What happened to the possible extension of the 63 bus?

[Gavin Edwards]

Our Assembly Member Val Shawcross has e-mailed me and asked me to post the following on her behalf:

"Politics is all about priorities and choices. TfL have carried out a cost benefit analysis on the extension proposal and decided not to allocate the resources required to make the 63 link to Honor Oak. Having looked at the figures I believe it is worthwhile because it will encourage more local people to use public transport and reduce car use - the benefits to the environment are not properly costed in. It will help people economically in the area- easier access to jobs and colleges, for example and in the wider picture its just a worthwhile and well supported proposal to make life more convenient people of the area. Boris Johnson has made it his explicit intention to reduce the subsidies to bus services in London. However, I believe that passengers should be seeing some improvements to the bus services for the high fares they are paying, I particularly feel that communities which do not benefit from Underground services need some additional bus services. This is a relatively small change to an existing and well established service."

[dbboy]

So Gavin, you said I mis-read your posting. I read what you wrote. You stated "I've knocked on lots of doors in the area and spoke to lots of people and it is very clear to me that this would be a popular change."

Now it transpires you "were out on the nunhead side of the ward last Sat. I was just giving that as an example of our activity. (Although some people are interested in the extension there, it's fair to say most interest is on the East Dulwich\Honor Oak side.)" Why don't you name the roads - because you can't.

IMO you're using this issue to try and generate support for yourself. Do you use the 63 or need to get from HOP station to east dulwich? I guess not.

[the-e-dealer]

Of course he can names the roads he's out there a lot!

[Gavin Edwards]

No dboy, this is the full response (as opposed to your selective quote):

"as councillors for Peckham Rye ward that's where we do the majority of our door knocking. So for example, when we were out door knocking yesterday morning we spoke to 69 people (out of 109 doors knocked on). In the last month we've spoken to 339 people. There are currently 9,794 registered voters in Peckham Rye ward and since we were selected as council candidates at the end of 2009 we've spoken to 5,208 of the current registered voters on the doorstep. We'll have actually spoken to more people than this but every year about 400-500 people move out of the ward (to be replaced with new voters).

So, some people may never have spoken to us, on the other hand some will have spoken to us two or three times. In addition, I appreciate that Peckham Rye ward doesn't just cover parts of Honor Oak and East Dulwich that are interested in the 63 bus and there will be roads not in Peckham Rye ward that are interested. However, we certainly cover plenty of roads where plenty of people have raised this issue with us. And, as I say above, when we delivered a leaflet about the extension about 18 months ago we received hundreds of responses - more so than any other survey or leaflet we have put out."

i.e. We've knocked on thousands of doors all across the ward. It just happens that on Saturday we were out on Surrey and Athenlay (though why that's relevant is a mystery to me!)

You say we're using this issue to generate support. I say we're hearing what local people want and responding to it. The view you take just depends on how cynical you are!

I have a question for you. If extending the 63 is such a bad idea (as you claim), why is it so popular?

[dbboy]

There has been NO official consultation with residents and representative associations at the Forest Hill Road / Honor Oak Park Road end of the route. You appear to be focussing on this for residents in East Dulwich. Why not focus on improving the P12 service rather than banging on about extending the 63. Forest Hill Road already has the 63, 363 and P13. Honor Oak Park has both the P4 and P12. Have you seen Forest Hill Road and Honor Oak Park in the rush hour? In particular the lengthy traffic jams on these roads that already exist, partly exacerbated by the vast number of traffic lights and road humps. The sharp bend on Honor Oak Park is compounded by the parked cars there.

You seem to have an objective and don't seem to either undersatnd or appreciate the traffic impications. The roads already can't cope. Your proposal will make it a hell of a lot worse. If people want to access the Overground why don't they do this through Peckham Rte station when the Overground arrives.

[Applespider]

Peckhampoet Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> My vote is for an improved P12 bus frequency and

> how about a re-routing of the P4 - maybe it could

> go along Wood Vale and link with the 63/363

> service there? Though that would mean the folk at

> the top of the hill would lose a bus service.

