 |
| Could it have happened? |
This is certainly a rant, you are now warned.
Many of us can dream of our perfect system. Perhaps you have a good transport system. Perhaps you do not. Perhaps you have a train station. Perhaps you only have a bus. Only Lloyd Park can lay claim to only having tram in the 21st century whilst the century prior it was as feat-less as having a bus.
I've experienced through many different flavours and no doubt you would have some yourself. In my London life I've documented as much as Boyhood that my local routes are 3/322 and that I frequent West Norwood for better/more access.
It's not hidden but I wouldn't have useful opportunity to discuss I indeed did rely on the 25 through thick and thin as a bendy route with diversions via Tower Hill through the random day it was double deck with every other bus turned short.
It's a shame I don't have my own photos of my stays in Rome in 2008/9 where I had an equally troublesome route as London's 25. The 105 (Grotte Celoni - Termini). Articulated single deckers, or "bendies" are fun even despite the hassle of being sardined in one, the sheer length and multitude of doors to exit from... unless you're Rome where you have certain door entries and exits.
So from super frequent high capacity routes my next non-London European stay would be in Norway having a taste of rigid tri-axles for the first time in conscious memory, since this was my return to Norway but I've forgotten most of it. I had all four of Nesoddtangen's bus routes (560/565/570/575) as locals but two on one corridor and two on another, with a junction where three meet (560/565/570).
I'm used to waiting at a set time for a bus to come since I had low frequency routes but not to the scale of half-hourly or in the case of 565: hourly.
Regardless of which route you picked all four buses would arrive at Nesoddtangen in time for the boat that goes to/from Oslo, the 560 was among the latest to arrive i.e the fastest route whilst 565 was among the first i.e the route that takes a detour.
Had I been seasick it'd have meant taking 560 down south to take a 500 that goes through a tunnel.
Coming back to London, if you've not had the experience of living on a single door route then consider yourself blessed. The extremities of Orpington perhaps quaint, but when it's a busy route, it's a very hectic experience.
So now after all this prologue I have set up, we come back to the past in 2005, a time where I'd be in Norway funnily enough but alas, a change happened which no doubt haunts my life in some capacity but there's one fact I've been completely oblivious to my waking life.
I had known the 3 had a PVR decrease to give 196 the necessary vehicles for it's extension.
I had known the 322 had a frequency decrease upon it's restructure.
I had never put the two together to realise I'd return home with a nearly 20% decrease in capacity in my closest local routes.
In fact it is not the 322 which I'm more furious about even if it is the route I've suffered more on but rather the 3.
As someone with a level of historic knowledge of the bus network I've come to discover the 3 under a different light. Yes it has always been the sole route on Croxted Road until June 2001 with 201 bringing the round-the-corner link to Tulse Hill. The 3 however always had a really high frequency to compensate.
With the introduction of the Victoria Line to Brixton in the early 1970s allowed for relatively frequent 3s to Camden Town to be split:
- 3: Crystal Palace - Brixton (every 6)
- 3: Crystal Palace - Brixton - Camden Town (every 6 peaks, 12 off-peak)
This way a more frequent service was provided at the southern end with no change in allocation, thus coming to our every 6 frequency, those that wished to go further would use the shiny new Victoria Line to travel further or switch to another mode of transport.
Frequency wouldn't really change much to note even with the 3A which was a one-person-operation of the Brixton shorts, eventually the entire 3 would succumb to OPO so the suffix was of no need. This was a commonplace practice to distinguish between conductor-services and not, whether needed is an entirely different debate.
Until 2000 rolled around which saw the Brixton shorts shelved, it still retained an every 6 peak frequency, but lost it's more frequent off-peak service for plain every 7-8 full route to Oxford Circus. Not necessarily bad, it's not hard to wait that long.
During this time the 322 amassed it's infamy as London's most unreliable route with delays of up to 90 minutes being commonplace which is worrying for an every 12 route.
Then 30 April 2005 came.
