|
Post by sid on Jan 2, 2019 22:17:36 GMT
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. You seem to be living in the past, in case you've not noticed people don't use buses in the numbers that they used to do. I'm not suggesting TfL are perfect but they're a bit more clued up than you've given them credit for!
|
|
|
Post by dennistas on Jan 3, 2019 2:35:47 GMT
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. You seem to be living in the past, in case you've not noticed people don't use buses in the numbers that they used to do. I'm not suggesting TfL are perfect but they're a bit more clued up than you've given them credit for! Same here, I don't agree at all with all these changes & cuts that TFL are doing but they must know something that we don't, and to be honest even though we are unhappy with the changes etc TFL don't really care.
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Jan 10, 2019 20:15:42 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. There are no dates yet for this (or the 94). It's all a political decision to remove buses from Oxford Street and little to do with serving passengers or logic. Truth is once Baker Street is two way it will take as long for a 113 to get to OxO as Marble Arch so I doubt there will even be a saving.
Do not assume that the 159 will use the 113 stand at OxO, I am not sure that is a foregone conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Jan 10, 2019 21:05:26 GMT
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. You seem to be living in the past, in case you've not noticed people don't use buses in the numbers that they used to do. I'm not suggesting TfL are perfect but they're a bit more clued up than you've given them credit for! The 139 will cope alone. It has to! The Oxford Street changes have been quite cleverly done for which TfL should receive some credit. If you are forced to axe / curtail all your Oxford Street routes bar two, or now 4, this is a perfectly sensible result. My issue is that I disagree with the cull to four routes.
There's no easy change from the 23 to the 139, you have to walk from Marble Arch to Selfridges. This will limit the number of passengers who do transfer, most will find alternative routes and TfL know this. This loss of passengers is why they think the 139 will manage, and so far since the shotgun marriage of the 10 and 23 they have been proved correct. Effectively TfL have deliberately gone out to reduce bus patronage further in this particular area so the 139 would cope. You can argue that TfL should not be doing this and that they should provide a proper comprehensive bus service in the West End and there I would agree, but given TfL have been directed to do this, they haven't done too badly.
In terms of the routes chosen to keep going down Oxford Street only the 7 was a surprise. I am unconvinced this was the best choice, but I suspect the choice was made given what has happened to the 23.
I think leaving the 73 going to Victoria and terminating the 390 at OxO would have been better. I suspect this wasn't done because the 73 is more frequent than the 390 and so would mean more buses in Oxford Street, more resources, cost etc.
As for empty buses and reduction in patronage, I think you all know where I stand. I fully agree that something has to be done, but there are choices on what to do and I think there are other better alternatives than the path taken.
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Jan 11, 2019 0:49:36 GMT
You seem to be living in the past, in case you've not noticed people don't use buses in the numbers that they used to do. I'm not suggesting TfL are perfect but they're a bit more clued up than you've given them credit for! The 139 will cope alone. It has to! The Oxford Street changes have been quite cleverly done for which TfL should receive some credit. If you are forced to axe / curtail all your Oxford Street routes bar two, or now 4, this is a perfectly sensible result. My issue is that I disagree with the cull to four routes.
There's no easy change from the 23 to the 139, you have to walk from Marble Arch to Selfridges. This will limit the number of passengers who do transfer, most will find alternative routes and TfL know this. This loss of passengers is why they think the 139 will manage, and so far since the shotgun marriage of the 10 and 23 they have been proved correct. Effectively TfL have deliberately gone out to reduce bus patronage further in this particular area so the 139 would cope. You can argue that TfL should not be doing this and that they should provide a proper comprehensive bus service in the West End and there I would agree, but given TfL have been directed to do this, they haven't done too badly.
In terms of the routes chosen to keep going down Oxford Street only the 7 was a surprise. I am unconvinced this was the best choice, but I suspect the choice was made given what has happened to the 23.
I think leaving the 73 going to Victoria and terminating the 390 at OxO would have been better. I suspect this wasn't done because the 73 is more frequent than the 390 and so would mean more buses in Oxford Street, more resources, cost etc.
As for empty buses and reduction in patronage, I think you all know where I stand. I fully agree that something has to be done, but there are choices on what to do and I think there are other better alternatives than the path taken.
Okay, as a mental exercise I'll go with my four routes that would be allowed past the front entrance of Mr Selfridge's emporium:- 8. Extended from TCR to Victoria via the 390 23, Westbourne Park to Aldwych, as per old route 94 Current route 139 As now The 10 would have been diverted via the 30 to Kings Cross, and further extended over the 390, which would be withdrawn. 30 cut back to KX. The 98 would be diverted via Marylebone Road to Great Portland St Station, then TCR and Holborn (possibly Aldwych too) 7. Cut back to Marble Arch. 14. Extended Warren Street to Kings Cross. You'll note that I'm not punishing Regent Street for Oxford Street's perceived (by TfL) failings, which happens in TfL's plans by default. If there were to be a 5th route allowed, common sense says the 113, if only because the extra resource should be confined to a single bus, and possibly not even that. P.S. Oh, and the C2 would be resurrected Vic - PHF.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jan 11, 2019 7:56:05 GMT
You seem to be living in the past, in case you've not noticed people don't use buses in the numbers that they used to do. I'm not suggesting TfL are perfect but they're a bit more clued up than you've given them credit for! The 139 will cope alone. It has to! The Oxford Street changes have been quite cleverly done for which TfL should receive some credit. If you are forced to axe / curtail all your Oxford Street routes bar two, or now 4, this is a perfectly sensible result. My issue is that I disagree with the cull to four routes.
