|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Jun 10, 2021 22:05:20 GMT
Absolutely those are other issues that should definitely be considered but sometimes standardisation can also be a problem so for example (personally) I think certain parts of services or certain services shouldn't run past a certain time - for example up until the Highbury Corner redevelopment I felt that whilst the Highbury Barn-Holloway link was definitely appreciated plus when you saw the 4 & 19 leaving towards Finsbury Park full during the daytime and providing a bus service for more local journeys, I didn't think for example there was a need for the 263 to serve Highbury Grove say after about 9pm and for it to terminate at Highbury Corner. Small little snippets like that. I won't however go with the regularly mentioned Newington Green - London Bridge stretch on the 21, as that is definitely needed by the sounds of things given how busy the 43 & 141 are leaving London Bridge. Indeed, capacity issues on the 141 were why the 21 was extended beyond Moorgate to Newington Green in the first place. I'm not a fan of lopping bits off the network during the evenings, Londoners are not in the habit of checking timetables and may not appreciate that a particular route no longer operates after 21.00. Standardisation of routes instills confidence in the network which is important if you are wanting to encourage use. Obviously there are infrequent routes with low usage that sensibly are exceptions to this rule, but there is no good reason for most high-frequency routes not to operate along their full length throughout the operating day. That is the problem. I remember Stagecoach had a schedule on route 230 that had the same running time at 8pm as it was after midnight. Complete barmy and a waste of time and money. This would have resulted in buses dragging their heels and unnecessary amount of vehicles on the road not needed. There are services running to 1 am on some routes that carry fresh air night after night and there is no need for them, just to tick boxes. Operators has pushed for these as it is more revenue and sad to say TfL has played the operators game and not the passengers. Standardisation has seen almost every route run on a Sunday when another could be extended to cover the next as it had been in the past. There are loads of ways they can save money without drastically cutting routes as what they did with the 48. You say people are not in the habit if checking timetables, well that is because they are useless for a start and secondly most people use a countdown based app, so turn up to the stop around 2-3 mins before the bus is due. |
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Jun 10, 2021 22:09:42 GMT
Absolutely, I really have to lmao and crease at the planning decision by Haringey Council to add a low traffic neighborhood in the Bowes area when pre pandemic Brownlow Road would be at a stand still between the North Circular & Bounds Green Station and at the junction with Colney Hatch Lane just east of Muswell Hill. I don't know how the 102 has survived as long as it has to be honest, not to mention Temple Fortune is an absolute travesty all the way to Henlys, the traffic up High Rd E Finchley towards Muswell Hill since the cycle lane was introduced plus it battling the North Circular between Bounds Green & Edmonton. Plus you have even more irritating things such as the Henlys Corner traffic light system, you can sometimes be say waiting for up to 10 minutes because of how bad it is. I wouldn't call Muswell Hill a no go zone but I'd say traffic can be especially bad due to there being no tube station in a very high residential area + you combine it with neighbouring Crouch End & Alexandra Park. Now I look forward to the next set of ideas regarding the 102. I've already jinxed myself  Unless plans have changed, the next part of the LTN on Enfield's side involves putting a bus gate on Brownlow Road and blocking it to through motor traffic. Clueless idiots. All this would do is create more traffic on Bounds Green Rd and the A406. The 221 now sees heavy delays on Bounds Green Rd due to the segregated cycle lanes. After all the true loser would be the bus passengers. |
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Jun 10, 2021 22:12:40 GMT
The demand for Uber like services is huge in London. Personally I think the mayor should seek to raise a direct tax from any Uber drop off or pick up within a London borough. Minimum 50p per journey and like Ubers 20p per journey green fund it would probably not deter those of us who see Uber as a better option to travel with. At least 300,000 trips are made by taxis and private hire vehicles in London each day(and that's a 2014 figure: www.london.gov.uk/about-us/london-assembly/london-assembly-publications/future-proof-taxi-and-private-hire-services). A 70p levy on all journeys would being in well over £700m - the equivalent of TfL's old government grant. Want some more dosh? A fiver a day on hotel rooms (160,000 media.londonandpartners.com/news/london-hotel-industry-set-for-record-year-in-2020) at 70 per cent occupancy would bring you £200m. The tools are there to help TfL solve its problems, but the Westminster government won't devolve basic powers that are commonplace in normal countries. I see the point on the uber fare, as for the hotel/bar its a no no for me. All it would do is encourage more people to use out of town places like Bluewater, Lakeside etc. measures like these would bring places like Loughton, Epping with more custom of people coming out of London instead of the reverse. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2021 8:03:54 GMT
I see the point on the uber fare, as for the hotel/bar its a no no for me. All it would do is encourage more people to use out of town places like Bluewater, Lakeside etc. measures like these would bring places like Loughton, Epping with more custom of people coming out of London instead of the reverse. I see it more as a tourist tax for every hotel in the country which would be collected by the local authority or in this case TfL. It is common in most continental European hotels and is particularly widespread in cities. It raises millions annually which can be specifically spent on events, transport improvements and other infrastructure projects. Listing it for example at £3.50 per room per night in central London, zones 1/2 and £2.50 per room per night in all other TfL zones would do wonders for TfLs finances. Tourists aren’t going to be deterred from staying in more central locations as they would just factor a city tax into their stay and would weigh it against the time taken to travel to outer zones to save a little bit of money on a city tax. Honestly would you travel an hour or more out of town to save a minimal amount? I would want to be near the life and able to pop back to my hotel for afternoon outfit changes or a shower without an hour or more journey. |
|
