|
|
Post by VPL630 on Mar 31, 2013 21:39:15 GMT
To be fair, the 38 and 106 are not good examples. The 38 had massive over-provision and I've never been on a 38 with a particularly substantial loading - not sure the same could be said for any other ex-bendy routes. The 106 runs largely parallel to the 254 (and to an extent the 253) and the only loadings appear to be on its unique section between Clapton and Finsbury Park. Not about examples - it is about facts. The routes listed received a reduction and others are receiving an improvement. My point is whether an entirely unbiased process is being followed or whether we are seeing a subtle political slant to the decisions as to where improvements are made. I appreciate we have a resident route 498 user on the group but is that route really deserving of quite so much investment? Are we, or TfL for that matter, really saying there are not more deserving routes in London where there are not more pressing overcrowding issues? There are plenty of examples regularly recited on this group. Being honest here, the route (498) does not really need a frequency increase at night, it's Convenient for me and it may well be for others that don't want to take the train as the bus is always cheaper but really you could stick MPD on the route and still have loads of free space, I mean the passenger numbers get into the single digits after 9PM, the only time it does pick up big time at night is when there is an even on at Brentwood, the trains are messed up or the 174 is a no show. If TFL are spending money on this route they are hoping it does good but I really do not think it is worth it, I mean we get DD's and now it's being extended and a frequency upgrade, it is not worth the money IMO but if TFL are splashing the cash then i hope it is all worth while and they don't end up cutting back on there ideas on the next tender During the day the route is quite busy, and can be a full standing load so in a way I can see that is is worth it but most people get off at Mercury Gardens so I don't really see why it is being extended Yeah so I don't think it is worth it, other routes like the 29 could do with a higher PVR and the money being spent on that but I am not TFL so I don't decide what happens |
|
|
|
Post by DLA 365 on Mar 31, 2013 23:27:47 GMT
Personally I feel TfL is right in upgrading some of the suburban services because we sometimes do get a raw deal out in the sticks. Before anyone jumps up and says it is my choice to live out here, it also comes under TfL's jurisdiction and it is their responsbility that these areas are relatively accessible.
An hourly frequency in London is simply unattractive for users on route 498. Granted there are frequent trains to Brentwood Station, but a half hourly service would provide decent access for those living along the bus route.
I don't see the gripes about route 38. It was well over-bussed and had too much slack in the timetable. The 106 I agree should not have been cut in frequency, and neither should the 19 when it was retendered. An example to support snoggle's argument is the 73 cut back to Stoke Newington and the 349 cutback to Stamford Hill. While it was justifiable to do one of the two options, both cuts is IMO harsh.
To summarise, improvements in the suburbs are better for regenerating areas with poor access. Don't knock them! But inner London areas need to have sufficient provision to provide adequate capacity.
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Apr 1, 2013 14:46:48 GMT
Personally I feel TfL is right in upgrading some of the suburban services because we sometimes do get a raw deal out in the sticks. Before anyone jumps up and says it is my choice to live out here, it also comes under TfL's jurisdiction and it is their responsbility that these areas are relatively accessible. An hourly frequency in London is simply unattractive for users on route 498. Granted there are frequent trains to Brentwood Station, but a half hourly service would provide decent access for those living along the bus route. I don't see the gripes about route 38. It was well over-bussed and had too much slack in the timetable. The 106 I agree should not have been cut in frequency, and neither should the 19 when it was retendered. An example to support snoggle's argument is the 73 cut back to Stoke Newington and the 349 cutback to Stamford Hill. While it was justifiable to do one of the two options, both cuts is IMO harsh. To summarise, improvements in the suburbs are better for regenerating areas with poor access. Don't knock them! But inner London areas need to have sufficient provision to provide adequate capacity. In my original post I said I did not begrudge the suburbs gaining improvements. If routes are overloaded or people need a Sunday then all well and good. My point, badly made it would seem!, was whether it was politics rather than need that was guiding where the improvements are required. I accept the 38 was over provisioned but I would question if it could be hacked back much further in the peaks, the buses do fill up. I am somewhat surprised that there has not been more double decking of overloaded single deck routes (where this is feasible). There are loads of double decks being cast out of service which could have a light refurb, where needed, and kept running (as done on the 132). This is a simple change with only a small downside such as higher fuel consumption but no more buses or drivers. What I would like to see happen is that TfL be required to create and widely consult on a future bus network strategy. It needs to be completely clear about identifying all the areas that are more than 400 metres off the bus network - there are many pockets of London in this position. TfL should be required to set out if they have a proposition to better serve those areas or not. Some places have rejected bus services in the past and that's fine but we do need a full update. TfL should also identify all of the strategic gaps in the network where key district centres are not linked directly and what it proposes to do about these gaps. All instances of regular and chronic overcrowding should be identified and proposals developed for resolving this. Similarly areas of overprovision over substantial parts of the network should also be indentified and proposals created for removing the overprovision to save money but making sure the remaining service can run reliably. The costs and outline programme for all parts of the strategy should also be set out for people. I think transport users should be allowed to "vote" on the various parts of the strategy and its costs. It should then be turned into something which can be funded and implemented over a reasonable period of time. This is not about splashing loads of cash in a short period - it is about a sustainable programme which can be funded and phased into the tendering programme. While TfL does review each route this does not always make sense in a wider network context. With contract extensions the old "area tenders" have become fractured and spread over time thus removing the option of concentrated local network changes being achieved via the tendering process. Oh well I can dream.   |
|
|
|
Post by rambo on Apr 1, 2013 16:54:29 GMT
368 needs either doubledecks or an increase.
