Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2013 17:25:32 GMT
TfL are proposing scrapping the 159 extension to Paddington Basin and return it to the former terminus of Marble Arch. No route would replace the section between Marble Arch and Paddington, which the 159 inherited from the 15, as they claim the 7 and 23 have sufficient capacity. It would therefor also remove services from Paddington Basin. Personally I have found the extension to be a useful new link so would rather keep it. consultations.tfl.gov.uk/buses/route-159
|
|
|
Post by Connor on Nov 14, 2013 17:36:02 GMT
Don't agree with this proposal at all. The way I see it, it would give them the opportunity to convert MY beloved 159 to NBfLs. So no thanks TFL.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 14, 2013 17:41:48 GMT
Insane speculation mode - that opens up the option of converting the 159 to NB4L operation. Cue angry vjaska setting up barricades in Brixton Interesting that TfL can no longer be bothered to serve a massive office development area with its own bus service. Clearly Crossrail works at Paddington are a complete pain in the proverbial but I am surprised at such a big withdrawal of capacity from Paddington. Aren't buses in the rush hour completely overwhelmed at Paddington or is that just the 36 and 436?
|
|
|
Post by Jack on Nov 14, 2013 17:50:50 GMT
Don't agree with this proposal at all. The way I see it, it would give them the opportunity to convert MY beloved 159 to NBfLs. So no thanks TFL. O dear!!!
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Nov 14, 2013 17:54:41 GMT
I could see that something like this was going to happen.
|
|
|
Post by overgroundcommuter on Nov 14, 2013 18:08:43 GMT
I used to work near Paddington Basin and one of our guys was happy that he could commute from Streatham straight in without changing buses or using rail, so I'd keep it.
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Nov 14, 2013 18:22:28 GMT
If the does 159 does curtail at Marble Arch. What about withdrawing the 137/N137 between Marble Arch and Oxford Circus and divert it to Paddington Basin via the 159 to maintain the link between Streathram and Paddington?
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 14, 2013 18:34:10 GMT
Where are my roadblocks lool!
The 159 was extended to Paddington Basin to allow the 15 to be removed from Oxford Street but still maintaining an Oxford Circus to Paddington link. Whilst I never agreed with it in the first place, it seems even more stupid to remove it for two reasons:
It's seems like it's actually being used which is always a good thing and it seems they are sacrificing the link just for allowing NBfL's to be used as 'snoggle' touched upon.
It also seems no coincidence given that the 7 won't be getting any (now I wonder who was it that said that the Paddington roads are quite narrow).
|
|
|
Post by overgroundcommuter on Nov 14, 2013 18:41:46 GMT
I can see TfL using the excuse that most passengers prefer to use the Bakerloo line from Paddington to Oxford Circus, however the proposal won't cut on the amount of routes using Oxford Street and offers no bus alternative.
|
|
|
Post by John tuthill on Nov 14, 2013 18:47:13 GMT
I can see TfL using the excuse that most passengers prefer to use the Bakerloo line from Paddington to Oxford Circus, however the proposal won't cut on the amount of routes using Oxford Street and offers no bus alternative. Run it back down Wigmore Street as it used to, and terminate at either Baker street or Marylebone? Might provide a little space in Oxford St.
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Nov 14, 2013 20:28:01 GMT
TfL are proposing scrapping the 159 extension to Paddington Basin and return it to the former terminus of Marble Arch. No route would replace the section between Marble Arch and Paddington, which the 159 inherited from the 15, as they claim the 7 and 23 have sufficient capacity. It would therefor also remove services from Paddington Basin. Personally I have found the extension to be a useful new link so would rather keep it. consultations.tfl.gov.uk/buses/route-159They could terminate the 436 there if there was a desire to retain the link to Paddington Basin - it terminates in Paddington anyway. ^ this! I suspect this may well mean the 159 will get NBfLs, and the 23 won't...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2013 20:44:55 GMT
If the does 159 does curtail at Marble Arch. What about withdrawing the 137/N137 between Marble Arch and Oxford Circus and divert it to Paddington Basin via the 159 to maintain the link between Streathram and Paddington? The 137 is of no use for most of Streatham as it terminates at the edge of the area. It does not even serve most of Streatham Hill, let alone central Streatham as the 159 does. South of Knightsbridge the 137 also provides the only connection to Oxford Circus, it only shares two stops with the 159 at the start of the route and the option of the 88 being available at Clapham Common Station. So diverting it would mean everywhere between Clapham Common and Knightsbridge, including Battersea and Sloane Square, will lose their only direct bus to Oxford Circus. As would Clapham Park. As much as I wish it were possible to extend the 137 to Streatham Station, even then it would be too significant a change to too many people along the route.
|
|
|
Post by Steve80 on Nov 14, 2013 20:58:01 GMT
TfL are proposing scrapping the 159 extension to Paddington Basin and return it to the former terminus of Marble Arch. No route would replace the section between Marble Arch and Paddington, which the 159 inherited from the 15, as they claim the 7 and 23 have sufficient capacity. It would therefor also remove services from Paddington Basin. Personally I have found the extension to be a useful new link so would rather keep it. consultations.tfl.gov.uk/buses/route-159What a strange decision from tfl. If they go ahead with this then it means that the 23 is the only bus from Paddington that serves regent street and Trafalgar square. There would be no direct connection from Whitehall. Fair enough there are many buses that serve Edgware road and Paddington but I know many passengers and especially the tourists would prefer to use the 159 just for the simple reason that it says Paddington on the front I expect the real reason why tfl are curtailing the route to Marble Arch is so they can introduce the LTs on it. I hope im wrong but if that is the case then tfl have their priorities mixed up
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Nov 14, 2013 21:35:51 GMT
If the does 159 does curtail at Marble Arch. What about withdrawing the 137/N137 between Marble Arch and Oxford Circus and divert it to Paddington Basin via the 159 to maintain the link between Streathram and Paddington? The 137 is of no use for most of Streatham as it terminates at the edge of the area. It does not even serve most of Streatham Hill, let alone central Streatham as the 159 does. South of Knightsbridge the 137 also provides the only connection to Oxford Circus, it only shares two stops with the 159 at the start of the route and the option of the 88 being available at Clapham Common Station. So diverting it would mean everywhere between Clapham Common and Knightsbridge, including Battersea and Sloane Square, will lose their only direct bus to Oxford Circus. As would Clapham Park. As much as I wish it were possible to extend the 137 to Streatham Station, even then it would be too significant a change to too many people along the route. I see. May it's better to leave the 159 where it is. Don't fix it if it hasn't broken.
|
|
|
Post by ilovelondonbuses on Nov 14, 2013 21:45:20 GMT
Seems like TfL are really gunning for route 159 to be a NB4L route at any cost. This curtailment is definitely going to be happen. Watch this curtailment come into place on the same day 159 is converted to NB4Ls.
I was never a fan of Paddington Basin. The route is already long enough and there is always a lot of traffic from Piccadilly all the way to Paddington which made the route unreliable at times. As other said, if Paddington Basin link is really needed, route 436 should be extended.
|
|