|
|
Post by WH241 on Mar 5, 2023 9:55:20 GMT
At the very least other existing single deck cross boundary bus routes could be upgraded to DD in preparation for the introduction of the ULEZ and likely extra demand. Is there really going to be that much extra demand? As I have said in previous posts its mainly diesel cars that are affected and pretty much ever petrol car in the last 15 years complies with the the new rules. I feel is mainly businesses who will be affected with diesel lorries and vans.
|
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Mar 5, 2023 10:49:07 GMT
At the very least other existing single deck cross boundary bus routes could be upgraded to DD in preparation for the introduction of the ULEZ and likely extra demand. Is there really going to be that much extra demand? As I have said in previous posts its mainly diesel cars that are affected and pretty much ever petrol car in the last 15 years complies with the the new rules. I feel is mainly businesses who will be affected with diesel lorries and vans.
I agree. The original congestion change was different as bar exemptions such as disabilities and later electric cars, everyone was forever more going to have to pay each day or find an alternative way of travelling. |
|
|
|
Post by LondonExplorer316 on Mar 5, 2023 12:02:22 GMT
At the very least other existing single deck cross boundary bus routes could be upgraded to DD in preparation for the introduction of the ULEZ and likely extra demand. Some of these I feel the demand wouldn't be there like the 549 or it's physically impossible like the 117. Loads e.g. 316 can easily take deckers (in 316s case even LTs) but residents are the issue |
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Mar 5, 2023 12:47:02 GMT
I think the point is that there are a number of SD routes which have seen DD strays before (therefore no issues with height, residents etc), and need the extra capacity - yet continue to be retendered with SDs. For example, the 164, 371 or D6.
However, TFL should also be pushing to resolve any potential minor issues to allow other busy SD routes (which have not seen DD strays) to convert, such as the 143, 195, 201, 316 or 490. And similarly for routes which just need slightly longer SDs.
|
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Mar 5, 2023 13:12:42 GMT
I think the point is that there are a number of SD routes which have seen DD strays before (therefore no issues with height, residents etc), and need the extra capacity - yet continue to be retendered with SDs. For example, the 164, 371 or D6. However, TFL should also be pushing to resolve any potential minor issues to allow other busy SD routes (which have not seen DD strays) to convert, such as the 143, 195, 201, 316 or 490. And similarly for routes which just need slightly longer SDs. The 201 has a low bridge along Thurlow Park Road. If it weren’t for that it may've at least had some DD strays by now |
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Mar 5, 2023 13:33:47 GMT
I think the point is that there are a number of SD routes which have seen DD strays before (therefore no issues with height, residents etc), and need the extra capacity - yet continue to be retendered with SDs. For example, the 164, 371 or D6. However, TFL should also be pushing to resolve any potential minor issues to allow other busy SD routes (which have not seen DD strays) to convert, such as the 143, 195, 201, 316 or 490. And similarly for routes which just need slightly longer SDs. Why should they being pushing to convert routes? Perhaps it’s perception that because a bus is nearly full to capacity it should therefore be converted to double decker. TfL must have date on passenger numbers but do understand on some routes it’s questionable. Don’t forget an electric double decker would be much more expensive than a single decker to purchase therefore pushing up the tender cost. I know this doesn’t apply for existing hybrids buses were available but eventually routes will need new buses. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Mar 5, 2023 13:43:16 GMT
I think the point is that there are a number of SD routes which have seen DD strays before (therefore no issues with height, residents etc), and need the extra capacity - yet continue to be retendered with SDs. For example, the 164, 371 or D6. However, TFL should also be pushing to resolve any potential minor issues to allow other busy SD routes (which have not seen DD strays) to convert, such as the 143, 195, 201, 316 or 490. And similarly for routes which just need slightly longer SDs. Why should they being pushing to convert routes? Perhaps it’s perception that because a bus is nearly full to capacity it should therefore be converted to double decker. TfL must have date on passenger numbers but do understand on some routes it’s questionable. Don’t forget an electric double decker would be much more expensive than a single decker to purchase therefore pushing up the tender cost. I know this doesn’t apply for existing hybrids buses were available but eventually routes will need new buses. The way capacity works is you should be leaving some spare capacity and not operating a route with no spare capacity at all so if these routes are running with no spare capacity, then ideally, they should be converting to double decker operation. |
|
|
|
Post by borneobus on Mar 5, 2023 14:06:10 GMT
Some of these I feel the demand wouldn't be there like the 549 or it's physically impossible like the 117. Loads e.g. 316 can easily take deckers (in 316s case even LTs) but residents are the issue Just looked at the route and the only stretch that is currently SD only is a 0.3 mile stretch of Barlby Road in Notting Hill that's served by the 70 & 316...so this must be the 'problem' (correct?). Just had a quick look on Google streetview and there really aren't many dwellings...it's all rather strange but then I don't live there... |
