|
Post by kenmet on Dec 16, 2019 18:12:13 GMT
Update 10 December 2019 This consultation is closed. We received a large number of responses to the consultation on these proposals and are currently analysing these. Whilst this is happening the routes will remain as they are. The proposals will not be implemented in January 2020. If any changes are to be made to these bus routes, we will confirm the date of this when we announce our final decision on whether or not to proceed with our proposals. TfL ran into massive and quite well organised opposition to this scheme. Personally I hope the 492 remains as is. In the cold light of day it's difficult to justify three routes between Dartford and Bluewater.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2019 18:19:58 GMT
TfL ran into massive and quite well organised opposition to this scheme. Personally I hope the 492 remains as is. In the cold light of day it's difficult to justify three routes between Dartford and Bluewater. Yes indeed. Maybe withdraw the 428 between said points ?
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Dec 16, 2019 18:55:46 GMT
TfL ran into massive and quite well organised opposition to this scheme. Personally I hope the 492 remains as is. In the cold light of day it's difficult to justify three routes between Dartford and Bluewater. But the 428 is also up for the chop so simply cut that back to Dartford and leave the 492 as it is - so much for TfL improving outer London services.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Dec 16, 2019 19:12:29 GMT
This is outside outer london. The 96 still provides and intense 8 min service from Bexleyheath and Crayford to Bluewater/Dartford.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Dec 16, 2019 20:45:08 GMT
This is outside outer london. The 96 still provides and intense 8 min service from Bexleyheath and Crayford to Bluewater/Dartford. The route is used by Londoners across the border to & from outer London just like the 96 does and provides assistance to the 96 despite the different routings. If the 96 is left on its own, it will struggle like it does when it’s reliability goes up the spout and through no fault of Stagecoach’s either.
|
|
|
Post by kenmet on Dec 16, 2019 23:16:02 GMT
This is outside outer london. The 96 still provides and intense 8 min service from Bexleyheath and Crayford to Bluewater/Dartford. The 96 is sufficient and it's up to KCC to fund the 492 east of Dartford.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Dec 17, 2019 1:31:28 GMT
This is outside outer london. The 96 still provides and intense 8 min service from Bexleyheath and Crayford to Bluewater/Dartford. The 96 is sufficient and it's up to KCC to fund the 492 east of Dartford. Based on what? Surely by your definition, Kent should also fund the 96, 233, 246 & B12?
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Dec 17, 2019 12:32:31 GMT
Similar to the 20 and 167 situation. Bar a few roads in the Debden area the 20 and 167 ran parallel from Loughton stn and Debden and TFL deemed the DD 20 to be sufficient. Some links from London to Debden were lost but ECC declined to continue to fund both.
|
|
|
Post by Dillon95 on Dec 17, 2019 13:15:00 GMT
The 96 is sufficient and it's up to KCC to fund the 492 east of Dartford. Based on what? Surely by your definition, Kent should also fund the 96, 233, 246 & B12? As well as the R5 & R10. In regards to the consultation. The 96 is heaving almost all of the time during the week and the weekends. The 492 is handy as a back up to help relieve the pressure. Though perhaps cut the Stone/Horns Cross section, and re-route it non stop to Darent Valley Hospital and Bluewater like the 96? Arriva's 480 seems sufficient between Dartford-Stone-Bluewater, and I hardly ever see anyone get on or off at that section. The 428 being cut as far back as Crayford is too severe as well, if it needs to be shaved down I'd like to see it go at least into Dartford as people from Erith need to get there. Just becauee there is an invisible border between Greater London and Kent, it doesn't mean people don't need to cross it.
|
|
|
Post by kenmet on Dec 17, 2019 13:38:11 GMT
Based on what? Surely by your definition, Kent should also fund the 96, 233, 246 & B12? As well as the R5 & R10. In regards to the consultation. The 96 is heaving almost all of the time during the week and the weekends. The 492 is handy as a back up to help relieve the pressure. Though perhaps cut the Stone/Horns Cross section, and re-route it non stop to Darent Valley Hospital and Bluewater like the 96? Arriva's 480 seems sufficient between Dartford-Stone-Bluewater, and I hardly ever see anyone get on or off at that section. The 428 being cut as far back as Crayford is too severe as well, if it needs to be shaved down I'd like to see it go at least into Dartford as people from Erith need to get there. Just becauee there is an invisible border between Greater London and Kent, it doesn't mean people don't need to cross it. The other routes are for another debate but if it weren't for Bluewater no TfL routes would go east of Dartford. I think the 96 is probably sufficient, I agree that the 428 should continue to Dartford though and it really is for KCC to fund the 492 route via Stone although there is perhaps a case for still running the 492 to Bluewater non stop via DVH? I also think the 492 should be increased to x20 minutes with single deckers but school loadings are the fly in the ointment.
