|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 4, 2018 3:23:38 GMT
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 😏 It's not that they're bad so to speak but that, as a result of congestion significantly rising for decades, long routes simply can't function effectively apart from a few exemptions which have favorable conditions or a slightly quieter corridor to run along. I've not been conditioned by TfL or anyone else - I firmly believe that nowadays, long routes are simply dying relics and whilst it's sad (I wish the 109 was still a Purley to Trafalgar Square route), realism is what is needed and as no one is willing to combat congestion significantly, then shorter routes will be the better option and it's why I support the splitting of the 11. I can see the revised 110 running into problems during busy times as a result as well. I believe the odd cut maybe for reliability but probably not as it's primary reason - the 493 does seem to have some hint of reliability saving in it giving the nature & length of the route. |
|
|
|
Post by busman on Nov 4, 2018 8:44:43 GMT
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 😏 It's not that they're bad so to speak but that, as a result of congestion significantly rising for decades, long routes simply can't function effectively apart from a few exemptions which have favorable conditions or a slightly quieter corridor to run along. I've not been conditioned by TfL or anyone else - I firmly believe that nowadays, long routes are simply dying relics and whilst it's sad (I wish the 109 was still a Purley to Trafalgar Square route), realism is what is needed and as no one is willing to combat congestion significantly, then shorter routes will be the better option and it's why I support the splitting of the 11. I can see the revised 110 running into problems during busy times as a result as well. I believe the odd cut maybe for reliability but probably not as it's primary reason - the 493 does seem to have some hint of reliability saving in it giving the nature & length of the route. The problem is that it breaks up journeys and necessitates a change of bus. That’s fine if both buses are frequent, but when we are looking at frequencies of every 15 minutes, in theory you could wait 15 minutes for each bus. For many reasons this makes bus travel less attractive. This is London and many people are time poor enough without wasting our lives waiting longer, sitting in traffic longer or trying to figure out where the buses actually go in the absence of a map. My only consolations are that TfL aren’t asking us to pay more for a worse service plus I have a car, rail options and the ability to walk for long distances. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2018 17:21:30 GMT
It's not that they're bad so to speak but that, as a result of congestion significantly rising for decades, long routes simply can't function effectively apart from a few exemptions which have favorable conditions or a slightly quieter corridor to run along. I've not been conditioned by TfL or anyone else - I firmly believe that nowadays, long routes are simply dying relics and whilst it's sad (I wish the 109 was still a Purley to Trafalgar Square route), realism is what is needed and as no one is willing to combat congestion significantly, then shorter routes will be the better option and it's why I support the splitting of the 11. I can see the revised 110 running into problems during busy times as a result as well. I believe the odd cut maybe for reliability but probably not as it's primary reason - the 493 does seem to have some hint of reliability saving in it giving the nature & length of the route. The problem is that it breaks up journeys and necessitates a change of bus. That’s fine if both buses are frequent, but when we are looking at frequencies of every 15 minutes, in theory you could wait 15 minutes for each bus. For many reasons this makes bus travel less attractive. This is London and many people are time poor enough without wasting our lives waiting longer, sitting in traffic longer or trying to figure out where the buses actually go in the absence of a map. My only consolations are that TfL aren’t asking us to pay more for a worse service plus I have a car, rail options and the ability to walk for long distances. I see people sprint for the Jubilee at a 1-2min headway ... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2018 19:07:01 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. A link from Whitton and Hounslow to Hammersmith via Mortlake is not without precedent, the 33 used to do so Mon-Sat via the 281 routing between Hounslow and Twickenham Station |
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Dec 1, 2018 15:46:00 GMT
The problem is that it breaks up journeys and necessitates a change of bus. That’s fine if both buses are frequent, but when we are looking at frequencies of every 15 minutes, in theory you could wait 15 minutes for each bus. For many reasons this makes bus travel less attractive. This is London and many people are time poor enough without wasting our lives waiting longer, sitting in traffic longer or trying to figure out where the buses actually go in the absence of a map. My only consolations are that TfL aren’t asking us to pay more for a worse service plus I have a car, rail options and the ability to walk for long distances. I see people sprint for the Jubilee at a 1-2min headway ... Ha! I think I dash rather than sprint - I'm not capable of a sprint these days - but it's a good point. And why do I dash? Because I don't want to miss my bus connection at the other end. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Dec 1, 2018 17:30:30 GMT
