 |
| A face of things to come... |
Includes four new consultations, touted as the solution to the increased regulation Ultra Low Emission Zone brings for your average Joe and Jenny car and van user who rely on them to get around London, since their areas have poor or no transport, in and around or across London borders.
I'll write my overall thoughts now. It is disappointing.
With Congestion Charge in the early 2000s, you had many new bus routes (think 148 205 360 RV1) as well as splits of day routes (2 into 2/432, 36 into 36/436, etcetera) to increase capacity in the network.
In this round of four consultations, bearing in mind the early 2000-2005 era saw plethora of improvements, there's 2 semi-long extensions and 2 short extensions, with 2 routes withdrawn. Yes, routes are withdrawn.
Whilst not part of the Congestion Charge changes, cross-border London travel saw improvements, mainly as routes 405 and 498 saw the potential of withdrawal if TfL didn't step in to protect the London sections of those routes, which meant serving the counties. Same couldn't be said for the many lost cross-London routes such as 310 in Enfield and 402 in Bromley, with many more lost. The 505 lost from Chingford due to Low Emission Zone.
So without further ado, my first impressions on each consultation.
- 315
Those who've seen my Unorm Southwark/Lambeth review of 2021 would have callbacks to a similar idea I made using the 255 route, going through back roads between Balham and Springfield Hospital (and using Upper Tooting Park in the process).
Seems TfL took my idea on board, using the less frequent route - 315.
Whilst forgoing the potential of covering Upper Tooting Park (which has bus stands, no bus stops).
All in all positive, since it involves no reduction of services. Whilst it would have been a quality of life improvement for existing 315 users to have an increase in service (capacity, frequency, or both), some areas of London had reductions so it's alright the status quo is retained I suppose.
On the plus side, Crossrail 2 whenever it happens, gets a new route linking it to these new roads!
Whilst this area isn't particularly outer London, not outside the ULEZ by much, it is near Tooting which is Sadiq Khan's home turf. Not implying anything but, an improvement is an improvement either way.
At most should be a 15 minute extension, an 8 minute car ride on Google Maps so should be
Estimate PVR: +2 (from 4 to 6)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- 79 and 83
Initially surprising to hear the every 8 minute route 83 being sent to Stonebridge Park to address the lost round-the-corner link between Mount Pleasant and Wembley from the 224 restructure (cutting 224 from Wembley to Alperton). Though they cheaped out by using the less frequent 79, which is every 12 minutes. All in all a much better improvement over the every 20 minute route 224, which seems to have it's life in expiry.
Coincidentally the second time a 79 comes to Beresford Avenue, having been extended from Alperton to Willesden Junction in April 1983 until withdrawal in September 1984. The then 79A renumbered into 79 by November 1987 into our familiar Edgware to Alperton route today.
Estimate PVR: +1 for 83 (from 19 to 20), +2 for 79 (from 11 to 13).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Wembley Park
Simple restructures, all that can be said.
Estimate PVR changes: None.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Brent Cross West
The two major changes are the extension of 316 from Cricklewood and 326 from Brent Cross Shopping Centre.
The 189 diverted via the new Brent Cross West station and Exploratory Park.
Routes 102 210 C11 see a deviation via Exploratory Park, whilst the 232 and 266 serve Tilling Road eastbound - have their eastbound penultimate stop before the shopping centre changed to mirror their second stop westbound.
Whilst unlike the initial planned extension of both the 16 and 316, now that 16 is planned to be withdrawn in favour of 332 being renumbered 16, this is still an improvement for early days of a new development with life to come eventually. Three routes serving what will be blocks of scaffolding in the year of 2023 is good enough as it will serve the starting point for the next half-decade.
It is underwhelming, the words of more knowledgeable people in the area.
Estimate PVR: +1 for 316, +1 for 326.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most controversial for last
Harold Wood and Upminster
Ockendon - which is in Greater London, loses a service. Yes it has 370, though you can't tout this scheme as an improvement for ULEZ when there is blatant withdrawal of service. The 347's current routeing can be argued as a potential winner in the same vein W19 could be if given the right frequency, as W19's predecessor had a poor frequency and thus was used sparsely, though it was revitalised into the W19 we know with a relatively good frequency for the day (every 20) which has since transformed into the every 10 route that is busy. Of course that's Walthamstow and Ilford with busy flows of people, whereas this is out in the sticks in Romford, but similar logic can apply to a lesser degree.
Look out 346 users - you lose half your buses per hour. Loss of capacity as well in this scheme? Really scoring a two for two here!
Perhaps increasing the 497 to every 20 would palate this somewhat, as it wouldn't half the frequency of 346's current userbase - which would alienate even more users from using it; whilst also giving the cut they envisage will save on costs by matching demand. After all, going from every 15 to 20 would translate into a 25% cut in capacity. Unlike a 50% cut with frequency halving.
 |
| I made this makeshift table |
A PVR saving of: -2.
So let's summarise, loss of links (Romford to Hall Lane, Ockendon to Harold Wood) with halving of frequency for current 346 users in Upminster Park. Loss of capacity in Ockendon itself.
Exactly who is this an improvement for?
The existing users of 347 who receive a service frequency quadruple from every 120 to every 30? Yet they lose Romford which is a major centre, so can't be them.
Personally, a restructure involving 347 and 497 alone could be palatable. The 346 being a short 2-bus route serving Upminster and Upminster Park estate as a shuttle didn't need to be dragged in, forcing a long route that could face problems in reliability to falter, much easier than the shuttle 346 currently is.
Cash is tight in TfL's purses, as is our day to day human lives with the Cost of Living crisis. Though cutting services only drives those who have the ability and finances to get a car - to use the car. These four proposals aren't enough to stem the inherent lack of cross-London travel or even within fringes of London like in Bromley and Havering among many others.
I've gotten slightly better as I pushed myself to write this from a spurt of enthusiasm though I am slightly sick, but God willing I get better and God willing you to be better. Until the next one stay safe!
No comments:
Post a Comment