|
Post by rmz19 on Dec 18, 2019 17:50:53 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. I agree that these changes are 'overkill' and at least one route should remain at Bluewater in addition to the 96. The suggestion of the 428 and 492 swapping routings between Crayford and Dartford is sensible, enabling the latter to be more direct. The 492 can then be curtailed to Dartford, perhaps there will also be scope for extending the route further from Sidcup. Consequently the 428 could be extended further west to Thamesmead to provide new links, while the 428 already has a purpose it would be further boosted due to the extension which would also justify the conversion to Double Decks.
|
|
|
Post by Dillon95 on Dec 18, 2019 19:12:02 GMT
The 96 is jam packed 99% of the time I use it.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Dec 18, 2019 19:16:37 GMT
The 96 does also carry heavy loads on the Woolwich to Bexleyheath section so may be thinking a freq increase in needed soon anyways.
|
|
|
Post by Dillon95 on Dec 18, 2019 22:59:51 GMT
The 96 does also carry heavy loads on the Woolwich to Bexleyheath section so may be thinking a freq increase in needed soon anyways. It is much needed. Even with an increase of the 96 I don't think the Bexleyheath to Bluewater section could cope without the 492 to help it though.
|
|
|
Post by busman on Dec 19, 2019 12:50:33 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? Are you really saying that you have experienced trying to board a 96 to and from Bexley borough and Bluewater during busy shopping hours? Even after 11pm on a weekday night at Bluewater (on late night trips back from Northfleet via Arriva's excellent Fastrack service), I’ve been stood in a queue for the 96. The demand is amazing considering how far out this is, with over 6.6 million passengers journeys in 2018/2019. I’m all for reducing excess capacity, but as a 96 passenger, that simply isn’t the case here. Curtailing the 428 in particular will result in many passengers being unable to board buses between Crayford and Bluewater.
|
|
|
Post by kenmet on Dec 19, 2019 13:09:04 GMT
Are you really saying that 10bph wouldn't be enough? Are you really saying that you have experienced trying to board a 96 to and from Bexley borough and Bluewater during busy shopping hours? Even after 11pm on a weekday night at Bluewater (on late night trips back from Northfleet via Arriva's excellent Fastrack service), I’ve been stood in a queue for the 96. The demand is amazing considering how far out this is, with over 6.6 million passengers journeys in 2018/2019. I’m all for reducing excess capacity, but as a 96 passenger, that simply isn’t the case here. Curtailing the 428 in particular will result in many passengers being unable to board buses between Crayford and Bluewater. Yes and I did suggest in a previous post that the evening service on the 96 should be increased for that very reason. On the other hand it's not uncommon to see 428s arrive and leave Bluewater with barely a handful of passengers on board and it's use to and from DVH has dwindled since the 96 started calling there.
|
|
|
Post by busman on Dec 19, 2019 13:54:01 GMT
Are you really saying that you have experienced trying to board a 96 to and from Bexley borough and Bluewater during busy shopping hours? Even after 11pm on a weekday night at Bluewater (on late night trips back from Northfleet via Arriva's excellent Fastrack service), I’ve been stood in a queue for the 96. The demand is amazing considering how far out this is, with over 6.6 million passengers journeys in 2018/2019. I’m all for reducing excess capacity, but as a 96 passenger, that simply isn’t the case here. Curtailing the 428 in particular will result in many passengers being unable to board buses between Crayford and Bluewater. Yes and I did suggest in a previous post that the evening service on the 96 should be increased for that very reason. On the other hand it's not uncommon to see 428s arrive and leave Bluewater with barely a handful of passengers on board and it's use to and from DVH has dwindled since the 96 started calling there. My point is that TfL’s original plan to cut both the 428 and 492 is overkill. The 96 by itself won’t cope by itself at certain points during the day. There has to be at least one alternative service to the 96. I would go with the 428 over the 492 as it offers a higher frequency, but I think your earlier suggestion of retaining the 492 to Bluewater via DVH being the most likely outcome as it would be cheaper to implement. Call me cynical, but I’d speculate that cutting bus services to local hospitals and amenities through Tory-voting Bexley borough in the run up to a mayoral election might be a factor in these cuts not going ahead right now.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Dec 19, 2019 14:11:07 GMT
Are you really saying that you have experienced trying to board a 96 to and from Bexley borough and Bluewater during busy shopping hours? Even after 11pm on a weekday night at Bluewater (on late night trips back from Northfleet via Arriva's excellent Fastrack service), I’ve been stood in a queue for the 96. The demand is amazing considering how far out this is, with over 6.6 million passengers journeys in 2018/2019. I’m all for reducing excess capacity, but as a 96 passenger, that simply isn’t the case here. Curtailing the 428 in particular will result in many passengers being unable to board buses between Crayford and Bluewater. Yes and I did suggest in a previous post that the evening service on the 96 should be increased for that very reason. On the other hand it's not uncommon to see 428s arrive and leave Bluewater with barely a handful of passengers on board and it's use to and from DVH has dwindled since the 96 started calling there. You can increase the 96 as much you like but you still wouldn't solve fundamental issues such as reliability due to the length & subsequent congestion it passes through across its whole routing which then impacts on people trying to use the route hence why another route providing assistance is required.
