|
Post by capitalomnibus on Jan 10, 2018 1:13:12 GMT
My first post, so please be gentle! Perhaps ought to explain that I no longer live in London, but I did do so for 40 years. I follow London buses and, more particularly, its bus routes from afar virtually every day of my life, so you can call me an obsessive! The Oxford Street proposals are a disaster from the bus passenger point of view. I wonder whether anyone connected with the Oxford Street Association can remember the period about twenty years ago when Westminster Council closed the street between Orchard Street and Oxford Circus while they fiddled around endlessly with widening the pavements etc. For a whole year or so no buses, taxis or even emergency services had access and the stores were desperately calling for restoration of both buses and taxis - I seem to remember 15% decreases in both footfall and revenues being quoted. The Elizabeth Line down Oxford Street will bring little or no benefit to the residents of Streatham, Hendon or Stoke Newington, but the changes to bus services will have a lasting impact on some. The most egregious proposal of all (and there are plenty of contenders!) is the 10/23 tie-up, which seems to be done for purely administrative convenience. A more useless route would be hard to find. If you want Ladbroke Grove from Hammersmith you get a 295, for Paddington and just NW thereof a 27 from Hammersmith and Kensington, even the Knightsbridge to Edgware Road section has been covered by the 414 in recent years. The small number wanting Knightsbridge to Paddington or vice versa is the only (tiny) gain. I've read the alternative proposals on here, but I've got some slightly different ones of my own, and here they are:- To preserve the direct link between Hammersmith to Knightsbridge on the one hand and Euston/Kings Cross on the other, with the added bonus of a return to Warren Street, I'd link the 10 at Marble Arch with the (already terminating there) 30, not necessarily as one route though. I suspect an awful lot of passengers will switch to the 30 at KX/EUS if these proposals are enacted, in order to reach the western section of Oxford Street, only exacerbated if the eastern part of Oxford Street is later closed and affects the 73 and 390. For the 23, I'd put it out of its (imposed by TfL) misery altogether, diverting the 414 to Westbourne Park from Maida Hill: maybe the 94 could be diverted 'around the corner' at Marble Arch to Maida Hill. The 98 also has to get over to Holborn somehow, in my opinion. Perhaps the old 1/176 option via Marylebone Road, then TCR, would be better than nothing, but the Wigmore Street alternative really has to come into play if TfL are to offer any pretence that they still care about Central London bus services. Incidentally, and although not directly part of these consultations, has anyone else noticed that if/when the 25 is cut back to Holborn Circus from Oxford Circus, there will be no way that anyone being chucked off at HC can then get to OC by one further bus, as the 8 only goes to Tott Ct Rd: the option of changing at Bank to the 23 was also taken away last September. If I were a 23 passenger I'd be furious. Hopper fare not much use here, westbound at least, from anywhere much beyond Mile End. I'm afraid I disagree with much of this, I think the pedestrianisation of Oxford Street is long overdue and the opening of Crossrail is the perfect opportunity to implement it. I really don't see what is so awful about the 10/23 proposal, there are a lot of similar routes in London that are not designed for end to end journeys, I'd hardly call the 10/23 useless. Having said that I would rather keep the 10 at Kings Cross but via Marylebone Road with the 30 curtailed at Euston or Warren Street. I do agree that Holborn Circus is a poor terminus for the 25, it should go to Holborn Station or Aldwych for easier onward connections and I don't disagree about the 98 still going to Holborn possibly via Marylebone Road? Its as bad as the 242 at St. Pauls, pointless. I doubt crossrail would be what it is cracked up to be judging by this www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-42622891
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Jan 10, 2018 1:16:15 GMT
