|
|
Post by TB123 on Jan 3, 2022 13:34:49 GMT
TfL is a public body that needs to operate as efficiently as possible. The South Newham area was addressed as having poorly utilised resources. This is taxpayers money we are talking about. It's absolutely right that changes are therefore proposed. Running circa 20bph along a corridor between Beckton and Gallons Reach that only requires 4bph is incredibly generous and even running 12 bph like proposed is very generous. But there's always something to moan about. And let's not forget the changes that are happening are going to save the taxpayer circa £1million pa. Sorry but this forum really annoys me on occasions anything east London is always okay but anything anywhere else people are allowed to have a say or complain. Members should appreciate the type of people that live in Newham and how they uses buses as they often have no alternative. Too many experts looking at pretty charts. You are going by buses per hour that’s fine but you clearly don’t live local and haven’t observed the single decker 366 loading on a regular bases. If you have such strong views on this matter, I'm assuming you responded to the consultation or petitioned your local Assembly member/MP? Those "pretty charts" with the actual usage provide the only true representation of the services - not anecdotal observations. I love how this forum loves to obsess about cuts and yet when rational cuts are proposed it's a horror because it doesn't quite fit their crayon based ideas. Not to mention that usage to Gallons Reach has been in long term decline over the last 10 years or so because of changing shopping habits. Redevelopment of the site is proposed in the medium term in a more transit friendly manner |
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Jan 3, 2022 13:40:30 GMT
I don't think that it will attract many people, but ridership will increase slightly above average, and implementing it on further routes will move TfL towards current times Bus ridership should increase in theory on all routes regardless, and due to changing patterns it will be very hard to determine what an average is. The 63 for example will not increase nearly as quick as some routes because it's a route which goes through the City which is an area full of office workers. I think the real question to ask is who this whole scheme on the 63 is aimed at. If it's getting people out of cars then good luck to them, my 10+ year old car that's ULEZ compliant is still miles ahead in terms of comfort and internal amenities than these brand new buses. I'd not ditch my car if we're just talking about comfort. However if I was in my car and I see a bus pelting it down on a bus lane, and reaches where I need to go far in advance of when I get there now we're talking. No matter what the state of the bus there, even if it's just the standard offering I'd take it. My time is valuable and I'm willing to sacrifice my amenities for that. If the bus is fast and has some nice amenities then it's a bonus, but if the bus is faster I'd just take it anyway. If you're aiming at pedestrians that don't currently use public transport then the amenities might persuade them a bit more than a car driver would, but then once again unless there's adequate bus priority then the pedestrians aren't going to care. Would anyone really want to get a bus just because it has a colourful screen at the front of it and then just get caught in a load of traffic? If someone is waiting to go from Elephant to Peckham, do you think someone would miss every single bus that comes their way and wait for a 63 specifically just because it's got a seat which is a bit taller than the ones on the 136 or 363? There's this false belief that increasing the spec of a bus will increase ridership, but Londoners are different. The city has many many alternative transport methods, it's very easy to get around on the car, and I don't take the bus long distance when the tube exists. Not to mention the tube is pretty much the same cost as the bus outside of Zone 1 in the peak now anyway. Time is what matters to people, people will trade comfort for time pretty much all the time. From an enthusiasts point of view it's easy to say a nice bus will attract people back because enthusiasts enjoy being on buses and don't see it as a waste of time, but the general public do and this is what needs to be seen. The aim for people is to spend as little time on a bus as possible. I'm possibly being cynical but I think the future bus project is to more than anything improve the satisfaction of existing bus users. And there's nothing wrong with that. The fancy interiors on a bus are a pretty low cost project when compared to other initiatives. Attracting pedestrians onto buses is, in my mind - a bad approach. Walking or cycling, where appropriate, is fundamentally better than using public transport. It's better for your individual wellbeing, wider wellbeing and of course financially. We should actually be encouraging people to walk or cycle in London instead of using public transport - appreciate that might be controversial. And of course recognise it isn't possible for every user or journey |
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Jan 3, 2022 14:04:13 GMT
