|
|
Post by planesandtrains on Oct 31, 2018 0:16:33 GMT
Personally I would love to see where this spare capacity is during the peaks, the buses up and down the corridor are rammed to the point where people on certain sections of route get left behind (Sixth Cross Road-Twickenham Green for example) Exactly - some people on here seem to just wonder into an area and declare it empty or has spare capacity whilst also ignoring what locals or those who use the services are actually saying. This sort of thing is getting incredibly boring to listen to on here - it's one thing to have a view which is fine but when it's said as if it's the absolute truth or fact, it's incredibly disturbing. On the other hand however I would say there is spare capacity outside the peaks but would it really be worth the trouble as with many other of these 'overbussed' corridors running buses in just after the peaks have finished? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2018 0:22:05 GMT
Didn’t see the 110/419 change at all and the R68 should have been the route for the chop between Twickenham and Richmond given the 33 and R70 provide Richmond links from Hampton Hill and Teddington.
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Oct 31, 2018 1:05:02 GMT
Exactly - some people on here seem to just wonder into an area and declare it empty or has spare capacity whilst also ignoring what locals or those who use the services are actually saying. This sort of thing is getting incredibly boring to listen to on here - it's one thing to have a view which is fine but when it's said as if it's the absolute truth or fact, it's incredibly disturbing. On the other hand however I would say there is spare capacity outside the peaks but would it really be worth the trouble as with many other of these 'overbussed' corridors running buses in just after the peaks have finished? Of course, you are always going to have some spare capacity and that is a sensible thing to have as otherwise, you end up with everything running at capacity with no room for movement. All these changes are particularly dangerous in areas like Richmond & Twickenham where I suspect there is high car ownership as getting these people back onto public transport is not easy once they ditch it  |
|
|
|
Post by paulo on Oct 31, 2018 7:28:19 GMT
Didn’t see the 110/419 change at all and the R68 should have been the route for the chop between Twickenham and Richmond given the 33 and R70 provide Richmond links from Hampton Hill and Teddington. The changes of course really only affect one operator. The R68/70 inclusion would bring in Abellio and probably complicates matters. I don’t really understand why the 110/419 has been merged. Trying to run the route over that distance seems crazy to me. |
|
|
|
Post by paulo on Oct 31, 2018 7:40:35 GMT
Didn’t see the 110/419 change at all and the R68 should have been the route for the chop between Twickenham and Richmond given the 33 and R70 provide Richmond links from Hampton Hill and Teddington. The changes of course really only affect one operator. The R68/70 inclusion would bring in Abellio and probably complicates matters. I don’t really understand why the 110/419 has been merged. Trying to run the route over that distance seems crazy to me. Also, how is the 110’s cut from West Middlesex Hospital covered by higher frequency route H22. The proposed changes don’t take the route anywhere near the hospital. |
|
|
|
Post by busman on Oct 31, 2018 7:44:17 GMT
Interesting set of changes. Firstly the consultation maps are poor. Why not have changes overlaid upon the current routes as previously done. Why make reviewers play “spot the difference” between 2 documents? Also in the map showing the Twickenham changes, 110 should be written alongside H22 next to Whitton Station. Sloppy work by TfL.
I think we can see that there is no coherent TfL strategy for buses beyond making cost savings. So the undoing of recent changes to the 110 doesn’t surprise me.
I don’t think long routes are inherently bad, but perhaps some people on here have been conditioned to thinking that way by TfL using that sentiment as a battering ram to justify bus cuts in other places. If the timetable is set correctly there is no reason why it cannot run reliably. But that’s just it. This 110 extension directly contradicts the reasons TfL have given for shortening other routes. That is, if you really believe those other cuts are really related to improving reliability 😏
My big objection here is the removal of long established links. A quick check tells me that the 110 has run between Hounslow and Twickenham since around 1936. Breaking up long established links and direct journeys seems a sure way of reducing patronage. Just assuming passengers will simply look at a silly spider map and figure out what happened to their direct link won’t cut it. Cue more people using cars and working from home. TfL swapped the 110’s fast link between Hounslow and West Middlesex Hospital a few years ago for a duplication of the 267. Now they want to remove the hospital link altogether. I think they should leave the 110 alone.
