|
Post by snoggle on Mar 12, 2016 22:46:14 GMT
All these proposals that aren't going through gives me hope that the 436 won't be re-routed towards Battersea... And think of all the budget that is being saved from these schemes not going ahead. Time to write to TfL to request that some of the spare money is splashed in the direction of E17. I really feel the need for the 397 to be extended via Higham Hill, Forest Rd, Bell Corner and up to the Central.
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Mar 12, 2016 23:25:07 GMT
All these proposals that aren't going through gives me hope that the 436 won't be re-routed towards Battersea... That one is likely to Go Ahead I think as well as the 452 extension. Would be surprised if it didn't as the 36 & 436 pretty the same between New Cross & Paddington. Would create a great new link to South West London
|
|
|
Post by routew15 on Mar 12, 2016 23:29:29 GMT
(The capitalised NOT made me laugh )
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Mar 12, 2016 23:36:16 GMT
One thing that this recent round of rejected consultations shows is that moves to actually improve "penetration" of some residential areas are now impossible / virtually impossible as a result of having to consult with local people. The internet and social media also seems to make easier for opposition to be generated. It makes me wonder what on earth the bus network would look like now if, in the 1980s and 90s, LT had had to consult in the same way. I suspect a great many routes that people find genuinely beneficial that serve areas away from main roads simply would not exist at all. Would we have some of the "R", "B", "H" and "W" routes? Would there be routes like the 162, 336, 352/4/6? I think not.
Thoughts??
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Mar 13, 2016 0:00:37 GMT
NIMBYZ RULEZ OK Entirely predictable given the ludicrous reaction to running small buses down a few residential roads. Still no thieves and hoodlums [1] terrorising the domestic bliss of the Birkbeck Triangle. [1] aka bus passengers. EDIT - having read the formal consultation report the following things are striking - some of the residents hired a transport consultancy to draft a response to TfL's proposals. Someone has too much money! - none of the local councillors consulted nailed their colours to the mast by formally responding! They were only involved in earlier phases of the process. Cowards. - residents groups from Bromley and West Wickham responded against this proposal instead demanding money be spent in their area and on the 162! - actual bus users and people more reliant on public transport supported the proposal. - people who don't use buses were those who were opposed. - there seemed to be a general lack of understanding of modern bus design and environmental performance leading to irrational (IMO) concerns about buses running down certain roads. - there was an explicit fear that gang members in South London would use the bus to attack youths on the Peabody Estate. Do gang members really use buses? I thought they had access to cars and rather flash motorcycles. I think what's really surprising is that they seem unaware that anyone can actually walk into their estate already. There is no gate stopping non residents from entering so 'undesirables' can enter right now without needing a bus. What's amazing is Tulse Hill & The Peabody Estate are not the same as Hampstead or Dulwich in terms what type of people live there and how the area is - lots of people rely on the bus in Lambeth - it's not one of the places in the UK with the lowest percentage of car owners and one of the highest users of public transport for nothing. Two responses baffled me: 1) the congestion at the Park Hall Road/Croxted Road junction is extremely minimal and would hardly delay the 315 were it going to be extended to the estate 2) although the section of Park Hall Road has had a restriction on buses for many years, Arriva still ran down out of service buses along there. The restriction also only covers buses with more than 8 seats so minibuses are free to use the road without issue
|
|
|
Post by routew15 on Mar 13, 2016 0:24:57 GMT
One thing that this recent round of rejected consultations shows is that moves to actually improve "penetration" of some residential areas are now impossible / virtually impossible as a result of having to consult with local people. The internet and social media also seems to make easier for opposition to be generated. It makes me wonder what on earth the bus network would look like now if, in the 1980s and 90s, LT had had to consult in the same way. I suspect a great many routes that people find genuinely beneficial that serve areas away from main roads simply would not exist at all. Would we have some of the "R", "B", "H" and "W" routes? Would there be routes like the 162, 336, 352/4/6? I think not. Thoughts?? I think the problem is TfL (and relevant authorities) has not convinced a certain group of people in society that believe buses are stinky/polluting/criminal carrying/house destroying machines. Without those thoughts being mitigated or deflated, the opposition to extensions like the 315 and 463 will remain. The areas consulted on both(315&463) appear to be of similar economic status and this could be why similar responses have been received. The last route to go to consultation and be extend through a previously unserved residential area was the 130 (which had a healthy 61% of support) but no published mention of pollution , parking , anti-social behaviour , etc. It could well be because these are recognised local matters that, for locals may not correlate with bus travel. Considering the above I'd say a handful of the above prefixed routes would exist, sections of the 162 and 336 would most probably exist under different route numbers or extensions of existing routes. All in all, It seems like these days unless the extension goes to a new residential/commercial development or an area that has specifically asked for a bus route, then it will be more difficult to get said extension to be approved .