Bus ridership should increase in theory on all routes regardless, and due to changing patterns it will be very hard to determine what an average is. The 63 for example will not increase nearly as quick as some routes because it's a route which goes through the City which is an area full of office workers. I think the real question to ask is who this whole scheme on the 63 is aimed at. If it's getting people out of cars then good luck to them, my 10+ year old car that's ULEZ compliant is still miles ahead in terms of comfort and internal amenities than these brand new buses. I'd not ditch my car if we're just talking about comfort. However if I was in my car and I see a bus pelting it down on a bus lane, and reaches where I need to go far in advance of when I get there now we're talking. No matter what the state of the bus there, even if it's just the standard offering I'd take it. My time is valuable and I'm willing to sacrifice my amenities for that. If the bus is fast and has some nice amenities then it's a bonus, but if the bus is faster I'd just take it anyway. If you're aiming at pedestrians that don't currently use public transport then the amenities might persuade them a bit more than a car driver would, but then once again unless there's adequate bus priority then the pedestrians aren't going to care. Would anyone really want to get a bus just because it has a colourful screen at the front of it and then just get caught in a load of traffic? If someone is waiting to go from Elephant to Peckham, do you think someone would miss every single bus that comes their way and wait for a 63 specifically just because it's got a seat which is a bit taller than the ones on the 136 or 363? There's this false belief that increasing the spec of a bus will increase ridership, but Londoners are different. The city has many many alternative transport methods, it's very easy to get around on the car, and I don't take the bus long distance when the tube exists. Not to mention the tube is pretty much the same cost as the bus outside of Zone 1 in the peak now anyway. Time is what matters to people, people will trade comfort for time pretty much all the time. From an enthusiasts point of view it's easy to say a nice bus will attract people back because enthusiasts enjoy being on buses and don't see it as a waste of time, but the general public do and this is what needs to be seen. The aim for people is to spend as little time on a bus as possible. I'm possibly being cynical but I think the future bus project is to more than anything improve the satisfaction of existing bus users. And there's nothing wrong with that. The fancy interiors on a bus are a pretty low cost project when compared to other initiatives. Attracting pedestrians onto buses is, in my mind - a bad approach. Walking or cycling, where appropriate, is fundamentally better than using public transport. It's better for your individual wellbeing, wider wellbeing and of course financially. We should actually be encouraging people to walk or cycle in London instead of using public transport - appreciate that might be controversial. And of course recognise it isn't possible for every user or journey I certainly agree we should be doing more to encourage "active travel" by having safer and more attractive streets - although I accept that such measures can slow bus journeys and make them less attractive. What really needs to happen is a modal shift from car use to both active travel and public transport. It worked in Zurich where serious curbs on car use won popular support - because the alternatives were so attractive (trams that have priority and don't stop at traffic lights, who wouldn't love those?). I don't see any harm in enhancing the specification of new (and possibly refurbished) buses, as you say the improvements aren't costly and as well as improving the satisfaction of existing users they improve the image of bus travel generally. These improvements are already common practice outside London and operators would not do it if they didn't feel there was some sort of commercial gain to be had. Although improved specification won't cause a huge amount of modal shift in itself, they could generate extra journeys from people who are already favourably disposed to bus travel (we do exist!). It's also worth noting that some of the improvements also have a safety aspect, such as higher seat backs. TfL has an ambitious target to eliminate deaths on board buses, or caused by buses, by 2030. |
|
|
|
Post by ronnie on Jan 3, 2022 14:11:09 GMT
Sorry but this forum really annoys me on occasions anything east London is always okay but anything anywhere else people are allowed to have a say or complain. Members should appreciate the type of people that live in Newham and how they uses buses as they often have no alternative. Too many experts looking at pretty charts. You are going by buses per hour that’s fine but you clearly don’t live local and haven’t observed the single decker 366 loading on a regular bases. If you have such strong views on this matter, I'm assuming you responded to the consultation or petitioned your local Assembly member/MP? Those "pretty charts" with the actual usage provide the only true representation of the services - not anecdotal observations. I love how this forum loves to obsess about cuts and yet when rational cuts are proposed it's a horror because it doesn't quite fit their crayon based ideas. Not to mention that usage to Gallons Reach has been in long term decline over the last 10 years or so because of changing shopping habits. Redevelopment of the site is proposed in the medium term in a more transit friendly manner I think east London needs a break frankly and gets the wrong end of the stick in most cases. The 19 gets saved for example whereas a bunch of east London routes (25!) have been getting decimated over the years despite ridership being high and the overall area having a demographic which relies heavily on buses. A place like Putney for example has 4 routes going into central London (14, 22, 74, 414) while from the east you barely get anything (25 goes to the middle of nowhere, 8 lands far from its objective, 115 just about gets to zone 1!) so I would quite vehemently oppose non-sensical suggestions on further cuts in east London while ostensibly not cutting much in other areas |
