Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2013 15:57:34 GMT
The 197 goes to/from South Croydon Garage out of service anyway so livening it up is hardly going to be a problem. Merge the 264 with the 270, Croydon to Putney Bridge The 264 would become unreliable due to traffic in Putney - it already suffers from traffic in Tooting & along Mitcham Common. That old chesnut comes up everytime anybody suggests extending any route to anywhere. Of course there are bus lanes along much of the route now. Off peak end to end running time about 1hr 20mins.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2013 16:00:41 GMT
The 264 would become unreliable due to traffic in Putney - it already suffers from traffic in Tooting & along Mitcham Common. That old chesnut comes up everytime anybody suggests extending any route to anywhere. Of course there are bus lanes along much of the route now. Off peak end to end running time about 1hr 20mins. "That old chestnut comes up everytime" Well yes, because it's perfectly relevant. Hence why we don't have meandering 2 hour long trunk routes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2013 16:04:15 GMT
That old chesnut comes up everytime anybody suggests extending any route to anywhere. Of course there are bus lanes along much of the route now. Off peak end to end running time about 1hr 20mins. "That old chestnut comes up everytime" Well yes, because it's perfectly relevant. Hence why we don't have meandering 2 hour long trunk routes. Really? Do you actually have any evidence to support shorter routes being more reliable? Its just a myth. So what about routes like the 25 and 53 where journies could take the best part of two hours at busy times? Longer routes are most cost effective, ie the bus spends less time on stand, funny how you're so concerned about cost for some things but not others
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2013 16:09:23 GMT
Really? Do you actually have any evidence to support shorter routes being more reliable? Its just a myth. So what about routes like the 25 and 53 where journies could take the best part of two hours at busy times? Longer routes are most cost effective, ie the bus spends less time on stand, funny how you're so concerned about cost for some things but not others I can only assume you've never used the 25. If the route had the frequency of a normal route, it would be totally unreliable. Often there are three or four bunched together, and they regularly get St Pauls, Bow Church or Mile End turns. The 25 also comes up higher in the EWT stats than most routes, despite having a huge amount of buses on the route. The 53 doesn't fare much better, and it was worse when it went through to Oxford Circus. Cost-effective means nothing if the service is totally unreliable. I'm worried about unnecessary costs, not the cost of having an extra 2 or 3 PVR to make the service more reliable! It's not a myth that a longer route has more places for the bus to get stuck, more crowded journeys because it ends up serving the role of two routes rather than one, and that shorter routes can be arranged to avoid bottlenecks and traffic-prone areas. The 15 and 115 were split so the 15 could avoid the traffic at Canning Town - now the 15 is more reliable than it would be. It's simple.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2013 16:13:36 GMT
Really? Do you actually have any evidence to support shorter routes being more reliable? Its just a myth. So what about routes like the 25 and 53 where journies could take the best part of two hours at busy times? Longer routes are most cost effective, ie the bus spends less time on stand, funny how you're so concerned about cost for some things but not others I can only assume you've never used the 25. If the route had the frequency of a normal route, it would be totally unreliable. Often there are three or four bunched together, and they regularly get St Pauls, Bow Church or Mile End turns. The 53 doesn't fare much better, and it was worse when it went through to Oxford Circus. Cost-effective means nothing if the service is totally unreliable. I'm worried about unnecessary costs, not the cost of having an extra 2 or 3 PVR to make the service more reliable! I use both routes quite a bit and I don't normally have to wait long, obviously on any high frequency route theres going to be bunching. And just look at the length of some routes outside London, they have traffic conngestion to cope with as well
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2013 16:16:13 GMT
I can only assume you've never used the 25. If the route had the frequency of a normal route, it would be totally unreliable. Often there are three or four bunched together, and they regularly get St Pauls, Bow Church or Mile End turns. The 53 doesn't fare much better, and it was worse when it went through to Oxford Circus. Cost-effective means nothing if the service is totally unreliable. I'm worried about unnecessary costs, not the cost of having an extra 2 or 3 PVR to make the service more reliable! I use both routes quite a bit and I don't normally have to wait long, obviously on any high frequency route theres going to be bunching. And just look at the length of some routes outside London, they have traffic conngestion to cope with as well Obviously you don't have to wait long on the 25, it has a PVR of 59 and a frequency of 2-3 minutes. If that frequency were every 10 minutes like a lot of trunk routes the waiting times would be awful. And nowhere has the same traffic congestion London does - nowhere is particularly as densely populated as London is.
