|
|
Post by busaholic on Mar 6, 2019 18:56:43 GMT
It is that kind of outlook that got us where we are today. History has shown that the past and current generations of urban traffic planners have resulted in levels of traffic remaining the same ... all that happens is the same amount of traffic travels slower as statistic on central London traffic shows, leading to more pollution, creating a worse environment ... the best way to improve the environment is to increase traffic speed and get things moving. What's got us where we are now is this notion that traffic congestion can be solved by creating more road space, it's a short term solution at best. TfL appears to cleave to the exact opposite notion: reducing road space will solve traffic congestion, on the basis I can only assume that much of that traffic will be frightened away, whereas in practice so much of it needs to be there to service the capital, no doubt including internet deliveries to locations where the armies of utopian planners can access them during the day. |
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Mar 6, 2019 19:08:30 GMT
Pedestrianisng Central London is a lovely idea, but that's why pedestrianising parts of Central London has its shortcomings. New Oxford Street and Great Russell Street would be a much more pleasant if they were pedestrianised so would the Strand and so would Oxford Street, however congestion is ultimately worsened. I went to WCC's consultation event on the pedestrianisation of the Strand and they were unbelievably naive, their modelling looked nothing like the volume of traffic which currently passes through the Strand/Aldwych gyratory at peak hours. I am in favour of two way systems over one way ones but when you put these nice ideas into practice they are heavily flawed. I have no doubt TFL have known about this for years and removing the 25 and 242 with the 171 also set to be pulled out of Holborn soon was building up to this. Schemes like this do certianly make the area more pleasant from a pedestrian's point of view but you only have to look at Aldgate to see how apalling the congestion can become as a result of a scheme such as this. Pedestrianising Central London bit by bit is just going to displace more traffic and worsen congestion. Planners don't seem to realise that these schemes do have adverse effects. The best way to mitigate the effect of a scheme like this would be to restrict the access private vehicles get to Central London. Whilst I realise this would be hugely unpopular and this is very controversial, I would like to see freight banned from Central London at peak hours to remove some congestion as well as limits on private cars accessing Central London. Totally agree with you. TfL have taken the cowards way out, to disseminate a Public Transport mode (a revenue generating mode!), to make way for cycling. Tackling our modern day consumer behaviours that breed the likes of uBer, endless delivery companies, and an increase is the only way to create a sustainable city for the future. Simply stripping out masses of roadway to hand over to elitist cyclists will only do more to disenfranchise certain aspects of the society in the long term, not connect it. It's now a company run and governed sadly by politicians who no matter how much they bleat, only have their own vested political interests, which as we all now are more than often are a crave for power until the next election at least! Note, I have no qualms against cycling. I cycle myself, and completely agree that more and safer cycle infrastructure is needed. No dispute there. However I go back to the 25 as an example of the oodles of pavement space between Bow and Stratford that could have allowed the 25 and cyclists to live in perfect harmony. One idea is that they could have changed the flyover for buses and cyclists only, whilst maintaining the bus lane along with bus priority traffic lights. Regular traffic having to circumnavigate The same could have been done for Stratford Broadway/Great Eastern Road, forcing regular traffic to take a more painstaking route. Lets face it, they caused so much of a mess to the 25 they considered flying it pass stops on the roundabout to send it over the flyover. Let's face it, the only ways to reduce private hire and personal car usage on the road, are to force people out of their cars and incentivise them. To 'force', I mean to do what TfL are in a way doing now, create traffic gridlocks by handing road space to buses and cyclists. However, there are means (bus gates, large stretches of bus lanes, greater bus lane operational hours, bus priority lights etc.) to ensure that buses either do not have to sit in the same traffic / minimise their time in traffic. This is the nuance the current TfL policy completely fails to address. To 'incentivise', offer/show them an alternative service. If you speed up the 25 enough by removing bottlenecks, if you do away with the image of jammed packed buses running in threes, and create a new image of flowing services, connecting to train services/places of employment/social enjoyment/taking you where you to go directly, with new technologies