|
|
Post by enviroPB on Mar 23, 2016 14:39:17 GMT
Very interesting stuff, and probably you would expect TfL to do this sort of thing, but not necessarily share it. One current matter I read on the Newham report is that they (Newham) are currently undertaking a review of the bus lanes on Barking Road. Seems bad news, but maybe they may reposition some bus lanes on opposite sides for better use for buses (Optimistic me!). However, what this really shows is that, just maybe, someone is employed in Newham Council to deal with transport issue (Optimistic me!) I certainly would expect TfL to be doing this sort of work. However they've been very reluctant to share anything about how they might be thinking about changing the bus network. Hopefully TfL will continue to publish further reports and provide updates on these plans (where they've not reached the consultation stage). I think all Boroughs have transport staff if only to look after borough roads. What is evident is that many boroughs have lost staff in their transport departments as a result of spending cuts. This is why a lot of works take forever or simply don't happen. TfL have had to loan staff to some boroughs to progress cycling schemes, for example. That's been stated in London Assembly meetings. Newham has had a good track record for bus reliability, albeit means within their control. I can flag up previous problems such as peak demand along Plashet Road and on Romford Road, as well as capacity issues on routes 5, 58, and 308 from my recollection of recent woes. And most times if not all, the solution comes quickly when compared to other areas of London (e.g. capacity issues along route 343 north of Peckham. Plashet Road/Portway area was the same but extras were given on route 104 at peaks; that took no time at all!) So the transport commander for Newham must be commended for his work on public transport. I do sincerely hope however it's not the same person responsible for the upkeep on roads. Newham is now my neighbouring borough and as a budding cyclist, I know first hand about the state of disrepair of some roads. I doubt it's the same person for the varying roles though. Newham makes me bi-polar when I travel through the borough using different transport modes; happy as a bunny on a bus. But use a bike and the tears come flooding!  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2016 17:15:24 GMT
I certainly would expect TfL to be doing this sort of work. However they've been very reluctant to share anything about how they might be thinking about changing the bus network. Hopefully TfL will continue to publish further reports and provide updates on these plans (where they've not reached the consultation stage). I think all Boroughs have transport staff if only to look after borough roads. What is evident is that many boroughs have lost staff in their transport departments as a result of spending cuts. This is why a lot of works take forever or simply don't happen. TfL have had to loan staff to some boroughs to progress cycling schemes, for example. That's been stated in London Assembly meetings. Newham has had a good track record for bus reliability, albeit means within their control. I can flag up previous problems such as peak demand along Plashet Road and on Romford Road, as well as capacity issues on routes 5, 58, and 308 from my recollection of recent woes. And most times if not all, the solution comes quickly when compared to other areas of London (e.g. capacity issues along route 343 north of Peckham. Plashet Road/Portway area was the same but extras were given on route 104 at peaks; that took no time at all!) So the transport commander for Newham must be commended for his work on public transport. I do sincerely hope however it's not the same person responsible for the upkeep on roads. Newham is now my neighbouring borough and as a budding cyclist, I know first hand about the state of disrepair of some roads. I doubt it's the same person for the varying roles though. Newham makes me bi-polar when I travel through the borough using different transport modes; happy as a bunny on a bus. But use a bike and the tears come flooding! One I've noticed with Newham as that they do interact with their residents. Even though I've lived in Waltham Forest more than Newham, and even my school is in Waltham Forest, I know about the Newham mayor so much better. But I'm not saying they're brilliant, they are a lot like the rest of boroughs. Another thing, when there is a consultation about bus services in the area or near, they always have their comments and suggestions unlike Waltham Forest. One of the problems with Newham bus services is that they can be a bit infrequent at night, like routes 69, 158, 241, 262, 276, 473 etc, but the demand is probably not there anyway so not to worry. I really don't see why they want to review bus lanes, if anything, I hope they get rid of parking out of them. The only problem with bus lanes is that some drivers see them as an opportunity to take their time and be a tourtoise. |
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Apr 15, 2016 2:38:53 GMT
Forgot to mention the florescent flock of TfL volunteers at Canning Town station at 2pm Tuesday afternoon. They were gathering data in lieu with the South Newham proposal and were surveying on routes that are highlighted on the document. [Came back to the area later in the day via bus, and noticed them on the 300, 330, 147 but can't be certain about the other routes. The 30 strong team did scatter pretty well!!] |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2016 13:40:58 GMT
Read the proposals for Tower Hamlets.Really like the idea of splitting the 100, as it has been travelling light after Liverpool Street. Perhaps start it at Wapping and extending it to terminate in Finsbury Square via Moorgate would be a good idea, or even terminating at Blackfriars as the return towards Shadwell is always busy.
