|
|
Post by redexpress on Jul 30, 2018 9:51:22 GMT
The 263 may be a long route but it runs on a corridor that avoids many traffic filled areas which is probably why it has survived so it really should be left in its core form. The 234 is in an indirect route and is not a good replacement for the 263 in any event. The W7 is too frequent to be extended further even if replacing the 43 and does it current role superbly. Would it be possible to instead extend the W7 in replacement of both the 43 AND 134? Breaking the link between Colney Hatch Lane and Highgate Station would be hugely unpopular - remember Highgate is the nearest station to the Muswell Hill area. While the W7 would link to the tube at Finsbury Park, it's a much longer journey. Also there isn't room at Muswell Hill for both 43 and 134 to stand, and as I said earlier, it would be madness to try to withdraw one of those routes from Muswell Hill.
I can see why it is tempting to fiddle with routes in this area but I still can't understand why you think the 43 or 134 NEED shortening?
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jul 30, 2018 12:13:47 GMT
Would it be possible to instead extend the W7 in replacement of both the 43 AND 134? Breaking the link between Colney Hatch Lane and Highgate Station would be hugely unpopular - remember Highgate is the nearest station to the Muswell Hill area. While the W7 would link to the tube at Finsbury Park, it's a much longer journey. Also there isn't room at Muswell Hill for both 43 and 134 to stand, and as I said earlier, it would be madness to try to withdraw one of those routes from Muswell Hill. I can see why it is tempting to fiddle with routes in this area but I still can't understand why you think the 43 or 134 NEED shortening? The other thing that is being missed in all of this is that the buses in and around Muswell Hill act as replacement for the never opened Tube line. Therefore high capacity is needed on several links linking to different tube lines. I don't see anything wrong with the 43 and 134 - they are extremely well used and remember the disbelief on here when the 134 had its frequencies hacked back recently. The final thing being missed in all of this is that you "go to war" at your peril in Muswell Hill and Highgate and to a lesser extent Golders Green and Finchley. All this never ending proposed fiddling with long established bus routes reminds me of Caroline Pidgeon's ridiculous statement about "we've still got bus routes that mirror tram routes from 100 years ago". Well yes that would be because those tram routes followed popular demand flows and then triggered more development thus reinforcing the demand. It's not difficult. Yes things can and do change but they tend to be major things like new rail routes, big shopping centres, changes to health facilities / schools or brand new housing estates. Very little of that has or is likely to affect Muswell Hill or Highgate. Obviously the Friern Barnet area has seen a retail park and big Tescos and new housing on the old hospital site (which the 43 serves directly). Leave well alone!! |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jul 30, 2018 12:52:41 GMT
Breaking the link between Colney Hatch Lane and Highgate Station would be hugely unpopular - remember Highgate is the nearest station to the Muswell Hill area. While the W7 would link to the tube at Finsbury Park, it's a much longer journey. Also there isn't room at Muswell Hill for both 43 and 134 to stand, and as I said earlier, it would be madness to try to withdraw one of those routes from Muswell Hill. I can see why it is tempting to fiddle with routes in this area but I still can't understand why you think the 43 or 134 NEED shortening? The other thing that is being missed in all of this is that the buses in and around Muswell Hill act as replacement for the never opened Tube line. Therefore high capacity is needed on several links linking to different tube lines. I don't see anything wrong with the 43 and 134 - they are extremely well used and remember the disbelief on here when the 134 had its frequencies hacked back recently. The final thing being missed in all of this is that you "go to war" at your peril in Muswell Hill and Highgate and to a lesser extent Golders Green and Finchley. All this never ending proposed fiddling with long established bus routes reminds me of Caroline Pidgeon's ridiculous statement about "we've still got bus routes that mirror tram routes from 100 years ago". Well yes that would be because those tram routes followed popular demand flows and then triggered more development thus reinforcing the demand. It's not difficult. Yes things can and do change but they tend to be major things like new rail routes, big shopping centres, changes to health facilities / schools or brand new housing estates. Very little of that has or is likely to affect Muswell Hill or Highgate. Obviously the Friern Barnet area has seen a retail park and big Tescos and new housing on the old hospital site (which the 43 serves directly). Leave well alone!!
