|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 10, 2022 16:08:25 GMT
Confirmation today that the 'Maypole loop' of the R7 is to be scrapped with effect from 23rd July.
Essentially it's "sorry, we know this is going to affect a small number of people very badly, but we're doing this on behalf of the majority".
Which is fair enough, only 26 passengers a day use the affected stops and the Bucks Cross stop, which serves the Chelsfield Park Hospital, is less than 400m from the Five Bells terminus. This contrasts with the 800 people a day who will have a more reliable service. I suppose TfL could have done something involving the R5/R10. 1km walks along roads without pavements is surely a concern especially when I then read this: Responses to Question 2 – Please let us know if the proposal would have a positive or negative impact on you or the journeys you make. Of the 137 respondents who provided a comment for this question, 110 (80 percent) stated that the proposals would have a negative impact on their journey. So clearly, R7 passengers aren't sharing the same conclusion and you actually have to ask, as I done previously, was why extend the R7 there in the first place during the Orpington changes a few years ago if there were known issues elsewhere along it's routing. Add an extra bus on instead - after all isn't Outer London supposed to be getting the benefits of the destruction of the Inner London bus network or will the goalposts be moved again? |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 10, 2022 16:10:06 GMT
This isn't good news. Now more people will be left more than 500m of the bus network when the current strategy is for Greater London to be accessible to a bus network within "5 minute walking distance". A 35 minutes frequency could've been the alternative to this When did it increase from 400m to 500m (except for the 384 where TfL changed the rules for that particular consultation before returning to 400m for others) |
|
|
|
Post by YX10FFN on Jun 10, 2022 16:15:24 GMT
Which is fair enough, only 26 passengers a day use the affected stops and the Bucks Cross stop, which serves the Chelsfield Park Hospital, is less than 400m from the Five Bells terminus. This contrasts with the 800 people a day who will have a more reliable service. I suppose TfL could have done something involving the R5/R10. 1km walks along roads without pavements is surely a concern especially when I then read this: Responses to Question 2 – Please let us know if the proposal would have a positive or negative impact on you or the journeys you make. Of the 137 respondents who provided a comment for this question, 110 (80 percent) stated that the proposals would have a negative impact on their journey. So clearly, R7 passengers aren't sharing the same conclusion and you actually have to ask, as I done previously, was why extend the R7 there in the first place during the Orpington changes a few years ago if there were known issues elsewhere along it's routing. Add an extra bus on instead - after all isn't Outer London supposed to be getting the benefits of the destruction of the Inner London bus network or will the goalposts be moved again? Exactly. Why should Maypole residents be punished for reliability issues to do with the entire route and be left with nothing? TFL are essentially admitting they made the wrong decision sending the R7 to Chelsfield Village |
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Jun 10, 2022 16:52:16 GMT
Which is fair enough, only 26 passengers a day use the affected stops and the Bucks Cross stop, which serves the Chelsfield Park Hospital, is less than 400m from the Five Bells terminus. This contrasts with the 800 people a day who will have a more reliable service. I suppose TfL could have done something involving the R5/R10. 1km walks along roads without pavements is surely a concern especially when I then read this: Responses to Question 2 – Please let us know if the proposal would have a positive or negative impact on you or the journeys you make. Of the 137 respondents who provided a comment for this question, 110 (80 percent) stated that the proposals would have a negative impact on their journey. So clearly, R7 passengers aren't sharing the same conclusion and you actually have to ask, as I done previously, was why extend the R7 there in the first place during the Orpington changes a few years ago if there were known issues elsewhere along it's routing. Add an extra bus on instead - after all isn't Outer London supposed to be getting the benefits of the destruction of the Inner London bus network or will the goalposts be moved again? Interesting that only 26 people a day use those stops, yet it affects the journies of 110 that responded to the survey. The thing is with consultations, you will reject a number of options and come up with what you believe is the best proposal. If a received objection is something that has all ready been rejected, it should have no outcome to the proposal. The consultations are for maybe finding better solutions that have not previously been considered and discounted. |
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Jun 10, 2022 17:42:34 GMT
1km walks along roads without pavements is surely a concern especially when I then read this: Responses to Question 2 – Please let us know if the proposal would have a positive or negative impact on you or the journeys you make. Of the 137 respondents who provided a comment for this question, 110 (80 percent) stated that the proposals would have a negative impact on their journey. So clearly, R7 passengers aren't sharing the same conclusion and you actually have to ask, as I done previously, was why extend the R7 there in the first place during the Orpington changes a few years ago if there were known issues elsewhere along it's routing. Add an extra bus on instead - after all isn't Outer London supposed to be getting the benefits of the destruction of the Inner London bus network or will the goalposts be moved again? Interesting that only 26 people a day use those stops, yet it affects the journies of 110 that responded to the survey. The thing is with consultations, you will reject a number of options and come up with what you believe is the best proposal. If a received objection is something that has all ready been rejected, it should have no outcome to the proposal. The consultations are for maybe finding better solutions that have not previously been considered and discounted. I didn't comment on the R7 proposal as I don't live in the area and think I might have used the route twice in my entire life. However I would have suggested rerouting the R5/R10 if the Maypole area needs some sort of bus provision - did anyone suggest that? |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Jun 10, 2022 17:44:17 GMT
Disappointing but not a great surprise, shows once again that consultations are little more than a box ticking exercise.
