|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Jan 4, 2022 12:24:32 GMT
I am paying £650 a year only in the last 2 years I could finally justify fully comp as it was just too expensive. I have 18 years no claims but my post code sets off alarm bells in insurance companies 😉 I feel for anyone that lives in the Newham Borough that emissions tax is a blatant cash cow move. How the Newham folk didn't protest this I'll never know. Protest or not, there is nothing they can do. Also they would not protest against a Labour mayor. |
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Jan 4, 2022 12:31:50 GMT
Yes this is correct, we are also charged for all permits now where as before the first permit was free. We got a discount for the first year but this year will be full price which is at least £100 but can’t remember the exact price. I wouldn't be surprised if they try to roll it onto other boroughs as well in the future. I don't blame councils for punishing anyone that wanted these pathetic CPZ's. End of the day it is nothing but a backdoor tax and stupid nimby's who do not want anyone to park on their street but glad to park on anyone else street fully deserve what they get coming. End of the day, from the time they are introduced it just gives the council a blank canvas to charge what they feel year after year and move the goal posts. CPZ's should be banned imo, if you cannot get a space outside your house then either move, or be prepared to walk; even if it was a mile to go and get your car. Most of these schemes have been rolled out in the majority of Labour councils, even in places where there was no parking problems and has been nothing but a tactic to fleece extra revenue from residents. |
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Jan 4, 2022 12:43:39 GMT
Saturday 20th February 2010 was a dark day for the folk that relied on that Gants Hill to Ilford Lane link. A lot of folk I remembered that day so vividly were getting on the 179 at Ilford Station only for the driver to say I'm not going to Barking anymore so you'd have to get the 169 from outside Iceland (before they moved it to the Greggs bus stop to have a common stop with the 179 and EL1 and 2) The problem is that section between Ilford & Barking is prone to heavy congestion but of course, other people (not you) on here who defend cars and attack any measures to curb them are saying it’s TfL’s fault for removing the link. Clearly, they wanted to protect the reliability of the rest of the route with the move as sad as it is that the link was removed - if people want the link back, congestion needs to drop for it to work or the Chingford end loses the route I do not see the congestion on Ilford lane to be that bad. Yes there are one or two bottle necks, but many other roads suffer far worst than Ilford lane. Part of the problem there is side roads with CPZ's that then encourage people to stop and park on the main road instead. It was nothing to do with reliability why the route was cut back. It was more the case of creating the East London Transit project. |
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Jan 4, 2022 12:59:01 GMT
The problem is that section between Ilford & Barking is prone to heavy congestion but of course, other people (not you) on here who defend cars and attack any measures to curb them are saying it’s TfL’s fault for removing the link. Clearly, they wanted to protect the reliability of the rest of the route with the move as sad as it is that the link was removed - if people want the link back, congestion needs to drop for it to work or the Chingford end loses the route I do not see the congestion on Ilford lane to be that bad. Yes there are one or two bottle necks, but many other roads suffer far worst than Ilford lane. Part of the problem there is side roads with CPZ's that then encourage people to stop and park on the main road instead. It was nothing to do with reliability why the route was cut back. It was more the case of creating the East London Transit project. Bar religious holidays where people from Asian cultures in London come to shop & celebrate on Ilford Lane, the traffic is somewhat bearable. On religious holidays, you can be delayed up to 25 mins, barely traversing 100 feet. The 179 has Woodford Green at school times which snarls up, South Woodford town centre, Charlie Brown's roundabout and the A12 as traffic hotspots before it gets to Ilford. Unfortunately the 179 was pulled out of Barking for a reason, it was just too unreliable in length. However that doesn't mean the demand from Ilford Lane to Gants Hill doesn't exist, it just means the 179 isn't up to the task anymore. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jan 4, 2022 14:15:10 GMT
The problem is that section between Ilford & Barking is prone to heavy congestion but of course, other people (not you) on here who defend cars and attack any measures to curb them are saying it’s TfL’s fault for removing the link. Clearly, they wanted to protect the reliability of the rest of the route with the move as sad as it is that the link was removed - if people want the link back, congestion needs to drop for it to work or the Chingford end loses the route Please can we stop with the digs and narky remarks about car drivers. The forum is seriously so toxic lately it’s not healthy. Up until the pandemic I was very pro bus and used buses at weekends leaving my car at home, since then I just got used to using my car and trains as they are quicker means of getting places. I really can’t stand the thought of getting on a bus going one stop then being held to help even out the service. The same with heading to Oxford Street by buses I got fed up being kicked off a 25 then a rammed 8 turns up without space. It wasn’t a dig but up to people how they take it - the point is you can’t moan about a bus being removed from a section but then sit there and criticise every move being made to attempt to reduce car usage. I’m quite confused why all of a sudden everyone who is a car owner on here must also announce they use public transport as if they’ve been personally criticised for that choice such as the silly comment from the usual suspect about him having a car and then baiting people to say something to him with the “well if that doesn’t make me a proper bus enthusiast”. Not one person on here has criticised someone for owning a car - my view is car usage should decrease and I wholly stand by that whether people like it or not. |
