|
Post by SILENCED on Jul 8, 2020 17:02:35 GMT
Looks like the 492 contract has been retained by Arriva London with existing vehicles but no change to route or timings. I think it was the right decision to retain the Dartford-Bluewater stretch to offer another double deck alternative to help the 96. It's was announced yesterday that London Borough of Bexley has granted permission for 75 new homes built on North Cray Road. Once completed I think the 492 is going to need a service increase to 3bph to meet demand. Is this official? Normally there's a post on here when tender results are announced and I haven't seen one yet. If it's speculation, rumour or hearsay, please sit on it until the official announcement. The award was made in the last batch ... Just pvr tbc
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Jul 8, 2020 17:07:00 GMT
Is this official? Normally there's a post on here when tender results are announced and I haven't seen one yet. If it's speculation, rumour or hearsay, please sit on it until the official announcement. The award was made in the last batch ... Just pvr tbc OK thanks for clearing that up.
|
|
|
Post by busman on Jul 9, 2020 11:03:22 GMT
Looks like the 492 contract has been retained by Arriva London with existing vehicles but no change to route or timings. I think it was the right decision to retain the Dartford-Bluewater stretch to offer another double deck alternative to help the 96. It's was announced yesterday that London Borough of Bexley has granted permission for 75 new homes built on North Cray Road. Once completed I think the 492 is going to need a service increase to 3bph to meet demand. I don’t think 75 new homes will drive enough demand to warrant a frequency increase. It will be interesting to see what happens with these routes in the coming months. Ideally I would like to see all the routes continue to serve Darent Valley Hospital and/or Bluewater, but I accept this is highly unlikely. At best I’m hoping that the 428 is curtailed to Dartford, Home Gardens and the 492 takes over the 428 routing and stopping pattern to Bluewater. Obviously, Arriva will need to be compensated for such changes. I wonder if it is more cost effective to implement changes ahead of the new contracts to maximise cost savings over the five years? Let’s wait and see what transpires.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2020 11:54:07 GMT
Results Updated 16 Oct 2020 Having considered all of the issues raised by respondents to the consultation, we have decided not to proceed with the withdrawal of the 428 between Bluewater and Crayford and not to proceed with the withdrawal of the 492 between Bluewater and Dartford at this time. We will keep both operations under review.
However, we will proceed with the conversion of route 428 to double deck and the withdrawal of the existing school day only journeys.
Our consultation report can be found below.
Routes 428 and 492 consultation report (PDF 3.04MB)
EDIT: Sorry if the link isn't working to the consultation report, I'm using my mobile phone
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Oct 16, 2020 11:59:18 GMT
Results Updated 16 Oct 2020 Having considered all of the issues raised by respondents to the consultation, we have decided not to proceed with the withdrawal of the 428 between Bluewater and Crayford and not to proceed with the withdrawal of the 492 between Bluewater and Dartford at this time. We will keep both operations under review. However, we will proceed with the conversion of route 428 to double deck and the withdrawal of the existing school day only journeys. Our consultation report can be found below. Routes 428 and 492 consultation report (PDF 3.04MB) EDIT: Sorry if the link isn't working to the consultation report, I'm using my mobile phone Good news. Makes perfect sense. Withdrawing the 428 and 492 would have been a disaster. And double decking the 428 is a good move too.
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Oct 16, 2020 12:04:01 GMT
Results Updated 16 Oct 2020 Having considered all of the issues raised by respondents to the consultation, we have decided not to proceed with the withdrawal of the 428 between Bluewater and Crayford and not to proceed with the withdrawal of the 492 between Bluewater and Dartford at this time. We will keep both operations under review. However, we will proceed with the conversion of route 428 to double deck and the withdrawal of the existing school day only journeys. Our consultation report can be found below. Routes 428 and 492 consultation report (PDF 3.04MB) EDIT: Sorry if the link isn't working to the consultation report, I'm using my mobile phone Another example of TfL skimping with one hand whilst throwing money away with the other, even before covid the 96 was sufficient.
