|
|
Post by SILENCED on Jun 11, 2019 18:13:46 GMT
Free child bus travel also keeps cars off the road for parents that might otherwise have driven their kids to school. Take the free travel away and there will probably see an increase of cars on the road which is not really what we want Sorry, but I have always thought children going free was always a good progressive idea.
With the exception of those who struggle with walking I am no fan of those who get the bus for one or two stops. Perhaps everyone should pay 50p to travel one stop, 40p for two stops and 30p for three on top of whatever fare they pay! Get them to walk and become healthier! More seriously, I don't really support charging people like that, but I would offer carrots to try and people to walk a bit more rather than take the bus a stop or two.
OK ... so what kind of carrot would you propose to stop the use of free travel ... nice sound byte ... but needs expanding |
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Jun 11, 2019 18:19:30 GMT
Free child bus travel also keeps cars off the road for parents that might otherwise have driven their kids to school. Take the free travel away and there will probably see an increase of cars on the road which is not really what we want Sorry, but I have always thought children going free was always a good progressive idea.
With the exception of those who struggle with walking I am no fan of those who get the bus for one or two stops. Perhaps everyone should pay 50p to travel one stop, 40p for two stops and 30p for three on top of whatever fare they pay! Get them to walk and become healthier! More seriously, I don't really support charging people like that, but I would offer carrots to try and people to walk a bit more rather than take the bus a stop or two.
People beoman children getting on for a few stops but one must remember other factors may play a part. First of all the difference between two stops is never constant and varies hugely so charging people by distance would be a more sensible move. Secondly many may get the bus because they do not feel safe as a pedestrian in the areas which they will have to pass through to reach their destination especially for environments hostile to pedestrians, I'm sure many wouldn't want to walk through a subway rife with antisocial behaviour |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2019 18:21:50 GMT
Like it or not, free travel for young people is not going away. There is substantial political pressure for similar schemes across the country. Nice idea but who is paying for it? |
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Jun 11, 2019 18:25:24 GMT
I dont see why kids shouldn't pay say 30p most if them onky go 1 or 2 stops any Way. In Greenford there are 3 big High Schools within 1 mile of each OTHER its almost impossible to get on a bus between 3 and 3 30. Make them pay The schoolchildren are not the problem. It is building large centralised High Schools, and then compounding the problem by siting two or more in close proximity. This generates a massively peaked travel demand (especially at going-home time) which swamps the available buses. I don't buy that "most" of them only go one or two stops. I would expect that most travel quite some distance and it would be perfectly reasonable for them to use the bus. I am not saying that there aren't some kids who take the pee and ride when they could walk, but don't penalise all kids for the actions of a few. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2019 18:26:25 GMT
K The cost of living in London is higher than other parts of the country, yes a half fare would be a deterrent to stop schoolkids getting on the bus for one stop but for those who come from disadvantaged backgrouds having to pay 75p two times a day five times a week, spending £7.50 on travel a week may be a lot to those households which struggle to make ends meet. Yes it'll stop some using the bus just to get down the road but others who use the bus for journeys of a reasonable length will just be worse off as a result of the fare hike. If schoolkids want to use buses then that's their choice and its a matter of free will, you wouldn't stop someone from using the bus even if they did just want to go down the road. Admittedly free bus travel may encourage some to use the bus rather than walk but at a time when bus patronage is falling, isn't it better to have well used buses rather than empty ones Wages are higher in London and bus fares are cheaper. Out side of London families on lower incomes have to pay more. Having children is a life style chouce you choose to make and the government even pay you for having them. Part of the responsibilities of be a parent is providing for that child as they grow up ... if you dont want that commitment and responsibility you dont have children. I am not saying stop school children from using buses ... just ensure a fair fare is collected. I live in South Norwood, not one of the richest parts of London ... and the local take aways do a roaring trade at school closing time ... sure these are the very kids whose parents would claim they cant afford it! I live not too far away from you, my screen name probably gives it away, and I really couldn't have summed it up better. Like you I see kids keeping the local take aways busy often wearing the latest designer clothing and carrying the latest electronic gadgets yet they can't afford their bus fare....yeah right! |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jun 11, 2019 19:34:00 GMT
The way London tendering works it doesn't always work out that efficient when dealing with school loadings. Out side of London an operator would put DDs just on specific journeys (and not necessarily the newest DDs) or put on extra journeys when needed in the day/year even. In London we have routes tendered with DDs (353/412/492) just to cope with school times. Come evenings, weekends, school holidays every journey is still DD with higher daytime freqs to cope with the loadings. I'm sure a private operator would not run these on days they didn't need to nor run DDs at quieter times.
