|
|
Post by vjaska on May 18, 2021 19:01:22 GMT
I really hope tfl backtrack from their decision to hack back the 101/262. It's not fair the very inequal investment divide across London Everyone on the Bus Forum: Cut back this route to save money! No one uses it along that stretch! TfL: okay, we'll propose to cut back the 101 and 262 on a section with vast overprovison according to the actual usage data, five times the level of demand. The Bus Forum: no, not like that. My magic crayon said otherwise. I agree with the sentiment but surely even you must admit hacking back both routes is overkill |
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on May 18, 2021 19:09:50 GMT
Everyone on the Bus Forum: Cut back this route to save money! No one uses it along that stretch! TfL: okay, we'll propose to cut back the 101 and 262 on a section with vast overprovison according to the actual usage data, five times the level of demand. The Bus Forum: no, not like that. My magic crayon said otherwise. I agree with the sentiment but surely even you must admit hacking back both routes is overkill You're left with just the 366 along that stretch, which is 6bph when demand requires 4bph. Some would even argue *that's* overkill. I think that's a good balance personally and TfL seem to feel the same. I'm not too familiar with the area, but maybe leaving just the 6(ish)bph double deck service, the 262, would be a better idea? Definitely room for efficiency there though. Also it'd surely make sense for the widened 11 minute on the 262 to be dropped to a standard 5bph headway or for some of the envisaged saved resource to be put into a slightly better 6bph headway. |
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on May 18, 2021 19:19:11 GMT
This Consultation page has vanished and has been replaced by a message saying that the Page is being updated. Either results are imminent or someone at TfL removed this consultation a while ago and forgot to put the results up. My punt is they're updating it for the impending introduction of the Elizabeth line. Another punt is after poor management over-promising and under-delivering with dates in the past, Crossrail may be in a position to start earlier than December 2021*. I assume plans for south Newham may be revised, one of them is the Custom House conundrum. That stand has now been erected and can only fit 2 buses. That completely rules out two high PVR routes in the 241 and proposed 304 both standing there. Hopefully that rules the 241 option out, considering TfL released another study exploring the 241 to be extended in the Pontoon Dock area. *Saw on ITV News London about this date for Crossrail to fully open but unfortunately, can't seem to find a source to back this up. |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on May 18, 2021 19:24:11 GMT
This Consultation page has vanished and has been replaced by a message saying that the Page is being updated. Either results are imminent or someone at TfL removed this consultation a while ago and forgot to put the results up. My punt is they're updating it for the impending introduction of the Elizabeth line. Another punt is after poor management over-promising and under-delivering with dates in the past, Crossrail may be in a position to start earlier than December 2021*. I assume plans for south Newham may be revised, one of them is the Custom House conundrum. That stand has now been erected and can only fit 2 buses. That completely rules out two high PVR routes in the 241 and proposed 304 both standing there. Hopefully that rules the 241 option out, considering TfL released another study exploring the 241 to be extended in the Pontoon Dock area. Think you might have got the consultations mixed up  the South Newham consultation was the absurd removal of both the 262 and 101 between Beckton and East Beckton. However as you do mention the Custom House changes, I think the 241s proposal has been ruled over by the Royal Wharf proposal, so I see that change being introduced on the same day as its cut from Canning Town. This means only the 304 would need to stand at Custom House. DX have already seemingly got buses in for the 325s Beckton extension so I think the change is pretty much a done deal for the 241 too. Going back to the 262 and 101, and interestingly also this links to stand space. I wonder how on earth they'll fit the 104, 101 and 262 at Beckton. You already have stand issues there with 366s and 173s standing at the alighting point so how on earth they plan to fit in three double decker high PVR routes is beyond me. I'd imagine they could get one to stand at the overflow stand and U turn at the roundabout by Savage Gardens but that overflow stand is only big enough for one bus. |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on May 18, 2021 19:28:50 GMT
