|
Post by evergreenadam on Jun 19, 2023 21:59:56 GMT
A lot of routes from the south and east terminate at Wanstead or Leytonstone which reduces north-south and east-west connectivity. Would there be demand to extend them further into Waltham Forest to Whipps Cross or Walthamstow for example? There must be hospital staff who would benefit from more direct connections to the south and east. Even if patients are not referred there from Newham or Redbridge, there must be hospital staff who live in those areas.
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Jun 20, 2023 6:31:06 GMT
Is there a supporting document provided? Might have missed it, because at first glance it seems like change for the sake of change. I understand Waltham Forest council are not keen on buses through Walthamstow Village. Getting rid of that section could improve the size of buses used on that route. I do agree with posts talking about the 500m distance between bus stops, then again Walthamstow Village visitors are mostly just hipsters anyway. Is one of the goals trying to find a way to save money whilst improving the frequency of the 549/W14 back to 1bph? I can see where they’re going with the proposals, make the W13 even more useful whilst removing a contract. Numbers, really? I sort of understand the low numbers such as 11, 12, 14 and 16 in danger of being lost. But 549? W14? Really?! Who cares. Not local, so feel free to ignore me, but my gut says that the new 549/W14 thing shouldn’t be numbered either of those - maybe 449 would be a better choice? As for the route changes I don’t know enough about the area to pass judgment. I suggested W10. And the proposed W12 being numbered W14 instead as it covers most of the existing W14 (the number W12 would be discontinued).
|
|
|
Post by Green Kitten on Jun 20, 2023 7:07:29 GMT
Is there a supporting document provided? Might have missed it, because at first glance it seems like change for the sake of change. Here's a 36-page Equality Impact Assessment. Cheers mate. Completely missed it. Been a long day. Will have a good read of it.
|
|
|
Post by JUNIOR26 on Jun 20, 2023 8:00:11 GMT
If all goes ahead as proposed, I then expect these changes to be implemented from 7th September 2024 as that's when the W12, W14 and W14 contracts are set to expire (6th September 2024). Has the date changed for W14 renewal? Waltham Forest routes are normally renewed in February/ March (except the W19 normally November) Yes, the W12, W13 and W14 contracts have been extended until 6th September 2024. Initial contract start date for W14 was 24th February 2024, but due to the proposed restructuring of the route and the other two routes there contracts were extended.
|
|
|
Post by northlondon83 on Jun 20, 2023 9:38:56 GMT
A lot of routes from the south and east terminate at Wanstead or Leytonstone which reduces north-south and east-west connectivity. Would there be demand to extend them further into Waltham Forest to Whipps Cross or Walthamstow for example? There must be hospital staff who would benefit from more direct connections to the south and east. Even if patients are not referred there from Newham or Redbridge, there must be hospital staff who live in those areas. now that the 101 has been cut back, perhaps it could be extended to Walthamstow via the W12 to Whipps Cross, then the 20 to Walthamstow station. Obviously wouldn't do the loop round the hospital that the current W12 does
|
|
|
Post by northlondon83 on Jun 20, 2023 9:46:30 GMT
Personally I find the route renumbering quite silly, it's like when they played with the 110, removed about 75% of the route then created an entirely new route to Hammersmith.
|
|
|
Post by northlondon83 on Jun 20, 2023 9:51:23 GMT
I think what the route actually does is more important than the number. Don't see an issue with it being renumbered to W14 TfL seems obsessed with sending routes to the same destination via different routes! Woodford Bridge now will have two routes to Walthamstow. Not sure what's the problem with that, several places have. Brent Cross has 3 different routes to Archway, Ruislip has 3 different routes to Uxbridge etc.
|
|
|
Post by ronnie on Jun 20, 2023 9:54:16 GMT
TfL seems obsessed with sending routes to the same destination via different routes! Woodford Bridge now will have two routes to Walthamstow. Not sure what's the problem with that, several places have. Brent Cross has 3 different routes to Archway, Ruislip has 3 different routes to Uxbridge etc. Agree, one needs to think of corridors plus places where buses can terminate
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Jun 20, 2023 10:04:08 GMT
TfL seems obsessed with sending routes to the same destination via different routes! Woodford Bridge now will have two routes to Walthamstow. Not sure what's the problem with that, several places have. Brent Cross has 3 different routes to Archway, Ruislip has 3 different routes to Uxbridge etc. Just reminded me of the situation over in Custom House where they restructured and ended up with 5 routes all going to East Ham via different routes.
