|
Post by jay38a on Dec 13, 2016 0:16:06 GMT
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Dec 13, 2016 2:55:06 GMT
These changes look fairly balanced from the outset. My opinions:
-TfL wait for a reason like Crossrail to impose changes, good or bad (circa 174 increase) -the 497 idea does sound okay, but 2bph isn't really going to help out the Kings Park residents -Hilldene Avenue gets a new stand for the 497, which will help other routes reliability-wise when they get turned -By the way route 347 got hacked in favour for the 346; I assume route 497 is intended to be extended in the future -route 347 should go as far down is going to terminate at Little Gaynes Road/Optimist Tavern (return Alder Avenue & Hornbeam Avenue) -the decking of route 256 was pretty much inevitable.
TfL should IMO have a route coming from Hornchurch town centre, serving Hacton Lane fully to then terminate at the tavern. This should be in lieu to route 347. Or preferably have route 347 serve from the north instead of east. I understand why they proposed that routing though; there are a couple of primary schools surrounding Gaynes Park Road. Also the last bullet point on page 34 leads to so much ambiguity. It seems to suggest that 1 route or both could be getting a Sunday operation; at present both route 346 & 347 run Mon-Sat. However for the rerouted 346, it's imperative that TfL be consistent with their waffle if they plan to introduce theses changes because of Crossrail. Last time I checked, Croassrail would be running 7 days a week; so why can't the restructed bus route, due to Crossrail, not run 7 days as well?
The deliberation on Sunday running is very evident to TfL's penny pinching; but TfL shouldn't kid themselves that the residents at Kings Park will all be religiously inclined to rest on Sundays and not require bus service. Even the 497's [1bph] Sunday running is costed at £30,000 but TfL look to be unsure about implementing that. Plans look promising but let's wait to see how it's executed.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Dec 13, 2016 11:14:46 GMT
Which I linked to yesterday in the Bus Development Papers thread. It's not a consultation yet is it?
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Dec 13, 2016 15:37:06 GMT
Which I linked to yesterday in the Bus Development Papers thread. It's not a consultation yet is it? Were any of the bus development papers open to consultation? I can't recall there being one for the others; then again, I've probably repressed the memory of 'having my say' because TfL religiously ignore voices of the masses anyway.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Dec 13, 2016 15:47:15 GMT
Which I linked to yesterday in the Bus Development Papers thread. It's not a consultation yet is it? Were any of the bus development papers open to consultation? I can't recall there being one for the others; then again, I've probably repressed the memory of 'having my say' because TfL religiously ignore voices of the masses anyway. I understand Development Papers are all "pre consultation" in that they set out a view and analysis as to what will / has changed and how TfL have evaluated changes to bus services to meet future revised travel demands. It's perfectly possible that what is in a Development Paper could reach the consultation stage. Equally some of it may never happen if funding can't be secured or circumstances change again warranting a rethink. For example if the Chinese pull out of redeveloping part of the Royal Docks then why would TfL need to change bus services in the area as travel demand wouldn't alter? I deliberately updated the existing thread on development papers yesterday and earlier today (for Barking Riverside) rather than consultations because TfL are not yet consulting on these ideas.
|
|
|
Post by john on Dec 13, 2016 17:34:48 GMT
As someone who used to live in Harold Hill and also drives the 174 and 256, I agree with both options on these two. The 174 needs to be every 6 minutes and the 256 needs to be a decker route at the busy periods.
However the 497 idea is just.....a waste. Why not utilise the 347 in a better way and use that!! It's usual pretty empty so to improve that would be a better idea myself.