I agree with the sentiment but surely even you must admit hacking back both routes is overkill You're left with just the 366 along that stretch, which is 6bph when demand requires 4bph. Some would even argue *that's* overkill. I think that's a good balance personally and TfL seem to feel the same. I'm not too familiar with the area, but maybe leaving just the 6(ish)bph double deck service, the 262, would be a better idea? Definitely room for efficiency there though. Also it'd surely make sense for the widened 11 minute on the 262 to be dropped to a standard 5bph headway or for some of the envisaged saved resource to be put into a slightly better 6bph headway. I think the issue with leaving the 262 is then somehow removing the 366. It and the 173 are the only links Beckton has heading East at all, and it will be ridiculous if the next town over, Barking is left with no link to Beckton. I'd imagine this is why the 101 and 262 were the two chosen. East Beckton still retains links to Plaistow and the surrounding area with the 325 while most people just drive to Gallions Reach, and due to the silly stop placements there it's a pain using a bus if you don't have to. However what I think might be worth exploring is just sending the 473 the extra 10 minutes to Gallions Reach, restoring the Stratford link. Although if you look long term, the Thamesmead extension has a station right inside the shopping park, so the 262 loss won't be a huge issue long term. |
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on May 18, 2021 19:38:41 GMT
I agree with the sentiment but surely even you must admit hacking back both routes is overkill You're left with just the 366 along that stretch, which is 6bph when demand requires 4bph. Some would even argue *that's* overkill. I think that's a good balance personally and TfL seem to feel the same. I'm not too familiar with the area, but maybe leaving just the 6(ish)bph double deck service, the 262, would be a better idea? Definitely room for efficiency there though. Also it'd surely make sense for the widened 11 minute on the 262 to be dropped to a standard 5bph headway or for some of the envisaged saved resource to be put into a slightly better 6bph headway. However the way capacity I believe is calculated by TFL is looking at the number of journeys made in an hour and divided by the capacity of certain bus available. Happy to be corrected but don't they calculate it through full buses (so all capacity is used up on said bus). If so that sets a dangerous precedent for their potential justification of changes further down the line. |
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on May 18, 2021 20:05:42 GMT
I agree with the sentiment but surely even you must admit hacking back both routes is overkill You're left with just the 366 along that stretch, which is 6bph when demand requires 4bph. Some would even argue *that's* overkill. I think that's a good balance personally and TfL seem to feel the same. I'm not too familiar with the area, but maybe leaving just the 6(ish)bph double deck service, the 262, would be a better idea? Definitely room for efficiency there though. Also it'd surely make sense for the widened 11 minute on the 262 to be dropped to a standard 5bph headway or for some of the envisaged saved resource to be put into a slightly better 6bph headway. That's the phrase I wanted to see before I tailor my response. Impartially, TfL should NOT be hacking services in the outer boroughs if they want to encourage people out of their cars. Punters will not be lured to the shops by a very infrequent service. It's true for anyone in the 'outer ring' of London and even in the home counties. I've even spoken to a few new acquaintances in Watford who admit to using the "London buses there", 142 and 258 to us enthusiasts; for every local journey because buses are frequent and reliable. Whilst the central London cuts were not palatable to most, it makes sense to cut services in inner London where there are loads of other alternatives. With the 25 cuts for example, those bus passengers between Holborn Circus and Oxford Circus were pretty much forced to use the Central line; a quicker, more frequent service. When you cut both the 101 and 262 to Beckton, where's the alternative when the only route's reliability is down the latrine? Partial mode on, the 366 isn't sufficient alone in the Gallions Reach area. As just stated, Gallions Reach will be left high and dry should buses on the 366 curtail southbound anywhere before Gallions Reach Station. Which the route is prone to doing by the way as pulling the only bus route short from Redbridge is much more painful on passengers than at the Beckton end. Capacity on paper may be sufficient (and I highly doubt that as a local), but the 366 is too unreliable especially in the Beckton area for it to be alone for a major shopping objective in the Shopping Park, the warehouse depots and the DLR depot in Gallions Reach. At the very least, have the 366 and a 262 curtailed to Gallions Reach, Shopping Park. And I also find your comment about forum members not accepting cuts as hurtful. Do routes 218 and 306 really need to run between Hammersmith and Acton, under the guise of the 266 being too long and unreliable alone for that stretch, yet TfL propose to create the same conditions for the 366 in Gallions Reach? Top notch nonsensical thinking if you ask me. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on May 18, 2021 20:10:10 GMT
