|
Post by sid on Jan 2, 2019 12:37:49 GMT
I had another walk along Oxford Street yesterday afternoon. So much quieter, especially as some shops like John Lewis weren't even open. Buses were still busy however. 94s and 98s had very good loads and some 139s were full downstairs. No wall-to-wall of red buses; you were lucky if there were more than two buses running together at all, including all the 14s, 19s & 38s on diversion. However, there was traffic caused by private cars and taxis. Wigmore street was empty which made me appreciate just how many different sets of traffic lights there were along it. I thought private cars weren't allowed in Oxford Street? On a separate issue lots of diversions yesterday after NYE events and bewildered visitors being turfed off the 12 and 159 at Lower Marsh although sightseeing buses were still going over Westminster Bridge.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2019 12:40:27 GMT
I had another walk along Oxford Street yesterday afternoon. So much quieter, especially as some shops like John Lewis weren't even open. Buses were still busy however. 94s and 98s had very good loads and some 139s were full downstairs. No wall-to-wall of red buses; you were lucky if there were more than two buses running together at all, including all the 14s, 19s & 38s on diversion. However, there was traffic caused by private cars and taxis. Wigmore street was empty which made me appreciate just how many different sets of traffic lights there were along it. I thought private cars weren't allowed in Oxford Street? They are on Sundays and bank holidays, no? Otherwise they were minicabs. Doesn't really matter what they are, what does matter is that they were bringing the road to a stand and chugging out polluting air.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jan 2, 2019 12:44:20 GMT
I thought private cars weren't allowed in Oxford Street? They are on Sundays and bank holidays, no? Otherwise they were minicabs. Doesn't really matter what they are, what does matter is that they were bringing the road to a stand and chugging out polluting air.
You might be right about bank holidays I can't say I've really noticed although I haven't seen the road gridlocked since bus levels were reduced although I did think the changes should have been postponed until Crossrail opens.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2019 12:50:47 GMT
They are on Sundays and bank holidays, no? Otherwise they were minicabs. Doesn't really matter what they are, what does matter is that they were bringing the road to a stand and chugging out polluting air.
You might be right about bank holidays I can't say I've really noticed although I haven't seen the road gridlocked since bus levels were reduced although I did think the changes should have been postponed until Crossrail opens. I agree that IF the changes must happen then after Crossrail yes, but I have disagreed with the 10 & 23 merge, as well as the 94 cut back. I'd accept a cut back on the 25, but probably only to TCR.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jan 2, 2019 13:09:57 GMT
Is there any dates on the 113 and 159 switching terminals. With less then probably half a mile saved on the 113 it's probably not top priority for TFL.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Jan 2, 2019 14:05:22 GMT
You might be right about bank holidays I can't say I've really noticed although I haven't seen the road gridlocked since bus levels were reduced although I did think the changes should have been postponed until Crossrail opens. I agree that IF the changes must happen then after Crossrail yes, but I have disagreed with the 10 & 23 merge, as well as the 94 cut back. I'd accept a cut back on the 25, but probably only to TCR. With the pedestrianisation of Oxford Street cancelled and plans to now keep about 4 routes along each section of Oxford Street, TFL really should have thought this through a bit more to maximise central London links to Oxford Street. For example, the 73 and 390 parallel each other from Oxford Circus to King's Cross, so could have been better to cut back the 73 and reinstate the 8 or 25 to Oxford Circus instead, retaining a link towards the City. The 10 and 23 were also very useful links and should have been prioritised.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2019 14:09:22 GMT
I agree that IF the changes must happen then after Crossrail yes, but I have disagreed with the 10 & 23 merge, as well as the 94 cut back. I'd accept a cut back on the 25, but probably only to TCR. With the pedestrianisation of Oxford Street cancelled and plans to now keep about 4 routes along each section of Oxford Street, TFL really should have thought this through a bit more to maximise central London links to Oxford Street. For example, the 73 and 390 parallel each other from Oxford Circus to King's Cross, so could have been better to cut back the 73 and reinstate the 8 or 25 to Oxford Circus instead, retaining a link towards the City. The 10 and 23 were also very useful links and should have been prioritised. Keep the 73 to Victoria. Extend the 10 to Archway. Withdraw the 390.
