|
Post by wirewiper on Aug 1, 2023 17:51:05 GMT
Having travelled on the SL8 recently, I do think TfL should consider a later addition to the Superloop. It is an alignment that is often suggested, an express route between Canning Town and Romford via the Barking Road (A124 Road). Acting as the antipode of the SL8 in West London. - Canning Town Bus Station - Rathbone Market - Plaistow / Prince Regent Lane - Upton Park / Green Street - High Street North (East) / Newham Town Hall (West) - Burges Road - Barking Town Centre - Barking Station - Barking Bus Garage (East) / Faircross (West) - Lodge Avenue (West) / Becontree Avenue (East) - Martins Corner / Valence Avenue - Winmill Road (East) / Boxall Road (West) - Morris Road - Becontree Heath Leisure Centre - Rush Green Road / Dagenham Road (West) / Dagenham Road (East) - Queen’s Hospital - Romford Station There's some merit in this (the 5 doesn't really duplicate a rail route in the way the 86 does), but the 5 would probably be reduced to every 10 minutes to provide the resources.
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Jul 31, 2023 15:42:48 GMT
Considering I use the 309 from time to time, this isn't a good idea - leaving quite a few roads without any bus service. Many residents use the bus through estates and I think it's quite helpful in that sense of routing. What will it benefit going through Leven Road the whole way? To be fair, it's a minor change but not a good one really. I see the tight roads mentioned elsewhere and wonder if the reroute is because of the upcoming change to E200s? I know the occasional longer bus run on the 309 but this will be a bit different. I really hope the reroute is not for this reason. As this is pretty poor even by TfL standards. The section of route around the Aberfeldy Estate can be tricky due to parked cars, and buses have been subject to vandalism there in the past.
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Jul 31, 2023 15:37:51 GMT
It removes the historic loop working via Ewell Road that has existed since trolleybus days, when the 601 ran alongside the Kingston bypass for a short distance. This section had concrete trolleybus poles.
That said, is not a reason to oppose the change! I am firmly in favour of extending the 281 to the new development at Signal Park, saving people having to cross the A3 roundabout on foot, and of having all Kingston-bound buses at Tolworth Broadway serving a common stop.
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Jul 31, 2023 15:02:02 GMT
To be fair, I think TfL should be given credit for keeping the existing services in place whilst the new SL3 beds in and passengers adjust their travel patterns. There is already a Bromley review on the cards which will address some of the issues at that end, and I would expect a Bexley review soon especially given the impact of the Elizabeth Line at Abbey Wood. Also the overall aim of Superloop (the new routes anyway) is to increase bus use in outer London, so it makes sense to have some extra capacity to do that. The X140 (to become SL9) is already proof that this can be achieved. I totally agree about giving credit for it. The drop from every 8 to every 10 mins and the 183 are relatively small compared with the amount that will be spent on all the new routes plus the increase on the X26 (SL7). Personally I can't see how that much revenue will be pulled in. Atleast 50% if not more of the SL routes usage will come from the current 34, 119, 269 etc and even the new ususage won't necessarily be someone paying a single £1.75 fare. They could already have a season ticket, Freedom pass etc. TfL still gets reimbursed for Freedom Pass use (and ENCTS pass use for that matter). As for season ticket use, this has declined dramatically with daily and weekly capping, and most of the remaining season tickets are on Oyster Cards which are touched in on bus journeys. All of this gives a reasonably accurate breakdown of bus boarding statistics which allows revenue to be apportioned fairly to each route.
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Jul 31, 2023 12:22:43 GMT
I'd say indefinitely tbh. The EL routes are 13 years old this year with no plans for renumbering (or vehicles) on the next 5 year tender. That's not to say I don't think the loop will not be broken over time with small extensions to other places or even retractaments and freqs could easily drop to every 30 mins if demands doesn't really materialise. Which is not necessarily a bad thing. The current Superloop network is what it is because it needs to look like a perfect circle on a schematic map (though it looks more like a wacky clock because of the radials included) -- no harm in actually changing the network later on to the demand it actually needs to cater to. I guess it's the advantage of a bus: the initial plan was rushed through, but any changes which need to be made to correct it can also happen relatively quickly (* at TfL consultation speeds).
I'd be surprised though if some routes drop to every 30' though. With something that infrequent, passengers would probably just hop on whichever bus comes first and swap if they have to irrespective of whether it is an express or not -- supposedly a lot of Superloop passengers are supposed to change from a local bus to a Superloop to speed up their journeys, that concept would be blown out of the water if the routes dropped below 15 minutes imo.
Some good comments here. Some people seem to be getting too caught up in ideas such as Superloop being a complete circle - or recreating the lengthy but infrequent Green Line-style routes of old that became incredibly unreliable so people stopped using them. Short express routes, with high frequencies and good connections for onward travel, are far more likely to succeed. I would rather make a journey on two high-frequency turn-up-and-go routes, than wait for a half-hourly bus that may or may not turn up when it is supposed to. And as you say, bus services have the ability to evolve quickly to meet changing patterns of demand, which can include demand that has previously not been met.
