|
|
Post by DE20106 on Jan 20, 2020 22:40:05 GMT
We don't know the 428/492 have been dropped, just that more time is needed to assess the results. That has been said before when the number of responses is high only for the changes to go ahead. Okay fair enough I do think your wording is more accurate than mine, but that does sort of support my point though that TfL are appearing to be more receptive to consultations. After the mayor stuff is done with then yes it’ll probably be business as usual with the ignorance lol |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jan 20, 2020 22:49:30 GMT
We don't know the 428/492 have been dropped, just that more time is needed to assess the results. That has been said before when the number of responses is high only for the changes to go ahead. Okay fair enough I do think your wording is more accurate than mine, but that does sort of support my point though that TfL are appearing to be more receptive to consultations. After the mayor stuff is done with then yes it’ll probably be business as usual with the ignorance lol The skeptic in me says only because it's Outer London and because there has been some sizeable local opposition AFAIK? Now if this was Lambeth/Southwark/Hackney, I highly suspect it would of been quickly waved through  |
|
frank
Conductor
Posts: 68
|
Post by frank on Jan 20, 2020 23:43:08 GMT
To mitigate these cuts to the 104 and 262, would a route such as this frequency, every 15/20/20 not be viable?
Newham General Hospital to Barking Riverside via Lonsdale Avenue, Woolwich Manor Way, Beckton Asda, and then the current 262 alignment to Beckton Sainsbury’s, A13, River Road, and then via EL1 or EL3 (or a combination of both) to terminal in the Barking Riverside area.
Alternatively it could start at Newham General Hospital and run via the 262 to Beckton Asda, and then onto Barking Riverside via the propsosed route.
Just a suggestion, which opens up new links to the Barking Riverside area.
|
|
|
|
Post by joefrombow on Jan 21, 2020 0:40:34 GMT
It is very sad to see as I remember back in around 2005 when Gallions Reach opened it was very busy there ! But as with most High Streets the footfall just isn't there anymore , however cutting both the 101 and 262 is stupid , the 366 is rubbish at the best of times due to the A406 and the A13 and all the Barking/Ilford traffic , personally I think the 101 should be cutback and diverted at Lonsdale Ave over the new 304 route to Custom House and scrap the 304 and keep the 104 as is , does Beckton really need the 104 there ? People who want Beckton can change buses at the junction with High Street South and Lonsdale (thanks to the mayor's new hopper fare🙃), as for the 262 maybe keep it running but curtail it too Gallions Reach or have every other bus from Beckton go through , Failing that literally cut the 366 in half for arguments sake have a double deck new route 566 from Barking Stn to Beckton and leave the 366 from Barking London Rd to Redbridge both routes running with the same frequency as current 6bph but reducing the problems encountered with the traffic along the route would still be problematic but maybe more reliable ? Thoughts ??
|
|
|
|
Post by Green Kitten on Jan 21, 2020 8:26:18 GMT
I'd love to see the statistics backing up the severe drop in patronage leading to only 4bph required at Gallions Reach Shopping Park. Perhaps they forgot to carry the one?
It wouldn't be half bad if just the 101 was curtailed, at least leaving the 262 to serve the DLR depot/Shopping Park and continue on to East Beckton. Leaving that section to a route which can't even be double-decked (don't know the 366 very well so let me know if I'm wrong) is a disaster waiting to happen. Hopefully this proposal gets a re-think.
This proposal seems to have irritated Diamond Geezer so much that he has made a blog post about it today!  |
|
|
|
Post by lundnah on Jan 21, 2020 8:55:28 GMT
I'd love to see the statistics backing up the severe drop in patronage leading to only 4bph required at Gallions Reach Shopping Park. Perhaps they forgot to carry the one?
Here are the statistics... in a 28 page TfL Surface Transport planning document dated August 2019.
It's an absolute treasure trove of information and future thinking. For example...
GALLIONS REACH CAPACITY REVIEW
Routes 101/262
Issue:
• Decrease in demand within the area marked in red on the map.
-23% between 2007 and 2015. Probably due to changing shopping habits e.g. online shopping and the opening of Westfield Stratford City.
• Excess capacity on the corridor within the area marked in red on the map.
Peak hour demand equivalent to around 4 double-deck buses. Currently 22 bph provided.