such as on board WiFi, simple fare structures etc. you provide the space for the regular car driver to say... "oh actually taking the 25 wasn't so bad today, I might do it again tomorrow". Instead TfL have done the complete opposite. Frustrated many users away from the service, and slashed it so badly it no longer terminates where people need to go without any consideration to the social demographic of the heart of the areas 25 runs through. The 25 was my lifeline when I was young and had no money. Opting for the 25 to get to Oxford St for my shifts rather than the train was for me, literally the difference between me being able to my afford Uni fees and not attaining a degree. As stated earlier, I am a cyclist, and I am car driver. However, as someone who appreciates the transport network as a whole, and how the social mobility can improve societies fortunes in an attempt to provide connectivity, all I can see in TfL's (in reality the Mayors) transport policy, is a disaster for future generations, who will have to face hard choices as to how to undo some of what their predecessors have done in the name of political vanity. I have always believed, especially on a national level that, there should be a Public Transport body, operating under a cross party agreement to delegate all power to this body, who's sole aim is to look at the transport network from a what will benefit the country/town/cities social and economic disposition, and thus do away with/marginalise the influence of politicians. It's absolute madness to have a system whereby a labour mayor enforces their own policies in an environment when transport schemes largely take roughly 5-20 years from concept to completion, when in 4 years time a Tory mayor may well be in power, snatching at the every opportunity to undo what their predecessor may have done, in the name of once again.... political vanity. I fully agree with you. The Mayor's Transport Strategy aspired for 80% of journeys in London to be done by walking/cycling/public transport, but it seems absoloutely laughable to think that this was anything other than a meaningless statistic. TFL need to realise that getting people out of their cars requires there to be viable alternatives. For example: Person A lives in Turnham Green and works in Paddington. Person A could use the tube to get between the two but Person A doesn't mind sitting on the 27 bus despite the congestion because they like having a direct link between home and work. From Monday, Person A will no longer be able to make a direct journey between Turnham Green and Paddington because the 27 is being withdrawn between Chiswick and Hammersmith. On Monday, Person A arrives at the stop, Turnham Green Church, they wait for a bus to take them Hammersmith to get on the 27. A 267 arrives at the stop and is full leaving Person A still waiting. A 391 arrives at the stop and is also full, Person A decides to give up on using the bus to get to work and decides to use Uber to get to work instead. Passengers vote with their feet, whilst TFL give the same reponse to anyone who is inconvenienced by the change, I don't think the hopper fare appeals to many. Changing buses is seen as a hassle and many commuters who value a direct link between home and work which is being cut/has been cut won't want to use the alternative. I think that there will still be people who change from the 267/391/H91 to the 27 at Hammersmith, but the appeal of changing buses isn't very broad and the 27's patronage will fall when the route is withdrawn between Chiswick and Hammersmith with perhaps a small increase in patronage on the remaining routes on Chiswick High Road, a money saving measure from TFL will in the long term lose them money. This example would become more extreme if for example this ere the 19 cut and someone was trying to travel between Battersea and Highbury and would have use four buses to complete their journey.
It angers me how reliability is used as an abitrary excuse for cutting routes back. In some cases, yes, there are routes which are too long and reliable which need to be shortened such as the 11 and the 266. Using reliability as an excuse for cutting the 25 back was stupid. Yes the 25 was long as susceptible to delays when it ran between Oxford Circus and Ilford, but I would (and I'm sure many commuters would too) rather have a route that may not be the most reliable and may suffer from a bit of bunching here and there but provides useful connections than one with an immaculate service and even headways but is shorter and so provides less useful connection. A bus is better than no bus. Cutting a route back isn't always the answer to trying to make the route run more reliabily. I didn't use the 25 much when it ran between Oxford Circus and Ilford so I'm not an expert but the short trips, when the ran as far as Holborn, seemed to be a good idea to try to help the reliability of the route whilst still maintaing useful connections. If the buses doing the full length were still struggling than perhaps a little more run time is needed (please don't shoot me, this is just me applying theoretical ideas to a real life siutation).
