|
|
Post by Paul on Jul 16, 2021 19:28:30 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? When the route was first extended there was a huge amount of time between Chislehurst and the Aquila Estate - I genuinely have no idea how that original timetable got approved; it was far too much. After a few months they finally got the message that we had all been saying and lopped a few minutes off the running time It’s been nearly a year since I last drove the route but I don’t imagine things have changed that much. We had some reliability issues in the evening peak but nothing a little tweaking wouldn’t have fixed I’m not sure of the specifics but I do know that the route has suffered massively with the roadworks on Court Road (and that’s a story of screw up after screw up apparently). The loop is five minutes and more often than not I completed it without issue and that was pretty much the norm. I simply can’t fathom why TfL would remove the loop when it is regularly used from first bus to last and by some of the route’s more elderly customers. A lot of visitors to Chelsfield Park Hospital appreciated being dropped right outside as well. Given that the Maypole and Jubilee Road are a decent walk away from the Five Bells it just makes no sense to abandon a loop that has been served for many, many years I do hope the regular users of the route are made aware of this consultation so they can make their opinions known - not that it will be much use, we all know what these consultations mean..... Just as an addendum, I always said the R7 was the wrong route to replace the R3 at Chelsfield - it should always have been the R2 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2021 19:32:05 GMT
Even so, he's supposed to be the mayor for the whole of London, not just the areas that vote for him. I'm saying that Labour should be supporting bus users and usage generally, not removing access or punishing areas where he isn't as popular. But I don't think they have those values any more - it's just shout staying in power. This seems to have been the case with the 384 cuts to the Barnet roads as well, although that also involved areas that are not exactly dripping with money (like the Bevan Estate). I admit looking at this area it is more rural, and a bus every 30 minutes might be quite generous given there much denser areas on the edge like Hadley Wood that only get a bus five times a day. But still there are houses round Jubilee Road and Hollybush Lane so they deserve something, especially as these roads are don't even have pavements to walk to where the bus is planned to serve (I would be wary of walking along those enclosed narrow twisty parts). Maybe reducing the frequency of the 521 from every 2 minutes to every 3 minutes could pay for an extra bus on this route! But he isn't even for the areas who vote for him. I live in Lambeth which always votes Labour and voted in favour of Khan yet my area has seen nothing but cuts with the only frequency increase happening because said route runs into Croydon which was part of the PVR increases. He has no clue as to what he is doing regardless of what area voted for him or not. The 521 is being dramatically reduced later this summer with it's PVR & frequency cut I don’t think anyone wants to turn this into something about Kahn but in my opinion the man is only good as two things, deflection and misdirection. You only have to see the way he speaks in the assembly to see how little he really cares. Never answering a question, deflecting the issue onto central government problems or a previous mayor or it being out of his control. The man is nothing but rhetoric at this point. Sorry just had to vent about him. |
|
|
|
Post by uakari on Jul 16, 2021 20:11:15 GMT
But he isn't even for the areas who vote for him. I live in Lambeth which always votes Labour and voted in favour of Khan yet my area has seen nothing but cuts with the only frequency increase happening because said route runs into Croydon which was part of the PVR increases. He has no clue as to what he is doing regardless of what area voted for him or not. The 521 is being dramatically reduced later this summer with it's PVR & frequency cut I don’t think anyone wants to turn this into something about Kahn but in my opinion the man is only good as two things, deflection and misdirection. You only have to see the way he speaks in the assembly to see how little he really cares. Never answering a question, deflecting the issue onto central government problems or a previous mayor or it being out of his control. The man is nothing but rhetoric at this point. Sorry just had to vent about him. Totally agree. I don't really know how anyone falls for it. I didn't like Shaun Bailey either but I don't see how Khan is better in any way. When everyone in charge is a career politician then no one cares about the people who don't hold sway, and people who rely on buses are pretty far down the list. |