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Jan 4, 2022 14:47:10 GMT
Please can we stop with the digs and narky remarks about car drivers. The forum is seriously so toxic lately it’s not healthy. Up until the pandemic I was very pro bus and used buses at weekends leaving my car at home, since then I just got used to using my car and trains as they are quicker means of getting places. I really can’t stand the thought of getting on a bus going one stop then being held to help even out the service. The same with heading to Oxford Street by buses I got fed up being kicked off a 25 then a rammed 8 turns up without space. It wasn’t a dig but up to people how they take it - the point is you can’t moan about a bus being removed from a section but then sit there and criticise every move being made to attempt to reduce car usage. I’m quite confused why all of a sudden everyone who is a car owner on here must also announce they use public transport as if they’ve been personally criticised for that choice such as the silly comment from the usual suspect about him having a car and then baiting people to say something to him with the “well if that doesn’t make me a proper bus enthusiast”. Not one person on here has criticised someone for owning a car - my view is car usage should decrease and I wholly stand by that whether people like it or not. I am in complete agreement with you and if transport provision does improve I will very happily start using my car less.
A bit irrelevant here, but I do feel as if to reduce congestion on arterial roads such as the A406 especially in the case of the Richmond to Stratford branch/GOBLIN of the LO would be to start creating interchanges between the Overground and nearest LU station. Hackney Central/Hackney Downs has this feature which is useful, I'd give an example that South Hampstead & Swiss Cottage (not on the North London Line) should be linked in some sort of way, perhaps with a footbridge? I am really verging on fantasy here, but there could be other cases, Wanstead Park & Forest Gate, Camden Road & Camden Town, Upper Holloway & Archway, Kentish Town West & Kentish Town, Kilburn Park & Kilburn High Road, Harringay & Harringay Green Lanes, South Tottenham & Seven Sisters etc. This would really be fantasy but I imagine it would be a lot more convenient than whats currently being offered.
|
|
|
|
Post by MKAY315 on Jan 4, 2022 15:01:21 GMT
Saturday 20th February 2010 was a dark day for the folk that relied on that Gants Hill to Ilford Lane link. A lot of folk I remembered that day so vividly were getting on the 179 at Ilford Station only for the driver to say I'm not going to Barking anymore so you'd have to get the 169 from outside Iceland (before they moved it to the Greggs bus stop to have a common stop with the 179 and EL1 and 2) The problem is that section between Ilford & Barking is prone to heavy congestion but of course, other people (not you) on here who defend cars and attack any measures to curb them are saying it’s TfL’s fault for removing the link. Clearly, they wanted to protect the reliability of the rest of the route with the move as sad as it is that the link was removed - if people want the link back, congestion needs to drop for it to work or the Chingford end loses the route In the grand scheme of things it did make sense for it to be done because how the 169 is routed along the line the only achievable way it could have terminated at Ilford is if it went to Roden Street but then that would bring another problem with the 296 and 396 standing there. I still miss that link but life goes on. |
|
|
|
Post by MKAY315 on Jan 4, 2022 15:04:10 GMT
The problem is that section between Ilford & Barking is prone to heavy congestion but of course, other people (not you) on here who defend cars and attack any measures to curb them are saying it’s TfL’s fault for removing the link. Clearly, they wanted to protect the reliability of the rest of the route with the move as sad as it is that the link was removed - if people want the link back, congestion needs to drop for it to work or the Chingford end loses the route I do not see the congestion on Ilford lane to be that bad. Yes there are one or two bottle necks, but many other roads suffer far worst than Ilford lane. Part of the problem there is side roads with CPZ's that then encourage people to stop and park on the main road instead. It was nothing to do with reliability why the route was cut back. It was more the case of creating the East London Transit project. In my opinion prior to when they did the pavements in anticipation to the East London Transit you could at least overtake some cars in a safe way. Now it's a lot more harder given how tight it is. |
|
|
|
Post by VMH2537 on Jan 4, 2022 15:30:10 GMT
It wasn’t a dig but up to people how they take it - the point is you can’t moan about a bus being removed from a section but then sit there and criticise every move being made to attempt to reduce car usage. I’m quite confused why all of a sudden everyone who is a car owner on here must also announce they use public transport as if they’ve been personally criticised for that choice such as the silly comment from the usual suspect about him having a car and then baiting people to say something to him with the “well if that doesn’t make me a proper bus enthusiast”. Not one person on here has criticised someone for owning a car - my view is car usage should decrease and I wholly stand by that whether people like it or not. I am in complete agreement with you and if transport provision does improve I will very happily start using my car less.
