London Banter - The 455 route

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Corfield[_2_] (Post 153710)

On Sun, 31 Jan 2016 11:33:59 +0100, Robin9
wrote:

'Paul Corfield[_2_ Wrote:
;153694']On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 11:50:34 +0100, Robin9
wrote:
-

Offramp;153677 Wrote: -
Gor blimey. I made a massive mistake. I was at the Purley Tesco, at
about 3pm, and I wanted to go to Tooting. But I just missed a 127, by
about 30 seconds.

The next 127 was in 29 minutes but a different bus arrived in 1
minute,
a 455 to Wallington. I thought that I could take that and possible
catch
up with the 127, or get another bus.

But the 455 went everywhere. South Croydon, East Croydon and West
Croydon AND then back to Purley where we had started from. Luckily,
the
mad bus stopped at Waddon Marsh and I leapt off and got the Tram. What
a
relief!-

Since London has been afflicted with a Mayor and TfL, there are
numerous bus routes that go all round the houses, often along
residential streets that are quite unsuitable for large vehicles,
and waste passengers' time. Gone are the days when you could
judge by the destination board if a bus was appropriate for your
journey.-

Err many of the "round the houses" routes actually date back well
before the Mayor turned up. Ironically many of them materialised under
Government control and LRT. This is because LRT pulled down bus
operation costs so far that it freed up some resources to try these
newer routes. The advent of minibuses and then the Dennis Dart
midibus also helped enormously. A recently published book
"Privatising London's Buses" by Roger Torode gives a good insight into
what went on and how things developed. There are many contributions
from people directly involved in all the changes and there are some
very illuminating insights as to what happened when more frequent
buses or new routes were tried.

I rather suspect the people who use and benefit from "round the
houses" routes would be horrified at the prospect of losing their
services. There are still too many places that are a long way off the
bus network and where you could put in a bus service to give people
more mobility. Some are on narrowish roads but many are not and the
only issue would be stop locations where people have drives in front
of their homes. I can think of places in Dagenham, Chadwell Heath,
Uxbridge, South Ruislip and Earlsfield which could benefit from bus
services. Some of the above have been proposed by TfL in the past but
the money was lost or councils were unwilling to fund highway changes
to make the bus routes work effectively. To be wholly accurate one or
two schemes were cancelled due to local opposition but opponents tend
to shout louder than people who would actually benefit - all the usual
nonsense about houses vibrating to bits when buses pass, scumbags
using buses to come and rob their homes and kill people, children
being mown down by errant buses, house values plummeting and cars
being damaged.

--
Paul C

I believe you're a Walthamstow resident. I used to know a
few families who lived in Upper Walthamstow. They were not
pleased when bus routes were extended via Fyfield Road to
Bisterne Avenue. They did tell me that cars had been damaged,
and that, when going over speedhumps, buses cause houses to
vibrate. They also said they wished the buses had not been
routed through their neighbourhood and that they never used them.
This last assertion is supported by empirical evidence: the buses
are more or less empty in Upper Walthamstow.

I also know very slightly a man who trained to be a bus driver and
who worked that route. He told me it was a nightmare trying to
make progress along Fyfield Road - he didn't need to tell me: I can
see for myself every time I drive around there - and he gave up
after a few weeks.

The Upper Walthamstow scenario typifies the reality of these
routes through residential streets.

1) Previously there had been no widespread clamour for bus
routes to come through Upper Walthamstow. People walked to
either Wood Street or Forest Road or hired a minicab, and the
vast majority of local residents thought there was nothing
unreasonable about the situation.

2) Bus evangelists decided buses should travel these narrow
roads. The decision was not made in response to public
demand but was made without regard for the impact the buses
would have on the area.

3) Now there are traffic jams in Fyfield Road and, inevitably, an
increase in air pollution.

4) Bus evangelists and their supporters pretend that they have
liberated people who were imprisoned in their homes, happily
ignoring the fact that no-one had been imprisoned, no-one had
complained about being imprisoned and that local people had
gone about their business with no great difficulty.

5) The quality of life for the majority has deteriorated, not
become better. They now have to contend with traffic jams,
vehicle fumes and vibration. TfL and the bus fanatics do not
care at all about these adverse consequence.

Jolly good - I'll write to the Mayor and ask him to withdraw the 230
bus south / east of Walthamstow Central. When there's a revolt
against its removal I'll say all the residents in Upper Walthamstow
don't want the bus. ;-)

I do understand that people have complaints and concerns. I just don't
think they necessarily outweigh the greater good in improving access
to all Londoners into particular areas. Not everyone can or wishes to
drive. People who may drive today may end up not being able to in the
future - can they all afford taxis? As ever it's a balance and I can
see that a decent proportion of people won't agree with me.

I really don't think you need to use pejorative terms like "bus
evangelist" on what is a transport group. It doesn't add anything to
the discussion that is usually polite and civilised on here.

--
Paul C

You take offence far too quickly. My phrase "bus evangelist"
does not refer to anyone posting here. It refers to those
obsessives who have been on a crusade to extend bus travel
without regard to either cost or consequence, generally on
the assumption that motorists will see the light and abandon
their cars if buses are available everywhere.

"The greater good" incorporates judging the needs and wishes
of the minority against the needs and wishes of the majority.
Sometimes a small minority will have to accept inconvenience.