|
Post by DT 11 on Dec 17, 2019 20:11:07 GMT
You clearly didn’t read the above post properly. Its now in bold. No idea where you got Sidcup to North Cray from when the thread title and the consultation has all the information. 'Overall if the 492 going to Bluewater was to stay I would cut the 492 to Crayford' is what you said. This suggests you would be eliminating the Sidcup to Crayford half of the route. Thus North Cray is left without a bus route. You clearly didn’t read it properly again. Nowhere did I state to withdraw the 492 between Sidcup & Crayford. southlondonbus commented above and got what I meant
|
|
|
Post by Dillon95 on Dec 17, 2019 20:24:44 GMT
'Overall if the 492 going to Bluewater was to stay I would cut the 492 to Crayford' is what you said. This suggests you would be eliminating the Sidcup to Crayford half of the route. Thus North Cray is left without a bus route. You clearly didn’t read it properly again. Nowhere did I state to withdraw the 492 between Sidcup & Crayford. southlondonbus commented above and got what I meant I have read it properly about five times, trying to make some sort of sense out of it. You said that if the 492 going to Bluewater is going to stay as it is then you would cut it to Crayford. That can only mean the Sidcup to Crayford section. What else could it possibly mean? If you are talking about the Crayford to Bluewater section being cut, then the 492 isn't going to stay as it is by going to Bluewater anymore is it. That's the last I'll say on the matter, it makes no sense.
|
|
|
Post by Dillon95 on Dec 17, 2019 20:27:25 GMT
Is the 96 that badly run. Iv always found it to be reliable and we'll run. I've never had to wait around long for it, even on a Sunday.
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Dec 17, 2019 20:29:52 GMT
You clearly didn’t read it properly again. Nowhere did I state to withdraw the 492 between Sidcup & Crayford. southlondonbus commented above and got what I meant I have read it properly about five times, trying to make some sort of sense out of it. You said that if the 492 going to Bluewater is going to stay as it is then you would cut it to Crayford. That can only mean the Sidcup to Crayford section. What else could it possibly mean? If you are talking about the Crayford to Bluewater section being cut, then the 492 isn't going to stay as it is by going to Bluewater anymore is it. That's the last I'll say on the matter, it makes no sense. Now we are getting somewhere. I simply suggested. If the 492 change doesn’t happen between Bluewater & Dartford. Re-route the 428 between Crayford & Bluewater via the 492. Cut the 492 to Crayford. As the 96 already provides a frequent service to DVH... southlondonbus got it...
|
|
|
Post by redexpress on Dec 17, 2019 21:06:26 GMT
I don't think Surrey help with the 406/418/S1. They do for the 166 between Banstead and Epsom I believe aswell as the 465 and possibly the 467??. The 420 doesn't have any TFL funding. Yes, assuming nothing's changed in the past couple of years, the only TfL routes to which Surrey CC contribute are 117, 166, 203, 216, 293, 411, 465, 467 and 470.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Dec 17, 2019 21:50:08 GMT
I don't think Surrey help with the 406/418/S1. They do for the 166 between Banstead and Epsom I believe aswell as the 465 and possibly the 467??. The 420 doesn't have any TFL funding. Yes, assuming nothing's changed in the past couple of years, the only TfL routes to which Surrey CC contribute are 117, 166, 203, 216, 293, 411, 465, 467 and 470. Which thus renders the whole argument about who should fund what irrelevant because I see no one calling for the 406, 418 & S1 to be cutback or even the non TfL 420 which gets no funding from London. Notice no one saying that the Surrey routes into Kingston should be axed not the 431 & 477 through Bromley, the 575 through Havering, the non London routes running into Hillingdon at Uxbridge & Heathrow, the 614 in North London, etc.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Dec 17, 2019 21:54:35 GMT
There is a slight difference. The 96/428 and 492 are rather similar between Crayford and Bluewater. It's simply that TfL now feel 2 routes will suffice to Dartford and 1 to Bluewater.
|
|
|
Post by kenmet on Dec 17, 2019 22:18:39 GMT
There is a slight difference. The 96/428 and 492 are rather similar between Crayford and Bluewater. It's simply that TfL now feel 2 routes will suffice to Dartford and 1 to Bluewater. And it's just this sort of extravagance that should be reigned in. I think the 96 is fine as it is although it could possibly do with a slightly more frequent evening service, it can get very busy at closing time at Bluewater. If the 428 is curtailed at Crayford it may as well be withdrawn and replaced by an extension of the 469 to Crayford. The 492 route via Stone is a matter for KCC and not TfL, either curtail it at Dartford or reroute it non stop via DVH to Bluewater.