|
|
|
Post by VPL630 on Jan 28, 2013 16:21:01 GMT
I can only assume you've never used the 25. If the route had the frequency of a normal route, it would be totally unreliable. Often there are three or four bunched together, and they regularly get St Pauls, Bow Church or Mile End turns. The 53 doesn't fare much better, and it was worse when it went through to Oxford Circus. Cost-effective means nothing if the service is totally unreliable. I'm worried about unnecessary costs, not the cost of having an extra 2 or 3 PVR to make the service more reliable! I use both routes quite a bit and I don't normally have to wait long, obviously on any high frequency route theres going to be bunching. And just look at the length of some routes outside London, they have traffic conngestion to cope with as well Waiting for the 25 won't take long as it is on a completely stupid every 3-4 minutes frequency, You can drive fast or slow on the route, you will always catch a bus up or see the one behind by the time you make Oxford Circus. Just because routes out of London are longer and have traffic conngestion to cope with don't mean they will run badly, I am sure if you do said routes you will find the timetable allows for this, the only Route that I know of that has a badly planned timetable is the X1 (Lowestoft to Peterborough)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2013 16:22:49 GMT
I use both routes quite a bit and I don't normally have to wait long, obviously on any high frequency route theres going to be bunching. And just look at the length of some routes outside London, they have traffic conngestion to cope with as well Waiting for the 25 won't take long as it is on a completely stupid every 3-4 minutes frequency, You can drive fast or slow on the route, you will always catch a bus up or see the one behind by the time you make Oxford Circus. To be fair, it needs that frequency sometimes. It's crowded at 2pm, and I've had several go past me full at Aldgate before.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 28, 2013 18:51:43 GMT
The 264 would become unreliable due to traffic in Putney - it already suffers from traffic in Tooting & along Mitcham Common. That old chesnut comes up everytime anybody suggests extending any route to anywhere. Of course there are bus lanes along much of the route now. Off peak end to end running time about 1hr 20mins. The point is that longer routes tend to have more risk of encountering delays and congestion. The greater the risk of delay then the greater the likelihood that schedules will need to have either greater running time than a more localised service, greater recovery time or more variable headways. This occurs even with the benefit of bus lanes. Bus lanes are not uniformly successful because people flout the rules unfortunately. I'm not saying long routes are somehow wrong but the implications of extensions must be thought about. The need for more resilience in the schedule will not come for free regardless of the extent of bus priorities. If you want longer routes then in the current funding environment then there will be compromises needed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2013 1:12:45 GMT
The thing i like to add with route 108 is. Whenever the JLE between North Greenwich and Stratford suffer any problem. TFL should run route 108X for a replacement because the route covers the stations.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Mar 12, 2013 1:17:50 GMT
The thing i like to add with route 108 is. Whenever the JLE between North Greenwich and Stratford suffer any problem. TFL should run route 108X for a replacement because the route covers the stations. Don't quote me on it but I think the 108 already has extra buses when the Jubilee Line between Stratford & North Greenwich has issues.
|
|
|
Post by beaver14uk on Mar 12, 2013 9:11:58 GMT
You can't have buses and drivers on standby like this as its a waste of money, otherwise we would do this all over London. Before you say it during the Olympics it was planned. The thing i like to add with route 108 is. Whenever the JLE between North Greenwich and Stratford suffer any problem. TFL should run route 108X for a replacement because the route covers the stations.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2013 15:18:14 GMT
But there are extra buses on many routes during rail closures, the 93 for example when the Northern Line at Morden is closed. You can't have buses and drivers on standby like this as its a waste of money, otherwise we would do this all over London. Before you say it during the Olympics it was planned. The thing i like to add with route 108 is. Whenever the JLE between North Greenwich and Stratford suffer any problem. TFL should run route 108X for a replacement because the route covers the stations.
|
|
|
Post by IanF on Mar 12, 2013 15:32:15 GMT
But there are extra buses on many routes during rail closures, the 93 for example when the Northern Line at Morden is closed. You can't have buses and drivers on standby like this as its a waste of money, otherwise we would do this all over London. Before you say it during the Olympics it was planned. Planned closures mean that TFL can plan the extra buses whereas unexpected issues TFL can't say when they are going to happen so can't really have buses sitting around its common sense really.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2013 16:10:42 GMT
But there are extra buses on many routes during rail closures, the 93 for example when the Northern Line at Morden is closed. You can't have buses and drivers on standby like this as its a waste of money, otherwise we would do this all over London. Before you say it during the Olympics it was planned. The key word there is planned closures. TFL don't have a disruption crystal ball.
|
|