I see people sprint for the Jubilee at a 1-2min headway ... Ha! I think I dash rather than sprint - I'm not capable of a sprint these days - but it's a good point. And why do I dash? Because I don't want to miss my bus connection at the other end. Last night I travelled back from Shepherds Bush to E17 (having seen Heaven 17 in concert). That's a trip I used to do a fair bit in the late 80s (but not from pop concerts!). Bizarrely apart from the S and 09 stocks not very much has changed in 30 years. Had a ludicrous wait for a train at S Bush having just missed one - 3 trains went towards Hammersmith with none northbound for over 10 minutes (trains are scheduled every 5 mins). The train positively crawled to Kings Cross with the gap meaning a lot of people trying to get on and off. While the Vic Line is quick this was all undone by a "pure 1980s style" crew relief at Seven Sisters taking 4 mins. With night tube you now get crew changes at 2320! Two chaps on the tube were obviously hoping to get a stopping train at T Hale and the delay meant they had a 28 min wait for the next one.  The only small upside was I had a shorter wait in the cold for my (late) 123 at T Hale. It's bizarre with almost 30 years of so called progress that that journey was little better than one 30 years ago. And as for the trip *to* S Bush in the rush hour well that was unspeakably bad - 80 mins for something that should take way less than an hour. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2018 8:32:02 GMT
I see people sprint for the Jubilee at a 1-2min headway ... And why do I dash? Because I don't want to miss my bus connection at the other end. I can understand that, but I doubt that applies to everyone all of the time.
Even witnessed similar action on the Bakerloo on Saturday with someone trying the squeeze in when the doors were closing, having been released quickly to clear a trapped item. This person couldn't understand why the doors then closed on her
|
|
|
|
Post by thelondonthing on Dec 11, 2018 21:53:53 GMT
TfL has today, finally, sent out emails regarding the consultation. Attachment DeletedThis is particularly odd because the consultation was originally due to end today, Dec 11, but the closing date has now been pushed back to Jan 6 2019. At a quick glance, it doesn't look like anything in the proposal itself has been amended, and the intention is still to proceed with the changes in May 2019 - so it seems the extended consultation won't delay any changes that they eventually decide to implement. |
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Dec 31, 2018 9:41:53 GMT
TfL has today, finally, sent out emails regarding the consultation. View AttachmentThis is particularly odd because the consultation was originally due to end today, Dec 11, but the closing date has now been pushed back to Jan 6 2019. At a quick glance, it doesn't look like anything in the proposal itself has been amended, and the intention is still to proceed with the changes in May 2019 - so it seems the extended consultation won't delay any changes that they eventually decide to implement. I have been pondering about this extra time for replies, all I can think is that seriously important stakeholder raised issues. But even that seems unusual so my hunch is that something got messy within TfL such as a late realisation that the 110s DLEs might be too heavy for Hammersmith Bridge. Obviously if you cut the bus size, need a higher frequency. I have a funny feeling that this might change, or 419 (even if renumbered to 110) gets cut to Castlenau due to bridge restrictions |
|
|
|
Post by thelondonthing on Dec 31, 2018 11:48:33 GMT
I have been pondering about this extra time for replies, all I can think is that seriously important stakeholder raised issues. But even that seems unusual so my hunch is that something got messy within TfL such as a late realisation that the 110s DLEs might be too heavy for Hammersmith Bridge. Obviously if you cut the bus size, need a higher frequency. I have a funny feeling that this might change, or 419 (even if renumbered to 110) gets cut to Castlenau due to bridge restrictions I'm also of the opinion that it was probably something 'messy' at TfL, albeit in a slightly different way. I can't overlook the fact that the consultation period was extended by several weeks on the same day that they sent out the emails, which was also the same day on which the consultation was originally due to end. As a public body, TfL obviously has to meet certain obligations as part of its consultation processes - stuff like ensuring clarity of information presented, how that info is distributed to all stakeholders, and of course, how feedback is collected, analysed and acted upon. "Sending out emails to tell people about consultation" is surely one of the checkboxes on the list of things that TfL needs to do to be able to demonstrate - if held accountable for any reason - that each consultation has been conducted responsibly, thoroughly and consistently. My best guess is that someone at TfL realized, on the last day of the consultation, that no-one had sent the emails, and quickly fixed the problem by sending them out and extending the consultation period by a reasonable amount. It's not an exciting explanation, but I think it's the simplest one that makes sense based on what (little!) we know, and I'm a fan of Occam's Razor. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jan 2, 2019 9:38:17 GMT
The only change I think tfl may go back on is the H37. All the others are dependant on each other and no one can deny there isn't excess capacity between Richmond and Manor Circus. If the 419 doesn't move out the bus station then the 493 can't move in, if the 110 doesn't get diverted to Richmond then the H22 change would break a Whitton to Richmond link.