If these changes must go ahead in any form then I would rather see the following:
110: Withdrawn between Twickenham and West Middlesex Hospital
419: Withdrawn
493: Change as stated
H22: Extended to Hammersmith via 419. Frequency reduced to every 15 minutes
H37: No change
I haven’t done net PVR calculations or vehicle allocations with the above, so if not feasible then just withdraw the 110 between Twickenham and the hospital leaving other routes untouched.
|
|
|
|
Post by sid on Oct 31, 2018 8:55:39 GMT
Interesting set of changes. Firstly the consultation maps are poor. Why not have changes overlaid upon the current routes as previously done. Why make reviewers play “spot the difference” between 2 documents? Also in the map showing the Twickenham changes, 110 should be written alongside H22 next to Whitton Station. Sloppy work by TfL. I think we can see that there is no coherent TfL strategy for buses beyond making cost savings. So the undoing of recent changes to the 110 doesn’t surprise me. I don’t think long routes are inherently bad, but perhaps some people on here have been conditioned to thinking that way by TfL using that sentiment as a battering ram to justify bus cuts in other places. If the timetable is set correctly there is no reason why it cannot run reliably. But that’s just it. This 110 extension directly contradicts the reasons TfL have given for shortening other routes. That is, if you really believe those other cuts are really related to improving reliability 😏 My big objection here is the removal of long established links. A quick check tells me that the 110 has run between Hounslow and Twickenham since around 1936. Breaking up long established links and direct journeys seems a sure way of reducing patronage. Just assuming passengers will simply look at a silly spider map and figure out what happened to their direct link won’t cut it. Cue more people using cars and working from home. TfL swapped the 110’s fast link between Hounslow and West Middlesex Hospital a few years ago for a duplication of the 267. Now they want to remove the hospital link altogether. I think they should leave the 110 alone. If these changes must go ahead in any form then I would rather see the following: 110: Withdrawn between Twickenham and West Middlesex Hospital 419: Withdrawn 493: Change as stated H22: Extended to Hammersmith via 419. Frequency reduced to every 15 minutes H37: No change I haven’t done net PVR calculations or vehicle allocations with the above, so if not feasible then just withdraw the 110 between Twickenham and the hospital leaving other routes untouched. I agree that the consultation maps are poor, I also agree that long routes aren't inherently bad and people do seem to have been conditioned to think that way by TfL. Your proposals are much simpler, I don't know how well used the 110 is to the West Mid but the 267 offers a frequent alternative to Twickenham. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Oct 31, 2018 8:56:30 GMT
Ok, I was asked by Paulo what the perceived reasons for the H22 and I gave my the answer most likely in TFLs mind. I don't think any of us belive the reason is to 'bring the H22 closer to Twickenham Station'. Remember a proportion of people currently using the H22 along with withdrawn section would have boarded in Whitton and those will now be taking the 110 and not trying to cram onto the remaining routes. Also the 490 can easily be Double decked at some point and potentially the 33 if the Hammersmith Bridge gets sorted.
I don't like words like disturbing used about comments I make! It's not be declaring spare capacity but TFL who can probably provide figures like with Chiswick High Road and the 88/C2.
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Oct 31, 2018 9:53:26 GMT
Ok, I was asked by Paulo what the perceived reasons for the H22 and I gave my the answer most likely in TFLs mind. I don't think any of us belive the reason is to 'bring the H22 closer to Twickenham Station'. Remember a proportion of people currently using the H22 along with withdrawn section would have boarded in Whitton and those will now be taking the 110 and not trying to cram onto the remaining routes. Also the 490 can easily be Double decked at some point and potentially the 33 if the Hammersmith Bridge gets sorted. I don't like words like disturbing used about comments I make! It's not be declaring spare capacity but TFL who can probably provide figures like with Chiswick High Road and the 88/C2. Ok maybe disturbing was a tad harsh but the point is, there are people on here like yourself who are walking into areas where they clearly don't know a lot about said area for good or bad and then completely ignoring the comments of people who know the area and uses the buses in that area. Everytime this is done, it's been said like it's absolutely fact or true & it's getting tedious on here - if it was offered as a mere opinion, fair enough but that's certainly not how it's sounded. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2018 10:41:54 GMT
PVR wise, I would imagine a plus 8 onto the 110 , minus 6 on the 419 , minus 3 on the H37 minus 3 on the H22 ,and plus 4 on the 267 .
Rugby days will be a massive issue for the new 110. It will have to run direct via the A316 from Hospital Bridge Road rather than Warren Road, bringing lengthy delays.
