|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Jul 16, 2021 10:34:07 GMT
Published 16th July.
Route R7 proposed to no longer serve Orpington by-pass, Bopeep and Maypole to improve reliability of the rest of the route, otherwise TFL would have to reduce frequency of entire route.
|
|
|
|
Post by lonmark on Jul 16, 2021 12:40:27 GMT
That is my local bus R7.
Can I ask where did you found this information come from?
|
|
|
|
Post by VMH2537 on Jul 16, 2021 12:43:56 GMT
That is my local bus R7. Can I ask where did you found this information come from? Information can be found on TFL's Have Your Say consultation website haveyoursay.tfl.gov.uk/bus-route-r7 |
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Jul 16, 2021 13:01:32 GMT
Doesn’t the R7 have too much running time anyways? I remember when it was first extended to Chislehurst the amount of time it was given to get up Summer Hill had buses waiting at bus stops. So it is quite interesting that it is now suffering from reliability. Paul will probably know more about this? |
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Jul 16, 2021 14:16:14 GMT
Once again, I am quite irritated by the tone of this consultation.
"Following consultation and requests in 2016 we extended the route from Orpington to Chelsfield Village, increased the frequency and added a Sunday service on 1 April 2017. Unfortunately this has led to delays and unreliable journey times. So we propose to keep the extension but miss out the ‘loop’ that is causing delays."
From that, you'd read it as being a bus service that's only been in place for a couple of years, but the Maypole/BoPeep section has had a service for as long as I can remember, back to the days of the 477 and 493. And they didn't have to do the loop either, somehow managing to traverse it in both directions.
The equality impact assessment - what there is of it - is extraordinary. It acknowledges that there are passengers who will have to walk up to a kilometre along a road with no footway. People in glass houses etc but hats off to TfL for spelling 'Belief' wrong on the template. If this change is progressed in its current form then it will prove EqIAs are not worth the paper they are barely written on.
|
|
|
|
Post by lonmark on Jul 16, 2021 14:25:48 GMT
That is my local bus R7. Can I ask where did you found this information come from? Information can be found on TFL's Have Your Say consultation website haveyoursay.tfl.gov.uk/bus-route-r7I understand why TfL is trying to get this service run on time. Sometimes R7 cut off the Chislehurst area and end up turning around back at Bickley, Aqua Estate. People complained about poor timekeeping on R7 but I know it was not Bus driver's fault. I mean under 10 minutes to wait at neither end of Chislehurst and Chelsfield village probably won't work! |
|
|
|
Post by lonmark on Jul 16, 2021 14:30:12 GMT
I understand why TfL is trying to get this service run on time. Sometimes R7 cut off the Chislehurst area and end up turning around back at Bickley, Aqua Estate. People complained about poor timekeeping on R7 but I know it was not Bus driver's fault. I mean under 10 minutes to wait at neither end of Chislehurst and Chelsfield village probably won't work! further add to this: I don't want TfL to reduce the frequency and make it hard to remember what time the bus leaves at Chislehurst. When it was changed in 2019 and I was not happy about the Sunday service that it makes leave further later at 30 instead 17 past the hour. I had to find another journey to get home rather than a long time to wait for bus R7 to leave on Sunday. I end up getting bus 162 to Bickley then change to bus 336. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 16, 2021 14:36:49 GMT
Once again, I am quite irritated by the tone of this consultation. "Following consultation and requests in 2016 we extended the route from Orpington to Chelsfield Village, increased the frequency and added a Sunday service on 1 April 2017. Unfortunately this has led to delays and unreliable journey times. So we propose to keep the extension but miss out the ‘loop’ that is causing delays." From that, you'd read it as being a bus service that's only been in place for a couple of years, but the Maypole/BoPeep section has had a service for as long as I can remember, back to the days of the 477 and 493. And they didn't have to do the loop either, somehow managing to traverse it in both directions. The equality impact assessment - what there is of it - is extraordinary. It acknowledges that there are passengers who will have to walk up to a kilometre along a road with no footway. People in glass houses etc but hats off to TfL for spelling 'Belief' wrong on the template. If this change is progressed in its current form then it will prove EqIAs are not worth the paper they are barely written on. To me, I'm wondering why none of this cropped up when the Orpington changes were consulted on a few years ago - surely, all that information that TfL collects would of outlined any issues such as this moving forward unless something fundamentally different has cropped over the past couple of years since? Did the R3 (the previous route to run around the Chelsfield Loop) have these issues? |
|
|
|
Post by lonmark on Jul 16, 2021 14:51:25 GMT
477 Kentish bus May 1987 timetable here TfL start takeover on Chelsfield Village..... R8 Roundabout December 1992 timetabe hereR8 Roundabout January 1995 timetable hereR8 Arriva September 1998 timetable hereR3 First 2001 timetable here |
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Jul 16, 2021 15:08:58 GMT