What I will say, though, they should never have cut the 374 and I said that over 10 years ago....I was right
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Dec 13, 2016 18:22:21 GMT
As someone who used to live in Harold Hill and also drives the 174 and 256, I agree with both options on these two. The 174 needs to be every 6 minutes and the 256 needs to be a decker route at the busy periods. However the 497 idea is just.....a waste. Why not utilise the 347 in a better way and use that!! It's usual pretty empty so to improve that would be a better idea myself. What I will say, though, they should never have cut the 374 and I said that over 10 years ago....I was right I rather liked the TfL idea of playing with the 346 and 347 although given the age profile of 347 users they'd not be happy with having their links broken despite the low usage. I also like the idea of upsetting people in Hacton by sending an hourly bus service down their roads (I checked Streetview yesterday). You can guarantee that an hourly bus would be seen as the end of the world to some of the residents judging from the size and appearance of some of the houses. Nonetheless a fair few people quite remote from the 370 down there. I wouldn't dismiss the 497 idea and my feeling is that TfL need to get that in place quickly before we get too many people in the Harold Wood Hospital housing site who are car dependent and thus "anti bus". I can also see that the 497 has plenty of potential to grow over time and expand its coverage. Has all the makings of what happened with the 499 that started off as a piddling little route with small buses and is now packed out most of the time.
|
|
|
Post by john on Dec 13, 2016 21:24:09 GMT
As someone who used to live in Harold Hill and also drives the 174 and 256, I agree with both options on these two. The 174 needs to be every 6 minutes and the 256 needs to be a decker route at the busy periods. However the 497 idea is just.....a waste. Why not utilise the 347 in a better way and use that!! It's usual pretty empty so to improve that would be a better idea myself. What I will say, though, they should never have cut the 374 and I said that over 10 years ago....I was right I rather liked the TfL idea of playing with the 346 and 347 although given the age profile of 347 users they'd not be happy with having their links broken despite the low usage. I also like the idea of upsetting people in Hacton by sending an hourly bus service down their roads (I checked Streetview yesterday). You can guarantee that an hourly bus would be seen as the end of the world to some of the residents judging from the size and appearance of some of the houses. Nonetheless a fair few people quite remote from the 370 down there. I wouldn't dismiss the 497 idea and my feeling is that TfL need to get that in place quickly before we get too many people in the Harold Wood Hospital housing site who are car dependent and thus "anti bus". I can also see that the 497 has plenty of potential to grow over time and expand its coverage. Has all the makings of what happened with the 499 that started off as a piddling little route with small buses and is now packed out most of the time. Yeah now that I agree with. I will have a better look when I get home at the 497 idea. IMO, I would alter something there. The 347 may not be the option, though the 346 could. Send that through Harold Wood to Harold Hill, brilliant. The only thing I'm not sure on is turning it. Might be where I didn't read it properly, but am I to presume the stand will actually be Gooshays Drive roundabout or is it to circumnavigate the shops, ie, use East Dene and West Dene to turn around?? The 174 brilliant, but worked it out to be a PVR of around 35 now. As for the 256, again well needed but wondering where the E200s would go. A good existing bid batch to use or chuck them to the P4!!
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Dec 13, 2016 21:40:36 GMT
I rather liked the TfL idea of playing with the 346 and 347 although given the age profile of 347 users they'd not be happy with having their links broken despite the low usage. I also like the idea of upsetting people in Hacton by sending an hourly bus service down their roads (I checked Streetview yesterday). You can guarantee that an hourly bus would be seen as the end of the world to some of the residents judging from the size and appearance of some of the houses. Nonetheless a fair few people quite remote from the 370 down there. I wouldn't dismiss the 497 idea and my feeling is that TfL need to get that in place quickly before we get too many people in the Harold Wood Hospital housing site who are car dependent and thus "anti bus". I can also see that the 497 has plenty of potential to grow over time and expand its coverage. Has all the makings of what happened with the 499 that started off as a piddling little route with small buses and is now packed out most of the time. Yeah now that I agree with. I will have a better look when I get home at the 497 idea. IMO, I would alter something there. The 347 may not be the option, though the 346 could. Send that through Harold Wood to Harold Hill, brilliant. The only thing I'm not sure on is turning it. Might be where I didn't read it properly, but am I to presume the stand will actually be Gooshays Drive roundabout or is it to circumnavigate the shops, ie, use East Dene and West Dene to turn around?? The 174 brilliant, but worked it out to be a PVR of around 35 now. As for the 256, again well needed but wondering where the E200s would go. A good existing bid batch to use or chuck them to the P4!! Sadly, I believe the P4 already has it's buses for its new contract which are the ex ELBG crap - I'd certainly prefer the 256's Enviro 200's over the ones it's been retained with.