Now that is an excellent idea. It could follow the route of the 63, turning along Overhill Rd and up Melford Road before going along Wood Vale, over the hill and down to HOP before continuing to Lewisham. Yes, it would mean that those between the Horniman and the top of Forest Hill Road lost their link to HOP but since many of them are closer to Forest Hill Overground in any case, that might not be a deal killer. They also would still have the 185 link to Lewisham, the P4's ultimate destination. And, the route along Wood Vale and over the hill would be quicker for the P4 than the multiple sets of traffic lights it faces in going via the short stretch of the South Circular.

Yup... rerouting the P4 rather than the 63 would get my vote too.

[Marmora Man]

Gavin Edwards Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Our Assembly Member Val Shawcross has e-mailed me

> and asked me to post the following on her behalf:

>

> "Politics is all about priorities and choices.

> TfL have carried out a cost benefit analysis on

> the extension proposal and decided not to allocate

> the resources required to make the 63 link to

> Honor Oak. Having looked at the figures I believe

> it is worthwhile because it will encourage more

> local people to use public transport and reduce

> car use - the benefits to the environment are not

> properly costed in. It will help people

> economically in the area- easier access to jobs

> and colleges, for example and in the wider

> picture its just a worthwhile and well supported

> proposal to make life more convenient people of

> the area. Boris Johnson has made it his explicit

> intention to reduce the subsidies to bus services

> in London. However, I believe that passengers

> should be seeing some improvements to the bus

> services for the high fares they are paying, I

> particularly feel that communities which do not

> benefit from Underground services need some

> additional bus services. This is a relatively

> small change to an existing and well established

> service."

So what I suggested has taken place - an objective cost / benefit analysis by TfL. However, a politician who has no authority yet but wishes to head up the Transport portfolio under a possible new administration says she believes they have got it wrong. Great - an airheaded politician, anxious to be elected is making promises based on nothing more than opinion, promises that contradict the professional opinion of experts. Thank god Val Shawcross has nothing to do with dangerous matters.

As I said before - take the politics out of this.

[henryb]

Marmora Man

TFL is run by the Mayor?s office not a private company. Its priorities are set by elected officials so that they are accountable to the public and thereofre take the public's needs and desires into account.

As such these decisions cannot be made on a purely objective manner because they have to take into account the subjective views local residents. It is the politician job to assess those views and make election pledges and (if in power) decisions accordingly. With TFL as public body the cost/benefit analysis it always going to a tool in helping make these decisions not the be all and end all and I believe it was Boris who made the final decision that bus route extensions here and other places were not a priority.

Regarding the analysis itself as I understand it; TFL massively underestimated the usage of the Over Ground line at HOP; didn?t take into account the problems of commuter parking at the station; didn?t put any value on the environmental benefits of improved public transport; didn?t take into account any other option other than building a new stand at Brockley Rise and didn?t put any value on the strategic importance of linking HOP to Peckham. Even with all that it was still boarder line.

Personally I am glad local politicians are taking a stand and an active role trying to get this done as it will be very popular and will benefit a large number of people.

[Bic Basher]

First of all, I'm against any re-routing of the P4 to serve Wood Vale, this would cut off the council estates in Honor Oak Road and is well used by parents and children of the primary school along that road.

Also, why not do a survey after December 2012 to see if passengers would rather use the 16 buses per hour (63/363) to Peckham Rye to connect to the overground or use the P12 and extended 63 to HOP station.

The previous poster from Nunhead may also want to consider after December using the P12/78 to Peckham Rye to connect to the Overground.

[henryb]

Why not extend it put another bus on the line - review in a years time? If the service is underused revert back.

[Siduhe]

henryb Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Regarding the analysis itself as I understand it;

> TFL massively underestimated the usage of the Over

> Ground line at HOP; didn?t take into account the

> problems of commuter parking at the station;

> didn?t put any value on the environmental benefits

> of improved public transport; didn?t take into

> account any other option other than building a new

> stand at Brockley Rise and didn?t put any value on

> the strategic importance of linking HOP to

> Peckham. Even with all that it was still boarder

> line.

