|
Post by rmz19 on Nov 15, 2019 1:30:59 GMT
Is there the demand for a bus to Paddington Basin?
Today there 7 routes between Marble Arch and Harrow Road (6, 7, 16, 23, 36, 98 and 414), whilst on Baker Street southbound there are 8 (2, 13, 30, 74, 113, 139, 189, 274), but oddly only 5 of those bus routes travel northbound on Baker Street. I am not convinced that Edgware Road needs another route, in these cash strapped times I can think of better uses for the resources. The 74 often picks up good loads on Baker Street so I would be reluctant to cut it back. The 30 is a slightly better candidate, but getting back onto the Marylebone from the stand on Alsop Place at Baker Street isn't straight forward. The 30 can also be surprisingly busy at times down Baker Street. What might be an option would be to re-route the 74 to Marylebone and cut the 2 back as the 13 may be able to cover, but even here, much caution is needed.
Whilst re-routing the 113 via the Marylebone Road and Portland Place may seem attractive, you would upset an awful lot of passengers who get on / off at Selfridges. I don't think the benefit will outweigh the cost to these passengers.
Before the 23 cut, the 159 provided much needed assistance to the 23 between Trafalgar Square & Paddington as well as providing a South London route to Paddington as apposed to taking two tubes to Brixton and then performing a rugby scrum at Brixton whilst people effectively spawn out of nowhere. Agree with this. The 159 provided a popular link to and from Paddington Basin, providing a connection between Paddington and the West End beyond OC. It also assisted the 23 in its previous form which was consistently busy (and much more useful than it is now). I would reinstate the 159 back to Paddington Basin, seeing as it would be the only link between Paddington and the West End beyond OC it would prove useful.
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Nov 15, 2019 10:25:19 GMT
Before the 23 cut, the 159 provided much needed assistance to the 23 between Trafalgar Square & Paddington as well as providing a South London route to Paddington as apposed to taking two tubes to Brixton and then performing a rugby scrum at Brixton whilst people effectively spawn out of nowhere. Agree with this. The 159 provided a popular link to and from Paddington Basin, providing a connection between Paddington and the West End beyond OC. It also assisted the 23 in its previous form which was consistently busy (and much more useful than it is now). I would reinstate the 159 back to Paddington Basin, seeing as it would be the only link between Paddington and the West End beyond OC it would prove useful. In fact if I remember correctly the 159 replaced the 15 in going to Paddington.
In the world I would like to see there would be a comprehensive bus service with good links, so destinations can be reached without lots of changes. Unfortunately (in my eyes anyway!), those in power don't see it that way, they think now there is a hopper fare, passengers can keep changing buses to reach their destination. I was basing my comments on the sad reality of what we are facing today as opposed to what I would want to see if I were Mayor.
