|
|
Post by snoggle on Aug 26, 2013 18:44:17 GMT
TfL recently attended a session of the London Assembly Transport Committee. Leon Daniels and Clare Kavanagh were the TfL people in attendance. There were other reps from the NHS, Sheffield City Council, London Councils, Age Concern and Stagecoach to give other insight from different viewpoints. The transcript from the meeting is now available. Be warned that it is a long document (Appendix A is the transcript) so takes some effort to get through all 33 pages. Some points from the document - exasperation with the bus service planning process including the "Roehampton Bus Desert". - confusion as to whether routes are only changed in line with tendering or much more frequently - Leon Daniels saying there's not really any money for big changes and the politicians getting huffy. - Councils wanting much more involvement in bus service planning. - Big issues about NHS changes and the extent of consultation with TfL to try to provide amended services when hospitals close or lose facilities. - Various issues about bus design, buggy spaces, not being able to "evict" people from the wheelchair space. - TfL planning not on the basis of routes but on flows. - TfL saying there is not really a distinction between orbital and radial services, especially in outer areas or serving places like Kingston, Harrow, Croydon. - TfL to produce specific spider maps for hospitals. Apparently the health service didn't know such things as spider maps existed! - Interesting debate with Stagecoach about the 96 serving Death, sorry, Darent Valley Hospital. - Insight from Sheffield about how they consulted about changes to bus routes as part of the Voluntary Bus Partnership. - More grumpiness from the politicians about area / sub regional reviews of bus services and why they are not done. - Some interesting remarks about safety and collisions. Stagecoach mentioning an increase in people walking into the side of buses because of IPods and mobile phones. - TfL rejecting demands for a "revolution" in bus service design (raised by Victoria Borwick who wants the West End's bus network completely redesigned to facilitate Oxford St pedestrianisation). - TfL rejected demands for a "1 hour transfer" ticket saying there is no demand. - Several moans about the "NB4L" post cards that TfL sent out for the route 24 conversion and about the sudden disappearance of a 24 stop at Lupus St in Pimlico that happened just as the postcards dropped through people's letter boxes!!!  Hope that is of some interest. The responses from TfL also show that much of what people keep suggesting on this forum is never, ever going to happen under the current financial regime where the piggy bank is empty. It will be very interesting to see the final report that comes from the Committee as I think there is a lot of dissatisfaction with what TfL said and also *how* said it. I suspect the Committee will "beat up" TfL quite a bit and be very insistent about much more consultation with councils and the public. |
|
|
|
Post by southeastlondonbus on Aug 26, 2013 21:56:33 GMT
TfL recently attended a session of the London Assembly Transport Committee. Leon Daniels and Clare Kavanagh were the TfL people in attendance. There were other reps from the NHS, Sheffield City Council, London Councils, Age Concern and Stagecoach to give other insight from different viewpoints. The transcript from the meeting is now available. Be warned that it is a long document (Appendix A is the transcript) so takes some effort to get through all 33 pages. Some points from the document - exasperation with the bus service planning process including the "Roehampton Bus Desert". - confusion as to whether routes are only changed in line with tendering or much more frequently - Leon Daniels saying there's not really any money for big changes and the politicians getting huffy. - Councils wanting much more involvement in bus service planning. - Big issues about NHS changes and the extent of consultation with TfL to try to provide amended services when hospitals close or lose facilities. - Various issues about bus design, buggy spaces, not being able to "evict" people from the wheelchair space. - TfL planning not on the basis of routes but on flows. - TfL saying there is not really a distinction between orbital and radial services, especially in outer areas or serving places like Kingston, Harrow, Croydon. - TfL to produce specific spider maps for hospitals. Apparently the health service didn't know such things as spider maps existed! - Interesting debate with Stagecoach about the 96 serving Death, sorry, Darent Valley Hospital. - Insight from Sheffield about how they consulted