I agree with the sentiment but surely even you must admit hacking back both routes is overkill You're left with just the 366 along that stretch, which is 6bph when demand requires 4bph. Some would even argue *that's* overkill. I think that's a good balance personally and TfL seem to feel the same. I'm not too familiar with the area, but maybe leaving just the 6(ish)bph double deck service, the 262, would be a better idea? Definitely room for efficiency there though. Also it'd surely make sense for the widened 11 minute on the 262 to be dropped to a standard 5bph headway or for some of the envisaged saved resource to be put into a slightly better 6bph headway. Like you, not local but I have used the Gallions Reach Retail Park for Smyths before on a few occasions when the Charlton branch doesn’t have what I’m after and the 366 is usually at least quite busy and at worst absolutely rammed even through that section from observations so effectively such a change would only worsen the 366 as a result |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on May 18, 2021 20:12:01 GMT
You're left with just the 366 along that stretch, which is 6bph when demand requires 4bph. Some would even argue *that's* overkill. I think that's a good balance personally and TfL seem to feel the same. I'm not too familiar with the area, but maybe leaving just the 6(ish)bph double deck service, the 262, would be a better idea? Definitely room for efficiency there though. Also it'd surely make sense for the widened 11 minute on the 262 to be dropped to a standard 5bph headway or for some of the envisaged saved resource to be put into a slightly better 6bph headway. That's the phrase I wanted to see before I tailor my response. Impartially, TfL should NOT be hacking services in the outer boroughs if they want to encourage people out of their cars. Punters will not be lured to the shops by a very infrequent service. It's true for anyone in the 'outer ring' of London and even in the home counties. I've even spoken to a few new acquaintances in Watford who admit to using the "London buses there", 142 and 258 to us enthusiasts; for every local journey because buses are frequent and reliable. Whilst the central London cuts were not palatable to most, it makes sense to cut services in inner London where there are loads of other alternatives. With the 25 cuts for example, those bus passengers between Holborn Circus and Oxford Circus were pretty much forced to use the Central line; a quicker, more frequent service. When you cut both the 101 and 262 to Beckton, where's the alternative when the only route's reliability is down the latrine? Partial mode on, the 366 isn't sufficient alone in the Gallions Reach area. As just stated, Gallions Reach will be left high and dry should buses on the 366 curtail southbound anywhere before Gallions Reach Station. Which the route is prone to doing by the way as pulling the only bus route short from Redbridge is much more painful on passengers than at the Beckton end. Capacity on paper may be sufficient (and I highly doubt that as a local), but the 366 is too unreliable especially in the Beckton area for it to be alone for a major shopping objective in the Shopping Park, the warehouse depots and the DLR depot in Gallions Reach. At the very least, have the 366 and a 262 curtailed to Gallions Reach, Shopping Park. And I also find your comment about forum members not accepting cuts as hurtful. Do routes 218 and 306 really need to run between Hammersmith and Acton, under the guise of the 266 being too long and unreliable alone for that stretch, yet TfL propose to create the same conditions for the 366 in Gallions Reach? Top notch nonsensical thinking if you ask me. I'm not too sure what TfL's reasoning is for the 4bph being sufficient argument is, I'm assuming this is 4 double deckers which would leave the 6bph on the 366 pretty much full with standing capacity. I understand that there is excess capacity, but the real question is whether TfL have analysed travel patterns. Is everyone just going to Beckton? Where are most of these 262 and 101 passengers going? |
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on May 18, 2021 20:14:26 GMT
You're left with just the 366 along that stretch, which is 6bph when demand requires 4bph. Some would even argue *that's* overkill. I think that's a good balance personally and TfL seem to feel the same. I'm not too familiar with the area, but maybe leaving just the 6(ish)bph double deck service, the 262, would be a better idea? Definitely room for efficiency there though. Also it'd surely make sense for the widened 11 minute on the 262 to be dropped to a standard 5bph headway or for some of the envisaged saved resource to be put into a slightly better 6bph headway. That's the phrase I wanted to see before I tailor my response. Impartially, TfL should NOT be hacking services in the outer boroughs if they want to encourage people out of their cars. Punters will not be lured to the shops by a very infrequent service. It's true for anyone in the 'outer ring' of London and even in the home counties. I've even spoken to a few new acquaintances in Watford who admit to using the "London buses there", 142 and 258 to us enthusiasts; for every local journey because buses are frequent and reliable. Whilst the central London