|
|
Post by snowman on Oct 31, 2018 12:22:03 GMT
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. I wonder if the loosened purse strings are rather more locally selective, looking at the map on this link can see Richmond and Twickenham borough grew by 1% and both Ealing and Hounslow-Chiswick only fell 3%. There are going to be some local areas of growth within those (some of which make be getting developer contributions). My feeling is these marginal increases are going to be more than offset by much bigger cuts in the areas that are red on the map. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Oct 31, 2018 12:48:15 GMT
Aside from the H37 which I think is absolute lunacy, these aren’t too bad. The H37 is absolutely renowned for chronic overcrowding and I hope the ‘assistance’ it’s being given will actually be useful. I honestly didn’t think these changes would be too bad as I saw in a diagram (just wish I could remember the source) of all the boroughs in London and I seem to recall the Richmond area would be getting a 2% increase in bus capacity? (And Croydon/Sutton something like 10%?) So I do think there are some genuine improvements in this (apart from my H37 reservations) rather than awful cuts just being dressed up as improvements (like the Central London one). The H37 gets a frequency cut yet is always busy, the 110 & 419 becomes a longer, redirected 110 that will be hit by more traffic and no longer serves Twickenham or the hospital & the H22 is cut away from Richmond altogether - from where I am, it's cuts dressed up as improvements very much so. The only change where you can see logical thinking in is the 493 due to it's length, long running time & the fact it serves a number of traffic hotspots. I'm guessing the cut to the H37 is for two reasons. One is that if it remained as now the Richmond - St Margarets section would be overbussed if the 110 is added. Also cutting the H37 provides some funding for the 110's extension as does the cut to the H22. Secondly there has been quite a redistribution of passengers between routes on the Isleworth - Hounslow section since the E8 was extended to Hounslow. TfL are therefore taking the opportunity to "rebalance" resources on that section although there's a recognition of school time demand for the H37 at Isleworth with the extra PM SDO bus. I assume that wouldn't be needed if the H37 was run with DDs but the low bridge precludes that. I can sort of understand TfL's logic with the 110 changes and the desire to cut buses in Richmond Town Centre but half the problem in Richmond is far too many cars crawling their way through the town centre. It is a long time since I travelled regularly between Richmond and Twickenham but I am surprised that peak demand has fallen to the extent that 5 bph can be removed (H22 cut). I note other comments that the 110 can have a timetable constructed around prevailing traffic conditions - that's fine but whether that timetable is attractive and reliable is probably the greater question. That's not much point in adding 4 bph through St Margarets unless those buses turn up regularly and are not bunched up against the H37 (highly likely given the H37 remains high frequency). I also sort of understand the issue with the 493 but the bit that's missing for me is how many people use it to / from Richmond Stn. It's an important railhead with frequent rail and tube services on multiple routes and the 493 provides the only link from Upper Richmond / Sheen Roads to the station. I know some people may use the low frequency stopping SWR rail services at North Sheen and Mortlake but not everyone will. People will be forced to walk or somehow change buses which isn't marvellous in my view. There are more and more instances where TfL suddenly seem content to break up interchange possibilities and to lose links. All of a sudden it's fine for people to be lumbered with 400-500m walks between stops or from stops to stations whereas past policy was to provide convenient links. |
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Oct 31, 2018 17:44:39 GMT
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. Where or when have TfL said anything about a frequency increase on route 267 and what is the proposed frequency? |
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Oct 31, 2018 17:51:35 GMT