about changes to bus routes as part of the Voluntary Bus Partnership. - More grumpiness from the politicians about area / sub regional reviews of bus services and why they are not done. - Some interesting remarks about safety and collisions. Stagecoach mentioning an increase in people walking into the side of buses because of IPods and mobile phones. - TfL rejecting demands for a "revolution" in bus service design (raised by Victoria Borwick who wants the West End's bus network completely redesigned to facilitate Oxford St pedestrianisation). - TfL rejected demands for a "1 hour transfer" ticket saying there is no demand. - Several moans about the "NB4L" post cards that TfL sent out for the route 24 conversion and about the sudden disappearance of a 24 stop at Lupus St in Pimlico that happened just as the postcards dropped through people's letter boxes!!! Hope that is of some interest. The responses from TfL also show that much of what people keep suggesting on this forum is never, ever going to happen under the current financial regime where the piggy bank is empty. It will be very interesting to see the final report that comes from the Committee as I think there is a lot of dissatisfaction with what TfL said and also *how* said it. I suspect the Committee will "beat up" TfL quite a bit and be very insistent about much more consultation with councils and the public. The 96 to serve the Darent Valley Hospital is much needed especially with the problems currently being seen in South East London hospitals. I have also seen first hand the problem of people having numerous near misses with buses due to them being to busy staring at there phones. |
|
|
|
Post by marlon101 on Aug 27, 2013 6:03:52 GMT
That is really interesting, thanks for the summary Snoggle.
96 serving Darenth is a good/interesting idea that I expect many people to approve of. I also think the public would appreciate spider maps centred on hospitals. That said, I have a suspicion that the NHS conveniently 'wasn't aware of spider maps'. They wouldn't want to draw one up only to show where they've shut half a dozen services they've left a nice big hole in connectibility to health services...
|
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Aug 27, 2013 10:14:58 GMT
That is really interesting, thanks for the summary Snoggle. 96 serving Darenth is a good/interesting idea that I expect many people to approve of. I also think the public would appreciate spider maps centred on hospitals. That said, I have a suspicion that the NHS conveniently 'wasn't aware of spider maps'. They wouldn't want to draw one up only to show where they've shut half a dozen services they've left a nice big hole in connectibility to health services... Yes, I think many would approve of the 96 serving the hospital, but I have sympathy with Stagecoach's view that it may wreak havoc with the service, particularly at the run up to Christmas. On balance, I think the 96 should probably be left alone. Leaves the problem of how to serve the hospital better though... |
|
|
|
Post by southeastlondonbus on Aug 27, 2013 11:19:32 GMT
That is really interesting, thanks for the summary Snoggle. 96 serving Darenth is a good/interesting idea that I expect many people to approve of. I also think the public would appreciate spider maps centred on hospitals. That said, I have a suspicion that the NHS conveniently 'wasn't aware of spider maps'. They wouldn't want to draw one up only to show where they've shut half a dozen services they've left a nice big hole in connectibility to health services... Yes, I think many would approve of the 96 serving the hospital, but I have sympathy with Stagecoach's view that it may wreak havoc with the service, particularly at the run up to Christmas. On balance, I think the 96 should probably be left alone. Leaves the problem of how to serve the hospital better though... The only other TFL route in that neck of the woods is the 492 but being a low frequency route would probably cause just the same problems as the 96. The only other solution would be to introduce a new route with the specific purpose of connecting south east London with the hospital but the hospital is in Kent and I cannot see TFL stumping up the money for this to happen. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Aug 27, 2013 12:33:46 GMT