I'm not necessarily in favour of changing the 43 or 134 but I don't go along with this 'leave well alone' argument, there have been considerable changes to passenger flows in recent years due largely to social changes and nothing should be set in stone. I think Caroline Pidgeon might well have been making a very valid point, as mentioned on here recently Barcelona have totally revamped their bus network and Dublin are in the process of doing so.
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 30, 2018 13:27:57 GMT
The other thing that is being missed in all of this is that the buses in and around Muswell Hill act as replacement for the never opened Tube line. Therefore high capacity is needed on several links linking to different tube lines. I don't see anything wrong with the 43 and 134 - they are extremely well used and remember the disbelief on here when the 134 had its frequencies hacked back recently. The final thing being missed in all of this is that you "go to war" at your peril in Muswell Hill and Highgate and to a lesser extent Golders Green and Finchley. All this never ending proposed fiddling with long established bus routes reminds me of Caroline Pidgeon's ridiculous statement about "we've still got bus routes that mirror tram routes from 100 years ago". Well yes that would be because those tram routes followed popular demand flows and then triggered more development thus reinforcing the demand. It's not difficult. Yes things can and do change but they tend to be major things like new rail routes, big shopping centres, changes to health facilities / schools or brand new housing estates. Very little of that has or is likely to affect Muswell Hill or Highgate. Obviously the Friern Barnet area has seen a retail park and big Tescos and new housing on the old hospital site (which the 43 serves directly). Leave well alone!!
I'm not necessarily in favour of changing the 43 or 134 but I don't go along with this 'leave well alone' argument, there have been considerable changes to passenger flows in recent years due largely to social changes and nothing should be set in stone. I think Caroline Pidgeon might well have been making a very valid point, as mentioned on here recently Barcelona have totally revamped their bus network and Dublin are in the process of doing so.
As I mentioned previously, Dublin is a poor comparison with London - the financial crash hit Ireland far more harder than over here which had a massive impact on the Dublin network to the point it was severely hacked to pieces which probably explains why they’re building a new network. The London bus network is still very good and didn’t suffer in the same manner and it’s quite telling how good a network is when the same links from 50+ years ago are still the same links that everyone relies on in 2018 - if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it is especially important here. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jul 30, 2018 15:04:56 GMT
I'm not necessarily in favour of changing the 43 or 134 but I don't go along with this 'leave well alone' argument, there have been considerable changes to passenger flows in recent years due largely to social changes and nothing should be set in stone. I think Caroline Pidgeon might well have been making a very valid point, as mentioned on here recently Barcelona have totally revamped their bus network and Dublin are in the process of doing so. I'm sorry but in the case of the 43 and 134 it makes NO sense at all to be trying to make major restructuring changes. I did not rule out *any* changes elsewhere. Clearly evolving the network in reponse to demonstrable change / customer preference is a perfectly sensible strategy. One of the problems on a forum like this is that people look at a map and frequencies and go "bah look at all that waste" and go and take one ride on a route and then come back and propose wholesale changes. You need thousands of observations, loads of data, discussions with operators / passengers and a knowledge of what has gone before to make informed proposals. I know we all fulminate about TfL's ideas but they do actually plan stuff and generally have an idea what the local political landscape is. I know the 43 and 134 moderately well and have been to Muswell Hill and Highgate Hill / Archway enough times to know those routes are very well used and well regarded by the locals. I am happy to bow to the knowledge of people like Redexpress who are clearly local and also view wholesale changes as ill advised. I rarely comment about S / NW / W London routes or propose changes simply because I know too little about those routes - some I've never used and others only a few times. I don't know enough to say anything sensible about them. I am afraid that wholesale changes as in Barcelona and Dublin will simply not fly in London. We've been here before and it didn't work. The bus service is FAR more political in London and is one of the highest used bus networks in the world. You "throw that lot up in the air" at your peril. And, to make the obvious point, what may or may not be good for Barcelona or Dublin doesn't necessarily carry across to London. I suspect both network changes in those cities were / have been designed to improve matters overall and had the requisite extra funding available to facilitate that. London's agenda is not improvement, it is reduction and cost saving. You seem to positively relish that prospect. I do not. I believe we will end up with a mess and that it will take years to repair the damage but, hey, I have little expectation of ever agreeing with you!  |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jul 30, 2018 15:10:59 GMT