It is interesting that the 110 is being elevated in this nature, there was once a proposal for it to replace the 111 to Heathrow.
|
|
|
|
Post by busman on Oct 31, 2018 11:04:19 GMT
PVR wise, I would imagine a plus 8 onto the 110 , minus 6 on the 419 , minus 3 on the H37 minus 3 on the H22 ,and plus 4 on the 267 . Rugby days will be a massive issue for the new 110. It will have to run direct via the A316 from Hospital Bridge Road rather than Warren Road, bringing lengthy delays. It is interesting that the 110 is being elevated in this nature, there was once a proposal for it to replace the 111 to Heathrow. Plus 4 on the 267? Why? Perhaps you might look at the 493 which might see a PVR decrease or retain PVR if there are currently reliability issues. |
|
|
|
Post by busman on Oct 31, 2018 11:14:37 GMT
Ok, I was asked by Paulo what the perceived reasons for the H22 and I gave my the answer most likely in TFLs mind. I don't think any of us belive the reason is to 'bring the H22 closer to Twickenham Station'. Remember a proportion of people currently using the H22 along with withdrawn section would have boarded in Whitton and those will now be taking the 110 and not trying to cram onto the remaining routes. Also the 490 can easily be Double decked at some point and potentially the 33 if the Hammersmith Bridge gets sorted. I don't like words like disturbing used about comments I make! It's not be declaring spare capacity but TFL who can probably provide figures like with Chiswick High Road and the 88/C2. The problem with big data sets is how to correctly interpret them i.e. discern what it does show and does not. Just seeing falling or rising numbers doesn’t paint the full picture of what is driving observed trends. TfL are making short term reactionary changes without fully understanding the cause of declining use or the effect of their changes. I don’t think they are really concerned with the effects of their changes right now as cost saving looks to be the most important priority with regards to bus policy. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Oct 31, 2018 11:33:42 GMT
PVR wise, I would imagine a plus 8 onto the 110 , minus 6 on the 419 , minus 3 on the H37 minus 3 on the H22 ,and plus 4 on the 267 . Rugby days will be a massive issue for the new 110. It will have to run direct via the A316 from Hospital Bridge Road rather than Warren Road, bringing lengthy delays. It is interesting that the 110 is being elevated in this nature, there was once a proposal for it to replace the 111 to Heathrow. Plus 4 on the 267? Why? Perhaps you might look at the 493 which might see a PVR decrease or retain PVR if there are currently reliability issues. The 493 was awarded not long ago with a new contract which includes a -1 PVR decrease in conjunction with the cutback to the bus station - new PVR will be 16. |
|
|
|
Post by DE20106 on Oct 31, 2018 11:37:13 GMT
Ok, I was asked by Paulo what the perceived reasons for the H22 and I gave my the answer most likely in TFLs mind. I don't think any of us belive the reason is to 'bring the H22 closer to Twickenham Station'. Remember a proportion of people currently using the H22 along with withdrawn section would have boarded in Whitton and those will now be taking the 110 and not trying to cram onto the remaining routes. Also the 490 can easily be Double decked at some point and potentially the 33 if the Hammersmith Bridge gets sorted. I don't like words like disturbing used about comments I make! It's not be declaring spare capacity but TFL who can probably provide figures like with Chiswick High Road and the 88/C2. The problem with big data sets is how to correctly interpret them i.e. discern what it does show and does not. Just seeing falling or rising numbers doesn’t paint the full picture of what is driving observed trends. TfL are making short term reactionary changes without fully understanding the cause of declining use or the effect of their changes. I don’t think they are really concerned with the effects of their changes right now as cost saving looks to be the most important priority with regards to bus policy. Injecting a little positivity I think the purse strings have been ever so slightly loosened on the bus network now. Obviously with the 112 getting an increase (looking forward to seeing how that’ll be worded in the changes document), routes like the 96, 123, 124 and 140 getting slight increases too, and the investment in the upcoming new bus routes. I hope this is the start of a slightly brighter future, I like to think after the Central London Bus cuts we’re through the worst of it now and it may start getting a bit better. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2018 11:40:38 GMT
PVR wise, I would imagine a plus 8 onto the 110 , minus 6 on the 419 , minus 3 on the H37 minus 3 on the H22 ,and plus 4 on the 267 . Rugby days will be a massive issue for the new 110. It will have to run direct via the A316 from Hospital Bridge Road rather than Warren Road, bringing lengthy delays. It is interesting that the 110 is being elevated in this nature, there was once a proposal for it to replace the 111 to Heathrow. Plus 4 on the 267? Why? TfL have decreed a frequency increase on the 267 , so it’s a guess. Perhaps you might look at the 493 which might see a PVR decrease or retain PVR if there are currently reliability issues. |
|
