|
|
Post by Unorm on Jun 13, 2016 23:50:06 GMT
Personally I think they've escaped lightly. TfL could legitimately withdraw buses from Debden altogether and leave it to the market, as Essex initially seemed to want. Any requirement to ensure services to & from Greater London is surely met by the Central Line. I think you are supposed to feel "relieved" but I think something a little subtle is going on here. The 167 is the trailblazer for this type of cut. I simply don't believe cutting a bit of the 167 covers all the funding shortfall so TfL will see how this goes and what comments come back. Depending on how easy or difficult the consultation is for the 167 then we will see how rapidly the changes to the 397 and 549 emerge. Only the 20 appears to be "safe" - presumably because it has fairly large freehold section in Greater London and I assume it carries fair numbers at Debden given the density of housing in the estate area. Let's be honest - you could bin the 549 entirely and not many people in Greater London would "suffer". The W14 and 275 run over most of the roads or are close by and only the bit of Hillside Avenue in Woodford would be problematic. On my one ride on the 549 no one boarding or alighted along there. You could turn the 549 at Buckhurst Hill station thus removing much of the mileage in Essex and allowing the return of an hourly fixed headway service. The 397 is more difficult. It has been growing in popularity despite the modest service levels and was pretty busy when I rode it. Given TfL have had to add school day journeys there are obviously reasonably large school journey flows on the route. I guess TfL could simply cut Sunday services or pull the route back to Loughton if they need to save more money. I guess the decision will be linked to the upcoming retender (same applies to the 549 in the same tranche). If the prices for the base route are too high then TfL will need to implement options that I assume are already set out in the tender documentation. It's the potential contract award that will trigger the consultation for further reductions.  Regarding 549, strike 2 of what was once an accident to happen  |
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Jun 13, 2016 23:57:54 GMT
Such a shame the 167 is being cut. I've ridden it cross-boundary very rarely but when I do; the handful of passengers alighting before the county boundary (from a full loading at Ilford) trumps the dozens that get off in Chigwell and beyond. It's a shame that TfL are relying on statistics* when flipping a coin between the 20 and the 167. I remember when the 20 was every 10 mins; what a waste of money and resources that was! My ideal scenario would be to swap buses for the 20 & 167, but as the consultation reminded me; the low bridge just before Loughton station is the cause of the 167 not being able to accommodate deckers in the route's current structure. TfL are being very cheeky mentioning the Hopper ticket when it hasn't been implemented yet. We shall wait to see if** the changes happen before the Hopper ticket scheme. *based on a certain member's spreadsheet, which has been on my laptop long before I joined the forum lool, there are approx. 200k passengers a year more on the 20 than 167. This has been the case in every year of stats, for the past 5 years. I am adamant that those are 'waiving' passengers on the Walthamstow-Whipps Cross section. **it's a Tfl consultation, which roughly means "we have to give you a chance to be heard cause it's the law...doesn't mean that we'll listen to you though!" and push through with changes anyway. Ahh democracy!! I don't remember the 20 having a 10 minute headway. I must have amalgamated the previous school runs (which have now been removed) to think, albeit for an hour or so, that the headway was x10. I can only apologise for the cognitive failures in my brain!! |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 14, 2016 0:18:03 GMT
Personally I think they've escaped lightly. TfL could legitimately withdraw buses from Debden altogether and leave it to the market, as Essex initially seemed to want. Any requirement to ensure services to & from Greater London is surely met by the Central Line. I think you are supposed to feel "relieved" but I think something a little subtle is going on here. The 167 is the trailblazer for this type of cut. I simply don't believe cutting a bit of the 167 covers all the funding shortfall so TfL will see how this goes and what comments come back. Depending on how easy or difficult the consultation is for the 167 then we will see how rapidly the changes to the 397 and 549 emerge. Only the 20 appears to be "safe" - presumably because it has fairly large freehold section in Greater London and I assume it carries fair numbers at Debden given the density of housing in the estate area. Let's be honest - you could bin the 549 entirely and not many people in Greater London would "suffer". The W14 and 275 run over most of the roads or are close by and only the bit of Hillside Avenue in Woodford would be problematic. On my one ride on the 549 no one boarding or alighted along there. You could turn the 549 at Buckhurst Hill station thus removing much of the mileage in Essex and allowing the return of an hourly fixed headway service. The 397 is more difficult. It has been growing in popularity despite the modest service levels and was pretty busy when I rode it. Given TfL have had to add school day journeys there are obviously reasonably large school journey flows on the route. I guess TfL could simply cut Sunday services or pull the route back to Loughton if they need to save more money. I guess the decision will be linked to the upcoming retender (same applies to the 549 in the same tranche). If the prices for the base route are too high then TfL will need to implement options that I assume are already set out in the tender documentation. It's the potential contract award that will trigger the consultation for further reductions. I think both the 20 & 397 will probably end up being left alone - only rode both routes once on a Saturday but both were busy and I suspect that's probably the usual case. I'm quite surprised the 549 hasn't been included in this document - again, only done it once but hardly had any people board and you could probably cover most of the 549 by diverting the W13 at Broadmead Road and meeting the 549 routing at Hillside Avenue should people want the 549 to stay put. |
|
|
|
Post by ian on Jun 14, 2016 5:54:32 GMT
It is interesting (by which I mean not surprising in this case but noteworthy) that they did not provide the usual comment along the lines of XXX passengers direct journeys per day will be broken, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by routew15 on Jun 14, 2016 8:13:31 GMT
I'm quite looking forward to the impending article from the local Guardian on the disgruntled passengers of the 167.
