|
|
Post by thekbq14 on Jul 21, 2021 17:13:53 GMT
With this consultation, don't think this correct way to go about it, especially as there's still business on the southern part of that loop like Nursery's, Schools, Car dealerships, Pub/Restaurants and Paintballing. Like others have said do believe that the southern part of the R7 should have been replaced if the northern section of the route is having issues and be switched with R2 or another route, rather then withdraw this section and like others have said as that part is Rural Bromley, the chances of it being reinstated if withdrawn is very slim.
|
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Jul 21, 2021 18:07:15 GMT
All round the houses routes are very important as they give Elderly people, young people, any disabled and those who don't or can't afford car. Which is especially more common as people are getting priced out of London and are moving out to the suburbs like places in Orpington, especially which is where they are needed and allows passengers to more easily do there shopping or transfer to there local stations or interchange with other buses otherwise they'd be more stranded as it's hard for your average person to walk from Chelsfield to Orpington, not just the distance but due to it not being as built up as other places in London. These all around the houses give these opportunities, otherwise people will be forced into cars which will increase congestion and pollution which London as a city is trying to cut down case closed. Shouldn't be seen that a route is small or if a route has a low frequency or a route is not direct etc. it should be cut, doesn't work like that. Every route has there purpose. And not all routes are going to be heaving especially in a place like Orpington which has a lower population compared to a Brixton and one that has a high driving population again compared to a place like a Brixton. Instead should encourage people to use public transport more and with buses best way is to increase there accessibility and fastness which this and other consultations haven't been doing. Don't think the local R Network should be sacrificed at that. I have to take issue with that statement (the one I have picked out in bold) as getting people to walk from Chelsfield to Orpington is so not what is being proposed here. Chelsfield Village will still have a bus service under this proposal but some people will need to walk to the stop at the Primary School or further up the by-pass. I think that a revamp and reroute of the R5/R10 could offer a partial replacement here. Although at the end of the day we are not talking about three well-used stops. |
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Jul 21, 2021 18:53:23 GMT
All round the houses routes are very important as they give Elderly people, young people, any disabled and those who don't or can't afford car. Which is especially more common as people are getting priced out of London and are moving out to the suburbs like places in Orpington, especially which is where they are needed and allows passengers to more easily do there shopping or transfer to there local stations or interchange with other buses otherwise they'd be more stranded as it's hard for your average person to walk from Chelsfield to Orpington, not just the distance but due to it not being as built up as other places in London. These all around the houses give these opportunities, otherwise people will be forced into cars which will increase congestion and pollution which London as a city is trying to cut down case closed. Shouldn't be seen that a route is small or if a route has a low frequency or a route is not direct etc. it should be cut, doesn't work like that. Every route has there purpose. And not all routes are going to be heaving especially in a place like Orpington which has a lower population compared to a Brixton and one that has a high driving population again compared to a place like a Brixton. Instead should encourage people to use public transport more and with buses best way is to increase there accessibility and fastness which this and other consultations haven't been doing. Don't think the local R Network should be sacrificed at that. I ditto your sentiment, the 384 springs to mind.