That is really interesting, thanks for the summary Snoggle. 96 serving Darenth is a good/interesting idea that I expect many people to approve of. I also think the public would appreciate spider maps centred on hospitals. That said, I have a suspicion that the NHS conveniently 'wasn't aware of spider maps'. They wouldn't want to draw one up only to show where they've shut half a dozen services they've left a nice big hole in connectibility to health services... Yes, I think many would approve of the 96 serving the hospital, but I have sympathy with Stagecoach's view that it may wreak havoc with the service, particularly at the run up to Christmas. On balance, I think the 96 should probably be left alone. Leaves the problem of how to serve the hospital better though... Mark Threapleton from Stagecoach was very cautious in what he said. He mentioned wanting to use Fastrack but this is seemingly not permitted but he did not criticise Arriva or Kent County Council. In the first meeting that the Committee held there were very pointed comments from the public about the 96 and why it could not use Fastrack. There are, of course, competition issues and I suspect Arriva would not be happy to have Stagecoach / TfL "creaming off" revenue between Dartford, the Hospital and Bluewater while benefitting from Fastrack roads. I know the 428 does run in to the hospital but it's not the 96 in terms of frequency and where it serves. |
|
|
|
Post by marlon101 on Aug 27, 2013 18:02:44 GMT
Yes, I think many would approve of the 96 serving the hospital, but I have sympathy with Stagecoach's view that it may wreak havoc with the service, particularly at the run up to Christmas. On balance, I think the 96 should probably be left alone. Leaves the problem of how to serve the hospital better though... The only other TFL route in that neck of the woods is the 492 but being a low frequency route would probably cause just the same problems as the 96. The only other solution would be to introduce a new route with the specific purpose of connecting south east London with the hospital but the hospital is in Kent and I cannot see TFL stumping up the money for this to happen. Perhaps the answer therefore is to breathe some new life into the 492 and get it running a decent and attractive service. People avoid it at all costs, particularly as a route to Bluewater. If it were to run more frequently with SDs it would be much more popular. Run it at speed from Bluewater to Crayford stopping only at the hospital on Bluewater bound journeys, four times an hour with single deck 10.8metre E200s. Worth a whirl? The 96 is an interesting question. Can't say I know much about its stopping pattern in Dartford but being a TfL funded route its prime purpose is of course from TfL area to Dartford and Bluewater. Therefore, if they do want to run on Fasttrack perhaps it could be an alighting only service outbound once outside the zones and boarding only inbound when outside the TfL zones - avoids Arriva's fears of their local journeys being nabbed |
|
|
|
Post by I-Azusio-I on Aug 27, 2013 18:35:32 GMT
I know this may be a bad idea but IMO, I generally think route 492 should swap buses with the 66. Then when route 492 starts using the 10.8m Enviro200s (from route 66), a new timetable should be released with the route running every 20 mins during daytime and every 30 min during evenings.
As for route 66, it can get displaced DWs from Arriva London to complete the PVR.
|
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Aug 27, 2013 20:55:59 GMT
I know this may be a bad idea but IMO, I generally think route 492 should swap buses with the 66. Then when route 492 starts using the 10.8m Enviro200s (from route 66), a new timetable should be released with the route running every 20 mins during daytime and every 30 min during evenings. As for route 66, it can get displaced DWs from Arriva London to complete the PVR. Even every 20 mins, the 492 would get clobbered in school travel hours with single deckers, but it's been long asked for around these parts to have a daytime frequency increase. |
|
|
|
Post by marlon101 on Aug 27, 2013 21:47:08 GMT
I know this may be a bad idea but IMO, I generally think route 492 should swap buses with the 66. Then when route 492 starts using the 10.8m Enviro200s (from route 66), a new timetable should be released with the route running every 20 mins during daytime and every 30 min during evenings. As for route 66, it can get displaced DWs from Arriva London to complete the PVR. Even every 20 mins, the 492 would get clobbered in school travel hours with single deckers, but it's been long asked for around these parts to have a daytime frequency increase. Aye. Not sure you could justify it with DDs though. Not at first anyway - a more robust timetable coducive to a turn up and go attitude would slowly drive up uptake I'm sure. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 28, 2013 9:54:09 GMT