And the counter argument is how many people arrive in Peckham town centre by means other than bus? I suspect the proportion is pretty low for cycles, walking, rail and private car. Buses bring in thousands of people from a wide area given the amazing spread of Peckham's bus network. I have no idea where else the buses would divert to so you are really proposing a massive restructuring of bus routes over a wide area to avoid central Peckham thus making it far more difficult for people to reach all those local shops who depend on bus passengers. I have yet to be remotely convinced that ripping bus services out of the heart of town and city centres works for anyone. Forcing bus passengers to walk to remote bus stations or to stops on ring roads or similar does nothing to encourage patronage. I'd argue that there is shed loads of evidence from across the UK that such practices wreck bus services and just shove people into cars. London is slightly different given lower car ownership levels but people will just go to places like Camberwell or Lewisham where bus access is rather easier and more convenient. The simple fact is that public transport, cycling and walking should be able to co-exist effectively in town centres and elsewhere. That is what the Mayor's transport strategy is all about. Whether London can get the balance right remains to be seen as I can't think of an "exemplar" town centre anywhere that has good bus access, a nice walking environment, limited car access / low congestion and is attractive to cyclists. Almost everywhere is a mess. Buses would simply go via Clayton Road instead so no massive upheaval would be required. If they were to do that, then cyclists should also be banned from Rye Lane, do like Oxford Street and make it free of any mode of transport.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jan 10, 2018 3:45:22 GMT
I'm afraid I disagree with much of this, I think the pedestrianisation of Oxford Street is long overdue and the opening of Crossrail is the perfect opportunity to implement it. I really don't see what is so awful about the 10/23 proposal, there are a lot of similar routes in London that are not designed for end to end journeys, I'd hardly call the 10/23 useless. Having said that I would rather keep the 10 at Kings Cross but via Marylebone Road with the 30 curtailed at Euston or Warren Street. I do agree that Holborn Circus is a poor terminus for the 25, it should go to Holborn Station or Aldwych for easier onward connections and I don't disagree about the 98 still going to Holborn possibly via Marylebone Road? Its as bad as the 242 at St. Pauls, pointless. I doubt crossrail would be what it is cracked up to be judging by this www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-42622891
Yes St Pauls is a bit pointless on the 242. I suspect a significant factor overall, including rail, is a lot more people working from home nowadays via a computer, also fewer people going out to pubs of an evening must be a contributory factor?
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Jan 18, 2018 23:16:24 GMT
I don't think anyone has mentioned on here that a factor in the 10/23 proposal may be the Westbourne Park Garage terminal point. Is this in the garage forecourt and, if so, if Tower Transit were not to operate the 'new' route would the terminus not have to be moved? Bus companies rarely allow their rivals access to their garages, Stagecoach's Catford being an exception in allowing Go-Ahead's 172 to terminate there.
|
|
|
Post by galwhv69 on Jan 19, 2018 7:09:50 GMT
I don't think anyone has mentioned on here that a factor in the 10/23 proposal may be the Westbourne Park Garage terminal point. Is this in the garage forecourt and, if so, if Tower Transit were not to operate the 'new' route would the terminus not have to be moved? Bus companies rarely allow their rivals access to their garages, Stagecoach's Catford being an exception in allowing Go-Ahead's 172 to terminate there. I once saw a Go Ahead LT on the 68 go into Arriva's Norwood garage
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jan 19, 2018 8:54:23 GMT
I don't think anyone has mentioned on here that a factor in the 10/23 proposal may be the Westbourne Park Garage terminal point. Is this in the garage forecourt and, if so, if Tower Transit were not to operate the 'new' route would the terminus not have to be moved? Bus companies rarely allow their rivals access to their garages, Stagecoach's Catford being an exception in allowing Go-Ahead's 172 to terminate there. It's the 171 not 172 that terminates at Catford Garage. I guess we'll just have to wait and see about the 10/23, it might not even happen.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jan 19, 2018 10:11:52 GMT
I don't think anyone has mentioned on here that a factor in the 10/23 proposal may be the Westbourne Park Garage terminal point. Is this in the garage forecourt and, if so, if Tower Transit were not to operate the 'new' route would the terminus not have to be moved? Bus companies rarely allow their rivals access to their garages, Stagecoach's Catford being an exception in allowing Go-Ahead's 172 to terminate there. I once saw a Go Ahead LT on the 68 go into Arriva's Norwood garage But they don’t terminate in the garage, they terminate outside it so probably was in there for a different reason - maybe to re-fuel or something?