Also think the 115 is a good idea. Maybe the 339 can take the 100 stand space in Shadwell and towards Leytonstone go via Cannon Street Road and Commercial Street, and same on the way back.
|
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Apr 21, 2016 19:16:20 GMT
Read the proposals for Tower Hamlets.Really like the idea of splitting the 100, as it has been travelling light after Liverpool Street. Perhaps start it at Wapping and extending it to terminate in Finsbury Square via Moorgate would be a good idea, or even terminating at Blackfriars as the return towards Shadwell is always busy. Also think the 115 is a good idea. Maybe the 339 can take the 100 stand space in Shadwell and towards Leytonstone go via Cannon Street Road and Commercial Street, and same on the way back. The 100 is one of many routes in the City that has suffered in terms of reliability and through journeys ever since the Crossrail works began. City bankers, brokers and lawyers used to use it quite regularly from main rail terminals like Fenchurch Street (circa a short walk to Tower Gateway) and City Thameslink; and during the day patronage was upheld with tourists darting over the Square Mile. Now after the Lizzy works where the 100 was rerouted from Ludgate Circus and the daily car park of St Botolph Street, this route is not recognised by the commuters who don't need to get the bus. Obviously the Shadwell-Tower Gateway section is unique to the route and whatever views you have towards it, I respect it; but I would just like to inform you, as a once regular user of that route, that light journeys wasn't the norm until recently. I believe that TfL are having a trial with the 115 rerouting to Whitechapel for reliability reasons. What they tried to imply but failed to say; was demand from the Isle of Dogs area would increase to Whitechapel. If that was indeed true, then the 135 would be ideal for rerouting but the 115 was chosen; which would mean a change of buses if going from the heart of Isle of Dogs as the D3 will be rerouted to Leamouth via the current 277. Like the 15 being diverted to Blackwall, I see a break-up in the trunk 15/5/N15 service as one that isn't done likely (as TfL like and do often strive for continuity); and should I choose to believe they are indeed doing it for link reasons and not reliability reasons, then the 135 should've been chosen. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2016 21:53:18 GMT
Read the proposals for Tower Hamlets.Really like the idea of splitting the 100, as it has been travelling light after Liverpool Street. Perhaps start it at Wapping and extending it to terminate in Finsbury Square via Moorgate would be a good idea, or even terminating at Blackfriars as the return towards Shadwell is always busy. Also think the 115 is a good idea. Maybe the 339 can take the 100 stand space in Shadwell and towards Leytonstone go via Cannon Street Road and Commercial Street, and same on the way back. The 100 is one of many routes in the City that has suffered in terms of reliability and through journeys ever since the Crossrail works began. City bankers, brokers and lawyers used to use it quite regularly from main rail terminals like Fenchurch Street (circa a short walk to Tower Gateway) and City Thameslink; and during the day patronage was upheld with tourists darting over the Square Mile. Now after the Lizzy works where the 100 was rerouted from Ludgate Circus and the daily car park of St Botolph Street, this route is not recognised by the commuters who don't need to get the bus. Obviously the Shadwell-Tower Gateway section is unique to the route and whatever views you have towards it, I respect it; but I would just like to inform you, as a once regular user of that route, that light journeys wasn't the norm until recently. I believe that TfL are having a trial with the 115 rerouting to Whitechapel for reliability reasons. What they tried to imply but failed to say; was demand from the Isle of Dogs area would increase to Whitechapel. If that was indeed true, then the 135 would be ideal for rerouting but the 115 was chosen; which would mean a change of buses if going from the heart of Isle of Dogs as the D3 will be rerouted to Leamouth via the current 277. Like the 15 being diverted to Blackwall, I see a break-up in the trunk 15/5/N15 service as one that isn't done likely (as TfL like and do often strive for continuity); and should I choose to believe they are indeed doing it for link reasons and not reliability reasons, then the 135 should've been chosen. When was / is the 115 having a trial routing rerouting via Whitechapel? At moment, it is currently terminating at Stepney, Arbour Square. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Apr 22, 2016 23:11:40 GMT
