|
|
Post by LD71YLO (BE37054) on Apr 8, 2024 8:15:02 GMT
An update has been posted by the Kenley Councillors in regards to the 434's Kenley rerouting. In essence, another route test was conducted on the 28th March which again was deemed a failure. TfL are currently in the process of collaborating with Croydon Council to try and address the concerns raised in the hope to introduce the re-routing as soon as possible. Given this is Croydon Council we're dealing with here though, I'm sceptical about this. Though the council were not notified about the concerns raised at the Hayes Lane/Park Road Junction. Sounds like the obvious solution to the issues at Wattendon Road would be to introduce double yellow/red lines on the bends so that buses can get round it safely, but wouldn't that require permission or some sort of consultation? That would only push back the 434's rerouting even further. TfL seem to be hiding the truth, there have been multiple route tests and not just the 2 they seem to say they have done "TfL has informed us that during the original route test, no issues were identified. However, upon re-testing the route just before its introduction, multiple vehicles were found parked on the bends of the road. This test drive was on 28th March" Also, wasn't the introduction supposed to be 2nd March, not sure how TfL thought the 28th was before that... SEN40, the bus seen pictured in the route test report, the date of which is unknown but IF TfL were telling the truth about only 2 route tests (hint, they weren't) it wouldn't have been out for some or the majority of the day stated, however it was in fact out in service for the whole day on the 28th of both March and February(tried to give them the benefit of the doubt.) The councillors themselves state "other issues have been raised along other parts of the route. These additional safety concerns have not been communicated to Councillors or to KENDRA, the Residents Association" which just shows how much TfL truely care, they don't. SEN40 spent a full day in service on route 463 both on 28th February and 28th March. |
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Apr 8, 2024 12:11:25 GMT
TfL seem to be hiding the truth, there have been multiple route tests and not just the 2 they seem to say they have done "TfL has informed us that during the original route test, no issues were identified. However, upon re-testing the route just before its introduction, multiple vehicles were found parked on the bends of the road. This test drive was on 28th March" Also, wasn't the introduction supposed to be 2nd March, not sure how TfL thought the 28th was before that... SEN40, the bus seen pictured in the route test report, the date of which is unknown but IF TfL were telling the truth about only 2 route tests (hint, they weren't) it wouldn't have been out for some or the majority of the day stated, however it was in fact out in service for the whole day on the 28th of both March and February(tried to give them the benefit of the doubt.) The councillors themselves state "other issues have been raised along other parts of the route. These additional safety concerns have not been communicated to Councillors or to KENDRA, the Residents Association" which just shows how much TfL truely care, they don't. The 439 is costing £50k short of £1m! to do exactly what the 434 was doing whilst the 289 has already added capacity for an extra 30 passengers per bus between Purley and Waddon Marsh with the DD conversion now gone in. Observations on blogs have described it as eerily quiet and I'm not convinced demand was ever going to be so high across Purley or certainly high enough that people couldn't have just changed from a 407/434 at Purley to a 289 at the same stop. Very true, I guess the real test in terms of patronage will be when it can actually serve the area it was designed to. I still wonder why the Purley Way element was considered necessary or desirable given the recent trend for falling bus journeys to out of centre retail parks. If it ran further on to IKEA then at least it would be provide a unique link and I imagine there must be quite a few car journeys from the Purley area to IKEA. |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Apr 8, 2024 12:14:22 GMT
The 439 is costing £50k short of £1m! to do exactly what the 434 was doing whilst the 289 has already added capacity for an extra 30 passengers per bus between Purley and Waddon Marsh with the DD conversion now gone in. Observations on blogs have described it as eerily quiet and I'm not convinced demand was ever going to be so high across Purley or certainly high enough that people couldn't have just changed from a 407/434 at Purley to a 289 at the same stop. Very true, I guess the real test in terms of patronage will be when it can actually serve the area it was designed to. I still wonder why the Purley Way element was considered necessary or desirable given the recent trend for falling bus journeys to out of centre retail parks. If it ran further on to IKEA then at least it would be provide a unique link and I imagine there must be quite a few car journeys from the Purley area to IKEA. I think it might be more useful going via Pampisford Road rather than duplicating the 289. |
|
|
|
Post by PGAT on Apr 8, 2024 12:55:01 GMT
I’m not entirely sure about the criticisms for the 439 going down Purley Way. It creates a brand new link from Kenley and Whyteleafe, and having to change bus would have been a massive deterrent since it’s basically a straight drive anyway. There has also been a growth of patronage on the 289 as its been upgraded from 4bph to 5bph and got decked as well, suggesting another route would also be welcome. Even if it isn’t justified, sending it via Pampisford Road unhelpfully increases the PVR and unreliability and doesn’t provide ideal links for schoolchildren. Plus Pampisford Road already has 4 routes running down it so that argument seems a bit hypocritical.
