|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Sept 16, 2021 18:05:59 GMT
Blocking the highway is an illegal offence That won’t stop people I am afraid from blocking the road. How do you know they'd block the road? If they did and refused to move I'd probably be on the phone to the police.
Can I also just add I didn't say I wouldn't take any action - I suggested that I would like to dwelve into the reasons why residents do not want a double decker going down the road and to enact on them as much as possible, potentially changing the road layout, removing the unnecessary speed bumps, perhaps yellow lining some parts of the road (which TFL would have no problem with doing considering their heavy anti-car agenda), so tell me is that a more reasonable compromise or is it still unreasonable?
|
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Sept 16, 2021 18:13:38 GMT
That won’t stop people I am afraid from blocking the road. How do you know they'd block the road? If they did and refused to move I'd probably be on the phone to the police.
Can I also just add I didn't say I wouldn't take any action - I suggested that I would like to dwelve into the reasons why residents do not want a double decker going down the road and to enact on them as much as possible, potentially changing the road layout, removing the unnecessary speed bumps, perhaps yellow lining some parts of the road (which TFL would have no problem with doing considering their heavy anti-car agenda), so tell me is that a more reasonable compromise or is it still unreasonable?
No it’s not a unreasonable compromise. But I know that residents would block the road because some residents are notorious for blocking the roads and protesting when those residents don’t want double deckers going down on there road or in some cases just buses going down there road. Just look at the 165/287 scenario. Then even get there local mps to get TfL to stop double deckers or buses going down there road. Like example blocking the 224 from going down the full length Twyford Abbey Road. Then sometimes TfL ignores residents and go ahead with the routing or put double deckers down a certain road. |
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Sept 16, 2021 18:21:23 GMT
How do you know they'd block the road? If they did and refused to move I'd probably be on the phone to the police.
Can I also just add I didn't say I wouldn't take any action - I suggested that I would like to dwelve into the reasons why residents do not want a double decker going down the road and to enact on them as much as possible, potentially changing the road layout, removing the unnecessary speed bumps, perhaps yellow lining some parts of the road (which TFL would have no problem with doing considering their heavy anti-car agenda), so tell me is that a more reasonable compromise or is it still unreasonable?
Because some posh / rich residents are notorious for blocking the roads and protesting when those residents don’t want double deckers going down on there road or in some cases just buses going down there road. Just look at the 165/287 scenario. No it’s not reasonable compromise. That area isn't particularly posh but ok
What would you then consider a reasonable compromise? Not gonna lie with all these proposals especially the ones on the 316 all chop and change, you're not doing this for the benefit of the passenger, you're doing it for a small group of people. Am I saying that small group of people shouldn't be listened to? Absolutely not. Am I saying that there shouldn't be action taken? Absolutely not.
I personally think the world is becoming very awkward.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Sept 16, 2021 18:21:34 GMT
How do you know they'd block the road? If they did and refused to move I'd probably be on the phone to the police.
Can I also just add I didn't say I wouldn't take any action - I suggested that I would like to dwelve into the reasons why residents do not want a double decker going down the road and to enact on them as much as possible, potentially changing the road layout, removing the unnecessary speed bumps, perhaps yellow lining some parts of the road (which TFL would have no problem with doing considering their heavy anti-car agenda), so tell me is that a more reasonable compromise or is it still unreasonable?
Because some posh / rich residents are notorious for blocking the roads and protesting when those residents don’t want double deckers going down on there road or in some cases just buses going down there road. Just look at the 165/287 scenario. No it’s not reasonable compromise. Who said they're all posh or rich? Talk about stereotyping. Some routes are just not suitable for double deckers and they're not necessarily the answer anyway, nobody can force people to go upstairs and if they do dwell times will be increased at busy stops. |
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Sept 16, 2021 18:23:44 GMT
Because some posh / rich residents are notorious for blocking the roads and protesting when those residents don’t want double deckers going down on there road or in some cases just buses going down there road. Just look at the 165/287 scenario. No it’s not reasonable compromise. Who said they're all posh or rich? Talk about stereotyping. Some routes are just not suitable for double deckers and they're not necessarily the answer anyway, nobody can force people to go upstairs and if they do dwell times will be increased at busy stops. I find your argument very rational, and do you know what I agree.
