|
Post by COBO on Jan 5, 2014 0:25:43 GMT
Those at Uxbridge Road / Oxhey Lane could also use the H14. But that said I'd probably keep the 182 but cut the section of 140 north of Harrow. I'd also be tempted to increase the 258 to every 12 so that it can be properly coordinated with the 142 and 340. What one could also do is to only send 5 out of the 7 or 8 bph from the 182 to north of Harrow you have three 5-bph routes to the roundabout offering a combined uniform 4-minute headway. The H14 is another infrequent route, and what about the people who live near the top of Uxbridge Road. Cutting the 2 routes would create more of a problem than a solution. Cutting the 140 is another idea that shouldn't be thought of, it is the only direct link from Northolt to that side of Harrow and widely used by school children and people going to work. One suggestion I'd have is to run the route via Belsize road down to Oxhey Lane, a practise they so often. What id instead do is decrease the running time between South Harrow and Harrow Weald to make for more effective running. I'd suggest decreasing the PVR from the 24 to 20 and using 4 vehicles on a half hourly express 140 running from Harrow Bus Station to Heathrow calling at South Harrow Station, Northolt Station, Hayes & Harlington Station and Heathrow Airport Central Bus Station. What about Withdrawing the 140 between Harrow and Harrow Weald and extending the 340 to Northolt.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2014 0:29:44 GMT
I'll stick to SW London 691 scrap it as it runs outside school catchment which was changed few years ago so is now little used 14 or 22 kill one of them on Sundays 71 remove alternate buses Hook- Chessington K2 remove hospital extension fro Eden Street evenings as it parallels many other routes. The few people that go to the Hospital in evenings inevitably drive so this is just carrying around fresh air 371 remove Richmond bus station-Manor Circus section, causes too much delay and tube passengers often walk from the stop by Waitrose rather than go around the one way system so doesn't need to do this heavily bused section. 65 and 71 overlap should be removed from 20:30 to 06:30 rather than just middle of night by making it 65 only for longer hours. The concept is used now just amend operating hours. I must agree for the most part, but the 71 is very much needed in Copt Gilders area as the only other bus link is an hourly service to epsom
|
|
|
Post by Nathan on Jan 5, 2014 0:33:20 GMT
Hmm...maybe you could extend the 1 from Canada Water to Deptford Bridge via Pepys Estate then via the 47 route. Or if it's too far it can turn at the roundabout at Deptford Chruch Street. But it might as well go the whole way to Deptford Bridge. I agree. I have recommended this before but there is no stand space available for route 1 at Deptford Bridge. But it would be useful as route 1 is a short route and it could relieve overcrowding on 47 and 188 and also serve Pepys Estate along with it's night predecessor, N1. Maybe it could be extended further to Lewisham Station via the 47 route. Then that way it can turn at the round about and park on Jerrard Street (where the bendy buses for the 453 used to park). Although that might be a little bit too far. Plus I don't think the stand for on Jerrard Street is even there anymore. Alternatively it could be extended to Lewisham Shopping Centre (more people would use the extention that way).
|
|
|
Post by Ice Prxnce on Jan 5, 2014 0:37:18 GMT
I agree. I have recommended this before but there is no stand space available for route 1 at Deptford Bridge. But it would be useful as route 1 is a short route and it could relieve overcrowding on 47 and 188 and also serve Pepys Estate along with it's night predecessor, N1. Maybe it could be extended further to Lewisham Station via the 47 route. Then that way it can turn at the round about and park on Jerrard Street (where the bendy buses for the 453 used to park). Although that might be a little bit too far. Plus I don't think the stand for on Jerrard Street is even there anymore. Alternatively it could be extended to Lewisham Shopping Centre (more people would use the extention that way). I think it would be better if the 453 was extended to Lewisham, Jerrard Street or Lewisham Station which could provide a link between Lewisham and Elephant & Castle and then route 1 could take route 453's place at Deptford Bridge. I like your idea though.
