Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2013 12:20:12 GMT
Oh whatever is wrong it must be the NB4L that is too blame..........change the record pleeeeaase  Whether it's directly relevant or not, there is a lot of money being poured into the NB4L project, undeniably so. Of course, TFL's supply of money isn't infinite so when one element of the budget goes up, inevitably the money's got to come from somewhere - be it fares, service cuts, etc. I personally don't blame fare rises on the NB4L, because let's face it, we've had fare rises every year that I can remember. It just gets boring the way many threads get 'hijacked' and turn into yet another debate/argument/war about the NB4L |
|
|
|
Post by Paul on Apr 4, 2013 12:35:22 GMT
Plus the money needed to fund those stupid bus for London raises fare prices Oh whatever is wrong it must be the NB4L that is too blame..........change the record pleeeeaase It does get tiresome, doesn't it? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2013 12:36:12 GMT
Indeed. Using Oyster from Ilford to Holborn costs £3.90 off-peak (179% more than a bus) and £5.10 peak (264% more). And that assumes you can walk to your nearest station and not need to start on a bus to it. With price capping just using buses is only £4.40 compared to £7.70 (75% more) off-peak and £10.60 (141% more) to include train and tube. Having rail options do not mean buses are not needed. It does not matter how much faster a train will be if someone cannot afford it or has accessibility issues (Holborn station has limited accessibility). Less of an issue with the Great Eastern line, but in places where trains are only every 30 minutes, and sometimes where even every 15 minutes, the bus can also still work out faster once you include the waiting time. From Streatham to London Bridge the 133 at about 45 minutes can be faster than the half-hourly train service which takes about 25 minutes if you get to the station at the wrong time. Plus it is usually a longer walk to the nearest station than bus stop. Journey times on their own do not reflect how much earlier you have to leave home or may have to wait. I was also thinking - such a journey would rely on using the Central Line. Now, a crowded Tube (I personally believe) is less comfortable to use than a crowded bus. Even on a busy bus service like the 25 there's often a seat or two available upstairs - something you could only dream of on the rush hour Central Line! People wouldn't particularly want to pay more to have an even less pleasant experience, even if it is quicker. I agree with your point about rail lines and bus links. A round-the-corner rail link doesn't particularly compensate for the lack of a bus service - railway lines tend to be more vulnerable to problems (signal failures in particular) whereas with a bus service, usually an alternative via a change, or a diversion is possible. If simply a rail service is relied upon to provide a link, when that goes down the pan, everyone then relies on the bus. If there's no designated route to provide such a link, that can mean more people on a busy route travelling for a change, or people without much clue about how they're going to continue their journey. Your point about accessibility issues is also very true here. I'm sometimes told "We don't need an X25, use the District and Central Line". Of course, if you're one of the (many) elderly or mobility-impaired people that uses the 25, clambering down 1001 stairs at Whitechapel isn't going to be an option. Also, as everyone has said about FreeBBC's Holborn to Ilford case, nobody is going to want to pay more than they have to. For a lot of people, the bus is the only accessible option, and if you're elderly, making 3 changes to complete a journey isn't going to be a particularly attractive option either. If you live in Ilford and work in Holborn and cant afford the tube/rail then you really need a more local job ... journies of that lenght by bus are so unrelaible due to traffic and road works you will often be late and no doubt end up being sacked. Rail is generally far more reliable, has less external factors influencing it. |
|
|
|
Post by Volvo on Apr 4, 2013 12:51:02 GMT
Plus the money needed to fund those stupid bus for London raises fare prices Oh whatever is wrong it must be the NB4L that is too blame..........change the record pleeeeaase When have I said when anything is wrong must be the NB4L to blame , point me to any post I have made that has said that . In order to fund so many of them money is coming from fare rises aswell, there is other things as to why fares are rising because fares have been rising every year but where do you think TFL alot of the money is coming from to fund 600 of these pointless under-capacity vehicles. Furthermore your going on about change the record like every single post i talk about cost of NB4Ls affecting fare prices. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2013 12:52:45 GMT
Oh whatever is wrong it must be the NB4L that is too blame..........change the record pleeeeaase When have I said when anything is wrong must be the NB4L to blame , point me to any post I have made that has said that . In order to fund so many of them money is coming from fare rises aswell, there is other things as to why fares are rising because fares have been rising every year but where do you think TFL alot of the money is coming from to fund 600 of these pointless under-capacity vehicles. Furthermore your going on about change the record like every single post i talk about cost of NB4Ls affecting fare prices. He wasn't saying you personally blame anything cost-related on the NB4L, it was a suggestion that that post was one of a general trend on the forum to jump to an NB4L argument the moment costs are mentioned. |
|
|
|
Post by Volvo on Apr 4, 2013 13:02:32 GMT
My post was quoted, so I replied as if you quote some ones post it generally means your talking to them.