|
|
|
|
Post by VPL630 on Apr 1, 2013 17:25:22 GMT
368 needs either doubledecks or an increase. You could always beg the yard man, I know the DN's TNA's and TN's are blinded ;D |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2013 8:06:59 GMT
A Sunday service on the 352 and 354 would be a start. They serve many roads where they are the only bus route and not near train stations.
Big development at Sydenham Bell Green. Maybe funding here for a Sunday service on the 352 at least.....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2013 8:12:46 GMT
A Sunday service on the 352 and 354 would be a start. They serve many roads where they are the only bus route and not near train stations.
Big development at Sydenham Bell Green. Maybe funding here for a Sunday service on the 352 at least.....
|
|
|
|
Post by jay38a on Apr 8, 2013 23:00:42 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by eggmiester on Apr 23, 2013 22:08:31 GMT
Yes the B12 sunday service commences this coming sunday (28th April), timetables have already been published. |
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Apr 25, 2013 14:10:32 GMT
TfL has now formally issued a press release on Sunday service on B12 Unusually it goes clockwise around the Joydens Wood loop until noon, then anticlockwise Can't currently think of another route with a one way loop that reverses direction midday www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/media/newscentre/27805.aspx |
|
|
|
Post by beaver14uk on Apr 25, 2013 17:05:37 GMT
plus a press launch was held at Bexleyheath today te author=snowman board=routes thread=7407 post=200847 time=1366899032]TfL has now formally issued a press release on Sunday service on B12 Unusually it goes clockwise around the Joydens Wood loop until noon, then anticlockwise Can't currently think of another route with a one way loop that reverses direction midday www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/media/newscentre/27805.aspx[/quote] |
|
|
|
Post by eggmiester on Apr 25, 2013 17:46:29 GMT
it does that loop because on weekday mornings it serves the stops nearest the Dartford Heath Schools first before doing the loop of Joydens wood then it reverses at midday (ish) to serve the loop in the old 'now reverse' direction. I gather its TFL's love of standardisation that means it retains the same loop variations on Saturday and now sunday!!
|
|
|
|
Post by lonmark on Apr 29, 2013 10:43:09 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Apr 29, 2013 11:18:42 GMT
I do love the spin surrounding this change. I do not begrudge the people of Joydens Wood a Sunday bus service. However it is ridiculous of TfL to create the impression that just because 106 people said "yes" in a consultation that all of a sudden the TfL piggy bank was opened. The reality is that a whole load of other lobbying over a long period and potential embarrasment of the local community transport organisation running their own Sunday servce forced TfL's hand. It is, of course, also in prime Tory voting territory so another reason for it to go ahead. So much for transport need being the prime reason for improvements.  I wonder if I get a petition with 107 signatures on it whether TfL will provide me with a x12 minute Sunday service on the 123. It's certainly needed given the high loadings but I expect hell will freeze over first. I look forward to Chingford MP Iain Duncan Smith lobbying successfully for the 385 to run every 30 minutes on a Sunday.   |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2013 11:27:20 GMT
Rather odd that two people were against the proposal.......why |
|