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Jan 3, 2022 14:12:02 GMT
Bus ridership should increase in theory on all routes regardless, and due to changing patterns it will be very hard to determine what an average is. The 63 for example will not increase nearly as quick as some routes because it's a route which goes through the City which is an area full of office workers. I think the real question to ask is who this whole scheme on the 63 is aimed at. If it's getting people out of cars then good luck to them, my 10+ year old car that's ULEZ compliant is still miles ahead in terms of comfort and internal amenities than these brand new buses. I'd not ditch my car if we're just talking about comfort. However if I was in my car and I see a bus pelting it down on a bus lane, and reaches where I need to go far in advance of when I get there now we're talking. No matter what the state of the bus there, even if it's just the standard offering I'd take it. My time is valuable and I'm willing to sacrifice my amenities for that. If the bus is fast and has some nice amenities then it's a bonus, but if the bus is faster I'd just take it anyway. If you're aiming at pedestrians that don't currently use public transport then the amenities might persuade them a bit more than a car driver would, but then once again unless there's adequate bus priority then the pedestrians aren't going to care. Would anyone really want to get a bus just because it has a colourful screen at the front of it and then just get caught in a load of traffic? If someone is waiting to go from Elephant to Peckham, do you think someone would miss every single bus that comes their way and wait for a 63 specifically just because it's got a seat which is a bit taller than the ones on the 136 or 363? There's this false belief that increasing the spec of a bus will increase ridership, but Londoners are different. The city has many many alternative transport methods, it's very easy to get around on the car, and I don't take the bus long distance when the tube exists. Not to mention the tube is pretty much the same cost as the bus outside of Zone 1 in the peak now anyway. Time is what matters to people, people will trade comfort for time pretty much all the time. From an enthusiasts point of view it's easy to say a nice bus will attract people back because enthusiasts enjoy being on buses and don't see it as a waste of time, but the general public do and this is what needs to be seen. The aim for people is to spend as little time on a bus as possible. I'm possibly being cynical but I think the future bus project is to more than anything improve the satisfaction of existing bus users. And there's nothing wrong with that. The fancy interiors on a bus are a pretty low cost project when compared to other initiatives. Attracting pedestrians onto buses is, in my mind - a bad approach. Walking or cycling, where appropriate, is fundamentally better than using public transport. It's better for your individual wellbeing, wider wellbeing and of course financially. We should actually be encouraging people to walk or cycle in London instead of using public transport - appreciate that might be controversial. And of course recognise it isn't possible for every user or journey Your last statement isn't hugely controversial, in regards to planning however a lot of it does seem to be against the bus user & as buses run on a fixed route they can't maybe do a U Turn and cut down some side streets if there is congestion caused by a lane that was once either a bus lane or a regular lane converted into a cycle path.
If you want to see a good example of how buses and bikes can work hand in hand, take a ride on the 263 between East Finchley & North Finchley. There's a bus & cycle lane up the High Road, of which has helped the 143/263 out as it now cuts through all the traffic which they were once stuck in. Then along the High Road up to about the Lido there are 2 segregated cycle paths which are narrow but were once used as parking spots, so it as a result has not affected reliability on the 263 negatively. Then across the North Circular across the bridge, there are 2 segregated bus & cycle shared lanes, therefore cutting off all the traffic the 263 was once caught in and generally it's all fine up to North Finchley. What I do think should be done to again work in the bus passengers favour is converting the section of cycle lane between Squires Lane & Granville Road in both directions into a bus & cycle lane if possible, perhaps by slightly narrowing the pavements which should be fine given that nobody really walks down them.
