|
|
Post by paulsw2 on Dec 21, 2013 3:59:31 GMT
Reading the various threads that are on this excellent forum I have noticed many differing views and opinions
The problem as i see it is as London has a vast area to cover with finite resources & People in general wish to travel from A to B fairly quickly on a clean bus that is a near as possible on time.
Years ago before the serious traffic congestion began to seriously affect long trunk routes from suburbs into Central London you could travel North-South East-West directly. With the onset of tendering routes have got shorter causing a lot of duplication over certain section of routes
this is causing a squeeze on using stands and turning points.
BEFORE i get shot down in flames I think that the complete bus network needs to be amended some routes need to be extended some routes need to be cut back(not withdrawn) but an overall plan needs to be instigated for the benefit of ALL.
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Dec 21, 2013 22:21:57 GMT
Reading the various threads that are on this excellent forum I have noticed many differing views and opinions. The problem as i see it is as London has a vast area to cover with finite resources & People in general wish to travel from A to B fairly quickly on a clean bus that is a near as possible on time. Years ago before the serious traffic congestion began to seriously affect long trunk routes from suburbs into Central London you could travel North-South East-West directly. With the onset of tendering routes have got shorter causing a lot of duplication over certain section of routes this is causing a squeeze on using stands and turning points. BEFORE i get shot down in flames I think that the complete bus network needs to be amended some routes need to be extended some routes need to be cut back(not withdrawn) but an overall plan needs to be instigated for the benefit of ALL. OK I'll bite even though we've danced round this subject many times before. Whenever you look at passenger research the thing passengers want first is a fast journey. There are several aspects to this - time to reach the stop, waiting time, service frequency and then the speed the bus can actually travel at. For the latter bus priority is obviously important. The last bit is time from the alighting stop to ultimate destination. The next passenger preferences are usually reliability and safety and comfort. Fares come a little way down the list. On this basis TfL should be concentrating on boosting capacity where buses are overloaded so people don't have long wait times and they should also be promoting more bus priority to speed buses up. TfL have said they don't have the money to boost peak PVRs. Unfortunately the bus priority unit was scrapped years ago and segregated cycle lanes are likely to slow buses down due to a reduction in road space (see routes running east of Bow Roundabout - all slowed down to create the cycle superhighway together with a bus stop closed due to bureaucratic incompetence (see Diamond Geezer blog)). The Mayor also instructed TfL to not use the road user hierarchy as he wanted to "smooth traffic flow" for motorists. This means buses no longer have priority. This can't have done much for reliability nor can the pressure to trim PVRs as a result of driving down tender prices. Some operators have managed to still do a decent job but others have clearly got very close to the bone - you only need to read some of the woes endured by other group members (as passengers and drivers). I am personally not convinced that you can point to something like route tendering and say that is the cause of whatever your perceived problems are. There is only one group of routes that were split across Central London in the 1990s that you can explicity link to ensuring routes were allocated to a single operator to assist the contracting process. I would need an awful lot of convincing that there are considerable flows from Old Ford to Willesden that are being frustrated by the lack of a through service. What would be interesting is for you to cite an example of a route that deserves to be extended, one that should be result and the reasons why. Having spend an inordinate amount of time looking at the recently published TfL bus ridership stats and trying to identify what might have caused the growth it is quite telling how much improved frequencies and low floor buses coincide with the spikes in ridership. Clearly that can never be the whole reason because the economy, new housing, new offices/shops/hospitals all affect journey purpose. The other thing that is odd is that some long radial routes have done pretty well in gaining ridership (e.g. the 25) while some others have stagnated in comparison (e.g. 12, 36, 53, 207, 427). Meanwhile what people might call "orbital" routes like the 83, 183, 114, 251, 123, W15 have done much better although their ridership totals don't match those of routes like the 12 and 36. I think TfL will end up putting forward some sort of plan but the problem is that bus demand drivers can change far faster than for rail where longer term plans are more worthwhile. New schools, houses and different health service facilities can change within months which means a 5 year plan written today could be useless in 12-18 months time. I've certainly noticed a fair few new schools being built and they'll all affect demand for buses and local traffic conditions. You say there should be a plan for the whole network which I take to mean every route. I think this would be a bit pointless. Some routes are perfectly decent, perform well and have stable ridership - why would there be a need to improve or worsen such services? What needs the attention are those parts of London where links are missing, routes are hopelessly oversubscribed and where known developments mean demand will change / increase. The other side of the coin, of course, is finding the routes which are in long term decline or no longer functioning as intended. Changing those will never be terribly popular but they have to be "in the mix". As I have said before I would like to see the Mayor set a policy direction for improving bus services but he is currently not minded to provide one for whatever reason. It's a shame but for as long as buses are not one of his transport priorities then nothing will happen. It is perhaps no surprise that the TfL Business Plan only assumes an increase in mileage after 2016 when we will have had a Mayoral Election and things *might* have changed. Although not quite a plan, more a consultation document, I have attached a TfL document from 2002 about improvements to many London bus routes. It would be nice to see TfL launching some more of those but for other routes in London. For those of a nervous disposition I should advise the document includes photos of Ken Livingstone and a certain Sir Peter Hendy! Thanks should go to Robert Munster who has this document tucked away in the depths of Londonbusroutes.net. Attachment Deleted |
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Dec 22, 2013 20:31:23 GMT
some long radial routes have done pretty well in gaining ridership (e.g. the 25) while some others have stagnated in comparison (e.g. 12, 36, 53, 207, 427). I haven't studied the spreadsheet in any detail, but for the 12, 36 and 53, might'nt there be some link to these three routes being shortened and gaining 'shadow' services (148, 436 and 453 respectively)? |
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Dec 22, 2013 20:31:25 GMT