The H37 gets a frequency cut yet is always busy, the 110 & 419 becomes a longer, redirected 110 that will be hit by more traffic and no longer serves Twickenham or the hospital & the H22 is cut away from Richmond altogether - from where I am, it's cuts dressed up as improvements very much so. The only change where you can see logical thinking in is the 493 due to it's length, long running time & the fact it serves a number of traffic hotspots. I'm guessing the cut to the H37 is for two reasons. One is that if it remained as now the Richmond - St Margarets section would be overbussed if the 110 is added. Also cutting the H37 provides some funding for the 110's extension as does the cut to the H22. Secondly there has been quite a redistribution of passengers between routes on the Isleworth - Hounslow section since the E8 was extended to Hounslow. TfL are therefore taking the opportunity to "rebalance" resources on that section although there's a recognition of school time demand for the H37 at Isleworth with the extra PM SDO bus. I assume that wouldn't be needed if the H37 was run with DDs but the low bridge precludes that. I can sort of understand TfL's logic with the 110 changes and the desire to cut buses in Richmond Town Centre but half the problem in Richmond is far too many cars crawling their way through the town centre. It is a long time since I travelled regularly between Richmond and Twickenham but I am surprised that peak demand has fallen to the extent that 5 bph can be removed (H22 cut). I note other comments that the 110 can have a timetable constructed around prevailing traffic conditions - that's fine but whether that timetable is attractive and reliable is probably the greater question. That's not much point in adding 4 bph through St Margarets unless those buses turn up regularly and are not bunched up against the H37 (highly likely given the H37 remains high frequency). I also sort of understand the issue with the 493 but the bit that's missing for me is how many people use it to / from Richmond Stn. It's an important railhead with frequent rail and tube services on multiple routes and the 493 provides the only link from Upper Richmond / Sheen Roads to the station. I know some people may use the low frequency stopping SWR rail services at North Sheen and Mortlake but not everyone will. People will be forced to walk or somehow change buses which isn't marvellous in my view. There are more and more instances where TfL suddenly seem content to break up interchange possibilities and to lose links. All of a sudden it's fine for people to be lumbered with 400-500m walks between stops or from stops to stations whereas past policy was to provide convenient links. Most people heading for Richmond Station from Upper Richmond Road or Sheen Road would catch the first bus that arrives (33, 337 or 493) and alight at Waitrose and walk around the corner to the station. Waiting specifically for a 493 and then going all the way round the one way system to reach the stop outside Richmond Station would be much slower. On the return journey most people walk from Richmond Station to Waitrose to have a choice of three bus routes. Waiting for a 493 outside the station is risky especially with the reliabiliity issues of the route. |
|
|
|
Post by RandomBusesGirl on Oct 31, 2018 19:35:01 GMT
Interesting, I thought there would be a lot more butchering involved, but clearly nope. The 2 Rs I thought would be messed with aren't even touched. Although I would certainly oppose H37's reduction - oh no! Leave that alone. And time will tell if that new 110 route will work, but is surely interesting. I like that it'll cover some new roads. Why didn't they take the opportunity to use the R69 number though?  (my friend pointed that out) It's a great opportunity to call for 490's decking now, especially that removal of an overlapping route adds on another set of excuses to use. And don't forget the Heathrow growing one too! I hope common sense occurs for once… It's something good to include when filling out the consultation  |
|
|
|
Post by paulo on Oct 31, 2018 20:17:12 GMT
Interesting, I thought there would be a lot more butchering involved, but clearly nope. The 2 Rs I thought would be messed with aren't even touched. Although I would certainly oppose H37's reduction - oh no! Leave that alone. And time will tell if that new 110 route will work, but is surely interesting. I like that it'll cover some new roads. Why didn't they take the opportunity to use the R69 number though? (my friend pointed that out) It's a great opportunity to call for 490's decking now, especially that removal of an overlapping route adds on another set of excuses to use. And don't forget the Heathrow growing one too! I hope common sense occurs for once… It's something good to include when filling out the consultation The 419 (or a version of it) was formerly the R69. I think lettered routes are now out of favour. |
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Oct 31, 2018 20:41:08 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. It used to be that the 110 and 111 were interlinked in all but scheduling. They were the chosen routes for the autofare experiments almost fifty years ago when they were converted to one person operation, and London Transport would dearly have loved the ability to switch buses from one route to the other, both on a scheduled and unscheduled basis, but it was a stretch too far for the union, understandably in my opinion, given all the problems of automatic fare collection. The 111 hadn't reached Kingston in those days and (arguably) was the less important of the two routes. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Oct 31, 2018 21:29:58 GMT
