|
Post by TB123 on Sept 6, 2021 10:46:27 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2021 10:54:27 GMT
I think their mind is made up.
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Sept 6, 2021 10:55:45 GMT
Oh my Christ, this is a joke right. Extension or withdrawal. 😂😂😂
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Sept 6, 2021 10:58:01 GMT
Oh my Christ, this is a joke right. Extension or withdrawal. 😂😂😂 Definitely not a joke. Obviously my preference would be for the 1st proposal which would utilise the present resources more efficently.
|
|
|
Post by britishguy54 on Sept 6, 2021 10:59:15 GMT
I would like to ask why not an extension to Upminster? Harold Hill currently has no route to Upminster, and it would be easier to travel between Upminster and Gallows Corner.
I know the 347 exists, but the section could use extra buses.
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Sept 6, 2021 11:05:01 GMT
I don't know why it didn't go to Dagnam Park Square in the first place? Buses currently spend about 24 minutes in every hour on the stand which I'm sure is nice for drivers but hardly a great use of resources.
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Sept 6, 2021 11:18:28 GMT
Oh my Christ, this is a joke right. Extension or withdrawal. 😂😂😂 Definitely not a joke. Obviously my preference would be for the 1st proposal which would utilise the present resources more efficently. So would mine but why is there no third option to just retain it as it is.
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Sept 6, 2021 11:22:16 GMT
Definitely not a joke. Obviously my preference would be for the 1st proposal which would utilise the present resources more efficently. So would mine but why is there no third option to just retain it as it is. It's clearly not an efficient use of resources as it is. Certainly dosen't appear as such to a layman like me - 10% of a trip cycle spent running light to layover is horrendous
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Sept 6, 2021 11:38:41 GMT
Definitely not a joke. Obviously my preference would be for the 1st proposal which would utilise the present resources more efficently. So would mine but why is there no third option to just retain it as it is. Because it has already been deemed unviable in its current form. They are basically saying we introduced a route and it is not attracting custom. It needs to be changed in a way as to make it more attractive, but we not going to chuck stupid amounts of money at it, or withdrawn.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Sept 6, 2021 11:47:58 GMT
I would like to ask why not an extension to Upminster? Harold Hill currently has no route to Upminster, and it would be easier to travel between Upminster and Gallows Corner. I know the 347 exists, but the section could use extra buses. Presumably this extension is more cost effective given it already performs the extended routing just out of service not to mention the extension is shorter than one to Upminster
|
|
|
Post by joefrombow on Sept 6, 2021 14:45:48 GMT
Tbf this was a "Crossrail" route with it not running it is planned form yet plus the pandemic and lockdowns etc none of this would of helped personally can't see it lasting it's a shame but we are now in a time where it's a case of use it or lose it can see the same happening for a lot of other routes aswell where they are running at a substantial loss.
|
|
|
Post by mondraker275 on Sept 6, 2021 15:06:05 GMT
Very rare consultation proposals but probably an awkward situation with a new route. Usually consultations are already decided but I get the feeling this one is totally open and TfL are interested to see what responses they get.
I did think about a thread looking at people's review of bus changes. We usually spend ages predicting changes rather than analysing them. I was just thinking the other day that the 48 withdrawal has not turned out to be that bad. The 55/56 has coped well, although helped by COVID. Having said that I am yet to go out this week to see the impact of the 55/56 frequency changes with schools reopening.
|
|
|
Post by ThinLizzy on Sept 6, 2021 15:21:02 GMT
I would like to ask why not an extension to Upminster? Harold Hill currently has no route to Upminster, and it would be easier to travel between Upminster and Gallows Corner. I know the 347 exists, but the section could use extra buses. I guess the key things are a) how many people use the 347 b) does Harold Hill really need a more frequent link to Upminster I'd suggest the answers are as follows: a) not many b) not really If only there was a route on the tender list that could (potentially) use the 497 allocation of vehicles as part of a bid *cough* 339 *cough*
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Sept 6, 2021 15:24:21 GMT
I don't really know much about Harold Hill but I would increase the running time on the service around Gallows Corner. The A12 can be a nightmare road to navigate sometimes especially when creeping up to the lights and turning out onto the A12 towards Gooshays Drive.
|
|
|
Post by busoccultation on Sept 6, 2021 16:05:00 GMT
I don't really know much about Harold Hill but I would increase the running time on the service around Gallows Corner. The A12 can be a nightmare road to navigate sometimes especially when creeping up to the lights and turning out onto the A12 towards Gooshays Drive. The running times on the 497 isn't really an issue even with the route ''liven up'' to Dagnam Park Square as it still have about 10 mins of stand time there and the 497 doesn't really suffer from the A12 as some of the routes in the area does, while turning out from Whitelands Way onto crossing the A12 from Gallows Corner Tesco does sometimes have queues, it doesn't need any addiotnal running time to it.
Increasing the running time just for the odd queues would just end up having more regulation for the times there isn't any traffic in particular for a low frequency route which is the last thing the 497 needs for it to gain more usage.
|
|