I'm not necessarily in favour of changing the 43 or 134 but I don't go along with this 'leave well alone' argument, there have been considerable changes to passenger flows in recent years due largely to social changes and nothing should be set in stone. I think Caroline Pidgeon might well have been making a very valid point, as mentioned on here recently Barcelona have totally revamped their bus network and Dublin are in the process of doing so. I'm sorry but in the case of the 43 and 134 it makes NO sense at all to be trying to make major restructuring changes. I did not rule out *any* changes elsewhere. Clearly evolving the network in reponse to demonstrable change / customer preference is a perfectly sensible strategy. One of the problems on a forum like this is that people look at a map and frequencies and go "bah look at all that waste" and go and take one ride on a route and then come back and propose wholesale changes. You need thousands of observations, loads of data, discussions with operators / passengers and a knowledge of what has gone before to make informed proposals. I know we all fulminate about TfL's ideas but they do actually plan stuff and generally have an idea what the local political landscape is. I know the 43 and 134 moderately well and have been to Muswell Hill and Highgate Hill / Archway enough times to know those routes are very well used and well regarded by the locals. I am happy to bow to the knowledge of people like Redexpress who are clearly local and also view wholesale changes as ill advised. I rarely comment about S / NW / W London routes or propose changes simply because I know too little about those routes - some I've never used and others only a few times. I don't know enough to say anything sensible about them. I am afraid that wholesale changes as in Barcelona and Dublin will simply not fly in London. We've been here before and it didn't work. The bus service is FAR more political in London and is one of the highest used bus networks in the world. You "throw that lot up in the air" at your peril. And, to make the obvious point, what may or may not be good for Barcelona or Dublin doesn't necessarily carry across to London. I suspect both network changes in those cities were / have been designed to improve matters overall and had the requisite extra funding available to facilitate that. London's agenda is not improvement, it is reduction and cost saving. You seem to positively relish that prospect. I do not. I believe we will end up with a mess and that it will take years to repair the damage but, hey, I have little expectation of ever agreeing with you! Of course I don't relish reduction for the sake of it but I have no objections to service levels being adjusted to meet demand, I have suggested many times that routes like the 166 and 289 need more capacity but inevitably there will be many routes that need less. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jul 30, 2018 15:15:05 GMT
I'm not necessarily in favour of changing the 43 or 134 but I don't go along with this 'leave well alone' argument, there have been considerable changes to passenger flows in recent years due largely to social changes and nothing should be set in stone. I think Caroline Pidgeon might well have been making a very valid point, as mentioned on here recently Barcelona have totally revamped their bus network and Dublin are in the process of doing so.
As I mentioned previously, Dublin is a poor comparison with London - the financial crash hit Ireland far more harder than over here which had a massive impact on the Dublin network to the point it was severely hacked to pieces which probably explains why they’re building a new network. The London bus network is still very good and didn’t suffer in the same manner and it’s quite telling how good a network is when the same links from 50+ years ago are still the same links that everyone relies on in 2018 - if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it is especially important here. Falling passenger numbers suggest that it is broke and does need fixing. |
|
|
|
Post by ronnie on Jul 30, 2018 21:57:32 GMT
At the risk of sounding controversial, I would say one can get rid of both D7 and 100. From my recent observations (spanning the last year), it seems to be lightly used outside the peaks. The 135 and 277 provide more than sufficient capacity on westferry road and Manchester road.
