|
Post by sid on Mar 5, 2017 8:35:51 GMT
It's not a question of somebody having the guts to do it, rat runs through residential areas have been blocked off for good reasons and reopening would only encourage more traffic into the area and we would soon be back to square one again. Given the overall traffic issues ... Can you really say this policy has been a success, or is it something that fundamentally needs to re-examined from ground zero up. So if you can get a motor vehicle from A to B in 5 minutes rather than 20 ... there has to be some pluses ... Maybe now is the time to re-examine if the pluses outweigh the negatives. Traffic congestion is to some extent self regulating, if an area is congested drivers will try and avoid it. I'm sure blocking off many rat runs has been a great success for people who live there.
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Mar 5, 2017 8:40:53 GMT
Given the overall traffic issues ... Can you really say this policy has been a success, or is it something that fundamentally needs to re-examined from ground zero up. So if you can get a motor vehicle from A to B in 5 minutes rather than 20 ... there has to be some pluses ... Maybe now is the time to re-examine if the pluses outweigh the negatives. Traffic congestion is to some extent self regulating, if an area is congested drivers will try and avoid it. I'm sure blocking off many rat runs has been a great success for people who live there. Agreed, as you said 'to some extent' ... now is it not worth re-examining whether it is still the best model ... Maybe a 12 month pilot to remove them in polution hot spot to see how air quality is effected? No improvement ... revert to how things were ... this potentially speeds up buses as well ... a commonly stated argument as to why bus patronage is falling, so may draw former users back out of their cars. Whilst certain people have benefited from blocking roads, others where the traffic has moved to (replacement rat runs) have been disadvantaged. In Southern Norwood ... Regina Road is closed ... this results in more traffic directly passing a primary school ... is this beneficial to the school children?
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Mar 5, 2017 10:21:08 GMT
Traffic congestion is to some extent self regulating, if an area is congested drivers will try and avoid it. I'm sure blocking off many rat runs has been a great success for people who live there. Agreed, as you said 'to some extent' ... now is it not worth re-examining whether it is still the best model ... Maybe a 12 month pilot to remove them in polution hot spot to see how air quality is effected? No improvement ... revert to how things were ... this potentially speeds up buses as well ... a commonly stated argument as to why bus patronage is falling, so may draw former users back out of their cars. Whilst certain people have benefited from blocking roads, others where the traffic has moved to (replacement rat runs) have been disadvantaged. In Southern Norwood ... Regina Road is closed ... this results in more traffic directly passing a primary school ... is this beneficial to the school children? That's my point, many schemes were done to benefit individual roads without looking at wider consequences. All they did is move the problem rather than solve the problem. TfL might have have a slogan Keeping London moving, but it's become it's become stopping up parts of London and rest moving slower than ever. There is too many local schemes with overall disbenefits that are passed. It's not just moving traffic, it's also daft parking schemes. In my borough virtually every parking scheme petition for at least 5 years is as a result of new parking caused by another scheme on next road. I repeat in my view nearly all traffic schemes have moved traffic, thus blocking the bus routes, they are a very blunt instrument that doesn't reduce traffic as intended, but instead just moves a fair proportion of the original problem elsewhere. If you go back to basics then a rat run is a consequence of delaying traffic on the original route, the fundamental is to try and sort the problem, not to just offset the side effects. Hence the suggestions that whole aim (getting from A to B) should be first and start looking at problem from start point, not dabbling.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Mar 5, 2017 10:56:49 GMT
Traffic congestion is to some extent self regulating, if an area is congested drivers will try and avoid it. I'm sure blocking off many rat runs has been a great success for people who live there. Agreed, as you said 'to some extent' ... now is it not worth re-examining whether it is still the best model ... Maybe a 12 month pilot to remove them in polution hot spot to see how air quality is effected? No improvement ... revert to how things were ... this potentially speeds up buses as well ... a commonly stated argument as to why bus patronage is falling, so may draw former users back out of their cars. Whilst certain people have benefited from blocking roads, others where the traffic has moved to (replacement rat runs) have been disadvantaged. In Southern Norwood ... Regina Road is closed ... this results in more traffic directly passing a primary school ... is this beneficial to the school children? If Regina Road were reopened it would mean large volumes of traffic using unsuitable residential roads to avoid the Manor Road/Portland Road Junction. You'll never please everyone but I wouldn't be in favour of reopening it.