|
|
|
Post by uakari on Jul 16, 2021 20:48:56 GMT
Even so, he's supposed to be the mayor for the whole of London, not just the areas that vote for him. I'm saying that Labour should be supporting bus users and usage generally, not removing access or punishing areas where he isn't as popular. But I don't think they have those values any more - it's just shout staying in power. This seems to have been the case with the 384 cuts to the Barnet roads as well, although that also involved areas that are not exactly dripping with money (like the Bevan Estate). I admit looking at this area it is more rural, and a bus every 30 minutes might be quite generous given there much denser areas on the edge like Hadley Wood that only get a bus five times a day. But still there are houses round Jubilee Road and Hollybush Lane so they deserve something, especially as these roads are don't even have pavements to walk to where the bus is planned to serve (I would be wary of walking along those enclosed narrow twisty parts). Maybe reducing the frequency of the 521 from every 2 minutes to every 3 minutes could pay for an extra bus on this route! But he isn't even for the areas who vote for him. I live in Lambeth which always votes Labour and voted in favour of Khan yet my area has seen nothing but cuts with the only frequency increase happening because said route runs into Croydon which was part of the PVR increases. He has no clue as to what he is doing regardless of what area voted for him or not. The 521 is being dramatically reduced later this summer with it's PVR & frequency cut I get what you're saying and I do appreciate that the inner London vs outer London narrative can be divisive and simplistic. However, I'm sure you can also appreciate that the cuts that Khan oversees in outer London (not just this but the 384 and other examples) often leave people with no bus at all within anything like walking distance, especially since TfL dispensed with the 'every household should be within 400m of a bus' aspiration. Not everyone in outer London has a car, nor should that be seen as expected or even desirable. There is also a higher proportion of elderly people who clearly are not going to be able to walk these distances on windy unsafe roads, steep hills, etc (you can see with the massive reduction in numbers on the 384 eastern section that many people have been totally lost to the network). I doubt there can be many places in Lambeth with households more than 400m from a bus even after cuts, although I appreciate reductions in frequency can make things significantly harder for people to get around too. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 16, 2021 22:09:54 GMT
But he isn't even for the areas who vote for him. I live in Lambeth which always votes Labour and voted in favour of Khan yet my area has seen nothing but cuts with the only frequency increase happening because said route runs into Croydon which was part of the PVR increases. He has no clue as to what he is doing regardless of what area voted for him or not. The 521 is being dramatically reduced later this summer with it's PVR & frequency cut I get what you're saying and I do appreciate that the inner London vs outer London narrative can be divisive and simplistic. However, I'm sure you can also appreciate that the cuts that Khan oversees in outer London (not just this but the 384 and other examples) often leave people with no bus at all within anything like walking distance, especially since TfL dispensed with the 'every household should be within 400m of a bus' aspiration. Not everyone in outer London has a car, nor should that be seen as expected or even desirable. There is also a higher proportion of elderly people who clearly are not going to be able to walk these distances on windy unsafe roads, steep hills, etc (you can see with the massive reduction in numbers on the 384 eastern section that many people have been totally lost to the network). I doubt there can be many places in Lambeth with households more than 400m from a bus even after cuts, although I appreciate reductions in frequency can make things significantly harder for people to get around too. Just to be clear, my reply was not who deserves to keep what or Inner vs Outer London but was to just to show that even in areas that are pro Khan, they have had little or nothing in terms of the bus network other than cuts to frequencies or bits cut of their routes at the Central London end. As you know, I voiced my displeasure at the 384's cuts numerous times  |
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Jul 16, 2021 22:23:37 GMT
