|
Post by kenmet on Dec 2, 2019 13:47:58 GMT
6 Withdrawn between Piccadilly Circus (94 stand) and Aldwych. 9 Extended from Aldwych to Waterloo. 15 Withdrawn between Aldgate and Trafalgar Square, rerouted via the former 40 to London Bridge. 94 Withdrawn Marble Arch/Portman Square and Piccadilly Circus, rumoured to be happening anyway. 139 Withdrawn Marble Arch and Waterloo. NEW CENTRAL LINK ROUTES CL1 Marble Arch via 139 to Aldwych then via the 15 to Aldgate. CL2 Paddington via 36 to Marble Arch, then as the CL1 to Aldwych then Waterloo Bridge and 381 to London Bridge. Replaces much of the RV1 and provides a link between London Bridge and the west end. 10bph on both the CL1/2 giving a dedicated 20bph service with electric buses between Aldwych and Marble Arch. The downside would obviously be more people having to change buses. It seems like you're removing useful links just for the sake of it. Why resort to curtailing routes to only reintroduce new routes in their place? It's pointless when you can just enhance/modify existing services and avoid the inconvenience of people having to needlessly change buses in the process. All this would do is overcrowd the Underground even more so than it currently is. The bus network in Central London needs to be prioritised. Because you can't have a route going all the way from Blackwall to Acton Green. The 15 doesn't go west of Trafalgar Square and so you end up with no link between Piccadilly Circus and the Tower of London for example.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Dec 2, 2019 14:27:15 GMT
It seems like you're removing useful links just for the sake of it. Why resort to curtailing routes to only reintroduce new routes in their place? It's pointless when you can just enhance/modify existing services and avoid the inconvenience of people having to needlessly change buses in the process. All this would do is overcrowd the Underground even more so than it currently is. The bus network in Central London needs to be prioritised. Because you can't have a route going all the way from Blackwall to Acton Green. The 15 doesn't go west of Trafalgar Square and so you end up with no link between Piccadilly Circus and the Tower of London for example. I don’t think anyone was asking for a Blackwall to Acton Green link though - the irony is it seems your cutting the 6 & 139 only to facilitate an identical route in return.
|
|
|
Post by kenmet on Dec 2, 2019 14:30:39 GMT
Because you can't have a route going all the way from Blackwall to Acton Green. The 15 doesn't go west of Trafalgar Square and so you end up with no link between Piccadilly Circus and the Tower of London for example. I don’t think anyone was asking for a Blackwall to Acton Green link though - the irony is it seems your cutting the 6 & 139 only to facilitate an identical route in return. The 6 has been mentioned before, struggles along The Strand usually near empty to just to turn around and come back when it gets to Aldwych, a poor use of road space.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Dec 2, 2019 14:33:59 GMT
I don’t think anyone was asking for a Blackwall to Acton Green link though - the irony is it seems your cutting the 6 & 139 only to facilitate an identical route in return. The 6 has been mentioned before, struggles along The Strand usually near empty to just to turn around and come back when it gets to Aldwych, a poor use of road space. So if that’s true, then your proposed route would do the exact same. Wouldn’t it be better looking at how to speed up its routing along the Strand rather than hack at things?
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Dec 2, 2019 15:56:03 GMT
It seems like you're removing useful links just for the sake of it. Why resort to curtailing routes to only reintroduce new routes in their place? It's pointless when you can just enhance/modify existing services and avoid the inconvenience of people having to needlessly change buses in the process. All this would do is overcrowd the Underground even more so than it currently is. The bus network in Central London needs to be prioritised. Because you can't have a route going all the way from Blackwall to Acton Green. The 15 doesn't go west of Trafalgar Square and so you end up with no link between Piccadilly Circus and the Tower of London for example. I think objectively, your ideas for CL routes which cross Central London are nice. However, I take issue with them for a few reasons. Firstly if you are to create a link between the West End and the City by all means do as the lack of those links, such as Piccadilly Circus and the Tower of London is really poor, as a result of the idiotic cutback of the 15 to Trafalgar Square. However, why upset the status quo of well used routes to facilitate this. The 94 picks up very good loadings on Regent Street and Oxford Street, so I don't see what you gain from cutting it back. I'm not an expert on the 15 but from my experiences buses do pick up very healty loads between Aldgate and Trafalgar Square. I don't object to creating cross Central London links but doing it at the expense of well established, and well used links is daft. Furthermore, there's the issue of congestion which won't exactly make these routes easy to operate and because they'll be so slow, their appeal is reduced. 10bph is far too generous and an exorbitant frequency, even the 94 doesn't run with 10bph and that's always busy, it would be more wise to keep the 15 and 94 as they are and introduce the CL routes at about 7bph or so.
