|
Post by kenmet on Dec 18, 2019 6:03:54 GMT
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 If the 428 is curtailed at Crayford it may as well be withdrawn and replaced by an extension of the 469 to Crayford.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. What point doesn't stack up at all? Obviously some 96s are busy around opening and closing times, but there is plenty of spare capacity at other times. Other routes are for another debate, this is about the 96,428 and 492.
|
|
|
Post by kenmet on Dec 18, 2019 6:32:19 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. I can understand that the people of Stone don't want to lose their TfL funded service with lower fares but the fact is that they are outside the TfL area. DV Hospital wouldn't have a TfL service at all if it didn't happen to be on the way to Bluewater, it would be like expecting TfL to fund an extension of the 405 to East Surrey Hospital.
|
|
|
Post by kenmet on Dec 18, 2019 6:58:23 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 This comes back to the problem mentioned on here recently about the 65, a lot of people being unable or unwilling to go upstairs. Maybe the 96 would be better with 12m single deckers or even bendy buses?
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Dec 18, 2019 9:09:18 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 This comes back to the problem mentioned on here recently about the 65, a lot of people being unable or unwilling to go upstairs. Maybe the 96 would be better with 12m single deckers or even bendy buses? This is a known problem with services going to hospitals, many of the passengers are not in the best of health (obviously, as otherwise wouldn't be a patient) so not going (or not able) to go upstairs regardless of how many free seats there are upstairs. Therefore providing a double decker is pointless as the stairs steal room from the lower deck. There are a number of routes in outer London where long single decks would be a better solution but it doesn't fit in with TfL thinking of buses having capacity of 45, 50, 55, 60, 70, 87 because TfL seem to have no flexibility from their default specs (I have no idea why other sizes eg 11-11.5m double deck with say 95 minimum dont exist and added to the capacity table)
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Dec 18, 2019 10:29:03 GMT
This comes back to the problem mentioned on here recently about the 65, a lot of people being unable or unwilling to go upstairs. Maybe the 96 would be better with 12m single deckers or even bendy buses? This is a known problem with services going to hospitals, many of the passengers are not in the best of health (obviously, as otherwise wouldn't be a patient) so not going (or not able) to go upstairs regardless of how many free seats there are upstairs. Therefore providing a double decker is pointless as the stairs steal room from the lower deck. There are a number of routes in outer London where long single decks would be a better solution but it doesn't fit in with TfL thinking of buses having capacity of 45, 50, 55, 60, 70, 87 because TfL seem to have no flexibility from their default specs (I have no idea why other sizes eg 11-11.5m double deck with say 95 minimum dont exist and added to the capacity table) Those large E400 (?) double decks Lothian have would be an excellent fit on the 96, I think.
|
|
|
Post by Dillon95 on Dec 18, 2019 10:38:31 GMT
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. I can understand that the people of Stone don't want to lose their TfL funded service with lower fares but the fact is that they are outside the TfL area. DV Hospital wouldn't have a TfL service at all if it didn't happen to be on the way to Bluewater, it would be like expecting TfL to fund an extension of the 405 to East Surrey Hospital. Though a lot of Bexley Borough residents are sent to Darent Valley for appointments because it is their closest hospital. Croydon Borough residents wouldn't be refered to East Surrey Hospital because it is quite far from the border of Croydon and Surrey.
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Dec 18, 2019 10:42:33 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 This comes back to the problem mentioned on here recently about the 65, a lot of people being unable or unwilling to go upstairs. Maybe the 96 would be better with 12m single deckers or even bendy buses? Maybe if we got a bendy bus and wrote 'Not for London' on the side of it, the Prime Minister will probably leave it alone! If capacity is needed up to Darnet Valley Hospital, then surely the 428 should terminate there? I've never been to the site in question so don't know how feasible this is.
|
|
|
Post by Dillon95 on Dec 18, 2019 10:44:40 GMT
This comes back to the problem mentioned on here recently about the 65, a lot of people being unable or unwilling to go upstairs. Maybe the 96 would be better with 12m single deckers or even bendy buses? Maybe if we got a bendy bus and wrote 'Not for London' on the side of it, the Prime Minister will probably leave it alone! If capacity is needed up to Darnet Valley Hospital, then surely the 428 should terminate there? I've never been to the site in question so don't know how feasible this is. If the 428 is going to go as far as Darent Valley it might as well just continue on to Bluewater though.