I never understood the rerouting of the 384 from the side roads to make the route more direct journeys. Barnet Hospital (since 2013), High Barnet & New Barnet has a link to the general area of Cockfosters and that is the 307 to Oakwood
|
|
|
|
Post by uakari on Jul 21, 2021 19:31:31 GMT
I disagree - in Barnet and Orpington there are lots of low frequency short routes connecting places like Chelsfield or Hadley Wood to the local town. For these DRT would work well to replace parts of the existing routes for example a Barnet Local DRT stretching to Finchley could see: 142 cut back to Burnt Oak or Colindale Superstores 326 reduced to every 30 minutes New DD route Barnet to Brent Cross via 107 Barnet to Stirling Corner, 384 to Edgware and 142 to Brent Cross 383 withdrawn 384 withdrawn 389 withdrawn 399 withdrawn An Orpington Local DRT stretching to Sidcup and Biggin Hill could see: 353 cut to Orpington R7 cut back to Orpington from Chelsfield and extended to run in a loop around Ramsden Estate R1 withdrawn R3 withdrawn R4 withdrawn R5 withdrawn R6 withdrawn R8 withdrawn R9 withdrawn R10 withdrawn R11 withdrawn In other areas this wouldn't work so well. Don't want to pile on but that Orpington scheme would be calamitous. There's a bit of a misconception that Orpington is all rolling glades and green fields. A lot of it is urban with considerable pockets of social housing. Have a virtual stroll on Google Maps around St Mary Cray. There's a big difference between Chelsfield and Chelsfield Village. You could make an argument for DRT with smaller vehicles on the most rural parts of the R5/7/8 & 10 but I'm not sure the overheads would lead to any greater benefits than some clever timetabling would. If that post was a serious suggestion it deserves to be piled on. This person clearly doesn't want people in outer London using buses. It's easy to dismiss routes as being 'round the houses' and 'for old people' as if that's a negative thing. The fact is that not only do elderly people deserve the same independence and quality of life as everyone else, and PUBLIC (not bloody DRT) buses are key to providing this, but 'round the houses' routes have a huge importance for all demographics in terms of getting people out of their cars and onto public transport. They should coexist with trunk routes: it's not an either/or. It comes down also to what type of city /suburbs you want: I would rather one where people don't feel they even have to own a car, with all the problems for the environment and congestion that causes. Buses are a great democratiser. A comprehensive public bus network means a better, more civilised city. |
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Jul 21, 2021 19:39:34 GMT
Don't want to pile on but that Orpington scheme would be calamitous. There's a bit of a misconception that Orpington is all rolling glades and green fields. A lot of it is urban with considerable pockets of social housing. Have a virtual stroll on Google Maps around St Mary Cray. There's a big difference between Chelsfield and Chelsfield Village. You could make an argument for DRT with smaller vehicles on the most rural parts of the R5/7/8 & 10 but I'm not sure the overheads would lead to any greater benefits than some clever timetabling would. If that post was a serious suggestion it deserves to be piled on. This person clearly doesn't want people in outer London using buses. It's easy to dismiss routes as being 'round the houses' and 'for old people' as if that's a negative thing. The fact is that not only do elderly people deserve the same independence and quality of life as everyone else, and PUBLIC (not bloody DRT) buses are key to providing this, but 'round the houses' routes have a huge importance for all demographics in terms of getting people out of their cars and onto public transport. They should coexist with trunk routes: it's not an either/or. It comes down also to what type of city /suburbs you want: I would rather one where people don't feel they even have to own a car, with all the problems for the environment and congestion that causes. Buses are a great democratiser. A comprehensive public bus network means a better, more civilised city. I don't think DRT is the worst of ideas in some remote inaccessible areas such as Windmill Lane which is isolated from the regular bus network due to weak bridges.
I wouldn't suggest piling on but I would agree DRT is not workable in a lot of London. Plus DRT would kill off a lot of the Barnet - Finchley network, would probably kill off the 263 north of North Finchley and probably parts of the 184/307 which would prove controversial and the current bus network has enough capacity to cater for demands mostly. DRT would struggle to cope with demands
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul on Jul 21, 2021 20:05:52 GMT
I think that a revamp and reroute of the R5/R10 could offer a partial replacement here. Although at the end of the day we are not talking about three well-used stops. Whilst they are not well used in terms of numbers, they are well used by a very regular number of clientele; a significant proportion of which would find accessing the stops at the Five Bells or on Court Road very difficult. As a regular driver of the route up until last September, I simply cannot fathom what savings TfL think removing the loop will make Revamping and rerouting the R5/R10 is a possible solution but I would think any tinkering with those two routes would probably require an extra bus |
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Jul 21, 2021 20:26:17 GMT
I think that a revamp and reroute of the R5/R10 could offer a partial replacement here. Although at the end of the day we are not talking about three well-used stops. Whilst they are not well used in terms of numbers, they are well used by a very regular number of clientele; a significant proportion of which would find accessing the stops at the Five Bells or on Court Road very difficult. As a regular driver of the route up until last September, I simply cannot fathom what savings TfL think removing the loop will make Revamping and rerouting the R5/R10 is a possible solution but I would think any tinkering with those two routes would probably require an extra bus I think this is the nub of it: it's a long established section, inside Greater London, with a regular - if select  - clientele. Making these passengers walk up to a kilometre on a narrow road without a footway because TfL bungled its extension of the R7 to Chislehurst is not a great look. There is no evidence of TfL looking at other ways of solving the problem. I wouldn't recommend it but there is an argument that the Chislehurst end should be trimmed back as it follows the 162. Another option might be the dreaded short workings until the next proper look at the network: only one bus per hour continuing to Chelsfield Village with the rest turning via the shopping parade at the end of Charterhouse Road. |
|
|
|
Post by ianhardy on Jul 22, 2021 19:50:20 GMT
I don't think any DRT scheme in the UK has made any money, they are fine when a developer provides funding as part of the planning permission for a new development but when that funding ceases, the DRT scheme disappears very soon afterwards as it does not generate enough money to cover the costs let along make a profit. One of the real problems is the requirement to use apps which require a smart phone and a lot of pensioners probably don’t own one or just use it as a telephone or are not proficient at using apps. See also busandtrainuser.com/2021/07/13/its-prt-not-drt/ which says it all. |
|
|
|
Post by galwhv69 on Jul 22, 2021 20:24:32 GMT
See TfL are also trying to discourage responses to the consultation by making you register for the site  |
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Aug 8, 2021 14:44:32 GMT
I see Diamond Geezer has blogged on this, reiterating many of the points that have been made in this thread (the poor EqIA, the disingenuous nature of the text etc)
|
|
|
|
Post by uakari on Aug 9, 2021 18:32:16 GMT
Diamond Geezer was also supportive in publicising the 384 consultation - he clearly has some passion for buses and cares about people retaining access to them.