|
|
|
Post by kenmet on Dec 2, 2019 16:44:30 GMT
Because you can't have a route going all the way from Blackwall to Acton Green. The 15 doesn't go west of Trafalgar Square and so you end up with no link between Piccadilly Circus and the Tower of London for example. I think objectively, your ideas for CL routes which cross Central London are nice. However, I take issue with them for a few reasons. Firstly if you are to create a link between the West End and the City by all means do as the lack of those links, such as Piccadilly Circus and the Tower of London is really poor, as a result of the idiotic cutback of the 15 to Trafalgar Square. However, why upset the status quo of well used routes to facilitate this. The 94 picks up very good loadings on Regent Street and Oxford Street, so I don't see what you gain from cutting it back. I'm not an expert on the 15 but from my experiences buses do pick up very healty loads between Aldgate and Trafalgar Square. I don't object to creating cross Central London links but doing it at the expense of well established, and well used links is daft. Furthermore, there's the issue of congestion which won't exactly make these routes easy to operate and because they'll be so slow, their appeal is reduced. 10bph is far too generous and an exorbitant frequency, even the 94 doesn't run with 10bph and that's always busy, it would be more wise to keep the 15 and 94 as they are and introduce the CL routes at about 7bph or so.
I think the 94 is being removed from Piccadilly anyway? The 15 could possibly be extended to Oxford Circus or Marble Arch but then something else would have to be removed to avoid over bussing and then of course the 15 might suffer reliably problems. The 10bph would replace a similar number of buses on other routes, I'm always mindful to avoid over bussing. Of course the 15 and 94 could stay as they are and the CL run less frequently but then that becomes less attractive. I had a chat with a driver on the 15 a while back and he said so many tourists get on at the tower or St Paul's wanting the West End and are somewhat unimpressed that the 15 only goes to Trafalgar Square nowadays. He was of the opinion that the Central London bus network is too complex for visitors compared to the tube and there should be fewer routes but running more frequently. He suspects many visitors use uber rather than buses because it's so much easier to use.
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Dec 2, 2019 17:51:08 GMT
I think objectively, your ideas for CL routes which cross Central London are nice. However, I take issue with them for a few reasons. Firstly if you are to create a link between the West End and the City by all means do as the lack of those links, such as Piccadilly Circus and the Tower of London is really poor, as a result of the idiotic cutback of the 15 to Trafalgar Square. However, why upset the status quo of well used routes to facilitate this. The 94 picks up very good loadings on Regent Street and Oxford Street, so I don't see what you gain from cutting it back. I'm not an expert on the 15 but from my experiences buses do pick up very healty loads between Aldgate and Trafalgar Square. I don't object to creating cross Central London links but doing it at the expense of well established, and well used links is daft. Furthermore, there's the issue of congestion which won't exactly make these routes easy to operate and because they'll be so slow, their appeal is reduced. 10bph is far too generous and an exorbitant frequency, even the 94 doesn't run with 10bph and that's always busy, it would be more wise to keep the 15 and 94 as they are and introduce the CL routes at about 7bph or so.