|
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Jun 10, 2022 18:40:10 GMT
Interesting that only 26 people a day use those stops, yet it affects the journies of 110 that responded to the survey. The thing is with consultations, you will reject a number of options and come up with what you believe is the best proposal. If a received objection is something that has all ready been rejected, it should have no outcome to the proposal. The consultations are for maybe finding better solutions that have not previously been considered and discounted. I didn't comment on the R7 proposal as I don't live in the area and think I might have used the route twice in my entire life. However I would have suggested rerouting the R5/R10 if the Maypole area needs some sort of bus provision - did anyone suggest that? Bearing in mind there is 150m headway on each of those routes, and a 70 minute journey time with a single vehicle, how would you propose timetabling that. Increase headway or chop some of the existing route? |
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Jun 10, 2022 22:11:58 GMT
1km walks along roads without pavements is surely a concern especially when I then read this: Responses to Question 2 – Please let us know if the proposal would have a positive or negative impact on you or the journeys you make. Of the 137 respondents who provided a comment for this question, 110 (80 percent) stated that the proposals would have a negative impact on their journey. So clearly, R7 passengers aren't sharing the same conclusion and you actually have to ask, as I done previously, was why extend the R7 there in the first place during the Orpington changes a few years ago if there were known issues elsewhere along it's routing. Add an extra bus on instead - after all isn't Outer London supposed to be getting the benefits of the destruction of the Inner London bus network or will the goalposts be moved again? Interesting that only 26 people a day use those stops, yet it affects the journies of 110 that responded to the survey. The thing is with consultations, you will reject a number of options and come up with what you believe is the best proposal. If a received objection is something that has all ready been rejected, it should have no outcome to the proposal. The consultations are for maybe finding better solutions that have not previously been considered and discounted. Not everyone will use the bus every day so the 26 daily passengers will not necessarily be the same people from day to the next. Therefore it is quite possible that 110 people will be affected. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul on Jun 10, 2022 23:08:28 GMT
Surely another one where they've simply ignored opposition. "We understand that some people may be disappointed with this decision and would like to assure you that all feedback has been carefully considered" I'm sure that the people who now have no lifeline to shops and facilities are feeling nicely "assured". I've always been puzzled as to how much savings this is really going to make In this case it's not about savings, it is about reliability on a low-frequency route. Bucks Cross is within 400m of the Five Bells terminus. The other two stops are used by an average 16 people a day. Compare that to the 800 who will have a more reliable service without needing to resort to an irregular frequency. But the Maypole loop isn’t where the reliability issues are - or they weren’t when I drove the route two years ago. Chelsfield residents are being shafted because the route sits in traffic on the other end of the route. Chislehurst Station and Orpington High Street cause FAR more issues than the Maypole loop. This is a ridiculous decision from TfL |
|
|
|
Post by uakari on Jun 11, 2022 0:44:33 GMT
I told everyone they would sneak this one out when they hoped everyone had forgotten about it. So after the local elections and when headlines are about the central London cuts, even though this one is much worse than any of those in terms of walking distance. They are so bleeping transparent and think we're all stupid.