cuts were not palatable to most, it makes sense to cut services in inner London where there are loads of other alternatives. With the 25 cuts for example, those bus passengers between Holborn Circus and Oxford Circus were pretty much forced to use the Central line; a quicker, more frequent service. When you cut both the 101 and 262 to Beckton, where's the alternative when the only route's reliability is down the latrine? Partial mode on, the 366 isn't sufficient alone in the Gallions Reach area. As just stated, Gallions Reach will be left high and dry should buses on the 366 curtail southbound anywhere before Gallions Reach Station. Which the route is prone to doing by the way as pulling the only bus route short from Redbridge is much more painful on passengers than at the Beckton end. Capacity on paper may be sufficient (and I highly doubt that as a local), but the 366 is too unreliable especially in the Beckton area for it to be alone for a major shopping objective in the Shopping Park, the warehouse depots and the DLR depot in Gallions Reach. At the very least, have the 366 and a 262 curtailed to Gallions Reach, Shopping Park. And I also find your comment about forum members not accepting cuts as hurtful. Do routes 218 and 306 really need to run between Hammersmith and Acton, under the guise of the 266 being too long and unreliable alone for that stretch, yet TfL propose to create the same conditions for the 366 in Gallions Reach? Top notch nonsensical thinking if you ask me. Acton to Hammersmith is a corridor of very dense residential population. It has a naturally high level of usage because of that. Anywhere with lots of chimney pots will. Gallons Reach to Beckton is almost the exact opposite. It's car-centric planned. Little in the way of residential population. It's not hurtful at all, my comment was done in jest and 90% could detect that from the tone. The 366 has also consistently met or exceeded it's performance targets hence it got a 2 year extension. How's that unreliable? Prone to delays yes but clearly not horrendous. Facts show that. You may be a local but at the end of the day you aren't a planner with access to all the relevant data for the area network - I trust that view. Informed decisions should be made. |
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on May 18, 2021 20:31:13 GMT
My punt is they're updating it for the impending introduction of the Elizabeth line. Another punt is after poor management over-promising and under-delivering with dates in the past, Crossrail may be in a position to start earlier than December 2021*. I assume plans for south Newham may be revised, one of them is the Custom House conundrum. That stand has now been erected and can only fit 2 buses. That completely rules out two high PVR routes in the 241 and proposed 304 both standing there. Hopefully that rules the 241 option out, considering TfL released another study exploring the 241 to be extended in the Pontoon Dock area. Think you might have got the consultations mixed up the South Newham consultation was the absurd removal of both the 262 and 101 between Beckton and East Beckton. However as you do mention the Custom House changes, I think the 241s proposal has been ruled over by the Royal Wharf proposal, so I see that change being introduced on the same day as its cut from Canning Town. This means only the 304 would need to stand at Custom House. DX have already seemingly got buses in for the 325s Beckton extension so I think the change is pretty much a done deal for the 241 too. Going back to the 262 and 101, and interestingly also this links to stand space. I wonder how on earth they'll fit the 104, 101 and 262 at Beckton. You already have stand issues there with 366s and 173s standing at the alighting point so how on earth they plan to fit in three double decker high PVR routes is beyond me. I'd imagine they could get one to stand at the overflow stand and U turn at the roundabout by Savage Gardens but that overflow stand is only big enough for one bus. Maybe I have the two confused a little!  I think any one of the south Newham changes will be a catalyst for some Lizzie line changes as well. Can't touch the 101 without reviewing the 474 in the same vain, and you can see how the ball rolls over to Custom House... I believe TfL are missing a trick by giving the 304 Custom House proposal to the 101. It withdraws the route from Beckton, saves on not having a new route, cuts the 104 in the process and alleviates Beckton bus station with one move. Just leaves the 262 which shouldn't really be pulled out of Gallions Reach at the very least. The last 366 departs Beckton at 23:45, the last 262 out of Stratford hits Beckton around half 1 in the morning. The first N551 to Gallions Reach arrives into Beckton just after 1. Right there, there's a time disparity in the service along Woolwich Manor Way (south) and in Gallions Reach; which workers at the DLR depot and the Hornet Way warehouses will be hit by as TfL didn't initially or until now, talk about putting on later journeys for the 366. |
|
|
|
Post by Green Kitten on May 18, 2021 20:48:06 GMT
I'm sure they have accounted for the gap in journeys between the 366 and N551.