I think the 94 is being removed from Piccadilly anyway? The 15 could possibly be extended to Oxford Circus or Marble Arch but then something else would have to be removed to avoid over bussing and then of course the 15 might suffer reliably problems. The 10bph would replace a similar number of buses on other routes, I'm always mindful to avoid over bussing. Of course the 15 and 94 could stay as they are and the CL run less frequently but then that becomes less attractive. I had a chat with a driver on the 15 a while back and he said so many tourists get on at the tower or St Paul's wanting the West End and are somewhat unimpressed that the 15 only goes to Trafalgar Square nowadays. He was of the opinion that the Central London bus network is too complex for visitors compared to the tube and there should be fewer routes but running more frequently. He suspects many visitors use uber rather than buses because it's so much easier to use. The 94 is supposed to be cutback to Marble Arch but I don't see that happening in future, I was fearful it would be cut to release buses for the 306 but now the VHs are coming from the 18 instead. I do think that the bus network could be better aimed at tourists but of course many tourists use, and will use, the tour buses instead.
|
|
rml1969
Conductor
Adolescent & Youth Worker - OWR Driver
Posts: 69
|
Post by rml1969 on Dec 9, 2019 4:43:00 GMT
It would be beneficial to hear your views on how the Central London bus changes have settled!
Another query arised, for the withdrawn routes did TFL issue compensation to the operators involved?
I would like to express as a matter of personal opinion - we need more routes running in to the Central London border, not less. This is causing severe disruption to commuters on low wages. Not that TFL would take these conditions in to account!
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Dec 9, 2019 11:51:19 GMT
It would be beneficial to hear your views on how the Central London bus changes have settled! Another query arised, for the withdrawn routes did TFL issue compensation to the operators involved? I would like to express as a matter of personal opinion - we need more routes running in to the Central London border, not less. This is causing severe disruption to commuters on low wages. Not that TFL would take these conditions in to account! I can't speak for every route but the one's I've observed. 55: I can't tell you how loadings have changed as I only come across this route in the West End where it didn't have the 48 to help it. My initial concern was about reliability on it with the Walthamstow extension however those reliability issues aren't existent. The route operates just as well as it did before the extension. Looking online though there's multiple reports of people being left behind on it. 9: Talking of reliability, this is probably the one which has suffered the most. I can't see at all how this change was meant to save money, all it's done is cause endless reliability issues and now journeys are far longer due to the Piccadilly Circus traffic. 134: Not too much change, most people seem to have already found alternatives. Probably by changing buses in Camden as I don't often see huge crowds alighting at Warren Street. 14: The route seems to get more custom heading to Russell Square than it did going Warren Street, although this is probably because prior many people alighted at TCR anyway. It's still not coming from the direction of the 7 or 10 however which is where the lack of a link really shows. 205: This change's effects have been minimal. Many people just get off and walk from Marylebone Road. I have seen a few people change for the 453 at Baker Street from my experiences although there aren't many of them.
|
|
|
Post by rj131 on Dec 9, 2019 12:12:50 GMT
It would be beneficial to hear your views on how the Central London bus changes have settled! Another query arised, for the withdrawn routes did TFL issue compensation to the operators involved? I would like to express as a matter of personal opinion - we need more routes running in to the Central London border, not less. This is causing severe disruption to commuters on low wages. Not that TFL would take these conditions in to account! I can't speak for every route but the one's I've observed. 55: I can't tell you how loadings have changed as I only come across this route in the West End where it didn't have the 48 to help it. My initial concern was about reliability on it with the Walthamstow extension however those reliability issues aren't existent. The route operates just as well as it did before the extension. Looking online though there's multiple reports of people being left behind on it. 9: Talking of reliability, this is probably the one which has suffered the most. I can't see at all how this change was meant to save money, all it's done is cause endless reliability issues and now journeys are far longer due to the Piccadilly Circus traffic. 134: Not too much change, most people seem to have already found alternatives. Probably by changing buses in Camden as I don't often see huge crowds alighting at Warren Street. 14: The route seems to get more custom heading to Russell Square than it did going Warren Street, although this is probably because prior many people alighted at TCR anyway. It's still not coming from the direction of the 7 or 10 however which is where the lack of a link really shows. 205: This change's effects have been minimal. Many people just get off and walk from Marylebone Road. I have seen a few people change for the 453 at Baker Street from my experiences although there aren't many of them. How are the loadings doing on the 134, still a very busy route? I remember how ridiculous the route was when it ran to TCR. So many times I saw 134’s leaving people behind at the very first stop at TCR which is why I found it so ridiculous it was cut. I haven’t seen any crowded 134’s really since it was cut but that’s very likely because I haven’t paid much attention to it at all. Really lost interest in it since it’s been cut and run with OMEs.