|
|
|
Post by Nathan on Jan 5, 2014 0:44:50 GMT
Maybe it could be extended further to Lewisham Station via the 47 route. Then that way it can turn at the round about and park on Jerrard Street (where the bendy buses for the 453 used to park). Although that might be a little bit too far. Plus I don't think the stand for on Jerrard Street is even there anymore. Alternatively it could be extended to Lewisham Shopping Centre (more people would use the extention that way). I think it would be better if the 453 was extended to Lewisham, Jerrard Street or Lewisham Station which could provide a link between Lewisham and Elephant & Castle and then route 1 could take route 453's place at Deptford Bridge. I like your idea though. Thanks. I like that idea too. But aren't people better off getting 1 of 4 buses (21, 136, 321, 136) that go to New Cross, then get either a 53, 172, or 453 to Elephant from there? Or people can even get a 225 to New Cross Road and get a 53 or 453 from there
|
|
|
Post by Hassaan on Jan 5, 2014 1:40:57 GMT
Continuing on the tangent for a while, I always thought the 432 should be extended to Victoria allowing the 2 to be reduced for the quieter section north of Victoria. My suggestion would be to run both routes at 6 bph, which would give the busiest Brixton - Victoria section an extra 4 bph but would mean W Norwood - Brixton loses 1 bph. The other place that on the surface seem overbussed is Ealing - Greenford with god knows how many E-routes. I'd have thought at least one of them could be 'rationalised away' ... I was about to suggest one of the E-routes but I forgot earlier . I'm tempted to remove the E9 completely as the E2 is more than enough between Ealing and Greenford. Does mean that serving Barnhill Estate in Yeading becomes awkward, although E1 is short so could be extended there if absolutely necessary.
|
|
|
Post by marlon101 on Jan 5, 2014 10:37:38 GMT
One route you'd scrap altogether without replacement.Hmm... hard one One route where you'd reduce early morning and evening services. Please say how much you'd reduce services by. You can, if you wish, scrap service at these times completely.25, make have a service relative to demand, I hardly doubt that a night bus running every 8 minutes on an Tuesday night is going to be overcrowded (say apart from major events, e.g. the Olympics). So the Sun-Thurs night service down to every 12-15 minutes. One route where you'd reduce peak hour services. Please say how much you'd reduce services by.25. Reduce it to a uniform service about every 6-7 minutes between Oxford Circus and Ilford (or Stratford, see below). One route where you'd scrap a section of route. Please say which section you'd scrap.25 Stratford-Ilford, and replace it with more buses on the 86 (although that route already has a high PVR) Maybe an extended 425 to Ilford with a higher frequency (every 6-8 mins Mon-Sat, 10 mins Sun) could be a viable replacement. One route where you'd scrap Sunday services.Dunno, also a hard one. I can confirm that the 25 of a night time is a rather well used bus! Even on a Tuesday!
|
|
|
Post by romfordbuses on Jan 5, 2014 11:00:19 GMT
It is silliness to suggest the 25 needs cuts - If anything, It could do with more buses!
|
|
|
Post by Green Kitten on Jan 5, 2014 11:15:39 GMT
The W7 seems to have a lot of buses. I think reducing the PVR from 15 to 12 would be alright. I went on the W7 at peak time and it wasn't that busy. Maybe I was just lucky.
Scrap the 452 between Kensal Rise and Ladbroke Grove - you could then extend it to somewhere more useful in the South.
Don't really know about the other two.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2014 11:18:42 GMT
Extend route 430 to New Malden but I would agree on withdrawning 452 But I think 53 should still go to Whitehall that means people maybe in Woolwich won't have a link to Central London Why reduce the route 414 it can help the route 14 because it can get packed somtimes between Hyde Park and Putney Bridge I think that the 53 should be cut back too. The 453 is MORE than enough capable. Generally, the 453 never gets overly crowded. There are even some buses during the peak time that are only moderately populated. And the same goes for the 53. The 53 is only needed between Elephant and Woolwich.[/ quote] You are joking? It's not uncommon for a 53 to pick up a near full load at its first stop in Whirehall whilst the 453s are often full or not far off it. I think the 453 should swap southern termini with the 21 thus giving Lewisham a direct link to the Elephant and West End.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2014 11:43:54 GMT
The H14 is another infrequent route, and what about the people who live near the top of Uxbridge Road. Cutting the 2 routes would create more of a problem than a solution. Cutting the 140 is another idea that shouldn't be thought of, it is the only direct link from Northolt to that side of Harrow and widely used by school children and people going to work. One suggestion I'd have is to run the route via Belsize road down to Oxhey Lane, a practise they so often. What id instead do is decrease the running time between South Harrow and Harrow Weald to make for more effective running. I'd suggest decreasing the PVR from the 24 to 20 and using 4 vehicles on a half hourly express 140 running from Harrow Bus Station to Heathrow calling at South Harrow Station, Northolt Station, Hayes & Harlington Station and Heathrow Airport Central Bus Station. What about Withdrawing the 140 between Harrow and Harrow Weald and extending the 340 to Northolt. What would be the point as it would have to miss out the station to enter the bus stand?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2014 12:53:44 GMT
I might scrap the 549, as it often only carries a small handful of people, especially on the northern section. TfL must be losing money with that route. However, there are elderly people who rely on it. I am surprised TfL have kept the northern part of the route, especially as it doesn't carry many people and is in Essex.
