|
|
Post by sid on Jul 31, 2018 6:13:27 GMT
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.
I sometimes wonder how often I'd use buses if I wasn't an enthusiast, probably not very often, rail based transport is generally far quicker. The amount of empty shops in many town centres tell their own story, very rarely now do you see somebody struggling onto a bus laden with shopping because it's far easier to do it online and have it delivered to the front door. As far as I'm aware none of the recent cuts have caused undue hardship apart from the C11, I've not seen the 31 since it was reduced and I'd be a bit concerned about the Camden Town end. Then again I was concerned about the reduction on the 484, a few years ago buses were often rammed and I'd certainly have advocated a frequency increase but nowadays it seems to be managing comfortably on a reduced level of service, where have all the passengers gone? |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jul 31, 2018 6:28:35 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. Surely phrases about meeting todays travel requirements are self explanatory? Whether we like it or not there has been a considerable drop in demand that shows no sign of abating, it's visually noticeable that certain routes that used to be busy are no longer so. |
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Jul 31, 2018 7:13:48 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. Could use the 100 route number. |
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Jul 31, 2018 7:21:26 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 I don't think this is a good way to replace the 100. Either merge with the RV1 to Covent Garden or do one of the following: - extend the 339 from Shadwell to Aldgate - or re-route the D3 from Wapping to Aldgate. 309 extended to Wapping via the D3, and 135 diverted to serve Shadwell. - With either option, reroute the 42 to London Wall via the 100. If there is excess capacity on the Isle of Dogs, one route could be cut back to Canary Wharf. Though the D6/D7/277 do serve similar destinations north of Canary Wharf, perhaps something could be withdrawn here. Maybe merge the D6 & D7 somehow towards the Bethnal Green/South Hackney area, with some rationalisation south of Canary Wharf. Also think the 135 is too indirect towards Crossharbour, so again some changes of that corridor could take place to simplify to 4 more direct routes. The D8 section to Crossharbour is quite short, so could perhaps be better utilised in the Isle of Dogs to cover additional links. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2018 8:47:15 GMT
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. Surely phrases about meeting todays travel requirements are self explanatory? Whether we like it or not there has been a considerable drop in demand that shows no sign of abating, it's visually noticeable that certain routes that used to be busy are no longer so. The core London bus network remains built on routes that were created in some cases 100 years ago. With the mass of data TfL have to determine all our travel patterns, they must be able to apply a theoretical map of a redesigned London bus network fitting in with this data. I have a feeling if they did this , the TfL bus network would drop off a cliff edge. London is extremely lucky still to have such a huge network , with buses running very late and starting very early all week. If someone said to me when I was 14 living in Hampton that one day the 111 & 285 would run 24/7 and the R70 would be every 15 mins on Sundays with a last bus from Richmond at 1am , I simply wouldn’t have believed it. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jul 31, 2018 8:54:45 GMT
Surely phrases about meeting todays travel requirements are self explanatory? Whether we like it or not there has been a considerable drop in demand that shows no sign of abating, it's visually noticeable that certain routes that used to be busy are no longer so. The core London bus network remains built on routes that were created in some cases 100 years ago. With the mass of data TfL have to determine all our travel patterns, they must be able to apply a theoretical map of a redesigned London bus network fitting in with this data. I have a feeling if they did this , the TfL bus network would drop off a cliff edge. London is extremely lucky still to have such a huge network , with buses running very late and starting very early all week. If someone said to me when I was 14 living in Hampton that one day the 111 & 285 would run 24/7 and the R70 would be every 15 mins on Sundays with a last bus from Richmond at 1am , I simply wouldn’t have believed it. I understand what you're saying but at the end of the day declining usage can only mean one thing and the fact that Hampton has two night bus routes, and I'm not suggesting they shouldn't have them, whilst South Norwood doesn't have any is another reason why a complete revamp is needed rather than piecemeal uncoordinated changes. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 31, 2018 9:49:00 GMT
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.