Given the circumstances of the 322 being the sole contracted route out of the changes which saw 3, 196 and 355 have mid-contract changes, what would I have done, whether it influences the present or not?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A realist interpretation
3: Frequency reduced (every 7-8)
201: Morden - Tulse Hill
315: Balham - West Norwood - St Gothard Road - Gipsy Hill - Kingswood Drive - Lower Sydenham (every 20)
322: Elephant & Castle - Brixton - Croxted Road - West Norwood - South Croxted Road - Gipsy Hill - Crystal Palace
Converted to double deck, frequency unchanged (every 12)
355: Double deck and serves Landor Road in both directions
 |
| Red for 322 Green for 315 |
Clapham North on Landor Road is still a bit of an issue even for 322 when it comes to larger vehicles westbound due to it being narrow, which is reflected in 355 only serving Landor Road eastbound towards Brixton.
A downside is 355's current round-the-corner links along Kings Avenue which would have to be remedied in some shape, an easy solution is rerouting 118 along there which makes a 45 to Clapham Park mildly redundant, though this leaves a single deck 255 alone. Fast forward to 2008 the route going to Stockwell would be the 50 and not 255 so that resolves itself.
The 322: I've veered from having two double deck routes (196/322) from Brixton via Herne Hill to West Norwood since even currently they overprovide on capacity (mainly 196) but both routes fill different vital roles, the 196 on a corridor aspect aiding 468; whilst 322 fends for itself by serving it's lone section. The 3 has needed extra capacity for a while, which it had with an every 6 frequency but losing it means something has to be given in return. Thus the awkward routeing of 322 which makes it go from West Dulwich, via West Norwood back to West Dulwich on it's merry way in whichever direction. As a result of having 322 use Croxted Road, the 201 being cut back means the corridor isn't needlessly overbussed.
Ideally would reduce 450's frequency due to 315 paralleling it but in 2005 the 450 is every 15 so it poses far less of an overbus than current 450 (every 8).
PVR changes:
3: -4
315: +3
201: -2
322: 0
355: 0
Total: -3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An idealistic interpretation
196: Elephant & Castle - Brixton - Railton Road - West Norwood - Norwood Junction (every 10)
315: Balham - Streatham St Leonard's Church - West Norwood - Gipsy Hill - Crystal Palace (every 12)
322: Withdrawn
 |
| Red for 196 Green for 315 |
Killing the most unreliable route would be something that would enter the news, citing something along the lines of "admitting defeat" but if you asked me a route that could be withdrawn with easy changes to other routes I'd certainly not have 322 as my first pick, but it's a route that can be offed if you slice with the correct knowledge.
PVR changes:
196: +6
315: +6
322: -12
Total: 0
Though a net-zero change, it brings the best out of an 'underfunded' 315 whilst bolstering the 196 from a support route into a more main-character route.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A fantasy interpretation
196: Clapham Junction - Clapham Common - Brixton - Norwood Junction (every 12)
201: Morden - West Norwood Rosendale (every 15)
322: Elephant & Castle - Brixton - Tulse Hill - West Norwood - Gipsy Road - Lower Sydenham (Double deck, every 12)
415: Not birthed
450: Brixton - Herne Hill - Rosendale Road - West Norwood - St Gothard Road - Crystal Palace - West Croydon (every 12, increased to every 8 due to insane demand south of Crystal Palace anyways)
The 201's extension provides extra capacity between West Norwood and Streatham which is needed, and conveniently the 201 provides nearly a third of that already, the other being P13. Obviously 201/P13 don't go West Norwood, but a lot of people switch at Tulse Hill. The 315 meanwhile is every 20 on it's own with the luxury of 8.9m sized vehicles whilst 201 and P13 are both a combined 8 buses per hour.
An admittedly last-second decision for me to have route 450 take on the 322's busier half (Brixton-Crystal Palace) means the 450 would have two busy sections with Thornton Heath and Crystal Palace already being the busiest places on the route. Adding a tube connection to the Victoria Line will cause more chaos. Chaos which needs more capacity. See where I'm going with this insane suggestion? During 2005 the 450 would be low frequency, but such a dastardly evil reroute would shift the problems of 322 to 450 somewhat, albeit primary problems of 322 were Connex themselves and Vauxhall having roadworks. There's not much more for me to say other than I've been very selfish with even mentioning 450 to replace 322, but I have in past sided with the suggestion of extending 450 to Camberwell which I am still fond of. in my Unorm Lambeth/Southwark Review post. This post regards the day of 30/04/2005 and not could-be-450 so end of this paragraph.
PVR changes:
196: +5
201: 0
322: +2
450: +3
Total: +10
As obvious by the numbers, this is complete fantasy on my behalf. I've in fact struggled to coherently place what I want, and how I'd want, whilst also being realistic, even if the point of this is to have no-holds-barred. So I've aligned my wants neatly.