With the 390 running to Victoria the 73 might as well have been kept. I think the 390 running to Notting Hill Gate gave excess capacity west of Marble Arch, so where can you decently terminate the 390 west of Marble without encroaching on other corridors. I can't think of any apart from out at Hammersmith.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jan 2, 2019 14:30:37 GMT
I think the 7 should extend to Aldwych maybe to 'replace' what has been lost by the loss of the 6, 13, 15, 23 plus the 94 to Piccadilly Circus and the 3 from Regent Street. If the 7 is being retained along Oxford Street is may as well have mroe of a purpose then just running from Marble Arch to Oxo. The 7 and 23 would have been a good switch.
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Jan 2, 2019 15:02:25 GMT
I think the 7 should extend to Aldwych maybe to 'replace' what has been lost by the loss of the 6, 13, 15, 23 plus the 94 to Piccadilly Circus and the 3 from Regent Street. If the 7 is being retained along Oxford Street is may as well have mroe of a purpose then just running from Marble Arch to Oxo. The 7 and 23 would have been a good switch. When TfL announced the 'reprieve' of the 7 and 98 along Oxford Street, to accompany the 139 and 390, I found it strange that both had been saved from the cull, given that both approached Oxford St from the Edgware Road. The 98 I could completely understand (it was ludicrous that it had ever been on the 'cuts' list) but the 7? I thought its retention could only mean one of two things - either a link to Paddington was still deemed necessary, or that the 7 might be later re-extended to Russell Square in lieu of the 10. It seems to me, as well as to you, that a more urgent need exists to extend it over the former 23 to Aldwych now. There is not the slightest doubt that the 139 will not be able to handle the number of passengers seeking to travel from Charing Cross up Regent Street, let alone along Oxford Street. The loss of revenue to TfL from such passengers, most of whom will have travelled by NR services into Charing Cross, will prove considerable. Many will not switch to the Bakerloo, either on principle or because they won't want to faff around, and will just walk. I can say that, even though I have a free bus pass and walk with a stick, I would probably walk it too if the weather was reasonable and I wasn't feeling too tired. Mentally, I'd be giving TfL and its bus division a two finger salute.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jan 2, 2019 15:48:40 GMT
I think the 7 should extend to Aldwych maybe to 'replace' what has been lost by the loss of the 6, 13, 15, 23 plus the 94 to Piccadilly Circus and the 3 from Regent Street. If the 7 is being retained along Oxford Street is may as well have mroe of a purpose then just running from Marble Arch to Oxo. The 7 and 23 would have been a good switch. When TfL announced the 'reprieve' of the 7 and 98 along Oxford Street, to accompany the 139 and 390, I found it strange that both had been saved from the cull, given that both approached Oxford St from the Edgware Road. The 98 I could completely understand (it was ludicrous that it had ever been on the 'cuts' list) but the 7? I thought its retention could only mean one of two things - either a link to Paddington was still deemed necessary, or that the 7 might be later re-extended to Russell Square in lieu of the 10. It seems to me, as well as to you, that a more urgent need exists to extend it over the former 23 to Aldwych now. There is not the slightest doubt that the 139 will not be able to handle the number of passengers seeking to travel from Charing Cross up Regent Street, let alone along Oxford Street. The loss of revenue to TfL from such passengers, most of whom will have travelled by NR services into Charing Cross, will prove considerable. Many will not switch to the Bakerloo, either on principle or because they won't want to faff around, and will just walk. I can say that, even though I have a free bus pass and walk with a stick, I would probably walk it too if the weather was reasonable and I wasn't feeling too tired. Mentally, I'd be giving TfL and its bus division a two finger salute. Haven't we had such sweeping statements before? I can't see why the 139 shouldn't be able to manage or any likelihood of the 7 being extended to Aldwych and bear in mind there is still the under utilised route 6 via Hyde Park Corner.