There's no easy change from the 23 to the 139, you have to walk from Marble Arch to Selfridges. This will limit the number of passengers who do transfer, most will find alternative routes and TfL know this. This loss of passengers is why they think the 139 will manage, and so far since the shotgun marriage of the 10 and 23 they have been proved correct. Effectively TfL have deliberately gone out to reduce bus patronage further in this particular area so the 139 would cope. You can argue that TfL should not be doing this and that they should provide a proper comprehensive bus service in the West End and there I would agree, but given TfL have been directed to do this, they haven't done too badly.
In terms of the routes chosen to keep going down Oxford Street only the 7 was a surprise. I am unconvinced this was the best choice, but I suspect the choice was made given what has happened to the 23.
I think leaving the 73 going to Victoria and terminating the 390 at OxO would have been better. I suspect this wasn't done because the 73 is more frequent than the 390 and so would mean more buses in Oxford Street, more resources, cost etc.
As for empty buses and reduction in patronage, I think you all know where I stand. I fully agree that something has to be done, but there are choices on what to do and I think there are other better alternatives than the path taken.
I'm sure the 139 will cope, it's been busier since the 10/23 change but there is still plenty of spare capacity from what I've seen and it is a easy change to the 7 although not the 23. I agree that the 73 should have been left going to Victoria and the 390 curtailed at Oxford Circus although as you say the frequency difference was the deciding factor.
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Feb 26, 2019 11:08:16 GMT
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Feb 26, 2019 11:24:37 GMT
Note the salty response from the Mayors office still throwing the toys out of the buggy. A better plan for sure but I'm still not sure it's the answer. However, someone needs to tell Westminster that Oxford Street has no diesel buses following the 23's re-routing with all buses serving it being hybrid or electric.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2019 13:34:58 GMT
Note the salty response from the Mayors office still throwing the toys out of the buggy. A better plan for sure but I'm still not sure it's the answer. However, someone needs to tell Westminster that Oxford Street has no diesel buses following the 23's re-routing with all buses serving it being hybrid or electric. I much prefer the "related link" article which is blatant scare mongering from a Mayor who knows he is beaten "Mayor: traffic in Oxford Street leaves public at risk of terrorism" - traffic anywhere does that
|
|
|
Post by sid on Feb 26, 2019 14:14:01 GMT
Note the salty response from the Mayors office still throwing the toys out of the buggy. A better plan for sure but I'm still not sure it's the answer. However, someone needs to tell Westminster that Oxford Street has no diesel buses following the 23's re-routing with all buses serving it being hybrid or electric. I much prefer the "related link" article which is blatant scare mongering from a Mayor who knows he is beaten "Mayor: traffic in Oxford Street leaves public at risk of terrorism" - traffic anywhere does that
It is scaremongering although I seem to recall somebody on here using the same argument about pedestrianisation. This sounds like something of a compromise, I suspect it's only going to delay the inevitable and buses will be removed from Oxford Street sooner or later.
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Feb 26, 2019 15:42:40 GMT
Note the salty response from the Mayors office still throwing the toys out of the buggy. A better plan for sure but I'm still not sure it's the answer. However, someone needs to tell Westminster that Oxford Street has no diesel buses following the 23's re-routing with all buses serving it being hybrid or electric. I much prefer the "related link" article which is blatant scare mongering from a Mayor who knows he is beaten "Mayor: traffic in Oxford Street leaves public at risk of terrorism" - traffic anywhere does that
It seems a better plan. While there are no conventional diesel buses, all the buses (except the five electric buses on the 98) are hybrid and so still do have diesel engines albeit with significantly reduced emissions. Given the Mayor's comments about pollution in Oxford Street, I would have thought that the buses on Oxford Street would have been a priority for the introduction of electric buses.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2019 15:45:36 GMT
It seems a better plan. While there are no conventional diesel buses, all the buses (except the five electric buses on the 98) are hybrid and so still do have diesel engines albeit with significantly reduced emissions. Given the Mayor's comments about pollution in Oxford Street, I would have thought that the buses on Oxford Street would have been a priority for the introduction of electric buses. Although, electric buses on Oxford Street would then rather cement their place and would be harder to remove those routes at a later date possibly?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2019 16:26:43 GMT
It seems a better plan. While there are no conventional diesel buses, all the buses (except the five electric buses on the 98) are hybrid and so still do have diesel engines albeit with significantly reduced emissions. Given the Mayor's comments about pollution in Oxford Street, I would have thought that the buses on Oxford Street would have been a priority for the introduction of electric buses. Although, electric buses on Oxford Street would then rather cement their place and would be harder to remove those routes at a later date possibly? Which is why i think the 94 should not be altered if it does get electric buses.
|
|
|
Post by routew15 on Feb 26, 2019 18:06:20 GMT
Note the salty response from the Mayors office still throwing the toys out of the buggy. A better plan for sure but I'm still not sure it's the answer. However, someone needs to tell Westminster that Oxford Street has no diesel buses following the 23's re-routing with all buses serving it being hybrid or electric. Whilst odd workings are not routine they are not impossible or unlikely i assume these are covered by this desired ban of WCC. In my opinion it would incentivise an operator to put out hybrids its diesel vehicles .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2019 19:17:41 GMT
If Khan has suggested not pedestrianising Oxford Street makes it more dangerous, then perhaps he should consider how cycle lanes have been utilised by vehicles to carry out terrorist attacks.
Point is, no matter what you do, you can’t make a Street 100% safe. One can obviously stop buses hitting pedestrians by banning buses, but an increase in buses using another street close by just displaces that risk.
|
|