Like I said above I don't normally talk about NB4L costs but in this instance we are talking about fares and I am saying some of the cost of the new NB4Ls are going to affect fares, which it is seeing as the country is in recession.
At the end of the day everything is raising alot and your pay isn't and if it is not by much and travelling is one of the most expensive but necessary things.
That is all on the matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by Trident on Apr 4, 2013 14:11:04 GMT
My post was quoted, so I replied as if you quote some ones post it generally means your talking to them. Like I said above I don't normally talk about NB4L costs but in this instance we are talking about fares and I am saying some of the cost of the new NB4Ls are going to affect fares, which it is seeing as the country is in recession. At the end of the day everything is raising alot and your pay isn't and if it is not by much and travelling is one of the most expensive but necessary things. That is all on the matter. No one is having a go at you. The originality of this thread is based on the parallels of Routes 25 & 205, yet at one point it seems to have been diverted towards the NB4L. I dont really contribute to any NB4L debates, I have an opinion - I dont like them and as you stated money should be spent elsewhere but really now these debates about that particular bus are starting to bore me and many members on here, its the same rubbish that gets discussed which provokes a certain member to making some rather unneccessary points to back himself up, in theory if you dont want the debate its best not to mention it and this puts less stress and frustration on us. |
|
|
|
Post by Trident on Apr 4, 2013 14:20:14 GMT
I cannot see why Stagecoach or ELBG would agree to run the Mile End to Bow section at their own cost, from their point of view it would be cheaper to run buses out of service between Mile End and BW for driver changeovers. Does anybody like running at a loss  I wonder if it was partly motivated by stand space at Mile End, the little bus stand at the junction isn't particularly big. Also Stagecoach probably put the idea to TFL as part of their contract, but I see no reason why they wouldn't have costed for it. I think freeing up stand space in Mile End made sense, it often does look edgy when you have a few D7's standing alongside the 323. If the 205 wasnt retained I also cant see why it would go back to Mile End just because its no longer run from BW. They can use the stand just west of the roundabout or the new operator could agree with Stagecoach to stand the 205's inside BW. This is currently the case for the 171, so I dont think its neccessary to put a lot of extra pressure on the Mile End stand. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Apr 4, 2013 14:33:20 GMT
I wonder if it was partly motivated by stand space at Mile End, the little bus stand at the junction isn't particularly big. Also Stagecoach probably put the idea to TFL as part of their contract, but I see no reason why they wouldn't have costed for it. I think freeing up stand space in Mile End made sense, it often does look edgy when you have a few D7's standing alongside the 323. If the 205 wasnt retained I also cant see why it would go back to Mile End just because its no longer run from BW. They can use the stand just west of the roundabout or the new operator could agree with Stagecoach to stand the 205's inside BW. This is currently the case for the 171, so I dont think its neccessary to put a lot of extra pressure on the Mile End stand. The 171 stands on the forecourt at TL though, does BW have a forecourt? |
|
|
|
Post by Trident on Apr 4, 2013 14:41:50 GMT
I think freeing up stand space in Mile End made sense, it often does look edgy when you have a few D7's standing alongside the 323. If the 205 wasnt retained I also cant see why it would go back to Mile End just because its no longer run from BW. They can use the stand just west of the roundabout or the new operator could agree with Stagecoach to stand the 205's inside BW. This is currently the case for the 171, so I dont think its neccessary to put a lot of extra pressure on the Mile End stand. The 171 stands on the forecourt at TL though, does BW have a forecourt? No, BW does not have a forecourt although I wouldnt rule out the 205 standing in there even if ran from another operator. |
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Apr 4, 2013 16:16:44 GMT
Why cant people take the train as part of the 25 runs parallel with the Central Line?   The train is lot quicker then the bus. On the bus, you have to wait for over an hour to get to your destination whilst on the train, you be there in half hour.  I can't speak for the 25 but when I went to school in south London I had the choice of the northern line or the 155. Me and my schoolmates mostly took the bus as the tube would take us quite a bit past our school, thus having to walk back. This may be the case with a lot of travellers where the bus stops closer to their venues than the tube. I really can't see TfL changing things on the Liverpool St -Ilford corridor without having one eye on Crossrail. Not even sure a daytime route paralleling it is sensible use of scarce funds. Much more likely a number of routes will be changed to act as station feeders. Think Walthamstow changes in 1968 or Canada Water & Canning Town in 2000 as the way forward. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Apr 4, 2013 17:46:18 GMT