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Jul 31, 2023 12:10:08 GMT
To be fair, I think TfL should be given credit for keeping the existing services in place whilst the new SL3 beds in and passengers adjust their travel patterns. There is already a Bromley review on the cards which will address some of the issues at that end, and I would expect a Bexley review soon especially given the impact of the Elizabeth Line at Abbey Wood. Also the overall aim of Superloop (the new routes anyway) is to increase bus use in outer London, so it makes sense to have some extra capacity to do that. The X140 (to become SL9) is already proof that this can be achieved. When they're already in financial difficulty it's hard to see how much of this can be justified and where are passengers going to come from other than from other bus routes? I don't think it's going to get people out of their cars in significant numbers. Although if the SL5 doesn't work out maybe they could save face by rerouting it between Bromley and Thamesmead via Catford, Lewisham and Woolwich? TfL's financial difficulty is longer-term, and relates to future investment in rail infrastructure and fleet replacement. Short-term funding has been secured through a finding settlement with the Government, and is aided by extra revenue generated by the better-than-expected passenger numbers on the Elizabeth Line. The current funding settlement agreed with Government includes increased bus mileage in outer London, I believe the figure agreed to is 4 million extra km per year, much if not most of which will be accounted for by the new Superloop routes. Interestingly, TfL estimates that 30% of all journeys on the Elizabeth Line are new demand - not journeys that have transferred from other modes, but journeys that simply were not made before. Not all the increased demand for bus travel in areas served by the new Superloop routes will come from existing car users.
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Jul 31, 2023 11:17:17 GMT
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Jul 31, 2023 11:03:26 GMT
What do we think should be done with the 269 then, if there isn’t the demand for two Bromley to Bexleyheath high frequency routes. How about splitting it into two single decker routes with a lower frequency? B10 or B17 from Bexleyheath, Library to Sidcup, Queen Mary’s Hospital via the 269 route. Lack of stand space at QMH but it could do a loop around the hospital grounds like the B14 & 286, and then return back to Bexleyheath. It’s needed to serve Faraday Avenue between Sidcup & Albany Park, as well as Arbuthnot Lane between Bexley & Bexleyheath (especially for Townley Grammar School). Then a numbered route between Sidcup Station and Bromley. This is needed because the stops along Perry Street between Sidcup & Chislehurst will only otherwised be served by the 160 which would be fine except for during the school run when the 160 & 269 are both rammed along that corridor because of Beaverwood School. Then the intermediate stops along the Chislehurst War Memorial-Bickley-Bromley North coridoor that the SL3 will skip over will only be served by the 162, which seems a bit harsh. And again during the school journeys AM and PM the 162 alone won’t be enough. As for stands there’s plenty of room along Jubilee Way at Sidcup Station for another route. In Bromley maybe they could use the old 126 space at Bromley South? Or perhaps it could be sent further west or south from Bromley South towards Beckenham or Hayes? This is the dilemma, and I don't think any of this has been thought through. I could envisage the 269 being withdrawn in it's current form with half of the 229 service rerouted via Townley Road and Faraday Avenue using the number 269. The problem then is that, as you mentioned, QMH to Chislehurst would be left with only the 160 and no direct service to Bromley and Chislehurst to Bromley would be left with only the 162 operating x15 minutes with 8.9m buses although they can watch SL buses go past without stopping. To be fair, I think TfL should be given credit for keeping the existing services in place whilst the new SL3 beds in and passengers adjust their travel patterns. There is already a Bromley review on the cards which will address some of the issues at that end, and I would expect a Bexley review soon especially given the impact of the Elizabeth Line at Abbey Wood. Also the overall aim of Superloop (the new routes anyway) is to increase bus use in outer London, so it makes sense to have some extra capacity to do that. The X140 (to become SL9) is already proof that this can be achieved.
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Jul 31, 2023 10:55:58 GMT
Or the 269 could replace the 162 along the Bromley South-Park Langley-Beckenham section, with the 162 replacing the 138 to Hayes & Coney Hall and the 126 could stay as it is even as I’d rather it was extended at the Eltham end to Woolwich in place of the 161 etc. Thats the sort of thing that could be in a review I would say. Removing one route by re gigging others similar to the W routes and 549. I fully expect there will be a Bexley review once the SL3 has settled in, and the Bromley end is likely to be covered in the forthcoming review. In the meantime TfL should be given credit for keeping the existing services in place for the time being.
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Jul 31, 2023 8:57:28 GMT
However the word that Sunak is using is "dependent". Once dependency rather than choice becomes the baked-in attitude, it changes the assumptions about how people behave and how the built environment needs to be designed to accommodate this. I will remind you again that achieving 50% of all journeys being walked, wheeled or cycled by 2030 is the target of the current Conservative government. Maybe Sunak just forgot. However dependency is the right word. Even in London people are dependent on cars. People can say whatever they want about a bus, but someone living along the 287 in Rainham needs to wait 15 minutes for a bus, they however don't need to wait for a car. They need to plan their life around a bus, so in turn depend on the car as the bus isn't going to be suiting their needs. People won't be dependent on cars the day public transport isn't something people need to plan their lives around. A good example of people not being dependent on a car would be a corridor like Ilford to Stratford or Brixton to Streatham where you can effectively walk to a stop and a bus will turn up. Dependency is not the right word, it is choice. And you are ignoring walking and cycling which is the argument I am making, although trains and buses are also options. Some people may feel they are dependent on their cars (I'm guessing you do), but others choose not to have a car at all, or if they do have a car they sometimes choose other means of travelling. I'm not sure that a 15-minute bus frequency is something people need to plan their lives around but there are people outside London who quite happily organise their own car-free travel around far sparser frequencies.
