|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Nov 5, 2021 18:33:03 GMT
Unfortunately unless there is a change to the law public bodies like TfL are required to consult on any structural transport changes like route restructuring or extensions. It’s a good system in my opinion as it allows for stakeholders like councils to be involved to an extent. I do wish that the process didn’t take as long though for relatively small things like the change to the 633. What I'm going to say is maybe don't consult on pure extensions like the 324 or 633, but on changes to routing (such as 92), shortening of routes (such as R7 or 414) and withdrawals/mergers (such as 88/C2). Again I would disagree. As someone who has the misfortune of a bus stop and a separate bus stand outside their home I would want to be consulted if another route was extended to stand there or serve that stop. It’s hard to fight back against something when it’s already happened but easier when it’s in the planning stages. It doesn’t mean that TfL would listen to me but at least they would have my views and I hope they would be considerate of any other residents on my streets point of view. |
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Nov 8, 2021 12:27:20 GMT
I do think TfL should put a note on the consultation website in instances like this, where the date given for a potential change is approaching or has passed and no decision has been reached. Something like "We are considering to assess the issues raised in the response to this consultation and therefore no changes will be made on 6th November. We will publish a update on the final outcome, including a new date for any changes we proceed with, in due course".
|
|
|
|
Post by uakari on Nov 8, 2021 13:17:28 GMT
I do think TfL should put a note on the consultation website in instances like this, where the date given for a potential change is approaching or has passed and no decision has been reached. Something like "We are considering to assess the issues raised in the response to this consultation and therefore no changes will be made on 6th November. We will publish a update on the final outcome, including a new date for any changes we proceed with, in due course". With the 384 consultation (Oct 2018) they published an 'interim report' in Feb 2019 saying that they'd received 'rich feedback' and were taking into account all the objections and concerns raised, and that they 'would conclude their findings in the spring', which 'may involve further consultations'. What actually happened was a deathly silence until April 2020, when at the height of the first covid wave they published on the website that they would be proceeding with the plans as proposed, with no changes. It was kicked into the long grass until exactly when they hoped people would have forgotten about it and would have too much else occupying their time and attention - extremely cynical. |
|
|
|
Post by uakari on Feb 10, 2022 10:58:04 GMT
I do think TfL should put a note on the consultation website in instances like this, where the date given for a potential change is approaching or has passed and no decision has been reached. Something like "We are considering to assess the issues raised in the response to this consultation and therefore no changes will be made on 6th November. We will publish a update on the final outcome, including a new date for any changes we proceed with, in due course". With the 384 consultation (Oct 2018) they published an 'interim report' in Feb 2019 saying that they'd received 'rich feedback' and were taking into account all the objections and concerns raised, and that they 'would conclude their findings in the spring', which 'may involve further consultations'. What actually happened was a deathly silence until April 2020, when at the height of the first covid wave they published on the website that they would be proceeding with the plans as proposed, with no changes. It was kicked into the long grass until exactly when they hoped people would have forgotten about it and would have too much else occupying their time and attention - extremely cynical. Still no news on this consultation is consistent with their MO as described here. |
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Mar 30, 2022 22:25:45 GMT
Given this one has gone very quiet, I wondered whether reliability on the R7 had settled down or if it is still an issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by uakari on Mar 31, 2022 16:38:31 GMT
Given this one has gone very quiet, I wondered whether reliability on the R7 had settled down or if it is still an issue. Remember the 'reliability' concern is likely to be another lie because they don't want to say: 'We're making people walk a mile on a road with no pavement because we want to save money.' The roadworks were only ever temporary after all. Remember with the 384 they kept people waiting 18 months, implying there would be changes in response to the feedback and then pushed it all through during lockdown with zero changes. So I wouldn't be too sure this delay is 'no news is good news'. |
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Apr 1, 2022 7:27:12 GMT
Given this one has gone very quiet, I wondered whether reliability on the R7 had settled down or if it is still an issue. Remember the 'reliability' concern is likely to be another lie because they don't want to say: 'We're making people walk a mile on a road with no pavement because we want to save money.' The roadworks were only ever temporary after all. Remember with the 384 they kept people waiting 18 months, implying there would be changes in response to the feedback and then pushed it all through during lockdown with zero changes. So I wouldn't be too sure this delay is 'no news is good news'. Probably just waiting until after the local elections. |
|
|
|
Post by lonmark on Jun 10, 2022 15:27:48 GMT
haveyoursay.tfl.gov.uk/bus-route-r7It go ahead from 23rd July to losing few bus stops on part of Loop in Chelsfield Village but keep running every 30 minutes during Monday to Saturday daytime's and hourly in evening and all day Sunday.
|
|
|
|
Post by lundnah on Jun 10, 2022 15:31:00 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".
|
|
|
|
Post by YX10FFN on Jun 10, 2022 15:44:13 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".
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 |
|
|
|
Post by Busboy105 on Jun 10, 2022 15:45:09 GMT
haveyoursay.tfl.gov.uk/bus-route-r7It go ahead from 23rd July to losing few bus stops on part of Loop in Chelsfield Village but keep running every 30 minutes during Monday to Saturday daytime's and hourly in evening and all day Sunday. Oh dear... |
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Jun 10, 2022 15:47:23 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. |
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Jun 10, 2022 15:49:42 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".
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. |
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Jun 10, 2022 15:52:46 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".
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 Not sure this is about saving, rather the need to reschedule service as journeys taking longer. So either widen headway or shorten route. |
|
|
|
Post by VMH2537 on Jun 10, 2022 15:59:39 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
|
|