|
|
|
Post by northlondon83 on Mar 5, 2023 15:49:16 GMT
Loads e.g. 316 can easily take deckers (in 316s case even LTs) but residents are the issue Just looked at the route and the only stretch that is currently SD only is a 0.3 mile stretch of Barlby Road in Notting Hill that's served by the 70 & 316...so this must be the 'problem' (correct?). Just had a quick look on Google streetview and there really aren't many dwellings...it's all rather strange but then I don't live there... The problem is with DDs on residential roads is that some residents get annoyed at people in the upper deck looking into their first floor windows. They have a fair point |
|
|
|
Post by LondonExplorer316 on Mar 5, 2023 15:52:22 GMT
Loads e.g. 316 can easily take deckers (in 316s case even LTs) but residents are the issue Just looked at the route and the only stretch that is currently SD only is a 0.3 mile stretch of Barlby Road in Notting Hill that's served by the 70 & 316...so this must be the 'problem' (correct?). Just had a quick look on Google streetview and there really aren't many dwellings...it's all rather strange but then I don't live there... It's Royal Crescent, shared with 295, so it's an amount problem (this was relaxed in the 90s iirc and 295 was a much better candidate for decking and still is). More so, that is the 2nd to last Road traversed (when DD workings do happen) in the Cricklewood direction. Video on my YouTube coming soon of a FRV style journey on a DD 316 |
|
|
|
Post by LD71YLO (BE37054) on Mar 5, 2023 16:01:15 GMT
I think the point is that there are a number of SD routes which have seen DD strays before (therefore no issues with height, residents etc), and need the extra capacity - yet continue to be retendered with SDs. For example, the 164, 371 or D6. However, TFL should also be pushing to resolve any potential minor issues to allow other busy SD routes (which have not seen DD strays) to convert, such as the 143, 195, 201, 316 or 490. And similarly for routes which just need slightly longer SDs. I can't speak for many of these but the 371 is fine as it is. It recently had a capacity boost with 60 capacity SDs introduced at the beginning of the new contract. A lot of the journeys taken on route 371 are short journeys, with a lot of elderly people using it to get up Richmond Hill, who would not use the upper deck. The schedules have been cleverly constructed so that the 2 allocated double decks accommodate both the school journeys and the commuters who board buses at about 6pm at Richmond Station. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Mar 5, 2023 16:03:25 GMT
Just looked at the route and the only stretch that is currently SD only is a 0.3 mile stretch of Barlby Road in Notting Hill that's served by the 70 & 316...so this must be the 'problem' (correct?). Just had a quick look on Google streetview and there really aren't many dwellings...it's all rather strange but then I don't live there... The problem is with DDs on residential roads is that some residents get annoyed at people in the upper deck looking into their first floor windows. They have a fair point No they don’t - things called blinds & curtains exist. It’s just another example of nimbys at play |
|
|
|
Post by northlondon83 on Mar 5, 2023 16:09:44 GMT
The problem is with DDs on residential roads is that some residents get annoyed at people in the upper deck looking into their first floor windows. They have a fair point No they don’t - things called blinds & curtains exist. It’s just another example of nimbys at play True but you'll always find a grumpy resident who will find something to complain about |
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Mar 5, 2023 16:11:37 GMT
The problem is with DDs on residential roads is that some residents get annoyed at people in the upper deck looking into their first floor windows. They have a fair point No they don’t - things called blinds & curtains exist. It’s just another example of nimbys at play People do have a right to privacy and shouldn’t have to live in the dark constantly to avoid people staring through their windows. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Mar 5, 2023 16:15:30 GMT
I think the point is that there are a number of SD routes which have seen DD strays before (therefore no issues with height, residents etc), and need the extra capacity - yet continue to be retendered with SDs. For example, the 164, 371 or D6. However, TFL should also be pushing to resolve any potential minor issues to allow other busy SD routes (which have not seen DD strays) to convert, such as the 143, 195, 201, 316 or 490. And similarly for routes which just need slightly longer SDs. I can't speak for many of these but the 371 is fine as it is. It recently had a capacity boost with 60 capacity SDs introduced at the beginning of the new contract. A lot of the journeys taken on route 371 are short journeys, with a lot of elderly people using it to get up Richmond Hill, who would not use the upper deck. The schedules have been cleverly constructed so that the 2 allocated double decks accommodate both the school journeys and the commuters who board buses at about 6pm at Richmond Station. As is the 164. It can be busy but the route isn’t overwhelmed. The thing I find with the 164 is it fills up at Wimbledon Station and just empties out to Morden, fills up again and empties out all the way to Sutton. There aren’t many passengers who board at the intermediary stops. The journeys towards Wimbledon are busier as people tend to head towards Morden for the tube but the Morden to Wimbledon section isn’t as busy. It would be nice to have double deckers but they just aren’t needed on a full time basis. |
|