But he isn't even for the areas who vote for him. I live in Lambeth which always votes Labour and voted in favour of Khan yet my area has seen nothing but cuts with the only frequency increase happening because said route runs into Croydon which was part of the PVR increases. He has no clue as to what he is doing regardless of what area voted for him or not. The 521 is being dramatically reduced later this summer with it's PVR & frequency cut I get what you're saying and I do appreciate that the inner London vs outer London narrative can be divisive and simplistic. However, I'm sure you can also appreciate that the cuts that Khan oversees in outer London (not just this but the 384 and other examples) often leave people with no bus at all within anything like walking distance, especially since TfL dispensed with the 'every household should be within 400m of a bus' aspiration. Not everyone in outer London has a car, nor should that be seen as expected or even desirable. There is also a higher proportion of elderly people who clearly are not going to be able to walk these distances on windy unsafe roads, steep hills, etc (you can see with the massive reduction in numbers on the 384 eastern section that many people have been totally lost to the network). I doubt there can be many places in Lambeth with households more than 400m from a bus even after cuts, although I appreciate reductions in frequency can make things significantly harder for people to get around too. I definitely would agree with you on loss of roads but at the same time I think the 384 is really looking quite successful in its current form and definitely the upcoming consultation with the 383 and very possibly the 288 mentioned by a BT driver but passed it off as canteen talk. And I am quite well looking forward to this consultation because if the route was extended to Queensbury and the 288 withdrawn this will really introduce some very popular links, particularly between Barnet/Arkley/Cockfosters and The Hive. But I'd take it with a pinch of salt.
I don't mind your 399/599 idea but in some ways I do find it unrealistic. I think the Barnet backstreets have more demand than Hadley Wood so not disagreeing with you on that at all but your idea does point out a major flaw in Barnet and that is why Hadley Green has got such poor bus provision particularly when up the road from a major bus terminal and one that seems to have problems with stand space being The Spires. But I'd prefer Hadley Green to be linked to Potters Bar by a TFL route rather than a Commercial Route providing HCC fund the route north of Hadley Green. The 234 would seem the perfect route for such a link - direct almost all its route but it's major flaw is it's 12 minute frequency and definitely the route south of Whetstone needs that freq. And it couldnt be a every other bus terminates at The Spires because it's not a clockface timetable. Would most likely be the 383 extended though, not a great route to extend due to its indirectness and Oakleigh Park is already linked to PB. The 84 could then be cutback to PB Garage and PB to New Barnet would be linked with Thameslink.
|
|
|
|
Post by uakari on Jul 16, 2021 22:44:42 GMT
I get what you're saying and I do appreciate that the inner London vs outer London narrative can be divisive and simplistic. However, I'm sure you can also appreciate that the cuts that Khan oversees in outer London (not just this but the 384 and other examples) often leave people with no bus at all within anything like walking distance, especially since TfL dispensed with the 'every household should be within 400m of a bus' aspiration. Not everyone in outer London has a car, nor should that be seen as expected or even desirable. There is also a higher proportion of elderly people who clearly are not going to be able to walk these distances on windy unsafe roads, steep hills, etc (you can see with the massive reduction in numbers on the 384 eastern section that many people have been totally lost to the network). I doubt there can be many places in Lambeth with households more than 400m from a bus even after cuts, although I appreciate reductions in frequency can make things significantly harder for people to get around too. I definitely would agree with you on loss of roads but at the same time I think the 384 is really looking quite successful in its current form and definitely the upcoming consultation with the 383 and very possibly the 288 mentioned by a BT driver but passed it off as canteen talk. And I am quite well looking forward to this consultation because if the route was extended to Queensbury and the 288 withdrawn this will really introduce some very popular links, particularly between Barnet/Arkley/Cockfosters and The Hive. But I'd take it with a pinch of salt.
