|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Aug 1, 2023 20:05:43 GMT
The more I read this proposal the more it makes me feel passengers are a inconvenience for buses! It is so disappointing to see another area that's similar to Keir Hardie lose a local link and passengers expected to walk to catch a bus that has for many years provided a service. Have GAL won this contract! 😂 Would be Arriva if you're trying to drive people away from buses, the route would be cut short half the time anyway as is their staple.
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Aug 1, 2023 21:22:39 GMT
Have GAL won this contract! 😂 Would be Arriva if you're trying to drive people away from buses, the route would be cut short half the time anyway as is their staple. Really? I see far more turns on GAL routes than Arriva but this is drifting away from the 309 so will leave it at that.
|
|
|
Post by joefrombow on Aug 2, 2023 6:56:40 GMT
Would be Arriva if you're trying to drive people away from buses, the route would be cut short half the time anyway as is their staple. Really? I see far more turns on GAL routes than Arriva but this is drifting away from the 309 so will leave it at that. More GAL routes everywhere I suppose and this is why they keep winning I guess playing the game correctly 😉 but yes as others have said tfl will do what tfl want to do , consultations are merely rhetorical , tbf anti social behaviour and parked cars in the way aren't usually a problem with the 309 seems to manage OK .
|
|
|
Post by mondraker275 on Aug 2, 2023 10:49:57 GMT
Route and area I know well. Reading between the words, this change is linked to the frequency increase. TfL want to increase it but something means they can't do it unless they reroute. It could buses blocking each other, noise increase, evening increase of cars. The current routing is far more residential than the proposed. Alsio the consultation indicates that the frequency increase is a condition on rerouting. This is similar to W12. TfL want to increase frequency but needs to reroute as WF don't want more buses through Village. As you know this, maybe you can help so please correct me on anything I’m going to say - as I understand it from walking through Walthamstow Village & from Google Maps and my sole 309 ride, Walthamstow Village is a collection of narrow roads where I can understand running a bus through there can be challenging on many fronts. This part of the 309 is completely different (unless you can correct me on that) and the frequency increase is not during peaks but in the evening when traffic should be lower plus buses do have the ability to pass each other safely and not get stuck so I’m confused why the frequency increase should be a condition to the re-routing? You're right in the sense that the areas are different. To be clear on the cars point, I meant to say that more cars will be parked in the evening. The comparison I am making between W12 and 309 is the frequency increase rather than the type of roads. As pointed out by everyone, this is a very bizarre consultation. The 281 is very logical for example as are changes when major local changes happen. Most changes are issues that are brought to TfL's attention otherwise something like this does not get brought up by TfL themselves. If you look at the proposals, what TfL state regarding new developments etc does not align with removal of stops and there are no "real" new stops being added that will aid. Time savings are neglible. The key words here are at the end where TfL say that "If we were to go with the changes, we would increase the frequency". Why would they not just increase the evening frequency? Now, with almost all proposals, TfL will have gone to the council prior to the consultation to get their input, thoughts or to give them a heads up. They likely also go to them regarding changes that might not require a consultation. For example, I suspect that they let effected boroughs know beforehand about 486 to 24 hours. It is about stakeholder management, particularly, Labour councils I would guess. I think that TfL have got requests to increase the service in the evening (from local passengers) but then for some reason (practicality or council) they cannot do it unless rerouting for a reason (I guessed a few). With W12, clearly long term demand to return to previous frequency, but TfL have proposed to reroute because of a reason, which for the W12 is clear - WF dont want to have more buses going through Orford Road specifically. I think something similar is happening here most likely where the council has intervened because there is no clear reason for the rerouting and they could have easily just increased the evening frequency without consultation. Also, this route was tendered recently so they would have reviewed this route last year and would probably have made the proposals more logically last year, so I am guessing they were just expecting to increase the frequency with no issues.