As late as 2003 apparantly the Hounslow to Heathrow section of the 111 was proposed to be swapped with the 110. The 110 will now be quite different to the old route from a few years ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 1, 2018 2:00:50 GMT
Interesting, I thought there would be a lot more butchering involved, but clearly nope. The 2 Rs I thought would be messed with aren't even touched. Although I would certainly oppose H37's reduction - oh no! Leave that alone. And time will tell if that new 110 route will work, but is surely interesting. I like that it'll cover some new roads. Why didn't they take the opportunity to use the R69 number though? (my friend pointed that out) It's a great opportunity to call for 490's decking now, especially that removal of an overlapping route adds on another set of excuses to use. And don't forget the Heathrow growing one too! I hope common sense occurs for once… It's something good to include when filling out the consultation Someone on here mentioned recently that a key 'don't' is not to propose ideas and be seen as your telling them what they should do as apparently, that sort of reply would be ignored. The 490, providing nothing is stopping it from being decked, should happen regardless of the cuts but I'm afraid I don't see it happening. |
|
|
|
Post by Frenzie on Nov 1, 2018 5:07:03 GMT
The H37 gets a frequency cut yet is always busy, the 110 & 419 becomes a longer, redirected 110 that will be hit by more traffic and no longer serves Twickenham or the hospital & the H22 is cut away from Richmond altogether - from where I am, it's cuts dressed up as improvements very much so. The only change where you can see logical thinking in is the 493 due to it's length, long running time & the fact it serves a number of traffic hotspots. I'm guessing the cut to the H37 is for two reasons. One is that if it remained as now the Richmond - St Margarets section would be overbussed if the 110 is added. Also cutting the H37 provides some funding for the 110's extension as does the cut to the H22. Secondly there has been quite a redistribution of passengers between routes on the Isleworth - Hounslow section since the E8 was extended to Hounslow. TfL are therefore taking the opportunity to "rebalance" resources on that section although there's a recognition of school time demand for the H37 at Isleworth with the extra PM SDO bus. I assume that wouldn't be needed if the H37 was run with DDs but the low bridge precludes that. I can sort of understand TfL's logic with the 110 changes and the desire to cut buses in Richmond Town Centre but half the problem in Richmond is far too many cars crawling their way through the town centre. It is a long time since I travelled regularly between Richmond and Twickenham but I am surprised that peak demand has fallen to the extent that 5 bph can be removed (H22 cut). I note other comments that the 110 can have a timetable constructed around prevailing traffic conditions - that's fine but whether that timetable is attractive and reliable is probably the greater question. That's not much point in adding 4 bph through St Margarets unless those buses turn up regularly and are not bunched up against the H37 (highly likely given the H37 remains high frequency). I also sort of understand the issue with the 493 but the bit that's missing for me is how many people use it to / from Richmond Stn. It's an important railhead with frequent rail and tube services on multiple routes and the 493 provides the only link from Upper Richmond / Sheen Roads to the station. I know some people may use the low frequency stopping SWR rail services at North Sheen and Mortlake but not everyone will. People will be forced to walk or somehow change buses which isn't marvellous in my view. There are more and more instances where TfL suddenly seem content to break up interchange possibilities and to lose links. All of a sudden it's fine for people to be lumbered with 400-500m walks between stops or from stops to stations whereas past policy was to provide convenient links. The walk between the bus station and George Street/Richmond station/ The Quadrant is one I do regularly and it’s not too bad. But I can certain see how someone less able to walk, such as my grandmother, would struggle. I feel as patronage in Richmond has decreased and I say this having gone through the town centre frequently for the last 4 years. You very rarely get a packed solid 65 now which leaves people behind and many vehicles are half full, making my journey a lot more appealing