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Mar 13, 2016 0:56:19 GMT
One thing that this recent round of rejected consultations shows is that moves to actually improve "penetration" of some residential areas are now impossible / virtually impossible as a result of having to consult with local people. The internet and social media also seems to make easier for opposition to be generated. It makes me wonder what on earth the bus network would look like now if, in the 1980s and 90s, LT had had to consult in the same way. I suspect a great many routes that people find genuinely beneficial that serve areas away from main roads simply would not exist at all. Would we have some of the "R", "B", "H" and "W" routes? Would there be routes like the 162, 336, 352/4/6? I think not. Thoughts?? I think the problem is TfL (and relevant authorities) has not convinced a certain group of people in society that believe buses are stinky/polluting/criminal carrying/house destroying machines. Without those thoughts being mitigated or deflated, the opposition to extensions like the 315 and 463 will remain. The areas consulted on both(315&463) appear to be of similar economic status and this could be why similar responses have been received. The last route to go to consultation and be extend through a previously unserved residential area was the 130 (which had a healthy 61% of support) but no published mention of pollution , parking , anti-social behaviour , etc. It could well be because these are recognised local matters that, for locals may not correlate with bus travel. Considering the above I'd say a handful of the above prefixed routes would exist, sections of the 162 and 336 would most probably exist under different route numbers or extensions of existing routes. All in all, It seems like these days unless the extension goes to a new residential/commercial development or an area that has specifically asked for a bus route, then it will be more difficult to get said extension to be approved . Lol, Tulse Hill & Wallington couldn't be anymore different. Wallington isn't Hampstead or Dulwich but I'd say people living there are more well off than people living in Tulse Hill.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Mar 13, 2016 1:16:48 GMT
All these proposals that aren't going through gives me hope that the 436 won't be re-routed towards Battersea... Let's very well hope so, because the 436 idea is too stupid to even be called a proposal...more like a debacle waiting to happen.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Mar 13, 2016 7:13:14 GMT
The proposed routing is ridiculous anyway, it avoids Tulse Hill station and shops completely.
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Mar 13, 2016 10:43:57 GMT
One thing that this recent round of rejected consultations shows is that moves to actually improve "penetration" of some residential areas are now impossible / virtually impossible as a result of having to consult with local people. The internet and social media also seems to make easier for opposition to be generated. It makes me wonder what on earth the bus network would look like now if, in the 1980s and 90s, LT had had to consult in the same way. I suspect a great many routes that people find genuinely beneficial that serve areas away from main roads simply would not exist at all. Would we have some of the "R", "B", "H" and "W" routes? Would there be routes like the 162, 336, 352/4/6? I think not. Thoughts?? Those that shout loudest and longest are those against proposals, and they wield, generally, an awful lot of power. You mention the B routes : the biggest kerfuffle when they began back in 1988 wasn't over the B routes : many of those covered roads that already had buses, and the B12 was welcomed over those roads that were new to buses. The B13 had a bit of a bumpy introduction, but that was largely down to Danson Road losing its regular service on the 132 rather than worries about the side roads it ran down. The big battle was over the 422 going down Hythe Avenue : I well remember the posters in nearly every window saying 'Say NO to the T1' - T1 being the number LRT initially used for the route before it became 422. In the end, the 422 had to use single deckers to appease the residents. It was only a year or so later, when Boro'line Maidstone took over that double deckers started to sneak out on the route.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Mar 13, 2016 13:26:16 GMT
The proposed routing is ridiculous anyway, it avoids Tulse Hill station and shops completely. It still serves West Norwood which is a bigger shopping area, the orthodontist in Dulwich & West Dulwich Station. Anyone wanting to use the line through Tulse Hill can easily change at Herne Hill Station. The only thing it misses out on is the lovely Caribbean restaurant next to Tulse Hill Station lol.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2016 13:27:03 GMT
NIMBYZ RULEZ OK Entirely predictable given the ludicrous reaction to running small buses down a few residential roads. Still no thieves and hoodlums [1] terrorising the domestic bliss of the Birkbeck Triangle. [1] aka bus passengers. EDIT - having read the formal consultation report the following things are striking - some of the residents hired a transport consultancy to draft a response to TfL's proposals. Someone has too much money! - none of the local councillors consulted nailed their colours to the mast by formally responding! They were only involved in earlier phases of the process. Cowards. - residents groups from Bromley and West Wickham responded against this proposal instead demanding money be spent in their area and on the 162! - actual bus users and people more reliant on public transport supported the proposal. - people who don't use buses were those who were opposed. - there seemed to be a general lack of understanding of modern bus design and environmental performance leading to irrational (IMO) concerns about buses running down certain roads. - there was an explicit fear that gang members in South London would use the bus to attack youths on the Peabody Estate. Do gang members really use buses? I thought they had access to cars and rather flash motorcycles. I think more than anything this shows that people are scared of change and the unknown and that buses have a bad reputation especially among the middle-class that it's loud and dirty and hence don't use it or support it but when actually intempleted like the 162 and 367 they actually become really popular and well liked services because people see that it gives them more connections and what not and can actually depend on them, therefore the hardest part as others have sade is convincing one another and things like social media and people becoming more aware of how these consultations work doesn't as unlike back then they now how to stop it now and makes it really unlikely that buses would go down these residental places unless it serves a lower-class population who have no cars or on a main road.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2016 13:31:16 GMT
