|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Mar 6, 2023 11:16:51 GMT
That’s absolutely bizarre. You’d have to get 2 buses from Bromley to reach Woolwich or Abbey Wood. Who in their right mind is doing that to get to Central London?! When there are atleast 4 tph to Victoria that take 17 mins from Bromley South. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2023 11:21:31 GMT
That’s absolutely bizarre. You’d have to get 2 buses from Bromley to reach Woolwich or Abbey Wood. Who in their right mind is doing that to get to Central London?! When there are atleast 4 tph to Victoria that take 17 mins from Bromley South. Or the Thameslink services into the heart of the city! |
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Mar 6, 2023 11:34:39 GMT
I think it's disingenuous at best to regard the consultations announced today as 'ULEZ improvements'.
Some changes actually reduce existing services, others are connections to new stations or developments that would have been required at any time.
It's a shame that I feel I cannot trust what TfL says nowadays.
|
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Mar 6, 2023 11:39:50 GMT
I think it's disingenuous at best to regard the consultations announced today as 'ULEZ improvements'. Some changes actually reduce existing services, others are connections to new stations or developments that would have been required at any time. It's a shame that I feel I cannot trust what TfL says nowadays. The only one with any real new link improvements is the 315. The Brent Cross one bar the 316 creating a new link down Kilburn High Road to White City are simply switching the local road approach to Brent Cross to take in the new development and B X West stn. The 79/83 is about 0.5m extra mileage to Stonebridge Park with the 83 maintaining the local link to Sainsburys. |
|
|
|
Post by VMH2537 on Mar 6, 2023 12:18:27 GMT
I think it's disingenuous at best to regard the consultations announced today as 'ULEZ improvements'. Some changes actually reduce existing services, others are connections to new stations or developments that would have been required at any time. It's a shame that I feel I cannot trust what TfL says nowadays. So far, I'm already disappointed in the proposals with one having a reduction in half for its current service and the other doing the minimum to support the development rather than exploring opportunities to improve services. I'd argue this project has already failed from what we see so far. This is meant to be improvements in Outer London from the ULEZ expansion. The refusal to extend the 456 to Crews Hill station being it's at the edge of the planned boundary expansion and most vulnerable to being hit. It doesn't help when there's a lack of accountability from TfL or the Mayor. Can't wait for the comment over "lack of funding from the DfT" to the failed ULEZ improvements by the Mayor himself. If this is the best they can do, I suggest handing a resignation slip. |
|
|
|
Post by VMH2537 on Mar 7, 2023 7:55:17 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Mar 7, 2023 10:38:03 GMT
The joke of this all is aswell is probably the biggest set of improvements in the most anti ULEZ Borough would be the Sutton changes. Why they haven't just got these done so ready for the August ULEZ date God only know.
The 455 could have rolled onto so many contracts by now (152, 163, 164, 359, 470 and future 439 and S2) to have been axed now with the OMs off the S1 on the 439 and S2 let's say, with the ex 455 buses on the S1 till the SEs come spare from the 164.
With these Sutton would have gained 2 extra Sunday services (S2/S4) and another bph on both routes, Purley would have gained and extra 2bph down to Old Lodge Lane on the 312, Kenley an extra service (439) and the 407 would have been split to be more reliable.
|
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Mar 7, 2023 21:08:55 GMT
“They said Mr Khan had also added "one million kilometres to the bus network in outer London" which would maximise the benefits of ULEZ” A disingenuous quote. One which should be challenged. Aren’t these all Elizabeth Line enhancements ? Where are his proposals to enhance routes like 331 , 81 , 117 , 293 , 107 …. I’m only picking these at random But they’re all busy x border routes entering and leaving the expanded ULEZ ? 621,000 miles (1 million km) added but more than 10 million miles axed, what an imbecile Khan is should be ashamed to even be pratting on crap like that |
|
|
|
Post by Busboy105 on Mar 8, 2023 7:21:37 GMT
The joke of this all is aswell is probably the biggest set of improvements in the most anti ULEZ Borough would be the Sutton changes. Why they haven't just got these done so ready for the August ULEZ date God only know. The 455 could have rolled onto so many contracts by now (152, 163, 164, 359, 470 and future 439 and S2) to have been axed now with the OMs off the S1 on the 439 and S2 let's say, with the ex 455 buses on the S1 till the SEs come spare from the 164. With these Sutton would have gained 2 extra Sunday services (S2/S4) and another bph on both routes, Purley would have gained and extra 2bph down to Old Lodge Lane on the 312, Kenley an extra service (439) and the 407 would have been split to be more reliable. Wouldn't TFL have to give GAL compensation for the 455 if they terminated it early? |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Mar 8, 2023 8:22:03 GMT
The joke of this all is aswell is probably the biggest set of improvements in the most anti ULEZ Borough would be the Sutton changes. Why they haven't just got these done so ready for the August ULEZ date God only know. The 455 could have rolled onto so many contracts by now (152, 163, 164, 359, 470 and future 439 and S2) to have been axed now with the OMs off the S1 on the 439 and S2 let's say, with the ex 455 buses on the S1 till the SEs come spare from the 164. With these Sutton would have gained 2 extra Sunday services (S2/S4) and another bph on both routes, Purley would have gained and extra 2bph down to Old Lodge Lane on the 312, Kenley an extra service (439) and the 407 would have been split to be more reliable. Wouldn't TFL have to give GAL compensation for the 455 if they terminated it early? Not if they passed onto another route like the 439 or S2. |
|
|
|
Post by cardinal on Mar 8, 2023 8:46:53 GMT
All very well if you have drivers to drive the buses.
