|
Post by snowman on Sept 30, 2016 11:15:31 GMT
Another consultation, affecting routes 100 and 388 consultations.tfl.gov.uk/buses/routes-100-and-388Having considered the usage patterns for the two routes, we are proposing to extend route 388 to Elephant & Castle using the current route 100 routeing from Wormwood Street (via London Wall, St Paul’s, and Blackfriars Bridge). Under this proposal, the route would no longer serve Bishopsgate (south of Wormwood Street), Threadneedle Street and the eastern end of Queen Victoria Street. Looks like the 100 is effectively being cut back to London Wall, as it uses single decks due to restricted streets in Wapping, and the part that's East of the City is the busy part. Presumably having a shorter route will mean less electric buses when that change happens in 2019 or 2020 as part of all single decks in Central London going electric.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Sept 30, 2016 12:03:26 GMT
This one looks a bit less contentious but am surprised with the decision to reroute the 388 away from Bank although it does give more of an overlap with the 100. Seems TfL have decided that providing convenient interchange at Liverpool St station is a thing of the past with the retention of the 100 on London Wall.
I am surprised the proposal to curtail route 242 at St Pauls is not part of this package. I'd have expected it to be included somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Sept 30, 2016 12:20:42 GMT
This one looks a bit less contentious but am surprised with the decision to reroute the 388 away from Bank although it does give more of an overlap with the 100. Seems TfL have decided that providing convenient interchange at Liverpool St station is a thing of the past with the retention of the 100 on London Wall. I am surprised the proposal to curtail route 242 at St Pauls is not part of this package. I'd have expected it to be included somewhere. Reading it in conjunction with the Liverpool Street consultation (other benefits of 42 and 78 change section) gives a clue as the withdrawal away from Bank as that says "Removal of a high frequency bus route from Bank junction. This supports a City of London ambition to reduce traffic levels at this congestion hotspot which could help to improve the pedestrian environment" So looks like this is a start at hacking the duplicated sections in the City with aim of having fewer buses. Simply : It appears if it isn't full, its ripe for consolidation. I start to detect couple of themes, look for routes where one end is busy then swap quiet section with low frequency or single deck route; and use Elizabeth Line as expected reason to cull services. Off Topic : I could easily see all those single deck routes that cross Richmond bridge get consolidated, especially as R68 and R70 are up for Tender, and bridge is now upgraded to 18t limit. There are other areas with similar multiple smaller buses that are probably on the hit list
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Sept 30, 2016 12:45:18 GMT
Reading it in conjunction with the Liverpool Street consultation (other benefits of 42 and 78 change section) gives a clue as the withdrawal away from Bank as that says "Removal of a high frequency bus route from Bank junction. This supports a City of London ambition to reduce traffic levels at this congestion hotspot which could help to improve the pedestrian environment" So looks like this is a start at hacking the duplicated sections in the City with aim of having fewer buses. Simply : It appears if it isn't full, its ripe for consolidation. I start to detect couple of themes, look for routes where one end is busy then swap quiet section with low frequency or single deck route; and use Elizabeth Line as expected reason to cull services. Off Topic : I could easily see all those single deck routes that cross Richmond bridge get consolidated, especially as R68 and R70 are up for Tender, and bridge is now upgraded to 18t limit. There are other areas with similar multiple smaller buses that are probably on the hit list I don't disagree with your logic. Obviously taking routes out of Bank is to aid the huge reconstruction of that junction and to isolate some routes from the inevitable huge delays when the work starts. The problem with singling out routes that are "not full" is that you remove flexibility in the network. There's no proposal to increase capacity on route 11 and AIUI buses leave Liv St in the peaks completely full. So does the 23. Where do those passengers go? I doubt the 26 can take up all the slack. It's even worse when there is a tube strike. Now I understand TfL don't deliberately plan the bus network for "tube strike contingency" but they are going to be severely criticised if the bus network is simply incapable of taking up any excess demand if the tube is disrupted or there is a strike. If there is a problem on route 11, not exactly unknown!, then what do people do? Just walk or wait for an hour for a full bus to drive past? It's ridiculous. If TfL start thinking about thinning out overlapping single deck routes they may find themselves in trouble. I suspect part of the reason bus usage is fairly bouyant in places like Richmond is because buses are very frequent on common sections. Start taking that away and meaning people have longer waits and more overcrowded buses, even if DDs, then you lose passengers. I'm beginning to wonder whether, to misquote the Fun Boy 3, "the lunatics have taken over Palestra".
