|
Post by routew15 on Nov 3, 2015 21:53:36 GMT
Seems like a sound idea, though it seems a shame they're not taking the opportunity to send a service round by the Brunswick Centre and also get buses a bit closer to Great Ormond Street. Admittedly it would probably mean the 10 no longer serving Euston either, but then the 73 and 390 should be able to cope. Moz The 10 will continue to serve Euston, in a similar way the 168 does.I think you mean the 59. The 168 goes past the bus station in both directions on Eversholt Street.
|
|
|
Post by thesquirrels on Nov 3, 2015 21:56:55 GMT
Seems like a sound idea, though it seems a shame they're not taking the opportunity to send a service round by the Brunswick Centre and also get buses a bit closer to Great Ormond Street. Admittedly it would probably mean the 10 no longer serving Euston either, but then the 73 and 390 should be able to cope. Moz The 10 will continue to serve Euston, in a similar way the 168 does. I think that is implicit, his argument is that if the route were altered to run via the Brunswick Centre and e.g. Guilford Street (for access to GOSH) then that wouldn't be possible. My office is just off Guilford St and I think there is a very strong case for a bus service along there but IMO that part of the world is really short/middle-ish length single deck territory, and rather than hook it into a major railhead like KX/Euston I'd probably run it up to the Angel via Amwell Street - another route giving access to Westminster Kingsway College (a short walk up Grays Inn Rd from Guilford St), the local children's facilities at Corams Fields and the Eastman Dental Hospital would probably be useful as well as the GOSH link - all are well enough served on a N/S axis, but less so E/W, which this could provide. But that is for a different thread..
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 3, 2015 22:06:04 GMT
The 10 will continue to serve Euston, in a similar way the 168 does. I think that is implicit, his argument is that if the route were altered to run via the Brunswick Centre and e.g. Guilford Street (for access to GOSH) then that wouldn't be possible. My office is just off Guilford St and I think there is a very strong case for a bus service along there but IMO that part of the world is really short/middle-ish length single deck territory, and rather than hook it into a major railhead like KX/Euston I'd probably run it up to the Angel via Amwell Street - another route giving access to Westminster Kingsway College (a short walk up Grays Inn Rd from Guilford St), the local children's facilities at Corams Fields and the Eastman Dental Hospital would probably be useful as well as the GOSH link - all are well enough served on a N/S axis, but less so E/W, which this could provide. But that is for a different thread.. The 394 seems like a good candidate - it finishes at Angel, uses short buses and doesn't seem to the be longest route out there?
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 3, 2015 22:16:46 GMT
I think that is implicit, his argument is that if the route were altered to run via the Brunswick Centre and e.g. Guilford Street (for access to GOSH) then that wouldn't be possible. My office is just off Guilford St and I think there is a very strong case for a bus service along there but IMO that part of the world is really short/middle-ish length single deck territory, and rather than hook it into a major railhead like KX/Euston I'd probably run it up to the Angel via Amwell Street - another route giving access to Westminster Kingsway College (a short walk up Grays Inn Rd from Guilford St), the local children's facilities at Corams Fields and the Eastman Dental Hospital would probably be useful as well as the GOSH link - all are well enough served on a N/S axis, but less so E/W, which this could provide. But that is for a different thread.. The 394 seems like a good candidate - it finishes at Angel, uses short buses and doesn't seem to the be longest route out there? True but can be unreliable and is very overloaded a lot of the time. I suspect linking it to several more medical facilities might be more than it can cope with. The 274 might also be suitable but probably too frequent and too long. The other funny possibility, although not a TfL service, is the 812 Islington local service. I have my doubts as to how long Islington can keep that service funded given all Inner London authorities face massive cuts and it was imperiled a few years ago. If it became a TfL service with small LFSDs it could be wiggled through to Russell Square but the route would be very involved. It would also need to run for longer hours but I don't know how practical that is in terms of parked cars on the side roads.
|
|
|
Post by thesquirrels on Nov 3, 2015 22:25:47 GMT
I think that is implicit, his argument is that if the route were altered to run via the Brunswick Centre and e.g. Guilford Street (for access to GOSH) then that wouldn't be possible. My office is just off Guilford St and I think there is a very strong case for a bus service along there but IMO that part of the world is really short/middle-ish length single deck territory, and rather than hook it into a major railhead like KX/Euston I'd probably run it up to the Angel via Amwell Street - another route giving access to Westminster Kingsway College (a short walk up Grays Inn Rd from Guilford St), the local children's facilities at Corams Fields and the Eastman Dental Hospital would probably be useful as well as the GOSH link - all are well enough served on a N/S axis, but less so E/W, which this could provide. But that is for a different thread.. The 394 seems like a good candidate - it finishes at Angel, uses short buses and doesn't seem to the be longest route out there? I can't think of anything better. You could extend the route to Russell Square (my preference to keep it out of the worst of the Z1 quagmire, at least for now) with three buses, I think those links to the east would be the most useful. No doubt a direct link from Hoxton and Shoreditch to the UoL area would be used too as there are no small number of student halls around there now. I had another idea to co-opt the 812 (nods to the 394s van-fronted origins here) but possibly too messy.
|
|
|
Post by thesquirrels on Nov 3, 2015 22:27:29 GMT
The 394 seems like a good candidate - it finishes at Angel, uses short buses and doesn't seem to the be longest route out there? True but can be unreliable and is very overloaded a lot of the time. I suspect linking it to several more medical facilities might be more than it can cope with. The 274 might also be suitable but probably too frequent and too long. The other funny possibility, although not a TfL service, is the 812 Islington local service. I have my doubts as to how long Islington can keep that service funded given all Inner London authorities face massive cuts and it was imperiled a few years ago. If it became a TfL service with small LFSDs it could be wiggled through to Russell Square but the route would be very involved. It would also need to run for longer hours but I don't know how practical that is in terms of parked cars on the side roads. Ah, I spent so long tweaking my reply I missed this. I've seen quite a bit of bunching on the 394, especially of late, suggesting that running it is giving CT Plus a headache. I blame all those right turns..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2015 8:56:34 GMT
A good proposal this..