A bit irrelevant here, but I do feel as if to reduce congestion on arterial roads such as the A406 especially in the case of the Richmond to Stratford branch/GOBLIN of the LO would be to start creating interchanges between the Overground and nearest LU station. Hackney Central/Hackney Downs has this feature which is useful, I'd give an example that South Hampstead & Swiss Cottage (not on the North London Line) should be linked in some sort of way, perhaps with a footbridge? I am really verging on fantasy here, but there could be other cases, Wanstead Park & Forest Gate, Camden Road & Camden Town, Upper Holloway & Archway, Kentish Town West & Kentish Town, Kilburn Park & Kilburn High Road, Harringay & Harringay Green Lanes, South Tottenham & Seven Sisters etc. This would really be fantasy but I imagine it would be a lot more convenient than whats currently being offered.
There is a current system in operation called the OSI ( Out of Station Interchange ) allowing you not to pay for 2 separate journeys if you touch in and out and walk to a separate station within a certain distance. Examples of this includes West Hampstead interchange, Archway/Upper Holloway, Harringay Green Lanes/Manor House, Vauxhall, Victoria etc ( Thers a whole list on the TFL website ). Sadly this is not well advertised. |
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Jan 4, 2022 15:31:15 GMT
I am in complete agreement with you and if transport provision does improve I will very happily start using my car less.
A bit irrelevant here, but I do feel as if to reduce congestion on arterial roads such as the A406 especially in the case of the Richmond to Stratford branch/GOBLIN of the LO would be to start creating interchanges between the Overground and nearest LU station. Hackney Central/Hackney Downs has this feature which is useful, I'd give an example that South Hampstead & Swiss Cottage (not on the North London Line) should be linked in some sort of way, perhaps with a footbridge? I am really verging on fantasy here, but there could be other cases, Wanstead Park & Forest Gate, Camden Road & Camden Town, Upper Holloway & Archway, Kentish Town West & Kentish Town, Kilburn Park & Kilburn High Road, Harringay & Harringay Green Lanes, South Tottenham & Seven Sisters etc. This would really be fantasy but I imagine it would be a lot more convenient than whats currently being offered.
There is a current system in operation called the OSI ( Out of Station Interchange ) allowing you not to pay for 2 separate journeys if you touch in and out and walk to a separate station within a certain distance. Examples of this includes West Hampstead interchange, Archway/Upper Holloway, Harringay Green Lanes/Manor House, Vauxhall, Victoria etc ( Thers a whole list on the TFL website ). ... and Battersea Power Station/Battersea Park has now been added to that list  |
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Jan 4, 2022 15:59:35 GMT
I am in complete agreement with you and if transport provision does improve I will very happily start using my car less.
A bit irrelevant here, but I do feel as if to reduce congestion on arterial roads such as the A406 especially in the case of the Richmond to Stratford branch/GOBLIN of the LO would be to start creating interchanges between the Overground and nearest LU station. Hackney Central/Hackney Downs has this feature which is useful, I'd give an example that South Hampstead & Swiss Cottage (not on the North London Line) should be linked in some sort of way, perhaps with a footbridge? I am really verging on fantasy here, but there could be other cases, Wanstead Park & Forest Gate, Camden Road & Camden Town, Upper Holloway & Archway, Kentish Town West & Kentish Town, Kilburn Park & Kilburn High Road, Harringay & Harringay Green Lanes, South Tottenham & Seven Sisters etc. This would really be fantasy but I imagine it would be a lot more convenient than whats currently being offered.