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Nov 15, 2019 11:32:01 GMT
Agree with this. The 159 provided a popular link to and from Paddington Basin, providing a connection between Paddington and the West End beyond OC. It also assisted the 23 in its previous form which was consistently busy (and much more useful than it is now). I would reinstate the 159 back to Paddington Basin, seeing as it would be the only link between Paddington and the West End beyond OC it would prove useful. The allocated LTs wouldn't be able to make a certain left turn between Marble Arch and Paddington, however the 159 could do an 88¹ and swap buses with another route to then make it possible. ¹ - vehicle swapped with the 87/N87
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Nov 15, 2019 14:50:51 GMT
Agree with this. The 159 provided a popular link to and from Paddington Basin, providing a connection between Paddington and the West End beyond OC. It also assisted the 23 in its previous form which was consistently busy (and much more useful than it is now). I would reinstate the 159 back to Paddington Basin, seeing as it would be the only link between Paddington and the West End beyond OC it would prove useful. The allocated LTs wouldn't be able to make a certain left turn between Marble Arch and Paddington, however the 159 could do an 88¹ and swap buses with another route to then make it possible. ¹ - vehicle swapped with the 87/N87 I believe someone said a long time ago that LTs are banned in the Paddington area due to left turn onto Pread Street from Norfolk Place. Obviously now that the 27 has converted to LT operation, maybe this proposed 15 159 reinstatement to Paddington will be feasible. I'd wait till the Crossrail works are fully done personally, the only reason why the 15 was extended to Paddington Basin when it went there was a result of the Elizabeth line works reducing stand space at Paddington station.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 15, 2019 16:37:32 GMT
The allocated LTs wouldn't be able to make a certain left turn between Marble Arch and Paddington, however the 159 could do an 88¹ and swap buses with another route to then make it possible. ¹ - vehicle swapped with the 87/N87 I believe someone said a long time ago that LTs are banned in the Paddington area due to left turn onto Pread Street from Norfolk Place. Obviously now that the 27 has converted to LT operation, maybe this proposed 15 159 reinstatement to Paddington will be feasible. I'd wait till the Crossrail works are fully done personally, the only reason why the 15 was extended to Paddington Basin when it went there was a result of the Elizabeth line works reducing stand space at Paddington station. I was under the impression that the problematic turn was from Praed Street into Edgware Road due to how the traffic island is situated?
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Nov 15, 2019 17:29:22 GMT
The allocated LTs wouldn't be able to make a certain left turn between Marble Arch and Paddington, however the 159 could do an 88¹ and swap buses with another route to then make it possible. ¹ - vehicle swapped with the 87/N87 I believe someone said a long time ago that LTs are banned in the Paddington area due to left turn onto Pread Street from Norfolk Place. Obviously now that the 27 has converted to LT operation, maybe this proposed 15 159 reinstatement to Paddington will be feasible. I'd wait till the Crossrail works are fully done personally, the only reason why the 15 was extended to Paddington Basin when it went there was a result of the Elizabeth line works reducing stand space at Paddington station. Talking of Crossrail, I find it lamentable that TfL's 2017 Central London changes were all in preparation for Crossrail. For instance, the 23 cutback from Liverpool Street to Aldwych was in preparation for the opening of Crossrail. I think that bus links from Paddington are very poor at the moment, and that's why I would favour extending the 7 to Trafalgar Square to at least maintain some links to the West End from Paddington which were lost when the 23 was vandalised. Its a shame the 15 doesn't even go up Regent Street these days, and as much as it hurts me to say this, I think a bus route connecting Paddington to the City would be a nightmare as it would have so much congestion to battle with, but the lack of bus links between Oxford Circus and the City for instace are a joke.
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Nov 15, 2019 17:29:58 GMT
I believe someone said a long time ago that LTs are banned in the Paddington area due to left turn onto Pread Street from Norfolk Place. Obviously now that the 27 has converted to LT operation, maybe this proposed 15 159 reinstatement to Paddington will be feasible. I'd wait till the Crossrail works are fully done personally, the only reason why the 15 was extended to Paddington Basin when it went there was a result of the Elizabeth line works reducing stand space at Paddington station. I was under the impression that the problematic turn was from Praed Street into Edgware Road due to how the traffic island is situated? I had a little lookey loo on Street View and it doesn't seem to hamper a bus's turning given the spacing. In any case, the two lanes on Pread Street at the junction with Edgware Road can be reduced to one to better facilitate the turn for an LT. Or LT drivers can use (guard) both lanes to make the turn as a cost-free solution to this problem.