|
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Mar 6, 2019 19:22:37 GMT
It is that kind of outlook that got us where we are today. History has shown that the past and current generations of urban traffic planners have resulted in levels of traffic remaining the same ... all that happens is the same amount of traffic travels slower as statistic on central London traffic shows, leading to more pollution, creating a worse environment ... the best way to improve the environment is to increase traffic speed and get things moving. What's got us where we are now is this notion that traffic congestion can be solved by creating more road space, it's a short term solution at best. When was the last time real road space was created in London? |
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Mar 6, 2019 20:53:47 GMT
What's got us where we are now is this notion that traffic congestion can be solved by creating more road space, it's a short term solution at best. When was the last time real road space was created in London? In any volume, last century. |
|
frank
Conductor
Posts: 68
|
Post by frank on Mar 7, 2019 1:10:18 GMT
Totally agree with you. TfL have taken the cowards way out, to disseminate a Public Transport mode (a revenue generating mode!), to make way for cycling. Tackling our modern day consumer behaviours that breed the likes of uBer, endless delivery companies, and an increase in personal car usage is the only way to create a sustainable city for the future. Simply stripping out masses of roadway to hand over to elitist cyclists will only do more to disenfranchise certain aspects of the society in the long term, not connect it. It's now a company run and governed sadly by politicians who no matter how much they bleat, only have their own vested political interests, which as we all know are more than often are a crave for power until the next election at least! Note, I have no qualms against cycling. I cycle myself, and completely agree that more and safer cycle infrastructure is needed. No dispute there. However I go back to the 25 as an example of the oodles of pavement space between Bow and Stratford that could have allowed the 25 and cyclists to live in perfect harmony. One idea is that they could have changed the flyover for buses and cyclists only, whilst maintaining the bus lane along with bus priority traffic lights. Regular traffic having to circumnavigate the roundabout. The same could have been done for Stratford Broadway/Great Eastern Road, forcing regular traffic to take a more painstaking route. Lets face it, they caused so much of a mess to the 25 they considered flying it past stops on the roundabout to send it over the flyover. Let's face it, the only ways to reduce private hire and personal car usage on the road, are to force people out of their cars and incentivise them. To 'force', I mean to do what TfL are in a way doing now, create traffic gridlocks by handing road space to buses and cyclists. However, there are means (bus gates, large stretches of bus lanes, greater bus lane operational hours, bus priority lights etc.) to ensure that buses either do not have to sit in the same traffic / minimise their time in traffic. This is the nuance the current TfL policy completely fails to address. To 'incentivise', offer/show them an alternative service. If you speed up the 25 enough by removing bottlenecks, if you do away with the image of jammed packed buses running in threes, and create a new image of flowing services, connecting to train services/places of employment/social enjoyment/taking you where you want to go directly, with new technologies such as onboard WiFi, simple fare structures etc. you provide the space for the regular car driver to say... "oh actually taking the 25 wasn't so bad today, I might do it again tomorrow". Instead TfL have done the complete opposite. Frustrated many users away from the service, and slashed it so badly it no longer terminates where people need to go without any consideration to the social demographic of the heart of the areas 25 runs through. The 25 was my lifeline when I was young and had no money. Opting for the 25 to get to Oxford St for my shifts rather than the train was for me, literally the difference between me being able to my afford Uni fees and not attaining a degree. As stated earlier, I am a cyclist, and I am car driver. However, as someone who appreciates the transport network as a whole, and how the social mobility can improve societies fortunes in an attempt to provide connectivity, all I can see in TfL's (in reality the Mayors) transport policy, is a disaster for future generations, who