Is it just me or does anyone else think this expensive new 'bus station'
doesn't live up the hype made during the planning stages?

I now find I have to walk from one end to the other when alighting from a 44
or 344 bus to reach the tube, quite a long way really (i.e. further than
from the old 'temporary' stop outside the hideous St George Wharf
development).

The old (now disused......but why?) ramp leading down to the tube station,
nearest the southern end of this new
ski-slope-with-a-mobile-home-parked-under-it development, remains closed
off. Bus users now have to walk miles from bus to tube or overground.....

Meanwhile, the 'interchange' between overground/underground/bus remains as
crap as ever (still exposed to the elements). What happened to the plan to
enclose the whole thing and provide escalators connecting the different
modes of transport? Even the new lifts tonight were 'out of order'.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, loads of staff were standing about upstairs
doing apparently nothing.......When I asked if this was the new, improved,
long promised transport interchange they shrugged their shoulders and one
said "I know, it's absolute crap. So much for progress".

What is the point in spending millions on something which has made foot
journeys between the different modes even longer than before? Is this 'major
new transport interchange' merely the latest manifestation of all that is
wrong with Blair's Blighty?

Okay rant over. I am just ****ed off with this joke new 'interchange'!

Andy

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 20:25:52 -0000, "A H"
wrote:

Is it just me or does anyone else think this expensive new 'bus station'
doesn't live up the hype made during the planning stages?

I've not used Vauxhall since the new bus station opened but I do use
Walthamstow's similarly new bus station every day. It looks very pretty
and is more spacious but I'm not very convinced that it works very well.

I now find I have to walk from one end to the other when alighting from a 44
or 344 bus to reach the tube, quite a long way really (i.e. further than
from the old 'temporary' stop outside the hideous St George Wharf
development).

After initially grouping the stops so that I had to wait in the middle
of the bus station and then run to one of three possible stops (!) they
have now rationalised it to two stops which are beside each other. The
other stop groupings are now less logical than they were. Anyone with a
slight clue could have got it right first time.

Naturally my stops are the furthest from the tube and you cannot see if
a bus is on the stand as you exit from the tube station. This means I
have more chance of missing a bus than catching one.

Meanwhile, the 'interchange' between overground/underground/bus remains as
crap as ever (still exposed to the elements). What happened to the plan to
enclose the whole thing and provide escalators connecting the different
modes of transport? Even the new lifts tonight were 'out of order'.

We have a nice unfinished hole in the ground with absolutely nothing
being done to finish it. For the sake of balance I believe the delays
are down to LUL and not London Buses. Having used the lovely side exit
from the One platforms last night and been accosted by drunk, swearing
"finished with your travelcards" girls I look forward to a more suitable
interchange link - although it looks like it will be stairs only.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, loads of staff were standing about upstairs
doing apparently nothing.......When I asked if this was the new, improved,
long promised transport interchange they shrugged their shoulders and one
said "I know, it's absolute crap. So much for progress".

Oh we have lots of staff but none of them seem to do very much. We used
to survive with one inspector at the old bus station - now we can have
as many as 4 London Buses plus multiple people from the operating
companies.

I think it must the only bus station I've ever come across where there
are no clocks - I'm convinced the bus station is still unfinished
although the contractors have now moved off site.

What is the point in spending millions on something which has made foot
journeys between the different modes even longer than before? Is this 'major
new transport interchange' merely the latest manifestation of all that is
wrong with Blair's Blighty?

I think there are a couple of issues. One is a laudable desire to
provide some nicely designed "different" buildings. This is fine
provided you don't spend huge sums achieving it - I'm not sure this has
happened with the bus station schemes. The second is the quality of
TfL's project management for these schemes which is not as good as it
could be in my view. Recent TfL tenders in OJEC have requested
additional project management expertise so perhaps TfL have recognised
this weakness Future schemes should therefore be provided on time and
to budget - we all know these bus stations have been late but I've not
seen anything about costs. Finally there will always be some losers on
where stops get allocated within a bus station - it's a shame if you're
one of the ones with the longest walk!

--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

I think there are a couple of issues. One is a laudable desire to
provide some nicely designed "different" buildings

Why is this laudable

This is meant to be a convenient transpoprt interchange, not a Tracy Emin-style
work of art.

This is fine
provided you don't spend huge sums achieving it

Yes, the fare-payers' and tax payers' money!

As usual, all form and no substance - but in this case eventhe form is
doubtful!

Marc.

On 23 Dec 2004 16:25:43 GMT, (Mait001) wrote:

I think there are a couple of issues. One is a laudable desire to
provide some nicely designed "different" buildings

Why is this laudable

This is meant to be a convenient transpoprt interchange, not a Tracy Emin-style
work of art.

