Which route would you withdraw ?

[Deleted]

Without replacement , to save TfL money.

[Eastlondoner62]

I'm not sure these options are the best routes to suggest withdrawal, there's many better choices to withdraw than these 5 routes.

[Deleted]

Dec 11, 2020 11:59:08 GMT Eastlondoner62 said:

I'm not sure these options are the best routes to suggest withdrawal, there's many better choices to withdraw than these 5 routes.

I chose them deliberately to see which kind of routes us members would prefer to withdraw.

[southlondonbus]

Probbaly only the 485 as I feel the 378 has largely duplicated. I'd happily see a 378 Mortlake to Wandsworth route even when/if the bridge re opens. Alternately a beefed up 485 and diverted to Mortlake could replace the 378.

[vjaska]

Dec 11, 2020 11:52:34 GMT @rob said:

Without replacement , to save TfL money.

Depends as you listed the 485 yet this could be withdrawn and replaced by an existing route extension such as a merged 209/378, 378 on its own or a diversion of the 265 so then doesn’t meet your criteria.

So going by your criteria of without replacement, the answer is none.

[wirewiper]

Dec 11, 2020 11:52:34 GMT @rob said:

Without replacement , to save TfL money.

None, even if there is a need to reduce bus provision to save money there are other ways of doing it without withdrawing routes wholesale. Even the 375 and 549 should be retained as they help TfL meet its access to bus service obligations in border areas of Greater London. 

[Green Kitten]

Route 414 seems a little pointless with its cut. I would just slightly increase the 14.

It’ll be a shame for TT, but it is what it is.

[vjaska]

Dec 11, 2020 13:12:56 GMT wirewiper said:

Dec 11, 2020 11:52:34 GMT @rob said:

Without replacement , to save TfL money.

None, even if there is a need to reduce bus provision to save money there are other ways of doing it without withdrawing routes wholesale. Even the 375 and 549 should be retained as they help TfL meet its access to bus service obligations in border areas of Greater London. 

Agree, I think the 485 is the only one that should be done only as it could be replaced by an extension to the 378 so in effect, it wouldn't disappear without replacement in that sense.

[greenboy]

Dec 11, 2020 13:12:56 GMT wirewiper said:

Dec 11, 2020 11:52:34 GMT @rob said:

Without replacement , to save TfL money.

None, even if there is a need to reduce bus provision to save money there are other ways of doing it without withdrawing routes wholesale. Even the 375 and 549 should be retained as they help TfL meet its access to bus service obligations in border areas of Greater London. 

Well you seem to be one of the more sensible posters on here so I have to ask.... what other ways of saving money? Incidentally I agree with you that routes like the 375 and 549 shouldn't be axed as it would cause a lot of hardship but quite honestly there are routes (or sections of) in Central London that would probably go largely unnoticed if they were withdrawn.

[Deleted]

Dec 11, 2020 15:21:28 GMT greenboy said:

Dec 11, 2020 13:12:56 GMT wirewiper said:

None, even if there is a need to reduce bus provision to save money there are other ways of doing it without withdrawing routes wholesale. Even the 375 and 549 should be retained as they help TfL meet its access to bus service obligations in border areas of Greater London. 

Well you seem to be one of the more sensible posters on here so I have to ask.... what other ways of saving money? Incidentally I agree with you that routes like the 375 and 549 shouldn't be axed as it would cause a lot of hardship but quite honestly there are routes (or sections of) in Central London that would probably go largely unnoticed if they were withdrawn.

There are plenty of sensible people that post here but you choose to ignore them or reply via other peoples posts.

You seen convinced central London closed down for ever in March and too me that seems a very odd way of thinking, London has survived wars, pandemics,terrorism, doubt Covid will be the end. Its almost like you want the world all locked up working from home and receiving online deliveries.

[Deleted]

Dec 11, 2020 15:21:28 GMT greenboy said:

Dec 11, 2020 13:12:56 GMT wirewiper said:

None, even if there is a need to reduce bus provision to save money there are other ways of doing it without withdrawing routes wholesale. Even the 375 and 549 should be retained as they help TfL meet its access to bus service obligations in border areas of Greater London. 

Well you seem to be one of the more sensible posters on here so I have to ask.... what other ways of saving money? Incidentally I agree with you that routes like the 375 and 549 shouldn't be axed as it would cause a lot of hardship but quite honestly there are routes (or sections of) in Central London that would probably go largely unnoticed if they were withdrawn.

Why would axing the 549 that runs every 70 or so mins and duplicates most of the Central Line cause hardship.

[vjaska]

Dec 11, 2020 15:21:28 GMT greenboy said:

Dec 11, 2020 13:12:56 GMT wirewiper said:

None, even if there is a need to reduce bus provision to save money there are other ways of doing it without withdrawing routes wholesale. Even the 375 and 549 should be retained as they help TfL meet its access to bus service obligations in border areas of Greater London. 