Reading the various threads that are on this excellent forum I have noticed many differing views and opinions The problem as i see it is as London has a vast area to cover with finite resources & People in general wish to travel from A to B fairly quickly on a clean bus that is a near as possible on time. Years ago before the serious traffic congestion began to seriously affect long trunk routes from suburbs into Central London you could travel North-South East-West directly. With the onset of tendering routes have got shorter causing a lot of duplication over certain section of routes this is causing a squeeze on using stands and turning points. BEFORE i get shot down in flames I think that the complete bus network needs to be amended some routes need to be extended some routes need to be cut back(not withdrawn) but an overall plan needs to be instigated for the benefit of ALL. A complete overhaul of the network was tried in the late 60s/early 70s with the Reshaping scheme (which gave us the notorious AEC Merlins...). It was never carried to its full extent. And a similar scheme now won't work, either... |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Dec 23, 2013 0:12:55 GMT
some long radial routes have done pretty well in gaining ridership (e.g. the 25) while some others have stagnated in comparison (e.g. 12, 36, 53, 207, 427). I haven't studied the spreadsheet in any detail, but for the 12, 36 and 53, might'nt there be some link to these three routes being shortened and gaining 'shadow' services (148, 436 and 453 respectively)? That's a fair enough observation but there have been reductions on the 148, 453 and 436 too in the last couple of years. The falls on the 36 and 53 have been going on for 4 years. The routes are still busy when you look at the total numbers but there may be something about South East London travel by bus which is affecting these routes. Something similar is evident on the 40, 42, 168, 171, 172 and 176 to give some other examples. The 63 and 343, unsurprisingly, buck this trend. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2013 14:10:01 GMT
Reading the various threads that are on this excellent forum I have noticed many differing views and opinions The problem as i see it is as London has a vast area to cover with finite resources & People in general wish to travel from A to B fairly quickly on a clean bus that is a near as possible on time. Years ago before the serious traffic congestion began to seriously affect long trunk routes from suburbs into Central London you could travel North-South East-West directly. With the onset of tendering routes have got shorter causing a lot of duplication over certain section of routes this is causing a squeeze on using stands and turning points. BEFORE i get shot down in flames I think that the complete bus network needs to be amended some routes need to be extended some routes need to be cut back(not withdrawn) but an overall plan needs to be instigated for the benefit of ALL. A complete overhaul of the network was tried in the late 60s/early 70s with the Reshaping scheme (which gave us the notorious AEC Merlins...). It was never carried to its full extent. And a similar scheme now won't work, either... Why not? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2013 17:05:55 GMT
I agree with a complete revamp.
London has a crisis in public transport and the quickest, cheapest solution is the bus.
So its time to put all the arguments of why it cant work into how can it work and actually be a bit radical rather than chopping up links.
|
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Dec 23, 2013 17:23:09 GMT
A complete overhaul of the network was tried in the late 60s/early 70s with the Reshaping scheme (which gave us the notorious AEC Merlins...). It was never carried to its full extent. And a similar scheme now won't work, either... Why not? Because, in my opinion, any massive plan is likely to be outdated very quickly as demand changes. Bus changes really have to be comparatively evolutionary rather than revolutionary. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Dec 23, 2013 21:50:49 GMT
I agree with a complete revamp. London has a crisis in public transport and the quickest, cheapest solution is the bus. So its time to put all the arguments of why it cant work into how can it work and actually be a bit radical rather than chopping up links. No one has defined what a "complete revamp" is and this means it is simply whatever anyone wants it to be to fit their personal view of how buses should run. Perhaps people can try to define what "complete revamp" means? - ideally without reference to route 220.  I am not sure why you say there is a public transport crisis. Yes the system is extremely well used and overloaded in the peaks *but* we have had many years of investment in the bus network, a lot of money spent to create the Overground network and more to come, many TOCs are seeing capacity enhancement works come to fruition with longer trains and new trains being delivered / built / ordered. We have Crossrail and Thameslink projects working their way to completion (albeit a few years away) and we have upgraded tube lines coming on stream with replacement trains, new tracks and signalling plus lots of "hidden" stuff like drainage and power supplies being sorted out. DLR has been expanded as has Tramlink with some more work due over the next few years. We have station capacity works happening at several overloaded LU stations plus some National Rail stations. If all of that constitutes a "crisis" I'd hate to see what you'd say if none of that investment had happened and we were still limping along with decrepit trains and worn out signalling. The transport system can always be better in lots of ways but we have been very fortunate that sustained investment has been made available over many years to actually allow big and important projects to be done. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2013 17:42:56 GMT
Sorry i cant be bothered replying anymore , or making comments about anything to do with this website , because of people like you who shout other peoples opinions down in a patronising way.
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Dec 24, 2013 18:34:25 GMT
Sorry i cant be bothered replying anymore , or making comments about anything to do with this website , because of people like you who shout other peoples opinions down in a patronising way. Assuming you were replying to me then I didn't shout nor was I patronising. I just said that plenty of investment has happened and is continuing to happen. You used the word "crisis" but didn't define it. I am actually interested to know why you say that. You may well see things that the rest of us don't which show the transport network isn't coping. I am also interested to see what ideas people have for a "total revamp" but no one has provided those ideas. My remark about the 220 was meant to be light hearted given we've discussed it before and there was a difference of view I hoped for some different examples based on where we are today rather than reinventing the past. I'm afraid I don't buy into the view that old London Transport in the 60s and 70s provided excellent service given all the woes there were with vehicle purchasing policy, incomplete initiatives, poor labour relations and indifferent service performance. Still no one can be forced to post. Sorry you feel it necessary to give up. |
|