I think the 20 could have its frequency reduced to every 20 minutes. The only time the service is busy is during the school rush, and the rest of the day doesn't usually carry a high amount. The 167 on the other hand could probably do with the 20's 15-min frequency, instead of 20-min. Another problem in the Loughton area is lack of coordination between buses. You often see the 20, 167 and 397 bunching, or at least small gaps between each bus. This is particularly annoying on Sundays when each route runs every 30 minutes.
|
|
|
Post by sw11simon on Jan 5, 2014 17:39:51 GMT
I think that the 53 should be cut back too. The 453 is MORE than enough capable. Generally, the 453 never gets overly crowded. There are even some buses during the peak time that are only moderately populated. And the same goes for the 53. The 53 is only needed between Elephant and Woolwich.[/ quote] You are joking? It's not uncommon for a 53 to pick up a near full load at its first stop in Whirehall whilst the 453s are often full or not far off it. I think the 453 should swap southern termini with the 21 thus giving Lewisham a direct link to the Elephant and West End. You have to analyse the 53 a little bit more than to just make that statement. Yes, it can pick up a big load in Whitehall. But it never drops off a big load in Whitehall. As a previous regular driver of routes 12 and 453 I can make an observation that whenever I pulled up behind a 53 at its last stop 3-5 people would get off and of those 2-4 would run to get on my bus. To me this shows people are changing buses at the current best point to board... Elephant northbound, and Whitehall southbound. Cutting the bus back to Elephant would mainly make those people change there instead. It would be supported by routes 12 and 453. I really don't think bus loads of people suddenly appear in Whitehall from the surrounding streets to get to Woolwich and Plumstead etc. They are changing from other buses. So in the way of things, and answering the specific question asked in this thread, that northern section of route 53 could be withdrawn without a MAJOR effect on people's travel patterns in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Jan 5, 2014 17:47:58 GMT
Extend route 430 to New Malden but I would agree on withdrawning 452 But I think 53 should still go to Whitehall that means people maybe in Woolwich won't have a link to Central London Why reduce the route 414 it can help the route 14 because it can get packed somtimes between Hyde Park and Putney Bridge I think that the 53 should be cut back too. The 453 is MORE than enough capable. Generally, the 453 never gets overly crowded. There are even some buses during the peak time that are only moderately populated. And the same goes for the 53. The 53 is only needed between Elephant and Woolwich. I've already stated my position on the Central London section of the 53 (ie it should still go to Whitehall), so I won't cover that again, but am I to assume from your post, Nathan, that you'd do away with the 53's Plumstead Common section without replacement, too? If so, the poor, poor old route 51...
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Jan 5, 2014 18:11:05 GMT
The 53 is the second busiest bus route serving South East London behind the 12. For a service without a substantial Central London section, that's pretty good going. I sometimes get the feeling that some of the fraternity have a problem with it turning at Whitehall because it's not a traditional terminus. I've had cause to use it on Sundays for the last few weeks and I was amazed how full it was just by the time it reached the end of Whitehall, with standing loads at least as far as Blackheath. The evidence I'm hearing and seeing (which is entirely anecdotal of course) suggests that the problem, if there is one, is with the 453 and that the 53 needs to penetrate further into the West End. So entirely off the top of my head (and perhaps more suitably for another thread), here's a quick idea for restructuring over the 53/453 corridor.
53 Extended Whitehall to Oxford Circus via 12. Withdrawn Woolwich Arsenal Station to Plumstead. Increased service. 54 Extended Woolwich to Plumstead via 53. 453 Withdrawn
13 Extended from Aldwych via 139 to Waterloo 139 Rerouted between Rossmore Road and Oxford Circus via Lisson Grove, Marylebone Station and 453. Withdrawn Trafalgar Square to Waterloo and diverted to Elephant via 12.
This would have the added bonus of taking a route out of Oxford Street.
|
|