Incidentally I agree with you that routes like the 375 and 549 shouldn't be axed as it would cause a lot of hardship but quite honestly there are routes (or sections of) in Central London that would probably go largely unnoticed if they were withdrawn.

Ignoring your antagonistic first sentence, on what basis should these routes be withdrawn. I mean you don't use the majority of these routes so how on earth can you judge what should & shouldn't stay?

[wirewiper]

Dec 11, 2020 15:21:28 GMT greenboy said:

Dec 11, 2020 13:12:56 GMT wirewiper said:

None, even if there is a need to reduce bus provision to save money there are other ways of doing it without withdrawing routes wholesale. Even the 375 and 549 should be retained as they help TfL meet its access to bus service obligations in border areas of Greater London. 

Well you seem to be one of the more sensible posters on here so I have to ask.... what other ways of saving money? Incidentally I agree with you that routes like the 375 and 549 shouldn't be axed as it would cause a lot of hardship but quite honestly there are routes (or sections of) in Central London that would probably go largely unnoticed if they were withdrawn.

I'd look at paring frequencies back, and especially "flattening the peak" as it is peak capacity that is expensive to resource. Up until recently routes seemed to get all the frequency increases they needed to more than satisfy all the demand but that seems to have stopped now, and it seems to be more acceptable once again that occasionally intending passengers will be left behind. I think the trend towards more flexible working is in itself flattening the peak demand and I can see more peak time reductions and overall PVRs going down. However I don't want to go back the the 1970s and 1980s when routes were insufficiently resourced and at peak times passengers would often be left behind by a succession of full buses. 

Also bearing in mind that there are twice as many passenger journeys on TfL buses as there are on the Underground, and given their crucial role and potential to cut congestion and emissions, buses should not bear the brunt of any economy drive. 

I get this impression that this thread is linked to the Evening Standard article mentioned on another thread, which suggests: "Removing the 150 lowest-revenue bus routes, most of which are in outer London, would save £301m. This was not recommended [my emphasis] as it would leave many communities without access to public transport and would increase car use, but smaller reductions in bus routes could be “justifiable”."

[wirewiper]

Dec 11, 2020 15:34:30 GMT @dannyb said:

Dec 11, 2020 15:21:28 GMT greenboy said:

Well you seem to be one of the more sensible posters on here so I have to ask.... what other ways of saving money? Incidentally I agree with you that routes like the 375 and 549 shouldn't be axed as it would cause a lot of hardship but quite honestly there are routes (or sections of) in Central London that would probably go largely unnoticed if they were withdrawn.

Why would axing the 549 that runs every 70 or so mins and duplicates most of the Central Line cause hardship.

There are parts of the 549 within Greater London that are some distance from alternative bus routes, TfL still has an accessibility remit to serve people in those areas (same with the 375). 

[greenboy]

Dec 11, 2020 17:23:02 GMT wirewiper said:

Dec 11, 2020 15:21:28 GMT greenboy said:

Well you seem to be one of the more sensible posters on here so I have to ask.... what other ways of saving money? Incidentally I agree with you that routes like the 375 and 549 shouldn't be axed as it would cause a lot of hardship but quite honestly there are routes (or sections of) in Central London that would probably go largely unnoticed if they were withdrawn.

I'd look at paring frequencies back, and especially "flattening the peak" as it is peak capacity that is expensive to resource. Up until recently routes seemed to get all the frequency increases they needed to more than satisfy all the demand but that seems to have stopped now, and it seems to be more acceptable once again that occasionally intending passengers will be left behind. I think the trend towards more flexible working is in itself flattening the peak demand and I can see more peak time reductions and overall PVRs going down. However I don't want to go back the the 1970s and 1980s when routes were insufficiently resourced and at peak times passengers would often be left behind by a succession of full buses. 

Also bearing in mind that there are twice as many passenger journeys on TfL buses as there are on the Underground, and given their crucial role and potential to cut congestion and emissions, buses should not bear the brunt of any economy drive. 

I get this impression that this thread is linked to the Evening Standard article mentioned on another thread, which suggests: "Removing the 150 lowest-revenue bus routes, most of which are in outer London, would save £301m. This was not recommended [my emphasis] as it would leave many communities without access to public transport and would increase car use, but smaller reductions in bus routes could be “justifiable”."

Yes I think we've been moving towards the flattening of peaks for a while now even before covid and I agree completely that we don't want any return to the 70s and 80s standards. I don't know how this figure of 150 routes was arrived at and obviously anything on that scale would be a disaster. I just made the point that any cuts would generally be more appropriate in Central London than on suburban routes. In the long term I think TfL need to look at improving standards, I've used buses in Reading and Nottingham on occasions and indeed the Witchway routes that you mentioned recently in another thread and they are the sort of standards that will attract people onto buses.