- Clapham Junction to Tulse Hill/Norwood link, also supports crowded 35/37/345
- West Norwood-Streatham capacity/frequency increase
- West Dulwich: More roads served
Even if I forewent West Dulwich's lack of link to West Norwood, a plug in the gap by way of Rosendale Road having more bus service on it's full length by way of both routes 201 and 450, rather than a minor portion of 322. The issue of West Norwood-West Dulwich link could be solved by routeing 450 via Croxted Road north of West Norwood, but I've decided this was better, to have more roads served by buses, even if I could place more buses on already-served roads.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If I had the network on my whim
3: Frequency unchanged (every 6 peaks, 7-8 off-peak)
315: Wandsworth - Allfarthing Lane - Wandsworth Common - Upper Tooting Park - Balham Stn - Streatham St Leonard's Church - Streatham Stn - Valley Road - Leigham Vale - Tulse Hill Stn - West Norwood - Park Hall Road - South Croxted Road - Gipsy Hill - Crystal Palace (every 12)
322: Withdrawn
New Circular single deck: Streatham Station - Gleneldon Road - Valleyfield Road - Canterbury Grove - West Norwood - Rosendale Road - St Gothard Road - Gipsy Road - Elder Road - Crown Dale - Norwood Crown Point - Norbury Hill - Green Lane - Streatham High Road - Streatham Station (every 20)
 |
| A super 315 and circular route |
Now, TfL don't like circular routes. Doesn't mean they'll kill the H9/10 and H18/9 but the powers that be will never create new ones. The routes as mentioned were either a renumbering of a previous route (H10 was 201) or an experiment due to testing scope (H18).
The upsides with circular routes is the nature of getting from one place to another which on a standard route would be an arc-shape or the like and can be continued until it forms a coherent loop. In short, doing what would be impossible on an end-to-end route, but possible if the work was split into multiple routes. In short, an efficient use in local resources.
The downside however is that there's only one terminus. This isn't bad if it's a route in any suburb in the country but in a city this is a concern if the areas have traffic issues, or potential for issues. Having two termini allows for two recovery points, one reason why the Circle Line was uncircled.
A TfL version of this circular route I've made would perhaps be like this:
315: Balham - Streatham St Leonard's Church - West Norwood - Norwood Crown Point - Streatham Station
Not particularly radical given the 325 will go from one Beckton to another Beckton.
PVR changes:
3: 0
315: +8
322: -12
New route: +4?
Total: 0
Usually I would do comprehensive calculations but this time I've been more lenient and relied on my knowledge of both area and routes to come to an assumption, hence the ? at the end of the number I've concluded to.
Alas this was closer than I expected but not to surprise since 315 currently has a PVR of 4 and that has an round-trip time of above an hour.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ordinarily I wouldn't rant out of spite but I've always wanted to convey in some shape or form the troubles of having something such as 322 as a local. No doubt if I lived just a bit further south and relied on the 450, I'd be at no end in stories to tell, but the key difference is that route has always had upgrades upon every contract. The 322 was more frequent than 450 in the late 90s/early 2000s but now the reverse is true.
No matter how much I complain on a blog and perhaps kindly ask councillors (do I?) I'm not a person with the relevant links nor pocket to get the benefit not just for myself but many residents. Thankfully I have high frequency again, which I lost in 2005 but regained in 2015.
My closing statement for now is that, whilst every route has varying degrees of issues. Such as 316's anti-double deck residents, the 164 ignored despite being quite heavily used, then 192 whose IKEA shoppers over-use the poor route but in future there will be no IKEA.
There is a bigger fish in the pond. Varying degrees of hurdles that range in size, and thus difficulty. Anyone wants the best for themselves, but diminishing returns not only exist but realistic costs need to be met, not exceeded. Alas even if tomorrow every route in my area was upgraded to maximum size and frequency, how sustainable that would be is bleak at best, harrowing on the surface.
 |
| SE92 YX11CPY, St Gothard Road |
This post started off lambasting the 3's frequency decrease due to 322's restructure but it definitely want off on a winding tangent.
Thanks for reading my rant, next up will be something less focused on emotion but more on numbers and facts as I like to produce whilst not sounding like an angry anti-vaccine propagandist.
Stay safe, until the next one!
No comments:
Post a Comment