|
|
Post by wirewiper on Mar 11, 2021 19:06:54 GMT
This is an illustration of just how much demand for bus travel has mushroomed since its low point in the early 1980s. When I first knew the 187 (which in those days ran from South Harrow to Hampstead Heath) the South Harrow section was half-hourly and the whole route was half-hourly on Saturdays, but loadings were generally light. Only the Harlesden to Queens Park section seemed to carry anything like appreciable loadings. For it now to have packed buses on a 12-minute frequency is quite incredible. It’s a fascinating area. Look at what the old E4 was. An hourly M-S service, no evening service. The 440 / 218 / 272 which now serve the old E4 routes are a vast improvement, and the 440 looks set to become high frequency. The 440 has done well with its extension to Wembley, it gets very busy. Perhaps the planners will include a new bus garage to replace RP. It does look likely that space will become housing long term. The other one that staggers me is the 251. This used to be a half hourly service across Totteridge using 39-seater RFs and later BLs with a standing capacity of 3. It now has higher-capacity buses operating every 12 minutes and by all accounts the route still struggles at times. |
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Mar 13, 2021 21:33:23 GMT
08 / 58 reg ex First DEs are currently allocated to the 487. I think that they might be too old for 316 and the wrong Euro. Definitely too old. I think the ones purchased for it have officially be re allocated to one of the U routes as they were too long. The DELs that Metroline purchased for its last tender were too long so they were sent to the U routes. |
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Mar 13, 2021 21:49:28 GMT
All routes that can take double deckers should be allocated them.
|
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Mar 14, 2021 8:23:42 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Mar 14, 2021 12:17:27 GMT
I'm almost past caring. TfL is in thrall to the various lobby groups quoted within that document. It's not talking about what passengers want, it's about what special interest groups are pushing for. Until someone finally works out that buses, walking and cycling can't cosily co-exist as they'd like, bus speeds will only get worse. There's a reason 25-44 year old white men are the main cycling demographic. Changing the road layout doesn't change the gradient of that hill, it doesn't improve my vision or make my mother 25 years younger.
|
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Mar 14, 2021 13:22:00 GMT
All routes that can take double deckers should be allocated them. Certainly, once a route is at least 5 or 6 buses an hour I feel it should be double-deck unless physical restrictions state otherwise. Route 371 is a conspicuous recent tender to miss out on double-decks. |
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Mar 14, 2021 16:43:33 GMT
I'm almost past caring. TfL is in thrall to the various lobby groups quoted within that document. It's not talking about what passengers want, it's about what special interest groups are pushing for. Until someone finally works out that buses, walking and cycling can't cosily co-exist as they'd like, bus speeds will only get worse. There's a reason 25-44 year old white men are the main cycling demographic. Changing the road layout doesn't change the gradient of that hill, it doesn't improve my vision or make my mother 25 years younger. Enthusiasts are also a lobby group of sorts, certainly a special interest group, yet how typical are we of the average bus passenger? Many of us are white and I am guessing mostly male, yet women and people of Black and minority ethnic use buses more than white men. By all means talk about what passengers want - but make sure its is actually about what bus passengers want rather than what we as bus enthusiasts think they should have. |
|
|
|
Post by Busboy105 on Mar 14, 2021 16:50:01 GMT
All routes that can take double deckers should be allocated them. They should but some residents don’t want them because of some stupid selfish reasons. |
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Mar 14, 2021 17:08:35 GMT
All routes that can take double deckers should be allocated them. On some routes very few passengers will go upstairs. For such routes single deckers have a better interior layout than double deckers, which often have cramped and poorly-laid out lower decks. I would rather the most appropriate type for the typical passenger load. Some routes operated by single deckers have troublesome trees, responsibility for maintaining these trees so that double deckers can operate safely (and the cost of doing so) is often a matter of dispute. And I might be in the minority here but I think that if residents object to regular double deck operation along roads which have not had it previously, those objections should be listened to, not disregarded. |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Mar 14, 2021 17:12:57 GMT
All routes that can take double deckers should be allocated them. On some routes very few passengers will go upstairs. For such routes single deckers have a better interior layout than double deckers, which often have cramped and poorly-laid out lower decks. I would rather the most appropriate type for the typical passenger load. Some routes operated by single deckers have troublesome trees, responsibility for maintaining these trees so that double deckers can operate safely (and the cost of doing so) is often a matter of dispute. And I might be in the minority here but I think that if residents object to regular double deck operation along roads which have not had it previously, those objections should be listened to, not disregarded. Why should they be listened to when its bottlenecking a vital service? The residents on the 316 are just causing overcrowded buses, persuading people instead to take Ubers or private vehicles. If I lived in Ladywell or Lewisham and needed to get to Brixton, I'm far more likely to drive there than to get the P4 because I know the P4 is going to be an overcrowded mess because it always is one. Is this the message that should be put across to passengers? Millions of people having their life made difficult because of 2 people? What exactly is wrong with getting a net curtain? You can hardly see in through those but you can very easily see out of them. I'm sure if someone wanted to rob you they'll use a more creative method than trying to peek through a bus window anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Mar 14, 2021 17:34:25 GMT
