|
Post by sid on Nov 6, 2017 13:18:20 GMT
All in all, these changes are what expected to happen with Oxford Street routes. Although the 10/23 route combination proposal sticks out the most. Two things stand out for here; 1) There will definitely be a whole fleet of LTs from the 10 becoming spare as the LTs wouldn't be able through the tight Paddington areas the proposed new route goes through. 2) I presume this new route will have to go out for tender pretty soon. Could be a chance for Tower Transit to gain work after their recent losses and the impending loss of the 23 in it's current form. The consultation has been released to pedestrianise Oxford Street consultations.tfl.gov.uk/roads/oxford-street/#Buses
Oxford Circus to Selfridges pedestrianised by Dec 2018 Oxford Circus to TCR pedestrianised by Dec 2019 Selfridges to Marble Arch pedestrianised post 2020
For the buses it would mean: 7, 94 and 98 would be cut back to Marble Arch 113 cut back to Selfridges 159 cut back to Oxford Circus
139 & 390 diverted via Wigmore Street and Henrietta Place
10 & 23 merged to run as a new route from Hammersmith to Westbourne Park
Very short term vision used by TfL (no surprise) as there is no plan for a further re-routed 390 when OC to TCR is pedestrianised. I cannot see a logical route for it east of Oxford Circus area. Agree with your statement regarding the 390. When Oxford Street East gets pedestrianised, I presume it would be rerouted via Great Portland Street, Euston Road and Warren Street as it seems like the only viable route to connect Euston and beyond. Do we know for certain that LT's cannot negotiate the Paddington section bearing in mind that the bendybuses on the 436 managed it? I might be wrong but I would assume that the 10/23 combi will continue as the existing route 10 contract?
|
|
|
Post by RandomBusesGirl on Nov 6, 2017 13:27:25 GMT
Do we know for certain that LT's cannot negotiate the Paddington section bearing in mind that the bendybuses on the 436 managed it? I might be wrong but I would assume that the 10/23 combi will continue as the existing route 10 contract? If both 23 and 52 failed the LT test, then they can't do it. Unless they dug the place up or got rid of half the parking bays, which residents will without doubt oppose fiercely. EDIT: 36/436 doesn't go down the road that's causing issues anyway. So more LTs to allocate More suburbs? I can't help but to suggest this new route is numbered 82 😈 So with this new stitch-up route coming, the text is very unclear whether N23/23 to Wembley will still come to fruition, or??? And thanks to Gellico pointing this out to me - there's a mistake - where it's claimed 159 will serve Marble Arch 24h - interesting how given it'll be cut to Oxford Circus 😂 Tweeted this to @tfl, let's see if they pay attention
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2017 13:30:47 GMT
Businesses would be happier as there will be more space for shoppers to access, as it has been the commercial properties along Oxford Street have been the main supporters of the pedestrianisation. But of course if there are no buses running along outside, then what will bring these people there ... CROSSRAIL ... that will only stop once in the middle and once at the eastern end leaving the overcrowded Central Line to pick up the pieces.
I'm surprised at the lack of outcry over the Route 98 cut back. The last remaining east-west Oxford Street route connecting Marble Arch to Holborn disappearing. Why this cannot also run via Wigmore Street etc I do not know. Personally, Willesden Garage to Marble Arch I think would be a complete waste of money. The only section of route that you wouldn't be able to do via something else is Willesden to Kilburn High Road. And what would the N98 do? If that is Marble Arch too then I see the AC short workings withdrawn, meaning further night bus cuts which will equal money savings.
One big downward spiral...
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 6, 2017 13:31:22 GMT
The lunatics who have come up with this scheme? Is such emotive language really necessary? You might not agree with it, and that's your prerogative of course, but it I really cannot see what is so dreadful about it? If I'm wrong then I'm sure businesses in the area will be up in arms and the whole area will be a ghost town within a few years but I really don't see that happening. I am entitled to express my opinion. My views about removing buses from Oxford St have not changed. I have used similar language before without criticism. If you don't like it then please do not read my posts or else report me. It's all very simple and we have been here before.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Nov 6, 2017 13:33:07 GMT
Do we know for certain that LT's cannot negotiate the Paddington section bearing in mind that the bendybuses on the 436 managed it? I might be wrong but I would assume that the 10/23 combi will continue as the existing route 10 contract? If 23 and 52 failed the LT test, then they can't do it. Unless they dug the place up or got rid of half or parking bays, which residents will definitely angrily oppose. So more LTs to allocate More suburbs? I can't help but to suggest this new route is numbered 82 😈 So with this new stitch-up route coming, the text is very unclear whether N23/23 to Wembley will still come to fruition, or??? And thanks to Gellico pointing this out to me - there's a mistake - where it's claimed 159 will serve Marble Arch 24h - interesting how given it'll be cut to Oxford Circus 😂 Tweeted this to @tfl, let's see if they pay attention More likely a problem around Ladbroke Grove rather than Paddington? If LU do keep the route then a swap of buses with the 27 would seem the easiest option, assuming it's ok for LT's of course.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Nov 6, 2017 13:35:45 GMT
The lunatics who have come up with this scheme? Is such emotive language really necessary? You might not agree with it, and that's your prerogative of course, but it I really cannot see what is so dreadful about it? If I'm wrong then I'm sure businesses in the area will be up in arms and the whole area will be a ghost town within a few years but I really don't see that happening. I am entitled to express my opinion. My views about removing buses from Oxford St have not changed. I have used similar language before without criticism. If you don't like it then please do not read my posts or else report me. It's all very simple and we have been here before. Of course you are entitled to your opinion but anything posted on here is open to question from other members.