|
|
|
Post by BE37054 (quoll662) on Aug 2, 2023 12:31:04 GMT
As you know this, maybe you can help so please correct me on anything I’m going to say - as I understand it from walking through Walthamstow Village & from Google Maps and my sole 309 ride, Walthamstow Village is a collection of narrow roads where I can understand running a bus through there can be challenging on many fronts. This part of the 309 is completely different (unless you can correct me on that) and the frequency increase is not during peaks but in the evening when traffic should be lower plus buses do have the ability to pass each other safely and not get stuck so I’m confused why the frequency increase should be a condition to the re-routing? You're right in the sense that the areas are different. To be clear on the cars point, I meant to say that more cars will be parked in the evening. The comparison I am making between W12 and 309 is the frequency increase rather than the type of roads. As pointed out by everyone, this is a very bizarre consultation. The 281 is very logical for example as are changes when major local changes happen. Most changes are issues that are brought to TfL's attention otherwise something like this does not get brought up by TfL themselves. If you look at the proposals, what TfL state regarding new developments etc does not align with removal of stops and there are no "real" new stops being added that will aid. Time savings are neglible. The key words here are at the end where TfL say that "If we were to go with the changes, we would increase the frequency". Why would they not just increase the evening frequency? Now, with almost all proposals, TfL will have gone to the council prior to the consultation to get their input, thoughts or to give them a heads up. They likely also go to them regarding changes that might not require a consultation. For example, I suspect that they let effected boroughs know beforehand about 486 to 24 hours. It is about stakeholder management, particularly, Labour councils I would guess. I think that TfL have got requests to increase the service in the evening (from local passengers) but then for some reason (practicality or council) they cannot do it unless rerouting for a reason (I guessed a few). With W12, clearly long term demand to return to previous frequency, but TfL have proposed to reroute because of a reason, which for the W12 is clear - WF dont want to have more buses going through Orford Road specifically. I think something similar is happening here most likely where the council has intervened because there is no clear reason for the rerouting and they could have easily just increased the evening frequency without consultation. Also, this route was tendered recently so they would have reviewed this route last year and would probably have made the proposals more logically last year, so I am guessing they were just expecting to increase the frequency with no issues. I know this would go against TfL's aim of standardisation but could the 309 not just use the direct routing in the evenings, say after 1900? iirc E7 and U2 over in NW London do something similar. It would maintain links to Aberfeldy Village for most of the day but still enables the evening frequency to be increased. It also combats the issue of potential anti-social behaviour and vandalism that one member brought up. I understand I'm not local so I might be missing something fairly obvious but to me it seems like a rather simple solution.
|
|
|
Post by northlondon83 on Aug 2, 2023 12:53:41 GMT
You're right in the sense that the areas are different. To be clear on the cars point, I meant to say that more cars will be parked in the evening. The comparison I am making between W12 and 309 is the frequency increase rather than the type of roads. As pointed out by everyone, this is a very bizarre consultation. The 281 is very logical for example as are changes when major local changes happen. Most changes are issues that are brought to TfL's attention otherwise something like this does not get brought up by TfL themselves. If you look at the proposals, what TfL state regarding new developments etc does not align with removal of stops and there are no "real" new stops being added that will aid. Time savings are neglible. The key words here are at the end where TfL say that "If we were to go with the changes, we would increase the frequency". Why would they not just increase the evening frequency? Now, with almost all proposals, TfL will have gone to the council prior to the consultation to get their input, thoughts or to give them a heads up. They likely also go to them regarding changes that might not require a consultation. For example, I suspect that they let effected boroughs know beforehand about 486 to 24 hours. It is about stakeholder management, particularly, Labour councils I would guess. I think that TfL have got requests to increase the service in the evening (from local passengers) but then for some reason (practicality or council) they cannot do it unless rerouting for a reason (I guessed a few). With W12, clearly long term demand to return to previous frequency, but TfL have proposed to reroute because of a reason, which for the W12 is clear - WF dont want to have more buses going through Orford Road specifically. I think something similar is happening here most likely where the council has intervened because there is no clear reason for the rerouting and they could have easily just increased the evening frequency without consultation. Also, this route was tendered recently so they would have reviewed this route last year and would probably have made the proposals more logically last year, so I am guessing they were just expecting to increase the frequency with no issues. I know this would go against TfL's aim of standardisation but could the 309 not just use the direct routing in the evenings, say after 1900? iirc E7 and U2 over in NW London do something similar. It would maintain links to Aberfeldy Village for most of the day but still enables the evening frequency to be increased. It also combats the issue of potential anti-social behaviour and vandalism that one member brought up. I understand I'm not local so I might be missing something fairly obvious but to me it seems like a rather simple solution. Not sure why the U2 has different routes but the E7 avoids Ruislip High Street in the evenings and early mornings because its purpose of going through the high street during the day is to serve the shops. In the evening there's less shops open so no need. I'd just say for the 309 keep it as it is.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 2, 2023 13:40:13 GMT
