|
Post by george on Jan 24, 2020 8:35:43 GMT
My personal view is the the 414 should be altered rather than withdrawn having said that if it was withdrawn I wouldn't be complaining too much. Many routes that should have been saved before the 414 like the 48.
|
|
|
Post by rj131 on Jan 24, 2020 10:44:07 GMT
My personal view is the the 414 should be altered rather than withdrawn having said that if it was withdrawn I wouldn't be complaining too much. Many routes that should have been saved before the 414 like the 48. I don’t think it will be withdrawn either, however on its upcoming tender soon I would be surprised if it’s renewed with its current PVR. Withdrawing it completely would leave 5.5 million passengers a year looking for other options, remind you of anything? (*cough*48*)
|
|
|
Post by george on Jan 24, 2020 10:51:19 GMT
My personal view is the the 414 should be altered rather than withdrawn having said that if it was withdrawn I wouldn't be complaining too much. Many routes that should have been saved before the 414 like the 48. I don’t think it will be withdrawn either, however on its upcoming tender soon I would be surprised if it’s renewed with its current PVR. Withdrawing it completely would leave 5.5 million passengers a year looking for other options, remind you of anything? (*cough*48*) I would changing the routing making it a Putney Bridge to King's Cross route so diverting at Marble Arch down Oxford Street and then following the old 10 route. Opinions on this?
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jan 24, 2020 10:59:34 GMT
Not going to happen along Oxford Street. The desire will remain to remove more routes from there not add them back.
|
|
|
Post by george on Jan 24, 2020 11:09:31 GMT
Not going to happen along Oxford Street. The desire will remain to remove more routes from there not add them back. Was more what I'd like to see happen rather than what I think would happen. Two different things.
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Jan 24, 2020 13:37:51 GMT
I don’t think it will be withdrawn either, however on its upcoming tender soon I would be surprised if it’s renewed with its current PVR. Withdrawing it completely would leave 5.5 million passengers a year looking for other options, remind you of anything? (*cough*48*) I would changing the routing making it a Putney Bridge to King's Cross route so diverting at Marble Arch down Oxford Street and then following the old 10 route. Opinions on this? Very interesting idea. I think that perhaps the 414 needs a frequency adjustment, perhaps with the frequency reduced on the ends where it tends to be less busy. I don't think anyone is in denial that the 6's patronage has really slumped leaving the northern end of the 414 superfluous but perhaps at the southern end an adjustment is needed - one idea could be to introduce shorts which to stop overbusing between the 14 and 414 but overall the northern end is more overbused in my view.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jan 24, 2020 14:26:11 GMT
I would changing the routing making it a Putney Bridge to King's Cross route so diverting at Marble Arch down Oxford Street and then following the old 10 route. Opinions on this? Very interesting idea. I think that perhaps the 414 needs a frequency adjustment, perhaps with the frequency reduced on the ends where it tends to be less busy. I don't think anyone is in denial that the 6's patronage has really slumped leaving the northern end of the 414 superfluous but perhaps at the southern end an adjustment is needed - one idea could be to introduce shorts which to stop overbusing between the 14 and 414 but overall the northern end is more overbused in my view. The figures show that it has had steady patronage pretty much throughout its existence and even recovered from dipping below 5m to jump back above it and then stay there - not many routes can say the same thing - in comparison, the 14 has declined from a high of over 9m to between 6m-7m. I’ve no opinion on the 414 at all as I’ve rode it twice (once under First & once under Abellio) but to me, any route carrying on average 5m every year with extremely little decline over that time IMO shouldn’t be touted for withdrawal. Adjusting the frequency if required, as you mentioned, sounds more logical..
|
|
|
Post by rm1422 on Jan 24, 2020 14:43:12 GMT
Very interesting idea. I think that perhaps the 414 needs a frequency adjustment, perhaps with the frequency reduced on the ends where it tends to be less busy. I don't think anyone is in denial that the 6's patronage has really slumped leaving the northern end of the 414 superfluous but perhaps at the southern end an adjustment is needed - one idea could be to introduce shorts which to stop overbusing between the 14 and 414 but overall the northern end is more overbused in my view. The figures show that it has had steady patronage pretty much throughout its existence and even recovered from dipping below 5m to jump back above it and then stay there - not many routes can say the same thing - in comparison, the 14 has declined from a high of over 9m to between 6m-7m. I’ve no opinion on the 414 at all as I’ve rode it twice (once under First & once under Abellio) but to me, any route carrying on average 5m every year with extremely little decline over that time IMO shouldn’t be touted for withdrawal. Adjusting the frequency if required, as you mentioned, sounds more logical.. The biggest problem with the southern end of the 414 is Putney Bridge. The stand effectively blocks access to and from the station for all the other buses. Buses cannot pass each other on the approach road. It's even worse when too many 414's are at the terminus as they overspill round the corner taking out one of the lanes of the main road. I once saw five of them in a row with two on the main road. You can be on a bus coming from Hammersmith / Fulham, speed along on the bus lane on Fulham High Street and then get stuck because all traffic needs to get round parked up buses. If the 414 is to survive it should terminate somewhere else. Putney Common?
