|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Jan 23, 2021 6:24:50 GMT
I think we will be waving goodbye to what's left of the 15H. I would expect a thinning out of services along the Strand, with perhaps the 91 diverted over Waterloo Bridge to replace some journeys on the 521 and the 87 trimmed back to Trafalgar Square. At the other end of the 521, diverting the 4 to London Bridge in part replacement could also create a useful connection from Barbican. Some journeys on the 507 to be replaced by diverting the 211. Another attempt at withdrawing part of the 19 and the loss of journeys on the 38. A long overdue tidy-up of services around Ladbroke Grove and a thinning/merger of the 3/59/159 corridor. I agree that route 15H might not come back, or might only be back for this year. Regarding Ladbroke Grove, I could picture route 452 diverted to Victoria via route 23 to Hyde Park Corner and route 52. Route 23 would be diverted at Knightsbridge to Vauxhall to replace route 452. This would reduce the duplication between Ladbroke Grove and Hyde Park Corner. |
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Jan 23, 2021 6:29:58 GMT
Shame they didn't give the 507 and 521 a 2 year extension as it would have given them till 2023 to make a decision on the tender spec. I think TfL offered GAL 2-year extensions but GAL turned them down, thinking they had a better chance of retaining the routes now than in 2 years time. |
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Jan 23, 2021 6:34:52 GMT
This might seem a bit radical but to remove some capacity what about this; 1. Diverted between TCR and Aldwych via route 176. Would provide a new TSQ to CW link. Removes a Kibgsway route. 188 would maintain a CW to Kingsway route. 68. Diverts at Holborn to TCR. Removes a route from Southampton Row 176. Withdrawn between TCR and Elephant or maybe even Camberwell Green. Route 12 would maintained a TSQ to Camberwell/Dulwich link, 68 to TCR/Waterloo to Camberwell maintained. Downside would be East Dulwich, Forest Hill and Penge link lost beyond Elephant but realistically its a 90 min trek end to end. What does anyone think? Once you curtail route 176 at Elephant you may as well withdraw it and extend route 40 to Penge. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jan 23, 2021 7:52:48 GMT
Not necessarily as there may still be demand between Elephant and Dulwich for the 40 and 176 but yes that could be an option or maybe just extend the 40 to Forest Hill and leave the rest to the 197. The 176 and 197 duplication is quite large between Penge and Dulwich and as people have said the LO now stopping at NJ, Penge west, Sydenham and Forest Hill has taken away some demand from the 197.
Could see 40 to Forest Hill and 197 alone between Forest Hill and Penge.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2021 10:24:45 GMT
I think we will be waving goodbye to what's left of the 15H. I would expect a thinning out of services along the Strand, with perhaps the 91 diverted over Waterloo Bridge to replace some journeys on the 521 and the 87 trimmed back to Trafalgar Square. At the other end of the 521, diverting the 4 to London Bridge in part replacement could also create a useful connection from Barbican. Some journeys on the 507 to be replaced by diverting the 211. Another attempt at withdrawing part of the 19 and the loss of journeys on the 38. A long overdue tidy-up of services around Ladbroke Grove and a thinning/merger of the 3/59/159 corridor. I agree that route 15H might not come back, or might only be back for this year. Regarding Ladbroke Grove, I could picture route 452 diverted to Victoria via route 23 to Hyde Park Corner and route 52. Route 23 would be diverted at Knightsbridge to Vauxhall to replace route 452. This would reduce the duplication between Ladbroke Grove and Hyde Park Corner. Would be very surprised if the 15H returned. The tender was due to be awarded last November I believe. I doubt there would be much demand this summer because of the ongoing pandemic and restrictions on travel being tightened. |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Jan 23, 2021 10:48:34 GMT
I think we will be waving goodbye to what's left of the 15H. I would expect a thinning out of services along the Strand, with perhaps the 91 diverted over Waterloo Bridge to replace some journeys on the 521 and the 87 trimmed back to Trafalgar Square. At the other end of the 521, diverting the 4 to London Bridge in part replacement could also create a useful connection from Barbican. Some journeys on the 507 to be replaced by diverting the 211. Another attempt at withdrawing part of the 19 and the loss of journeys on the 38. A long overdue tidy-up of services around Ladbroke Grove and a thinning/merger of the 3/59/159 corridor. I agree that route 15H might not come back, or might only be back for this year. Regarding Ladbroke Grove, I could picture route 452 diverted to Victoria via route 23 to Hyde Park Corner and route 52. Route 23 would be diverted at Knightsbridge to Vauxhall to replace route 452. This would reduce the duplication between Ladbroke Grove and Hyde Park Corner. Some extra capacity will still be needed to and from the Tower of London when tourism eventually gets back into full swing. The main point of the 452 is the Kensington Road/Sloane Street link. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2021 11:06:11 GMT