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Jan 2, 2019 15:53:19 GMT
When TfL announced the 'reprieve' of the 7 and 98 along Oxford Street, to accompany the 139 and 390, I found it strange that both had been saved from the cull, given that both approached Oxford St from the Edgware Road. The 98 I could completely understand (it was ludicrous that it had ever been on the 'cuts' list) but the 7? I thought its retention could only mean one of two things - either a link to Paddington was still deemed necessary, or that the 7 might be later re-extended to Russell Square in lieu of the 10. It seems to me, as well as to you, that a more urgent need exists to extend it over the former 23 to Aldwych now. There is not the slightest doubt that the 139 will not be able to handle the number of passengers seeking to travel from Charing Cross up Regent Street, let alone along Oxford Street. The loss of revenue to TfL from such passengers, most of whom will have travelled by NR services into Charing Cross, will prove considerable. Many will not switch to the Bakerloo, either on principle or because they won't want to faff around, and will just walk. I can say that, even though I have a free bus pass and walk with a stick, I would probably walk it too if the weather was reasonable and I wasn't feeling too tired. Mentally, I'd be giving TfL and its bus division a two finger salute. Haven't we had such sweeping statements before? I can't see why the 139 shouldn't be able to manage or any likelihood of the 7 being extended to Aldwych and bear in mind there is still the under utilised route 6 via Hyde Park Corner. Funnily enough the 6 wasn't under-utilised when it went through Oxford Street
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jan 2, 2019 16:14:35 GMT
I did have a small idea of cutting the 205 to Marylebone (it's a pretty long route) and diverting/extending the 453 to Paddington. That would maintain a Paddington to Oxo link if the 7 was to be cut.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Jan 2, 2019 17:03:53 GMT
I think the 7 should extend to Aldwych maybe to 'replace' what has been lost by the loss of the 6, 13, 15, 23 plus the 94 to Piccadilly Circus and the 3 from Regent Street. If the 7 is being retained along Oxford Street is may as well have mroe of a purpose then just running from Marble Arch to Oxo. The 7 and 23 would have been a good switch. Or TFL could have previously left the 10 as it is, and merge the 7 & 23 to give an East Acton to Aldwych route, with the 452 to Westbourne Park as previously proposed.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jan 2, 2019 17:12:14 GMT
Would there be enough capacity on only one route from Ladbroke Grove/Portobello area to Paddington and Marble Arch?
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Jan 2, 2019 22:05:02 GMT
When TfL announced the 'reprieve' of the 7 and 98 along Oxford Street, to accompany the 139 and 390, I found it strange that both had been saved from the cull, given that both approached Oxford St from the Edgware Road. The 98 I could completely understand (it was ludicrous that it had ever been on the 'cuts' list) but the 7? I thought its retention could only mean one of two things - either a link to Paddington was still deemed necessary, or that the 7 might be later re-extended to Russell Square in lieu of the 10. It seems to me, as well as to you, that a more urgent need exists to extend it over the former 23 to Aldwych now. There is not the slightest doubt that the 139 will not be able to handle the number of passengers seeking to travel from Charing Cross up Regent Street, let alone along Oxford Street. The loss of revenue to TfL from such passengers, most of whom will have travelled by NR services into Charing Cross, will prove considerable. Many will not switch to the Bakerloo, either on principle or because they won't want to faff around, and will just walk. I can say that, even though I have a free bus pass and walk with a stick, I would probably walk it too if the weather was reasonable and I wasn't feeling too tired. Mentally, I'd be giving TfL and its bus division a two finger salute. Haven't we had such sweeping statements before? I can't see why the 139 shouldn't be able to manage or any likelihood of the 7 being extended to Aldwych and bear in mind there is still the under utilised route 6 via Hyde Park Corner. I realise you've had a long monopoly on sweeping statements, repeated ad nauseam ( e.g. all but a very few bus routes carry fresh air outside peak times and Sundays), so, of course, could almost have written your response for you. However, to suggest the 6 as an alternative to the 139 between Charing Cross and Regent Street or anywhere in Oxford Street other than perhaps the very western end (not reached by the 139 in any case) reveals the same ignorance of local geography as, apparently, shared by TfL bus planning department.
|
|