|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Jul 19, 2021 23:00:06 GMT
This is what happens when you have a pedestrianised town centre, services get shoved all over the place. I don’t blame them for moving the two routes, I blame past decisions by the council instead Laying blame achieves nothing, it is just a time wasting exercise unless lessons can be learnt. Pedestrianised town centres work, Bexleyheath works and has done for decades. The issue is excessive car parking provisions and the tendering system from TFL removing the 422 from BX which suddenly needed space in the town centre. That is the issue. The issue the 422 had was that no agreement seems to have been made to let Stagecoach use the garage as a stand. It's not really a fault of the tendering system as otherwise the only way to avoid it is to give Go Ahead the route forever which defies the point of a tender in the first place. I'd be surprised if that route ever goes back to the garage, can't see anyone undercutting a bid on a route that terminates at the Town Centre by offering to extend it and requiring more milage to be paid out. Would imagine this is the reason the 468 didn't return to standing at TC, and the 160 seemingly won't return to standing in TL. Going to the town centre issue, if you pedestrianise a town centre you automatically make it better to travel to in a car. Why would people use the bus? Because it's more convenient than a car. If the bus can't go through the town centre then people will just drive instead, and if people drive you need to have parking provision. If you don't give them parking provision they'll just go elsewhere, they do have a car after all so how much longer would that take? Ilford has a town centre that's been pedestrianised and the car traffic situation there is ridiculous because the car park is no further from the shops than the buses, if anything it's arguable closer. East Ham meanwhile has buses going right through the middle of the town and far less people drive to East Ham, most traffic there is just passing through on Barking Road or High Street North. End of the day the council has to look at what will bring the town centre custom, and if that's increasing car provision then that's what they'll do. |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Jul 19, 2021 23:08:16 GMT
Laying blame achieves nothing, it is just a time wasting exercise unless lessons can be learnt. Pedestrianised town centres work, Bexleyheath works and has done for decades. The issue is excessive car parking provisions and the tendering system from TFL removing the 422 from BX which suddenly needed space in the town centre. That is the issue. If I’m correct the 422, B11 & B16 are tendered with Bexleyheath, Shopping Centre as the terminus. Extensions to garages are an addition to the operator. Whereas Route 171 is tendered as Catford Garage as the terminus. Route 171 is tendered to stand at Downham, Old Bromley Road londonbuses.co.uk/Tender-specs/171.pdfI'd imagine Stagecoach and Go Ahead London have a pre-existing agreement which works for both operators which probably allows it to stand at Catford garage. |
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Jul 20, 2021 0:03:31 GMT
If I’m correct the 422, B11 & B16 are tendered with Bexleyheath, Shopping Centre as the terminus. Extensions to garages are an addition to the operator. Whereas Route 171 is tendered as Catford Garage as the terminus. Route 171 is tendered to stand at Downham, Old Bromley Road londonbuses.co.uk/Tender-specs/171.pdfI'd imagine Stagecoach and Go Ahead London have a pre-existing agreement which works for both operators which probably allows it to stand at Catford garage. I mentioned terminus, I did not mention bus stand. Been the 171 terminus since 1994. If you look at the document carefully Downham, Bromley Road is not officially listed as a route destination, but it is the official bus stand. Only to be used as a stand. However that document actually states where “ Route No. 171 will operate between Catford Bus Garage and Holborn Station/Bloomsbury, Bloomsbury Way.” Route 47 states Catford, Plassy Road and Route 199 states Catford Garage. 422 example now www.londonbuses.co.uk/Tender-specs/422-2009.pdf“Route No. 422 will operate between North Greenwich Station to Bexleyheath Shopping Centre.” States the exact same for Routes B11 & B16. Personally I’ve never seen a 171 standing at Downham, but I have seen many times buses standing outside the Forecourt presumably has done a U Turn or used Downham to turn around. |
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Jul 20, 2021 0:33:37 GMT
Laying blame achieves nothing, it is just a time wasting exercise unless lessons can be learnt. Pedestrianised town centres work, Bexleyheath works and has done for decades. The issue is excessive car parking provisions and the tendering system from TFL removing the 422 from BX which suddenly needed space in the town centre. That is the issue. The issue the 422 had was that no agreement seems to have been made to let Stagecoach use the garage as a stand. It's not really a fault of the tendering system as otherwise the only way to avoid it is to give Go Ahead the route forever which defies the point of a tender in the first place. I'd be surprised if that route ever goes back to the garage, can't see anyone undercutting a bid on a route that terminates at the Town Centre by offering to extend it and requiring more milage to be paid out. Would imagine this is the reason the 468 didn't return to standing at TC, and the 160 seemingly won't return to standing in TL. Going to the town centre issue, if you pedestrianise a town centre you automatically make it better to travel to in a car. Why would people use the bus? Because it's more convenient than a car. If the bus can't go through the town centre then people will just drive instead, and if people drive you need to have parking provision. If you don't give them parking provision they'll just go