Coming from a passengers perspective however, I do think they are needed and especially in the case of the 143D/643 they do go upstairs.
|
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Sept 16, 2021 18:24:24 GMT
Because some posh / rich residents are notorious for blocking the roads and protesting when those residents don’t want double deckers going down on there road or in some cases just buses going down there road. Just look at the 165/287 scenario. No it’s not reasonable compromise. Who said they're all posh or rich? Talk about stereotyping. Some routes are just not suitable for double deckers and they're not necessarily the answer anyway, nobody can force people to go upstairs and if they do dwell times will be increased at busy stops. I’m sorry I shouldn’t have said rich or posh people. I should have just put people then. Is that better that way I am not stereotyping. People like to protest to prevent dds from going onto there roads. Is that better. |
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Sept 16, 2021 18:27:53 GMT
Because some posh / rich residents are notorious for blocking the roads and protesting when those residents don’t want double deckers going down on there road or in some cases just buses going down there road. Just look at the 165/287 scenario. No it’s not reasonable compromise. That area isn't particularly posh but ok
What would you then consider a reasonable compromise? Not gonna lie with all these proposals especially the ones on the 316 all chop and change, you're not doing this for the benefit of the passenger, you're doing it for a small group of people. Am I saying that small group of people shouldn't be listened to? Absolutely not. Am I saying that there shouldn't be action taken? Absolutely not.
I personally think the world is becoming very awkward.
I guess a compromise won’t hurt. But if the residents won’t change there minds then what else can be done besides chopping and changing. |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Sept 16, 2021 18:30:08 GMT
Who said they're all posh or rich? Talk about stereotyping. Some routes are just not suitable for double deckers and they're not necessarily the answer anyway, nobody can force people to go upstairs and if they do dwell times will be increased at busy stops. I’m sorry I shouldn’t have said rich or posh people. I should have just put people then. Is that better that way I am not stereotyping. People like to protest to prevent dds from going onto there roads. Is that better. It may not be the residents, there may be other reasons that aren't always obvious. I seem to recall you saying similar things about the 112 not being able to have double deckers because it was rerouted in Ealing. |
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Sept 16, 2021 18:34:39 GMT
I’m sorry I shouldn’t have said rich or posh people. I should have just put people then. Is that better that way I am not stereotyping. People like to protest to prevent dds from going onto there roads. Is that better. It may not be the residents, there may be other reasons that aren't always obvious. I seem to recall you saying similar things about the 112 not being able to have double deckers because it was rerouted in Ealing. Well it has a little to do with residents. It’s to do with both overhanging trees and the residents who don’t want dds going down there road. So that’s why dds can’t have dds on the 112 anymore. They could chop down the trees but I guess fear from the backlash from the residents they don’t want to. |
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Sept 16, 2021 18:39:07 GMT
It may not be the residents, there may be other reasons that aren't always obvious. I seem to recall you saying similar things about the 112 not being able to have double deckers because it was rerouted in Ealing. Well it has a little to do with residents. It’s to do with both overhanging trees and the residents who don’t want dds going down there road. So that’s why dds can’t have dds on the 112 anymore. They could chop down the trees but I guess fear from the backlash from the residents they don’t want to. Julian Bell was probably another problem in the way as well. I doubt his views would've allowed that.
|
|
|
|
Post by VMH2537 on Sept 16, 2021 19:44:12 GMT
Some wealthy groups do play in a role for opposing double decks. Occasional ones value there property or home that no large vehicle should get in the way of the image of it.
They also can have a pro car oriented philosophy, particularly on the thought that large vehicles causes congestion on a road that holds journeys from cars
|
|
|
|
Post by YX10FFN on Sept 16, 2021 20:01:13 GMT
What's really frustrating about this whole debacle is that Royal Crescent is a tiny section of the 316 route, and one which is also served by multiple other routes (as it feeds on to Holland Park Avenue). Their stubbornness regarding the 316 doesn't affect them all that much as they have other routes to choose from, plus Shepherds Bush Station a few minutes away. They aren't taking into account the other sections of the 316 route that desperately need a double deck service. Besides, Holland Park Avenue is literally right there and that has constant traffic all day every day so this whole thing seems ridiculous and unreasonable.