|
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Jun 11, 2019 20:11:48 GMT
How I'd have loved free travel when I was school age. Yes, I got free travel between Eltham, my home, and my school in Catford on account of the distance, but only at designated school times and, even then, because I lived on the 160 route and the stop was named on my cardboard bus pass it was always a hassle using the 124 from a stop a quarter mile away to do essentially the same journey when the 160 was up the spout (which was regularly). In fact, not having free bus travel effectively stopped me from ever travelling on a trolleybus from Woolwich to Bexleyheath, Dartford or even Plumstead, because if I'd saved pocket money to take the bus from Eltham to Woolwich I could only stand at the Parson's Hill terminus and watch the wonderful silent beasts glide in, around and out. When I was old enough to have a bike I had nowhere to leave it while I rode the trolley. By the time Red (bus) Rovers were created, the trolleybuses had been withdrawn from Woolwich and Crystal Palace, the two places I regularly visited. That DOESN'T make me think 'why should kids today get what I was denied?' though, because I reckon in many ways kids in this country have it worse than my contemporaries did, perhaps not materially but with all the pressures and anxieties heaped upon them now.
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jun 11, 2019 20:34:31 GMT
The way London tendering works it doesn't always work out that efficient when dealing with school loadings. Out side of London an operator would put DDs just on specific journeys (and not necessarily the newest DDs) or put on extra journeys when needed in the day/year even. In London we have routes tendered with DDs (353/412/492) just to cope with school times. Come evenings, weekends, school holidays every journey is still DD with higher daytime freqs to cope with the loadings. I'm sure a private operator would not run these on days they didn't need to nor run DDs at quieter times. We also have precisely what you say outside London does. There are single deck routes with double deck supplemental services. There are extra SDO only journeys. There are also extra SDO part journeys on some routes to cater for the school demand surge. As mentioned earlier a fundamental problem with school time transport is the ludicrous "semi deregulated" planning process for provision of school spaces, an over concentration of large schools in small areas and unfettered so called "parental choice" as to what schools their kids should go to. I understand the desire for parents to want the best for their kids but making them travel miles to / from school is, to my mind, almost punishment. Who wants to be turned into a commuter years before you face decades of that slog? |
|
|
|
Post by 6HP502C on Jun 11, 2019 22:13:35 GMT
We also have precisely what you say outside London does. There are single deck routes with double deck supplemental services. There are extra SDO only journeys. There are also extra SDO part journeys on some routes to cater for the school demand surge. As mentioned earlier a fundamental problem with school time transport is the ludicrous "semi deregulated" planning process for provision of school spaces, an over concentration of large schools in small areas and unfettered so called "parental choice" as to what schools their kids should go to. I understand the desire for parents to want the best for their kids but making them travel miles to / from school is, to my mind, almost punishment. Who wants to be turned into a commuter years before you face decades of that slog? I had to commute from Dulwich Grove Tavern to Upper Norwood from 2002-07. It isn't that far as the crow flies, but was a mission. Going via Tulse Hill as per orders from home was hard enough with 9.3m Y-TGH Darts at 4bph on the P13. It only ever stopped on the off chance someone was getting off and even then it was a bunfight to get on. Then one day it suddenly became 8.8m MPDs at 3bph so other arrangements had to be made. Going via Crystal Palace there were similar issues on the 363. You had to hope someone was getting off otherwise it wasn't stopping. I recall going well out my way via Camberwell to pick up a 468 or Norwood Junction to pick up a 196. I walked it once, took an hour, but it was uphill to varying degrees the entire way and with heavy books to carry, I almost blacked out on arrival in class. I didn't try that again. Going home, from Year 7 I lasted about a week relying on the P13 from Tulse Hill. After a couple of 45 minute waits it was via Crystal Palace for good. I can't remember whether or not that was influenced by the NV Olympians on the 63 then 363. Looking back, that's not a journey to make on the bus. I was sent to that school because it was decided I should go to a single sex school and it was one of the best in the vicinity for 5 A-C GCSE results. There weren't actually a huge number of options by direct bus from that part of Dulwich - there was Kingsdale, Forest Hill Boys and Stanley Tech so I think in hindsight, all things considered the tortuous journey was worth it. |
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Jun 11, 2019 22:15:37 GMT
Sorry, but I have always thought children going free was always a good progressive idea.