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Oct 16, 2020 12:13:39 GMT
Results Updated 16 Oct 2020 Having considered all of the issues raised by respondents to the consultation, we have decided not to proceed with the withdrawal of the 428 between Bluewater and Crayford and not to proceed with the withdrawal of the 492 between Bluewater and Dartford at this time. We will keep both operations under review. However, we will proceed with the conversion of route 428 to double deck and the withdrawal of the existing school day only journeys. Our consultation report can be found below. Routes 428 and 492 consultation report (PDF 3.04MB) EDIT: Sorry if the link isn't working to the consultation report, I'm using my mobile phone Another example of TfL skimping with one hand whilst throwing money away with the other, even before covid the 96 was sufficient. I'm sure TfL and their stakeholders will have made a sufficient business case to keep all 3 routes operating.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Oct 16, 2020 12:25:07 GMT
Results Updated 16 Oct 2020 Having considered all of the issues raised by respondents to the consultation, we have decided not to proceed with the withdrawal of the 428 between Bluewater and Crayford and not to proceed with the withdrawal of the 492 between Bluewater and Dartford at this time. We will keep both operations under review. However, we will proceed with the conversion of route 428 to double deck and the withdrawal of the existing school day only journeys. Our consultation report can be found below. Routes 428 and 492 consultation report (PDF 3.04MB) EDIT: Sorry if the link isn't working to the consultation report, I'm using my mobile phone Excellent, glad to see the 492 cutback not happening and nice to see the 428 getting a double decker conversion
|
|
|
Post by busman on Oct 16, 2020 12:35:23 GMT
Results Updated 16 Oct 2020 Having considered all of the issues raised by respondents to the consultation, we have decided not to proceed with the withdrawal of the 428 between Bluewater and Crayford and not to proceed with the withdrawal of the 492 between Bluewater and Dartford at this time. We will keep both operations under review. However, we will proceed with the conversion of route 428 to double deck and the withdrawal of the existing school day only journeys. Our consultation report can be found below. Routes 428 and 492 consultation report (PDF 3.04MB) EDIT: Sorry if the link isn't working to the consultation report, I'm using my mobile phone Fantastic news 🥳
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Oct 16, 2020 12:49:25 GMT
Results Updated 16 Oct 2020 Having considered all of the issues raised by respondents to the consultation, we have decided not to proceed with the withdrawal of the 428 between Bluewater and Crayford and not to proceed with the withdrawal of the 492 between Bluewater and Dartford at this time. We will keep both operations under review. However, we will proceed with the conversion of route 428 to double deck and the withdrawal of the existing school day only journeys. Our consultation report can be found below. Routes 428 and 492 consultation report (PDF 3.04MB) EDIT: Sorry if the link isn't working to the consultation report, I'm using my mobile phone Interesting indeed as I thought they would go ahead with the cutbacks, but anyways at least the 96 drivers can relax. Shame the 428 is not going to use the Fastrack Lanes like the 96, Watling street is a nightmare for A2 traffic, hence why more use the 96!
|
|
|
Post by busman on Oct 16, 2020 12:58:35 GMT
Results Updated 16 Oct 2020 Having considered all of the issues raised by respondents to the consultation, we have decided not to proceed with the withdrawal of the 428 between Bluewater and Crayford and not to proceed with the withdrawal of the 492 between Bluewater and Dartford at this time. We will keep both operations under review. However, we will proceed with the conversion of route 428 to double deck and the withdrawal of the existing school day only journeys. Our consultation report can be found below. Routes 428 and 492 consultation report (PDF 3.04MB) EDIT: Sorry if the link isn't working to the consultation report, I'm using my mobile phone Another example of TfL skimping with one hand whilst throwing money away with the other, even before covid the 96 was sufficient. I take it you’re a regular user of buses from Bluewater to Bexleyheath then? I live in the area and use the routes to and from Bluewater (and beyond into Medway). The 96 alone is not enough. I’m not sure if the 428 and 492 need to be decked at all times, but the 96 is absolutely rammed from Bluewater during shopping hours. Cutting off local communities from employment opportunities and hospital appointments clearly didn’t go down well in the area. I have to say, I’m really surprised that the 492 via Stone has survived, not because of capacity or cash issues but because this is a stopping service throughout the borough of Dartford. Did Kent County Council stump up some cash?