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Nov 15, 2019 17:42:25 GMT
I believe someone said a long time ago that LTs are banned in the Paddington area due to left turn onto Pread Street from Norfolk Place. Obviously now that the 27 has converted to LT operation, maybe this proposed 15 159 reinstatement to Paddington will be feasible. I'd wait till the Crossrail works are fully done personally, the only reason why the 15 was extended to Paddington Basin when it went there was a result of the Elizabeth line works reducing stand space at Paddington station. Talking of Crossrail, I find it lamentable that TfL's 2017 Central London changes were all in preparation for Crossrail. For instance, the 23 cutback from Liverpool Street to Aldwych was in preparation for the opening of Crossrail. I think that bus links from Paddington are very poor at the moment, and that's why I would favour extending the 7 to Trafalgar Square to at least maintain some links to the West End from Paddington which were lost when the 23 was vandalised. Its a shame the 15 doesn't even go up Regent Street these days, and as much as it hurts me to say this, I think a bus route connecting Paddington to the City would be a nightmare as it would have so much congestion to battle with, but the lack of bus links between Oxford Circus and the City for instace are a joke. The south-east London route introduced for Crossrail still is a mystery to me as to why it was introduced early. It's as if having the 301 makes up for the savage cuts to the 25, and various 'temporary' curtailments made permanent such as the 3 and 53. If the full Crossrail service is expected to start at 2022 at the earliest, surely you'd think TfL would postpone these changes. However that's not the case and cross central bus links are being slashed for the sake of saving resources.
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Nov 15, 2019 18:19:29 GMT
I believe someone said a long time ago that LTs are banned in the Paddington area due to left turn onto Pread Street from Norfolk Place. Obviously now that the 27 has converted to LT operation, maybe this proposed 15 159 reinstatement to Paddington will be feasible. I'd wait till the Crossrail works are fully done personally, the only reason why the 15 was extended to Paddington Basin when it went there was a result of the Elizabeth line works reducing stand space at Paddington station. Talking of Crossrail, I find it lamentable that TfL's 2017 Central London changes were all in preparation for Crossrail. For instance, the 23 cutback from Liverpool Street to Aldwych was in preparation for the opening of Crossrail. I think that bus links from Paddington are very poor at the moment, and that's why I would favour extending the 7 to Trafalgar Square to at least maintain some links to the West End from Paddington which were lost when the 23 was vandalised. Its a shame the 15 doesn't even go up Regent Street these days, and as much as it hurts me to say this, I think a bus route connecting Paddington to the City would be a nightmare as it would have so much congestion to battle with, but the lack of bus links between Oxford Circus and the City for instace are a joke. Crossrail was arguably the official reason for these cuts, but the reality I suspect is that they were done to save money. Yes, it leaves Paddington with a poorer bus service, but if the intention was not cut costs and to maintain the level of service, TfL would have waited until Crossrail opens before making the changes. Paddington at least has several bus routes serving it, whilst following the latest cuts Fenchurch Street doesn't even have a bus service!
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Nov 15, 2019 18:51:23 GMT
The allocated LTs wouldn't be able to make a certain left turn between Marble Arch and Paddington, however the 159 could do an 88¹ and swap buses with another route to then make it possible. ¹ - vehicle swapped with the 87/N87 I believe someone said a long time ago that LTs are banned in the Paddington area due to left turn onto Pread Street from Norfolk Place. Obviously now that the 27 has converted to LT operation, maybe this proposed 15 159 reinstatement to Paddington will be feasible. I'd wait till the Crossrail works are fully done personally, the only reason why the 15 was extended to Paddington Basin when it went there was a result of the Elizabeth line works reducing stand space at Paddington station. Chuck the LTs off the 159 and introduce electric dds, from BN naturally. Then everyone's happy.