on the point of the 549 not being apart of the consultation I think this is a smart move from a governing position. This leaves room for a more low profile consultation which could easily be put through without much contention.
I also think the W13 extension via the 549 is a smart one.
I think locals in Debden may be disheartened by higher fares on out of London routes and poor quality buses, poor service quality and removed links.
It it would be nice to know how much is being saved from the cut in service ...
|
|
|
|
Post by mondraker275 on Jun 14, 2016 9:05:30 GMT
So there well be a 167, 667 and 677 at times serving the same areas/roads? Why could they not just re route and extend the 667 limited stops to Debden.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jun 14, 2016 10:36:51 GMT
Quite ironic that from my previous observations, out of the 20 and 167 it was the latter that was more busy, I suppose this is down to it being operated by SDs. The 20 was also used quite well from what I saw, but due to it being a DD route it will always have some spare capacity out of the peaks, which is just fine. Anyway, such a shame TFL are curtailing the 167. I would personally prefer if it was rerouted via a more unique and direct routing to Debden which would start with a double run at Loughton Station, then back up Alderton Hill - Alderton Hall Lane - Bushfields - Colson Road - Chigwell Lane and Debden Station. Alternatively, the 397 could be rerouted as such and the 167 could replace it between Loughton and Debden. Anyway, I digress  |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jun 14, 2016 11:16:33 GMT
So there well be a 167, 667 and 677 at times serving the same areas/roads? Why could they not just re route and extend the 667 limited stops to Debden. I was originally going to say this but looking at the maps the 667 heads south west into West Hatch school whereas the 677 goes west then north to serve several schools. I assume there are heavy loads into West Hatch given two deckers are used so I doubt that there would be capacity on the buses plus there's the issue about buses turning round at West Hatch and then having to serve another 4 schools. I suspect the timings wouldn't work either - the time the 667 arrives / leaves West Hatch it would also need to be elsewhere at Debden at the same time. Obviously that's all guesswork on my part but I expect TfL have looked closely at the data from Zip Card validations on the 167 and talked to the schools about the need for the 677. I'd also surmise that TfL and the schools probably wouldn't want to mix 5 schools worth of pupils on one school bus service. All those stabbings / urban warfare / violence that now goes hand in hand with going to school or is Debden and Loughton devoid of such things?   |
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Jun 14, 2016 14:14:39 GMT
So there well be a 167, 667 and 677 at times serving the same areas/roads? Why could they not just re route and extend the 667 limited stops to Debden. I was originally going to say this but looking at the maps the 667 heads south west into West Hatch school whereas the 677 goes west then north to serve several schools. I assume there are heavy loads into West Hatch given two deckers are used so I doubt that there would be capacity on the buses plus there's the issue about buses turning round at West Hatch and then having to serve another 4 schools. I suspect the timings wouldn't work either - the time the 667 arrives / leaves West Hatch it would also need to be elsewhere at Debden at the same time. Obviously that's all guesswork on my part but I expect TfL have looked closely at the data from Zip Card validations on the 167 and talked to the schools about the need for the 677. I'd also surmise that TfL and the schools probably wouldn't want to mix 5 schools worth of pupils on one school bus service. All those stabbings / urban warfare / violence that now goes hand in hand with going to school or is Debden and Loughton devoid of such things? Are you suggesting the area where Lord Acupa Sugar lives will have such shenanigans? Pleeease, before you can say the word "stab" the Range Rover convoy will be whisked to the schools to avoid their children being a stereotype. All jokes aside, don't be fooled as to the lengths [disadvantaged] students will travel for a good school. Whatever has been said about the 167 journey patterns (mass disembarking in ECC) will be flipped round; certainly from what I've seen from 667. Around 2/3 of the bus seating capacity, 45 schoolkids or so, will have alighted in the Ilford area. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 3, 2016 12:34:51 GMT