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Dec 17, 2019 14:11:59 GMT
Based on what? Surely by your definition, Kent should also fund the 96, 233, 246 & B12? As well as the R5 & R10. In regards to the consultation. The 96 is heaving almost all of the time during the week and the weekends. The 492 is handy as a back up to help relieve the pressure. Though perhaps cut the Stone/Horns Cross section, and re-route it non stop to Darent Valley Hospital and Bluewater like the 96? Arriva's 480 seems sufficient between Dartford-Stone-Bluewater, and I hardly ever see anyone get on or off at that section. The 428 being cut as far back as Crayford is too severe as well, if it needs to be shaved down I'd like to see it go at least into Dartford as people from Erith need to get there. Just becauee there is an invisible border between Greater London and Kent, it doesn't mean people don't need to cross it. There maybe be an invisible border, but why should one side subsidise the other. The big trouble is not the border but London's regulated bus service ...
|
|
|
Post by bustavane on Dec 17, 2019 14:15:30 GMT
As well as the R5 & R10. In regards to the consultation. The 96 is heaving almost all of the time during the week and the weekends. The 492 is handy as a back up to help relieve the pressure. Though perhaps cut the Stone/Horns Cross section, and re-route it non stop to Darent Valley Hospital and Bluewater like the 96? Arriva's 480 seems sufficient between Dartford-Stone-Bluewater, and I hardly ever see anyone get on or off at that section. The 428 being cut as far back as Crayford is too severe as well, if it needs to be shaved down I'd like to see it go at least into Dartford as people from Erith need to get there. Just becauee there is an invisible border between Greater London and Kent, it doesn't mean people don't need to cross it. There maybe be an invisible border, but why should one side subsidise the other. The big trouble is not the border but London's regulated bus service ... ... or Kent's deregulated bus service
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Dec 17, 2019 14:20:44 GMT
Even at 20 mins the 492 would struggle at the school times.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Dec 17, 2019 14:30:08 GMT
Similar to the 20 and 167 situation. Bar a few roads in the Debden area the 20 and 167 ran parallel from Loughton stn and Debden and TFL deemed the DD 20 to be sufficient. Some links from London to Debden were lost but ECC declined to continue to fund both. And look what’s happened since - 20’s regularly turned at Loughton due to congestion mainly caused within Waltham Forest leaving the busy Homebase stop & the big residential estate without a regular bus which the 167 would of been able to assist with. You keep repeating that TfL deem things sufficient - that doesn’t mean they’re right. As for this funding argument, the 167 still runs into & terminates into Essex so Essex still aren’t funding a route that runs into their area.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Dec 17, 2019 14:34:10 GMT
As well as the R5 & R10. In regards to the consultation. The 96 is heaving almost all of the time during the week and the weekends. The 492 is handy as a back up to help relieve the pressure. Though perhaps cut the Stone/Horns Cross section, and re-route it non stop to Darent Valley Hospital and Bluewater like the 96? Arriva's 480 seems sufficient between Dartford-Stone-Bluewater, and I hardly ever see anyone get on or off at that section. The 428 being cut as far back as Crayford is too severe as well, if it needs to be shaved down I'd like to see it go at least into Dartford as people from Erith need to get there. Just becauee there is an invisible border between Greater London and Kent, it doesn't mean people don't need to cross it. There maybe be an invisible border, but why should one side subsidise the other. The big trouble is not the border but London's regulated bus service ... Because there is demand from Londoners across the border. Unless your willing to cut all non London routes back that cross beyond the boundary, you will always have cases of routes not being funded - the 167 still runs into Essex despite its cutback for example.
|
|