|
Post by Trafalgax on Nov 26, 2021 10:57:18 GMT
Extending 349 to Clapton Pond is a better idea in my opinion although Upper Clapton Road can be congested at times. A potential problem with extending the 349 further south is coping with peak hour loadings from the tube at Seven Sisters if the bus is already well loaded. That’s alright because that’s where 279 gets it’s loading from anyways and if that’s not enough, then a little frequency increase on 349 should do the trick.
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Nov 26, 2021 10:59:05 GMT
There have been a very small number of DD workings over the 143's current route. I travelled on one of them many years ago. As far as I can tell it is another of those routes that is restricted to SD only because of residents' objections. Resident objection is so jarring, like there are two ways about it either should pay for mitigations, or the residents should just suck it up, they chose to live on that road at then end of day. so if someone proposed building a centre for drug users next door to where you live as a resident you have no right to object? We have one poster defending rights, now we have one restricting them!
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Nov 26, 2021 11:00:26 GMT
TfL has had £4b in bailouts. That is roughly £500 per head of population. If you are a family of 4 ... would you have liked £2k to be spent better? TFL should've culled some routes during the pandemic IMO. That might've at least softened the blow compared to what we are facing now. It was a condition of the bail-outs that service levels were maintained roughly in line with pre-pandemic levels, especially once restrictions started to be eased but capacity on buses was still at a reduced level to allow for social distancing. This wasn't unique to London but applied to all bus operators who were given operating grants by the Government during the pandemic. Rail operators were also expected to keep services at an artificially high frequency for social distancing reasons. There was some wriggle-room, for instance TfL was able to introduce revised timetables on many routes to allow for the lower traffic levels, and the weekend night services were, and still are, suspended.
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Nov 26, 2021 11:06:41 GMT
TFL should've culled some routes during the pandemic IMO. That might've at least softened the blow compared to what we are facing now. It was a condition of the bail-outs that service levels were maintained roughly in line with pre-pandemic levels, especially once restrictions started to be eased but capacity on buses was still at a reduced level to allow for social distancing. This wasn't unique to London but applied to all bus operators who were given operating grants by the Government during the pandemic. Rail operators were also expected to keep services at an artificially high frequency for social distancing reasons. There was some wriggle-room, for instance TfL was able to introduce revised timetables on many routes to allow for the lower traffic levels, and the weekend night services were, and still are, suspended. You're right but in other parts of the country park and ride services and such like were suspended and it's a bit ridiculous that the 521 continued to run every few minutes at peak times for example.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 26, 2021 11:13:27 GMT
Resident objection is so jarring, like there are two ways about it either should pay for mitigations, or the residents should just suck it up, they chose to live on that road at then end of day. so if someone proposed building a centre for drug users next door to where you live as a resident you have no right to object? We have one poster defending rights, now we have one restricting them! Your not seriously comparing double decking a route and building a centre for drug users in terms of resident complaints - it’s like chalk & cheese, so far at different ends of the spectrum it’s unreal
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Nov 26, 2021 11:13:51 GMT
It was a condition of the bail-outs that service levels were maintained roughly in line with pre-pandemic levels, especially once restrictions started to be eased but capacity on buses was still at a reduced level to allow for social distancing. This wasn't unique to London but applied to all bus operators who were given operating grants by the Government during the pandemic. Rail operators were also expected to keep services at an artificially high frequency for social distancing reasons. There was some wriggle-room, for instance TfL was able to introduce revised timetables on many routes to allow for the lower traffic levels, and the weekend night services were, and still are, suspended. You're right but in other parts of the country park and ride services and such like were suspended and it's a bit ridiculous that the 521 continued to run every few minutes at peak times for example. The past is the past you can’t turn back time. TfL will hopefully be more sensible over Christmas when it usually runs special schedules on the X68 on the 3 working days before new year. They can make small savings by not running the service also look at if the 521 is needed during this time as lots of workers will take annual leave.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 26, 2021 11:17:40 GMT