|
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Jan 3, 2022 14:14:25 GMT
If you have such strong views on this matter, I'm assuming you responded to the consultation or petitioned your local Assembly member/MP? Those "pretty charts" with the actual usage provide the only true representation of the services - not anecdotal observations. I love how this forum loves to obsess about cuts and yet when rational cuts are proposed it's a horror because it doesn't quite fit their crayon based ideas. Not to mention that usage to Gallons Reach has been in long term decline over the last 10 years or so because of changing shopping habits. Redevelopment of the site is proposed in the medium term in a more transit friendly manner I think east London needs a break frankly and gets the wrong end of the stick in most cases. The 19 gets saved for example whereas a bunch of east London routes (25!) have been getting decimated over the years despite ridership being high and the overall area having a demographic which relies heavily on buses. A place like Putney for example has 4 routes going into central London (14, 22, 74, 414) while from the east you barely get anything (25 goes to the middle of nowhere, 8 lands far from its objective, 115 just about gets to zone 1!) so I would quite vehemently oppose non-sensical suggestions on further cuts in east London while ostensibly not cutting much in other areas I think it's very much set up that way. The rich will likely complain to local MPs and kick up a fuss whereas people in East London will likely keep quiet. I have no doubt that is why routes like the 19/N271 were saved whereas the 25 was not, and it really is a sick way of thinking. It was also the same with the 53 in South London. |
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Jan 3, 2022 14:18:27 GMT
I'm possibly being cynical but I think the future bus project is to more than anything improve the satisfaction of existing bus users. And there's nothing wrong with that. The fancy interiors on a bus are a pretty low cost project when compared to other initiatives. Attracting pedestrians onto buses is, in my mind - a bad approach. Walking or cycling, where appropriate, is fundamentally better than using public transport. It's better for your individual wellbeing, wider wellbeing and of course financially. We should actually be encouraging people to walk or cycle in London instead of using public transport - appreciate that might be controversial. And of course recognise it isn't possible for every user or journey I certainly agree we should be doing more to encourage "active travel" by having safer and more attractive streets - although I accept that such measures can slow bus journeys and make them less attractive. What really needs to happen is a modal shift from car use to both active travel and public transport. It worked in Zurich where serious curbs on car use won popular support - because the alternatives were so attractive (trams that have priority and don't stop at traffic lights, who wouldn't love those?). I don't see any harm in enhancing the specification of new (and possibly refurbished) buses, as you say the improvements aren't costly and as well as improving the satisfaction of existing users they improve the image of bus travel generally. These improvements are already common practice outside London and operators would not do it if they didn't feel there was some sort of commercial gain to be had. Although improved specification won't cause a huge amount of modal shift in itself, they could generate extra journeys from people who are already favourably disposed to bus travel (we do exist!). It's also worth noting that some of the improvements also have a safety aspect, such as higher seat backs. TfL has an ambitious target to eliminate deaths on board buses, or caused by buses, by 2030. In regards to active travel, I do think it wouldn't work as well in London as it did in Zurich. The population densities are completely different (926 people per square kilometre in Zurich versus 5701 people per square kilometre in London) meaning that there will be more cars and as a result more people need to get to places. In regards as to why people use a car, it's very simply because of convenience and I do think lifestyles perhaps clash between London and Zurich. |
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Jan 3, 2022 14:26:34 GMT
I certainly agree we should be doing more to encourage "active travel" by having safer and more attractive streets - although I accept that such measures can slow bus journeys and make them less attractive. What really needs to happen is a modal shift from car use to both active travel and public transport. It worked in Zurich where serious curbs on car use won popular support - because the alternatives were so attractive (trams that have priority and don't stop at traffic lights, who wouldn't love those?). I don't see any harm in enhancing the specification of new (and possibly refurbished) buses, as you say the improvements aren't costly and as well as improving the satisfaction of existing users they improve the image of bus travel generally. These improvements are already common practice outside London and operators would not do it if they didn't feel there was some sort of commercial gain to be had. Although improved specification won't cause a huge amount of modal shift in itself, they could generate extra journeys from people who are already favourably disposed to bus travel (we do exist!). It's also worth noting that some of the improvements also have a safety aspect, such as higher seat backs. TfL has an ambitious target to eliminate deaths on board buses, or caused by buses, by 2030. In regards to active travel, I do think it wouldn't work as well in London as it did in Zurich. The population densities are completely different (926 people per square kilometre in Zurich versus 5701 people per square kilometre in London) meaning that there will be more cars and as a result more people need to get to places. In regards as to why people use a car, it's very simply because of convenience and I do think lifestyles perhaps clash between London and Zurich. The higher population densities actually justify further reducing the use of cars. High population densities are good for supporting public transport and walking/cycling. |
