengers. As you say, Cycle Super Highway No.9 has undoubtedly also influenced the decision to remove the 27 from this area. Unlike TfL I noted your comments about editing and have gone back to include better spacing between paragraphs. It would have been a bit hypocritical of me after my rant if I then ignored sensible suggestions! |
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Feb 27, 2019 20:51:17 GMT
I thought that the N27 would continue to Chiswick Business Park. If it is only running between Hammersmith and Chalk Farm why can't it continue as a 24 hour route.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Feb 27, 2019 20:54:04 GMT
I thought that the N27 would continue to Chiswick Business Park. If it is only running between Hammersmith and Chalk Farm why can't it continue as a 24 hour route. It's because the N27 will terminate in the bus station while the 27 will terminate by Hammersmith Grove. |
|
|
|
Post by rj131 on Feb 27, 2019 22:46:55 GMT
I thought that the N27 would continue to Chiswick Business Park. If it is only running between Hammersmith and Chalk Farm why can't it continue as a 24 hour route. It's because the N27 will terminate in the bus station while the 27 will terminate by Hammersmith Grove. I reckon this is the first time a night route is actually *shorter* than the day counterpart, rather than running much further out. |
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Feb 27, 2019 22:49:59 GMT
It's because the N27 will terminate in the bus station while the 27 will terminate by Hammersmith Grove. I reckon this is the first time a night route is actually *shorter* than the day counterpart, rather than running much further out. TfL should renumber the night service of the 102 to N102 since they going down this route. |
|
|
|
Post by rj131 on Feb 27, 2019 22:59:34 GMT
I reckon this is the first time a night route is actually *shorter* than the day counterpart, rather than running much further out. TfL should renumber the night service of the 102 to N102 since they going down this route. Never knew the 102 at night only ran to Golders Green! (Just looked it up after you mentioned it lol) The only proper ‘N’ right route that stops short of its daytime route is the N26 (Trafalgar Sq instead of Waterloo) but this still doesn’t count as the overall N26 is still far longer than the 26 running all the way to Chingford. |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Feb 27, 2019 23:24:34 GMT
TfL should renumber the night service of the 102 to N102 since they going down this route. Never knew the 102 at night only ran to Golders Green! (Just looked it up after you mentioned it lol) The only proper ‘N’ right route that stops short of its daytime route is the N26 (Trafalgar Sq instead of Waterloo) but this still doesn’t count as the overall N26 is still far longer than the 26 running all the way to Chingford. Wouldn't say the N26 stops short at TSQ as the day 26 doesn't make it there in the first place  |
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Mar 1, 2019 17:19:38 GMT
TfL have added a map of the changes from 9 March on their permanent bus changes webpage (but not yet added to the fortnightly changes document available from same webpage content.tfl.gov.uk/changes-to-routes-27-and-440-map.pdfMap has 5 one way sections, so was good idea to produce clear map |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2019 17:25:14 GMT
TfL have added a map of the changes from 9 March on their permanent bus changes webpage (but not yet added to the fortnightly changes document available from same webpage content.tfl.gov.uk/changes-to-routes-27-and-440-map.pdfMap has 5 one way sections, so was good idea to produce clear map I think am peak hours along Chiswick High Road it will be a struggle to get on a bus after these changes , towards Hammersmith. The 237,267 & H91 are pretty full up. I’ve heard the shortened 391 will be only x20 mins. Crazy. |
|