but I think it’s partly due to the PVR increase of 3. I’ve also used the H37 recently. On one occasion the bus was half full and emptied by the time we got to Hounslow but on the second occasion the bus was absolutely packed and started to empty at St Margaret’s Station where it became comfortable enough to breathe in the bus. Personally, I think the H37 should get bendies but since that’s unlikely to happen, we have to suffer with the reduced PVR (although I don’t think it will be noticed by passengers). The 110 extension is fantastic. I can’t wait to try it out and I hope AV run it just as successfully as the N9 and 111, which are also very long routes and the 111 also has to deal a fair bit of traffic. I am a bit disappointed that the H22 wasn’t merged with the 419 as that would truly be a nippy and useful link. |
|
|
|
Post by paulo on Nov 1, 2018 6:34:09 GMT
I'm guessing the cut to the H37 is for two reasons. One is that if it remained as now the Richmond - St Margarets section would be overbussed if the 110 is added. Also cutting the H37 provides some funding for the 110's extension as does the cut to the H22. Secondly there has been quite a redistribution of passengers between routes on the Isleworth - Hounslow section since the E8 was extended to Hounslow. TfL are therefore taking the opportunity to "rebalance" resources on that section although there's a recognition of school time demand for the H37 at Isleworth with the extra PM SDO bus. I assume that wouldn't be needed if the H37 was run with DDs but the low bridge precludes that. I can sort of understand TfL's logic with the 110 changes and the desire to cut buses in Richmond Town Centre but half the problem in Richmond is far too many cars crawling their way through the town centre. It is a long time since I travelled regularly between Richmond and Twickenham but I am surprised that peak demand has fallen to the extent that 5 bph can be removed (H22 cut). I note other comments that the 110 can have a timetable constructed around prevailing traffic conditions - that's fine but whether that timetable is attractive and reliable is probably the greater question. That's not much point in adding 4 bph through St Margarets unless those buses turn up regularly and are not bunched up against the H37 (highly likely given the H37 remains high frequency). I also sort of understand the issue with the 493 but the bit that's missing for me is how many people use it to / from Richmond Stn. It's an important railhead with frequent rail and tube services on multiple routes and the 493 provides the only link from Upper Richmond / Sheen Roads to the station. I know some people may use the low frequency stopping SWR rail services at North Sheen and Mortlake but not everyone will. People will be forced to walk or somehow change buses which isn't marvellous in my view. There are more and more instances where TfL suddenly seem content to break up interchange possibilities and to lose links. All of a sudden it's fine for people to be lumbered with 400-500m walks between stops or from stops to stations whereas past policy was to provide convenient links. The walk between the bus station and George Street/Richmond station/ The Quadrant is one I do regularly and it’s not too bad. But I can certain see how someone less able to walk, such as my grandmother, would struggle. I feel as patronage in Richmond has decreased and I say this having gone through the town centre frequently for the last 4 years. You very rarely get a packed solid 65 now which leaves people behind and many vehicles are half full, making my journey a lot more appealing but I think it’s partly due to the PVR increase of 3. I’ve also used the H37 recently. On one occasion the bus was half full and emptied by the time we got to Hounslow but on the second occasion the bus was absolutely packed and started to empty at St Margaret’s Station where it became comfortable enough to breathe in the bus. Personally, I think the H37 should get bendies but since that’s unlikely to happen, we have to suffer with the reduced PVR (although I don’t think it will be noticed by passengers). The 110 extension is fantastic. I can’t wait to try it out and I hope AV run it just as successfully as the N9 and 111, which are also very long routes and the 111 also has to deal a fair bit of traffic. I am a bit disappointed that the H22 wasn’t merged with the 419 as that would truly be a nippy and useful link. So de we assume the H37 will now receive DXEs as per the RATP order for the 293 and the 419s DEs wil be swapped with the H22s DLEs? |
|
|
|
Post by paulo on Nov 1, 2018 6:39:38 GMT
As late as 2003 apparantly the Hounslow to Heathrow section of the 111 was proposed to be swapped with the 110. The 110 will now be quite different to the old route from a few years ago. The 110 used to run to Cranford during peek hours back in the 1980s. It was operated with MCW metrobuses back then from Fulwell as opposed to Hounslow. |