|
|
|
Post by john on Dec 13, 2016 22:53:36 GMT
Yeah now that I agree with. I will have a better look when I get home at the 497 idea. IMO, I would alter something there. The 347 may not be the option, though the 346 could. Send that through Harold Wood to Harold Hill, brilliant. The only thing I'm not sure on is turning it. Might be where I didn't read it properly, but am I to presume the stand will actually be Gooshays Drive roundabout or is it to circumnavigate the shops, ie, use East Dene and West Dene to turn around?? The 174 brilliant, but worked it out to be a PVR of around 35 now. As for the 256, again well needed but wondering where the E200s would go. A good existing bid batch to use or chuck them to the P4!! Sadly, I believe the P4 already has it's buses for its new contract which are the ex ELBG crap - I'd certainly prefer the 256's Enviro 200's over the ones it's been retained with. Can always be done mate, I'm sure they'd be loved down there haha. Right just had a proper look at the 497 idea and I'm now a fan of it. Would assume 9.3m vehicles (or similar) would be used first but I do like the idea in general. A new stand at Gooshays will be brilliant for turned 174s too. So basically, bring it on TfL!!
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Dec 14, 2016 13:26:00 GMT
Sadly, I believe the P4 already has it's buses for its new contract which are the ex ELBG crap - I'd certainly prefer the 256's Enviro 200's over the ones it's been retained with. Can always be done mate, I'm sure they'd be loved down there haha. Right just had a proper look at the 497 idea and I'm now a fan of it. Would assume 9.3m vehicles (or similar) would be used first but I do like the idea in general. A new stand at Gooshays will be brilliant for turned 174s too. So basically, bring it on TfL!! You beat me to it. I wanted to mention the new stand at Gooshays Drive but didn't want to be known as 'that guy' But yh, routes 346 & 497 are due to terminate there so a new stand is needed. Also gives an indication of bus length but if a combined 6pbh is provided to the new Kings Park development, then capacity issues would not arise until later when the routes become 'established'* in people's journeys to/from home. *Established would mean pretty much 7 day operation. And TfL are sitting on their hands on whether to do the common sense thing. It does remind me of the W19 situation when GAL took over & gave a Sunday service. Look how much resources the route has now compared to a decade ago!!
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Dec 14, 2016 14:14:01 GMT
Can always be done mate, I'm sure they'd be loved down there haha. Right just had a proper look at the 497 idea and I'm now a fan of it. Would assume 9.3m vehicles (or similar) would be used first but I do like the idea in general. A new stand at Gooshays will be brilliant for turned 174s too. So basically, bring it on TfL!! You beat me to it. I wanted to mention the new stand at Gooshays Drive but didn't want to be known as 'that guy' But yh, routes 346 & 497 are due to terminate there so a new stand is needed. Also gives an indication of bus length but if a combined 6pbh is provided to the new Kings Park development, then capacity issues would not arise until later when the routes become 'established'* in people's journeys to/from home. *Established would mean pretty much 7 day operation. And TfL are sitting on their hands on whether to do the common sense thing. It does remind me of the W19 situation when GAL took over & gave a Sunday service. Look how much resources the route has now compared to a decade ago!! I think you have misunderstood the proposal. It was a choice between the 346/347 idea or the 497 not both. TfL opted for the 497 as it is marginally more worthwhile in the context of 7 day services and much cheaper than the alternatives. Therefore there would only be 2 bph turning at Gooshays Drive and the same number serving the new roads in Harold Hill/Harold Wood. Personally I think they've missed a bit of a trick in not running the 497 down towards Upminster to give a higher frequency link on what is covered only 4-5 times on M-S by the 347. I understand the issues with the 347 but it's 45 broken jnys a day. TfL don't want to break that here but will break thousands of jnys in their Z1 changes - how hypocritical is that (even given the denser network / more modal choice in Z1)?