I sometimes wonder how often I'd use buses if I wasn't an enthusiast, probably not very often, rail based transport is generally far quicker. The amount of empty shops in many town centres tell their own story, very rarely now do you see somebody struggling onto a bus laden with shopping because it's far easier to do it online and have it delivered to the front door. As far as I'm aware none of the recent cuts have caused undue hardship apart from the C11, I've not seen the 31 since it was reduced and I'd be a bit concerned about the Camden Town end. Then again I was concerned about the reduction on the 484, a few years ago buses were often rammed and I'd certainly have advocated a frequency increase but nowadays it seems to be managing comfortably on a reduced level of service, where have all the passengers gone? The decline of high streets isn't universal though and many in London are holding up whilst others are thriving though it depends on the area of course - outside London seems to be far worse hit, especially up north. Brixton has continued to thrive as a shopping area and recently had a massive Sports Direct open up in the market - the market itself is also thriving even it's a bit too gentrified now. It's still common to see people struggling with shopping on the bus in Brixton as well and I can't see it being an exception to the rule - Lewisham & Peckham are pretty much the same whilst Oxford Street is still as busy than ever. In regards to your first point, it primarily depends on where you live & how much money you earn. Some journeys are either very indirect by rail or non existent and if your on low income, using rail based transport may not be an option. |
|
|
|
Post by paulsw2 on Jul 31, 2018 10:01:33 GMT
I understand what you're saying but at the end of the day declining usage can only mean one thing and the fact that Hampton has two night bus routes, and I'm not suggesting they shouldn't have them, whilst South Norwood doesn't have any is another reason why a complete revamp is needed rather than piecemeal uncoordinated changes.[/quote] South Norwood has had 3 night buses serving it over the years the N70 the N69 and the N75 all 3 of these routes were withdrawn due to low patronage . 3 |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jul 31, 2018 10:06:56 GMT
I understand what you're saying but at the end of the day declining usage can only mean one thing and the fact that Hampton has two night bus routes, and I'm not suggesting they shouldn't have them, whilst South Norwood doesn't have any is another reason why a complete revamp is needed rather than piecemeal uncoordinated changes. South Norwood has had 3 night buses serving it over the years the N70 the N69 and the N75 all 3 of these routes were withdrawn due to low patronage . 3 [/quote] That's just it, the random way routes are withdrawn because of 'low patronage'. Surely an extension of the 176 at night to Norwood Junction isn't going to break the bank? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2018 10:23:51 GMT
I understand what you're saying but at the end of the day declining usage can only mean one thing and the fact that Hampton has two night bus routes, and I'm not suggesting they shouldn't have them, whilst South Norwood doesn't have any is another reason why a complete revamp is needed rather than piecemeal uncoordinated changes. South Norwood has had 3 night buses serving it over the years the N70 the N69 and the N75 all 3 of these routes were withdrawn due to low patronage . 3 That's just it, the random way routes are withdrawn because of 'low patronage'. Surely an extension of the 176 at night to Norwood Junction isn't going to break the bank?[/quote] To be fair the 111/285 probably only have a night service because of Heathrow Airport shift workers. When I worked at the airport , the companies had to pay for mini cabs / private minibus operators to pick their staff up who were working from or before 6am. |
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Jul 31, 2018 11:11:14 GMT
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.