I believe that TfL are having a trial with the 115 rerouting to Whitechapel for reliability reasons. What they tried to imply but failed to say; was demand from the Isle of Dogs area would increase to Whitechapel. If that was indeed true, then the 135 would be ideal for rerouting but the 115 was chosen; which would mean a change of buses if going from the heart of Isle of Dogs as the D3 will be rerouted to Leamouth via the current 277. Like the 15 being diverted to Blackwall, I see a break-up in the trunk 15/5/N15 service as one that isn't done likely (as TfL like and do often strive for continuity); and should I choose to believe they are indeed doing it for link reasons and not reliability reasons, then the 135 should've been chosen. TfL have a policy of NOT trialling route or frequency changes. This idea has been raised in Mayor's Questions before (for the W19 Sunday service) and was roundly rejected by TfL. The nearest TfL ever get to a "trial" is when, through external circumstances, they are forced to reroute services for long periods of time. This then gives them some real life data as to demand and operational performance. Of course if you're lucky they consult on permanent reroutings. If you live in E17 they don't consult on removing temporary changes and tell you to s*d *ff if you dare to query it.   I'd be surprised if TfL were to run the 115 to Whitechapel. To be honest I don't see the point given Whitechapel is walkable from Commercial Road or with a change at Aldgate. It's clear the next change to the 115 is to restore it to Aldgate when the roadworks complete in the next few days. I can't imagine removing the 115 from Aldgate permanently would be popular - it usually picks up a lot of people there from what I've seen in the past. If TfL decide, as part of Crossrail, to put more buses to Whitechapel then it won't be a trial - it'll be a planned change not not until late 2018 when the revised Whitechapel station will fully reopen. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2016 6:30:01 GMT
I believe that TfL are having a trial with the 115 rerouting to Whitechapel for reliability reasons. What they tried to imply but failed to say; was demand from the Isle of Dogs area would increase to Whitechapel. If that was indeed true, then the 135 would be ideal for rerouting but the 115 was chosen; which would mean a change of buses if going from the heart of Isle of Dogs as the D3 will be rerouted to Leamouth via the current 277. Like the 15 being diverted to Blackwall, I see a break-up in the trunk 15/5/N15 service as one that isn't done likely (as TfL like and do often strive for continuity); and should I choose to believe they are indeed doing it for link reasons and not reliability reasons, then the 135 should've been chosen. TfL have a policy of NOT trialling route or frequency changes. This idea has been raised in Mayor's Questions before (for the W19 Sunday service) and was roundly rejected by TfL. The nearest TfL ever get to a "trial" is when, through external circumstances, they are forced to reroute services for long periods of time. This then gives them some real life data as to demand and operational performance. Of course if you're lucky they consult on permanent reroutings. If you live in E17 they don't consult on removing temporary changes and tell you to s*d *ff if you dare to query it. I'd be surprised if TfL were to run the 115 to Whitechapel. To be honest I don't see the point given Whitechapel is walkable from Commercial Road or with a change at Aldgate. It's clear the next change to the 115 is to restore it to Aldgate when the roadworks complete in the next few days. I can't imagine removing the 115 from Aldgate permanently would be popular - it usually picks up a lot of people there from what I've seen in the past. If TfL decide, as part of Crossrail, to put more buses to Whitechapel then it won't be a trial - it'll be a planned change not not until late 2018 when the revised Whitechapel station will fully reopen. Isn't route 115 being rerouted via Whitechapel and not being removed from Aldgate according to the document? |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Apr 23, 2016 9:36:08 GMT