Once again, I am quite irritated by the tone of this consultation. "Following consultation and requests in 2016 we extended the route from Orpington to Chelsfield Village, increased the frequency and added a Sunday service on 1 April 2017. Unfortunately this has led to delays and unreliable journey times. So we propose to keep the extension but miss out the ‘loop’ that is causing delays." From that, you'd read it as being a bus service that's only been in place for a couple of years, but the Maypole/BoPeep section has had a service for as long as I can remember, back to the days of the 477 and 493. And they didn't have to do the loop either, somehow managing to traverse it in both directions. The equality impact assessment - what there is of it - is extraordinary. It acknowledges that there are passengers who will have to walk up to a kilometre along a road with no footway. People in glass houses etc but hats off to TfL for spelling 'Belief' wrong on the template. If this change is progressed in its current form then it will prove EqIAs are not worth the paper they are barely written on. Absolutely agree with your sentiment. But it is these outlying hamlets in zone 6 with detached houses and high car ownership that in the current financial situation TfL feel is not worth providing a bus service to. The change is estimated to have a negative impact on 40 passengers per weekday, frankly I’m surprised those three stops are used as well as that. The impact of a frequency reduction would have a detrimental effect on many more bus users. |
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Jul 16, 2021 15:27:44 GMT
Looking again at this atrocious EqIA... leaving aside the fact that 'sex' is the protected characteristic, not 'gender' (let's leave the lid on that can of worms, this isn't Mumsnet), I am impressed that 547% of day bus passengers are women. A cut and paste misspelling of Bucks Cross Road is perpetuated throughout. There's no attempt to match the characteristic to the actual impact. If you're going to do this stuff, at least reread it before publishing it. It gives me no confidence that this stuff is any more than a box that needs to be ticked.
|
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Jul 16, 2021 15:36:15 GMT
Once again, I am quite irritated by the tone of this consultation. "Following consultation and requests in 2016 we extended the route from Orpington to Chelsfield Village, increased the frequency and added a Sunday service on 1 April 2017. Unfortunately this has led to delays and unreliable journey times. So we propose to keep the extension but miss out the ‘loop’ that is causing delays." From that, you'd read it as being a bus service that's only been in place for a couple of years, but the Maypole/BoPeep section has had a service for as long as I can remember, back to the days of the 477 and 493. And they didn't have to do the loop either, somehow managing to traverse it in both directions. The equality impact assessment - what there is of it - is extraordinary. It acknowledges that there are passengers who will have to walk up to a kilometre along a road with no footway. People in glass houses etc but hats off to TfL for spelling 'Belief' wrong on the template. If this change is progressed in its current form then it will prove EqIAs are not worth the paper they are barely written on. Absolutely agree with your sentiment. But it is these outlying hamlets in zone 6 with detached houses and high car ownership that in the current financial situation TfL feel is not worth providing a bus service to. The change is estimated to have a negative impact on 40 passengers per weekday, frankly I’m surprised those three stops are used as well as that. The impact of a frequency reduction would have a detrimental effect on many more bus users. You're surprised, I'm amazed! But once you've identified something like that, it doesn't look great to ignore it. I've said before that Orpington needs another proper 'Roundabout' style review as the network has become a bit of a mess now, and I suspect smaller vehicles on some routes might make sense. |
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Jul 16, 2021 15:42:03 GMT
Absolutely agree with your sentiment. But it is these outlying hamlets in zone 6 with detached houses and high car ownership that in the current financial situation TfL feel is not worth providing a bus service to. The change is estimated to have a negative impact on 40 passengers per weekday, frankly I’m surprised those three stops are used as well as that. The impact of a frequency reduction would have a detrimental effect on many more bus users. You're surprised, I'm amazed! But once you've identified something like that, it doesn't look great to ignore it. I've said before that Orpington needs another proper 'Roundabout' style review as the network has become a bit of a mess now, and I suspect smaller vehicles on some routes might make sense. Indeed, I wonder if would be possible to operate a shorter loop to serve Maypole and BoPeep as a compromise option. |
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Jul 16, 2021 15:45:53 GMT
I can see a bit of sense in this. 40 passengers isn't enough to justify a service round there in my opinion and I'd imagine those roads get pretty clogged up if anything happens on the M25 that causes a mass emigration of cars away from it. Same thing happens with the 298/313
|
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Jul 16, 2021 16:12:59 GMT
I can see a bit of sense in this. 40 passengers isn't enough to justify a service round there in my opinion and I'd imagine those roads get pretty clogged up if anything happens on the M25 that causes a mass emigration of cars away from it. Same thing happens with the 298/313 I do think the service around the loop at present is far more frequent than can really be justified. Something akin to the current R5/10 or R8 would seem more appropriate. |
|