Proposed scheme: 262 and 101 curtailment at Beckton
• NB: Subject to consultation.
Implication:
• Better matches capacity to demand.
• Significant savings which can be better allocated elsewhere on the network.
• Does break passenger links but dotted area continues to be served by routes 325, 366, 474, N551 and DLR.
• Possibility to extend 101 to ABP site. |
|
|
|
Post by redexpress on Jan 21, 2020 9:25:59 GMT
I'd love to see the statistics backing up the severe drop in patronage leading to only 4bph required at Gallions Reach Shopping Park. Perhaps they forgot to carry the one?
Here are the statistics... in a 28 page TfL Surface Transport planning document dated August 2019.
It's an absolute treasure trove of information and future thinking. For example...
GALLIONS REACH CAPACITY REVIEW
Routes 101/262
Issue:
• Decrease in demand within the area marked in red on the map.
-23% between 2007 and 2015. Probably due to changing shopping habits e.g. online shopping and the opening of Westfield Stratford City.
• Excess capacity on the corridor within the area marked in red on the map.
Peak hour demand equivalent to around 4 double-deck buses. Currently 22 bph provided.
Proposed scheme: 262 and 101 curtailment at Beckton
• NB: Subject to consultation.
Implication:
• Better matches capacity to demand.
• Significant savings which can be better allocated elsewhere on the network.
• Does break passenger links but dotted area continues to be served by routes 325, 366, 474, N551 and DLR.
• Possibility to extend 101 to ABP site.
Well I suppose that starts to explain why they think a 6bph single-deck service will suffice. It's a very crude capacity calculation. "4 double-deck buses" in TfL speak means a capacity requirement of 4*87 = 348. The 366 uses what TfL considers to be 55-capacity buses. 6 of those per hour gives you a capacity of 330, which is a bit less than 4 double-deckers, but in the same ballpark.
If this is the methodology that TfL are using, we're in trouble. Anyone who travels by bus knows that it won't work out as neatly as that. For a start, the demand won't be evenly spread, so some buses will carry less than 55 passengers, meaning that the busier buses will be unable to cope with the peak loads. And in any case, try being the 55th person to squeeze onto a 10.2m Enviro200 - it ain't at all pleasant, if you can even get on.
|
|
|
|
Post by rm1422 on Jan 21, 2020 9:31:28 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Jan 21, 2020 11:39:50 GMT
Here are the statistics... in a 28 page TfL Surface Transport planning document dated August 2019.
It's an absolute treasure trove of information and future thinking. For example...
GALLIONS REACH CAPACITY REVIEW
Routes 101/262
Issue:
• Decrease in demand within the area marked in red on the map.
-23% between 2007 and 2015. Probably due to changing shopping habits e.g. online shopping and the opening of Westfield Stratford City.
• Excess capacity on the corridor within the area marked in red on the map.
Peak hour demand equivalent to around 4 double-deck buses. Currently 22 bph provided.
Proposed scheme: 262 and 101 curtailment at Beckton
• NB: Subject to consultation.
Implication:
• Better matches capacity to demand.
• Significant savings which can be better allocated elsewhere on the network.
• Does break passenger links but dotted area continues to be served by routes 325, 366, 474, N551 and DLR.
• Possibility to extend 101 to ABP site.
Well I suppose that starts to explain why they think a 6bph single-deck service will suffice. It's a very crude capacity calculation. "4 double-deck buses" in TfL speak means a capacity requirement of 4*87 = 348. The 366 uses what TfL considers to be 55-capacity buses. 6 of those per hour gives you a capacity of 330, which is a bit less than 4 double-deckers, but in the same ballpark.
If this is the methodology that TfL are using, we're in trouble. Anyone who travels by bus knows that it won't work out as neatly as that. For a start, the demand won't be evenly spread, so some buses will carry less than 55 passengers, meaning that the busier buses will be unable to cope with the peak loads. And in any case, try being the 55th person to squeeze onto a 10.2m Enviro200 - it ain't at all pleasant, if you can even get on.
