What happened to the possible extension of the 63 bus?

[cosmonaut]

Even if the P12 was more reliable, there's still the matter of cost. Since Boris loves pushing up bus fares so much, taking a P12 + 63 would make a round-trip journey cost an extra ?2.70 per day, which would add up to an extra ?13.50 per week, and so on. Give it another four years with Boris (ugh) and it'll just keep going up and up and up.

Good transit systems connect at hubs. The 63's failure to make it within a reasonable (i.e., 5 min) walk of HOP station is not good transport planning.

dbboy Wrote:

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

> What is wrong with walking and/or using the P12

[henryb]

> We have already

> learned that TfL have carried out a review which

> indicated that the cost / benefit equation doesn't

> deliver a positive outcome.

All they did was a make a crude estimate that the increased running costs wouldn't be covered by new fares. If the same criteria was applied to say roads - non would ever get built or even repaired. Is that the objective thing to do?

[Penguin68]

In many ways this is as startling naive as any ED thread. 'We asked everyone whether they wanted stuff, and they said yes, so everyone's in favour' - well of course, who wouldn't say yes to an unconstrained 'do you want things to get better?'

As we don't have unlimited resources the questions needs to be - do you want stuff if it means giving other stuff up?

For every 1% extension to a bus route, the bus frequency at any one stop reduces by 2% - assuming no additional buses are put onto the route. Each aditional bus that is put on the route has fixed additional (capital) costs and variable running costs - so the additional fares needed to pay for extensions to routes, assuming you deploy additional resource - must cover both the variable and the fixed costs.

Most people do not want to reduce bus frequency (on routes they use) - so extending bus routes almost always requires additional buses to maintain frequency. So, to pay for this, additional fares have to be earned - or additional subsidy has to be generated through taxes.

Every choice has consequences - and yet people who were given an option that didn't include those consequences can be quoted as being 'in favour'.

There is a proper set of trade-off research techniques which could have been used to generate real responses, where consequecnes were understood and factored in, but these are expensive to administer and to number-crunch, so 'I talked to lots of people on the door and they all wanted stuff' will do as a substitute. Or not.

[the-e-dealer]

I dont mind payimg double the fare can you put that in the formula.

[henryb]

> Each

> aditional bus that is put on the route has fixed

> additional (capital) costs and variable running

> costs - so the additional fares needed to pay for

> extensions to routes, assuming you deploy

> additional resource - must cover both the variable

> and the fixed costs.

That is not the case for the maintenance of the roads you like to drive along - why should it be the only criteria for bus route extensions?

[showboat]

I'm sorry henryb, maybe I'm being thick here, but what do road costs have to do with it?

The point is that to extend the service will require an increase in running costs. Where would these come from? It's a fair question.

[dbboy]

If you recall it was Ken in the previous administration who started raising bus fares from when they were 70p, so please don't just blame Boris as both have an equal burden of blame to take for the fare increases.

[henryb]

I was trying to make the point that the immediate revenue generation isn?t the only criteria when making transport decisions ? environmental, economic, social, strategic planning and congestion considerations should be taken into account as well.

[showboat]

I think the point made wasn't about revenue generation. As such - more a query over who or what will pay for the extension? Would it be increased fares or other funding?

[Renata Hamvas]

One thing that no-one mentions above that if there is a useful public transport link, local residents will be more inclined to use it, leading to reduced pollution, congestion etc.

Renata

[ontheedge]

For the people who live on the part of the route where the 63 doesn't currently go there will be greatly increased pollution noise and alo the fumes from an extra 6 buses an hour, plus it will greatly increase the use of an already overused station in rush hour.

One of the stops is directly outside my front door, the small buses p4, p12 are tolerable but I'm afraid I absolutely abhor the idea of the 63 stopping outside every 10 minutes as it will mean having to have curtains permanently drawn as I live on the 1st floor.

Nobody has canvessed those who live on the route itself as far as I'm aware and yes I do live in Southwark but on the very edge as my name actually suggests.