Instead, D6 can be double decked (why it hasn’t been done till date baffles me); D8 can be single decked, start from Stratford, continue using its current route till poplar from where it can pick up on D7’s route till limehouse burdett road. Then follow D3 till onto the highway where it can take a right turn onto glamis road -> cable street and then replaces the 100 till London wall. If this is too long, one can always cut the “new” d8 till Bow flyover or till Aldgate (preferably the latter). Of course the d8 might need a slight frequency enhancement
|
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Jul 30, 2018 22:35:47 GMT
As I mentioned previously, Dublin is a poor comparison with London - the financial crash hit Ireland far more harder than over here which had a massive impact on the Dublin network to the point it was severely hacked to pieces which probably explains why they’re building a new network. The London bus network is still very good and didn’t suffer in the same manner and it’s quite telling how good a network is when the same links from 50+ years ago are still the same links that everyone relies on in 2018 - if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it is especially important here. Falling passenger numbers suggest that it is broke and does need fixing. I don't think the bus service in London is broken - yet - but problems do need addressing especially falling passenger numbers. I don't think a re-plan of the network at this point would resolve much, and is likely to make matters much, much worse. This is because TfL would be looking to save money from the re-plan which can only lead to an overall worse service and I am unconvinced TfL still have sufficient skilled and experienced staff to do such a review successfully. I think the cause of falling passenger number is due to a variety of factors including :-
- Buses are regarded as unattractive and not a first choice of transport
- More are cycling, and I reckon that vastly more people have stopped using buses and use cycles instead, than people who have stopped using cars for cycles.
- Uber - the cost of private hire has been reduced significantly making this an attractive form of door to door transport. If several travel together the costs are more than reasonable particularly for shorter journeys.
- Bus journey times. This keeps increasing making buses ever less attractive. The road modernisation programme has been a disaster for buses and when combined with 'this bus will wait whilst we regulate the service', just puts people off using buses.
- Reduced frequencies, broken links also make the bus service unattractive. Just because the hopper fare means there's no financial issue in changing buses, it doesn't make changing buses an attractive option, particularly if there used to be a direct bus. It is the inconvenience of changing buses that is the problem and the hopper does not resolve that.
- The economy. It is not particularly great and this does affect bus usage.
All of the above can be fixed if there were the will. I have my own ideas how to do this, but that would be a post all in itself! Addressing these issues would get passenger numbers up, not a re-plan of the network with a view to saving money.
|
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jul 30, 2018 22:46:06 GMT
Falling passenger numbers suggest that it is broke and does need fixing. I don't think the bus service in London is broken - yet - but problems do need addressing especially falling passenger numbers. I don't think a re-plan of the network at this point would resolve much, and is likely to make matters much, much worse. This is because TfL would be looking to save money from the re-plan which can only lead to an overall worse service and I am unconvinced TfL still have sufficient skilled and experienced staff to do such a review successfully. I think the cause of falling passenger number is due to a variety of factors including :-
- Buses are regarded as unattractive and not a first choice of transport
- More are cycling, and I reckon that vastly more people have stopped using buses and use cycles instead, than people who have stopped using cars for cycles.
- Uber - the cost of private hire has been reduced significantly making this an attractive form of door to door transport. If several travel together the costs are more than reasonable particularly for shorter journeys.
- Bus journey times. This keeps increasing making buses ever less attractive. The road modernisation programme has been a disaster for buses and when combined with 'this bus will wait whilst we regulate the service', just puts people off using buses.
- Reduced frequencies, broken links also make the bus service unattractive. Just because the hopper fare means there's no financial issue in changing buses, it doesn't make changing buses an attractive option, particularly if there used to be a direct bus. It is the inconvenience of changing buses that is the problem and the hopper does not resolve that.
- The economy. It is not particularly great and this does affect bus usage.
All of the above can be fixed if there were the will. I have my own ideas how to do this, but that would be a post all in itself! Addressing these issues would get passenger numbers up, not a re-plan of the network with a view to saving money.