elsewhere, they do have a car after all so how much longer would that take? Ilford has a town centre that's been pedestrianised and the car traffic situation there is ridiculous because the car park is no further from the shops than the buses, if anything it's arguable closer. East Ham meanwhile has buses going right through the middle of the town and far less people drive to East Ham, most traffic there is just passing through on Barking Road or High Street North. End of the day the council has to look at what will bring the town centre custom, and if that's increasing car provision then that's what they'll do. The 160 terminating at Catford Garage was short lived only from 2000-2006, the original terminus was Catford, St Dunstans College. In relation to the above examples, in most cases routes terminating at garages haven’t changed operator. I can imagine in many cases will cost more for another firm to run, but not in all cases. Example Route 36 is actually tendered to stand in New Cross Sainsbury’s according to the tender spec online. |
|
|
|
Post by beaver14uk on Jul 20, 2021 19:54:43 GMT
Pretty sure it was discussed and proposed long before being suggested on here. quote author=" Paul" source="/post/644729/thread" timestamp="1626711502"] There will be a stand going in at Townley Rd and the 269 and B13 I expect will use it. They won't serve the clock tower Wow DT 11! Look how quickly your idea got implemented!  Seriously though, it just makes sense. Very few people use the 269 around to the Clock Tower and those who pick it up at the Clock Tower can easily relocate to the Library. Driver facilities aren’t an issue either since the Friswell Place facilities are only a short walk away - although I daresay the Shopping Centre toilets might be closer[/quote] |
|
|
|
Post by beaver14uk on Jul 20, 2021 19:57:56 GMT
It will be built next month then a decision on what's to use it will follow based on schedules. I would like to move as much as possible. Wow DT 11! Look how quickly your idea got implemented! Seriously though, it just makes sense. Very few people use the 269 around to the Clock Tower and those who pick it up at the Clock Tower can easily relocate to the Library. Driver facilities aren’t an issue either since the Friswell Place facilities are only a short walk away - although I daresay the Shopping Centre toilets might be closer Very quick! I wonder when this will be happening. The shopping centre toilets will indeed be closer only when it is open. |
|
|
|
Post by beaver14uk on Jul 20, 2021 19:59:24 GMT
The 422 was always limited to those times. Wow DT 11! Look how quickly your idea got implemented! Seriously though, it just makes sense. Very few people use the 269 around to the Clock Tower and those who pick it up at the Clock Tower can easily relocate to the Library. Driver facilities aren’t an issue either since the Friswell Place facilities are only a short walk away - although I daresay the Shopping Centre toilets might be closer Presumably this will allow the 422 to use Friswell Place? There have been complaints about the Woolwich Road stand and use is apparently now limited to 07.00 to 19.00. |
|
|
|
Post by beaver14uk on Jul 20, 2021 20:02:17 GMT
Townley Road is hardly far away. Wow DT 11! Look how quickly your idea got implemented! Seriously though, it just makes sense. Very few people use the 269 around to the Clock Tower and those who pick it up at the Clock Tower can easily relocate to the Library. Driver dfacilities aren’t an issue either since the Friswell Place facilities are only a short walk away - although I daresay the Shopping Centre toilets might be closer This is concerning, the clock tower is the changeover point for people getting aboard the routes, this will effect the 269 moreso as it'll shove more pax onto the 229 towards Sidcup. Imo 269 & B13 should dump off at Library then stand in situ there to pick up and do an anti-clockwise loop of the shopping centre calling at clocktower then Asda then back down Townley Road. Saves stand space whilst overall maintaining accessibility where demand exists and ensures all buses services call at the main Bexleyheath stops so services remain attractive enough. |
|
|
|
Post by beaver14uk on Jul 20, 2021 20:08:19 GMT
I know the stand capacity will be one currently two. quote author=" twobellstogo" source="/post/644749/thread" timestamp="1626719106"] This is concerning, the clock tower is the changeover point for people getting aboard the routes, this will effect the 269 moreso as it'll shove more pax onto the 229 towards Sidcup. Imo 269 & B13 should dump off at Library then stand in situ there to pick up and do an anti-clockwise loop of the shopping centre calling at clocktower then Asda then back down Townley Road. Saves stand space whilst overall maintaining accessibility where demand exists and ensures all buses services call at the main Bexleyheath stops so services remain attractive enough. I am sure that’s been considered and my (admittedly personal) observation is that there’s enough spare capacity on the 229 that it won’t overload. Your idea would make the 269 and B13 deeply unattractive from the library, I’d just go to the clock tower. To my amateur mind, this is all good. It also releases a space for the 422 at least. Related question : would terminating the 269 at the library allow the PVR to decrease by a bus, do people think? The journey from library to terminal and back is quite long. [/quote] R |
|
|
|
Post by beaver14uk on Jul 20, 2021 20:16:30 GMT
Bexleyheath did not have the volume of routes it has now and indeed terminating routes. Tendering doesn't help either as everything would have gone to Bexleyheath garage. This is concerning, the clock tower is the changeover point for people getting aboard the routes, this will effect the 269 moreso as it'll shove more pax onto the 229 towards Sidcup. Imo 269 & B13 should dump off at Library then stand in situ there to pick up and do an anti-clockwise loop of the shopping centre calling at clocktower then Asda then back down Townley Road. Saves stand space whilst overall maintaining accessibility where demand exists and ensures all buses services call at the main Bexleyheath stops so services remain attractive enough. This is what happens when you have a pedestrianised town centre, services get shoved all over the place. I don’t blame them for moving the two routes, I blame past decisions by the council instead |
