|
Post by justjxck1994 on Jun 12, 2024 12:18:33 GMT
|
|
|
Post by lonmark on Jun 12, 2024 12:24:02 GMT
That's it?? What a point for that consultation!! 🙄
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Jun 12, 2024 12:34:58 GMT
That's it?? What a point for that consultation!! 🙄 To gather opinions and then decide whether to go ahead with it or not, like what they've done here.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 12, 2024 13:28:46 GMT
The link to the consultation report isn't working?
|
|
|
Post by lonmark on Jun 12, 2024 13:59:21 GMT
|
|
edvid
Conductor
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Posts: 80
|
Post by edvid on Jun 12, 2024 14:09:44 GMT
The document links on TfL's consultation pages are actually holding pages, where dynamic URLs (with a limited duration of validity - 5 minutes, in this case) for the documents themselves are subsequently generated. That's why the previous amazonaws link doesn't work now.
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Jun 12, 2024 15:39:04 GMT
I was expecting all these proposals to go through. It’s a shame that they aren’t.
|
|
|
Post by kmkcheng on Jun 12, 2024 15:52:35 GMT
I was expecting all these proposals to go through. It’s a shame that they aren’t. I’m surprised too considering the responses to the proposals were a bit more positive than negative.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 12, 2024 16:18:59 GMT
I was expecting all these proposals to go through. It’s a shame that they aren’t. I’m surprised too considering the responses to the proposals were a bit more positive than negative. Only 69 of 319 people supported the proposals according to the report with 42 people alone concerned about the E7 no longer stopping at Ruislip Station. That suggests to me that feedback was more negative to the changes than positive and I really can't say I'm surprised even though I'm not local. Two routes removed from Brunel probably upset students and merging the U1 & U3 routes always seemed short sighted IMO - even the extension of the E7 (a decent change from the outside looking in) attracted more concerns than positives because of no longer stopping at Ruislip Station. There was a lot of opposition from the different stakeholders spoken to as well, most were pretty much aligned on the E7 changes in Ruislip and many apposed the merged U1/U3 & removal of the U2 from Brunel. On a humorous note, a further 106 people requested Routemasters be used on the routes - did Boris respond 106 times to this consultation ![:D](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/grin.png)
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jun 12, 2024 16:23:46 GMT
I’m surprised too considering the responses to the proposals were a bit more positive than negative. Only 69 of 319 people supported the proposals according to the report with 42 people alone concerned about the E7 no longer stopping at Ruislip Station. That suggests to me that feedback was more negative to the changes than positive and I really can't say I'm surprised even though I'm not local. Two routes removed from Brunel probably upset students and merging the U1 & U3 routes always seemed short sighted IMO - even the extension of the E7 (a decent change from the outside looking in) attracted more concerns than positives because of no longer stopping at Ruislip Station. There was a lot of opposition from the different stakeholders spoken to as well, most were pretty much aligned on the E7 changes in Ruislip and many apposed the merged U1/U3 & removal of the U2 from Brunel. On a humorous note, a further 106 people requested Routemasters be used on the routes - did Boris respond 106 times to this consultation ![:D](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/grin.png) Hehe and those 106 people can be trusted to vote in a general election soon.
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Jun 12, 2024 16:24:32 GMT
Oh how ironic - people here complain that consultations are a sham and a waste of time because TfL has already made its mind up. Then when TfL shows signs of actually listening and changes its mind - people still complain!
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Jun 12, 2024 16:28:02 GMT
I’m surprised too considering the responses to the proposals were a bit more positive than negative. Only 69 of 319 people supported the proposals according to the report with 42 people alone concerned about the E7 no longer stopping at Ruislip Station. That suggests to me that feedback was more negative to the changes than positive and I really can't say I'm surprised even though I'm not local. Two routes removed from Brunel probably upset students and merging the U1 & U3 routes always seemed short sighted IMO - even the extension of the E7 (a decent change from the outside looking in) attracted more concerns than positives because of no longer stopping at Ruislip Station. There was a lot of opposition from the different stakeholders spoken to as well, most were pretty much aligned on the E7 changes in Ruislip and many apposed the merged U1/U3 & removal of the U2 from Brunel. On a humorous note, a further 106 people requested Routemasters be used on the routes - did Boris respond 106 times to this consultation ![:D](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/grin.png) The people of Uxbridge and Ruislip can have as many New Routemasters as they want. Give the rest of us shiny new electrics instead!
|
|
|
Post by matthieu1221 on Jun 12, 2024 17:44:55 GMT
I’m surprised too considering the responses to the proposals were a bit more positive than negative. Only 69 of 319 people supported the proposals according to the report with 42 people alone concerned about the E7 no longer stopping at Ruislip Station. That suggests to me that feedback was more negative to the changes than positive and I really can't say I'm surprised even though I'm not local. Two routes removed from Brunel probably upset students and merging the U1 & U3 routes always seemed short sighted IMO - even the extension of the E7 (a decent change from the outside looking in) attracted more concerns than positives because of no longer stopping at Ruislip Station. There was a lot of opposition from the different stakeholders spoken to as well, most were pretty much aligned on the E7 changes in Ruislip and many apposed the merged U1/U3 & removal of the U2 from Brunel. On a humorous note, a further 106 people requested Routemasters be used on the routes - did Boris respond 106 times to this consultation ![:D](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/grin.png) You get the requests for NRMs on every consultation! CLondoner92 on Twitter often likes to point it out.
Can guarantee that many of these requests are from people who don't regularly travel on them. The novelty factor seems to be at play.
|
|
|
Post by DE20106 on Jun 12, 2024 18:17:45 GMT
Interesting. I wonder how this will pan out now with contracts. The U1/U2 were awarded as one contract in anticipation of one being withdrawn, but with tbc PVR. Presumably the U1 and U2 will now be under one contract with a larger PVR covering both routes. Could there also be crosslinks I wonder. The U3’s an interesting one too considering that got awarded with new electric double deckers. Now the route change isn’t happening I presume the decker conversion still is though as it’s been awarded and an order potentially made
|
|
|
Post by redexpress on Jun 12, 2024 22:01:52 GMT
Interesting. I wonder how this will pan out now with contracts. The U1/U2 were awarded as one contract in anticipation of one being withdrawn, but with tbc PVR. Presumably the U1 and U2 will now be under one contract with a larger PVR covering both routes. Could there also be crosslinks I wonder. The U3’s an interesting one too considering that got awarded with new electric double deckers. Now the route change isn’t happening I presume the decker conversion still is though as it’s been awarded and an order potentially made I imagine the ITTs for these contracts would have asked for prices for several options including the "no changes" option, which is the one that is being chosen. So it should be fairly straightforward from a contracting point of view.
There is a precedent of sorts for this; many years ago there was a plan to withdraw the 166 and replace it with an extension of the 412 to Chipstead Valley. the 166 was reprieved in the face of protests, but as it had not been put out to tender (and the existing contract was expiring) it was operated as a variation of the 412 contract.
|
|