|
Post by ADH45258 on Sept 14, 2022 13:08:01 GMT
This comes up every so often but thought it was said here the route is busy during peaks?
I nominate the 241 as useless now! The route has no real purpose even with the Royal Wharf extension is will be tiny and is duplicated over the whole route by other services. Busy only if there is a gap in the 97, otherwise it is nothing but a scratching bus service. If a route like the 48 can go, the 357 is clearly not justified. it only exists because people complained they do not have a bus service serving Whipps Cross from Chingford (depsite the W16 coming close to it) Snoggle always said it was busy when they had the Greyhound stadium at Crooked Billet. it really is further unjustified since no longer going inside the bus station at Walthamstow and loadings can easily be accommodated on a single decker. It was considered withdrawal at the last tender and I was angry it was not, or changed from its current useless form Could easily extend the 215 to cover the Whipps Cross link if needed. If the 357 were to be withdrawn, this might remove some round-the-corner links at the other end, particularly between Crooked Billet and Chingford Hatch. One option could possibly be for the W11 to serve Chingford Hall Estate as a double run, then continue to terminate at Chingford Hatch?
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Sept 14, 2022 15:27:52 GMT
This comes up every so often but thought it was said here the route is busy during peaks?
I nominate the 241 as useless now! The route has no real purpose even with the Royal Wharf extension is will be tiny and is duplicated over the whole route by other services. Busy only if there is a gap in the 97, otherwise it is nothing but a scratching bus service. If a route like the 48 can go, the 357 is clearly not justified. it only exists because people complained they do not have a bus service serving Whipps Cross from Chingford (depsite the W16 coming close to it) Snoggle always said it was busy when they had the Greyhound stadium at Crooked Billet. it really is further unjustified since no longer going inside the bus station at Walthamstow and loadings can easily be accommodated on a single decker. It was considered withdrawal at the last tender and I was angry it was not, or changed from its current useless form You seriously need to look up the word "useless"
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Sept 14, 2022 17:52:20 GMT
Busy only if there is a gap in the 97, otherwise it is nothing but a scratching bus service. If a route like the 48 can go, the 357 is clearly not justified. it only exists because people complained they do not have a bus service serving Whipps Cross from Chingford (depsite the W16 coming close to it) Snoggle always said it was busy when they had the Greyhound stadium at Crooked Billet. it really is further unjustified since no longer going inside the bus station at Walthamstow and loadings can easily be accommodated on a single decker. It was considered withdrawal at the last tender and I was angry it was not, or changed from its current useless form Could easily extend the 215 to cover the Whipps Cross link if needed. If the 357 were to be withdrawn, this might remove some round-the-corner links at the other end, particularly between Crooked Billet and Chingford Hatch. One option could possibly be for the W11 to serve Chingford Hall Estate as a double run, then continue to terminate at Chingford Hatch? The W11 would be a useful link from CHE to Chingford and extend 215 to Whipps Cross as you suggested.
|
|
|
Post by passingfordbridgeboy on Sept 14, 2022 18:12:29 GMT
Another candidate has to be the 497. Already in its short life it has been under consideration for withdrawal, and survives for now. I've been on it about a dozen times hoping to see it busy,but so far in vain. The King's Park section of it is simply not being used and that was the reason for the route in the first place. The recent extension has taken a few passengers away from the 174 insofar as they can get the 497 to Dagnam Park Square instead of waiting for the 174, but otherwise a route that must be deemed useless as the usage is very low. All I can see saving it is an extension to Upminster from Harold Wood via 347 route and the withdrawal of 347 between Romford and Upminster and have that between Ockendon and Upminster, possibly then going via Corbets Tey Road and Gaynes Park Road to Hacton Lane terminating at The Optimist Tavern.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Sept 14, 2022 18:55:03 GMT
Another candidate has to be the 497. Already in its short life it has been under consideration for withdrawal, and survives for now. I've been on it about a dozen times hoping to see it busy,but so far in vain. The King's Park section of it is simply not being used and that was the reason for the route in the first place. The recent extension has taken a few passengers away from the 174 insofar as they can get the 497 to Dagnam Park Square instead of waiting for the 174, but otherwise a route that must be deemed useless as the usage is very low. All I can see saving it is an extension to Upminster from Harold Wood via 347 route and the withdrawal of 347 between Romford and Upminster and have that between Ockendon and Upminster, possibly then going via Corbets Tey Road and Gaynes Park Road to Hacton Lane terminating at The Optimist Tavern. I think the main issue with the 497 is the route length, as it only appeals to passengers making quite short journeys. The links it provides could easily have been covered by giving the 499 a short extension from Gallows Corner to Harold Wood Station, plus amending a few other routes in the Harold Hill area if needed. This would mean the new housing served by the 497 could get direct links further afield, such as to Romford, Queens Hospital or Hornchurch.