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Nov 1, 2018 7:06:38 GMT
I'm guessing the cut to the H37 is for two reasons. One is that if it remained as now the Richmond - St Margarets section would be overbussed if the 110 is added. Also cutting the H37 provides some funding for the 110's extension as does the cut to the H22. Secondly there has been quite a redistribution of passengers between routes on the Isleworth - Hounslow section since the E8 was extended to Hounslow. TfL are therefore taking the opportunity to "rebalance" resources on that section although there's a recognition of school time demand for the H37 at Isleworth with the extra PM SDO bus. I assume that wouldn't be needed if the H37 was run with DDs but the low bridge precludes that. I can sort of understand TfL's logic with the 110 changes and the desire to cut buses in Richmond Town Centre but half the problem in Richmond is far too many cars crawling their way through the town centre. It is a long time since I travelled regularly between Richmond and Twickenham but I am surprised that peak demand has fallen to the extent that 5 bph can be removed (H22 cut). I note other comments that the 110 can have a timetable constructed around prevailing traffic conditions - that's fine but whether that timetable is attractive and reliable is probably the greater question. That's not much point in adding 4 bph through St Margarets unless those buses turn up regularly and are not bunched up against the H37 (highly likely given the H37 remains high frequency). I also sort of understand the issue with the 493 but the bit that's missing for me is how many people use it to / from Richmond Stn. It's an important railhead with frequent rail and tube services on multiple routes and the 493 provides the only link from Upper Richmond / Sheen Roads to the station. I know some people may use the low frequency stopping SWR rail services at North Sheen and Mortlake but not everyone will. People will be forced to walk or somehow change buses which isn't marvellous in my view. There are more and more instances where TfL suddenly seem content to break up interchange possibilities and to lose links. All of a sudden it's fine for people to be lumbered with 400-500m walks between stops or from stops to stations whereas past policy was to provide convenient links. The walk between the bus station and George Street/Richmond station/ The Quadrant is one I do regularly and it’s not too bad. But I can certain see how someone less able to walk, such as my grandmother, would struggle. I feel as patronage in Richmond has decreased and I say this having gone through the town centre frequently for the last 4 years. You very rarely get a packed solid 65 now which leaves people behind and many vehicles are half full, making my journey a lot more appealing but I think it’s partly due to the PVR increase of 3. I’ve also used the H37 recently. On one occasion the bus was half full and emptied by the time we got to Hounslow but on the second occasion the bus was absolutely packed and started to empty at St Margaret’s Station where it became comfortable enough to breathe in the bus. Personally, I think the H37 should get bendies but since that’s unlikely to happen, we have to suffer with the reduced PVR (although I don’t think it will be noticed by passengers). The 110 extension is fantastic. I can’t wait to try it out and I hope AV run it just as successfully as the N9 and 111, which are also very long routes and the 111 also has to deal a fair bit of traffic. I am a bit disappointed that the H22 wasn’t merged with the 419 as that would truly be a nippy and useful link. It is certainly true that Richmond is less busy in the evening peak than in the past. but this may be due to loss of Richmond fast trains about 15-20 years ago. (The Waterloo Clapham Richmond Feltham trains are no more) nowadays many also stop at Vauxhall, Putney (and then stop at Twickenham and even Whitton). The effect is that Richmond is no longer so busy as a bus interchange. It may still be terminus of District and Overground but very few will travel to Central London on that route as it is much slower) The other thing is that when The Quadrant was repaved about 5 years ago, the road was narrowed and the inability to pass something can nowadays lead to buses sitting for ages going nowhere. Walking past them is often faster which like other areas is a deterrent to using the buses unless you cannot walk far. With the extra trains at places like Twickenham it has cut the peak demand to Richmond |
|
|
|
Post by routew15 on Nov 1, 2018 7:25:33 GMT
