|
Post by vjaska on Jun 22, 2023 0:33:44 GMT
Had the same thought and had a quick look over bits 549/W14 - 1 to 2 W13 - 5 to 7 (plus school run which assumes stays as is) W12 - would look to be in the region of 10-12 So that's a PVR saving of anything from 0-2. I have to say I don't really know the routes well but it does seem like a thinning of services in the guise of answering a request for better links to Whipps Cross. Does seem a bit unfair when there is a glaring saving could me made by rejigging the 14/74/414/430 to remove one of them. Similar to how the 135/277/D6/D7 again could be re organised to axe the D7 now. Why does the D7 need axing? I understand the whole 414 situation and I do think in this consultation, the 549 being removed isn't the worst thing as it's being replaced in any event, just with what it's being replaced with is my own objection
|
|
|
Post by routew15 on Jun 22, 2023 7:39:58 GMT
Anyone local bold enough to provide a reasonable estimate of the pvr of the revised routes Had the same thought and had a quick look over bits 549/W14 - 1 to 2 W13 - 5 to 7 (plus school run which assumes stays as is) W12 - would look to be in the region of 10-12 So that's a PVR saving of anything from 0-2. I do think the saving will come later down the line in reducing either, if not both, the W15 & W19
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Jun 22, 2023 8:28:25 GMT
I have to say I don't really know the routes well but it does seem like a thinning of services in the guise of answering a request for better links to Whipps Cross. Does seem a bit unfair when there is a glaring saving could me made by rejigging the 14/74/414/430 to remove one of them. Similar to how the 135/277/D6/D7 again could be re organised to axe the D7 now. Why does the D7 need axing? I understand the whole 414 situation and I do think in this consultation, the 549 being removed isn't the worst thing as it's being replaced in any event, just with what it's being replaced with is my own objection It’s actually the W14 that’s being removed but TfL using its usual tactics to hide the fact. The W12 is being rerouted and extended to cover this. I see the 414 is becoming a hot topic again. I am sure it provide support for the 14 and even it was withdrawn the 14 would need a increase to cope with the demand.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jun 22, 2023 8:35:29 GMT
Why does the D7 need axing? I understand the whole 414 situation and I do think in this consultation, the 549 being removed isn't the worst thing as it's being replaced in any event, just with what it's being replaced with is my own objection It’s actually the W14 that’s being removed but TfL using its usual tactics to hide the fact. The W12 is being rerouted and extended to cover this. I see the 414 is becoming a hot topic again. I am sure it provide support for the 14 and even it was withdrawn the 14 would need a increase to cope with the demand. Might need a bit of an increase say to every 6 to 8 mins peak but for most of the week an 8 mins service on either the 14 or 414 would have sufficed.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Jun 22, 2023 10:02:53 GMT
I have to say I don't really know the routes well but it does seem like a thinning of services in the guise of answering a request for better links to Whipps Cross. Does seem a bit unfair when there is a glaring saving could me made by rejigging the 14/74/414/430 to remove one of them. Similar to how the 135/277/D6/D7 again could be re organised to axe the D7 now. Why does the D7 need axing? I understand the whole 414 situation and I do think in this consultation, the 549 being removed isn't the worst thing as it's being replaced in any event, just with what it's being replaced with is my own objection Because the D7 is largely paralleled by other routes, mostly the 277 but also the 135/D6. Rather than a more complex restructure like TFL had proposed involving the 277/D3/etc, you could simply just amend the D6 to cover the D7's links as necessary. So I would suggest a revised D6 from Ash Grove to Canary Wharf, via the current route to Poplar, then the D7 via Island Gardens to Canary Wharf. And converted to DDs. Could maybe also replace the Crossharbour end of the D6 with a new cross-river route, linking Crossharbour and Canary Wharf via the Blackwall Tunnel to North Greenwich and Charlton?
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jun 22, 2023 10:20:03 GMT
Why does the D7 need axing? I understand the whole 414 situation and I do think in this consultation, the 549 being removed isn't the worst thing as it's being replaced in any event, just with what it's being replaced with is my own objection Because the D7 is largely paralleled by other routes, mostly the 277 but also the 135/D6. Rather than a more complex restructure like TFL had proposed involving the 277/D3/etc, you could simply just amend the D6 to cover the D7's links as necessary. So I would suggest a revised D6 from Ash Grove to Canary Wharf, via the current route to Poplar, then the D7 via Island Gardens to Canary Wharf. And converted to DDs. Could maybe also replace the Crossharbour end of the D6 with a new cross-river route, linking Crossharbour and Canary Wharf via the Blackwall Tunnel to North Greenwich and Charlton? The real opposition to the D7 came from the removel of the D3 leaving an entire section of road without a bus and breaking links from Isle of Dogs to Royal London and Tower Hamlets Town Hall. Will removing the W12 from Walthamstow Village attract such opposition?? I think it could do.