Perhaps it might be better just to cut one of the routes? Just the 101?
|
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on May 18, 2021 20:55:11 GMT
That's the phrase I wanted to see before I tailor my response. Impartially, TfL should NOT be hacking services in the outer boroughs if they want to encourage people out of their cars. Punters will not be lured to the shops by a very infrequent service. It's true for anyone in the 'outer ring' of London and even in the home counties. I've even spoken to a few new acquaintances in Watford who admit to using the "London buses there", 142 and 258 to us enthusiasts; for every local journey because buses are frequent and reliable. Whilst the central London cuts were not palatable to most, it makes sense to cut services in inner London where there are loads of other alternatives. With the 25 cuts for example, those bus passengers between Holborn Circus and Oxford Circus were pretty much forced to use the Central line; a quicker, more frequent service. When you cut both the 101 and 262 to Beckton, where's the alternative when the only route's reliability is down the latrine? Partial mode on, the 366 isn't sufficient alone in the Gallions Reach area. As just stated, Gallions Reach will be left high and dry should buses on the 366 curtail southbound anywhere before Gallions Reach Station. Which the route is prone to doing by the way as pulling the only bus route short from Redbridge is much more painful on passengers than at the Beckton end. Capacity on paper may be sufficient (and I highly doubt that as a local), but the 366 is too unreliable especially in the Beckton area for it to be alone for a major shopping objective in the Shopping Park, the warehouse depots and the DLR depot in Gallions Reach. At the very least, have the 366 and a 262 curtailed to Gallions Reach, Shopping Park. And I also find your comment about forum members not accepting cuts as hurtful. Do routes 218 and 306 really need to run between Hammersmith and Acton, under the guise of the 266 being too long and unreliable alone for that stretch, yet TfL propose to create the same conditions for the 366 in Gallions Reach? Top notch nonsensical thinking if you ask me. Acton to Hammersmith is a corridor of very dense residential population. It has a naturally high level of usage because of that. Anywhere with lots of chimney pots will. Gallons Reach to Beckton is almost the exact opposite. It's car-centric planned. Little in the way of residential population. It's not hurtful at all, my comment was done in jest and 90% could detect that from the tone. The 366 has also consistently met or exceeded it's performance targets hence it got a 2 year extension. How's that unreliable? Prone to delays yes but clearly not horrendous. Facts show that. You may be a local but at the end of the day you aren't a planner with access to all the relevant data for the area network - I trust that view. Informed decisions should be made. I'm not a planner by any means, but I know data can be manipulated to fit an objective. Without sounding patronising, you really need to come visit the route at a few specific times. Once at 04:20 for the very first bus from Beckton which before Covid, would arrive in Barking with full seating capacity achieved at the very least. Once during the afternoon peak in Gallions Reach to see if buses on the 366 from either direction do manage to be every 10 minutes. And once more on a Sunday afternoon, again at Gallions Reach to observe in particular shop kick out times. The 366 is pegged from passengers both wanting Beckton and Barking, and that's with assistance from the 101 and the 262. Not everyone drives, not everyone who does drive chooses to for every journey. The 366 is literally a tale of two halves and as a single decker, will not be able to serve all the retail and leisure objectives in Beckton on its own. And speaking of tales of two halves, I wouldn't be surprised if the QSI point for the 366 is nowhere in Beckton. |
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on May 18, 2021 20:58:13 GMT