On some routes very few passengers will go upstairs. For such routes single deckers have a better interior layout than double deckers, which often have cramped and poorly-laid out lower decks. I would rather the most appropriate type for the typical passenger load. Some routes operated by single deckers have troublesome trees, responsibility for maintaining these trees so that double deckers can operate safely (and the cost of doing so) is often a matter of dispute. And I might be in the minority here but I think that if residents object to regular double deck operation along roads which have not had it previously, those objections should be listened to, not disregarded. Why should they be listened to when its bottlenecking a vital service? The residents on the 316 are just causing overcrowded buses, persuading people instead to take Ubers or private vehicles. If I lived in Ladywell or Lewisham and needed to get to Brixton, I'm far more likely to drive there than to get the P4 because I know the P4 is going to be an overcrowded mess because it always is one. Is this the message that should be put across to passengers? Millions of people having their life made difficult because of 2 people? What exactly is wrong with getting a net curtain? You can hardly see in through those but you can very easily see out of them. I'm sure if someone wanted to rob you they'll use a more creative method than trying to peek through a bus window anyway. The answer to overcrowded buses on the P4 is higher frequencies - or at least extra journeys when they are most needed. If the P4 is "always" an overcrowded mess how come it only operates every 12 minutes? |
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Mar 14, 2021 17:34:38 GMT
All routes that can take double deckers should be allocated them. On some routes very few passengers will go upstairs. For such routes single deckers have a better interior layout than double deckers, which often have cramped and poorly-laid out lower decks. I would rather the most appropriate type for the typical passenger load. Some routes operated by single deckers have troublesome trees, responsibility for maintaining these trees so that double deckers can operate safely (and the cost of doing so) is often a matter of dispute. And I might be in the minority here but I think that if residents object to regular double deck operation along roads which have not had it previously, those objections should be listened to, not disregarded. I find that argument absolutely ridiculous - when the 178 was decked (which was prior to when purchasing in Kidbrooke became a thing) patronage increased so having buses decked is far far more attractive to punters yet despite Westfield being a massive hit the 316 since not being decked has dropped subsequently despite the fact it has no physical restrictions. Those residents can either stay and buy curtains as Eastlondoner62 said, or they can move house. Very similar story with the 235 and residents objections in both Sunbury & North Brentford, the route over the years has dropped in patronage. I'll give another example - between 2015 (when the 368 wasn't decked) and 2017 when it was decked the 368 managed to increase in use by over 300 000 and there were not significant developments I can think of however what may have occurred is that people saw more capacity. Similar story with the 62 - saw an increase of roughly 450000 over the same time period and it was also decked. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Mar 14, 2021 19:44:53 GMT
Why should they be listened to when its bottlenecking a vital service? The residents on the 316 are just causing overcrowded buses, persuading people instead to take Ubers or private vehicles. If I lived in Ladywell or Lewisham and needed to get to Brixton, I'm far more likely to drive there than to get the P4 because I know the P4 is going to be an overcrowded mess because it always is one. Is this the message that should be put across to passengers? Millions of people having their life made difficult because of 2 people? What exactly is wrong with getting a net curtain? You can hardly see in through those but you can very easily see out of them. I'm sure if someone wanted to rob you they'll use a more creative method than trying to peek through a bus window anyway. The answer to overcrowded buses on the P4 is higher frequencies - or at least extra journeys when they are most needed. If the P4 is "always" an overcrowded mess how come it only operates every 12 minutes? The P4 has been an overcrowded mess for years - of course being an Inner London route, it won’t ever be considered for any sort of enhancement. Double deckers at the current frequency would solve the issue of capacity without having have to fund extra buses. There is no justification for residents to block a double decker conversion unless it somehow creates an unsafe situation which rarely happens. Worrying about people looking into your home isn’t reasonable and just highlights how little the needs of bus passengers are thought of. In London, the vast majority of routes are not affected by people just sitting downstairs and even then, it’s a behaviour that can easily change otherwise I’m sure there would be less double decker conversions throughout history so I fully support converting any single decker routes without restrictions. |
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Mar 20, 2021 22:19:20 GMT
This is an illustration of just how much demand for bus travel has mushroomed since its low point in the early 1980s. When I first knew the 187 (which in those days ran from South Harrow to Hampstead Heath) the South Harrow section was half-hourly and the whole route was half-hourly on Saturdays, but loadings were generally light. Only the Harlesden to Queens Park section seemed to carry anything like appreciable loadings. For it now to have packed buses on a 12-minute frequency is quite incredible. It’s a fascinating area. Look at what the old E4 was. An hourly M-S service, no evening service. The 440 / 218 / 272 which now serve the old E4 routes are a vast improvement, and the 440 looks set to become high frequency. The 440 has done well with its extension to Wembley, it gets very busy. Perhaps the planners will include a new bus garage to replace RP. It does look likely that space will become housing long term. 272 is certainly popular and provided new links to Hammersmith Hospital from Chiswick and first bus service to housing development along Emlyn Road. It provides useful relief to the 72 between East Acton and Shepherds Bush. Shame evening frequency is still only half hourly. 440 rerouting away from Acton Green and southern end of Bollo Lane has left a large residential area unserved. Meanwhile the rerouting through Chiswick Business Park lacks a westbound bus stop near Gunnersbury Station and passenger numbers are low with the new indirect route between South Acton and Turnham Green. In some ways it would better for the route to run to Brentford via either Kew Bridge Station or Acton Town Station/Popes Lane in order to provide a direct link between Brentford and Acton. |
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Mar 21, 2021 14:30:39 GMT
|
|