I don't mind your 399/599 idea but in some ways I do find it unrealistic. I think the Barnet backstreets have more demand than Hadley Wood so not disagreeing with you on that at all but your idea does point out a major flaw in Barnet and that is why Hadley Green has got such poor bus provision particularly when up the road from a major bus terminal and one that seems to have problems with stand space being The Spires. But I'd prefer Hadley Green to be linked to Potters Bar by a TFL route rather than a Commercial Route providing HCC fund the route north of Hadley Green. The 234 would seem the perfect route for such a link - direct almost all its route but it's major flaw is it's 12 minute frequency and definitely the route south of Whetstone needs that freq. And it couldnt be a every other bus terminates at The Spires because it's not a clockface timetable. Would most likely be the 383 extended though, not a great route to extend due to its indirectness and Oakleigh Park is already linked to PB. The 84 could then be cutback to PB Garage and PB to New Barnet would be linked with Thameslink.
Don't want to make this thread about the 384 but just to say that while the Edgware extension is doing well, east of Barnet Everyman Cinema has lost up to 40% of passengers since the changes according to the data I have. So it's very much a route of two halves now. Also you know that the 383 DID serve Potters Bar via Hadley Green and Kitts End from 1998-2003. The whole point of it initially was to replace the 326 when this was cut back from Potters Bar to The Spires and diverted to serve Dollis Valley. The section south of New Barnet station was only added after the route had already been running for a while. Then TfL decided that Hadley Green/Highstone wasn't worthy of a regular TfL service despite being in London, and that it also didn't want to provide a link from Barnet to Potters Bar. To go back to the thread subject, now with people in the east Chelsfield area having to walk 1km on roads with no pavement, TfL doesn't seem to think it matters to serve settlements on the edge of connect them with areas over the border, so the London bus network artificially ends some way into the first major town inside, hence the crowded Spires stand and only the non TfL 84 and skeleton 399 serving further north. Heaven forbid that TfL would connect the east Chelsfield area with Knockholt station, because they'd have to run a bus on one road outside the boundary! |
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Jul 17, 2021 5:25:11 GMT
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. If I was TFL I would have maybe looked at when the service was most popular during certain times of the day and ran journeys down there at appropriate times. Though standardisation would moot that completely. Example, if the most popular journeys were at say 0830, 1130, 1430 and 1800 those buses could run down there appropriately.
I think you will find PTAL (public transport assessibility level) is based on 08:15 - 09:15 weekdays You also need to be aware of SAP (service access point), bus stops and stations, which is based on walking 640 metres to bus stops or 960m to stations There are actually a fair few bits of London with virtually zero (Richmond Borough also has plenty) content.tfl.gov.uk/connectivity-assessment-guide.pdfActually you can have a play and zoom the map, it was designed for planning applications, but can be used for any location in London tfl.gov.uk/info-for/urban-planning-and-construction/planning-with-webcat/webcat |
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Jul 17, 2021 7:29:19 GMT
I definitely would agree with you on loss of roads but at the same time I think the 384 is really looking quite successful in its current form and definitely the upcoming consultation with the 383 and very possibly the 288 mentioned by a BT driver but passed it off as canteen talk. And I am quite well looking forward to this consultation because if the route was extended to Queensbury and the 288 withdrawn this will really introduce some very popular links, particularly between Barnet/Arkley/Cockfosters and The Hive. But I'd take it with a pinch of salt.
I don't mind your 399/599 idea but in some ways I do find it unrealistic. I think the Barnet backstreets have more demand than Hadley Wood so not disagreeing with you on that at all but your idea does point out a major flaw in Barnet and that is why Hadley Green has got such poor bus provision particularly when up the road from a major bus terminal and one that seems to have problems with stand space being The Spires. But I'd prefer Hadley Green to be linked to Potters Bar by a TFL route rather than a Commercial Route providing HCC fund the route north of Hadley Green. The 234 would seem the perfect route for such a link - direct almost all its route but it's major flaw is it's 12 minute frequency and definitely the route south of Whetstone needs that freq. And it couldnt be a every other bus terminates at The Spires because it's not a clockface timetable. Would most likely be the 383 extended though, not a great route to extend due to its indirectness and Oakleigh Park is already linked to PB. The 84 could then be cutback to PB Garage and PB to New Barnet would be linked with Thameslink.
