TfL attend Transport Committee about bus services

[Steve80]

Aug 26, 2013 18:44:17 GMT snoggle said:

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.

Theres also a mention on page 35 about the extension of route 255 which seems to have been cancelled because one borough wanted the route but the other one didn't. I only had a brief look so I may be wrong but there doesn't seem to be too much information about it

[DT 11]

Aug 28, 2013 19:04:08 GMT I-Azusio-I said:

Aug 28, 2013 17:21:53 GMT @mredd said:

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.

The 233 can cope. No need for another route to Swanley.
I agree with increasing the 492 frequency though, would probably require two extra buses a PVR of 8.

[slr]

Personally I think the interchange at Dartford with the 96 and 428 is adequate to serve DVH, and the 492 need not be diverted.

Whilst I can understand that the areas served aren't TfL's problem, the 492 is the only full stopping service of the three between Dartford and Bluewater, and provides a useful link between Sidcup/Bexleyheath and Dartford's satellite town/villages (Greenhithe/Stone) through which it passes. The stopping section between Dartford and Bluewater is well used by school time traffic, as well as being a later running alternative to the Arriva routes that use that area I believe.

Regarding the 96, I don't think they even want it to stop and serve the Fastrack route, merely utilise it to aid reliability. It's purely Arriva being stubborn that prevents its use by TfL routes from what I understand.

So basically, leave the routing of the 492 alone, and concentrate on the service levels would be my recommendation.

[IanF]

Fantasy extensions and new routes belong in there own thread back to discussing the contents of the transport commitee discussion.

[twobellstogo]

Aug 29, 2013 6:33:15 GMT IanF said:

Fantasy extensions and new routes belong in there own thread back to discussing the contents of the transport commitee discussion.

I think the 96 discussion is relevant, and by association the 428 and 492. And the 255 if anyone wants to.

As regards Bexleyheath-Swanley, that link did exist once. It was called 421, and it ran via Joyden's Wood. This London Country route met its demise with the Bexleybus scheme of 1988, the Joyden's Wood part replaced by B15. And I promise that's my last word on the subject, mods!

[southeastlondonbus]

I was just making a point that he 492 could full fill the two things the long asked for increase in service by the residents of North Cray and help to serve the hospital better.

But as I said there is no chance of funding for any change to services to serve the hospital as you would probably have to increase the PVR of the 96 for it to serve the hospital as that would be needed to help balance out the traffic delays this route suffers.

[snoggle]

London Councils (who represent all the Borough Councils in Greater London) have submitted a response to the Transport Committee's investigation into bus services. It is not a big document but the last two pages summarise the recommendations. Some interesting comments about needing to have access to better data to plan the road network properly and to get maximum value from private sector developers for transport improvements. They also want corridor reviews to assess demand for travel in those corridors and what the best mix of modes is - relevant given the bus to encourage people to walk and cycle. Unsurprisingly they also want to see much more consultation and joint planning with the Boroughs. They also want to see more orbital and express routes, the removal of over-bussing and the introduction of bus transfer tickets.

Some interesting stuff there but with the inevitable aspect of "self interest" for the Councils themselves. I also wonder about the extent to which individual boroughs are "bought into" the recommendations given some are not exactly "pro Bus" given their removal of bus lanes and adding of more parking spaces.