Are the roadworks on Court Road finished yet? It makes no sense to withdraw a section of route permanently for temporary works.
I agree with the point about running every other bus or every third bus via Maypole. Without roadworks the whole loop can't be more than 5-10 minutes. It's not the end of the world if the other sections of the route have irregular gaps of 25 minutes or 35 minutes instead of 30 minutes, as long as the timetable is updated at all the stops.
|
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Aug 14, 2021 8:49:31 GMT
BBC London covered the proposed changes to the R7 yesterday evening. Some strong feelings about the changes from local residents.
Starts around 15 mins into the programme.
|
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Aug 14, 2021 17:39:42 GMT
BBC London covered the proposed changes to the R7 yesterday evening. Some strong feelings about the changes from local residents.
Starts around 15 mins into the programme.
Credit to the locals for putting up a fight to save their bus service. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul on Aug 15, 2021 19:12:35 GMT
BBC London covered the proposed changes to the R7 yesterday evening. Some strong feelings about the changes from local residents. Starts around 15 mins into the programme.
Credit to the locals for putting up a fight to save their bus service. It’s just such a non sensical thing to do. Cutting those three stops saves maybe five minutes on the journey but will cause massive inconvenience to those people relying on getting the R7 to and from those stops. Surely TfL should be encouraging the use of public transport? Take the example of the gentleman in the news report (nice bloke actually, one of the regular passengers) - walking along narrow country lanes for 30-40 minutes simply isn’t an option for him. He’s going to be forced into using the car, be it a private car or a cab - which adds to the considerable congestion already present in Orpington I really hope the depth of feeling that comes across in the news report is transmitted to TfL and they decide to not go ahead with this scheme - there are far more places where savings can be made |
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Aug 15, 2021 19:43:04 GMT
Credit to the locals for putting up a fight to save their bus service. It’s just such a non sensical thing to do. Cutting those three stops saves maybe five minutes on the journey but will cause massive inconvenience to those people relying on getting the R7 to and from those stops. Surely TfL should be encouraging the use of public transport? Take the example of the gentleman in the news report (nice bloke actually, one of the regular passengers) - walking along narrow country lanes for 30-40 minutes simply isn’t an option for him. He’s going to be forced into using the car, be it a private car or a cab - which adds to the considerable congestion already present in Orpington I really hope the depth of feeling that comes across in the news report is transmitted to TfL and they decide to not go ahead with this scheme - there are far more places where savings can be made They did that with the 384 and they didn't listen and there were still terrain issues along with a frequency drop 3 years prior. But I agree they should rethink it |
|
- clientele. Making these passengers walk up to a kilometre on a narrow road without a footway because TfL bungled its extension of the R7 to Chislehurst is not a great look. There is no evidence of TfL looking at other ways of solving the problem. I wouldn't recommend it but there is an argument that the Chislehurst end should be trimmed back as it follows the 162. Another option might be the dreaded short workings until the next proper look at the network: only one bus per hour continuing to Chelsfield Village with the rest turning via the shopping parade at the end of Charterhouse Road. 