I sometimes wonder how often I'd use buses if I wasn't an enthusiast, probably not very often, rail based transport is generally far quicker. The amount of empty shops in many town centres tell their own story, very rarely now do you see somebody struggling onto a bus laden with shopping because it's far easier to do it online and have it delivered to the front door. As far as I'm aware none of the recent cuts have caused undue hardship apart from the C11, I've not seen the 31 since it was reduced and I'd be a bit concerned about the Camden Town end. Then again I was concerned about the reduction on the 484, a few years ago buses were often rammed and I'd certainly have advocated a frequency increase but nowadays it seems to be managing comfortably on a reduced level of service, where have all the passengers gone? I agree that travelling by train is generally much quicker, and often is more reliable, efficient and frequent. Bus services should be prioritised more for shorter journeys, as well as to support the rail network in London. Bus journeys in the London area typically are to reach a nearby area, or to access a train station for longer journeys. So the hopper fare can be a good excuse for breaking longer journeys, but any restructuring of the bus network needs to prioritise a greater variety of more local links. For example, with cuts around Oxford Street, it may be important to retain links to other parts of central London, such as Paddington, Victoria, Waterloo or Kings Cross, compated to links from there to outer areas such as Brixton or Hackney. |
|
|
|
Post by I-Azusio-I on Jul 31, 2018 13:14:37 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 The D7 could do with being extended to Canning Town IMO. It could go via the 115/N15/N551 routing and it would also help provide a bus link between Canary Wharf/Isle of Dogs and Canning Town. Since the 330 is set to be extended, there will be available stand space. The route is definitely overbussed off-peak so a frequency cut could maybe help fund it? So much more could be done with that route aside from it’s sole purpose - being an Isle of Dogs and Canary Wharf bus provider. |
|
|
|
Post by ronnie on Jul 31, 2018 14:19:41 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. That's why - it is a somewhat controversial idea. D7 is not exactly "fresh air" territory but then, I have rarely seen a jam-packed D7 recently. And it is not as if its being withdrawn without replacement; the D8 would provide at least part coverage (and become a more sensible route). It can even retain DDs if it doesnt replace the 100 The other alternative is to withdraw the D8 and extend the D7 to Stratford / Bow Church. There are multiple extension options 1 route can easily disappear from the area ... |
|
|
|
Post by ronnie on Jul 31, 2018 14:21:12 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 The D7 could do with being extended to Canning Town IMO. It could go via the 115/N15/N551 routing and it would also help provide a bus link between Canary Wharf/Isle of Dogs and Canning Town. Since the 330 is set to be extended, there will be available stand space. The route is definitely overbussed off-peak so a frequency cut could maybe help fund it? So much more could be done with that route aside from it’s sole purpose - being an Isle of Dogs and Canary Wharf bus provider. Agree. The D7 can do with an extension (I have had this idea before and it is a very handy round the corner link) and can even deal if there is a frequency cut |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jul 31, 2018 14:54:13 GMT
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. Surely phrases about meeting todays travel requirements are self explanatory? Whether we like it or not there has been a considerable drop in demand that shows no sign of abating, it's visually noticeable that certain routes that used to be busy are no longer so. If it was "self explanatory" then all that means is that people can form their own view of what it means. That gets us nowhere because it just allows people to indulge their own prejudices. I asked you a genuine question. I do not know, for a fact, what "today's travel requirements" are. I have some clue as to what journey purposes were in the past [1] but who knows the extent to which those purposes remain valid or whether new ones have emerged? I also don't think that a "travel requirement" is necessarily the same as a "journey purpose" either. There may be other factors that mean people swap mode more readily now. There have been changes in demand over several years but a drop one year can be met with a bounce back the next. Demand changes vary, up and down or static, across the network with very little obvious explanation *unless* you are local to a route and know something specific about the area and the actual operation of the route. No one has perfect route by route knowledge of every route in London. Believe me I've looked at a lot of the TfL bus patronage data over time and tried to find reasons for demand fluctuation. It's very, very difficult to do. There's no point just saying "demand is going down" as if that is a justification in and of itself. The real question is "why?". If we had the answer to that you stand have a chance of being able to do something about it. TfL by their own admission in a recent report do NOT know why demand is still falling. [1] commuting to / from work, commuting to / from education, to do shopping, to reach medical services, to see friends / relatives, for leisure / entertainment, as part of a longer overall trip for some other purpose (e.g. going on holiday and needing to reach an airport / railway stn). |
|