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Sept 30, 2016 13:18:40 GMT
So the time has come to make the 388 useful south of the City! It's nice to see Stratford have another link to SE London although TfL talking about a new link from E&C to Shoreditch for passengers to use is ludicrous as the 388 will start service to Stratford City facing south though obviously use for the trendy hotspot will be along Blackfriars Road. The 100 being cut back to London Wall is a mistake in my mind; savvy City users of the route use the 100 to avoid Bank congestion (though is lobbed with Liverpool St/St Botolph Street traffic regularly) so users will benefit from the 100 at least still retaining that St Paul's-Aldgate link. But as snoggle has eluded to; the 242 if (when) it's cut back to St Paul's will use the current 172 stand and a new one erected for the 172. It seems that other buses (like the 25) could also be curtailed in that area if TfL are hesitant to send a 9.6m bus to stand there...yeah, like St Paul's is the Elephant & Castle of stands!!
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Sept 30, 2016 13:56:39 GMT
It could even get electric buses sooner as alot of the R routes are rewarded at TBC so could use the current buses from the 100.
|
|
|
Post by Unorm on Sept 30, 2016 14:23:17 GMT
I wonder how busy 388 will be, at least it would be far more popular than it is now with routes 35/40/133 taking a congested way to City of London though 388 will also face problems of it's own and will link South, City, Bethnal Green, Cambridge Heath and Hackney Wick (though 276/339 goes nearby) with Westfield. A dream link come true. As 100 is being shortened from the City end it's probably wise to extend it East to places like Canary Wharf and/or Canning Town to link them with City though I understand having less electrics is better than more. Not a bad consultation in my opinion though 100 would be rendered as airy as 388.
|
|
|
Post by routew15 on Sept 30, 2016 15:54:13 GMT
I will definitely be using this opportunity to suggest the extension of the 100 to Russell Square! the curtailment of the route to St Paul's is wasted opportunity I think.
The diversion of the 388 is a smart move as it allows a reduction in buses along the narrow Threadneedle Street and through the busy Bank junction. All the above positives whilst still allowing a decent overlap of the 100 and 388.
My only niggle (very minor) is the over-bussing of London Wall which will have almost double the amount of buses along it.
ADDITION Anoher problem that should not be overlooked is he trouble Cassland Road et al can cause for the 388 this may make the route very difficult to operate and I hope that get sorted before these changes are made.
|
|
|
Post by Nathan on Sept 30, 2016 16:25:43 GMT
When is the 388 due to be retendered anyway?
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Sept 30, 2016 16:29:53 GMT
When is the 388 due to be retendered anyway? It just did, result got announced at the end of July. Retained by CT Plus with brand new Hybrid Deckers.
|
|
|
Post by Nathan on Sept 30, 2016 16:34:20 GMT
When is the 388 due to be retendered anyway? It just did, result got announced at the end of July. Retained by CT Plus with brand new Hybrid Deckers. Oh yeah, I remember now. Looks like CT Plus may have to bump up the order then
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2016 22:36:28 GMT
While it's good that the 388 will become a bit useful by going to the Elephant, I wonder what the rationale is for the 100 terminating at the museum? Is the roundabout the easy turn justification? I thought they could've done something better there, I just can't see it being well used.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2016 22:40:53 GMT
Off Topic : I could easily see all those single deck routes that cross Richmond bridge get consolidated, especially as R68 and R70 are up for Tender, and bridge is now upgraded to 18t limit. There are other areas with similar multiple smaller buses that are probably on the hit list Yes I would think so but not only smaller buses IMO
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2016 23:30:26 GMT
Assuming that the 46 is going to be hacked to bits because of Crossrail, wouldn't it be sensible to send the 100 up to St Barts as it would give the 100 passengers the option of changing over to other buses? London Wall is such an odd place to terminate ..can imagine the buses running empty after Liverpool Street :/
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Oct 2, 2016 6:20:40 GMT
While it's good that the 388 will become a bit useful by going to the Elephant, I wonder what the rationale is for the 100 terminating at the museum? Is the roundabout the easy turn justification? I thought they could've done something better there, I just can't see it being well used. Tend to agree that the Museum of London is just easy place to turn. Didn't really need to add London Wall section, but I assume no room in the Liverpool Street, Moorgate area (until Crossrail contractors move out), after which they can cut it back further. If you look at the plan/map on the gallery of this link, there is clearly a bus roadway in Liverpool Street passing Hope Square. 100 could use this and stand in Liverpool Street, could even add electric bus charging to stands. www.crossrail.co.uk/route/property-developments-and-urban-realm/urban-realm-proposals/city-of-london#Liverpool-street-east
|
|