Whislt the H37 would still leave a large amount of buses to Manor Circus if the freq wasn't reduced then it doesn't necessarily stop the other changes going ahead. Bit like the D7 wasn't reduced in the Isle of Dogs changes.
|
|
|
|
Post by VMH2452 on Jan 2, 2019 10:15:59 GMT
If the 419 doesn't move out the bus station then the 493 can't move in, if the 110 doesn't get diverted to Richmond then the H22 change would break a Whitton to Richmond link. I've noticed that most TfL's bus consultations are like that. Everything is tied together so if you want one thing to happen, everything has to go ahead. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jan 2, 2019 10:45:08 GMT
The only change I think tfl may go back on is the H37. All the others are dependant on each other and no one can deny there isn't excess capacity between Richmond and Manor Circus. If the 419 doesn't move out the bus station then the 493 can't move in, if the 110 doesn't get diverted to Richmond then the H22 change would break a Whitton to Richmond link. Whislt the H37 would still leave a large amount of buses to Manor Circus if the freq wasn't reduced then it doesn't necessarily stop the other changes going ahead. Bit like the D7 wasn't reduced in the Isle of Dogs changes. In fairness, the only reason why there is some excess capacity between Manor Circus & Richmond is because a lack of alternative stand space elsewhere. Not only that but Manor Circus has long been the terminus for many of those routes so quite why it's now all of a sudden an issue is beyond me. |
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Jan 2, 2019 12:01:04 GMT
The only change I think tfl may go back on is the H37. All the others are dependant on each other and no one can deny there isn't excess capacity between Richmond and Manor Circus. If the 419 doesn't move out the bus station then the 493 can't move in, if the 110 doesn't get diverted to Richmond then the H22 change would break a Whitton to Richmond link. Whislt the H37 would still leave a large amount of buses to Manor Circus if the freq wasn't reduced then it doesn't necessarily stop the other changes going ahead. Bit like the D7 wasn't reduced in the Isle of Dogs changes. In fairness, the only reason why there is some excess capacity between Manor Circus & Richmond is because a lack of alternative stand space elsewhere. Not only that but Manor Circus has long been the terminus for many of those routes so quite why it's now all of a sudden an issue is beyond me. Manor Circus stands are quite scattered The H37 and H22 stand on A316 Lower Mortlake Road The 371 has a stand by Sainsburys (it was diverted from old Dee Road stand) The 493 and R70 are next to the railway The 190, 391 and R68 also serve Manor-Circus - Richmond, but do not terminate at Manor Circus The H22 also used to use Dee Road (it was changed in mid 1990s), the R70 was at Raleigh road or Dee Road in the past, the 371 used Dee Road until about 7 years ago. The H37 used to reverse at Richmond A316 roundabout until about 7 years ago before the Manor Road extension. So not true to say that Manor Circus has long been the terminus for many of these routes. Most only went there about 7 years ago. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jan 2, 2019 12:40:52 GMT
The only change I think tfl may go back on is the H37. All the others are dependant on each other and no one can deny there isn't excess capacity between Richmond and Manor Circus. If the 419 doesn't move out the bus station then the 493 can't move in, if the 110 doesn't get diverted to Richmond then the H22 change would break a Whitton to Richmond link. Whislt the H37 would still leave a large amount of buses to Manor Circus if the freq wasn't reduced then it doesn't necessarily stop the other changes going ahead. Bit like the D7 wasn't reduced in the Isle of Dogs changes. Does a short route like the H37 really need stand time at both ends of the route? |
|
The only small upside was I had a shorter wait in the cold for my (late) 123 at T Hale. 