|
|
|
Post by VMH2537 on Sept 14, 2022 19:57:47 GMT
Another candidate has to be the 497. Already in its short life it has been under consideration for withdrawal, and survives for now. I've been on it about a dozen times hoping to see it busy,but so far in vain. The King's Park section of it is simply not being used and that was the reason for the route in the first place. The recent extension has taken a few passengers away from the 174 insofar as they can get the 497 to Dagnam Park Square instead of waiting for the 174, but otherwise a route that must be deemed useless as the usage is very low. All I can see saving it is an extension to Upminster from Harold Wood via 347 route and the withdrawal of 347 between Romford and Upminster and have that between Ockendon and Upminster, possibly then going via Corbets Tey Road and Gaynes Park Road to Hacton Lane terminating at The Optimist Tavern. I think the case of the 497 is what happens when a attractive service is not provided for a user to use. A route structured to feed to a rail station on most standards needs to run at least 15 to 20 minutes where a user can turn up and go without looking at the timetable. Anything more than that may deter people finding alternatives such as walking, driving etc. I'm not really a fan of the current strategy imo where we are seeing new services such as the 456 and 497 introduced with a limited frequency aswell other services such as the 424, 549, 383 etc. It's a shame they have potential but are not able to attract those users with the current service. We are wasting money enchanting a new interior for busses, but can't enchant those limited services.
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Sept 14, 2022 20:14:20 GMT
Another candidate has to be the 497. Already in its short life it has been under consideration for withdrawal, and survives for now. I've been on it about a dozen times hoping to see it busy,but so far in vain. The King's Park section of it is simply not being used and that was the reason for the route in the first place. The recent extension has taken a few passengers away from the 174 insofar as they can get the 497 to Dagnam Park Square instead of waiting for the 174, but otherwise a route that must be deemed useless as the usage is very low. All I can see saving it is an extension to Upminster from Harold Wood via 347 route and the withdrawal of 347 between Romford and Upminster and have that between Ockendon and Upminster, possibly then going via Corbets Tey Road and Gaynes Park Road to Hacton Lane terminating at The Optimist Tavern. I think the case of the 497 is what happens when a attractive service is not provided for a user to use. A route structured to feed to a rail station on most standards needs to run at least 15 to 20 minutes where a user can turn up and go without looking at the timetable. Anything more than that may deter people finding alternatives such as walking, driving etc. I'm not really a fan of the current strategy imo where we are seeing new services such as the 456 and 497 introduced with a limited frequency aswell other services such as the 424, 549, 383 etc. It's a shame they have potential but are not able to attract those users with the current service. We are wasting money enchanting a new interior for busses, but can't enchant those limited services. The enhanced interiors work out at just low-mid tens of thousands per batch with little in the way of ongoing additional operating costs, so largely one off. By contrast just a single PVR costs about £250k a year to operate Apples and pears
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Sept 14, 2022 21:37:53 GMT
I think the case of the 497 is what happens when a attractive service is not provided for a user to use. A route structured to feed to a rail station on most standards needs to run at least 15 to 20 minutes where a user can turn up and go without looking at the timetable. Anything more than that may deter people finding alternatives such as walking, driving etc. I'm not really a fan of the current strategy imo where we are seeing new services such as the 456 and 497 introduced with a limited frequency aswell other services such as the 424, 549, 383 etc. It's a shame they have potential but are not able to attract those users with the current service. We are wasting money enchanting a new interior for busses, but can't enchant those limited services. The enhanced interiors work out at just low-mid tens of thousands per batch with little in the way of ongoing additional operating costs, so largely one off. By contrast just a single PVR costs about £250k a year to operate Apples and pears I think it's two different ways of looking at it. In reality the enhanced interior isn't something that's going to get people onto buses, still not heard of any mass flock to the 63s buses. Chances are the standard interior would have done enough luring people back if frequencies and bus speed were up to scratch. But if you're going to be able to afford the high-spec interior anyway then you might as well put it there. As you say it is a one off cost. Londoners are impatient. They don't like planning around public transport and the minute someone has to plan around public transport is often ruins the day out or night out. I'd not enjoy a night out if I knew I had to rush back for a once every hour bus and the last one is at 8pm or something. Thankfully at the moment I'm in a position where I have three night buses around here but I'd lost certainly drive almost all the time if getting home at night would put me at the mercy of an infrequent public transport service. There's often the complaint "why are you complaining about 10 minutes when others have to wait 20" but that complaint doesn't matter if those 10 minutes are enough to persuade the person away from the bus. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I consider anything more than 7 minutes a long wait for a bus. When I see 8 minutes for a bus on a countdown screen I automatically start considering another route. Needed to get to Euston from Old Street the other day, thought I'd take the 205 as usually it's quicker than faffing around walking in and out of tube stations but I saw 8 minutes and just headed straight for the station. If I'm going Asda and the 62 is a 7min+ wait from when I'm ready, am I really going to wait for 7 minutes out in the elements or am I just going to pick up my car keys that are already next to me as it is? TfL need to realise that waiting time is the most important factor as to whether anyone continues their journey on a London bus or not, some people have an even worse wait tolerance than me, some are usually a bit more flexible.