Even every 20 mins, the 492 would get clobbered in school travel hours with single deckers, but it's been long asked for around these parts to have a daytime frequency increase. Aye. Not sure you could justify it with DDs though. Not at first anyway - a more robust timetable coducive to a turn up and go attitude would slowly drive up uptake I'm sure. Removing DD's from the 492 isn't the way forward either IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by southeastlondonbus on Aug 28, 2013 17:08:17 GMT
Aye. Not sure you could justify it with DDs though. Not at first anyway - a more robust timetable coducive to a turn up and go attitude would slowly drive up uptake I'm sure. Removing DD's from the 492 isn't the way forward either IMO. Taking the DD's away from the 492 would be an incorrect decision, but by making it more frequent and diverting it via the Darent Valley Hospital you could solve 2 things in one go, The residents of North Cray have long asked for an service increase to 20 minutes as the 492 is there only bus service and is in times of traffic problems sent via Hurst road to Bexley Village there by missing out a that section of route completely which means if you just miss one and the next one is diverted it leaves a 60 min gap in the service. Then sending it via the hospital would provide a much needed link as well. But as always is the case nowadays there is probably no money to provide this increase in service. |
|
|
|
Post by I-Azusio-I on Aug 28, 2013 19:04:08 GMT
Taking the DD's away from the 492 would be an incorrect decision, but by making it more frequent and diverting it via the Darent Valley Hospital you could solve 2 things in one go, The residents of North Cray have long asked for an service increase to 20 minutes as the 492 is there only bus service and is in times of traffic problems sent via Hurst road to Bexley Village there by missing out a that section of route completely which means if you just miss one and the next one is diverted it leaves a 60 min gap in the service. Then sending it via the hospital would provide a much needed link as well. But as always is the case nowadays there is probably no money to provide this increase in service. I agree that the service isn't very useful in its current form. I agree a diversion via the Hospital and increase to 20 minutes would be the way forward. I also think single-deckers would be hit too hard by schools loadings - however, they may be appreciated by the elderly travelling to the Hospital for their lower-deck seating capacity. Perhaps single-deckers with a double-deck working in the schools/peaks times would be the answer. Of course the service runs at a very low PVR with double decks so it wouldn't cost the Earth to provide a 20-min service, via the Hospital. However, even a small-ish increase won't get funded if there's not enough to justify it to TFL, so it would be interesting to see how something like this would play out if it was the option chosen. Then a new route from Swanley to Bexleyheath should be introduced to help routes 233 and 492, maybe that will ease the pressure. |
|
|
|
Post by ServerKing on Aug 28, 2013 21:59:18 GMT
TfL recently attended a session of the London Assembly Transport Committee. Leon Daniels and Clare Kavanagh were the TfL people in attendance. Hope that is of some interest. The responses from TfL also show that much of what people keep suggesting on this forum is never, ever going to happen That's quite comforting to know So we're left with whatever they decide to do... |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 29, 2013 0:49:21 GMT
I agree that the service isn't very useful in its current form. I agree a diversion via the Hospital and increase to 20 minutes would be the way forward. I also think single-deckers would be hit too hard by schools loadings - however, they may be appreciated by the elderly travelling to the Hospital for their lower-deck seating capacity. Perhaps single-deckers with a double-deck working in the schools/peaks times would be the answer. Of course the service runs at a very low PVR with double decks so it wouldn't cost the Earth to provide a 20-min service, via the Hospital. However, even a small-ish increase won't get funded if there's not enough to justify it to TFL, so it would be interesting to see how something like this would play out if it was the option chosen. Then a new route from Swanley to Bexleyheath should be introduced to help routes 233 and 492, maybe that will ease the pressure. Why would you need a new route via the 233 & 492 - I'm sure the section between North Cray Road & Swanley doesn't need an extra route. As for the 492, increase it to every 20 minutes, leave it with DD's - the saving can come from withdrawing the T32 without replacement. |
|