|
|
|
Post by RandomBusesGirl on Nov 6, 2017 13:37:10 GMT
If LU do keep the route then a swap of buses with the 27 would seem the easiest option, assuming it's ok for LT's of course. I've been told on FB that Chiswick Business Park is unsuitable for LTs All these years and didn't know that. 139 imo should convert, given it now goes GG, stand space is no longer an issue.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2017 13:37:25 GMT
The lunatics who have come up with this scheme? Is such emotive language really necessary? You might not agree with it, and that's your prerogative of course, but it I really cannot see what is so dreadful about it? If I'm wrong then I'm sure businesses in the area will be up in arms and the whole area will be a ghost town within a few years but I really don't see that happening. I am entitled to express my opinion. My views about removing buses from Oxford St have not changed. I have used similar language before without criticism. If you don't like it then please do not read my posts or else report me. It's all very simple and we have been here before. I completely agree with, and supportive of, your viewpoint! Whilst it is inevitable that senseless cuts will happen, the level and nature of these, with the complete lack of foresight and future-proofing etc. is effectively criminal for what is supposed to be a world-class transport system. Better yet, when these all go ahead because that's what a TfL consultation means nowadays(!), will there be any publicity at all to explain what is happening, cue lots of even more confused tourists that cannot find their way in such a "welcoming and open" city as London??
As much as I love London's buses, I'd FAR rather work for a provincial operator than a London one ...
|
|
|
Post by sid on Nov 6, 2017 13:46:26 GMT
I am entitled to express my opinion. My views about removing buses from Oxford St have not changed. I have used similar language before without criticism. If you don't like it then please do not read my posts or else report me. It's all very simple and we have been here before. I completely agree with, and supportive of, your viewpoint! Whilst it is inevitable that senseless cuts will happen, the level and nature of these, with the complete lack of foresight and future-proofing etc. is effectively criminal for what is supposed to be a world-class transport system. Better yet, when these all go ahead because that's what a TfL consultation means nowadays(!), will there be any publicity at all to explain what is happening, cue lots of even more confused tourists that cannot find their way in such a "welcoming and open" city as London??
As much as I love London's buses, I'd FAR rather work for a provincial operator than a London one ...
But there cuts are more than compensated for by the opening of Crossrail, well I'm sure that's how the general public will see it anyway? I appreciate that this is a bus forum but many people just don't see bus travel in the same way as some of us on here do.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2017 14:00:01 GMT
I completely agree with, and supportive of, your viewpoint! Whilst it is inevitable that senseless cuts will happen, the level and nature of these, with the complete lack of foresight and future-proofing etc. is effectively criminal for what is supposed to be a world-class transport system. Better yet, when these all go ahead because that's what a TfL consultation means nowadays(!), will there be any publicity at all to explain what is happening, cue lots of even more confused tourists that cannot find their way in such a "welcoming and open" city as London??
As much as I love London's buses, I'd FAR rather work for a provincial operator than a London one ...