will have to face hard choices as to how to undo some of what their predecessors have done in the name of political vanity. I have always believed, especially on a national level that, there should be a Public Transport body, operating under a cross party agreement to delegate all power to this body, who's sole aim is to look at the transport network from a what will benefit the country/town/cities social and economic disposition, and thus do away with/marginalise the influence of politicians. It's absolute madness to have a system whereby a labour mayor enforces their own policies in an environment where transport schemes largely take roughly 5-20 years from concept to completion, when in 4 years time a Tory mayor may well be in power, snatching at the every opportunity to undo what their predecessor may have done, in the name of once again.... political vanity. I fully agree with you. The Mayor's Transport Strategy aspired for 80% of journeys in London to be done by walking/cycling/public transport, but it seems absoloutely laughable to think that this was anything other than a meaningless statistic. TFL need to realise that getting people out of their cars requires there to be viable alternatives. For example: Person A lives in Turnham Green and works in Paddington. Person A could use the tube to get between the two but Person A doesn't mind sitting on the 27 bus despite the congestion because they like having a direct link between home and work. From Monday, Person A will no longer be able to make a direct journey between Turnham Green and Paddington because the 27 is being withdrawn between Chiswick and Hammersmith. On Monday, Person A arrives at the stop, Turnham Green Church, they wait for a bus to take them Hammersmith to get on the 27. A 267 arrives at the stop and is full leaving Person A still waiting. A 391 arrives at the stop and is also full, Person A decides to give up on using the bus to get to work and decides to use Uber to get to work instead. Passengers vote with their feet, whilst TFL give the same reponse to anyone who is inconvenienced by the change, I don't think the hopper fare appeals to many. Changing buses is seen as a hassle and many commuters who value a direct link between home and work which is being cut/has been cut won't want to use the alternative. I think that there will still be people who change from the 267/391/H91 to the 27 at Hammersmith, but the appeal of changing buses isn't very broad and the 27's patronage will fall when the route is withdrawn between Chiswick and Hammersmith with perhaps a small increase in patronage on the remaining routes on Chiswick High Road, a money saving measure from TFL will in the long term lose them money. This example would become more extreme if for example this ere the 19 cut and someone was trying to travel between Battersea and Highbury and would have use four buses to complete their journey.
It angers me how reliability is used as an abitrary excuse for cutting routes back. In some cases, yes, there are routes which are too long and reliable which need to be shortened such as the 11 and the 266. Using reliability as an excuse for cutting the 25 back was stupid. Yes the 25 was long as susceptible to delays when it ran between Oxford Circus and Ilford, but I would (and I'm sure many commuters would too) rather have a route that may not be the most reliable and may suffer from a bit of bunching here and there but provides useful connections than one with an immaculate service and even headways but is shorter and so provides less useful connection. A bus is better than no bus. Cutting a route back isn't always the answer to trying to make the route run more reliabily. I didn't use the 25 much when it ran between Oxford Circus and Ilford so I'm not an expert but the short trips, when the ran as far as Holborn, seemed to be a good idea to try to help the reliability of the route whilst still maintaing useful connections. If the buses doing the full length were still struggling than perhaps a little more run time is needed (please don't shoot me, this is just me applying theoretical ideas to a real life siutation).