[the-e-dealer]

If the Bus Goes there I wont have to drive visitors to and from the station.

[rodneybewes]

Marmora Man Wrote:

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

> 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.

Anyone who has followed TFL's road "improvement" programmes will realise that objective assessments have nothing to do with it - they are there to follow the Mayor's directions which result directly from short term voting pressure. See the amount of independent reviews they have commissioned and subsequently ignored including the Blackfriars Bridge and Kings Cross interchanges. Whilst you may well object, quite reasonably, to sloganeering a fatuous belief in the political independence of TFL is frankly hilarious.

[Bic Basher]

Renata Hamvas Wrote:

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

> I think that

> the level of useage of an extended 63 has been

> underestimated as the ELL from Peckham Rye will

> not extend southwards.

Indeed, but most who will use the Overground during the peak will be using Canada Water for the West End and Canary Wharf which is going to be served from Peckham Rye.

As for the southbound issue, passengers who wise to travel to Crystal Palace (or use the 363), Croydon and Norwood Junction can do this from Peckham as now. Forest Hill and Sydenham are a change away on the 363 in Lordship Lane, 5 mins bus ride from FH Road.

The reason why the P12 is terrible is because the route is too long. It was a bad move to extend it to Surrey Quays which has exaccerbated the problem. It'll be the same if the 63 is extended.

[Chippy Minton]

TfL is managed by a board that is appointed by Boris Johnson who is also the chair of the Board - does that mean it can still provide an "objective assessment"?

Like it or not, the politics can't be taken out of it.

[Me'mate'Dave]

Just had a look at the 63 bus time table, am I right in understanding these buses come through almost every 5 minutes of the day? Is it warranted for it to come through on such a frequesnt basis?

Was going to ask dbboy why he/she's so het up about it but this kind of justifies his/her comments a little

[spanglysteve]

If you had asked me previously, I would have said I was in favour of this extension. However, upon relfection I think this would be a costly mistake.

The overground extends to Peckham Rye later this year. Therefore, those wanting to make a connection to it from the 63/363 will be able to in less than a years time.

To buy more busses and employ more people, and do more feasability studies to resolve a problem which will not exist in less than a year seems wasteful.

[the-e-dealer]

Just wrap up warm then!

[henryb]

I suspect within a couple of months of it running it will be impossible to get on the Overground at Peckham in peak hours. It still makes sense to have better transport links to both stations.

[CBRoad]

henryb Wrote:

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

> I suspect within a couple of months of it running

> it will be impossible to get on the Overground at

> Peckham in peak hours. It still makes sense to

> have better transport links to both stations.

Do you know something I don't? What makes you say that?

[James Barber]

Another possible solution is to use the devolved highways budget from TfL to Southwark - its several millions a year. Nothing I can see stops Southwark deciding to subsidise 63 being extended for a trial period of say 2 or 3 years and using that devolved budget.

Using devolved budget might incentivise Southwark to promote the extension so that by the end of the trial period it is self funding OR Southwark could suggest to TfL curtailing a route and reducing the subsidy another route receives to promote no.63 extension.

[pez]

On the new overground extension, there's no direct link between Honor Oak and Peckham Rye. You will have to change at Surrey Quays and double back to Peckham Rye from there. So I'd rather the bus option.

spanglysteve Wrote:

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

> If you had asked me previously, I would have said

> I was in favour of this extension. However, upon

> relfection I think this would be a costly

> mistake.

>

> The overground extends to Peckham Rye later this

> year. Therefore, those wanting to make a

> connection to it from the 63/363 will be able to

> in less than a years time.

>

> To buy more busses and employ more people, and do

> more feasability studies to resolve a problem

> which will not exist in less than a year seems

> wasteful.

[the-e-dealer]

What we are after is an integrated transport network. A bus finishing just down the road from a Major Transport Link is just daft.

[henryb]

To be fair it does stop at a station - just one that closed over 50 years ago. Nice work TFL.

[the-e-dealer]

Boris got back in :-(