There is a current system in operation called the OSI ( Out of Station Interchange ) allowing you not to pay for 2 separate journeys if you touch in and out and walk to a separate station within a certain distance. Examples of this includes West Hampstead interchange, Archway/Upper Holloway, Harringay Green Lanes/Manor House, Vauxhall, Victoria etc ( Thers a whole list on the TFL website ). Sadly this is not well advertised. I know but having to get off a train, leave a station, walk a 10-15 minute walk, rejoin a station, wait for a train isn't really efficient especially if you are lugging shopping around with you. I understand TFL have no control of this because they didn't design the railway and I know they are trying to make the best out of a bad situation but I do think interchangable footbridges are probably more useful. |
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Jan 4, 2022 16:39:47 GMT
There is a current system in operation called the OSI ( Out of Station Interchange ) allowing you not to pay for 2 separate journeys if you touch in and out and walk to a separate station within a certain distance. Examples of this includes West Hampstead interchange, Archway/Upper Holloway, Harringay Green Lanes/Manor House, Vauxhall, Victoria etc ( Thers a whole list on the TFL website ). Sadly this is not well advertised. I know but having to get off a train, leave a station, walk a 10-15 minute walk, rejoin a station, wait for a train isn't really efficient especially if you are lugging shopping around with you. I understand TFL have no control of this because they didn't design the railway and I know they are trying to make the best out of a bad situation but I do think interchangable footbridges are probably more useful. In most of the cases the link would have to be built partly or wholly on non-railway-owned land which would render the cost prohibitive, and would be a waste of resources when there is a perfectly acceptable walking route at street level. Hackney Downs/Hackney Central is an exception as it could be fitted onto railway land and connected the ends of two platforms at ground level, so was relatively inexpensive. Even in a case like Shadwell, where there is a DLR and Overground Station in very close proximity, a proposal to build a single interchange station came to nothing because the cost would have been prohibitive and the business case could not be made. The compromise was to open a new exit at Shadwell Overground which shortened the walking route to and from the DLR - there are street works in the pipeline which will further improve this walking route. Sadly, London's railway history, and the way the early development of the network was largely left to private enterprise and competing companies, has left us with a legacy of separated stations and missed opportunities for interchanges. The line between Gospel Oak and Barking is a case study of that legacy. The Victoria Line by contrast, with its many examples of cross-platform interchanges with other lines, shows what is possible when integration is central to the planning process. |
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Jan 4, 2022 17:58:58 GMT
I am in complete agreement with you and if transport provision does improve I will very happily start using my car less.
A bit irrelevant here, but I do feel as if to reduce congestion on arterial roads such as the A406 especially in the case of the Richmond to Stratford branch/GOBLIN of the LO would be to start creating interchanges between the Overground and nearest LU station. Hackney Central/Hackney Downs has this feature which is useful, I'd give an example that South Hampstead & Swiss Cottage (not on the North London Line) should be linked in some sort of way, perhaps with a footbridge? I am really verging on fantasy here, but there could be other cases, Wanstead Park & Forest Gate, Camden Road & Camden Town, Upper Holloway & Archway, Kentish Town West & Kentish Town, Kilburn Park & Kilburn High Road, Harringay & Harringay Green Lanes, South Tottenham & Seven Sisters etc. This would really be fantasy but I imagine it would be a lot more convenient than whats currently being offered.