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Dec 17, 2019 22:59:20 GMT
I don't think Surrey help with the 406/418/S1. They do for the 166 between Banstead and Epsom I believe aswell as the 465 and possibly the 467??. The 420 doesn't have any TFL funding. Yes, assuming nothing's changed in the past couple of years, the only TfL routes to which Surrey CC contribute are 117, 166, 203, 216, 293, 411, 465, 467 and 470. That’s the list I was hoping someone would post, as I knew the western Surrey subsidised routes, but wasn’t sure about 407, 466 etc - thanks!
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Dec 17, 2019 23:01:07 GMT
There is a slight difference. The 96/428 and 492 are rather similar between Crayford and Bluewater. It's simply that TfL now feel 2 routes will suffice to Dartford and 1 to Bluewater. Plenty of flyposting in Dartford about the proposed 492 cut, and complaints about said cut. 428 not so much - my feeling is that it’s the 492 change that perhaps is being looked at again.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Dec 17, 2019 23:03:14 GMT
That surprises me. I'd have thought the loss of the 428 beyond Crayford would have been the more unpopular.
|
|
|
Post by laurier on Dec 17, 2019 23:28:10 GMT
I live in Welling and visit Bluewater occasionally using route 96. I have made a couple of trips recently , once on a school holiday day and once during term time which indicate the need for the 428 to continue serving Darenth Valley Hospital and Bluewater.
on the school holiday day I got to Welling corner and just missed a 96 which seemed to be pretty full. Fortunately another was just behind but was also full downstairs and fairly full upstairs. By the time we reached Bexleyheath several people got of but more got on. By Crayford the bus was full and people were left waiting at the stop although fortunately there was a 428 just behind. If the 428 had been cut back to Crayford there would be even more people left to wait for the next 96. on the term day the 96 was full downstairs by the time we reached Crayford , with some room still available upstairs. A fair number of the passengers were elderly either travelling to Bluewater or to attend vital appointments at Darenth Valley Hospital, and unable to cope with the stairs. There are also mothers with young children in buggies going shopping in Bluewater and on occasions they have to be left behind . And then of course there are wheelchair passengers trying to get to the hospital or Bluewater. Thua there may seem to be some spare capacity on th 96 but this is only available to healthy people able to manage the stairs. By curtailing the 428 at Crayford an important direct link to the Hospital and Bluewater is lost to people living in the Erith and Slade Green areas.Elderly patients are faced with having to change buses and possibly face a long wait ( bad enough in fine weather but hardly likely to improve their health on a cold winters day), before they can get on a 96. But then of course every journey matters unless you are elderly and trying to get to a vital hospital appointment
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Dec 17, 2019 23:53:41 GMT
There is a slight difference. The 96/428 and 492 are rather similar between Crayford and Bluewater. It's simply that TfL now feel 2 routes will suffice to Dartford and 1 to Bluewater. And it's just this sort of extravagance that should be reigned in. I think the 96 is fine as it is although it could possibly do with a slightly more frequent evening service, it can get very busy at closing time at Bluewater. If the 428 is curtailed at Crayford it may as well be withdrawn and replaced by an extension of the 469 to Crayford. The 492 route via Stone is a matter for KCC and not TfL, either curtail it at Dartford or reroute it non stop via DVH to Bluewater. The 96 clearly doesn't cope given the replies from people both local and further away that say different - it's a fairly lengthy route that has reliability issues of whatever nature. As I've already explained to you in a previous post, there is demand from London across the border so it isn't simply a matter for KCC - I don't see you advocating the withdrawal of other routes that aren't funded yet run beyond the London border nor do I see you advocating non London areas funding routes that run into TfL territory so your point doesn't stack up at all.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Dec 17, 2019 23:58:07 GMT
There is a slight difference. The 96/428 and 492 are rather similar between Crayford and Bluewater. It's simply that TfL now feel 2 routes will suffice to Dartford and 1 to Bluewater. It doesn't matter whether there are 3 or 33 routes - the point is there a number of other routes not funded by either an outside area or by TfL in terms of non London routes and to use the reasoning of funding to withdraw one or two but not others makes very little sense. Like I said to you earlier, just because TfL feels something is suffice doesn't automatically mean it's right. TfL currently feel it's suffice not to adequately inform people of new routes, timetables or even produce maps...
|
|
|
Post by Dillon95 on Dec 18, 2019 0:35:59 GMT
I have absolutely zero faith in what TFL believes is sufficient in 2019.
|
|