Also I don’t believe the 439 is as empty as people are suggesting it to be. In my experience it’s quite well loaded considering how early days it is.
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Apr 8, 2024 13:50:33 GMT
I’m not entirely sure about the criticisms for the 439 going down Purley Way. It creates a brand new link from Kenley and Whyteleafe, and having to change bus would have been a massive deterrent since it’s basically a straight drive anyway. There has also been a growth of patronage on the 289 as its been upgraded from 4bph to 5bph and got decked as well, suggesting another route would also be welcome. Even if it isn’t justified, sending it via Pampisford Road unhelpfully increases the PVR and unreliability and doesn’t provide ideal links for schoolchildren. Plus Pampisford Road already has 4 routes running down it so that argument seems a bit hypocritical. Also I don’t believe the 439 is as empty as people are suggesting it to be. In my experience it’s quite well loaded considering how early days it is. I think this is a fair point - people need to realise it's only been implemented so give it a chance. I'm bemused by any suggestion of running it via Pampisford Road not because I think it's a bad idea (I actually think there is some merit there especially with a direct link from Pampisford Road to the retail outlets and I don't think reliability would be affected at all especially considering it's existing routing via Purley Way can easily fall over reliability wise) but wasn't there a discussion on here recently of whether the 405 on it's own was enough rather than have the 166 diverted alongside it as per the recent changes and now we see suggestions of adding the 439 alongside? |
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Apr 8, 2024 14:02:40 GMT
I’m not entirely sure about the criticisms for the 439 going down Purley Way. It creates a brand new link from Kenley and Whyteleafe, and having to change bus would have been a massive deterrent since it’s basically a straight drive anyway. There has also been a growth of patronage on the 289 as its been upgraded from 4bph to 5bph and got decked as well, suggesting another route would also be welcome. Even if it isn’t justified, sending it via Pampisford Road unhelpfully increases the PVR and unreliability and doesn’t provide ideal links for schoolchildren. Plus Pampisford Road already has 4 routes running down it so that argument seems a bit hypocritical. Also I don’t believe the 439 is as empty as people are suggesting it to be. In my experience it’s quite well loaded considering how early days it is. I think this is a fair point - people need to realise it's only been implemented so give it a chance. I'm bemused by any suggestion of running it via Pampisford Road not because I think it's a bad idea (I actually think there is some merit there especially with a direct link from Pampisford Road to the retail outlets and I don't think reliability would be affected at all especially considering it's existing routing via Purley Way can easily fall over reliability wise) but wasn't there a discussion on here recently of whether the 405 on it's own was enough rather than have the 166 diverted alongside it as per the recent changes and now we see suggestions of adding the 439 alongside? There have been complaints about insufficient capacity along Pampisford Road. particularly at school times, so there is demand for the current level of service. If the 439 rejoined Purley Way via Waddon Way, nothing would be lost. The only bit of Purley Way that would have a reduced service is almost entirely playing field. As you note, residents would gain a direct service to Purley Way shops which I am sure would prove instantly popular. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Apr 8, 2024 14:53:17 GMT
I’m not entirely sure about the criticisms for the 439 going down Purley Way. It creates a brand new link from Kenley and Whyteleafe, and having to change bus would have been a massive deterrent since it’s basically a straight drive anyway. There has also been a growth of patronage on the 289 as its been upgraded from 4bph to 5bph and got decked as well, suggesting another route would also be welcome. Even if it isn’t justified, sending it via Pampisford Road unhelpfully increases the PVR and unreliability and doesn’t provide ideal links for schoolchildren. Plus Pampisford Road already has 4 routes running down it so that argument seems a bit hypocritical. Also I don’t believe the 439 