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Jun 20, 2023 10:10:44 GMT
A lot of routes from the south and east terminate at Wanstead or Leytonstone which reduces north-south and east-west connectivity. Would there be demand to extend them further into Waltham Forest to Whipps Cross or Walthamstow for example? There must be hospital staff who would benefit from more direct connections to the south and east. Even if patients are not referred there from Newham or Redbridge, there must be hospital staff who live in those areas. now that the 101 has been cut back, perhaps it could be extended to Walthamstow via the W12 to Whipps Cross, then the 20 to Walthamstow station. Obviously wouldn't do the loop round the hospital that the current W12 does The 101 is becoming the new favourite to tinker with here. Is this not all getting a bit fantasy now? The consultation was about the W12, W13, W14 and 549, rarely in consultations would they deviate and decided to extend another route as that would require a further consultation.
|
|
|
Post by northlondon83 on Jun 20, 2023 10:12:31 GMT
Not sure what's the problem with that, several places have. Brent Cross has 3 different routes to Archway, Ruislip has 3 different routes to Uxbridge etc. Just reminded me of the situation over in Custom House where they restructured and ended up with 5 routes all going to East Ham via different routes. The two scenarios you are comparing are a bit different though, with Custom House being on the Elizabeth line, though I believe that 5 routes are a bit too much.
|
|
|
Post by northlondon83 on Jun 20, 2023 10:16:04 GMT
now that the 101 has been cut back, perhaps it could be extended to Walthamstow via the W12 to Whipps Cross, then the 20 to Walthamstow station. Obviously wouldn't do the loop round the hospital that the current W12 does The 101 is becoming the new favourite to tinker with here. Is this not all getting a bit fantasy now? The consultation was about the W12, W13, W14 and 549, rarely in consultations would they deviate and decided to extend another route as that would require a further consultation. Not really, if they wanted to involve the 101 they could have just included it in the consultation. Personally might be better than tinkering with the W12, W13 and W14, and then just extend the 549 to Whipps Cross
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Jun 20, 2023 10:25:12 GMT
Personally I find the route renumbering quite silly, it's like when they played with the 110, removed about 75% of the route then created an entirely new route to Hammersmith. Either way though it would have been numbered 110 or 391… So the 549 & W14 is a similar situation. If the changes do not happen for whatever reason I would not be surprised if the 549 is renumbered W17.
|
|
|
Post by mondraker275 on Jun 20, 2023 11:11:13 GMT
I hope that the residents of the Village get to know that it is the council that is requesting deviation from that area. As stated a high proportion of users are freedom pass holders. A majority likely cannot just cycle. Additionally, if it was about air quality then electrics for this route could have been a quiet and environmental solution. The current solos can be quite loud and noticeable.
The proposals will likely mean that the W16 will not be doing a loop round to Whipps Cross.
I agree with TfL in moving away from 500 numbers. They can be perceived to be a lesser service in terms of frequency or a non-TfL route. I would however say for consistency in making numbering clearer, the 607 must change during the Superloop consultations.
I dont know about loading in the hail and ride section in Wanstead or at Snaresbrook Road but decreasing frequency to every 60 minutes is not right. Why could they not of kept the W12 with the normal routing but then avoid Woodford Road and instead from Snaresbrook Road serve the High Street and then Wanstead via the hail and ride section and then to South Woodford before going on to Woodford Bridge.
Assuming we keep the main proposals the same, why is there a need for the W12 to serve Leytonstone station. Why can it not exit the Hospital via James Lane and go directly to Leytonstone roundabout via 257 and then go to the planned route to Wanstead. Do we need the W12 getting into traffic in Leytonstone station area? I dont see the benefits here, the W15 and W19 are sufficient to the hospital as well as the services that take people from Wanstead to Leytonstone.
|
|
|
Post by routew15 on Jun 20, 2023 12:12:51 GMT
I hope that the residents of the Village get to know that it is the council that is requesting deviation from that area. As stated a high proportion of users are freedom pass holders. A majority likely cannot just cycle. Additionally, if it was about air quality then electrics for this route could have been a quiet and environmental solution. The current solos can be quite loud and noticeable. The proposals will likely mean that the W16 will not be doing a loop round to Whipps Cross. I agree with TfL in moving away from 500 numbers. They can be perceived to be a lesser service in terms of frequency or a non-TfL route. I would however say for consistency in making numbering clearer, the 607 must change during the Superloop consultations. I dont know about loading in the hail and ride section in Wanstead or at Snaresbrook Road but decreasing frequency to every 60 minutes is not right. Why could they not of kept the W12 with the normal routing but then avoid Woodford Road and instead from Snaresbrook Road serve the High Street and then Wanstead via the hail and ride section and then to South Woodford before going on to Woodford Bridge. Assuming we keep the main proposals the same, why is there a need for the W12 to serve Leytonstone station. Why can it not exit the Hospital via James Lane and go directly to Leytonstone roundabout via 257 and then go to the planned route to Wanstead. Do we need the W12 getting into traffic in Leytonstone station area? I dont see the benefits here, the W15 and W19 are sufficient to the hospital as well as the services that take people from Wanstead to Leytonstone.This would break links from Woodford Road in Snaresbrook to Leytonstone some people stay on the W14 to go to Leytonstone as it is the start of Zone 3 whereas Snaresbrook is Zone 4. Previously it was an ambition for the borough to have the 339 extended to Whipps Cross from Leytonstone. Using the W12 is probably a compromise. The 339 is quite unreliable based on my experiences of trying to use it so extending it further is probably not a good idea. On a weekday I do not think there is a risk of overbussing the corridor between Leytonstone Station and Whipps Cross Hospital as it is well used by students from Leyton Sixth Form and Leytonstone School and staff/patients from the Hospital. Buses (particularly the W19) can still arrive at Leytonstone very full. Passengers between Essex Road South/ Green Man Roundabout and the station, respectively, can often be left behind.
|
|