|
|
|
Post by marlon101 on Dec 19, 2019 18:03:25 GMT
Yes and I did suggest in a previous post that the evening service on the 96 should be increased for that very reason. On the other hand it's not uncommon to see 428s arrive and leave Bluewater with barely a handful of passengers on board and it's use to and from DVH has dwindled since the 96 started calling there. My point is that TfL’s original plan to cut both the 428 and 492 is overkill. The 96 by itself won’t cope by itself at certain points during the day. There has to be at least one alternative service to the 96. I would go with the 428 over the 492 as it offers a higher frequency, but I think your earlier suggestion of retaining the 492 to Bluewater via DVH being the most likely outcome as it would be cheaper to implement. Call me cynical, but I’d speculate that cutting bus services to local hospitals and amenities through Tory-voting Bexley borough in the run up to a mayoral election might be a factor in these cuts not going ahead right now. I see you've picked up on the delay to implement this too (it might have been mentioned before, but I've missed it) but the local paper is running a story on the proposals being shelved: www.kentonline.co.uk/dartford/news/bluewater-bus-cuts-shelved-218722/#r3z-addoorDoes seem like the ideas haven't been abandoned, the idea hasn't been killed but the decision has at least been postponed. I agree the best compromise is probbaly to proceed with the 428 changes while maintaining the 492.
|
|
|
Post by Dillon95 on Dec 19, 2019 19:37:02 GMT
My point is that TfL’s original plan to cut both the 428 and 492 is overkill. The 96 by itself won’t cope by itself at certain points during the day. There has to be at least one alternative service to the 96. I would go with the 428 over the 492 as it offers a higher frequency, but I think your earlier suggestion of retaining the 492 to Bluewater via DVH being the most likely outcome as it would be cheaper to implement. Call me cynical, but I’d speculate that cutting bus services to local hospitals and amenities through Tory-voting Bexley borough in the run up to a mayoral election might be a factor in these cuts not going ahead right now. I see you've picked up on the delay to implement this too (it might have been mentioned before, but I've missed it) but the local paper is running a story on the proposals being shelved: www.kentonline.co.uk/dartford/news/bluewater-bus-cuts-shelved-218722/#r3z-addoorDoes seem like the ideas haven't been abandoned, the idea hasn't been killed but the decision has at least been postponed. I agree the best compromise is probbaly to proceed with the 428 changes while maintaining the 492. Nah at least keep the 428 going to Dartford.
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Feb 3, 2020 16:28:07 GMT
From the Bexley Council 16 January Transport Users Sub committee draft minutes... David Freestone (LB Bexley)... indicated that he had met with representatives from TfL regarding the 428/492 bus consultation to outline Bexley’s concerns. The key issue from TfL’s point of view was that there was spare capacity on those routes. The Council was particularly concerned about the distance passengers would have to travel from one bus stop to the next in Crayford and that this would involve crossing two very busy roads and TfL had agreed to liaise with Bexley on that. He had been advised that a final decision was due shortly.
In relation to the 428/492 consultation, Gary Nolan (TfL) reported that, as well as the route having spare capacity, there was also an issue with funding for routes that go outside the GLA boundary. Kent County Council had been asked if they would be willing to contribute to the cost but thus far the answer had been no. Gary Nolan indicated he had not been told to expect an announcement any time soon as there were still outstanding issues to resolve.
Councillor Borella indicated that, if the bus route has to change, he felt the proposed termination point in Crayford was completely unacceptable and it would be better for the bus to terminate at Crayford Town Hall.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Feb 3, 2020 16:57:04 GMT
I think maybe the 428 will be saved to Dartford so interchange can be improved. Apart from that I think both will be axed to Bluewater.
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Feb 3, 2020 17:25:47 GMT
I think maybe the 428 will be saved to Dartford so interchange can be improved. Apart from that I think both will be axed to Bluewater. Yes that would seem the most likely outcome.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Feb 3, 2020 17:48:35 GMT
Or at the very least find a better stand for the 428. It's seems the councils concerns are the lack of same stop interchange betwen the 428 and 96 then the cutting of the routes.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Feb 3, 2020 18:55:45 GMT
From the Bexley Council 16 January Transport Users Sub committee draft minutes... David Freestone (LB Bexley)... indicated that he had met with representatives from TfL regarding the 428/492 bus consultation to outline Bexley’s concerns. The key issue from TfL’s point of view was that there was spare capacity on those routes. The Council was particularly concerned about the distance passengers would have to travel from one bus stop to the next in Crayford and that this would involve crossing two very busy roads and TfL had agreed to liaise with Bexley on that. He had been advised that a final decision was due shortly. In relation to the 428/492 consultation, Gary Nolan (TfL) reported that, as well as the route having spare capacity, there was also an issue with funding for routes that go outside the GLA boundary. Kent County Council had been asked if they would be willing to contribute to the cost but thus far the answer had been no. Gary Nolan indicated he had not been told to expect an announcement any time soon as there were still outstanding issues to resolve. Councillor Borella indicated that, if the bus route has to change, he felt the proposed termination point in Crayford was completely unacceptable and it would be better for the bus to terminate at Crayford Town Hall. Thanks for the update - I see TfL are twisting words to their favour when they mention ‘spare capacity’. Disappointed to see no opposition from Bexley over the cuts as well.
|
|