is as empty as people are suggesting it to be. In my experience it’s quite well loaded considering how early days it is. I think this is a fair point - people need to realise it's only been implemented so give it a chance. I'm bemused by any suggestion of running it via Pampisford Road not because I think it's a bad idea (I actually think there is some merit there especially with a direct link from Pampisford Road to the retail outlets and I don't think reliability would be affected at all especially considering it's existing routing via Purley Way can easily fall over reliability wise) but wasn't there a discussion on here recently of whether the 405 on it's own was enough rather than have the 166 diverted alongside it as per the recent changes and now we see suggestions of adding the 439 alongside? Obvious routes that have good demand from day one are ones that actually replace something and have an inbuilt audience from day one like the 333, 363 etc which immediately inherited passengers from the snipped on ends of the 133 and 63 respectively. The problem can be thou as the 497 found that if there isn't really do much in terms of providing anything new then demand is hard to find. Unless you want to go from Whyteleafe and Kenley to Croydon ariport area and Waddon Marsh then I can't see usegage growing over time. I could be wrong though and as we know TFLs marketing can be rather thin on the ground now. |
|
|
|
Post by PGAT on Apr 8, 2024 15:16:13 GMT
I think this is a fair point - people need to realise it's only been implemented so give it a chance. I'm bemused by any suggestion of running it via Pampisford Road not because I think it's a bad idea (I actually think there is some merit there especially with a direct link from Pampisford Road to the retail outlets and I don't think reliability would be affected at all especially considering it's existing routing via Purley Way can easily fall over reliability wise) but wasn't there a discussion on here recently of whether the 405 on it's own was enough rather than have the 166 diverted alongside it as per the recent changes and now we see suggestions of adding the 439 alongside? Obvious routes that have good demand from day one are ones that actually replace something and have an inbuilt audience from day one like the 333, 363 etc which immediately inherited passengers from the snipped on ends of the 133 and 63 respectively. The problem can be thou as the 497 found that if there isn't really do much in terms of providing anything new then demand is hard to find. Unless you want to go from Whyteleafe and Kenley to Croydon ariport area and Waddon Marsh then I can't see usegage growing over time. I could be wrong though and as we know TFLs marketing can be rather thin on the ground now. Yeah the advertising for the 439 has been very minimal. A large section of Hail & Ride doesn't help because there aren't even bus stops to give you information and it's unlikely you're going to see one pass by when you're out and about so demand will probably rise steadily over time. Also I believe there's some housing being built in Purley which could boost numbers |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Apr 8, 2024 16:27:33 GMT
I think this is a fair point - people need to realise it's only been implemented so give it a chance. I'm bemused by any suggestion of running it via Pampisford Road not because I think it's a bad idea (I actually think there is some merit there especially with a direct link from Pampisford Road to the retail outlets and I don't think reliability would be affected at all especially considering it's existing routing via Purley Way can easily fall over reliability wise) but wasn't there a discussion on here recently of whether the 405 on it's own was enough rather than have the 166 diverted alongside it as per the recent changes and now we see suggestions of adding the 439 alongside? Obvious routes that have good demand from day one are ones that actually replace something and have an inbuilt audience from day one like the 333, 363 etc which immediately inherited passengers from the snipped on ends of the 133 and 63 respectively. The problem can be thou as the 497 found that if there isn't really do much in terms of providing anything new then demand is hard to find. Unless you want to go from Whyteleafe and Kenley to Croydon ariport area and Waddon Marsh then I can't see usegage growing over time. I could be wrong though and as we know TFLs marketing can be rather thin on the ground