With the exception of those who struggle with walking I am no fan of those who get the bus for one or two stops. Perhaps everyone should pay 50p to travel one stop, 40p for two stops and 30p for three on top of whatever fare they pay! Get them to walk and become healthier! More seriously, I don't really support charging people like that, but I would offer carrots to try and people to walk a bit more rather than take the bus a stop or two.
People beoman children getting on for a few stops but one must remember other factors may play a part. First of all the difference between two stops is never constant and varies hugely so charging people by distance would be a more sensible move. Secondly many may get the bus because they do not feel safe as a pedestrian in the areas which they will have to pass through to reach their destination especially for environments hostile to pedestrians, I'm sure many wouldn't want to walk through a subway rife with antisocial behaviour Walking through a Subway is a choice .. there are always alternatives. |
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Jun 11, 2019 22:17:19 GMT
We also have precisely what you say outside London does. There are single deck routes with double deck supplemental services. There are extra SDO only journeys. There are also extra SDO part journeys on some routes to cater for the school demand surge. As mentioned earlier a fundamental problem with school time transport is the ludicrous "semi deregulated" planning process for provision of school spaces, an over concentration of large schools in small areas and unfettered so called "parental choice" as to what schools their kids should go to. I understand the desire for parents to want the best for their kids but making them travel miles to / from school is, to my mind, almost punishment. Who wants to be turned into a commuter years before you face decades of that slog? I had to commute from Dulwich Grove Tavern to Upper Norwood from 2002-07. It isn't that far as the crow flies, but was a mission. Going via Tulse Hill as per orders from home was hard enough with 9.3m Y-TGH Darts at 4bph on the P13. It only ever stopped on the off chance someone was getting off and even then it was a bunfight to get on. Then one day it suddenly became 8.8m buses at 3bph and was forced to make other arrangements. Going via Crystal Palace there were similar issues on the 363. You had to hope someone was getting off otherwise it wasn't stopping. I recall going well out my way via Camberwell to pick up a 468 or Norwood Junction to pick up a 196. I walked it once, took an hour, but it was uphill to varying degrees the entire way and with heavy books to carry, I almost blacked out on arrival in class. I didn't try that again. Going home, from Year 7 I lasted about a week relying on the P13 from Tulse Hill. After a couple of 45 minute waits it was via Crystal Palace for good. Looking back, that's not a journey to make on the bus. I was sent to that school because it was decided I should go to a single sex school and it was one of the best in the vicinity for 5 A-C GCSE results. There weren't actually a huge number of options by direct bus from that part of Dulwich - there was Kingsdale, Forest Hill Boys and Stanley Tech so I think in hindsight, all things considered the tortuous journey was worth it. Can I ask who decided you went to a single sex school? |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Jun 11, 2019 22:21:21 GMT
I had to commute from Dulwich Grove Tavern to Upper Norwood from 2002-07. It isn't that far as the crow flies, but was a mission. Going via Tulse Hill as per orders from home was hard enough with 9.3m Y-TGH Darts at 4bph on the P13. It only ever stopped on the off chance someone was getting off and even then it was a bunfight to get on. Then one day it suddenly became 8.8m buses at 3bph and was forced to make other arrangements. Going via Crystal Palace there were similar issues on the 363. You had to hope someone was getting off otherwise it wasn't stopping. I recall going well out my way via Camberwell to pick up a 468 or Norwood Junction to pick