You're left with just the 366 along that stretch, which is 6bph when demand requires 4bph. Some would even argue *that's* overkill. I think that's a good balance personally and TfL seem to feel the same. I'm not too familiar with the area, but maybe leaving just the 6(ish)bph double deck service, the 262, would be a better idea? Definitely room for efficiency there though. Also it'd surely make sense for the widened 11 minute on the 262 to be dropped to a standard 5bph headway or for some of the envisaged saved resource to be put into a slightly better 6bph headway. Like you, not local but I have used the Gallions Reach Retail Park for Smyths before on a few occasions when the Charlton branch doesn’t have what I’m after and the 366 is usually at least quite busy and at worst absolutely rammed even through that section from observations so effectively such a change would only worsen the 366 as a result One very dangerous precedent that could really hammer the 101 and 262 is where people now abandon the route as a whole in order to now take advantage of Gallions Reach's free parking. |
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on May 18, 2021 21:06:05 GMT
You're left with just the 366 along that stretch, which is 6bph when demand requires 4bph. Some would even argue *that's* overkill. I think that's a good balance personally and TfL seem to feel the same. I'm not too familiar with the area, but maybe leaving just the 6(ish)bph double deck service, the 262, would be a better idea? Definitely room for efficiency there though. Also it'd surely make sense for the widened 11 minute on the 262 to be dropped to a standard 5bph headway or for some of the envisaged saved resource to be put into a slightly better 6bph headway. That's the phrase I wanted to see before I tailor my response. Impartially, TfL should NOT be hacking services in the outer boroughs if they want to encourage people out of their cars. Punters will not be lured to the shops by a very infrequent service. It's true for anyone in the 'outer ring' of London and even in the home counties. I've even spoken to a few new acquaintances in Watford who admit to using the "London buses there", 142 and 258 to us enthusiasts; for every local journey because buses are frequent and reliable. Whilst the central London cuts were not palatable to most, it makes sense to cut services in inner London where there are loads of other alternatives. With the 25 cuts for example, those bus passengers between Holborn Circus and Oxford Circus were pretty much forced to use the Central line; a quicker, more frequent service. When you cut both the 101 and 262 to Beckton, where's the alternative when the only route's reliability is down the latrine? Partial mode on, the 366 isn't sufficient alone in the Gallions Reach area. As just stated, Gallions Reach will be left high and dry should buses on the 366 curtail southbound anywhere before Gallions Reach Station. Which the route is prone to doing by the way as pulling the only bus route short from Redbridge is much more painful on passengers than at the Beckton end. Capacity on paper may be sufficient (and I highly doubt that as a local), but the 366 is too unreliable especially in the Beckton area for it to be alone for a major shopping objective in the Shopping Park, the warehouse depots and the DLR depot in Gallions Reach. At the very least, have the 366 and a 262 curtailed to Gallions Reach, Shopping Park. And I also find your comment about forum members not accepting cuts as hurtful. Do routes 218 and 306 really need to run between Hammersmith and Acton, under the guise of the 266 being too long and unreliable alone for that stretch, yet TfL propose to create the same conditions for the 366 in Gallions Reach? Top notch nonsensical thinking if you ask me. I think 2 routes were needed down the Acton to Hammersmith corridor however that could've been down to the high residential population or the unreliability causing gaps in service on the 266 |
|
the South Newham consultation was the absurd removal of both the 262 and 101 between Beckton and East Beckton. 
I think any one of the south Newham changes will be a catalyst for some Lizzie line changes as well. Can't touch the 101 without reviewing the 474 in the same vain, and you can see how the ball rolls over to Custom House...