I agree that route 15H might not come back, or might only be back for this year. Regarding Ladbroke Grove, I could picture route 452 diverted to Victoria via route 23 to Hyde Park Corner and route 52. Route 23 would be diverted at Knightsbridge to Vauxhall to replace route 452. This would reduce the duplication between Ladbroke Grove and Hyde Park Corner. Some extra capacity will still be needed to and from the Tower of London when tourism eventually gets back into full swing. The main point of the 452 is the Kensington Road/Sloane Street link. Maybe but would still probably be much cheaper running extras on the standard 15 at weekends like they do when the District Line is closed. |
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Jan 24, 2021 13:46:54 GMT
Route 368 would lose a few trips next month which should bring a bit of efficiency mileage saving. First and last bus times would remain, and same pvr. I believe other routes had the same planned before Covid reeked havoc.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Jan 24, 2021 13:48:24 GMT
Route 368 would lose a few trips next month which should bring a bit of efficiency mileage saving. First and last bus times would remain, and same pvr. I believe other routes had the same planned before Covid reeked havoc. Do you know if this is during the peaks or off peak? The route would often get really crowded during the school kick off times in the evening and the morning commute but could probably manage easily outside of those hours so I wouldn't be too surprised if that's when the reductions are planned. |
|
|
|
Post by uakari on Mar 11, 2021 6:03:20 GMT
How about is this for a way for TfL to save money on buses: All TfL bus routes only operate within the Greater London area i.e. only serving the people who have a TfL precept on their council tax to fund the cheap fares etc. The people who live outside of Greater London served by TfL buses are getting the benefits without paying anything through their council tax. For example: 96, 428 and 492 terminate at Crayford and not go into Kent. 370 & 372 terminate at Corbets Tey / Wennington and not go into Essex / Thrurrock. 81 terminate at Longford and not go into Berkshire. 116, 117, 203, 216, 235, 290, 406, 411, 418 & 465 terminate at Clockhouse Roundabout / Lower Feltham / Beacon Road (Stanwell) / Hanworth / Lower Feltham / Hampton / Tolworth / Hampton Court / Tolworth / Chessington Zoo and not go into Surrey. Withdraw the 467 as inside Greater London it does not go anywhere unique. Actually the 216, 406, 411, 418 & 465 could all be withdrawn as they would become short workings of the following routes 111, 281, 111, 281 & 71. I know it's already been said but people in the outer zones have to pay more to TfL generally and equally on the GLA tax, yet you seem want them to have a worse service to neighbouring places they need to get to. How is that fair? TfL should definitely not see the Greater London boundary as a barrier but rather seek to be providing a service up to the next town beyond. But the reality is they have scaled back their own services to the border since thhe beginning of the century, and got rid of local service agreements/made them too unattractive. So you now have entirely unbalanced situations like five separate TfL routes between Barnet and Whetstone vs none between Barnet and Potters Bar. Plus the situation of places within London not being served by a London bus (eg Hadley Green), so people travelling to their local tube station can't use capping or season tickets. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2021 10:08:12 GMT
Cutting London buses to the border of the home counties is the worst idea I’ve ever heard. There isn’t a forcefield at these borders. People in Bexleyheath, Crayford, Erith etc have jobs, school, college, friends, family, hospital, days out in Dartford and vice versa. The same can be said with all of the Greater London boundary borderline towns.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Mar 11, 2021 10:17:54 GMT