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Jan 3, 2022 14:28:09 GMT
I think east London needs a break frankly and gets the wrong end of the stick in most cases. The 19 gets saved for example whereas a bunch of east London routes (25!) have been getting decimated over the years despite ridership being high and the overall area having a demographic which relies heavily on buses. A place like Putney for example has 4 routes going into central London (14, 22, 74, 414) while from the east you barely get anything (25 goes to the middle of nowhere, 8 lands far from its objective, 115 just about gets to zone 1!) so I would quite vehemently oppose non-sensical suggestions on further cuts in east London while ostensibly not cutting much in other areas I think it's very much set up that way. The rich will likely complain to local MPs and kick up a fuss whereas people in East London will likely keep quiet. I have no doubt that is why routes like the 19/N271 were saved whereas the 25 was not, and it really is a sick way of thinking. It was also the same with the 53 in South London. People in those areas could have made the same waves as the King's Road lot did. They didn't for some reason. That's up to them I'm afraid. Bare in mind the council and parliamentary constituency of King's Road area is solidly Tory, so little political benefit for Sadiq compared to if it was a marginal or solid Labour area. I don't buy these conspiracies. |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Jan 3, 2022 14:29:33 GMT
If you have such strong views on this matter, I'm assuming you responded to the consultation or petitioned your local Assembly member/MP? Those "pretty charts" with the actual usage provide the only true representation of the services - not anecdotal observations. I love how this forum loves to obsess about cuts and yet when rational cuts are proposed it's a horror because it doesn't quite fit their crayon based ideas. Not to mention that usage to Gallons Reach has been in long term decline over the last 10 years or so because of changing shopping habits. Redevelopment of the site is proposed in the medium term in a more transit friendly manner I think east London needs a break frankly and gets the wrong end of the stick in most cases. The 19 gets saved for example whereas a bunch of east London routes (25!) have been getting decimated over the years despite ridership being high and the overall area having a demographic which relies heavily on buses. A place like Putney for example has 4 routes going into central London (14, 22, 74, 414) while from the east you barely get anything (25 goes to the middle of nowhere, 8 lands far from its objective, 115 just about gets to zone 1!) so I would quite vehemently oppose non-sensical suggestions on further cuts in east London while ostensibly not cutting much in other areas What makes this funny is transport usage is probably at its highest in East London, the pax/mile list of routes that can be generated pretty much is always dominated by routes in East London, without fail you know the 238, 104, 330 etc will always be there. It's also telling despite the 25 has been almost halved in what it was once, it's still making the top 10 busiest routes in London while other routes that have fallen off completely haven't been touched at all. Changes such as just extending the 115 that bit further into Central, sending the 25 to at least High Holborn, restoring the 8 to Oxford Circus would be a lot more appreciated by the locals than their cost. I'm at a bit of a loss as to why the 14 and the 414 are both needed, while apparently over in East London nobody needs to go further East than City Thameslink. The 8 makes it to TCR, but it then doesn't go further East than Bow. Then don't start me on the 15 which culls short at Blackwall but can't make it further west than Trafalgar Square for some reason. Yet we have half the routes that come up the Whitehall going towards Oxford Circus. Why does the 25 need to be cut when the 24 is carrying fresh air, and why is the 38 still chilling about with 36 buses when it's not even in the top 30 most used routes in London anymore. People in East London have also even been given the short stick of transport within the East, it's been mentioned there's going to be 5 routes from East Ham to Canning Town, and new route 304 is adding some bling to distract people in the middle at Custom House, but this completely ignores the fact Canning Town still has no route literally going around the corner to Canary Wharf nor out of every route that heads down Barking Road from Canning Town, only one extremely overcrowded route actually makes it to Barking on the other end. The only route from Canning Town to Ilford is the indirect 147, while the only route from Stratford to Barking is another overcrowded mess. Getting from Hackney Central to the Newham area is just supported but he 276, while getting to Redbridge involves walking away to the 425 and getting to Barking and Dagenham is pretty much impossible by just using one bus. Then why is Stratford impossible to reach by bus from Dagenham without needing to get to the 86 at Chadwell Heath? These are all links people actually want and need, you can tell just because of how bad the 5, 86 and 25 all are. |
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Jan 3, 2022 14:31:13 GMT