Interesting, I thought there would be a lot more butchering involved, but clearly nope. The 2 Rs I thought would be messed with aren't even touched. Although I would certainly oppose H37's reduction - oh no! Leave that alone. And time will tell if that new 110 route will work, but is surely interesting. I like that it'll cover some new roads. Why didn't they take the opportunity to use the R69 number though? (my friend pointed that out) It's a great opportunity to call for 490's decking now, especially that removal of an overlapping route adds on another set of excuses to use. And don't forget the Heathrow growing one too! I hope common sense occurs for once… It's something good to include when filling out the consultation that sort of reply would be ignored. The 490, providing nothing is stopping it from being decked, should happen regardless of the cuts but I'm afraid I don't see it happening. I didn’t realise that TfL recently transmogrified from public body to God! They now possess the powers of omnipotence, with divine knowledge of precisely how every commuter has felt, currently feels and will feel about changes to the transport system... 😂😂😂 |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Nov 1, 2018 8:08:52 GMT
I'm guessing the cut to the H37 is for two reasons. One is that if it remained as now the Richmond - St Margarets section would be overbussed if the 110 is added. Also cutting the H37 provides some funding for the 110's extension as does the cut to the H22. Secondly there has been quite a redistribution of passengers between routes on the Isleworth - Hounslow section since the E8 was extended to Hounslow. TfL are therefore taking the opportunity to "rebalance" resources on that section although there's a recognition of school time demand for the H37 at Isleworth with the extra PM SDO bus. I assume that wouldn't be needed if the H37 was run with DDs but the low bridge precludes that. I can sort of understand TfL's logic with the 110 changes and the desire to cut buses in Richmond Town Centre but half the problem in Richmond is far too many cars crawling their way through the town centre. It is a long time since I travelled regularly between Richmond and Twickenham but I am surprised that peak demand has fallen to the extent that 5 bph can be removed (H22 cut). I note other comments that the 110 can have a timetable constructed around prevailing traffic conditions - that's fine but whether that timetable is attractive and reliable is probably the greater question. That's not much point in adding 4 bph through St Margarets unless those buses turn up regularly and are not bunched up against the H37 (highly likely given the H37 remains high frequency). I also sort of understand the issue with the 493 but the bit that's missing for me is how many people use it to / from Richmond Stn. It's an important railhead with frequent rail and tube services on multiple routes and the 493 provides the only link from Upper Richmond / Sheen Roads to the station. I know some people may use the low frequency stopping SWR rail services at North Sheen and Mortlake but not everyone will. People will be forced to walk or somehow change buses which isn't marvellous in my view. There are more and more instances where TfL suddenly seem content to break up interchange possibilities and to lose links. All of a sudden it's fine for people to be lumbered with 400-500m walks between stops or from stops to stations whereas past policy was to provide convenient links. The walk between the bus station and George Street/Richmond station/ The Quadrant is one I do regularly and it’s not too bad. But I can certain see how someone less able to walk, such as my grandmother, would struggle. I feel as patronage in Richmond has decreased and I say this having gone through the town centre frequently for the last 4 years. You very rarely get a packed solid 65 now which leaves people behind and many vehicles are half full, making my journey a lot more appealing but I think it’s partly due to the PVR increase of 3. I’ve also used the H37 recently. On one occasion the bus was half full and emptied by the time we got to Hounslow but on the second occasion the bus was absolutely packed and started to empty at St Margaret’s Station where it became comfortable enough to breathe in the bus. Personally, I think the H37 should get bendies but since that’s unlikely to happen, we have to suffer with the reduced PVR (although I don’t think it will be noticed by passengers). The 110 extension is fantastic. I can’t wait to try it out and I hope AV run it just as successfully as the N9 and 111, which are also very long routes and the 111 also has to deal a fair bit of traffic. I am a bit disappointed that the H22 wasn’t merged with the 419 as that would truly be a nippy and useful link. I've often thought that the H37 would be an ideal candidate for bendy buses, I don't know if there are any clearance issues? I agree that merging the H22 with the 419 would be a better option. |
|
(my friend pointed that out)