Even Golden Tours in Alperton can’t get enough drivers.
|
|
|
|
Post by rugbyref on Mar 8, 2023 16:40:29 GMT
I am not saying that he is incapable of the truth, but If Khan wished me good morning, I would check my watch! |
|
|
|
Post by northlondon83 on Mar 8, 2023 17:16:39 GMT
I am not saying that he is incapable of the truth, but If Khan wished me good morning, I would check my watch! This is complete rubbish. There are no bus routes in Thamesmead that go anywhere near Bromley, whilst I doubt there would be much demand to head to central London via 2 buses and the DLR when from Bromley you can get the 208/261 to Lewisham and change there. There's not even a link from Eltham to Abbey Wood/Thamesmead. Subject to consultation, a limited stop bus service is planned to operate through the Silvertown Tunnel between Westferry and Grove Park, providing good bus links into Bromley.Even then about the Silvertown tunnel, the bus still stops short of Bromley! You'll still need to take a bus from Bromley to access the X239. I do think that Bromley should merit some links further north like to Greenwich, North Greenwich or Woolwich, this would provide easier links to the Docklands area, if that is what the article is trying to suggest |
|
|
|
Post by stuckonthe486 on Mar 8, 2023 18:49:54 GMT
I am not saying that he is incapable of the truth, but If Khan wished me good morning, I would check my watch! This is complete rubbish. There are no bus routes in Thamesmead that go anywhere near Bromley, whilst I doubt there would be much demand to head to central London via 2 buses and the DLR when from Bromley you can get the 208/261 to Lewisham and change there. There's not even a link from Eltham to Abbey Wood/Thamesmead. Subject to consultation, a limited stop bus service is planned to operate through the Silvertown Tunnel between Westferry and Grove Park, providing good bus links into Bromley.Even then about the Silvertown tunnel, the bus still stops short of Bromley! You'll still need to take a bus from Bromley to access the X239. I do think that Bromley should merit some links further north like to Greenwich, North Greenwich or Woolwich, this would provide easier links to the Docklands area, if that is what the article is trying to suggest If I was being extremely generous to Khan, you could say his answer is a very literal interpretation of the question from the London Assembly member for Bexley & Bromley about that constituency, so some of the answers will relate to Bexley alone. Remember that City Hall thinks in broad-brush borough terms. However, chalking up Crossrail as a win for Bromley is a bit bloody daft, and adding in a Silvertown Tunnel bus to Grove Park - what's that, 10 minutes' walk from the Bromley border? - is taking the mickey somewhat. The assembly member who asked the question probably doesn't know much about buses - not many do - so he'll get away with it. |
|
|
|
Post by stuckonthe486 on Mar 8, 2023 19:13:33 GMT
I think it's disingenuous at best to regard the consultations announced today as 'ULEZ improvements'. Some changes actually reduce existing services, others are connections to new stations or developments that would have been required at any time. It's a shame that I feel I cannot trust what TfL says nowadays. This is the sad thing - this kind of nonsense destroys trust in public services, and it's as unacceptable from this mayor as it is from anyone else in power, whatever party they are in. If you look at this bunch of changes - most are going to be developer-led and the initial funding would have come from them. Obviously Brent Cross West is a big deal and there's a pot of money there to kick off bus improvements. Springfield will be the same. They would have happened whether ULEZ was expanded or not. The Upminster changes look like the tidying up of some services combined with a sneaky little cut right on the new ULEZ boundary that makes sense on the accountant's spreadsheet but could be politically disastrous if any of the mayor's opponents had any brains. Compare with 20 years back and the introduction of the congestion charge - a raft of new routes, brand new buses, advertising campaigns and a strategy which, while imperfect and some lost out, generally worked and sugared what was at the time a bitter pill for many to swallow. Bus travel boomed. Now we have a similarly big change, yet there's no strategy, just a desperate attempt to dress up what would have happened anyway as a linked series of improvements. No substantial new routes, same wheezing old buses, and a publicity operation that's been shredded to pieces. Granted, Livingstone had a pot of cash then, while Khan has had his pot emptied and thrown at him. But it's hard to feel sympathy for someone who has sunk to the level of his predecessor, continually coming out with disingenuous crap and conflating critics with extremists. Neither Khan nor most of his opponents have bus passengers at heart here, just their reputations. These are really bleak times. |
|