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Dec 14, 2016 15:30:30 GMT
You beat me to it. I wanted to mention the new stand at Gooshays Drive but didn't want to be known as 'that guy' But yh, routes 346 & 497 are due to terminate there so a new stand is needed. Also gives an indication of bus length but if a combined 6pbh is provided to the new Kings Park development, then capacity issues would not arise until later when the routes become 'established'* in people's journeys to/from home. *Established would mean pretty much 7 day operation. And TfL are sitting on their hands on whether to do the common sense thing. It does remind me of the W19 situation when GAL took over & gave a Sunday service. Look how much resources the route has now compared to a decade ago!! I think you have misunderstood the proposal. It was a choice between the 346/347 idea or the 497 not both. TfL opted for the 497 as it is marginally more worthwhile in the context of 7 day services and much cheaper than the alternatives. Therefore there would only be 2 bph turning at Gooshays Drive and the same number serving the new roads in Harold Hill/Harold Wood. Personally I think they've missed a bit of a trick in not running the 497 down towards Upminster to give a higher frequency link on what is covered only 4-5 times on M-S by the 347. I understand the issues with the 347 but it's 45 broken jnys a day. TfL don't want to break that here but will break thousands of jnys in their Z1 changes - how hypocritical is that (even given the denser network / more modal choice in Z1)? Thanks for the clarity. If that is true then my inital post of stating not having a Sunday service for the 497's Kings Park area is a mistake IMO. Though unlike other developments that aren't out in rural surburbs compared to zones 2/3/4 for most revelopment these days; I suspect there will be a significant car ownership amongst residents. That said, it doesn't cater for the residents who don't have cars and/or vulnerable groups by leaving them in the lurch for a day. Admittedly the document became less abstract as I went along; but my brain interpreted what I didn't understand as "ooh, TfL are gonna run both routes. I'll enjoy riding on them both!" But alas lool, it would be great if it happened. I suspect, over a span of many years both ideas would be implemented to meet demand. Maybe I'll have to wait a decade or so, but I'll be waiting.....
|
|
|
Post by RandomBusesGirl on Dec 23, 2016 11:01:49 GMT
Well well, nice one Very glad 256 is getting decked, I've been to Harold Hill/Wood in the afternoon peak and oh my days. Packed packed packed. I also heard from a local enthusiast that the users fought hard to have a DD school working at first with the 256 and TfL finally agreed. Full DD will definitely be even more suited for the future :-) 497 at first had me like: omg another new route for London! However, I'd also love an Upminster - Harold Hill/Wood link… Can't have it all, eh? :-( Oh, and I'd leave 347 intact, though. 174 really is growing. One thing I don't understand though is why can't they 24h it - perhaps even extend to Harold Wood station at night via 498 - N174, given the usage and how poorly Dagenham is connected at night (quite a hike from the 365N is the best there is currently). N86 could meanwhile be diverted to rudely omitted Upminster (and via Hornchurch, and perhaps even all the way to Cranham) - just make it follow 248 line of route and we'll be good.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Dec 23, 2016 11:38:12 GMT
Well well, nice one Very glad 256 is getting decked, I've been to Harold Hill/Wood in the afternoon peak and oh my days. Packed packed packed. I also heard from a local enthusiast that the users fought hard to have a DD school working at first with the 256 and TfL finally agreed. Full DD will definitely be even more suited for the future :-) 497 at first had me like: omg another new route for London! However, I'd also love an Upminster - Harold Hill/Wood link… Can't have it all, eh? :-( Oh, and I'd leave 347 intact, though. 174 really is growing. One thing I don't understand though is why can't they 24h it - perhaps even extend to Harold Wood station at night via 498 - N174, given the usage and how poorly Dagenham is connected at night (quite a hike from the 365N is the best there is currently). N86 could meanwhile be diverted to rudely omitted Upminster (and via Hornchurch, and perhaps even all the way to Cranham) - just make it follow 248 line of route and we'll be good. I suspect Havering has a good minicab trade like other outer London places like Epsom which is why night links would be so few and far between.
|
|