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Mar 5, 2017 11:55:44 GMT
Agreed, as you said 'to some extent' ... now is it not worth re-examining whether it is still the best model ... Maybe a 12 month pilot to remove them in polution hot spot to see how air quality is effected? No improvement ... revert to how things were ... this potentially speeds up buses as well ... a commonly stated argument as to why bus patronage is falling, so may draw former users back out of their cars. Whilst certain people have benefited from blocking roads, others where the traffic has moved to (replacement rat runs) have been disadvantaged. In Southern Norwood ... Regina Road is closed ... this results in more traffic directly passing a primary school ... is this beneficial to the school children? If Regina Road were reopened it would mean large volumes of traffic using unsuitable residential roads to avoid the Manor Road/Portland Road Junction. You'll never please everyone but I wouldn't be in favour of reopening it. And then using Albert Road ... Which in turn is hardly suitable ... do you not deny that traffic lvls would be reduced on the first section of Albert Road by opening Regina Road. When my Dad lived in Cromer Road, I had to go Goat House, Manor Road, Albert Road, Cromer, when I could have just used a little bit of Regina Road, then Cromer
|
|
|
Post by sid on Mar 5, 2017 12:28:36 GMT
If Regina Road were reopened it would mean large volumes of traffic using unsuitable residential roads to avoid the Manor Road/Portland Road Junction. You'll never please everyone but I wouldn't be in favour of reopening it. And then using Albert Road ... Which in turn is hardly suitable ... do you not deny that traffic lvls would be reduced on the first section of Albert Road by opening Regina Road. When my Dad lived in Cromer Road, I had to go Goat House, Manor Road, Albert Road, Cromer, when I could have just used a little bit of Regina Road, then Cromer But surely most through traffic would then use Portland Road and not Albert Road? I do realise it can mean detours for local traffic.
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Mar 5, 2017 12:41:10 GMT
I fear 4th September 1982 is about to repeat itself with bells on...
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Mar 5, 2017 12:58:42 GMT
I fear 4th September 1982 is about to repeat itself with bells on... What happened for those of us who wern't around or aren't knowledgeable about it?
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Mar 5, 2017 13:31:48 GMT
I fear 4th September 1982 is about to repeat itself with bells on... What happened for those of us who wern't around or aren't knowledgeable about it? Was the day of massive bus service cuts as a result of the Fares Fair cheap fare scheme being outlawed.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Mar 5, 2017 14:00:34 GMT
I fear 4th September 1982 is about to repeat itself with bells on... I'm not sure things are quite that bad.
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Mar 5, 2017 14:02:17 GMT
I fear 4th September 1982 is about to repeat itself with bells on... I'm not sure things are quite that bad. I hope you're right...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2017 18:39:37 GMT
I'm not sure things are quite that bad. I hope you're right... I also hope not, but one thing that we are seeing identical to that of 1982 & 1984 cuts, were the out of zone routes being altered / withdrawn and a frequency rationalisation on some high frequency routes.
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Mar 6, 2017 0:26:23 GMT
Many thanks for the correction as to the dates to which period 11 refers.
I travel a lot in central London, and perhaps the suburbs are different, but I don't see lots of new bus priority schemes reducing travel times. Instead the changes of the last few have generally increased travel times and this I really do believe is part of the reason for the reduction in passengers on central London bus routes. I agree these policies are unlikely to change and combined with other changes such as 20mph limits, mean TfL can't really speed these buses up. In central London I think TfL have given up, and instead are accepting the consequent reduction in passengers and are cutting services 'to match demand'.