|
|
|
Post by northlondon83 on Jun 22, 2023 12:10:38 GMT
Why does the D7 need axing? I understand the whole 414 situation and I do think in this consultation, the 549 being removed isn't the worst thing as it's being replaced in any event, just with what it's being replaced with is my own objection It’s actually the W14 that’s being removed but TfL using its usual tactics to hide the fact. The W12 is being rerouted and extended to cover this. I see the 414 is becoming a hot topic again. I am sure it provide support for the 14 and even it was withdrawn the 14 would need a increase to cope with the demand. In my opinion the W14 isn't being withdrawn, it's being merged with the W12, whilst the 549 is being extended. It's like the H22, 110 and 391 changes, the 391 wasn't withdrawn and part of the 110 and H22 routes were withdrawn. Back to the topic and the only credible change is the W13 extension to Leyton which is really taking over the southern section of the W14. The 549 extension gives Woodford Bridge such a measly frequency to Whipps Cross! I get that the northern end doesn't warrant a frequency increase, but perhaps the W14 could be rerouted to Whipps Cross with the W13 sent to Leyton as planned
|
|
|
Post by northlondon83 on Jun 22, 2023 12:16:51 GMT
Why does the D7 need axing? I understand the whole 414 situation and I do think in this consultation, the 549 being removed isn't the worst thing as it's being replaced in any event, just with what it's being replaced with is my own objection It’s actually the W14 that’s being removed but TfL using its usual tactics to hide the fact. The W12 is being rerouted and extended to cover this. I see the 414 is becoming a hot topic again. I am sure it provide support for the 14 and even it was withdrawn the 14 would need a increase to cope with the demand. Personally I'd rather see the 414 binned and the 14 given a frequency increase to compensate. Possibly cutting back to Piccadilly circus if required
|
|
|
Post by abellion on Jun 22, 2023 12:36:37 GMT
It’s actually the W14 that’s being removed but TfL using its usual tactics to hide the fact. The W12 is being rerouted and extended to cover this. I see the 414 is becoming a hot topic again. I am sure it provide support for the 14 and even it was withdrawn the 14 would need a increase to cope with the demand. Personally I'd rather see the 414 binned and the 14 given a frequency increase to compensate. Possibly cutting back to Piccadilly circus if required It looks like an easy solution until the increased number of 14s get stuck on Putney High Street and Hill adding to the congestion and are bunching northbound before even getting across the bridge. Something like cutting the 414’s frequency/operating hours might work too or sending it somewhere like Queens Park over the 36.
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Jun 22, 2023 12:39:48 GMT
It’s actually the W14 that’s being removed but TfL using its usual tactics to hide the fact. The W12 is being rerouted and extended to cover this. I see the 414 is becoming a hot topic again. I am sure it provide support for the 14 and even it was withdrawn the 14 would need a increase to cope with the demand. Personally I'd rather see the 414 binned and the 14 given a frequency increase to compensate. Possibly cutting back to Piccadilly circus if required I don't get why people don't like the 414s existence? Surely it's always better having two routes than one on a corridor.
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Jun 22, 2023 13:23:30 GMT
Personally I'd rather see the 414 binned and the 14 given a frequency increase to compensate. Possibly cutting back to Piccadilly circus if required I don't get why people don't like the 414s existence? Surely it's always better having two routes than one on a corridor. I think a lot of the 414 withdrawal talk is more about it being run by RAPT and X. The 414 clearly has a purpose and must provide support for the 14 on the shared section.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jun 22, 2023 13:36:18 GMT
I don't get why people don't like the 414s existence? Surely it's always better having two routes than one on a corridor. I think a lot of the 414 withdrawal talk is more about it being run by RAPT and X. The 414 clearly has a purpose and must provide support for the 14 on the shared section. Who says the 414 has to go. An extension to Putney Heath and the rest left to the 19/38 could have seen the 14 axed as in the consultation.
|
|
|
Post by londonbuses on Jun 22, 2023 13:37:14 GMT
I agree the 414 should be withdrawn, but there was arguably a simpler solution before all of the Central London changes happened - it would have made more sense to combine the 23 and 414 into a Westbourne Park to Putney Bridge route, have the 16 still running to Victoria and just extended to Brent Park, and to have left the 6 unchanged.
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Jun 22, 2023 13:48:54 GMT
I think a lot of the 414 withdrawal talk is more about it being run by RAPT and X. The 414 clearly has a purpose and must provide support for the 14 on the shared section. Who says the 414 has to go. An extension to Putney Heath and the rest left to the 19/38 could have seen the 14 axed as in the consultation. The forum planners say so 😬🤣 It would have been interesting to have seen the reaction if the 14 had gone! Will be interesting to see the cost of the latest tender for the 14. GAL has had it good for a long time and hopefully the latest contract is better value for money than previous ones.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 22, 2023 13:51:11 GMT
Why does the D7 need axing? I understand the whole 414 situation and I do think in this consultation, the 549 being removed isn't the worst thing as it's being replaced in any event, just with what it's being replaced with is my own objection Because the D7 is largely paralleled by other routes, mostly the 277 but also the 135/D6. Rather than a more complex restructure like TFL had proposed involving the 277/D3/etc, you could simply just amend the D6 to cover the D7's links as necessary. So I would suggest a revised D6 from Ash Grove to Canary Wharf, via the current route to Poplar, then the D7 via Island Gardens to Canary Wharf. And converted to DDs. Could maybe also replace the Crossharbour end of the D6 with a new cross-river route, linking Crossharbour and Canary Wharf via the Blackwall Tunnel to North Greenwich and Charlton? Just because the D7 is paralleled by other routes, doesn't automatically been it needs to be axed. So many routes in London are paralleled by one or another so that particular reason doesn't really make much sense IMO.
|
|