One thing that this recent round of rejected consultations shows is that moves to actually improve "penetration" of some residential areas are now impossible / virtually impossible as a result of having to consult with local people. The internet and social media also seems to make easier for opposition to be generated. It makes me wonder what on earth the bus network would look like now if, in the 1980s and 90s, LT had had to consult in the same way. I suspect a great many routes that people find genuinely beneficial that serve areas away from main roads simply would not exist at all. Would we have some of the "R", "B", "H" and "W" routes? Would there be routes like the 162, 336, 352/4/6? I think not. Thoughts?? I think the problem is TfL (and relevant authorities) has not convinced a certain group of people in society that believe buses are stinky/polluting/criminal carrying/house destroying machines. Without those thoughts being mitigated or deflated, the opposition to extensions like the 315 and 463 will remain. The areas consulted on both(315&463) appear to be of similar economic status and this could be why similar responses have been received. The last route to go to consultation and be extend through a previously unserved residential area was the 130 (which had a healthy 61% of support) but no published mention of pollution , parking , anti-social behaviour , etc. It could well be because these are recognised local matters that, for locals may not correlate with bus travel. Considering the above I'd say a handful of the above prefixed routes would exist, sections of the 162 and 336 would most probably exist under different route numbers or extensions of existing routes. All in all, It seems like these days unless the extension goes to a new residential/commercial development or an area that has specifically asked for a bus route, then it will be more difficult to get said extension to be approved . True but the 130 is only one stop next to Selhurst Park which has coaches reguarly parking there for match day fixtures for Crystal Palace and there's two main roads next to it and goes through a more lower-class population who are more exposed to public transport and the 162 only goes through a tiny residental part in Chislehurst which it wouldn't of probably served if proposed today but is not as cut of from public transport like Peabody Estate as people can walk up (even though it maybe long and not everybody can) but except for that will stay the same but 336 I agree with.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Mar 13, 2016 13:38:09 GMT
NIMBYZ RULEZ OK Entirely predictable given the ludicrous reaction to running small buses down a few residential roads. Still no thieves and hoodlums [1] terrorising the domestic bliss of the Birkbeck Triangle. [1] aka bus passengers. EDIT - having read the formal consultation report the following things are striking - some of the residents hired a transport consultancy to draft a response to TfL's proposals. Someone has too much money! - none of the local councillors consulted nailed their colours to the mast by formally responding! They were only involved in earlier phases of the process. Cowards. - residents groups from Bromley and West Wickham responded against this proposal instead demanding money be spent in their area and on the 162! - actual bus users and people more reliant on public transport supported the proposal. - people who don't use buses were those who were opposed. - there seemed to be a general lack of understanding of modern bus design and environmental performance leading to irrational (IMO) concerns about buses running down certain roads. - there was an explicit fear that gang members in South London would use the bus to attack youths on the Peabody Estate. Do gang members really use buses? I thought they had access to cars and rather flash motorcycles. I think more than anything this shows that people are scared of change and the unknown and that buses have a bad reputation especially among the middle-class that it's loud and dirty and hence don't use it or support it but when actually intempleted like the 162 and 367 they actually become really popular and well liked services because people see that it gives them more connections and what not and can actually depend on them, therefore the hardest part as others have sade is convincing one another and things like social media and people becoming more aware of how these consultations work doesn't as unlike back then they now how to stop it now and makes it really unlikely that buses would go down these residental places unless it serves a lower-class population who have no cars or on a main road. The thing is though, the Peabody Estate is a bog standard council estate where you find working class people who rely on public transport so I'm really surprised why they would kill it off. Could understand if they were middle class like people in Hampstead for example.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2016 13:50:22 GMT
I think more than anything this shows that people are scared of change and the unknown and that buses have a bad reputation especially among the middle-class that it's loud and dirty and hence don't use it or support it but when actually intempleted like the 162 and 367 they actually become really popular and well liked services because people see that it gives them more connections and what not and can actually depend on them, therefore the hardest part as others have sade is convincing one another and things like social media and people becoming more aware of how these consultations work doesn't as unlike back then they now how to stop it now and makes it really unlikely that buses would go down these residental places unless it serves a lower-class population who have no cars or on a main road. The thing is though, the Peabody Estate is a bog standard council estate where you find working class people who rely on public transport so I'm really surprised why they would kill it off. Could understand if they were middle class like people in Hampstead for example. Ok didn't know it was a bog-standard council estate I thought it was a private estate and looking at pictures on google maps it didn't look to bad and saying that gentrification is changing a lot of things so a lot of the so called lower class are moving to the suburbs Croydon and Edmonton etc. even if it was a place like Hampstead anyway i still wouldn't see why they would kill it off so this to me makes no sense but at least I understand why they wouldn't want it from their perspectives.
|
|