A reshaping exercise wouldn't necessarily be about saving money, although that would obviously come into it, more about a network to meet todays travel requirements. I think we've got to accept the fact that more people shopping and working from home has changed things considerably along with various other factors including hopper fare. |
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Jul 30, 2018 22:49:18 GMT
I'm sorry but in the case of the 43 and 134 it makes NO sense at all to be trying to make major restructuring changes. I did not rule out *any* changes elsewhere. Clearly evolving the network in reponse to demonstrable change / customer preference is a perfectly sensible strategy. One of the problems on a forum like this is that people look at a map and frequencies and go "bah look at all that waste" and go and take one ride on a route and then come back and propose wholesale changes. You need thousands of observations, loads of data, discussions with operators / passengers and a knowledge of what has gone before to make informed proposals. I know we all fulminate about TfL's ideas but they do actually plan stuff and generally have an idea what the local political landscape is. I know the 43 and 134 moderately well and have been to Muswell Hill and Highgate Hill / Archway enough times to know those routes are very well used and well regarded by the locals. I am happy to bow to the knowledge of people like Redexpress who are clearly local and also view wholesale changes as ill advised. I rarely comment about S / NW / W London routes or propose changes simply because I know too little about those routes - some I've never used and others only a few times. I don't know enough to say anything sensible about them. I am afraid that wholesale changes as in Barcelona and Dublin will simply not fly in London. We've been here before and it didn't work. The bus service is FAR more political in London and is one of the highest used bus networks in the world. You "throw that lot up in the air" at your peril. And, to make the obvious point, what may or may not be good for Barcelona or Dublin doesn't necessarily carry across to London. I suspect both network changes in those cities were / have been designed to improve matters overall and had the requisite extra funding available to facilitate that. London's agenda is not improvement, it is reduction and cost saving. You seem to positively relish that prospect. I do not. I believe we will end up with a mess and that it will take years to repair the damage but, hey, I have little expectation of ever agreeing with you! Of course I don't relish reduction for the sake of it but I have no objections to service levels being adjusted to meet demand, I have suggested many times that routes like the 166 and 289 need more capacity but inevitably there will be many routes that need less. I don't think any of us suggest cuts for the sake of it, we are all enthusiasts, indeed cutting buses in the least harmful way is actually not at all easy, and there comes a point after which it is only a question of what damage is done.
Reducing capacity to match demand always concerns me, because it is an ill-defined term. How much spare capacity should a route have, you have to have some, and how can that be applied properly across the network. If you take a look at many of the routes that have suffered frequency cuts, the cuts are often far more than the reduction in demand, whilst other routes are left alone. Reducing the frequency makes the service less attractive and more passengers then may stop using that service, making the whole exercise counter-productive.
We must also not forget that one of the great innovations of the modern world is the ease of travel. For a city like London there has to be a comprehensive transport system including buses. This drives the economy by getting people to work, shops, restaurants and all over. Cutting buses is not going assist the economy at all. I am not convinced those in charge really understand the role the bus network plays in London.
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jul 30, 2018 22:55:54 GMT
A reshaping exercise wouldn't necessarily be about saving money, although that would obviously come into it, more about a network to meet todays travel requirements. I think we've got to accept the fact that more people shopping and working from home has changed things considerably along with various other factors including hopper fare. In the current, and most likely continuing, constrained funding environment then saving money would be number one. I am reliably informed that saving money on the bus network is the number one overriding priority at TfL at present. Everything else has been subjegated by that objective. A network redesign exercise would have precisely the same number one objective. What do you mean by "network to meet today's travel requirements"? Genuine question as I've no idea what "today's travel requirements" actually are. I've certainly seen nothing from TfL that would help me understand what they are or how things have changed from 1 month ago, 6 months ago, 1 year ago. It would be instructive for TfL to provide a couple of examples where they've analysed what has changed and why. I think that would help frame the debate. Being slightly facetious we also need to understand "tomorrow's and the future's travel requirements" if any network redesign were to work. Again I've seen nothing that helps me understand what they are. I think things are too fluid but I may be wrong on that. |
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Jul 30, 2018 22:58:41 GMT
I don't think the bus service in London is broken - yet - but problems do need addressing especially falling passenger numbers. I don't think a re-plan of the network at this point would resolve much, and is likely to make matters much, much worse. This is because TfL would be looking to save money from the re-plan which can only lead to an overall worse service and I am unconvinced TfL still have sufficient skilled and experienced staff to do such a review successfully. I think the cause of falling passenger number is due to a variety of factors including :-
- Buses are regarded as unattractive and not a first choice of transport
- More are cycling, and I reckon that vastly more people have stopped using buses and use cycles instead, than people who have stopped using cars for cycles.