now. The biggest issue with the 497 though was it didn't go where people wanted to go and it's frequency was poor for what it was trying to achieve - that has now almost been remedied by the extended 346 with a higher frequency and Upminster link introduced which was two things locals had been asking for, the latter for many years. The 439 is somewhat different IMO - I imagine there is demand to the retail outlets on Purley Way but TfL's marketing is poor which you rightly mention so word of mouth may not have yet got around. The frequency may need adjusting too to entice people to use the service |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Apr 8, 2024 16:59:44 GMT
Obvious routes that have good demand from day one are ones that actually replace something and have an inbuilt audience from day one like the 333, 363 etc which immediately inherited passengers from the snipped on ends of the 133 and 63 respectively. The problem can be thou as the 497 found that if there isn't really do much in terms of providing anything new then demand is hard to find. Unless you want to go from Whyteleafe and Kenley to Croydon ariport area and Waddon Marsh then I can't see usegage growing over time. I could be wrong though and as we know TFLs marketing can be rather thin on the ground now. The biggest issue with the 497 though was it didn't go where people wanted to go and it's frequency was poor for what it was trying to achieve - that has now almost been remedied by the extended 346 with a higher frequency and Upminster link introduced which was two things locals had been asking for, the latter for many years. The 439 is somewhat different IMO - I imagine there is demand to the retail outlets on Purley Way but TfL's marketing is poor which you rightly mention so word of mouth may not have yet got around. The frequency may need adjusting too to entice people to use the service What's odd is when there are changes which on the whole are good like the 439, S2, S4, 312 TFL don't shout it from the roof. |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Apr 8, 2024 18:02:11 GMT
I’m not entirely sure about the criticisms for the 439 going down Purley Way. It creates a brand new link from Kenley and Whyteleafe, and having to change bus would have been a massive deterrent since it’s basically a straight drive anyway. There has also been a growth of patronage on the 289 as its been upgraded from 4bph to 5bph and got decked as well, suggesting another route would also be welcome. Even if it isn’t justified, sending it via Pampisford Road unhelpfully increases the PVR and unreliability and doesn’t provide ideal links for schoolchildren. Plus Pampisford Road already has 4 routes running down it so that argument seems a bit hypocritical. Also I don’t believe the 439 is as empty as people are suggesting it to be. In my experience it’s quite well loaded considering how early days it is. Obviously it would provide a link from Pampisford Road to Purley Way and would probably be more useful than the rerouted 166. |
|
|
|
Post by YY13VKP on Apr 8, 2024 18:07:31 GMT
I’m not entirely sure about the criticisms for the 439 going down Purley Way. It creates a brand new link from Kenley and Whyteleafe, and having to change bus would have been a massive deterrent since it’s basically a straight drive anyway. There has also been a growth of patronage on the 289 as its been upgraded from 4bph to 5bph and got decked as well, suggesting another route would also be welcome. Even if it isn’t justified, sending it via Pampisford Road unhelpfully increases the PVR and unreliability and doesn’t provide ideal links for schoolchildren. Plus Pampisford Road already has 4 routes running down it so that argument seems a bit hypocritical. Also I don’t believe the 439 is as empty as people are suggesting it to be. In my experience it’s quite well loaded considering how early days it is. I think this is a fair point - people need to realise it's only been implemented so give it a chance. I'm bemused by any suggestion of running it via Pampisford Road not because I think it's a bad idea (I actually think there is some merit there especially with a direct link from Pampisford Road to the retail outlets and I don't think reliability would be affected at all especially considering it's existing routing via Purley Way can easily fall over reliability wise) but wasn't there a discussion on here recently of whether the 405 on it's own was enough rather than have the 166 diverted alongside it as per the