Don't want to make this thread about the 384 but just to say that while the Edgware extension is doing well, east of Barnet Everyman Cinema has lost up to 40% of passengers since the changes according to the data I have. So it's very much a route of two halves now. Also you know that the 383 DID serve Potters Bar via Hadley Green and Kitts End from 1998-2003. The whole point of it initially was to replace the 326 when this was cut back from Potters Bar to The Spires and diverted to serve Dollis Valley. The section south of New Barnet station was only added after the route had already been running for a while. Then TfL decided that Hadley Green/Highstone wasn't worthy of a regular TfL service despite being in London, and that it also didn't want to provide a link from Barnet to Potters Bar. To go back to the thread subject, now with people in the east Chelsfield area having to walk 1km on roads with no pavement, TfL doesn't seem to think it matters to serve settlements on the edge of connect them with areas over the border, so the London bus network artificially ends some way into the first major town inside, hence the crowded Spires stand and only the non TfL 84 and skeleton 399 serving further north. Heaven forbid that TfL would connect the east Chelsfield area with Knockholt station, because they'd have to run a bus on one road outside the boundary! Did data levels show the 384 dropped east of Odeon? I mean not too surprised as Cockfosters isn't really a town centre and the 307 does a direct Barnet to ~Cockfosters (well Oakwood but near Cockfosters and obviously the 384 was reasonably popular round the side roads). But hopefully like the 251 did it's time will come. Also I do remember the 383 via that specific route, Kitts End had a few settlements and you did see people board round there.
But anyway, back on thread topic, I think this is one of those routes being the R7 that west of Orpington would be better off run commercially if TFL were to pursue this or the R5/R8/R10 take on the loop round Chelsfield. There are certain routes in rural countryside across the country that serve different parts of areas only for a few journeys in a day (which I think is fair looking at this loop from a very armchair perspective and that the loop gets roughly 40 passengers) so perhaps a commercial company could maybe do justice round that loop like Go Coach for example. Perhaps they could've incorporated that into their DRT scheme when it was running in the summer last year if this consultation was a year in the past.
I always found since the Roundabout consultation back in 2017 as I call it quite weird that Knockholt Station has no buses whatsoever, the only 2 it has are school services (S31/33) operated by Go Coach so perhaps when writing the consultation response someone could throw in the Knockholt Station suggestion. Sounds reasonable to me as that could be of use. Is there a requirement under better accessibility to places of healthcare to serve Private Healthcare? If so Chelsfield Park Hospital would no longer be served and would be almost 650 metres from the nearest bus stop and I can't imagine that being popular politically. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul on Jul 17, 2021 8:15:20 GMT
Thought: if the aim is to improve reliability then TfL would be far better off removing the Orpington double run on the R7. Admittedly it’s as non sensical as abandoning the Chelsfield loop but passengers would at least have the option of using a different bus to get to the relevant R7 bus stop. Whilst delays around the Chelsfield loop are rare, double running via Orpington High Street can lose buckets of time at the wrong time of day and buses have to serve the High Street twice in a relatively short amount of time, effectively doubling the delay
|
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Jul 17, 2021 8:23:51 GMT
Don't want to make this thread about the 384 but just to say that while the Edgware extension is doing well, east of Barnet Everyman Cinema has lost up to 40% of passengers since the changes according to the data I have. So it's very much a route of two halves now. Also you know that the 383 DID serve Potters Bar via Hadley Green and Kitts End from 1998-2003. The whole point of it initially was to replace the 326 when this was cut back from Potters Bar to The Spires and diverted to serve Dollis Valley. The section south of New Barnet station was only added after the route had already been running for a while. Then TfL decided that Hadley Green/Highstone wasn't worthy of a regular TfL service despite being in London, and that it also didn't want to provide a link from Barnet to Potters Bar. To go back to the thread subject, now with people in the east Chelsfield area having to walk 1km on roads with no pavement, TfL doesn't seem to think it matters to serve settlements on the edge of connect them with areas over the border, so the London bus network artificially ends some way into the first major town inside, hence the crowded Spires stand and only the non TfL 84 and skeleton 399 serving further north. Heaven forbid that TfL would connect the east Chelsfield area with Knockholt station, because they'd have to run a bus on one road outside the boundary! Did data levels show the 384 dropped east of Odeon? I mean not too surprised as Cockfosters isn't really a town centre and the 307 does a direct Barnet to ~Cockfosters (well Oakwood but near Cockfosters and obviously the 384 was reasonably popular round the side roads). But hopefully like the 251 did it's time will come. Also I do remember the 383 via that specific route, Kitts End had a few settlements and you did see people board round there.