How about is this for a way for TfL to save money on buses: All TfL bus routes only operate within the Greater London area i.e. only serving the people who have a TfL precept on their council tax to fund the cheap fares etc. The people who live outside of Greater London served by TfL buses are getting the benefits without paying anything through their council tax. For example: 96, 428 and 492 terminate at Crayford and not go into Kent. 370 & 372 terminate at Corbets Tey / Wennington and not go into Essex / Thrurrock. 81 terminate at Longford and not go into Berkshire. 116, 117, 203, 216, 235, 290, 406, 411, 418 & 465 terminate at Clockhouse Roundabout / Lower Feltham / Beacon Road (Stanwell) / Hanworth / Lower Feltham / Hampton / Tolworth / Hampton Court / Tolworth / Chessington Zoo and not go into Surrey. Withdraw the 467 as inside Greater London it does not go anywhere unique. Actually the 216, 406, 411, 418 & 465 could all be withdrawn as they would become short workings of the following routes 111, 281, 111, 281 & 71. I know it's already been said but people in the outer zones have to pay more to TfL generally and equally on the GLA tax, yet you seem want them to have a worse service to neighbouring places they need to get to. How is that fair? TfL should definitely not see the Greater London boundary as a barrier but rather seek to be providing a service up to the next town beyond. But the reality is they have scaled back their own services to the border since thhe beginning of the century, and got rid of local service agreements/made them too unattractive. So you now have entirely unbalanced situations like five separate TfL routes between Barnet and Whetstone vs none between Barnet and Potters Bar. Plus the situation of places within London not being served by a London bus (eg Hadley Green), so people travelling to their local tube station can't use capping or season tickets. While cutting them isn't ideal, they all run out of TfL territory into other counties of which these people do not pay anything towards the GLA. Why exactly should these people then as a result get to use services funded by it? Why exactly should a route like the 262 gets cut within the London boundary due to financial issues when someone out in Hertfordshire gets a bus route that runs at a loss and is funded by GLA taxes. I think routes should be carefully picked here, routes that have more benefit to Londoners should remain and routes that don't should be cut. Really don't see the need for the 292 and 107 to both go to Borehamwood when only one will probably suffice, while obviously the 96, 492, 428, 370 and 372 all run out to huge out of town shopping centres which are extremely useful to Londoners. Honestly don't see why people outside the London boundary should be benefiting from our GLA tax money when they don't pay towards anything and the services within the London boundary are suffering issues in themselves. You can't even get from St Paul's to Oxford Circus in a bus at the moment so why exactly services to Dorking and Borehamwood are being looked after I do not know. |
|
|
|
Post by busman on Mar 11, 2021 10:40:44 GMT
I know it's already been said but people in the outer zones have to pay more to TfL generally and equally on the GLA tax, yet you seem want them to have a worse service to neighbouring places they need to get to. How is that fair? TfL should definitely not see the Greater London boundary as a barrier but rather seek to be providing a service up to the next town beyond. But the reality is they have scaled back their own services to the border since thhe beginning of the century, and got rid of local service agreements/made them too unattractive. So you now have entirely unbalanced situations like five separate TfL routes between Barnet and Whetstone vs none between Barnet and Potters Bar. Plus the situation of places within London not being served by a London bus (eg Hadley Green), so people travelling to their local tube station can't use capping or season tickets. While cutting them isn't ideal, they all run out of TfL territory into other counties of which these people do not pay anything towards the GLA. Why exactly should these people then as a result get to use services funded by it? Why exactly should a route like the 262 gets cut within the London boundary due to financial issues when someone out in Hertfordshire gets a bus route that runs at a loss and is funded by GLA taxes. I think routes should be carefully picked here, routes that have more benefit to Londoners should remain and routes that don't should be cut. Really don't see the need for the 292 and 107 to both go to Borehamwood when only one will probably suffice, while obviously the 96, 492, 428, 370 and 372 all run out to huge out of town shopping centres which are extremely useful to Londoners. Honestly don't see why people outside the London boundary should be benefiting from our GLA tax money when they don't pay towards anything and the services within the London boundary are suffering issues in themselves. You can't even get from St Paul's to Oxford Circus in a bus at the moment so why exactly services to Dorking and Borehamwood are being looked after I do not know. So people living in TfL territory do not use buses for work and leisure activities outside the London boundary? That’s just daft. In my neck of the woods we have people using buses to get to work, shops, schools, medical appointments, places of worship, friends and family outside the London boundary. Why should we be penalised? We pay GLA tax too, so why should we subsidise those living in zones 1-3 whilst we suck up the cuts? Before TfL make any further cuts to cross boundary services, they should look at making it easier and more attractive for private operators in neighbouring authorities to run such services. |