recent changes and now we see suggestions of adding the 439 alongside? Absolutely agree with the above. TfL really didn't help themselves at first with the lack of publicity, but I've noticed patronage has picked up for the 439 recently. Even on the second day when I last used the 439 I was amazed to see nearly a full load on the bus from Waddon Marsh despite this being a Sunday, and I've also seen a full and standing 439 pass me at Purley one afternoon during after school hours. The blogs southlondonbus mentioned must have been done on either the first few days or during non-peak hours when the 439 is usually quite quiet. The 434 was the same during off peak hours. I still feel a future extension to Beddington Asda via IKEA however would make the 439 more useful, though like you both I don't think the 439 merits being rerouted via Pampisford Road especially with both the 166 and 405 going round there at present. That section would be overbussed IMO whereas Purley Way has just the double deck 289 going down that way. |
|
|
|
Post by YY13VKP on Apr 8, 2024 18:08:14 GMT
The biggest issue with the 497 though was it didn't go where people wanted to go and it's frequency was poor for what it was trying to achieve - that has now almost been remedied by the extended 346 with a higher frequency and Upminster link introduced which was two things locals had been asking for, the latter for many years. The 439 is somewhat different IMO - I imagine there is demand to the retail outlets on Purley Way but TfL's marketing is poor which you rightly mention so word of mouth may not have yet got around. The frequency may need adjusting too to entice people to use the service What's odd is when there are changes which on the whole are good like the 439, S2, S4, 312 TFL don't shout it from the roof. Not sure why they couldn't have used a similar level of publicity for the changes like they have done for the Superloop. |
|
|
|
Post by londonbuses on Apr 8, 2024 18:22:57 GMT
I don't think the 439 merits being rerouted via Pampisford Road especially with both the 166 and 405 going round there at present. That section would be overbussed IMO whereas Purley Way has just the double deck 289 going down that way. I think diverting the 439 via Pampisford Road would be a good idea, if the 166 reverts to its original routing via Brighton Road (to avoid overbussing Pampisford Road as you mention). The 405 can be extended back to West Croydon to retain the link from Pampisford Road to West Croydon, with the 250 extended back to Croydon Town Centre. The 466 can be reduced to 6bph to avoid overbussing Brighton Road (the two ends of the route don't need more than 6bph). The section between the Collonades and Purley is nothing but empty playing fields, so the 439 can run via Waddon Way and Pampisford Road and not break any of the new links that have been created (it could double run the Collonades if necessary). It can also run in Purley via Christchurch Road and Brighton Road, providing direct links to the shops in Purley. The diversion would require a PVR increase of 1, which would also allow it to be extended up to Ampere Way/IKEA (to a new stand on Hesterman Way). |
|
|
|
Post by PGAT on Apr 8, 2024 18:45:43 GMT
I’m not entirely sure about the criticisms for the 439 going down Purley Way. It creates a brand new link from Kenley and Whyteleafe, and having to change bus would have been a massive deterrent since it’s basically a straight drive anyway. There has also been a growth of patronage on the 289 as its been upgraded from 4bph to 5bph and got decked as well, suggesting another route would also be welcome. Even if it isn’t justified, sending it via Pampisford Road unhelpfully increases the PVR and unreliability and doesn’t provide ideal links for schoolchildren. Plus Pampisford Road already has 4 routes running down it so that argument seems a bit hypocritical. Also I don’t believe the 439 is as empty as people are suggesting it to be. In my experience it’s quite well loaded considering how early days it is. Obviously it would provide a link from Pampisford Road to Purley Way and would probably be more useful than the rerouted 166. Where is the prospect in that? The driving force behind Pampisford Road's passenger numbers is school traffic; but the 439's purpose is to link residential streets to retail. Besides, the 645 already links it to the Purley Way. Also side note: in practice the 439 going through empty fields means it gets to the Colonnades quickly and without much fuss. |
|