TfL have a policy of NOT trialling route or frequency changes. This idea has been raised in Mayor's Questions before (for the W19 Sunday service) and was roundly rejected by TfL. The nearest TfL ever get to a "trial" is when, through external circumstances, they are forced to reroute services for long periods of time. This then gives them some real life data as to demand and operational performance. Of course if you're lucky they consult on permanent reroutings. If you live in E17 they don't consult on removing temporary changes and tell you to s*d *ff if you dare to query it. I'd be surprised if TfL were to run the 115 to Whitechapel. To be honest I don't see the point given Whitechapel is walkable from Commercial Road or with a change at Aldgate. It's clear the next change to the 115 is to restore it to Aldgate when the roadworks complete in the next few days. I can't imagine removing the 115 from Aldgate permanently would be popular - it usually picks up a lot of people there from what I've seen in the past. If TfL decide, as part of Crossrail, to put more buses to Whitechapel then it won't be a trial - it'll be a planned change not not until late 2018 when the revised Whitechapel station will fully reopen. Isn't route 115 being rerouted via Whitechapel and not being removed from Aldgate according to the document? 1. I confess I had not read the whole document. Mea culpa! 2. I remain sceptical about the 115 idea because it's got the highest number of broken links out of all of the ideas. 3. The development paper is two years old and life may have moved on. 4. The post I responded to was about a *trial* rerouting and I don't believe that will happen. It's not TfL policy. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2016 16:41:09 GMT
I was all of a sudden searching something on Google and came across this document, not wholly connected to buses and there are a few ideas in there, some of them we have heard before, some quite interesting and some that are not that clear. The suggested changes or what residents want are *Rerouting the 147, 262 or 300 via Newham Hospital *A bus from the Gateway Surgical Centre (in Newham Hospital) to for example, East Ham. (Route 376 could probably easily be rerouted) *Extending route 330 to Whipps Cross Hospital *Extending / rerouting the 101, 473 or 474 to Gallions Reach Shopping Park to provide a link to North Woolwich and Silvertown *Extending route 15, 69 or 330 to Royal Victoria Cable Car (The extension to route 15 I really like the sound of!) *Increased Saturday services on routes 104 and 238 I don't know if the document dated April 2012 has been posted before. If you want to go strait to the bus changes section, they are on pages 15 and 29. www.newham.gov.uk/Documents/Council%20and%20Democracy/ScrutinyTransportAndRegenerationReview.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Apr 25, 2016 0:31:18 GMT
I was all of a sudden searching something on Google and came across this document, not wholly connected to buses and there are a few ideas in there, some of them we have heard before, some quite interesting and some that are not that clear. The suggested changes or what residents want are *Rerouting the 147, 262 or 300 via Newham Hospital *A bus from the Gateway Surgical Centre (in Newham Hospital) to for example, East Ham. (Route 376 could probably easily be rerouted) *Extending route 330 to Whipps Cross Hospital *Extending / rerouting the 101, 473 or 474 to Gallions Reach Shopping Park to provide a link to North Woolwich and Silvertown *Extending route 15, 69 or 330 to Royal Victoria Cable Car (The extension to route 15 I really like the sound of!) *Increased Saturday services on routes 104 and 238 I don't know if the document dated April 2012 has been posted before. If you want to go strait to the bus changes section, they are on pages 15 and 29. www.newham.gov.uk/Documents/Council%20and%20Democracy/ScrutinyTransportAndRegenerationReview.pdfI remember the 238 actually having a PVR of 10 during the week and 12 on Saturdays; making its headway 8 mins up until around 6pm. Now the PVR is 11 weekly with its 12 buses on Saturday but officially it's timetabled for every 10 minutes. I would very much like to see that 8 minute frequency on Saturdays as I believe the route needs it. Both the 104 and 238 on Plashet Road suffer terribly from traffic with the junction of Green Street so it will be nice to see that corridor get more time scheduled on it; but if you insist on a frequency increase!   I'd say the simple fix for Newham University Hospital is to have the 147 rerouted via New City Road towards Canning Town (Boundary Road towards Ilford if you want to save a few bob using existing bus stops/shelters) and Boundary Lane to the hospital. The road is cleared for double deckers as it's an official diversion route for the 104 so shouldn't be a problem to use. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2016 17:55:00 GMT