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Sept 14, 2022 21:44:53 GMT
Another candidate has to be the 497. Already in its short life it has been under consideration for withdrawal, and survives for now. I've been on it about a dozen times hoping to see it busy,but so far in vain. The King's Park section of it is simply not being used and that was the reason for the route in the first place. The recent extension has taken a few passengers away from the 174 insofar as they can get the 497 to Dagnam Park Square instead of waiting for the 174, but otherwise a route that must be deemed useless as the usage is very low. All I can see saving it is an extension to Upminster from Harold Wood via 347 route and the withdrawal of 347 between Romford and Upminster and have that between Ockendon and Upminster, possibly then going via Corbets Tey Road and Gaynes Park Road to Hacton Lane terminating at The Optimist Tavern. I think the case of the 497 is what happens when a attractive service is not provided for a user to use. A route structured to feed to a rail station on most standards needs to run at least 15 to 20 minutes where a user can turn up and go without looking at the timetable. Anything more than that may deter people finding alternatives such as walking, driving etc. I'm not really a fan of the current strategy imo where we are seeing new services such as the 456 and 497 introduced with a limited frequency aswell other services such as the 424, 549, 383 etc. It's a shame they have potential but are not able to attract those users with the current service. We are wasting money enchanting a new interior for busses, but can't enchant those limited services. I disagree. A bus user who experiences an unpleasant environment will not be a repeat user. A bus user who experiences a pleasant environment may well become a repeat user. The interior of a London bus was spartan at best and not very welcoming. I think it is money well spent, if anything do not think it has gone far enough, if TfL wants to be leaders and innovators in the public transport sector.
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Sept 14, 2022 21:47:46 GMT
The enhanced interiors work out at just low-mid tens of thousands per batch with little in the way of ongoing additional operating costs, so largely one off. By contrast just a single PVR costs about £250k a year to operate Apples and pears I think it's two different ways of looking at it. In reality the enhanced interior isn't something that's going to get people onto buses, still not heard of any mass flock to the 63s buses. Chances are the standard interior would have done enough luring people back if frequencies and bus speed were up to scratch. But if you're going to be able to afford the high-spec interior anyway then you might as well put it there. As you say it is a one off cost. Londoners are impatient. They don't like planning around public transport and the minute someone has to plan around public transport is often ruins the day out or night out. I'd not enjoy a night out if I knew I had to rush back for a once every hour bus and the last one is at 8pm or something. Thankfully at the moment I'm in a position where I have three night buses around here but I'd lost certainly drive almost all the time if getting home at night would put me at the mercy of an infrequent public transport service. There's often the complaint "why are you complaining about 10 minutes when others have to wait 20" but that complaint doesn't matter if those 10 minutes are enough to persuade the person away from the bus. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I consider anything more than 7 minutes a long wait for a bus. When I see 8 minutes for a bus on a countdown screen I automatically start considering another route. Needed to get to Euston from Old Street the other day, thought I'd take the 205 as usually it's quicker than faffing around walking in and out of tube stations but I saw 8 minutes and just headed straight for the station. If I'm going Asda and the 62 is a 7min+ wait from when I'm ready, am I really going to wait for 7 minutes out in the elements or am I just going to pick up my car keys that are already next to me as it is? TfL need to realise that waiting time is the most important factor as to whether anyone continues their journey on a London bus or not, some people have an even worse wait tolerance than me, some are usually a bit more flexible. The only problem with high frequency routes is they are fighting a never ending battle with congestion with a increasing amount of cars on the road so end up with bunching. Now schools are back I am finding I have been nearly late for work every day this week. What I think is needed is more bus priority but can’t see that happening anytime soon. I agree 100% regarding bus enhancements Londoners just ain’t bothered by the fancy features. A clean bus that turns up and is not constantly regulated is what most want.