TfL constantly state in these consultations that additional capacity is not justified unless buses are full. That means full to bursting. It’s a very high bar and justifies cutting capacity to the bone. Very worrying. How many people will bother to use the bus if there is a high probability they will be standing or not even be able to board. The old threshold used to be 90% of peak time seated capacity which is far more sensible. |
|
|
|
Post by T.R. on Jan 21, 2020 12:05:07 GMT
Can the 366 take double deckers?
|
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Jan 21, 2020 12:54:43 GMT
Can the 366 take double deckers? Short answer is no. Long answer is that nobody quite seems to actually know why. There are at least 3 potential reasons. The first one is a billboard which overhangs Quay Road, it looks just about short enough to hit a decker which might pass under it. The second one is said to be the Metropolitan Police base who don't quite want people peering into them, however I'm doubtful about that one as out of all people to bottleneck a transport service I doubt it will be the police of all people, not to mention the 87 goes past the Mi5 HQ and they don't quite seem to have a problem with it. The most recent one I've seen touted elsewhere is the residential aspect of route 366, and this might actually be the most likely one. Many other routes suffer from this and it wouldn't surprise me at all if this was the case here too. I'd probably guess and say the issue lies at Sunnyside Road as you'd be surprised a bus even goes down those sorts of areas! Sadly it does seem that a DD conversion of the route is completely out of the question, the next step would be a PVR increase however the 366 already has a high PVR for a single decker route, and by the time you provide an adequate level you may as well have kept the 262 or 101 as they are. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2020 17:36:12 GMT
Impressed my employer has passed on the stakeholders message to staff today so hopefully the consultation will get a good response from the public opposing the cuts.
|
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Jan 21, 2020 18:40:34 GMT
Well I suppose that starts to explain why they think a 6bph single-deck service will suffice. It's a very crude capacity calculation. "4 double-deck buses" in TfL speak means a capacity requirement of 4*87 = 348. The 366 uses what TfL considers to be 55-capacity buses. 6 of those per hour gives you a capacity of 330, which is a bit less than 4 double-deckers, but in the same ballpark.
If this is the methodology that TfL are using, we're in trouble. Anyone who travels by bus knows that it won't work out as neatly as that. For a start, the demand won't be evenly spread, so some buses will carry less than 55 passengers, meaning that the busier buses will be unable to cope with the peak loads. And in any case, try being the 55th person to squeeze onto a 10.2m Enviro200 - it ain't at all pleasant, if you can even get on.
TfL constantly state in these consultations that additional capacity is not justified unless buses are full. That means full to bursting. It’s a very high bar and justifies cutting capacity to the bone. Very worrying. How many people will bother to use the bus if there is a high probability they will be standing or not even be able to board. The old threshold used to be 90% of peak time seated capacity which is far more sensible. If that is TfL's current attitude (I hesitate to call it thinking) then it shows they don't wish to entertain the possibility of passenger growth on the section in question. To think the term 'good service' was first coined, in transport terms, during London Passenger Transport Board days, and although it's always been mainly associated with the Underground (and is still used there) it was always an ethos which had relevance on the bus side too. To deliberately run a bus service which can only cope with habitual users of it shows disrespect, if not contempt, for the travelling public. If I had a vote in the next mayoral election I'd be writing to Sadiq Khan to tell him that, contrary to my wishes, I'd not be placing an X against his name on the ballot paper, based on his stewardship of TfL thus far. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2020 20:53:38 GMT
Was thinking earlier about the below as alteratives but the changes all have issues so maybe not!
325 left as it now.
474 via Keir Hardie as proposed then Custom House , Prince Regent Station then via proposed 325 extension then normal route towards Beckton - Downside this cuts the City Airport link
101 extended back to North Woolwich covering the withdrawn section of the 474 from Beckton and 473 covers the Prince Regent Woolwich section.
262 curtailed at Gallions Reach.
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jan 21, 2020 21:51:42 GMT
Was thinking earlier about the below as alteratives but the changes all have issues so maybe not! 325 left as it now. 474 via Keir Hardie as proposed then Custom House , Prince Regent Station then via proposed 325 extension then normal route towards Beckton - Downside this cuts the City Airport link 101 extended back to North Woolwich covering the withdrawn section of the 474 from Beckton and 473 covers the Prince Regent Woolwich section. 262 curtailed at Gallions Reach. Something tells me the 304 may now be scrapped if the South Newham changes go ahead with the 101 extended to Custom House - it just allows TfL to save further money and allows the 104 to sit at Beckton as planned. |
|