My experience of the 25 was there was never one far from round the corner. In terms of frequency it was great when First ran it. The only bad thing was the introduction of bendy buses, which brought bad behaviours such as organised pickpockets etc. But the route was still reliable. When it reverted back to DD (basically anything pre-super cycle highway) it was even better IMO than when First, first ran it. Off-peak run times were fairly reasonable. It wasn't uncommon for off peak journeys from Oxford Street - Ilford to take 60 mins, which is only about 20 minutes longer than taking the train once you factor in interchange time. I used to live in Ilford and went as far as TCR. On Sunday mornings, I remember when the first Great Eastern train service didn't leave Ilford until 7am ish. So it was all aboard the 25. Buses would leave Ilford and by the time they'd reached Manor Park, nobody else could board. Low and behold, much of the demand was travelling to the West End, either to work like me or for leisure. During the peak hoours, heading westbound the main bottleneck was Romford Road to Manor Park Broadway, just leaving Ilford and slipping under the A406. However once you escaped Manor Park you were well on your way. Stratford within 12-15 minutes. Stratford to Bow on the bus lane was like lighting. Bow - Mile End was a breeze, and things only snarled up again between Aldgate and Whitechapel, and you may crawl through the city or Holborn, but most of the route flowed..... and this was during peak hours. During the evening peak westbound journey times could get hefty, 90+ minutes if you timed it wrong. I'm referring to a period between 2003 and 2013 (definitely pre-Olympics). I stopped using the service in 2014. So now you can see how much damage TfL have done in a relatively short time since then! |
|
|
|
Post by 15002 on Mar 7, 2019 6:15:10 GMT
I fully agree with you. The Mayor's Transport Strategy aspired for 80% of journeys in London to be done by walking/cycling/public transport, but it seems absoloutely laughable to think that this was anything other than a meaningless statistic. TFL need to realise that getting people out of their cars requires there to be viable alternatives. For example: Person A lives in Turnham Green and works in Paddington. Person A could use the tube to get between the two but Person A doesn't mind sitting on the 27 bus despite the congestion because they like having a direct link between home and work. From Monday, Person A will no longer be able to make a direct journey between Turnham Green and Paddington because the 27 is being withdrawn between Chiswick and Hammersmith. On Monday, Person A arrives at the stop, Turnham Green Church, they wait for a bus to take them Hammersmith to get on the 27. A 267 arrives at the stop and is full leaving Person A still waiting. A 391 arrives at the stop and is also full, Person A decides to give up on using the bus to get to work and decides to use Uber to get to work instead. Passengers vote with their feet, whilst TFL give the same reponse to anyone who is inconvenienced by the change, I don't think the hopper fare appeals to many. Changing buses is seen as a hassle and many commuters who value a direct link between home and work which is being cut/has been cut won't want to use the alternative. I think that there will still be people who change from the 267/391/H91 to the 27 at Hammersmith, but the appeal of changing buses isn't very broad and the 27's patronage will fall when the route is withdrawn between Chiswick and Hammersmith with perhaps a small increase in patronage on the remaining routes on Chiswick High Road, a money saving measure from TFL will in the long term lose them money. This example would become more extreme if for example this ere the 19 cut and someone was trying to travel between Battersea and Highbury and would have use four buses to complete their journey.
It angers me how reliability is used as an abitrary excuse for cutting routes back. In some cases, yes, there are routes which are too long and reliable which need to be shortened such as the 11 and the 266. Using reliability as an excuse for cutting the 25 back was stupid. Yes the 25 was long as susceptible to delays when it ran between Oxford Circus and Ilford, but I would (and I'm sure many commuters would too) rather have a route that may not be the most reliable and may suffer from a bit of bunching here and there but provides useful connections than one with an immaculate service and even headways but is shorter and so provides less useful connection. A bus is better than no bus. Cutting a route back isn't always the answer to trying to make the route run more reliabily. I didn't use the 25 much when it ran between Oxford Circus and Ilford so I'm not an expert but the short trips, when the ran as far as Holborn, seemed to be a good idea to try to help the reliability of the route whilst still maintaing useful connections. If the buses doing the full length were still struggling than perhaps a little more run time is needed (please don't shoot me, this is just me applying theoretical ideas to a real life siutation).