|
|
|
Post by kenmet on Dec 18, 2019 11:11:46 GMT
This comes back to the problem mentioned on here recently about the 65, a lot of people being unable or unwilling to go upstairs. Maybe the 96 would be better with 12m single deckers or even bendy buses? Maybe if we got a bendy bus and wrote 'Not for London' on the side of it, the Prime Minister will probably leave it alone! If capacity is needed up to Darnet Valley Hospital, then surely the 428 should terminate there? I've never been to the site in question so don't know how feasible this is. I think if bendy buses had been introduced in a more sensible way, not in central London and not with open boarding, there wouldn't have been such animosity towards them. Anyway I would suggest a slight increase on the 96 to every 7/8 minutes and every 10/12 minutes evenings, reroute the 492 via DVH to Bluewater and curtail the 428 at Dartford rather than Crayford.
|
|
|
Post by Dillon95 on Dec 18, 2019 11:39:03 GMT
Maybe if we got a bendy bus and wrote 'Not for London' on the side of it, the Prime Minister will probably leave it alone! If capacity is needed up to Darnet Valley Hospital, then surely the 428 should terminate there? I've never been to the site in question so don't know how feasible this is. I think if bendy buses had been introduced in a more sensible way, not in central London and not with open boarding, there wouldn't have been such animosity towards them. Anyway I would suggest a slight increase on the 96 to every 7/8 minutes and every 10/12 minutes evenings, reroute the 492 via DVH to Bluewater and curtail the 428 at Dartford rather than Crayford. Yeah I'd be happy with those ideas.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Dec 18, 2019 12:37:04 GMT
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. What point doesn't stack up at all? Obviously some 96s are busy around opening and closing times, but there is plenty of spare capacity at other times. Other routes are for another debate, this is about the 96,428 and 492. No it all ties in together in the same debate where you merely picking and choosing what suits you hence your point not stacking up.
|
|
|
Post by kenmet on Dec 18, 2019 12:41:09 GMT
What point doesn't stack up at all? Obviously some 96s are busy around opening and closing times, but there is plenty of spare capacity at other times. Other routes are for another debate, this is about the 96,428 and 492. No it all ties in together in the same debate where you merely picking and choosing what suits you hence your point not stacking up. Sorry but I'm not going over all this again, nobody else seems to have any problem with what I've suggested.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Dec 18, 2019 12:51:34 GMT
No it all ties in together in the same debate where you merely picking and choosing what suits you hence your point not stacking up. Sorry but I'm not going over all this again, nobody else seems to have any problem with what I've suggested. Err there was a number of people who shared a similar view with myself and disagreed with you so would suggest to go back and re-read the previous pages. Anyway, it's not about, "having a problem" so unsure why your making it out to be bigger than a discussion when it isn't.
|
|
|
Post by busman on Dec 18, 2019 15:46:50 GMT
Jeez, reading some of the silly comments from people in this thread who clearly don’t use these services at busy times is frustrating. Any local user (of which I’m one) will tell you that on Saturdays and during peaks, the 96 is rammed often to standing room only to and from Bluewater. I think cutting both the 428 and 492 is overkill and I’m glad that TfL are reconsidering. Yes Bluewater and DVH are outside TfL territory but the level of use from people in Bexley borough and further afield is very high. If you cut these services, those journeys will be made by car. Services that get local London borough residents to work, healthcare and leisure services are hardly an “extravagance”. If KCC have to pay for any service, it should be the stopping service on the 492. If lack of KCC funding is the core driver of these changes, the earlier suggestion of swapping the 428 and 492 routing between Crayford and Dartford, with the 492 curtailed to Dartford makes sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by kenmet on Dec 18, 2019 17:24:59 GMT
Jeez, reading some of the silly comments from people in this thread who clearly don’t use these services at busy times is frustrating. Any local user (of which I’m one) will tell you that on Saturdays and during peaks, the 96 is rammed often to standing room only to and from Bluewater. I think cutting both the 428 and 492 is overkill and I’m glad that TfL are reconsidering. Yes Bluewater and DVH are outside TfL territory but the level of use from people in Bexley borough and further afield is very high. If you cut these services, those journeys will be made by car. Services that get local London borough residents to work, healthcare and leisure services are hardly an “extravagance”. If KCC have to pay for any service, it should be the stopping service on the 492. If lack of KCC funding is the core driver of these changes, the earlier suggestion of swapping the 428 and 492 routing between Crayford and Dartford, with the 492 curtailed to Dartford makes sense to me. Are you really saying that 10bph wouldn't be enough?
|
|