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Dec 9, 2019 12:21:48 GMT
I can't speak for every route but the one's I've observed. 55: I can't tell you how loadings have changed as I only come across this route in the West End where it didn't have the 48 to help it. My initial concern was about reliability on it with the Walthamstow extension however those reliability issues aren't existent. The route operates just as well as it did before the extension. Looking online though there's multiple reports of people being left behind on it. 9: Talking of reliability, this is probably the one which has suffered the most. I can't see at all how this change was meant to save money, all it's done is cause endless reliability issues and now journeys are far longer due to the Piccadilly Circus traffic. 134: Not too much change, most people seem to have already found alternatives. Probably by changing buses in Camden as I don't often see huge crowds alighting at Warren Street. 14: The route seems to get more custom heading to Russell Square than it did going Warren Street, although this is probably because prior many people alighted at TCR anyway. It's still not coming from the direction of the 7 or 10 however which is where the lack of a link really shows. 205: This change's effects have been minimal. Many people just get off and walk from Marylebone Road. I have seen a few people change for the 453 at Baker Street from my experiences although there aren't many of them. How are the loadings doing on the 134, still a very busy route? I remember how ridiculous the route was when it ran to TCR. So many times I saw 134’s leaving people behind at the very first stop at TCR which is why I found it so ridiculous it was cut. I haven’t seen any crowded 134’s really since it was cut but that’s very likely because I haven’t paid much attention to it at all. Really lost interest in it since it’s been cut and run with OMEs. I only ever see the route at Warren Street and the loadings from there aren't the best, certainly not that of the scale you had at TCR. However I don't often see the route further north where I imagine loads are predominantly unaffected.
|
|
|
Post by kenmet on Dec 9, 2019 12:58:15 GMT
I can't speak for every route but the one's I've observed. 55: I can't tell you how loadings have changed as I only come across this route in the West End where it didn't have the 48 to help it. My initial concern was about reliability on it with the Walthamstow extension however those reliability issues aren't existent. The route operates just as well as it did before the extension. Looking online though there's multiple reports of people being left behind on it. 9: Talking of reliability, this is probably the one which has suffered the most. I can't see at all how this change was meant to save money, all it's done is cause endless reliability issues and now journeys are far longer due to the Piccadilly Circus traffic. 134: Not too much change, most people seem to have already found alternatives. Probably by changing buses in Camden as I don't often see huge crowds alighting at Warren Street. 14: The route seems to get more custom heading to Russell Square than it did going Warren Street, although this is probably because prior many people alighted at TCR anyway. It's still not coming from the direction of the 7 or 10 however which is where the lack of a link really shows. 205: This change's effects have been minimal. Many people just get off and walk from Marylebone Road. I have seen a few people change for the 453 at Baker Street from my experiences although there aren't many of them. How are the loadings doing on the 134, still a very busy route? I remember how ridiculous the route was when it ran to TCR. So many times I saw 134’s leaving people behind at the very first stop at TCR which is why I found it so ridiculous it was cut. I haven’t seen any crowded 134’s really since it was cut but that’s very likely because I haven’t paid much attention to it at all. Really lost interest in it since it’s been cut and run with OMEs. I've certainly not seen any busy 134s at Tottenham Court Road in recent times, years ago maybe. I think loadings are much the same as they were before the change, it's only a relatively short section that has been removed. I guess most people change to/from the 24 or 29 or walk.
|
|
|
Post by rj131 on Dec 9, 2019 13:18:23 GMT
How are the loadings doing on the 134, still a very busy route? I remember how ridiculous the route was when it ran to TCR. So many times I saw 134’s leaving people behind at the very first stop at TCR which is why I found it so ridiculous it was cut. I haven’t seen any crowded 134’s really since it was cut but that’s very likely because I haven’t paid much attention to it at all. Really lost interest in it since it’s been cut and run with OMEs. I've certainly not seen any busy 134s at Tottenham Court Road in recent times, years ago maybe. I think loadings are much the same as they were before the change, it's only a relatively short section that has been removed. I guess most people change to/from the 24 or 29 or walk. You’ve definitely not been there in the evening peaks then, and even Sunday afternoons when the shops are closing up and people are going home. It gets absolutely swamped. And these were in the 134’s PB TE days, so recent.