There is a current system in operation called the OSI ( Out of Station Interchange ) allowing you not to pay for 2 separate journeys if you touch in and out and walk to a separate station within a certain distance. Examples of this includes West Hampstead interchange, Archway/Upper Holloway, Harringay Green Lanes/Manor House, Vauxhall, Victoria etc ( Thers a whole list on the TFL website ). Sadly this is not well advertised. Indeed, it looks rather messy and deliberately aloof so as to catch people out methinks. The previous way of showing all interchanges but listing the distance between stations was much better imo. Without having to speak to station staff (as if they exist in a customer facing role these past years 🙄), you'd have a fair idea where to head to. For example, Station X isn't probably down the dead end if it's advertised a 300m walk. Ironically by trying to simplify the OSI display on Tube maps, they've made it rather confusing by removing that information & not stipulating it's an out of station interchange. TfL clearly wants people to think of a Bank/Monument type interchange, at least visually anyway... |
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Jan 4, 2022 18:37:25 GMT
I know but having to get off a train, leave a station, walk a 10-15 minute walk, rejoin a station, wait for a train isn't really efficient especially if you are lugging shopping around with you. I understand TFL have no control of this because they didn't design the railway and I know they are trying to make the best out of a bad situation but I do think interchangable footbridges are probably more useful. In most of the cases the link would have to be built partly or wholly on non-railway-owned land which would render the cost prohibitive, and would be a waste of resources when there is a perfectly acceptable walking route at street level. Hackney Downs/Hackney Central is an exception as it could be fitted onto railway land and connected the ends of two platforms at ground level, so was relatively inexpensive. Even in a case like Shadwell, where there is a DLR and Overground Station in very close proximity, a proposal to build a single interchange station came to nothing because the cost would have been prohibitive and the business case could not be made. The compromise was to open a new exit at Shadwell Overground which shortened the walking route to and from the DLR - there are street works in the pipeline which will further improve this walking route. Sadly, London's railway history, and the way the early development of the network was largely left to private enterprise and competing companies, has left us with a legacy of separated stations and missed opportunities for interchanges. The line between Gospel Oak and Barking is a case study of that legacy. The Victoria Line by contrast, with its many examples of cross-platform interchanges with other lines, shows what is possible when integration is central to the planning process. In some ways I agree with you on interchange the private railways had disallowed certain cases of interchanges as fear of lost customers and poaching. However I have to say there was more radical expansion on the railways in London in terms of private ownership. It has become virtually stagnant under public ownership. The only true full all line creation on the Underground on public ownership is Victoria line. On the central it is just an tunnel extension between Liverpool Street and Leyton and Leytonstone to Newbury Park. The rest of it being extensions alongside or taking over British Railway tracks. Piccadilly has not had not much done either apart from the Heathrow extension and running over existing Metropolitan to Uxbridge Jubilee practically taking over Metropolitan line tracks then from St. Johns Wood new tunnels all the way to Stratford. The northern a joke of a section to Nine Elms, tiny extension it High Barnet and also Mill Hill East District - virtually no change, in fact it has been reduced by other lines running on its tracks Hammersmith & City, just a creation of using other existing tracks Circle - same as above, creation of using existing tracks. Bakerloo - no change, in fact a reduction as in the District Metropolitan - same as above, no change, reduction on other lines created onto its tracks. The DLR well that could be considered as progress, but it is not really a tube train I think it is a shame that there has hardly been much progress of building new tunnels and tracks in nearly 100 years. Also one of the downfalls is that many of these private firms building these lines believe it is a licence to print money and charge way over the top and take forever. Crossrail, Jubliee line extension is testimony to this. |
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Jan 4, 2022 18:49:27 GMT
I do not see the congestion on Ilford lane to be that bad. Yes there are one or two bottle necks, but many other roads suffer far worst than Ilford lane. Part of the problem there is side roads with CPZ's that then encourage people to stop and park on the main road instead. It was nothing to do with reliability why the route was cut back. It was more the case of creating the East London Transit project. Bar religious holidays where people from Asian cultures in London come to shop & celebrate on Ilford Lane, the traffic is somewhat bearable. On religious holidays, you can be delayed up to 25 mins, barely traversing 100 feet. The 179 has Woodford Green at school times which snarls up, South Woodford town centre, Charlie Brown's roundabout and the A12 as traffic hotspots before it gets to Ilford. Unfortunately the 179 was pulled out of Barking for a reason, it was just too unreliable in length. However that doesn't mean the demand from Ilford Lane to Gants Hill doesn't exist, it just means the 179 isn't up to the task anymore. I do not buy that with the 179 at all. It is not that long a route, other routes like the 102, 123 go through worst trouble-spots and do not get chopped. I would say it was more down to First controlling the route at the time and letting buses run in pairs and not turning them when it was obvious they would never make back the time. Countless times I remember buses running in 2 or 3 to Chingford then going back to Barking together. Even after the route was cut back to Ilford it did not even solve much. They pavement narrowing to discourage parking did not work and made things worse. Newham tried the same thing with Green Street and in the end it held buses up far longer, especially in evenings as people parked on double yellows and did not care. |
|