If you have such strong views on this matter, I'm assuming you responded to the consultation or petitioned your local Assembly member/MP? Those "pretty charts" with the actual usage provide the only true representation of the services - not anecdotal observations. I love how this forum loves to obsess about cuts and yet when rational cuts are proposed it's a horror because it doesn't quite fit their crayon based ideas. Not to mention that usage to Gallons Reach has been in long term decline over the last 10 years or so because of changing shopping habits. Redevelopment of the site is proposed in the medium term in a more transit friendly manner I think east London needs a break frankly and gets the wrong end of the stick in most cases. The 19 gets saved for example whereas a bunch of east London routes (25!) have been getting decimated over the years despite ridership being high and the overall area having a demographic which relies heavily on buses. A place like Putney for example has 4 routes going into central London (14, 22, 74, 414) while from the east you barely get anything (25 goes to the middle of nowhere, 8 lands far from its objective, 115 just about gets to zone 1!) so I would quite vehemently oppose non-sensical suggestions on further cuts in east London while ostensibly not cutting much in other areas East London has had arguably the biggest amount of transport investment in the last 10/15,even 20 years. Jubilee line extension, multiple DLR extensions, Crossrail. Therefore the role of the bus has completely changed. I don't buy the pity argument that is somehow conspired against with changes to the network. And alongside all of that there has still been quite a bit in the way of enhancements in the last 10 or so years. Putney or South London in general, has had nothing of the sort re investment. I daren't say there's room for the economies on the Putney corridor but up until more recently the network there has been justified. Probably less so post-covid. |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Jan 3, 2022 14:35:11 GMT
I think east London needs a break frankly and gets the wrong end of the stick in most cases. The 19 gets saved for example whereas a bunch of east London routes (25!) have been getting decimated over the years despite ridership being high and the overall area having a demographic which relies heavily on buses. A place like Putney for example has 4 routes going into central London (14, 22, 74, 414) while from the east you barely get anything (25 goes to the middle of nowhere, 8 lands far from its objective, 115 just about gets to zone 1!) so I would quite vehemently oppose non-sensical suggestions on further cuts in east London while ostensibly not cutting much in other areas East London has had arguably the biggest amount of transport investment in the last 10/15,even 20 years. Jubilee line extension, multiple DLR extensions, Crossrail. Therefore the role of the bus has completely changed. I don't buy the pity argument that is somehow conspired against with changes to the network. And alongside all of that there has still been quite a bit in the way of enhancements in the last 10 or so years. Putney or South London in general, has had nothing of the sort re investment. I daren't say there's room for the economies on the Putney corridor but up until more recently the network there has been justified. Probably less so post-covid. Crossrail isn't even open and the 25 got cut, the multiple DLR extensions just ended up following existing tube lines in latter years. The Jubilee Line extension has just three stations in East London. Hardly any justification for cuts. |
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Jan 3, 2022 14:36:13 GMT
I think east London needs a break frankly and gets the wrong end of the stick in most cases. The 19 gets saved for example whereas a bunch of east London routes (25!) have been getting decimated over the years despite ridership being high and the overall area having a demographic which relies heavily on buses. A place like Putney for example has 4 routes going into central London (14, 22, 74, 414) while from the east you barely get anything (25 goes to the middle of nowhere, 8 lands far from its objective, 115 just about gets to zone 1!) so I would quite vehemently oppose non-sensical suggestions on further cuts in east London while ostensibly not cutting much in other areas What makes this funny is transport usage is probably at its highest in East London, the pax/mile list of routes that can be generated pretty much is always dominated by routes in East London, without fail you know the 238, 104, 330 etc will always be there. It's also telling despite the 25 has been almost halved in what it was once, it's still making the top 10 busiest routes in London while other routes that have fallen off completely haven't been touched at all. Changes such as just extending the 115 that bit further into Central, sending the 25 to at least High Holborn, restoring the 8 to Oxford Circus would be a lot more appreciated by the locals than their cost. I'm at a bit of a loss as to why the 14 and the 414 are both needed, while apparently over in East London nobody needs to go further East than City Thameslink. The 8 makes it to TCR, but it then doesn't go further East than Bow. Then don't start me on the 15 which culls short at Blackwall but can't make it further west than Trafalgar Square for some reason. Yet we have half the routes that come up the Whitehall going towards Oxford Circus. Why does the 25 need to be cut when the 24 is carrying fresh air, and why is the 38 still chilling about with 36 buses when it's not even in the top 30 most used routes in London anymore. People in East London have also even been given the short stick of transport within the East, it's been mentioned there's going to be 5 routes from East Ham to Canning Town, and new route 304 is adding some bling to distract people in the middle at Custom House, but this completely ignores the fact Canning Town still has no route literally going around the corner to Canary Wharf nor out of every route that heads down Barking Road from Canning Town, only one extremely overcrowded route actually makes it to Barking on the other end. The only route from Canning Town to Ilford is the indirect 147, while the only route from Stratford to Barking is another overcrowded mess. Getting from Hackney Central to the Newham area is just supported but he 276, while getting to Redbridge involves walking away to the 425 and getting to Barking and Dagenham is pretty much impossible by just using one bus. Then why is Stratford impossible to reach by bus from Dagenham without needing to get to the 86 at Chadwell Heath? These are all links people actually want and need, you can tell just because of how bad the 5, 86 and 25 all are. Would the 425 be better off rerouted via Hackney Central then? I do think that is a good idea, it does skirt around Hackney which I'd have thought would be a major objective.