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Nov 15, 2019 21:08:08 GMT
Talking of Crossrail, I find it lamentable that TfL's 2017 Central London changes were all in preparation for Crossrail. For instance, the 23 cutback from Liverpool Street to Aldwych was in preparation for the opening of Crossrail. I think that bus links froIm Paddington are very poor at the moment, and that's why I would favour extending the 7 to Trafalgar Square to at least maintain some links to the West End from Paddington which were lost when the 23 was vandalised. Its a shame the 15 doesn't even go up Regent Street these days, and as much as it hurts me to say this, I think a bus route connecting Paddington to the City would be a nightmare as it would have so much congestion to battle with, but the lack of bus links between Oxford Circus and the City for instace are a joke. Crossrail was arguably the official reason for these cuts, but the reality I suspect is that they were done to save money. Yes, it leaves Paddington with a poorer bus service, but if the intention was not cut costs and to maintain the level of service, TfL would have waited until Crossrail opens before making the changes. Paddington at least has several bus routes serving it, whilst following the latest cuts Fenchurch Street doesn't even have a bus service! I take the view that cutbacks in preparation for Crossrail shouldn't really go ahead as they just disadvantage passengers, an example of this is people using intermediate stops between Heathrow Central and Hayes & Harlington who will have to suffer as they have the less frequent 278. Its crazy that these cutbacks can be justified at all, let alone without Crossrail opening to conincide with them. Thanfkully, the worst of the Crossrail West London changes in the brutal hacking of the 427 has been postponed which suggest TfL have some, albeit very little, sense. I know others will argue that TfL are taking the Reading stoppers over, but as others have rightly pointed out, people aren't going to flock to TfL rail when the trains still only go as far as Paddington, why would they?
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Nov 15, 2019 21:30:14 GMT
Crossrail was arguably the official reason for these cuts, but the reality I suspect is that they were done to save money. Yes, it leaves Paddington with a poorer bus service, but if the intention was not cut costs and to maintain the level of service, TfL would have waited until Crossrail opens before making the changes. Paddington at least has several bus routes serving it, whilst following the latest cuts Fenchurch Street doesn't even have a bus service! I take the view that cutbacks in preparation for Crossrail shouldn't really go ahead as they just disadvantage passengers, an example of this is people using intermediate stops between Heathrow Central and Hayes & Harlington who will have to suffer as they have the less frequent 278. Its crazy that these cutbacks can be justified at all, let alone without Crossrail opening to conincide with them. Thanfkully, the worst of the Crossrail West London changes in the brutal hacking of the 427 has been postponed which suggest TfL have some, albeit very little, sense. I know others will argue that TfL are taking the Reading stoppers over, but as others have rightly pointed out, people aren't going to flock to TfL rail when the trains still only go as far as Paddington, why would they? I don't think the 427 delay is due to Crossrail but more so due to a delay in the opening of the new development in the area.
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Nov 15, 2019 21:34:52 GMT
I take the view that cutbacks in preparation for Crossrail shouldn't really go ahead as they just disadvantage passengers, an example of this is people using intermediate stops between Heathrow Central and Hayes & Harlington who will have to suffer as they have the less frequent 278. Its crazy that these cutbacks can be justified at all, let alone without Crossrail opening to conincide with them. Thanfkully, the worst of the Crossrail West London changes in the brutal hacking of the 427 has been postponed which suggest TfL have some, albeit very little, sense. I know others will argue that TfL are taking the Reading stoppers over, but as others have rightly pointed out, people aren't going to flock to TfL rail when the trains still only go as far as Paddington, why would they? I don't think the 427 delay is due to Crossrail but more so due to a delay in the opening of the new development in the area. Which development are you referring to, the flats going up on Merrick Road or Southall Waterisde or another development?
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Nov 15, 2019 21:42:38 GMT
I don't think the 427 delay is due to Crossrail but more so due to a delay in the opening of the new development in the area. Which development are you referring to, the flats going up on Merrick Road or Southall Waterisde or another development? The one at Southall Waterside, route 95 needs to be extended into there to allow the 427 to be cut to Southall if I am correct.
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Nov 15, 2019 21:47:39 GMT
Which development are you referring to, the flats going up on Merrick Road or Southall Waterisde or another development? The one at Southall Waterside, route 95 needs to be extended into there to allow the 427 to be cut to Southall if I am correct. But the 95 stands at Southall Town Hall whereas the proposal for the 427 was for it to stand at Southall Merrick Road (so it could serve the station).
|
|