But there cuts are more than compensated for by the opening of Crossrail, well I'm sure that's how the general public will see it anyway? I appreciate that this is a bus forum but many people just don't see bus travel in the same way as some of us on here do. Maybe this is because all they want is something to take them from A to B at their own convenience. I suspect a lack of interest from the general public may have been fuelled by smartphones that now tell them "everything they need to know" so there is no need to go and find out more
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 6, 2017 15:14:47 GMT
Businesses would be happier as there will be more space for shoppers to access, as it has been the commercial properties along Oxford Street have been the main supporters of the pedestrianisation. But of course if there are no buses running along outside, then what will bring these people there ... CROSSRAIL ... that will only stop once in the middle and once at the eastern end leaving the overcrowded Central Line to pick up the pieces. I'm surprised at the lack of outcry over the Route 98 cut back. The last remaining east-west Oxford Street route connecting Marble Arch to Holborn disappearing. Why this cannot also run via Wigmore Street etc I do not know. Personally, Willesden Garage to Marble Arch I think would be a complete waste of money. The only section of route that you wouldn't be able to do via something else is Willesden to Kilburn High Road. And what would the N98 do? If that is Marble Arch too then I see the AC short workings withdrawn, meaning further night bus cuts which will equal money savings. One big downward spiral... The removal of the 98 is just confirmation that TfL are determined to ensure that is negligible surface transport capacity on the E-W axis. This therefore *forces* people on to Crossrail and the tube thus paying vastly higher fares than on the bus. I am sure Crossrail will be fine and lovely *but* the access and egress times from street to platform will be very substantial because of the depth of the tunnels and the sheer scale of the stations. If someone uses the wrong exit they will have a considerable distance to walk once on the surface. I wonder if people have any real appreciation of this? I doubt it. TfL are not going out of their way to tell people this nor that some interchange routes are very long indeed. We also seem to be forgetting that some people do not like being shoved into crowded subterranean spaces nor travelling underground on trains. People who have difficulty walking long distances in one go are going to struggle with Crossrail as there won't be places for them to sit and rest. It will all be about no clutter and maximum throughput. There is also the simple matter of choice - I *prefer* to use buses for short trips in the centre of town. Stops are more conveniently located in many instances and you don't have all the traipsing up and down stairs and escalators and ticket gates and crowded platforms. The tube is fine for the medium to long trips where speed gives it the upper hand but it isn't and never has been the optimal option for all trips in Zone 1. If I had a day of meetings in multiple locations and I had to tube between each location then I'd end up "pooped" at the end of the day because you rarely get a seat, you're always on your feet and it's just a "hurried" atmosphere inside the tube network. Is this really what we are going to force people to do for decades hence? The removal of choice is one of the things that really irks me about these changes. Some journeys are now (or will become) impossible by 1 bus whereas in the past they were extremely convenient. How did we get to the point of being unable to travel from Regent St to Fleet St on one through bus? I'd love to know what a professional busman like Sir Peter Hendy really thinks about these changes. I bet he is appalled but, of course, he can't speak out publicly.
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Nov 6, 2017 15:31:36 GMT
I'm slightly torn by all this. On the one hand, in a couple of years time, I think we will look on in bemusement at how buses ever fitted down Oxford Street. On the other, I deplore the demolition of the central London bus network and feel that the routes we are going to be left with will not be adequate. Yes, we will have Crossrail, but where other new rail and tube routes have been put in, the collateral damage to the bus network has been far less. As snoggle notes, a bus stop is likely to be located closer to where you actually want to be.
On a specific point, the new combined 10/23 is absurd. It may be convenient from a scheduling perspective, but for actual passengers it makes little sense. If it comes about, I do not expect it to be a long term feature of the network.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Nov 6, 2017 15:53:27 GMT
I'm slightly torn by all this. On the one hand, in a couple of years time, I think we will look on in bemusement at how buses ever fitted down Oxford Street. On the other, I deplore the demolition of the central London bus network and feel that the routes we are going to be left with will not be adequate. Yes, we will have Crossrail, but where other new rail and tube routes have been put in, the collateral damage to the bus network has been far less. As snoggle notes, a bus stop is likely to be located closer to where you actually want to be. On a specific point, the new combined 10/23 is absurd. It may be convenient from a scheduling perspective, but for actual passengers it makes little sense. If it comes about, I do not expect it to be a long term feature of the network. Yes I think we probably will wonder how buses ever went down Oxford Street just like in various other pedestrianised town centres now, I'm often in Bromley and Croydon and I can't help thinking that. I don't see what is wrong with the 10/23 combi, just joining two loose ends together. It had seemed likely that the revised 23 would be curtailed at Paddington so surely this is a bonus?
|
|
|
Post by Green Kitten on Nov 6, 2017 15:57:54 GMT
Why do you need to ‘decide’ the route number of the “10/23 amalgamation”? Just call it the 10. You chopped and changed the 13, this is no different. The 23 becomes the Wembley Park - Lancaster Gate route as planned. Simples. [/OCD]
I wonder what is happening with the 452 proposals if the 10 is taking its place. Have I missed a change of plan?
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Nov 6, 2017 16:17:02 GMT
I'm slightly torn by all this. On the one hand, in a couple of years time, I think we will look on in bemusement at how buses ever fitted down Oxford Street. On the other, I deplore the demolition of the central London bus network and feel that the routes we are going to be left with will not be adequate. Yes, we will have Crossrail, but where other new rail and tube routes have been put in, the collateral damage to the bus network has been far less. As snoggle notes, a bus stop is likely to be located closer to where you actually want to be. On a specific point, the new combined 10/23 is absurd. It may be convenient from a scheduling perspective, but for actual passengers it makes little sense. If it comes about, I do not expect it to be a long term feature of the network. Yes I think we probably will wonder how buses ever went down Oxford Street just like in various other pedestrianised town centres now, I'm often in Bromley and Croydon and I can't help thinking that. I don't see what is wrong with the 10/23 combi, just joining two loose ends together. It had seemed likely that the revised 23 would be curtailed at Paddington so surely this is a bonus? I think it's TfL's attempt to hijack the 'routes you can get off and rejoin later' thread. A bizarre S-shaped route wiggling its way around some of the most congested spots of inner London does not strike me as a recipe for reliability and success. If you're heading south towards Kensington and Hammersmith from Notting Hill and Westbourne Park, there are much better ways of doing it. I'd be surprised if the Hyde Park Corner to Hammersmith section doesn't end up as part of an increased 9 in a few years time.
|
|