Simply because LT (as was) had a good record of commissioning high
quality architecture and design. I think there is nothing wrong in TfL
wishing to carry on that tradition.

This is fine
provided you don't spend huge sums achieving it

Yes, the fare-payers' and tax payers' money!

Not in every case. Developer contributions can also provide a source of
revenue or can deliver enhanced transport facilities.

As usual, all form and no substance - but in this case eventhe form is
doubtful!

I haven't seen the finished article so can't comment. I do think,
though, that a lot of people on this group would not be satisfied with a
perfect transport system. They would still moan.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

(Mait001) wrote the following in:


I think there are a couple of issues. One is a laudable desire to
provide some nicely designed "different" buildings

Why is this laudable

This is meant to be a convenient transpoprt interchange, not a
Tracy Emin-style work of art.

There's nothing wrong with a convenient transport interchange also
being a nicely designed and pleasant to look at transport interchange.

--
message by Robin May. That egotism was getting old.

http://robinmay.fotopic.net

In message , Mait001
writes
I think there are a couple of issues. One is a laudable desire to
provide some nicely designed "different" buildings

Why is this laudable
Ask Charles Holden or Frank Pick.

This is meant to be a convenient transpoprt interchange, not a Tracy Emin-style
work of art.
As it happens, I particularly dislike the confection at Vauxhall.
However, good, striking design *can* make a difference, encouraging more
use of a service and - for instance - making using these places safer
(good sight lines, lots of lighting and glass.

You have only to compare using the Jubilee Line Extension to using, say,
the North London Line, to see what a difference to the public good
design can make.

Incidentally, I used Chiswick Park for the first time yesterday. What
a great Holden (I assume) design. It's interesting to see that some
period signs have been maintained there, together with explanatory
plaques explaining that some of the places listed are no longer served
by District Line trains.

This is fine
provided you don't spend huge sums achieving it

Yes, the fare-payers' and tax payers' money!

As usual, all form and no substance - but in this case eventhe form is
doubtful!
Despite my comments above, I'd largely echo your sentiments about
Vauxhall. However, I'd be interested to hear if such things as
security/safety have been improved as a result of the new design.
--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

In article ,
Robin May wrote:
There's nothing wrong with a convenient transport interchange also
being a nicely designed and pleasant to look at transport interchange.

.... especially if the change in the budget required to make it pleasant to
look at is small.

--
Mike Bristow - really a very good driver

This is meant to be a convenient transpoprt interchange, not a
Tracy Emin-style work of art.

There's nothing wrong with a convenient transport interchange also
being a nicely designed and pleasant to look at transport interchange.

I agree, but this particular "work of art" satisfies neither.

Marc.

I think there are a couple of issues. One is a laudable desire to
provide some nicely designed "different" buildings

Why is this laudable

This is meant to be a convenient transpoprt interchange, not a Tracy
Emin-style
work of art.

Simply because LT (as was) had a good record of commissioning high
quality architecture and design. I think there is nothing wrong in TfL
wishing to carry on that tradition.

There is nothing high-quality about this Vauxhall carbuncle, whicvh is why I
said "Tracy Emin" as opposed to "John Constable".

This is fine
provided you don't spend huge sums achieving it

Yes, the fare-payers' and tax payers' money!

Not in every case. Developer contributions can also provide a source of
revenue or can deliver enhanced transport facilities.

Patently, from what has already been written, the "enhancements" here are
somewhat debatable.

As usual, all form and no substance - but in this case eventhe form is
doubtful!

I haven't seen the finished article so can't comment.

I have: it is unspeakably ugly (from all angles) and, for example, the 36 going
Southbound must have had added at least 5 minutes to its journey time whilst
it negotiates both the structure and the the bendybuses clogging up the area.

Marc.

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 20:25:52 -0000, "A H" wrote:

Is it just me or does anyone else think this expensive new 'bus station'
doesn't live up the hype made during the planning stages?

I now find I have to walk from one end to the other when alighting from a 44
or 344 bus to reach the tube, quite a long way really (i.e. further than
from the old 'temporary' stop outside the hideous St George Wharf
development).

Worse than that. My gym is at Vauxhall and I live at the Elephant. I used to
have to wait in front of the St. George buildings where I had the choice of a
322 or a 344 at the same stop.

Now I have the choice of waiting at one stop in the interchange for the 322,
or waiting at another two stops further back on the other side of the
interchange for a 344. I could wait in betwen the two, I suppose, and run for
whichever gets there first.

It's typical of transit planners here that they do not take such things into
consideration when designing infrastructure.

As for beauty, or design, well, I'd trade that for an ordinary interchange
that worked and was convenient.

--
Chris Hansen | chrishansenhome at btinternet dot com
| http://www.hansenhome.demon.co.uk or
| http://www.livejournal.com/users/chrishansenhome/