|
|
|
Post by marlon101 on Nov 4, 2015 18:52:02 GMT
The 7 was also extremely lightly used East of Marble Arch - I never found the Oxford Street to Russell Square section heavily used. From what I've seen the 7 is as busy as other routes along Oxford Street Aye, but my experiences of riding it quite regularly a few years back only seemed to suggest people were hopping on and off between the British Museum and different points along Oxford Street - nobody ever seemed to be getting on and staying on it for the duration. As long as something runs along Oxford Street, you're going to get the lazy & tourists nipping on it, regardless of its Eastern and Western termini.
|
|
|
Post by T.R. on Nov 4, 2015 18:59:10 GMT
Interesting proposal. Unsurprised with the 7 cutback, but I would have thought the 390 would be a better route to reroute.
Could this mean the 10 will run via Euston bus station in both directions (like the 59)?
|
|
|
Post by ilovelondonbuses on Nov 4, 2015 19:14:05 GMT
I support the proposal as well. Very smart and resourceful. Cuts down the cost of running those central routes at a margin but still retaining existing links. Route 10 will even more of a touristy routes along the hotels in the RusselL Square area. I hope the proposals go ahead.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 4, 2015 20:30:10 GMT
Interesting proposal. Unsurprised with the 7 cutback, but I would have thought the 390 would be a better route to reroute. Could this mean the 10 will run via Euston bus station in both directions (like the 59)? The diagram shows that the 10 will do the same as the 91 - via Euston on n/b trips, direct turn into Upper Woburn Place on s/b trips. I suspect the 10 is easier to reroute because its terminal is at KX hence few through journeys will be broken whereas far more would be broken if you rerouted the 390 which has significant sections either side of Gower St / Tottenham Court Road. TfL business case methodology strikes again. I bet, though, there are people who work at UCH or UCL who travel from West Ken and Hammersmith who won't be best pleased although bits of UCL are accessible from the Russell Square side.
|
|
|
Post by routew15 on Nov 4, 2015 20:36:15 GMT
Interesting proposal. Unsurprised with the 7 cutback, but I would have thought the 390 would be a better route to reroute. Could this mean the 10 will run via Euston bus station in both directions (like the 59)? When I initially saw these proposals, I too thought the 390 would be a better choice. However the 390 is quite well used along Oxford street. In my eyes the 10 could be seen as one of the less busier Oxford Street route East of Great Titchfield Street, therefore making it a better choice in my eyes. Also I think passengers will have a better chance getting onto a 390 than a 73 once the 10 goes to Russell Square. If the 10 serves Euston Bus Station in both directions that won't help the peak bus queues that already occur. However seeing as though the 91 doesn't serve the bus station in both directions, I don't see why the 10 should. (less busier - just from my observations)
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Nov 5, 2015 13:04:31 GMT
I think we all knew the 7's permanent curtailment to Oxford Circus was coming, but this isn't a justified excuse to "help improve reliability by shortening the route". The route was fairly short anyway and hardly had reliability issues so I find this point invalid, whereas if TFL stated that they want to reduce buses along New Oxford Street than that would make sense because let's face it, this seems like the real reason. Regardless, it's a good proposal nonetheless.
The 10 is a logical choice to reroute via Russell Square, linking a wealth of tourist attractions including The British Museum, Royal Albert Hall, Olympia and not too far from the Science/Natural History/V&A museums, although this modification would make the route slightly busier than usual so the frequency should be increased to x7-9 mins. However it's debatable as to which is the best choice between the 10 and 390, the 10 loads quite well at Euston Square Station and along Gower Street in the peaks heading towards Knightsbridge/High St Ken/Hammersmith and supplements the 73 additionally to and from Hyde Park Corner and Park Lane. Then again the 390 is the slightly busier route (but not entirely) between Kings Cross and Marble Arch as it arguably provides more exclusive links at both ends of the common section, it also has a higher frequency than the 10 providing better assistance to the 73. I personally agree with rerouting the 10 instead of the 390. I'm also glad the 98 is returning back to Holborn as it has always been a useful and popular terminus.
|
|
linus
Driver
If it ain't broke, fix it till it is.
Posts: 263
|
Post by linus on Nov 6, 2015 18:12:53 GMT
I applaud the 98's return to Holborn as I will actually use it to Kilburn if it gets VWHs instead of the bone-shaking VPs. However, at the moment Procter Street is chocabloc with 242s and the occasional 8 and 25, so no space for terminating 98s. Is the 242 reverting to TCH anytime soon?
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 6, 2015 18:26:38 GMT
I applaud the 98's return to Holborn as I will actually use it to Kilburn if it gets VWHs instead of the bone-shaking VPs. However, at the moment Procter Street is chocabloc with 242s and the occasional 8 and 25, so no space for terminating 98s. Is the 242 reverting to TCH anytime soon? I suspect TCR will start to return to normal fairly soon. Access to the Central Line returns in December and I expect the extra entrances beside Centrepoint will also open relatively soon. For that to happen then some of the road network will also need to start being reinstated more permanently. The only complication will be the works to change TCR to 2 way operation which will screw up bus services in the area for yet more months and months. The consultation says TfL want to make the changes to the 7 and 10 with the 98 reverting in Feb 2016. I suspect Feb 2016 may well align with various work milestones on the station works and Camden's highway works. The consultation has been changed today to make it clear the 98 isn't changing, merely reverting to its long time terminus at Holborn.
|
|