But anyway, back on thread topic, I think this is one of those routes being the R7 that west of Orpington would be better off run commercially if TFL were to pursue this or the R5/R8/R10 take on the loop round Chelsfield. There are certain routes in rural countryside across the country that serve different parts of areas only for a few journeys in a day (which I think is fair looking at this loop from a very armchair perspective and that the loop gets roughly 40 passengers) so perhaps a commercial company could maybe do justice round that loop like Go Coach for example. Perhaps they could've incorporated that into their DRT scheme when it was running in the summer last year if this consultation was a year in the past.
I always found since the Roundabout consultation back in 2017 as I call it quite weird that Knockholt Station has no buses whatsoever, the only 2 it has are school services (S31/33) operated by Go Coach so perhaps when writing the consultation response someone could throw in the Knockholt Station suggestion. Sounds reasonable to me as that could be of use. Is there a requirement under better accessibility to places of healthcare to serve Private Healthcare? If so Chelsfield Park Hospital would no longer be served and would be almost 650 metres from the nearest bus stop and I can't imagine that being popular politically. Even if Chelsfield Park Hospital being private healthcare is relevant there is still the issue of staff and visitors to the hospital and I think this whole idea is wrong leaving sections of route no longer served. As others have said the R2 is probably a better route to serve Chelsfield and the evening service could terminate at Orpington Station. |
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Jul 17, 2021 8:27:16 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? When the route was first extended there was a huge amount of time between Chislehurst and the Aquila Estate - I genuinely have no idea how that original timetable got approved; it was far too much. After a few months they finally got the message that we had all been saying and lopped a few minutes off the running time It’s been nearly a year since I last drove the route but I don’t imagine things have changed that much. We had some reliability issues in the evening peak but nothing a little tweaking wouldn’t have fixed I’m not sure of the specifics but I do know that the route has suffered massively with the roadworks on Court Road (and that’s a story of screw up after screw up apparently). The loop is five minutes and more often than not I completed it without issue and that was pretty much the norm. I simply can’t fathom why TfL would remove the loop when it is regularly used from first bus to last and by some of the route’s more elderly customers. A lot of visitors to Chelsfield Park Hospital appreciated being dropped right outside as well. Given that the Maypole and Jubilee Road are a decent walk away from the Five Bells it just makes no sense to abandon a loop that has been served for many, many years I do hope the regular users of the route are made aware of this consultation so they can make their opinions known - not that it will be much use, we all know what these consultations mean..... Just as an addendum, I always said the R7 was the wrong route to replace the R3 at Chelsfield - it should always have been the R2 Completely agree with everything you say. I do hope they make sure they know what’s going on and put in a petition to get it abandoned. Yes I agree with you on Route R2, even swapping the two routes over again would be better than cutting 3 stops altogether. The R2 pretty much uses the main roads and doesn’t get caught up in traffic hot spots. The R7 extension to Chislehurst was a good move. If they don’t get their way with this silly cut watch a new consultation come out to try another silly move and divert Route R7 via Tower Road and fully skip the town centre altogether which would be very wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Jul 17, 2021 8:32:43 GMT
Did data levels show the 384 dropped east of Odeon? I mean not too surprised as Cockfosters isn't really a town centre and the 307 does a direct Barnet to ~Cockfosters (well Oakwood but near Cockfosters and obviously the 384 was reasonably popular round the side roads). But hopefully like the 251 did it's time will come. Also I do remember the 383 via that specific route, Kitts End had a few settlements and you did see people board round there.