|
|
|
Post by beaver14uk on Jul 20, 2021 20:24:13 GMT
When I was closer to the tendering system in my work Go Ahead were asked if they would permit whoever won the route 171 to stand at Catfird garage so it was never specified elsewhere as they agreed. This was about 10 years ago so I don't know what is agreed now. Route 171 is tendered to stand at Downham, Old Bromley Road londonbuses.co.uk/Tender-specs/171.pdfI'd imagine Stagecoach and Go Ahead London have a pre-existing agreement which works for both operators which probably allows it to stand at Catford garage. I mentioned terminus, I did not mention bus stand. Been the 171 terminus since 1994. If you look at the document carefully Downham, Bromley Road is not officially listed as a route destination, but it is the official bus stand. Only to be used as a stand. However that document actually states where “ Route No. 171 will operate between Catford Bus Garage and Holborn Station/Bloomsbury, Bloomsbury Way.” Route 47 states Catford, Plassy Road and Route 199 states Catford Garage. 422 example now www.londonbuses.co.uk/Tender-specs/422-2009.pdf“Route No. 422 will operate between North Greenwich Station to Bexleyheath Shopping Centre.” States the exact same for Routes B11 & B16. Personally I’ve never seen a 171 standing at Downham, but I have seen many times buses standing outside the Forecourt presumably has done a U Turn or used Downham to turn around. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 20, 2021 21:07:52 GMT
Bexleyheath did not have the volume of routes it has now and indeed terminating routes. Tendering doesn't help either as everything would have gone to Bexleyheath garage. This is what happens when you have a pedestrianised town centre, services get shoved all over the place. I don’t blame them for moving the two routes, I blame past decisions by the council instead That is very true but the council has had a few decades to plan for such an event - at least some sort of solution has been found now. |
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Jul 20, 2021 22:34:07 GMT
Laying blame achieves nothing, it is just a time wasting exercise unless lessons can be learnt. Pedestrianised town centres work, Bexleyheath works and has done for decades. The issue is excessive car parking provisions and the tendering system from TFL removing the 422 from BX which suddenly needed space in the town centre. That is the issue. Bexleyheath’s pedestrianisation is better than many : even with the 269/B13 change all bus routes serve the heart of the town centre. Perhaps it might help connections if the 229 is diverted slightly to run via Asda and the library, then on to Gravel Hill and line of route - that would put the two main Sidcup routes together at one bus stop at least, although it would slightly lengthen an already lengthy 229. Probably would affect the reliability of the 229 and involve adding another bus to the schedule just for going a round trip around Bexleyheath just to serve a common stop with another bus route. |
|
|
|
Post by Gellico on Jul 21, 2021 0:05:27 GMT
Townley Road is hardly far away. This is concerning, the clock tower is the changeover point for people getting aboard the routes, this will effect the 269 moreso as it'll shove more pax onto the 229 towards Sidcup. Imo 269 & B13 should dump off at Library then stand in situ there to pick up and do an anti-clockwise loop of the shopping centre calling at clocktower then Asda then back down Townley Road. Saves stand space whilst overall maintaining accessibility where demand exists and ensures all buses services call at the main Bexleyheath stops so services remain attractive enough. No however it reduces the attractiveness of the service and current ease of transfer between routes by now having to walk from one side of Broadway to the other. Small snips and cuts like this reduce overall attractiveness of buses to potential punters and propagates the attitude of buses being the transport of final resort. |
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Jul 21, 2021 0:57:47 GMT
Townley Road is hardly far away. No however it reduces the attractiveness of the service and current ease of transfer between routes by now having to walk from one side of Broadway to the other. Small snips and cuts like this reduce overall attractiveness of buses to potential punters and propagates the attitude of buses being the transport of final resort. The majority of the 269 & B13 passengers board and alight at the Library anyways it’s very close to the town centre. Overall if the area wasn’t so congested then I agree they both should serve the Clock Tower on return journeys. Doubt it would reduce the attractiveness much really because both those routes go to unique places, those who need to use those routes will make there way to those points, like they always have done. Those who want to go to Sidcup are more likely to wait for a 229 at the Clock Tower, the 229 is quieter between QMH and Bexleyheath so can definitely manage. Something does need to be done as the bus stands are overcrowded, even before the 422 was removed from BX stand, we also knew the 301 was coming. The Clock Tower Bus Stops I think have too many buses serving it as well. The 89 96 301 401 often spend longer at those stops. Example 132 having its own bus stop at North Greenwich was a sensible idea because it always gets full up. Those who want to go a few stops can just use 129 & 335 that are quieter. 301 there are now regulars who wait for it at the first stop at Woolwich Market. |
|