The debate has been very interesting. I'm not sure anyone really understands why the Ilford - City bus corridor remains so popular. The trains on the Shenfield line are jammed full in the rush hour as is the Central Line. The whole corridor is grossly overloaded. I suspect will simply keep getting worse - especially if Docklands and the Olympic Park keep developing thus increasing demand for east-west travel near the route 25 corridor. Crossrail may make a dent - partly because the frequency might be a bit higher and trains longer. However the biggest change will be with fares. People travelling into town currently have to pay for a combined LU / NR fare if changing to the tube at Stratford or Liv St and heading to Z1 or beyond. I assume TfL will move Crossrail on to the TfL PAYG tariff and this will cause fares east of Stratford to fall as the Z1 "through fare" premium" will disappear. For all those saying people won't sit on a bus for over an hour then I think they're wrong. People quite clearly do sit on buses for that long even where a rail route exists. There are several factors - buses are more "door to door", fares and passes are vastly cheaper than rail, there is not quite the same horrific scale of crush and overcrowding on buses as there is on the rail network. Some people also cannot cope with tunnels and confined spaces so they will opt for buses. There is a significant slice of travellers that are money poor but relatively time rich - they'll tolerate bus travel rather than use the rail network to save money. This means there will be continued demand for longer distance bus travel. Moz has made several references to the high demand for early morning journeys on the 133 into the City from South London - largely cleaning and lower paid staff heading in to work. I expect TfL will be reviewing all bus services in areas where Crossrail and the enhanced Thameslink services will run. There is loads of precedent of bus coverage being reduced / changed when new high capacity rail links are added. It will be very interesting to see what, if anything, they feel they can do on the Ilford - City / West End corridor. Logic says Crossrail should take a lot of route 25 / 86 patronage but I wouldn't bet on that happening! Worth bearing in mind that Mr Hendy has recently said he expects Crossrail to be full within weeks of it opening  |
|
|
|
Post by wh541 on Apr 4, 2013 19:40:34 GMT
The debate has been very interesting. I'm not sure anyone really understands why the Ilford - City bus corridor remains so popular. The trains on the Shenfield line are jammed full in the rush hour as is the Central Line. The whole corridor is grossly overloaded. I suspect will simply keep getting worse - especially if Docklands and the Olympic Park keep developing thus increasing demand for east-west travel near the route 25 corridor. Crossrail may make a dent - partly because the frequency might be a bit higher and trains longer. However the biggest change will be with fares. People travelling into town currently have to pay for a combined LU / NR fare if changing to the tube at Stratford or Liv St and heading to Z1 or beyond. I assume TfL will move Crossrail on to the TfL PAYG tariff and this will cause fares east of Stratford to fall as the Z1 "through fare" premium" will disappear. For all those saying people won't sit on a bus for over an hour then I think they're wrong. People quite clearly do sit on buses for that long even where a rail route exists. There are several factors - buses are more "door to door", fares and passes are vastly cheaper than rail, there is not quite the same horrific scale of crush and overcrowding on buses as there is on the rail network. Some people also cannot cope with tunnels and confined spaces so they will opt for buses. There is a significant slice of travellers that are money poor but relatively time rich - they'll tolerate bus travel rather than use the rail network to save money. This means there will be continued demand for longer distance bus travel. Moz has made several references to the high demand for early morning journeys on the 133 into the City from South London - largely cleaning and lower paid staff heading in to work. I expect TfL will be reviewing all bus services in areas where Crossrail and the enhanced Thameslink services will run. There is loads of precedent of bus coverage being reduced / changed when new high capacity rail links are added. It will be very interesting to see what, if anything, they feel they can do on the Ilford - City / West End corridor. Logic says Crossrail should take a lot of route 25 / 86 patronage but I wouldn't bet on that happening! Worth bearing in mind that Mr Hendy has recently said he expects Crossrail to be full within weeks of it opening I agree I would rather use a bus than train I find it less stressful on me and my wallet ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Volvo on Apr 4, 2013 20:14:27 GMT
I would rather use the train as its much quicker but expensive. I find bus travel far too slow and not as enjoyable generally as it used to be.
|
|
|
|
Post by ServerKing on Apr 4, 2013 21:09:22 GMT
I would rather use the train as its much quicker but expensive. I find bus travel far too slow and not as enjoyable generally as it used to be. +1 |
|