|
|
|
Post by kenmet on Dec 9, 2019 13:23:22 GMT
I've certainly not seen any busy 134s at Tottenham Court Road in recent times, years ago maybe. I think loadings are much the same as they were before the change, it's only a relatively short section that has been removed. I guess most people change to/from the 24 or 29 or walk. You’ve definitely not been there in the evening peaks then, and even Sunday afternoons when the shops are closing up and people are going home. It gets absolutely swamped. And these were in the 134’s PB TE days, so recent. I've been there at various times of the day. Clearly there was no need for the 24,29 and 134 between TCR and Camden Town.
|
|
|
Post by CircleLineofLife on Dec 9, 2019 13:51:32 GMT
Regarding the 6, I'm a regular user of the route as it's one of my local routes. I was against the 6 being rerouted via Piccadilly, however over the time since this change it has proved popular and is often busy along that section, especially in the peaks. Empty buses on the route are only seen during the quiter times, as should be expected. The 414 is the route that provides excess capacity between HPC and Maida Hill so it should be rerouted elsewhere, the 6 can cope alone along the common section. The 6 certainly does not need a frequency decrease as it's a busy route. If anything, I would extend the it to Blackfriars to provide new links to and from the station. I would also extend the 9 to London Bridge to provide new links between London Bridge and the West End. The Strand. Its a permanent standstill. Its an overbused corridor. It has eight bus routes. The 6 is in my experienced the most lightly used of those routes. I see no need for the 6 to continue to Aldwych anymore. It is now paralleld by the 9 between HPC and Aldwych, however there is a stark dichotomy in the loadings each routes carries. I don't think Blackfriars is a good place to terminate any bus route. Its been five and a half months since the 4 was altered to terminate at Blackfriars. I don't think anyone is going to suggest that the change has been a success. I don't think there's enough at Blackfriars for it to serve as a thriving bus terminus. The loadings at Blackfriars on the 4 are utterly abysmal. I do like your idea of creating a West End-London Bridge bus route. To me as a West Londoner it would be great, I get the bus to places such as Trafalgar Square, or Oxford Circus when I'm not in a rush as I often use the 9 and 94 as well as using routes like the 27 and 211 less frequently, I even use the 18 sometimes. However, even though the 9 is a relatively short route, I don't think an extension to London Bridge would do it any favours. The 9 has to battle with so much congestion, more so since the rerouting. The route is awash with turns during the peaks often at Royal Albert Hall, Holland Road, Piccadilly Circus, Green Park, and Trafalgar Square. RATP are trying but the route is inoperable. I think a better way to go about connecting the West End and London Bridge would be a route from Oxford Circus to London Bridge. It creates new links, can relieve the struggling 139, and help to revive the former RV1 replicating it in parts but amending it. What routings do you propose for the 6 and 9? Hello guys, i am an avid reader of this many threads of the london bus forums and currently studying urban planning at uni. Really would like to be a transport planner one day. i have a few suggestions to make about the theses buses. i am also a local for the 6 bus as well Firstly: 9 is kept the smae Curtail the 38 to TCR, improves reliablity 390 rerouted from victoria to TCR via old 38 eg. piccadilly and shaftesbury avenue. Options: 1. replace it on oxford street with the 6 and extend to london bridge with the 94 being rerouted via park lane to piccadilly circus. since it mirrors 148 more now, extend 274 to notting hill gate due to DDs introduced not to long ago, and reroute 148 to go to hammersmith and then to victoria via the 9 2. get the old 23 and replace the aldwych-liverpool street section and just extend it to london bridge. bring the 10 back potentially 3.Or even, 414 curtailed between maida hill and HPC to be extended to london bridge
|
|