|
|
Post by SILENCED on Jul 10, 2022 13:43:46 GMT
Yes - this should absolutely be a thing. A good number of non-London towns where this applies do actually have a TfL bus service, but going clockwise from the Dartford Crossings, notable places without a TfL bus which should in my opinion receive one are Sevenoaks, Reigate, Walton, Gerrard’s Cross, Rickmansworth and Waltham Abbey. I can’t see how a Bromley - Farnborough - Green Street Green - Polhill - Dunton Green - Sevenoaks route wouldn’t be a success. Wasn't it tried and failed? |
|
|
|
Post by Paul on Jul 10, 2022 16:36:42 GMT
I can’t see how a Bromley - Farnborough - Green Street Green - Polhill - Dunton Green - Sevenoaks route wouldn’t be a success. As a TFL or commercial route? If commercial then it would loose out to people with london bus passes/travel cards to the 358 between Bromley and Green St Gn. TfL route as laid down by the OP - linking towns just over the border with the TfL network I can’t see how a Bromley - Farnborough - Green Street Green - Polhill - Dunton Green - Sevenoaks route wouldn’t be a success. Wasn't it tried and failed? Obviously there was the 402 that ran hourly but that didn’t make enough money running into London. If subsidised by TfL and/or supported by KCC then I can’t see why it wouldn’t work these days. I’m often personally amused at the number of Polhill adverts on the back of our buses when you can’t actually reach Polhill by bus (I don’t think the Go Coach service resumed post-covid) And obviously Sevenoaks was once linked to Orpington by an R route (R6?) which seems to me to be an obvious link |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 10, 2022 16:44:14 GMT
As a TFL or commercial route? If commercial then it would loose out to people with london bus passes/travel cards to the 358 between Bromley and Green St Gn. TfL route as laid down by the OP - linking towns just over the border with the TfL network Wasn't it tried and failed? Obviously there was the 402 that ran hourly but that didn’t make enough money running into London. If subsidised by TfL and/or supported by KCC then I can’t see why it wouldn’t work these days. I’m often personally amused at the number of Polhill adverts on the back of our buses when you can’t actually reach Polhill by bus (I don’t think the Go Coach service resumed post-covid) And obviously Sevenoaks was once linked to Orpington by an R route (R6?) which seems to me to be an obvious link That link did indeed sadly not resume - I remember doing the 431 and whilst it’s only a one off observation, the journey from Orpington to Sevenoaks was busy |
|
|
|
Post by uakari on Jul 10, 2022 17:50:04 GMT
Problem is though if those outside the London council borders aren’t contributing to the GLA, regardless of whether they travel into it to work, their home is simply not paying the GLA through council tax. Then combine that with the fact that their councils aren’t willing to contribute to the routes costs it begs the question of why TfL should be obligated to? Those asking for this should look at the example Surrey sets with its contributions towards its cross border TfL routes. It values them and continues to fund them because of the level of service would be unmatched on their own dime. A route like the 465 which currently runs every half hour during the day and from 5am to 12.30am might get cut to very 2 hours during the day and only run from 7am to 7pm under a full Surrey system. Perhaps if Kent or Essex were willing to pay more, they would get more. The money has to come from somewhere and it already known bus routes in London don’t return revenue on what they cost. There is a double edged sword to that though - there are a number of people within Greater London who use services into Kent & Essex to cross the border for work as well as leisure yet they really aren't getting their moneys worth. Don't forget TfL have made it harder and harder for provincial operators to run their long standing services into the Greater London area with things like the LEZ & ULEZ so it's quite thankful the likes of the 420 & the Chiltern 100's, among others, still run into Greater London at all but for how much longer who knows. Also with the 84 withdrawal there is a knock-on effect at hospitals: People in Barnet are increasingly being sent to Potters Bar Hospital over Moorfields for eye treatment but they can't get there. A significant number of workers at Barnet Hospital live in Potters Bar but they are finding it exhausting taking two hours to get home now and having to seriously consider quitting. This is the problem with treating London as an island when the reality is that journeys between towns just inside and just outside the border are just as vital as between any towns inside. |
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Jul 10, 2022 18:42:58 GMT
There is a double edged sword to that though - there are a number of people within Greater London who use services into Kent & Essex to cross the border for work as well as leisure yet they really aren't getting their moneys worth. Don't forget TfL have made it harder and harder for provincial operators to run their long standing services into the Greater London area with things like the LEZ & ULEZ so it's quite thankful the likes of the 420 & the Chiltern 100's, among others, still run into Greater London at all but for how much longer who knows. Also with the 84 withdrawal there is a knock-on effect at hospitals: People in Barnet are increasingly being sent to Potters Bar Hospital over Moorfields for eye treatment but they can't get there. A significant number of workers at Barnet Hospital live in Potters Bar but they are finding it exhausting taking two hours to get home now and having to seriously consider quitting. This is the problem with treating London as an island when the reality is that journeys between towns just inside and just outside the border are just as vital as between any towns inside. Completely concur, it's ridiculous and not to mention if a route was introduced up to PB like you suggested if it started further down the A1000 and if it ran at a decent frequency, it could help create a transition from car to public transport use. |
|
|
|
Post by lazy_eye_metaphor on Jul 12, 2022 15:30:45 GMT
Four words:
Bring back Green Line.