My experience of the 25 was there was never one far from round the corner. In terms of frequency it was great when First ran it. The only bad thing was the introduction of bendy buses, which brought bad behaviours such as organised pickpockets etc. But the route was still reliable. When it reverted back to DD (basically anything pre-super cycle highway) it was even better IMO than when First, first ran it. Off-peak run times were fairly reasonable. It wasn't uncommon for off peak journeys from Oxford Street - Ilford to take 60 mins, which is only about 20 minutes longer than taking the train once you factor in interchange time. I used to live in Ilford and went as far as TCR. On Sunday mornings, I remember when the first Great Eastern train service didn't leave Ilford until 7am ish. So it was all aboard the 25. Buses would leave Ilford and by the time they'd reached Manor Park, nobody else could board. Low and behold, much of the demand was travelling to the West End, either to work like me or for leisure. During the peak hoours, heading westbound the main bottleneck was Romford Road to Manor Park Broadway, just leaving Ilford and slipping under the A406. However once you escaped Manor Park you were well on your way. Stratford within 12-15 minutes. Stratford to Bow on the bus lane was like lighting. Bow - Mile End was a breeze, and things only snarled up again between Aldgate and Whitechapel, and you may crawl through the city or Holborn, but most of the route flowed..... and this was during peak hours. During the evening peak westbound journey times could get hefty, 90+ minutes if you timed it wrong. I'm referring to a period between 2003 and 2013 (definitely pre-Olympics). I stopped using the service in 2014. So now you can see how much damage TfL have done in a relatively short time since then! Maybe I’m in the minority bus the Bendies were wonderful buses for me, I just liked the engine noise and the unique nature of the Bendies, one of my favourite buses for sure. Also Stagecoach ran it with Bendies. |
|
frank
Conductor
Posts: 68
|
Post by frank on Mar 7, 2019 10:29:57 GMT
My experience of the 25 was there was never one far from round the corner. In terms of frequency it was great when First ran it. The only bad thing was the introduction of bendy buses, which brought bad behaviours such as organised pickpockets etc. But the route was still reliable. When it reverted back to DD (basically anything pre-super cycle highway) it was even better IMO than when First, first ran it. Off-peak run times were fairly reasonable. It wasn't uncommon for off peak journeys from Oxford Street - Ilford to take 60 mins, which is only about 20 minutes longer than taking the train once you factor in interchange time. I used to live in Ilford and went as far as TCR. On Sunday mornings, I remember when the first Great Eastern train service didn't leave Ilford until 7am ish. So it was all aboard the 25. Buses would leave Ilford and by the time they'd reached Manor Park, nobody else could board. Low and behold, much of the demand was travelling to the West End, either to work like me or for leisure. During the peak hoours, heading westbound the main bottleneck was Romford Road to Manor Park Broadway, just leaving Ilford and slipping under the A406. However once you escaped Manor Park you were well on your way. Stratford within 12-15 minutes. Stratford to Bow on the bus lane was like lighting. Bow - Mile End was a breeze, and things only snarled up again between Aldgate and Whitechapel, and you may crawl through the city or Holborn, but most of the route flowed..... and this was during peak hours. During the evening peak westbound journey times could get hefty, 90+ minutes if you timed it wrong. I'm referring to a period between 2003 and 2013 (definitely pre-Olympics). I stopped using the service in 2014. So now you can see how much damage TfL have done in a relatively short time since then! Maybe I’m in the minority bus the Bendies were wonderful buses for me, I just liked the engine noise and the unique nature of the Bendies, one of my favourite buses for sure. Also Stagecoach ran it with Bendies. Nothing to do with mechanics of the bus or any emotional feeling towards bendies. It was good to see them trialled in London and perhaps they should still have a purpose on the London bus Network, on shorter busy routes that can’t handle DD or the old commuter red arrow routes. My point purely was that those buses provided a perfect environment for increased crime on buses due to their open boarding and lack of Human ticket inspection. Whoever made the decision to introduce them onto Route 25 (and many other routes for that matter), clearly did not understand the demographics of the areas and the financial divide of the areas that route 25 operates within. Personally I think TfL are too risk adverse when it comes to trialling new buses and technology. Surely they should have trialled an bendies, New routemaster and tri-axle on Route 25 (or something similar/a range of routes) all at the same time and collected data on human interaction with the space and opportunity these buses offer. |
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Mar 16, 2019 19:13:42 GMT
What's got us where we are now is this notion that traffic congestion can be solved by creating more road space, it's a short term solution at best. When was the last time real road space was created in London? Interesting stats on the BBC website for those who say we have to many roads in UK Motorway miles UK - Just under 4000 Italy - About 7000 France - just under 12000 Germany about 13000 Spain - just under 16000 |
|
|
|
Post by zebedee104 on Mar 20, 2019 8:20:00 GMT
Stats without context though. If you want to use them in any sort of comparison then they need to be baselined against each other, e.g. what’s the mileage against the size of the country? It’s unsurprising that the UK is the lowest here, as we’re the smallest country in that list.
|
|