God I hate them so much. Their 'improve bus services in outer London' is such a lie. They couldn't care less about people being isolated in their own homes. That Geoff Hobbs in particular has a lot to answer for - so arrogant and dismissive with a clear bias to some areas/demographics over others, seems to run things like a fiefdom and is shocked that anyone would even consider challenging him, yet has the gall to call himself a 'bus man'.
At this point I really hope they do go fully bankrupt and are forced to weed out the execs with their snouts in the trough, because this sort of unnecessary BS that doesn't even save much money is why we know that 'every journey matters' is a lie. They also need to stop doing EqIAs or else it needs to be legally enforceable that they make mitigations, because currently it's just abusive knowing and saying it will have an extremely negative effect on elderly and disabled groups but that they don't care and are going ahead anyway.
I guess a fourth night bus route for North Finchley is more important than elderly people who don't matter getting run over trying to walk a mile to their nearest bus stop on roads with no pavement (there was a recent near miss with a 96 year old man doing this between Barnet and Potters Bar, which is at least three miles). There's a special place in hell for those at TfL.
|
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Jun 11, 2022 9:04:47 GMT
I didn't comment on the R7 proposal as I don't live in the area and think I might have used the route twice in my entire life. However I would have suggested rerouting the R5/R10 if the Maypole area needs some sort of bus provision - did anyone suggest that? Bearing in mind there is 150m headway on each of those routes, and a 70 minute journey time with a single vehicle, how would you propose timetabling that. Increase headway or chop some of the existing route? Yes - divert between Pratts Bottom and Green Street Green missing out part of the A21, and widen headway to 180 minutes on each route. Looking at the map, from Pratts Bottom I would have the R5 turn right instead of left, onto Hewitts Road, Maypole Road, Warren Road, Windsor Road and Vine Road (assuming all these roads can take a short-wheelbase Enviro200, I don't know the area). R10 the same in reverse. |
|
|
|
Post by rugbyref on Jun 11, 2022 10:00:09 GMT
Warren Road is in an appalling state, so not good for suspensions, but feasible. Vine Road is heavily congested with parents parking because their little ones can’t be allowed to walk to school. Use Glentrammon Road instead.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul on Jun 13, 2022 11:00:26 GMT
Just had a read through the consultation report. It’s genuinely shocking how little TfL care about the people this will affect badly. Whilst it’s only a small number of people these people still pay their council tax and are still rightly enraged that their service is being withdrawn. TfL’s response? Other people will get a better service. It’s pathetic. There is so little support for this proposal that it’s an absolute joke TfL have pushed it through. I’m disgusted
|
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Jun 13, 2022 12:55:55 GMT
Just had a read through the consultation report. It’s genuinely shocking how little TfL care about the people this will affect badly. Whilst it’s only a small number of people these people still pay their council tax and are still rightly enraged that their service is being withdrawn. TfL’s response? Other people will get a better service. It’s pathetic. There is so little support for this proposal that it’s an absolute joke TfL have pushed it through. I’m disgusted How would you propose paying for it? What should be cut instead? |
|
|
|
Post by Paul on Jun 13, 2022 14:02:29 GMT
Just had a read through the consultation report. It’s genuinely shocking how little TfL care about the people this will affect badly. Whilst it’s only a small number of people these people still pay their council tax and are still rightly enraged that their service is being withdrawn. TfL’s response? Other people will get a better service. It’s pathetic. There is so little support for this proposal that it’s an absolute joke TfL have pushed it through. I’m disgusted How would you propose paying for it? What should be cut instead? They aren’t going to save much at all cutting that part of the route. All they will do is annoy those regular passengers almost all of whom will switch to the car now. What would I cut instead? The Orpington loop. Serving it in both directions causes far too many delays - far more than the Maypole loop ever does. They should make more use of Gravel Pit Way or simply not serve it at all. Cutting off a rural community isn’t on and should never be the answer. I daresay there are a number of lesser used sections of rural routes that are in TfL’s sights now |
|