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Jul 31, 2023 8:18:52 GMT
Hmm. To quote from the article: Mr Sunak said: "The vast majority of people in the country use their cars to get around and are dependent on cars. I just want to make sure people know that I'm on their side in supporting them to use their cars to do all the things that matter to them," he said.
Using does not equate to dependency. Ask anyone who has the occasional glass of wine with a meal. Also how does this square with the Government's own target of 50% of all journeys being walked, wheeled or cycled by 2030? Think stripping luxuries off your population so you can be a tree hugger will not get you plenty of votes. People will not randomly want to get rid of their car as its bad for the environment because the vast majority of people don't care and are not going to inconvenience themselves for this. However the word that Sunak is using is "dependent". Once dependency rather than choice becomes the baked-in attitude, it changes the assumptions about how people behave and how the built environment needs to be designed to accommodate this. I will remind you again that achieving 50% of all journeys being walked, wheeled or cycled by 2030 is the target of the current Conservative government. Maybe Sunak just forgot.
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Jul 31, 2023 7:53:44 GMT
The set returned to Bounds Green via Graham Road curve. Last Christmas or the Christmas before, (losing track of the years) LNER were signal sighting in Canonbury Tunnel to use a contingency to turn around when the Cross was shut. It’s likely before long, we’ll see an Azuma on the West Anglia Main Line via Tottenham Hale under test, watch this space. Interesting, but many years ago the Great Eastern Mainline was part of LNER - at Harold Wood station, it is clearly marked there in the concrete facade above the entrance I wonder if it's part of some renationalisation plan under GBR (Great British Railways) to offer more routes to different destinations if they resurrect InterCity in future? Newcastle via Northumberland Park football trains on matchdays for Spurs? Historically though, the Great Northern Railway out of King's Cross and the Great Eastern Railway out of Liverpool Street were separate companies. They only came together when the London North Eastern Railway came into being in 1923 as part of the great Railway Grouping which saw most of Britain's railways absorbed into one of the "Big Four" companies*. Harold Wood station was rebuilt in 1934 when two additional tracks were added to the Great Eastern route to cater for the burgeoning suburban traffic, hence the LNER lettering. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Wood_railway_station* a curiosity in East London is that the London Tilbury & Southend Railway became part of the LMS (London Midland & Scottish Railway) rather than the LNER. This was because the Midland railway had acquired the LT&SR in 1912. The Midland of course had a connection to the LT&SR as it had also acquired the Kentish Town-Barking route through Tottenham which allowed through services to operate onto the LT&S route from St Pancras.
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Jul 31, 2023 7:35:37 GMT
Hmm. To quote from the article: Mr Sunak said: "The vast majority of people in the country use their cars to get around and are dependent on cars. I just want to make sure people know that I'm on their side in supporting them to use their cars to do all the things that matter to them," he said.
Using does not equate to dependency. Ask anyone who has the occasional glass of wine with a meal. Also how does this square with the Government's own target of 50% of all journeys being walked, wheeled or cycled by 2030?
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Jul 30, 2023 16:55:08 GMT
Transport for Greater Manchester has presented an ambitious Bus Strategy to the Greater Manchester Combined Authority and the Bee Network Committee. The highlight of the plan is a target of 50 million bus journeys a year by 2030, which represents a 30% increase on current levels. TfGM wants to increase accessibility, and will make 500 more bus stops accessible with 300 stops having real-time information. The new electric double-deckers which will start to be rolled out in Bolton and Wigan will have two wheelchair spaces, hearing induction loops, audio and visual announcements and anti-slip flooring. TfGM aims to have buses at a minimum 12-minute frequency on key radial and orbital routes. The other aim is to provide 90% of Greater Manchester's population with a bus or Tramlink service at least every 30 minutes within 400m of their home. www.route-one.net/news/manchester-presents-strategy-to-boost-bus-patronage-by-30/
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Jul 30, 2023 13:09:34 GMT
I would imagine one thing: cost. With how cheaply TT always bidded on their contracts they always went for whoever would give them the cheapest vehicles, and that presumably extended to the interior. USB chargers were compulsory, wood effect flooring probably wouldn’t have affected the cost. But everything else like the high back seats and the iBus display probably cost too much. Three would probably have had blinds as well but the blind box is too small for them on MetroCities. When did the various spec changes come into force ? The 339 was awarded back in early 2022 but the buses are delayed so could have been before the changes came into affect. The next step-change in specifications for new vehicles comes in 2024 - some specifications which are currently "preferred" will change to "required". www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/620616/response/1483864/attach/4/Bus%20Vehicle%20Specification%20v1.3.pdf
|
|