We are also reaching in the limits in some parts of what bus priority measures can achieve without general traffic being improved. For example whilst Cornhill in the city is closed, Bishopsgate is solid on most weekdays for large parts of the day. This includes the bus lane, the presence of which does little to help buses.
TfL senior Management may well not be oblivious to the problems, but those in control, be it the TfL board or Mayor's office sadly do seem to be. It's all very well promoting cycling or walking, but London is a growing city with fixed road space. For the economy in London to thrive people need to be able to get around by a variety of means including road and bus. Deliveries need to be made, business folk need to travel and so on. If motor vehicle road space is reduced without reducing that demand for roads, the result is more traffic jams which leads to increased costs to businesses. In such a scenario you may as well say that instead of London being open for business, instead it's full!. How London will cope with an expanded population on such policies, I don't know, but it will probably muddle through somehow, it has to. It doesn't have to be that way, but imagination and courage are need by those in control with new ideas. I have lots of suggestions but they are for another day!
A few more details on what happened back in 1982. After the outlawing of the GLC 'Fares Fare' changes which had reduced bus and tube fares, there could be no subsidy to the tubes or buses resulting in large hole to the LT budget. To address this fares were doubled (yes increased by literally 100%), and that led to a reduction in patronage of up to 35% on the buses. The budget cuts I think lead to a reduction of about 15% in bus mileage, and a fleet reduction of about 700 buses. A large part of that reduction in bus mileage happened on 4 Sept 1982. That year I think 18 routes were withdrawn and in 1982/3 many routes were converted from crew to one man operation. It was one of those dark periods of the long knives.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Mar 6, 2017 21:36:20 GMT
Many thanks for the correction as to the dates to which period 11 refers. I travel a lot in central London, and perhaps the suburbs are different, but I don't see lots of new bus priority schemes reducing travel times. Instead the changes of the last few have generally increased travel times and this I really do believe is part of the reason for the reduction in passengers on central London bus routes. I agree these policies are unlikely to change and combined with other changes such as 20mph limits, mean TfL can't really speed these buses up. In central London I think TfL have given up, and instead are accepting the consequent reduction in passengers and are cutting services 'to match demand'. We are also reaching in the limits in some parts of what bus priority measures can achieve without general traffic being improved. For example whilst Cornhill in the city is closed, Bishopsgate is solid on most weekdays for large parts of the day. This includes the bus lane, the presence of which does little to help buses. TfL senior Management may well not be oblivious to the problems, but those in control, be it the TfL board or Mayor's office sadly do seem to be. It's all very well promoting cycling or walking, but London is a growing city with fixed road space. For the economy in London to thrive people need to be able to get around by a variety of means including road and bus. Deliveries need to be made, business folk need to travel and so on. If motor vehicle road space is reduced without reducing that demand for roads, the result is more traffic jams which leads to increased costs to businesses. In such a scenario you may as well say that instead of London being open for business, instead it's full!. How London will cope with an expanded population on such policies, I don't know, but it will probably muddle through somehow, it has to. It doesn't have to be that way, but imagination and courage are need by those in control with new ideas. I have lots of suggestions but they are for another day! A few more details on what happened back in 1982. After the outlawing of the GLC 'Fares Fare' changes which had reduced bus and tube fares, there could be no subsidy to the tubes or buses resulting in large hole to the LT budget. To address this fares were doubled (yes increased by literally 100%), and that led to a reduction in patronage of up to 35% on the buses. The budget cuts I think lead to a reduction of about 15% in bus mileage, and a fleet reduction of about 700 buses. A large part of that reduction in bus mileage happened on 4 Sept 1982. That year I think 18 routes were withdrawn and in 1982/3 many routes were converted from crew to one man operation. It was one of those dark periods of the long knives. Err you can't say that Val Shawcross is oblivious to the issues on the bus network. She had 8+ years on the Transport Cttee so is more than aware of the key issues. Now she will have access to TfL's detailed data and I'd expect she's asking lots of questions. There is a lot of work happening on framing the new