As for the issues with links in East London, would the 238 have been better to have extended to Becontree Heath instead of the EL2, or would have the destination "Stratford" on the front make that overcrowded? I'm no local but I'd have imagined that would be more popular than Barking Riverside? It probably would support the 5, which as you say gets seriously overcrowded. I know you once mentioned no Gants Hill to Barking link, so perhaps if the EL1/EL2 worked in tandem between Barking & Ilford with the 169 at appropriate frequencies, would the EL2 perhaps be a good one to extend further to Gants Hill? |
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Jan 3, 2022 14:40:35 GMT
In regards to active travel, I do think it wouldn't work as well in London as it did in Zurich. The population densities are completely different (926 people per square kilometre in Zurich versus 5701 people per square kilometre in London) meaning that there will be more cars and as a result more people need to get to places. In regards as to why people use a car, it's very simply because of convenience and I do think lifestyles perhaps clash between London and Zurich. The higher population densities actually justify further reducing the use of cars. High population densities are good for supporting public transport and walking/cycling. That is a fair enough point but I doubt it also helps that the UK is very much London centred.
I do think London hasn't kept up with the times in terms of Public Transport, it hasn't helped that we as a city have grown 1.1 million with not much in the way of transport improvements.
|
|
|
|
Post by VMH2537 on Jan 3, 2022 14:41:21 GMT
I'm possibly being cynical but I think the future bus project is to more than anything improve the satisfaction of existing bus users. And there's nothing wrong with that. The fancy interiors on a bus are a pretty low cost project when compared to other initiatives. Attracting pedestrians onto buses is, in my mind - a bad approach. Walking or cycling, where appropriate, is fundamentally better than using public transport. It's better for your individual wellbeing, wider wellbeing and of course financially. We should actually be encouraging people to walk or cycle in London instead of using public transport - appreciate that might be controversial. And of course recognise it isn't possible for every user or journey Your last statement isn't hugely controversial, in regards to planning however a lot of it does seem to be against the bus user & as buses run on a fixed route they can't maybe do a U Turn and cut down some side streets if there is congestion caused by a lane that was once either a bus lane or a regular lane converted into a cycle path.
If you want to see a good example of how buses and bikes can work hand in hand, take a ride on the 263 between East Finchley & North Finchley. There's a bus & cycle lane up the High Road, of which has helped the 143/263 out as it now cuts through all the traffic which they were once stuck in. Then along the High Road up to about the Lido there are 2 segregated cycle paths which are narrow but were once used as parking spots, so it as a result has not affected reliability on the 263 negatively. Then across the North Circular across the bridge, there are 2 segregated bus & cycle shared lanes, therefore cutting off all the traffic the 263 was once caught in and generally it's all fine up to North Finchley. What I do think should be done to again work in the bus passengers favour is converting the section of cycle lane between Squires Lane & Granville Road in both directions into a bus & cycle lane if possible, perhaps by slightly narrowing the pavements which should be fine given that nobody really walks down them.
Those are the type of cycle lanes TFL should be looking at to balance the benifits of both cyclists and busses. Sadly there is no standardisation for cycle lanes leaving the local borough to decide the standard design. Other boroughs such as Waltham Forest and Enfield resulted in a large chunk of bus lanes removed in cycle lane replacement. |
|