|
|
|
|
Post by ibus246 on Jul 12, 2022 16:04:02 GMT
Four words: Bring back Green Line. Four words: Stuck in the past |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 12, 2022 17:20:27 GMT
Four words: Bring back Green Line. It exists with Reading Buses 702 & 703 routes |
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Jul 12, 2022 17:31:55 GMT
Four words: Bring back Green Line. If you mean the traditional radial limited stop services from Central London into the Home Counties, these will not work in today's conditions. The only remnant of that network still operating is Reading Buses 702 between London and Windsor, and even that has a lengthy non-stop section. Arguably the closest we have in London is the express route X68, also the 607 to a degree although that doesn't enter Central London and is used much more for local journeys than the Green Lines were in London. |
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Jul 12, 2022 17:35:20 GMT
For starters re-introduce garage journeys where appropriate/beneficial and officially reintroduce request stops. I don't agree with reintroducing request stops. If a person is waiting at a bus stop the bus should stop. The person waiting may have visual impairment and not be able to see that the approaching bus is theirs. If no-one waiting at the stop, then fine. |
|
|
|
Post by LD71YLO (BE37054) on Jul 12, 2022 18:53:59 GMT
For starters re-introduce garage journeys where appropriate/beneficial and officially reintroduce request stops. I don't agree with reintroducing request stops. If a person is waiting at a bus stop the bus should stop. The person waiting may have visual impairment and not be able to see that the approaching bus is theirs. If no-one waiting at the stop, then fine. But then buses would stop even if the person is waiting for another bus, unnecessarily delaying other passengers. |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Jul 12, 2022 19:22:23 GMT
I don't agree with reintroducing request stops. If a person is waiting at a bus stop the bus should stop. The person waiting may have visual impairment and not be able to see that the approaching bus is theirs. If no-one waiting at the stop, then fine. But then buses would stop even if the person is waiting for another bus, unnecessarily delaying other passengers. That's what happens pretty much everywhere else in the country and I think it's better a bus stops unnecessarily than an intending passenger is left behind. Not only people with visual impairments but a lot of people are busy looking at phone screens nowadays and don't notice the bus until it's at the stop. |
|
|
|
Post by uakari on Jul 12, 2022 23:08:45 GMT
But then buses would stop even if the person is waiting for another bus, unnecessarily delaying other passengers. That's what happens pretty much everywhere else in the country and I think it's better a bus stops unnecessarily than an intending passenger is left behind. Not only people with visual impairments but a lot of people are busy looking at phone screens nowadays and don't notice the bus until it's at the stop. Let's face it, if you are at a stop where there is more than one route serving it and no one wants to get off and you don't at least make some kind of movement to indicate you intend to board, the reality is that most drivers don't stop anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 12, 2022 23:24:55 GMT
I don't agree with reintroducing request stops. If a person is waiting at a bus stop the bus should stop. The person waiting may have visual impairment and not be able to see that the approaching bus is theirs. If no-one waiting at the stop, then fine. But then buses would stop even if the person is waiting for another bus, unnecessarily delaying other passengers. I tend to agree with you on this though the point others made about people with visual impairments is admittedly a very fair one against re-introducing request stops. However, no excuse for people glued to their phone screens |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Jul 12, 2022 23:47:29 GMT
That's what happens pretty much everywhere else in the country and I think it's better a bus stops unnecessarily than an intending passenger is left behind. Not only people with visual impairments but a lot of people are busy looking at phone screens nowadays and don't notice the bus until it's at the stop. Let's face it, if you are at a stop where there is more than one route serving it and no one wants to get off and you don't at least make some kind of movement to indicate you intend to board, the reality is that most drivers don't stop anyway. Yes if I was the only one at the stop and I saw the bus approaching I'd give the driver some sort of indication as to whether I wanted the bus or not but no indication from passenger and the onus should be on the driver to stop and the onus should be on the passenger to press the bell to get off. I think that's best for both parties? |
|