I was all of a sudden searching something on Google and came across this document, not wholly connected to buses and there are a few ideas in there, some of them we have heard before, some quite interesting and some that are not that clear. The suggested changes or what residents want are *Rerouting the 147, 262 or 300 via Newham Hospital *A bus from the Gateway Surgical Centre (in Newham Hospital) to for example, East Ham. (Route 376 could probably easily be rerouted) *Extending route 330 to Whipps Cross Hospital *Extending / rerouting the 101, 473 or 474 to Gallions Reach Shopping Park to provide a link to North Woolwich and Silvertown *Extending route 15, 69 or 330 to Royal Victoria Cable Car (The extension to route 15 I really like the sound of!) *Increased Saturday services on routes 104 and 238 I don't know if the document dated April 2012 has been posted before. If you want to go strait to the bus changes section, they are on pages 15 and 29. www.newham.gov.uk/Documents/Council%20and%20Democracy/ScrutinyTransportAndRegenerationReview.pdfI remember the 238 actually having a PVR of 10 during the week and 12 on Saturdays; making its headway 8 mins up until around 6pm. Now the PVR is 11 weekly with its 12 buses on Saturday but officially it's timetabled for every 10 minutes. I would very much like to see that 8 minute frequency on Saturdays as I believe the route needs it. Both the 104 and 238 on Plashet Road suffer terribly from traffic with the junction of Green Street so it will be nice to see that corridor get more time scheduled on it; but if you insist on a frequency increase! I'd say the simple fix for Newham University Hospital is to have the 147 rerouted via New City Road towards Canning Town (Boundary Road towards Ilford if you want to save a few bob using existing bus stops/shelters) and Boundary Lane to the hospital. The road is cleared for double deckers as it's an official diversion route for the 104 so shouldn't be a problem to use. To be honest, I think the 147 should remain serving Plaistow Greengate junction, the stop is well used towards Ilford and it is a major point on the route. I think TFL should introduce those 104 changes about making the new eastern half of the 104 (104B) go through Newham Hospital. However, a bus along New City Road sounds alright, however, I don't think it should be the 147 and it should be in both directions. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jul 26, 2016 20:49:32 GMT
TfL have published a new, and pretty long, paper on access to Queens and King George Hospitals. The paper is quite analysis heavy but covers a range of aspirations put forward by the relevant health trust that manages both hospitals. It touches on rerouting routes 5 and 248 plus EL3 and EL4 and possible new link roads near KG Hospital if land is redeveloped in the area. content.tfl.gov.uk/review-bus-access-queens-and-king-george-hospitals.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by john on Jul 27, 2016 8:09:37 GMT
The 5 I'm not to convinced about. You already have the 128 and 175 between Becontree Heath and Queens, anyone else would sure be under the King George's umbrella. The 248 though is a great call. The amount of elderly passengers that we get on the route it certainly should be going to Queens, maybe just extend it from the Market like the 193
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Dec 12, 2016 16:42:37 GMT
In classic stealth mode TfL have released another Development Paper this time for the Harold Hill area. content.tfl.gov.uk/review-of-bus-services-in-harold-hill.pdfGist of the scheme is to increase the 174, double deck the 256 and introduce a new 497 route. The latter is in place of fiddling with the 346 / 347 - reasons are discussed in the paper. This explains what happened to the idea to restructure the 347, divert it and increase its frequency. I know Havering has high car usage but I am really quite surprised at the modest assumed growth on services between 2011 and 2021 set out in the document even post Crossrail. |
|