up a 196. I walked it once, took an hour, but it was uphill to varying degrees the entire way and with heavy books to carry, I almost blacked out on arrival in class. I didn't try that again. Going home, from Year 7 I lasted about a week relying on the P13 from Tulse Hill. After a couple of 45 minute waits it was via Crystal Palace for good. Looking back, that's not a journey to make on the bus. I was sent to that school because it was decided I should go to a single sex school and it was one of the best in the vicinity for 5 A-C GCSE results. There weren't actually a huge number of options by direct bus from that part of Dulwich - there was Kingsdale, Forest Hill Boys and Stanley Tech so I think in hindsight, all things considered the tortuous journey was worth it. Can I ask who decided you went to a single sex school? If you're suggesting that if parents who send their child to good schools should be prepared to foot the bill for travel then all you'll end up causing is a cycle of the poor children going to poor schools while the rich kids go to the good schools and get the good grades. I was sent to a school an hour's travel away, no way I could ever walk it. I went there because at the time it had one of the best reputations on this part of East London, with many students even enduring even longer commutes than me. |
|
|
|
Post by 6HP502C on Jun 11, 2019 22:22:40 GMT
Can I ask who decided you went to a single sex school? Parents/primary caregiver usually gets final sign off on secondary school applications. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2019 22:41:36 GMT
"We will also proceed with the re-routing of route 326 towards Barnet. Route 326 will run along the north end of Hendon Lane, serving stop G at St Mary’s Church, and will no longer serve stop R in Gravel Hill or stop J in Regents Park Road. We currently plan to make this change from Saturday 29 June 2019. There will be no change to the route towards Brent Cross." I never knew about this before but I don't understand the reason for this, why not in both directions if so be the case and why no change to the 143. This is happening due to the recent 125 extension to Colindale, and its realignment around the Gravel Hill/St Mary's Church area. Route 326 will essentially follow the same routeing as the new 125 between Hendon and Finchley Central, allowing people to interchange between both routes without having to cross the road and find the correct bus stop, only to go in the same direction after all. It will also decrease journey times marginally. Again towards Brent Cross, the route will remain the same, just as the 125 did when it was extended. I believe this is all just to create a more linear network in the area and make it easier for passengers to get where to they want to go. As for why they aren't doing this to the 143, I have a feeling that TfL's long-term intention may be to re-route it directly via East End Road (as opposed to Regents Park Road, Long Lane and Squires Lane), as 1) this section of road is currently only served by school routes and 2) it would allow for a double-deck conversion as residents along Squires Lane are currently opposed to such a change. This is why the 143 will still run via Gravel Hill both ways, to avoid the hassle of changing it back if any future amendments to the route come to fruition. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 12, 2019 0:34:55 GMT
Ah, we're back to making assumptions about schoolchildren just because they've been seen eating takeaway and wearing expensive clothing without any actual evidence that:
the schoolchildren in question actually get fed at home due to parents who don't care or parents who have to hold down more than one job due to cost of living and as a result can not be at home as often as they would like
the designer stuff being brought only by the parents rather than by friends or more distant family relatives as Birthday/Christmas gifts
If this debate is going to keep popping up every so often, let's at least make more fact based rather than just chucking out assumptions to suit people's own point of view.
|
|