I'm quite looking forward to the impending article from the local Guardian on the disgruntled passengers of the 167. on the point of the 549 not being apart of the consultation I think this is a smart move from a governing position. This leaves room for a more low profile consultation which could easily be put through without much contention. I also think the W13 extension via the 549 is a smart one. I think locals in Debden may be disheartened by higher fares on out of London routes and poor quality buses, poor service quality and removed links. It it would be nice to know how much is being saved from the cut in service ... Seeing as your looking forward to it lol: m.guardian-series.co.uk/news/14578481.Thousands_sign_petition_against__lifeline__bus_cut/ |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jul 3, 2016 14:02:56 GMT
I especially liked this bit. |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Jul 3, 2016 17:31:29 GMT
I'm quite looking forward to the impending article from the local Guardian on the disgruntled passengers of the 167. on the point of the 549 not being apart of the consultation I think this is a smart move from a governing position. This leaves room for a more low profile consultation which could easily be put through without much contention. I also think the W13 extension via the 549 is a smart one. I think locals in Debden may be disheartened by higher fares on out of London routes and poor quality buses, poor service quality and removed links. It it would be nice to know how much is being saved from the cut in service ... Seeing as your looking forward to it lol: m.guardian-series.co.uk/news/14578481.Thousands_sign_petition_against__lifeline__bus_cut/Even though I agree with a lot of what is written in the article, I see the petition making no difference. TfL have been very clear that they have to cut this bus route due to lack of funding from Essex, if anything the petition should be aimed at Essex council asking them to restore funding to TfL for route 167. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jul 3, 2016 18:06:40 GMT
Even though I agree with a lot of what is written in the article, I see the petition making no difference. TfL have been very clear that they have to cut this bus route due to lack of funding from Essex, if anything the petition should be aimed at Essex council asking them to restore funding to TfL for route 167. The ECC funding cut is apparently £586,000 a year. Apparently it is only for the 20 and 167 - if I am reading the reports properly. The contract value of the 167 is £1.9m per annum (2011 prices). I have to say I am struggling a little bit to see how lopping off Debden - Loughton saves £586,000 per annum even assuming the contract value is somewhat higher now given the impact of inflation on the contract price. At very best the cut saves 2 buses off the M-S PVR which is about 20% of the PVR. If we assume there is a proportionate relationship (unlikely I know) between the PVR and the tender price then 22% off let's say £2.1m (inflated value) contract price gives a saving of circa £460k so there is still a savings gap to be filled. I accept the numbers are "back of a cigarette packet" but it looks like TfL are absorbing some of the funding loss themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jul 3, 2016 18:45:20 GMT
I can see peoples points but the 'lifeline' would still be maintained by the 20 and other Essex routes and I would hardly say a 'lifeline' is running all Yeh way to ilford from Debden. Cutting a lifeline would be removing a bus altogther from and area and leaving residents with a mile or so walk to another route that would involve crossing a busy road.
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jul 3, 2016 20:05:36 GMT
I can see peoples points but the 'lifeline' would still be maintained by the 20 and other Essex routes and I would hardly say a 'lifeline' is running all Yeh way to ilford from Debden. Cutting a lifeline would be removing a bus altogther from and area and leaving residents with a mile or so walk to another route that would involve crossing a busy road. Yes but if you are a resident of Loughton and Debden you know only too well what happens with bus cuts. You end with either nothing by way of a replacement or an ongoing shambles until that collapses. I imagine having a TfL contracted service is seen as the Essex bus user equivalent of living on Richard Branson's private island in the Caribbean. There is one simple thing TfL could do to try to ease some fears - ensure there is a reasonably convenient connection at Loughton between the 20 and 167, especially early morning, evenings and Sundays when both routes are half hourly. Who wants to catch the 20 and then have a 29 minute wait at Loughton? No one. It's even a right old pain the peaks and M-S off peak - x15 vs x20. All too easy to end up with a 20 min wait at Loughton. I can understand why people are upset about facing these sorts of delays / extended journey times. Yes it's better than no bus but if I knew that every evening or Sunday journey would be extended by up to 29 minutes by shoddy connections I'd give up travelling or find an alternative. |
|