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jan 24, 2020 16:10:17 GMT
The figures show that it has had steady patronage pretty much throughout its existence and even recovered from dipping below 5m to jump back above it and then stay there - not many routes can say the same thing - in comparison, the 14 has declined from a high of over 9m to between 6m-7m. I’ve no opinion on the 414 at all as I’ve rode it twice (once under First & once under Abellio) but to me, any route carrying on average 5m every year with extremely little decline over that time IMO shouldn’t be touted for withdrawal. Adjusting the frequency if required, as you mentioned, sounds more logical.. The biggest problem with the southern end of the 414 is Putney Bridge. The stand effectively blocks access to and from the station for all the other buses. Buses cannot pass each other on the approach road. It's even worse when too many 414's are at the terminus as they overspill round the corner taking out one of the lanes of the main road. I once saw five of them in a row with two on the main road. You can be on a bus coming from Hammersmith / Fulham, speed along on the bus lane on Fulham High Street and then get stuck because all traffic needs to get round parked up buses. If the 414 is to survive it should terminate somewhere else. Putney Common? Putney Bridge has long been issue for all buses terminating there - the trouble is, there is either no space elsewhere or you end up overbussing a corridor with an extension. This is all guesswork so feel free to correct but whilst Putney Common has enough room for the 22, I'd say not enough for another high frequency route alongside the 22 - if the 22 ever got the extension that Barnes residents have long asked for, then it becomes available but that section between Putney High Street & Putney Common would then be greatly overbussed given it currently has the 22, 265, 378 & 485 and arguably, one of the 378 or 485 is probably all ready overbussing this section. Putney Heath isn't ideal regardless of space as it then shadows the 14 even more and running it along Putney nor is running along Putney Bridge Road into Wandsworth again due to the 414's high frequency.
|
|
|
Post by rm1422 on Jan 24, 2020 16:24:37 GMT
The biggest problem with the southern end of the 414 is Putney Bridge. The stand effectively blocks access to and from the station for all the other buses. Buses cannot pass each other on the approach road. It's even worse when too many 414's are at the terminus as they overspill round the corner taking out one of the lanes of the main road. I once saw five of them in a row with two on the main road. You can be on a bus coming from Hammersmith / Fulham, speed along on the bus lane on Fulham High Street and then get stuck because all traffic needs to get round parked up buses. If the 414 is to survive it should terminate somewhere else. Putney Common? Putney Bridge has long been issue for all buses terminating there - the trouble is, there is either no space elsewhere or you end up overbussing a corridor with an extension. This is all guesswork so feel free to correct but whilst Putney Common has enough room for the 22, I'd say not enough for another high frequency route alongside the 22 - if the 22 ever got the extension that Barnes residents have long asked for, then it becomes available but that section between Putney High Street & Putney Common would then be greatly overbussed given it currently has the 22, 265, 378 & 485 and arguably, one of the 378 or 485 is probably all ready overbussing this section. Putney Heath isn't ideal regardless of space as it then shadows the 14 even more and running it along Putney nor is running along Putney Bridge Road into Wandsworth again due to the 414's high frequency. If only they hadn't got rid of the old Putney Oxford Road terminus for the 14's! Though to be honest I'm not sure today's buses could have coped with the corners.