I know this would go against TfL's aim of standardisation but could the 309 not just use the direct routing in the evenings, say after 1900? iirc E7 and U2 over in NW London do something similar. It would maintain links to Aberfeldy Village for most of the day but still enables the evening frequency to be increased. It also combats the issue of potential anti-social behaviour and vandalism that one member brought up. I understand I'm not local so I might be missing something fairly obvious but to me it seems like a rather simple solution. Not sure why the U2 has different routes but the E7 avoids Ruislip High Street in the evenings and early mornings because its purpose of going through the high street during the day is to serve the shops. In the evening there's less shops open so no need. I'd just say for the 309 keep it as it is. Is the reason the E7 doesn't serve the high street really just because less shops are open because many other areas continue to see buses even after most shops are closed?
|
|
|
Post by northlondon83 on Aug 2, 2023 13:47:09 GMT
Not sure why the U2 has different routes but the E7 avoids Ruislip High Street in the evenings and early mornings because its purpose of going through the high street during the day is to serve the shops. In the evening there's less shops open so no need. I'd just say for the 309 keep it as it is. Is the reason the E7 doesn't serve the high street really just because less shops are open because many other areas continue to see buses even after most shops are closed? Why else would it not serve the high street in the evening?
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Aug 2, 2023 13:59:39 GMT
You're right in the sense that the areas are different. To be clear on the cars point, I meant to say that more cars will be parked in the evening. The comparison I am making between W12 and 309 is the frequency increase rather than the type of roads. As pointed out by everyone, this is a very bizarre consultation. The 281 is very logical for example as are changes when major local changes happen. Most changes are issues that are brought to TfL's attention otherwise something like this does not get brought up by TfL themselves. If you look at the proposals, what TfL state regarding new developments etc does not align with removal of stops and there are no "real" new stops being added that will aid. Time savings are neglible. The key words here are at the end where TfL say that "If we were to go with the changes, we would increase the frequency". Why would they not just increase the evening frequency? Now, with almost all proposals, TfL will have gone to the council prior to the consultation to get their input, thoughts or to give them a heads up. They likely also go to them regarding changes that might not require a consultation. For example, I suspect that they let effected boroughs know beforehand about 486 to 24 hours. It is about stakeholder management, particularly, Labour councils I would guess. I think that TfL have got requests to increase the service in the evening (from local passengers) but then for some reason (practicality or council) they cannot do it unless rerouting for a reason (I guessed a few). With W12, clearly long term demand to return to previous frequency, but TfL have proposed to reroute because of a reason, which for the W12 is clear - WF dont want to have more buses going through Orford Road specifically. I think something similar is happening here most likely where the council has intervened because there is no clear reason for the rerouting and they could have easily just increased the evening frequency without consultation. Also, this route was tendered recently so they would have reviewed this route last year and would probably have made the proposals more logically last year, so I am guessing they were just expecting to increase the frequency with no issues. I know this would go against TfL's aim of standardisation but could the 309 not just use the direct routing in the evenings, say after 1900? iirc E7 and U2 over in NW London do something similar. It would maintain links to Aberfeldy Village for most of the day but still enables the evening frequency to be increased. It also combats the issue of potential anti-social behaviour and vandalism that one member brought up. I understand I'm not local so I might be missing something fairly obvious but to me it seems like a rather simple solution. Yes that's exactly what I suggested, it does sound like the obvious solution.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 2, 2023 15:57:09 GMT
Is the reason the E7 doesn't serve the high street really just because less shops are open because many other areas continue to see buses even after most shops are closed? Why else would it not serve the high street in the evening? Anti-social behaviour, particular operational quirk are just two example I could think of off the top of my head.