But anyway, back on thread topic, I think this is one of those routes being the R7 that west of Orpington would be better off run commercially if TFL were to pursue this or the R5/R8/R10 take on the loop round Chelsfield. There are certain routes in rural countryside across the country that serve different parts of areas only for a few journeys in a day (which I think is fair looking at this loop from a very armchair perspective and that the loop gets roughly 40 passengers) so perhaps a commercial company could maybe do justice round that loop like Go Coach for example. Perhaps they could've incorporated that into their DRT scheme when it was running in the summer last year if this consultation was a year in the past.
I always found since the Roundabout consultation back in 2017 as I call it quite weird that Knockholt Station has no buses whatsoever, the only 2 it has are school services (S31/33) operated by Go Coach so perhaps when writing the consultation response someone could throw in the Knockholt Station suggestion. Sounds reasonable to me as that could be of use. Is there a requirement under better accessibility to places of healthcare to serve Private Healthcare? If so Chelsfield Park Hospital would no longer be served and would be almost 650 metres from the nearest bus stop and I can't imagine that being popular politically. Even if Chelsfield Park Hospital being private healthcare is relevant there is still the issue of staff and visitors to the hospital and I think this whole idea is wrong leaving sections of route no longer served. As others have said the R2 is probably a better route to serve Chelsfield and the evening service could terminate at Orpington Station. No I agree with you and I would also agree on the idea of the R2. From my observations the R2 doesn't seem to warrant more than 1bph down to Biggin Hill Valley, that would surely be adequate down to Chelsfield? Or would it be inadequate down Charterhouse Road. |
|
|
|
Post by redexpress on Jul 17, 2021 8:47:08 GMT
Also you know that the 383 DID serve Potters Bar via Hadley Green and Kitts End from 1998-2003. The whole point of it initially was to replace the 326 when this was cut back from Potters Bar to The Spires and diverted to serve Dollis Valley. The section south of New Barnet station was only added after the route had already been running for a while. Then TfL decided that Hadley Green/Highstone wasn't worthy of a regular TfL service despite being in London, and that it also didn't want to provide a link from Barnet to Potters Bar. Just a small point about the 383. The route was intended to run to Woodside Park from the start. Resident objections delayed the introduction of the Woodside Park end of the route, which is why it started off as a New Barnet - Potters Bar route.
I'm not really sure what the status of the Potters Bar end of the route was. I was under the impression that the 326 extension to PB was a commercial initiative by London Northern, who saw an opportunity to make some money out of the dead runs. When the 326 was retendered and cut back to Barnet there was no plan, at first, to replace the Potters Bar section. At a later stage it was announced that the 383 would run through to Potters Bar. I'm not sure whether there was any HCC funding for this section. Either way no-one saw fit to fund it beyond 2003, which is a shame, as it did actually see some use.
|
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Jul 17, 2021 8:53:30 GMT
Thought: if the aim is to improve reliability then TfL would be far better off removing the Orpington double run on the R7. Admittedly it’s as non sensical as abandoning the Chelsfield loop but passengers would at least have the option of using a different bus to get to the relevant R7 bus stop. Whilst delays around the Chelsfield loop are rare, double running via Orpington High Street can lose buckets of time at the wrong time of day and buses have to serve the High Street twice in a relatively short amount of time, effectively doubling the delay Alternatively could do what Route R8 does. When heading to Biggin Hill it uses Gravel Pit Way to get to the High Street and serves only High Street / Orpington War Memorial in the direction of Sevenoaks Road, perhaps the R7 could do that in both directions and not use the adjacent stop. I would say though Route R2 is the best replacement. |
|