|
|
|
Post by galwhv69 on Jan 24, 2020 16:45:53 GMT
Putney Bridge has long been issue for all buses terminating there - the trouble is, there is either no space elsewhere or you end up overbussing a corridor with an extension. This is all guesswork so feel free to correct but whilst Putney Common has enough room for the 22, I'd say not enough for another high frequency route alongside the 22 - if the 22 ever got the extension that Barnes residents have long asked for, then it becomes available but that section between Putney High Street & Putney Common would then be greatly overbussed given it currently has the 22, 265, 378 & 485 and arguably, one of the 378 or 485 is probably all ready overbussing this section. Putney Heath isn't ideal regardless of space as it then shadows the 14 even more and running it along Putney nor is running along Putney Bridge Road into Wandsworth again due to the 414's high frequency. If only they hadn't got rid of the old Putney Oxford Road terminus for the 14's! Though to be honest I'm not sure today's buses could have coped with the corners. Looking at Streetview, looks like they should fit
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jan 24, 2020 17:22:31 GMT
Or the St John's road stand aswell is now gone that the 37 used to use.
|
|
|
Post by rj131 on Jan 24, 2020 17:56:49 GMT
Very interesting idea. I think that perhaps the 414 needs a frequency adjustment, perhaps with the frequency reduced on the ends where it tends to be less busy. I don't think anyone is in denial that the 6's patronage has really slumped leaving the northern end of the 414 superfluous but perhaps at the southern end an adjustment is needed - one idea could be to introduce shorts which to stop overbusing between the 14 and 414 but overall the northern end is more overbused in my view. The figures show that it has had steady patronage pretty much throughout its existence and even recovered from dipping below 5m to jump back above it and then stay there - not many routes can say the same thing - in comparison, the 14 has declined from a high of over 9m to between 6m-7m. I’ve no opinion on the 414 at all as I’ve rode it twice (once under First & once under Abellio) but to me, any route carrying on average 5m every year with extremely little decline over that time IMO shouldn’t be touted for withdrawal. Adjusting the frequency if required, as you mentioned, sounds more logical.. The 14 is nothing compared to the 73. Once carrying 15.3m passengers per year in 2010/11, that figure was just 7.2 last year (that’s even with the new, more ‘inflated’ method), less than half. Just absolutely tragic, can’t believe it’s gone so wrong. Keeping it GAL related, the 436 has also suffered very badly too. Once 12 and a half million, now about 6 and a half yearly.
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Jan 24, 2020 18:05:31 GMT
The figures show that it has had steady patronage pretty much throughout its existence and even recovered from dipping below 5m to jump back above it and then stay there - not many routes can say the same thing - in comparison, the 14 has declined from a high of over 9m to between 6m-7m. I’ve no opinion on the 414 at all as I’ve rode it twice (once under First & once under Abellio) but to me, any route carrying on average 5m every year with extremely little decline over that time IMO shouldn’t be touted for withdrawal. Adjusting the frequency if required, as you mentioned, sounds more logical.. The 14 is nothing compared to the 73. Once carrying 15.3m passengers per year in 2010/11, that figure was just 7.2 last year (that’s even with the new, more ‘inflated’ method), less than half. Just absolutely tragic, can’t believe it’s gone so wrong. Keeping it GAL related, the 436 has also suffered very badly too. Once 12 and a half million, now about 6 and a half yearly. The 436 is no surprise, complete fools play to reroute that route out of everything. I would have thought the 185 would have been a more obvious route to send there. Shame about the 73 too, but it just shows how valued it was in Central London alone as opposed to being a link for residents in Stoke Newington and surrounding areas. I don't get why TfL keep removing buses from Oxford Street when every single route that's been removed has seen a substantial patronage hit almost directly as a result of it. The 6 was the biggest telling sign as the route was diverted around it via an arguably quicker route and still has taken a huge hit.
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Jan 24, 2020 18:39:11 GMT
The figures show that it has had steady patronage pretty much throughout its existence and even recovered from dipping below 5m to jump back above it and then stay there - not many routes can say the same thing - in comparison, the 14 has declined from a high of over 9m to between 6m-7m. I’ve no opinion on the 414 at all as I’ve rode it twice (once under First & once under Abellio) but to me, any route carrying on average 5m every year with extremely little decline over that time IMO shouldn’t be touted for withdrawal. Adjusting the frequency if required, as you mentioned, sounds more logical.. The 14 is nothing compared to the 73. Once carrying 15.3m passengers per year in 2010/11, that figure was just 7.2 last year (that’s even with the new, more ‘inflated’ method), less than half. Just absolutely tragic, can’t believe it’s gone so wrong. Keeping it GAL related, the 436 has also suffered very badly too. Once 12 and a half million, now about 6 and a half yearly. Surely the drop in usage of the 73 and 436 are largely down to route changes with the 36 and 390 picking up the slack?
|
|