- Uber - the cost of private hire has been reduced significantly making this an attractive form of door to door transport. If several travel together the costs are more than reasonable particularly for shorter journeys.
- Bus journey times. This keeps increasing making buses ever less attractive. The road modernisation programme has been a disaster for buses and when combined with 'this bus will wait whilst we regulate the service', just puts people off using buses.
- Reduced frequencies, broken links also make the bus service unattractive. Just because the hopper fare means there's no financial issue in changing buses, it doesn't make changing buses an attractive option, particularly if there used to be a direct bus. It is the inconvenience of changing buses that is the problem and the hopper does not resolve that.
- The economy. It is not particularly great and this does affect bus usage.
All of the above can be fixed if there were the will. I have my own ideas how to do this, but that would be a post all in itself! Addressing these issues would get passenger numbers up, not a re-plan of the network with a view to saving money.
A reshaping exercise wouldn't necessarily be about saving money, although that would obviously come into it, more about a network to meet todays travel requirements. I think we've got to accept the fact that more people shopping and working from home has changed things considerably along with various other factors including hopper fare. You are right that things change and buses need to adapt, but that to me means re-inventing them rather than managing decline. I think when the economy picks up so will bus usage, but working from home I don't think is material, as others take up that spare space. If it were an issue then trains and tube would be far more affected than buses. I also think the reasons I mention are a very large part of reason for the decline is usage.
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 30, 2018 23:19:05 GMT
At the risk of sounding controversial, I would say one can get rid of both D7 and 100. From my recent observations (spanning the last year), it seems to be lightly used outside the peaks. The 135 and 277 provide more than sufficient capacity on westferry road and Manchester road. Instead, D6 can be double decked (why it hasn’t been done till date baffles me); D8 can be single decked, start from Stratford, continue using its current route till poplar from where it can pick up on D7’s route till limehouse burdett road. Then follow D3 till onto the highway where it can take a right turn onto glamis road -> cable street and then replaces the 100 till London wall. If this is too long, one can always cut the “new” d8 till Bow flyover or till Aldgate (preferably the latter). Of course the d8 might need a slight frequency enhancement Although I'm not from the area, I've used the D7 a fair bit in & out of peaks and it's certainly more than busy enough to remain as it - it's frequency was proposed to be cut with the Crossharbour changes but that decision was reversed and personally rightly so. The 100 I agree is in danger now it's cut back to London Wall - personally, I'd rather it merge with the RV1 so RV1 follows it's current route to Tower Gateway and then continues on to the current 100 routing to Shadwell. I'd then convert the D8 to the hydrogen buses from the RV1 (subject to route test of course) and convert the RV1 to electric Streetlites or Solos as these are the only short length electrics currently available. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 30, 2018 23:25:38 GMT
As I mentioned previously, Dublin is a poor comparison with London - the financial crash hit Ireland far more harder than over here which had a massive impact on the Dublin network to the point it was severely hacked to pieces which probably explains why they’re building a new network. The London bus network is still very good and didn’t suffer in the same manner and it’s quite telling how good a network is when the same links from 50+ years ago are still the same links that everyone relies on in 2018 - if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it is especially important here. Falling passenger numbers suggest that it is broke and does need fixing. I'm afraid it's not as simple as that - there are a number of reasons why demand is currently falling such as a couple you listed in another post regarding shopping habits but the actual bus network itself isn't one of them and nor does cutting it drastically or dreaming up reshaping exercises that merely worsen matters solve it. TfL need to, at some point, find ways to bring in extra revenue because you can not simply cut back without further decreasing demand. |
|