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Mar 11, 2021 10:48:12 GMT
While cutting them isn't ideal, they all run out of TfL territory into other counties of which these people do not pay anything towards the GLA. Why exactly should these people then as a result get to use services funded by it? Why exactly should a route like the 262 gets cut within the London boundary due to financial issues when someone out in Hertfordshire gets a bus route that runs at a loss and is funded by GLA taxes. I think routes should be carefully picked here, routes that have more benefit to Londoners should remain and routes that don't should be cut. Really don't see the need for the 292 and 107 to both go to Borehamwood when only one will probably suffice, while obviously the 96, 492, 428, 370 and 372 all run out to huge out of town shopping centres which are extremely useful to Londoners. Honestly don't see why people outside the London boundary should be benefiting from our GLA tax money when they don't pay towards anything and the services within the London boundary are suffering issues in themselves. You can't even get from St Paul's to Oxford Circus in a bus at the moment so why exactly services to Dorking and Borehamwood are being looked after I do not know. So people living in TfL territory do not use buses for work and leisure activities outside the London boundary? That’s just daft. In my neck of the woods we have people using buses to get to work, shops, schools, medical appointments, places of worship, friends and family outside the London boundary. Why should we be penalised? We pay GLA tax too, so why should we subsidise those living in zones 1-3 whilst we suck up the cuts? Before TfL make any further cuts to cross boundary services, they should look at making it easier and more attractive for private operators in neighbouring authorities to run such services. Their are many that work outside the London boundary who do not get travel provided for by TfL. Why should just a selected few benefit. Is their elitism in certain parts and not others? |
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Mar 11, 2021 10:50:20 GMT
I know it's already been said but people in the outer zones have to pay more to TfL generally and equally on the GLA tax, yet you seem want them to have a worse service to neighbouring places they need to get to. How is that fair? TfL should definitely not see the Greater London boundary as a barrier but rather seek to be providing a service up to the next town beyond. But the reality is they have scaled back their own services to the border since thhe beginning of the century, and got rid of local service agreements/made them too unattractive. So you now have entirely unbalanced situations like five separate TfL routes between Barnet and Whetstone vs none between Barnet and Potters Bar. Plus the situation of places within London not being served by a London bus (eg Hadley Green), so people travelling to their local tube station can't use capping or season tickets. While cutting them isn't ideal, they all run out of TfL territory into other counties of which these people do not pay anything towards the GLA. Why exactly should these people then as a result get to use services funded by it? Why exactly should a route like the 262 gets cut within the London boundary due to financial issues when someone out in Hertfordshire gets a bus route that runs at a loss and is funded by GLA taxes. I think routes should be carefully picked here, routes that have more benefit to Londoners should remain and routes that don't should be cut. Really don't see the need for the 292 and 107 to both go to Borehamwood when only one will probably suffice, while obviously the 96, 492, 428, 370 and 372 all run out to huge out of town shopping centres which are extremely useful to Londoners. Honestly don't see why people outside the London boundary should be benefiting from our GLA tax money when they don't pay towards anything and the services within the London boundary are suffering issues in themselves. You can't even get from St Paul's to Oxford Circus in a bus at the moment so why exactly services to Dorking and Borehamwood are being looked after I do not know. I’m not sure it sensible to go down the who doesn’t pay directly, because there is element of this working both ways. As an example under your theory a bus from say Surrey to Kingston shouldn’t be available to those living in London borough doing say a Surbiton- Kingston journey because Surrey taxpayers are part founders. The reality is the boundary line wriggles all over the place and isn’t related to location of town centres and shops, and catchments for schools and hospitals etc. However there is a case where say Surrey do not want to subsidise after say 8pm, that TfL do not go beyond the boundary at these times. There is a fundamental difference between cutting mileage (which might be reducing frequencies at quiet times) and abandoning routes, so some areas have no service whatsoever. |
|