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Aug 2, 2023 16:20:55 GMT
Is the reason the E7 doesn't serve the high street really just because less shops are open because many other areas continue to see buses even after most shops are closed? Why else would it not serve the high street in the evening? In 1984, the E2 was extended from Greenford to Ruislip as a partial replacement for the 273, which was withdrawn. At this time the terminus was Ruislip Station although buses continued to Ruislip Lido on Summer Sundays. The E7 was a new route when it commenced in July 1990, replacing the E2 between Greenford and Ruislip Station. From December 1992 journeys between the peaks on Mondays-Fridays (10.00-16.00) and during Saturday shopping hours (09.00-17.00) were rerouted in a loop via Wood Lane, Ickenham Road and High Street to reach Ruislip Station (and the same in reverse) to give better access to the High Street shops. At other times buses continued to operate to and from Ruislip Station directly via West End Road and I guess this has persisted as it gives peak-time commuters departing and arriving at Ruislip Station a more direct journey.
|
|
|
Post by northlondon83 on Aug 2, 2023 16:26:25 GMT
Why else would it not serve the high street in the evening? In 1984, the E2 was extended from Greenford to Ruislip to replace the 273, which was withdrawn. At this time the terminus was Ruislip Station although buses continued to Ruislip Lido on Summer Sundays. The E7 was a new route when it commenced in July 1990, replacing the E2 between Greenford and Ruislip Station. From December 1992 journeys between the peaks on Mondays-Fridays (10.00-16.00) and during Saturday shopping hours (09.00-17.00) were rerouted in loop via Kingsend, Ickenham Road and High Street to reach Ruislip Station (and the same in reverse) to give better access to Waitrose and the High Street shops. At other times buses continued to operate to and from Ruislip Station directly via West End Road and I guess this has persisted as it gives peak-time commuters departing and arriving at Ruislip Station a more direct journey. Do you mean Wood Lane instead of Kingsend
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Aug 2, 2023 16:35:03 GMT
In 1984, the E2 was extended from Greenford to Ruislip to replace the 273, which was withdrawn. At this time the terminus was Ruislip Station although buses continued to Ruislip Lido on Summer Sundays. The E7 was a new route when it commenced in July 1990, replacing the E2 between Greenford and Ruislip Station. From December 1992 journeys between the peaks on Mondays-Fridays (10.00-16.00) and during Saturday shopping hours (09.00-17.00) were rerouted in loop via Kingsend, Ickenham Road and High Street to reach Ruislip Station (and the same in reverse) to give better access to Waitrose and the High Street shops. At other times buses continued to operate to and from Ruislip Station directly via West End Road and I guess this has persisted as it gives peak-time commuters departing and arriving at Ruislip Station a more direct journey. Do you mean Wood Lane instead of Kingsend Yes I do - I have since corrected the original post.
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Aug 2, 2023 16:44:57 GMT
A few comments:
Re anti social behavior - One member mad a comment but don't think that's the reason as I am sure it would have been brought up before now. Also the suggestion of serving Aberfeldy Street during the day time only might have worked several years ago when shopper hour service were common but not so much today. Nowadays there are not set open and close times for shops and people work lots of different shift patterns so can't really assume those using the service wouldn't need it after say 7pm without having to walk from Abbot Road.
I am wondering if another reason for the change is buses can sometimes struggle to get out of Blair Road when the traffic is backed up along Abbot Road.
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Aug 12, 2023 5:15:03 GMT
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 ex-W11 E200MMCs will be the same length as the current Solos I rode an E200MMC on route 309 a few years ago. Given that route 309 will now use Abbott Road instead of Blair Street, we can only suppose this proposal was dreamt up by a left-winger.
|
|