Mayor's Transport Strategy and again I expect Val is keeping a very close eye on that. Many of the TfL Board members are newly appointed so they are, no doubt, learning as things go. However they have asked for a piece of work to be done about restoring the fortunes of the bus network so they can't be accused of not being aware of the crisis. They quite clearly are aware and are asking the responsible people how they'll fix it. The paper due in May will have one of three main themes a) Some calm words that basically the core network is functioning well and the main thrust of planned changes in Z1 plus bus priority will restore things. b) "It's all a disaster and the only answer is revolution" - a proposal to make a series of wide ranging structural changes to the network in under 18 months to take out excess cost but not lose too much patronage. c) A targeted programme of interventions across London to take out cost, add resource where justified (don't expect much) to improve services in "areas with potential" and experiments around pro-active marketing to Oyster card holders and trial of "snazzy" interior designs to see if they can pull in the punters. My guess is that some existing people would be happy with (a), some at City Hall want (b) and the honourable compromise will be (c). I could, of course, be wrong. While I understand the negativity around the 1982 and 1984 changes you can view them a different way. It was perhaps a break point at which London Buses management realised they had to actually manage and there were some tough lessons for the unions and employees to come. You can also say it was the point at which things got "serious" about remodelling the network to give people more reliable services and also more service volume closer to where people lived. A lot of the dense network we see today has its origins in that post 1983/4 period. I think, in some ways, we are in a different position today as there is much more cost involved, the air quality agenda is expensive for the bus network and there is not much to be done on the fares side of things. Being "boxed in" on two or three sides is likely to cause some peculiar decision making - unfortunately.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2017 22:46:02 GMT
Many thanks for the correction as to the dates to which period 11 refers. I travel a lot in central London, and perhaps the suburbs are different, but I don't see lots of new bus priority schemes reducing travel times. Instead the changes of the last few have generally increased travel times and this I really do believe is part of the reason for the reduction in passengers on central London bus routes. I agree these policies are unlikely to change and combined with other changes such as 20mph limits, mean TfL can't really speed these buses up. In central London I think TfL have given up, and instead are accepting the consequent reduction in passengers and are cutting services 'to match demand'. We are also reaching in the limits in some parts of what bus priority measures can achieve without general traffic being improved. For example whilst Cornhill in the city is closed, Bishopsgate is solid on most weekdays for large parts of the day. This includes the bus lane, the presence of which does little to help buses. TfL senior Management may well not be oblivious to the problems, but those in control, be it the TfL board or Mayor's office sadly do seem to be. It's all very well promoting cycling or walking, but London is a growing city with fixed road space. For the economy in London to thrive people need to be able to get around by a variety of means including road and bus. Deliveries need to be made, business folk need to travel and so on. If motor vehicle road space is reduced without reducing that demand for roads, the result is more traffic jams which leads to increased costs to businesses. In such a scenario you may as well say that instead of London being open for business, instead it's full!. How London will cope with an expanded population on such policies, I don't know, but it will probably muddle through somehow, it has to. It doesn't have to be that way, but imagination and courage are need by those in control with new ideas. I have lots of suggestions but they are for another day! A few more details on what happened back in 1982. After the outlawing of the GLC 'Fares Fare' changes which had reduced bus and tube fares, there could be no subsidy to the tubes or buses resulting in large hole to the LT budget. To address this fares were doubled (yes increased by literally 100%), and that led to a reduction in patronage of up to 35% on the buses. The budget cuts I think lead to a reduction of about 15% in bus mileage, and a fleet reduction of about 700 buses. A large part of that reduction in bus mileage happened on 4 Sept 1982. That year I think 18 routes were withdrawn and in 1982/3 many routes were converted from crew to one man operation. It was one of those dark periods of the long knives. I think you've hit the nail squarely on the head here. Much of the current problems on the bus network has been self inflicted by city hall, past and present.
|
|