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Oct 16, 2020 13:04:46 GMT
Kent CC may have done hence the kept under review bit if they decide not to keep the funding up.
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Oct 16, 2020 13:07:46 GMT
Another example of TfL skimping with one hand whilst throwing money away with the other, even before covid the 96 was sufficient. I take it you’re a regular user of buses from Bluewater to Bexleyheath then? I live in the area and use the routes to and from Bluewater (and beyond into Medway). The 96 alone is not enough. I’m not sure if the 428 and 492 need to be decked at all times, but the 96 is absolutely rammed from Bluewater during shopping hours. Cutting off local communities from employment opportunities and hospital appointments clearly didn’t go down well in the area. I have to say, I’m really surprised that the 492 via Stone has survived, not because of capacity or cash issues but because this is a stopping service throughout the borough of Dartford. Did Kent County Council stump up some cash? I am unfortunately a regular visitor to Bluewater and it's not uncommon to see 428s arrive and leave empty even before covid. The only time I've seen the 96 struggle is around closing time. I presume KCC must be funding the 492 east of Dartford as it's outside of TfLs remit?
|
|
|
Post by busman on Oct 16, 2020 13:30:17 GMT
I take it you’re a regular user of buses from Bluewater to Bexleyheath then? I live in the area and use the routes to and from Bluewater (and beyond into Medway). The 96 alone is not enough. I’m not sure if the 428 and 492 need to be decked at all times, but the 96 is absolutely rammed from Bluewater during shopping hours. Cutting off local communities from employment opportunities and hospital appointments clearly didn’t go down well in the area. I have to say, I’m really surprised that the 492 via Stone has survived, not because of capacity or cash issues but because this is a stopping service throughout the borough of Dartford. Did Kent County Council stump up some cash? I am unfortunately a regular visitor to Bluewater and it's not uncommon to see 428s arrive and leave empty even before covid. The only time I've seen the 96 struggle is around closing time. I presume KCC must be funding the 492 east of Dartford as it's outside of TfLs remit? Many times I’ve been on 96’s on a Saturday daytime leaving Bluewater full. It’s a weird consultation document. It doesn’t really explain why they have decided not to go ahead with the cuts. The response from all stakeholders was overwhelmingly negative, but that could hardly have been a surprise to TfL. They defend some of the key issues raised, but then on the next page type a short statement to say they are not going ahead with the cuts. KCC must have stumped up some cash to keep the 492 live and kicking.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Oct 16, 2020 13:55:55 GMT
Another example of TfL skimping with one hand whilst throwing money away with the other, even before covid the 96 was sufficient. I take it you’re a regular user of buses from Bluewater to Bexleyheath then? I live in the area and use the routes to and from Bluewater (and beyond into Medway). The 96 alone is not enough. I’m not sure if the 428 and 492 need to be decked at all times, but the 96 is absolutely rammed from Bluewater during shopping hours. Cutting off local communities from employment opportunities and hospital appointments clearly didn’t go down well in the area. I have to say, I’m really surprised that the 492 via Stone has survived, not because of capacity or cash issues but because this is a stopping service throughout the borough of Dartford. Did Kent County Council stump up some cash? Indeed, many times I've been to Bluewater myself despite not being local and witnessed rammed 96's arriving & leaving and have witnessed busy 492's leaving including one I actually boarded whilst doing my end to end challenge so I'm very happy for locals that the 492 is staying in it's current form. The 428 doesn't need to be decked as you say but I do think it's probably better having routes double decked providing there is no physical or less obvious restriction as taking in fuel and capacity, it's probably cheaper to operate in the long run?
|
|