In my view, swapping the 228 and 316's routings is not the right answer, and neither is taking away the 316 to "get back" at the residents.
The only solution for me is that TFL have to engage with the residents and have to sort it out, whether it be through the council or direct interaction. If TFL create a solid argument, describing the capacity problems across the route and even explaining the proximity of Holland Park Avenue to their own houses, then hopefully the residents will fold and double deckers can be used on the entire route. If the residents stay as they are there's really nothing else you can do in my view. Increase the frequency and PVR of the 316 and pile more single deckers on it.
|
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Sept 16, 2021 20:19:40 GMT
What's really frustrating about this whole debacle is that Royal Crescent is a tiny section of the 316 route, and one which is also served by multiple other routes (as it feeds on to Holland Park Avenue). Their stubbornness regarding the 316 doesn't affect them all that much as they have other routes to choose from, plus Shepherds Bush Station a few minutes away. They aren't taking into account the other sections of the 316 route that desperately need a double deck service. Besides, Holland Park Avenue is literally right there and that has constant traffic all day every day so this whole thing seems ridiculous and unreasonable. In my view, swapping the 228 and 316's routings is not the right answer, and neither is taking away the 316 to "get back" at the residents. The only solution for me is that TFL have to engage with the residents and have to sort it out, whether it be through the council or direct interaction. If TFL create a solid argument, describing the capacity problems across the route and even explaining the proximity of Holland Park Avenue to their own houses, then hopefully the residents will fold and double deckers can be used on the entire route. If the residents stay as they are there's really nothing else you can do in my view. Increase the frequency and PVR of the 316 and pile more single deckers on it. I don't want to sound like I'm demeaning the residents cause because I'm not but what can they realistically do if you put double deckers out on the route full time. |
|
|
|
Post by YX10FFN on Sept 16, 2021 20:22:55 GMT
What's really frustrating about this whole debacle is that Royal Crescent is a tiny section of the 316 route, and one which is also served by multiple other routes (as it feeds on to Holland Park Avenue). Their stubbornness regarding the 316 doesn't affect them all that much as they have other routes to choose from, plus Shepherds Bush Station a few minutes away. They aren't taking into account the other sections of the 316 route that desperately need a double deck service. Besides, Holland Park Avenue is literally right there and that has constant traffic all day every day so this whole thing seems ridiculous and unreasonable. In my view, swapping the 228 and 316's routings is not the right answer, and neither is taking away the 316 to "get back" at the residents. The only solution for me is that TFL have to engage with the residents and have to sort it out, whether it be through the council or direct interaction. If TFL create a solid argument, describing the capacity problems across the route and even explaining the proximity of Holland Park Avenue to their own houses, then hopefully the residents will fold and double deckers can be used on the entire route. If the residents stay as they are there's really nothing else you can do in my view. Increase the frequency and PVR of the 316 and pile more single deckers on it. I don't want to sound like I'm demeaning the residents cause because I'm not but what can they realistically do if you put double deckers out on the route full time. Their demands are so unreasonable. Fair enough if it was a quiet, cut off residential area. But not only do they live next to a busy main road, their back garden is right on a gyratory for heavens sake. They're kicking up a fuss which makes no sense at the detriment of bus users in other areas. |
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Sept 16, 2021 20:28:12 GMT
So you would ignore the residents by double decking the 143 the full route. But what if residents decide to constantly block the roads the 143 and continuously disrupt the running of the 143. What then? Blocking the highway is an illegal offence I think we've seen in the last few weeks that when it comes to protests, there's a lot of leeway given on this point (too much to my mind, but there we are). I think there's an issue of good faith too: if you've introduced a route on the promise of no DDs, going back on it with a 'yah boo sucks' attitude makes it a lot harder for people to trust you in future. People will quite rightly not accept similar assurances again. If you can get broad agreement to the change, then fair enough, but acting unilaterally will backfire. |
|