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Sept 14, 2022 22:06:58 GMT
Another candidate has to be the 497. Already in its short life it has been under consideration for withdrawal, and survives for now. I've been on it about a dozen times hoping to see it busy,but so far in vain. The King's Park section of it is simply not being used and that was the reason for the route in the first place. The recent extension has taken a few passengers away from the 174 insofar as they can get the 497 to Dagnam Park Square instead of waiting for the 174, but otherwise a route that must be deemed useless as the usage is very low. All I can see saving it is an extension to Upminster from Harold Wood via 347 route and the withdrawal of 347 between Romford and Upminster and have that between Ockendon and Upminster, possibly then going via Corbets Tey Road and Gaynes Park Road to Hacton Lane terminating at The Optimist Tavern. I think the case of the 497 is what happens when a attractive service is not provided for a user to use. A route structured to feed to a rail station on most standards needs to run at least 15 to 20 minutes where a user can turn up and go without looking at the timetable. Anything more than that may deter people finding alternatives such as walking, driving etc. I'm not really a fan of the current strategy imo where we are seeing new services such as the 456 and 497 introduced with a limited frequency aswell other services such as the 424, 549, 383 etc. It's a shame they have potential but are not able to attract those users with the current service. We are wasting money enchanting a new interior for busses, but can't enchant those limited services. I just can't see how the 497 will ever be viable but improving interiors is certainly not a waste of money, more a case of getting the basics right.
|
|
|
Post by VMH2537 on Sept 14, 2022 22:13:28 GMT
I think the case of the 497 is what happens when a attractive service is not provided for a user to use. A route structured to feed to a rail station on most standards needs to run at least 15 to 20 minutes where a user can turn up and go without looking at the timetable. Anything more than that may deter people finding alternatives such as walking, driving etc. I'm not really a fan of the current strategy imo where we are seeing new services such as the 456 and 497 introduced with a limited frequency aswell other services such as the 424, 549, 383 etc. It's a shame they have potential but are not able to attract those users with the current service. We are wasting money enchanting a new interior for busses, but can't enchant those limited services. I disagree. A bus user who experiences an unpleasant environment will not be a repeat user. A bus user who experiences a pleasant environment may well become a repeat user. The interior of a London bus was spartan at best and not very welcoming. I think it is money well spent, if anything do not think it has gone far enough, if TfL wants to be leaders and innovators in the public transport sector. As another member has said, it's the waiting time that retains and grows users usage on busses. If I'm sitting in a cafe and see busses from the same route passing frequently, I will consider it as one of the options I could get home. A less frequent service gives less options for users if they can drive instead
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Sept 14, 2022 22:18:03 GMT
I disagree. A bus user who experiences an unpleasant environment will not be a repeat user. A bus user who experiences a pleasant environment may well become a repeat user. The interior of a London bus was spartan at best and not very welcoming. I think it is money well spent, if anything do not think it has gone far enough, if TfL wants to be leaders and innovators in the public transport sector. As another member has said, it's the waiting time that retains and grows users usage on busses. If I'm sitting in a cafe and see busses from the same route passing frequently, I will consider it as one of the options I could get home. A less frequent service gives less options for users if they can drive instead But equally if you have a route with a lower frequency you learn to adapt to timings so you just plan around them. It’s the 21st century most people have smart phones so they can check bus times through apps.
|
|
|
Post by VMH2537 on Sept 14, 2022 22:19:41 GMT
I think the case of the 497 is what happens when a attractive service is not provided for a user to use. A route structured to feed to a rail station on most standards needs to run at least 15 to 20 minutes where a user can turn up and go without looking at the timetable. Anything more than that may deter people finding alternatives such as walking, driving etc. I'm not really a fan of the current strategy imo where we are seeing new services such as the 456 and 497 introduced with a limited frequency aswell other services such as the 424, 549, 383 etc. It's a shame they have potential but are not able to attract those users with the current service. We are wasting money enchanting a new interior for busses, but can't enchant those limited services. I just can't see how the 497 will ever be viable but improving interiors is certainly not a waste of money, more a case of getting the basics right. If the 497 ran every 15 minutes or more, I'd imagine the case would be different particularly how it's structured to feed to Harold Hill station where users don't need to look at the timetable before boarding. A option is given to users to use it from the station
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Sept 14, 2022 22:20:40 GMT
As another member has said, it's the waiting time that retains and grows users usage on busses. If I'm sitting in a cafe and see busses from the same route passing frequently, I will consider it as one of the options I could get home. A less frequent service gives less options for users if they can drive instead But equally if you have a route with a lower frequency you learn to adapt to timings so you just plan around them. It’s the 21st century most people have smart phones so they can check bus times through apps. People don't like planning around stuff which is the point. Would I plan around an every hour bus route or would I drive?
|
|