|
|
|
Post by galwhv69 on Jan 19, 2018 12:05:27 GMT
I once saw a Go Ahead LT on the 68 go into Arriva's Norwood garage But they don’t terminate in the garage, they terminate outside it so probably was in there for a different reason - maybe to re-fuel or something? I know they don't terminate inside ,but the driver had already parked on his proper place and after that he/she went in and parked where the 2 parks
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jan 19, 2018 12:35:07 GMT
When the proposal existed to switch the 23 and 452 the 452 was proposed to terminate at Harrow Road so I guess the new 10 could do that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2018 17:29:39 GMT
On Oxford Street at the moment looking at the packed 10's going up and down the street. And scores of people waiting at bus stops which aren't being served because of the Luminarie Event. Then getting a real hatred for what is proposed later this year.
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Jan 19, 2018 17:32:36 GMT
On Oxford Street at the moment looking at the packed 10's going up and down the street. And scores of people waiting at bus stops which aren't being served because of the Luminarie Event. Then getting a real hatred for what is proposed later this year. That's me everyday, my commute is to and from Oxford Circus but I rely on the buses along the road a lot as Oxford Circus Station is closed half the time due to overcrowding. Many other people rely on the buses as well and I dread to think of the state of all the services. Oh well not to worry, Crossrail will solve completely every problem the transport network has
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2018 17:32:50 GMT
I don't think anyone has mentioned on here that a factor in the 10/23 proposal may be the Westbourne Park Garage terminal point. Is this in the garage forecourt and, if so, if Tower Transit were not to operate the 'new' route would the terminus not have to be moved? Bus companies rarely allow their rivals access to their garages, Stagecoach's Catford being an exception in allowing Go-Ahead's 172 to terminate there. I initially thought given the contract situation on the 23 ( expiring earlier than the 10) that this would favour LU. It is apparently looking differently. Time will tell , but it seems X are more likely to run it than V
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Jan 19, 2018 17:42:26 GMT
I don't think anyone has mentioned on here that a factor in the 10/23 proposal may be the Westbourne Park Garage terminal point. Is this in the garage forecourt and, if so, if Tower Transit were not to operate the 'new' route would the terminus not have to be moved? Bus companies rarely allow their rivals access to their garages, Stagecoach's Catford being an exception in allowing Go-Ahead's 172 to terminate there. I initially thought given the contract situation on the 23 ( expiring earlier than the 10) that this would favour LU. It is apparently looking differently. Time will tell , but it seems X are more likely to run it than V I'm still fairly confident RATP will be the operator to take the route, the route can't actually be specified to terminate on private properly, hence all garage terminating routes actually have different termini such as the 316/16 at Staples Corner, the 6 at Church End, the 47 at Plassy Road and the 422 at Bexleyheath Shopping Centre. This new route will almost certainly have the same type of specification meaning the garage terminal won't be as much as an issue.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2018 17:44:38 GMT
I initially thought given the contract situation on the 23 ( expiring earlier than the 10) that this would favour LU. It is apparently looking differently. Time will tell , but it seems X are more likely to run it than V I'm still fairly confident RATP will be the operator to take the route, the route can't actually be specified to terminate on private properly, hence all garage terminating routes actually have different termini such as the 316/16 at Staples Corner, the 6 at Church End, the 47 at Plassy Road and the 422 at Bexleyheath Shopping Centre. This new route will almost certainly have the same type of specification meaning the garage terminal won't be as much as an issue. It would be nice !
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2018 17:06:55 GMT
Oxford Street "transformation" route changes being brought forward 01-Sept 2018.
|
|