Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2013 6:22:46 GMT
Has anyone ever seen one in which TfL say they won't implement the changes due to negative feedback ?
It all seems a rather pointless exercise.
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Apr 23, 2013 8:55:03 GMT
Has anyone ever seen one in which TfL say they won't implement the changes due to negative feedback ? It all seems a rather pointless exercise. I can't recall a change not going ahead but I do not go back and check the status of every consultation. I do not agree that the process is pointless. I believe there should be much *more* transparency about *all* bus service changes. It is ridiculous that the public cannot easily see what their councillors, MPs, operators and other bodies are saying about the regular review of tendered bus routes and what TfL say by way of reply especially as so many requests for improvements are turned down. I only know this happens because I saw some documentation a long time ago. It is ridiculous that the public are unable to easily see what has been said about the routes they use. I would also hope that TfL was much more open to receiving feedback and proposals from the public - try doing it via the TfL website!? It is not easy or straightforward and in my experience feedback is not taken seriously. I would agree with you that the process as it currently stands is not meaningful and more a "window dressing" exercise. It often seems that TfL have already taken a decision regardless of what feedback is given. That is wrong in my view. I see that LOTS are reporting are saying some of the Olympic Park changes might take place in early May. Given TfL received 500 replies to the Olympic Park consultation I would love to know how they have properly and fully assessed 500 responses, considered alternatives, been through the internal approval process and then negotiated changes with operators in under 7 weeks. There are other deadlines with the operators for creation of schedules so I have to wonder quite what weight is being placed on the public's comments. However the answer to this is that the consultation process is *improved* not withdrawn so that all changes are done in secret. This will mean a culture change is needed within TfL. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2013 9:18:22 GMT
Has anyone ever seen one in which TfL say they won't implement the changes due to negative feedback ? It all seems a rather pointless exercise. I can't recall a change not going ahead but I do not go back and check the status of every consultation. I do not agree that the process is pointless. I believe there should be much *more* transparency about *all* bus service changes. It is ridiculous that the public cannot easily see what their councillors, MPs, operators and other bodies are saying about the regular review of tendered bus routes and what TfL say by way of reply especially as so many requests for improvements are turned down. I only know this happens because I saw some documentation a long time ago. It is ridiculous that the public are unable to easily see what has been said about the routes they use. I would also hope that TfL was much more open to receiving feedback and proposals from the public - try doing it via the TfL website!? It is not easy or straightforward and in my experience feedback is not taken seriously. I would agree with you that the process as it currently stands is not meaningful and more a "window dressing" exercise. It often seems that TfL have already taken a decision regardless of what feedback is given. That is wrong in my view. I see that LOTS are reporting are saying some of the Olympic Park changes might take place in early May. Given TfL received 500 replies to the Olympic Park consultation I would love to know how they have properly and fully assessed 500 responses, considered alternatives, been through the internal approval process and then negotiated changes with operators in under 7 weeks. There are other deadlines with the operators for creation of schedules so I have to wonder quite what weight is being placed on the public's comments. However the answer to this is that the consultation process is *improved* not withdrawn so that all changes are done in secret. This will mean a culture change is needed within TfL. One consultation I can think of that did result in a genuine change of plans was the plans for re-routing in the Kidbrooke area vis-a-vis the 178 and B16. There was then the proposal to reroute the B16 down Weigall Road - presumably the B16 was chosen so the service on the 178 wasn't cut off from areas further up the road from Weigall Road, though whether sending the B16 down through the traffic was the right way to sort that is another question. However, the plans were reconsidered though I suppose the proposal was a bit different in the sense that the changes were all to do with one community, weren't particularly based on costs or upgrades, and were well into the future - the consultation was not done with the intention of solving an "immediate" problem. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2013 9:32:35 GMT
The consultation on extending the 255 to Balham was held in 2009 but never happened because of the complaints from residents on Old Devonshire Road. A second consultation then took place in 2011 with changes to respond to their concerns but they still rejected the changes with noise and congestion being their main concerns.
There was very strong support for the extension on the other streets, most of the extension goes through an area without any bus service, as well as from Lambeth politicians and groups. I believe an extension is still intended but I have not seen anything said of it since the consultation results were published in late 2011.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2013 10:10:51 GMT
Has anyone ever seen one in which TfL say they won't implement the changes due to negative feedback ? It all seems a rather pointless exercise. 312/412 merger |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Apr 23, 2013 10:57:30 GMT
The consultation on extending the 255 to Balham was held in 2009 but never happened because of the complaints from residents on Old Devonshire Road. A second consultation then took place in 2011 with changes to respond to their concerns but they still rejected the changes with noise and congestion being their main concerns. There was very strong support for the extension on the other streets, most of the extension goes through an area without any bus service, as well as from Lambeth politicians and groups. I believe an extension is still intended but I have not seen anything said of it since the consultation results were published in late 2011. The proposal to extend the E10 seems to be in a similar state. I only found that out because Hounslow Council have published some minutes relating to the bus changes and funding for Chiswick Business Park. It would be *very* sensible for TfL to have accurate updates and status info for proposals which have got "stuck" but not cancelled. Being able to see a simple resume would aid the public's understanding. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Apr 23, 2013 12:34:33 GMT
Does the 130 count?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2013 13:26:17 GMT
130 wasn't really cancelled on the basis of the response from the consultation. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Apr 23, 2013 13:58:20 GMT
130 wasn't really cancelled on the basis of the response from the consultation. Is it cancelled? LOTS still list it as a change awaiting implementation. They are normally very good at removing changes when they are cancelled. I think Mr Munster even showed an approximate date for implementation (18 May 2013) when he did an update on londonbusroutes.net recently. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2013 15:12:12 GMT
130 wasn't really cancelled on the basis of the response from the consultation. Is it cancelled? LOTS still list it as a change awaiting implementation. They are normally very good at removing changes when they are cancelled. I think Mr Munster even showed an approximate date for implementation (18 May 2013) when he did an update on londonbusroutes.net recently. Cancelled wasn't the best phrasing I could've used - postponed would've been more appropriate. I imagine it will eventually go ahead when the Spring Lane bridge is fixed. |
|
|
|
Post by greeny253 on May 5, 2013 10:24:11 GMT
372 was gonna be re-routed a while back. Stopped by resident complaints.
Going back some the 362 was gonna run down East Road and Adelaide Gardens, again vetoed by residents.
|
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on May 5, 2013 11:37:57 GMT
129's extension to Peckham was cancelled, not sure if it was negative feedback or simply TfL's decision to abandon it.
The 152's planned rerouting via Recreation Way in Pollards Hill was abandoned a few years back, due to residential feedback where drag racing would occur. However a compromised system was eventually implemented but with the 463 being rerouted that way as part of its Mitcham extension.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2013 19:46:38 GMT
129's extension to Peckham was cancelled, not sure if it was negative feedback or simply TfL's decision to abandon it. The 152's planned rerouting via Recreation Way in Pollards Hill was abandoned a few years back, due to residential feedback where drag racing would occur. However a compromised system was eventually implemented but with the 463 being rerouted that way as part of its extension beyond Eastfields. It's because the Convoys Wharf development that it was meant to serve never went ahead. |
|