Resident objection is so jarring, like there are two ways about it either should pay for mitigations, or the residents should just suck it up, they chose to live on that road at then end of day. So you think that residents should have no say about the roads they live on? They may have chosen to live there - but some will have been there before the 143 was routed that way, and others will have bought/rented their houses and flats on the understanding that double-deck buses would not be used along that road. They should within reason but I think there in lies the issue - there are some cases where residents will bend the truth in order to get something to not occur. Personally, I can’t understand why anyone who is or has brought a property would do so on the basis a double decker bus won’t run alongside in a scheduled service - the notion of privacy and burglars travelling on buses to scope out targets has been disproven and is merely a myth years ago
|
|
|
Post by TP1 on Nov 26, 2021 11:23:06 GMT
Resident objection is so jarring, like there are two ways about it either should pay for mitigations, or the residents should just suck it up, they chose to live on that road at then end of day. so if someone proposed building a centre for drug users next door to where you live as a resident you have no right to object? We have one poster defending rights, now we have one restricting them! Because drug users seeking rehabilitation cause crime? Because your area is too good for them? Sorry, I know its off topic but what an incredibly generalising thing to say
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Nov 26, 2021 11:30:29 GMT
so if someone proposed building a centre for drug users next door to where you live as a resident you have no right to object? We have one poster defending rights, now we have one restricting them! Because drug users seeking rehabilitation cause crime? Because your area is too good for them? Sorry, I know its off topic but what an incredibly generalising thing to say Thinking more indiscriminate discarding of needles being the overriding concern I would have.
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Nov 26, 2021 11:32:46 GMT
so if someone proposed building a centre for drug users next door to where you live as a resident you have no right to object? We have one poster defending rights, now we have one restricting them! Your not seriously comparing double decking a route and building a centre for drug users in terms of resident complaints - it’s like chalk & cheese, so far at different ends of the spectrum it’s unreal OK, you say chalk and cheese, at what point do you draw the line?
|
|
|
Post by TP1 on Nov 26, 2021 11:33:48 GMT
Because drug users seeking rehabilitation cause crime? Because your area is too good for them? Sorry, I know its off topic but what an incredibly generalising thing to say Thinking more indiscriminate discarding of needles being the overriding concern I would have. I don't mean to come across as rude. Just as someone who's volunteered closely with drug centres, the stigma hits close to home. Rest assured needles wouldn't be a concern
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Nov 26, 2021 11:34:07 GMT
Because drug users seeking rehabilitation cause crime? Because your area is too good for them? Sorry, I know its off topic but what an incredibly generalising thing to say Thinking more indiscriminate discarding of needles being the overriding concern I would have. Sorry, if they built a methadone clinic in your neighbourhood they don’t just give them the drug and needles and then show them the door. The drugs are administered by qualified clinicians and the needles are disposed of safely.
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Nov 26, 2021 11:44:28 GMT
Thinking more indiscriminate discarding of needles being the overriding concern I would have. I don't mean to come across as rude. Just as someone who's volunteered closely with drug centres, the stigma hits close to home. Rest assured needles wouldn't be a concern Anyone volunteering for good causes should be commended. Despite what you say, I would not want one built next to my home, would you?
|
|
|
Post by TP1 on Nov 26, 2021 12:01:22 GMT
I don't mean to come across as rude. Just as someone who's volunteered closely with drug centres, the stigma hits close to home. Rest assured needles wouldn't be a concern Anyone volunteering for good causes should be commended. Despite what you say, I would not want one built next to my home, would you? I'd personally have no problem, but again that's personally!
|
|
|
Post by CircleLineofLife on Nov 26, 2021 12:01:38 GMT
Resident objection is so jarring, like there are two ways about it either should pay for mitigations, or the residents should just suck it up, they chose to live on that road at then end of day. And if you were a resident maybe you would be singing from the same hymn sheet? The situation is what it is and it's not likely to change. Not really, if you live on road with buses you should accept those consequences. Ihave lived on a high road before so I already know how it feels, and you have to take the consequences that come with living on a rd with buses. The pros and the cons
|
|