Or perhaps take account of the number of school children who use the 63 - one of the key passenger surveys (which I now understand was related to whether to extend) was done in the summer during school holidays and on the Tuesday following a Bank Holiday...which always seemed a bit disingenuous to me.

[the-e-dealer]

A temporary extension would still mean changing and republishing all the time tables. Setting up the bus stops, surveying the junctions etc. I'm glad they don't just extend bus routes at the drop of a hat. This would result in a lot of money wasting.

[Gavin Edwards]

Dboy - As someone else pointed out on this thread, buses can reduce traffic. I just don't accept your arguments about traffic congestion. You're simultaneously arguing that the extension would be very unpopular and that Labour is only backing it because it's popular. It's a confused position to say the least.

Henry B - spot on. As you say, the extension is overwhelmingly supported by the local community. Still not a single "No" on our online survey.

[dbboy]

It's dbboy, not dboy.

Secondly, why don't you come and see the congestion problems first hand, rather than just dismise these.

[Applespider]

Gavin Edwards Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Still not a single "No" on our online survey.

Possibly because some people don't want to give local politicians of any party personal contact details just to say no to a bus. You can count this as a no if you like and for the final question; I've not yet decided which mayoral candidate to support since none of them stand out.

[the-e-dealer]

you dont have to give real contact details.

Signed M [email protected] (keen bus user)

[showboat]

Gavin - how can you not understand the potential problems with congestion?

You say you don't accept them, but have you personally taken a look at that road during peak times? It can take fifteen minutes sometimes to drive from the station to the top of the hill, and vice versa, such is the weight of traffic. Adding another bus into this has to be thought about carefully.

I accept the desire for some kind of link, but surely it runs the risk of a knock on effect to the rest of the 63 route? There must be a better way.

[henryb]

It will be an 10 buses an hour - that is not going make a significant difference to overall number of vehicles in percentage terms. A busy single lane of traffic is 1500 vehicles an hour. It wouldn?t surprise me if Forest Hill Road is a lot more than that at times.

If anything improved public transport has been shown to decrease congestion as it gets people out of their cars. If you want to do something about congestion on the road you should be supporting this.

[showboat]

I already said that I accept it, but FHR doesn't experience the same kind of congestion - its a wider road with more scope for overtaking if needed, more side roads that people can turn off onto and the space to actually turn round if required. None of these exist over st Honor Oak once you're up the hill.

My concern is that if it backs up there it will impact the route further on - precisely why it was originally split into the 363, as coming from Crystal PalCe there were issues that then affected the rest of the route.

I don't pretend to have an answer here, hit somehow feel a solution using a more local route would be better.

[Renata Hamvas]

I would like to support Gavin in saying that when I have spoken to residents from the ED side of our Ward (eg Dovedale yesterday)there has been overwhelming support of extending the 63. There are no plans for changes to the night buses in the area. We raised it initially with the current Mayor and he dismissed it saying that the fares generated wouldn't cover the cost. I think that the level of useage of an extended 63 has been underestimated as the ELL from Peckham Rye will not extend southwards. I am delighted that Ken has pledged to support the 63 extension.

Renata

[dbboy]

What is wrong with walking and/or using the P12

[henryb]

It takes too long.

[trizza]

And the P12 never turns up. Apart from these small issues it's a wonderful suggestion.

[the-e-dealer]

Nothings wrong with walking but when you need to get to work or get back to collect your child from School you need something a little quicker.

[Marmora Man]

I would like to support Gavin in saying that when I have spoken to residents from the ED side of our Ward (eg Dovedale yesterday)there has been overwhelming support of extending the 63

Overwhelming support for something doesn't make it right / sensible / suitable. We have already learned that TfL have carried out a review which indicated that the cost / benefit equation doesn't deliver a positive outcome.

There may be a "democratic" wish for the 63 to be extended but there are democratic wishes for all sorts of things that are deemed inappropriate, impossible, impractical or too costly.

Forget the political solganeering, I believe in TfL's objective assessment, not you cynical political stance of promising what is not going to happen.