|
Post by ThinLizzy on Nov 25, 2016 16:46:46 GMT
23 gets the shove out of Central London, never expected TfL would lash it out, even for a well known historical route The 23 as it is today is hardly historic - it was only introduced in 1992! The 23 for me is Becotree Heath to somewhere out Central, I was about 5 when it was withdrawn! All in all, there's a few plans that could raise a few eye-brows, particualrly the 23 proposals but not as bad as they could have been- I was expecting the 25 to be cut back to Stratford and the 23 to be completely cut
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2016 18:07:16 GMT
Pvr reductions then on the C2,23,25,46,73,137. I can only see a possible slight increase on the 3 & maybe the 390 by one or two. Some Arriva based LT's will be redundant.
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Nov 25, 2016 19:11:46 GMT
I rather like the changes to the 3 and 6 as they open up some new options.
I can see why diverting the 22 to replace part of the C2 appealed although I'm not sure it fits the bill. I had wondered whether the 22 had been pencilled in to replace the 9 between Green Park and Aldwych with the 10 running via Shaftesbury Avenue and Piccadilly post-pedestrianisation - obviously that is not the case.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2016 19:21:50 GMT
Interesting to see how TfL plan things here... 23 to Wembley looks a bit strange considering the TfL push to get people onto trains in the Finchley Road corridor (I know they're not putting it on FRD but it goes near enough Baker Street)
Not sure I understand either why the 30 can't remain at Marble Arch. I thought in the Baker Street two way consultation the plan was it would still go there?
|
|
|
Post by sw11simon on Nov 25, 2016 19:23:59 GMT
To be fair the N2 is duplicated by the N136 for some distance. People going from Trafalgar Square/Whitehall to Victora, Vauxhall, Stockwell, Brixton or Crystal Palace have other options so I won't protest too much about this one. That said, I don't see any point in rerouting it to Marylebone - between the 36 and 453, people heading south already have provisions. If the resources are there to extend the route, I'd sooner see a night service introduced to Croydon via Norwood Junction, which would benefit more people. I can see the case for withdrawing the Trafalgar Square section which seems poorly used but it may as well be curtailed at Victoria, alternatively just merge the 2 and 82 into one route at night, but as you say an extension to Croydon via Norwood Junction would be far more useful. You reminded me of when I first moved to London there, and the N2 used to go into north London - Hampstead Heath to be precise. It used to turn into Pimlico Road and pick the 24 route up from there. I'm going back to mid-90's here... it curtailed to Trafalgar Square in 1999. Interestingly It has run to North Finchley before, going back before my time, although that was via Camden Town, Archway and Muswell Hill as opposed to the 82 (or original 2.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2016 19:27:57 GMT
TfL must be satisfied the Marble Arch - Notting Hill Gate is covered sufficiently by the 94 & 148. I think I agree there, but will be interesting when carnival comes to town ! Like the 23 idea. Actually I can't see any major problem, I was expecting far worse to be honest. I agree with your points. It could yet get worse though, those proposals are for 2017, isn't pedestrianisation for 2018 [edit plus Crossrail?] Seems like this is TfL's experiment to me, with more to come
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Nov 25, 2016 19:43:53 GMT
TfL must be satisfied the Marble Arch - Notting Hill Gate is covered sufficiently by the 94 & 148. I think I agree there, but will be interesting when carnival comes to town ! Like the 23 idea. Actually I can't see any major problem, I was expecting far worse to be honest. I agree with your points. It could yet get worse though, those proposals are for 2017, isn't pedestrianisation for 2018 [edit plus Crossrail?] Seems like this is TfL's experiment to me, with more to come Don't think it's so much an experiment but more to save quite so much upheaval when Oxford Street begins pedestrianisation. I'm actually quite pleasantly surprised with these proposals. Like others here, I'm a little concerned by the reduction in buses in and around Victoria, and I'm sure something could now be found to do away with the rest of the C2, but I like the 3, 6 and 172 proposals, and some of the other cutbacks (e.g. 15) are probably sensible given current policy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2016 19:56:36 GMT
I agree with your points. It could yet get worse though, those proposals are for 2017, isn't pedestrianisation for 2018 [edit plus Crossrail?] Seems like this is TfL's experiment to me, with more to come Don't think it's so much an experiment but more to save quite so much upheaval when Oxford Street begins pedestrianisation. I'm actually quite pleasantly surprised with these proposals. Like others here, I'm a little concerned by the reduction in buses in and around Victoria, and I'm sure something could now be found to do away with the rest of the C2, but I like the 3, 6 and 172 proposals, and some of the other cutbacks (e.g. 15) are probably sensible given current policy. I think the upheaval and experiment are two factors that apply here so I would agree with that. The thing for me is that the 6 is the first route to directly connect 'around the corner' between Park Lane and Green Park. I think TfL could and will use more routes to provide this run when Ox is fully pedestrianised, unless there is a major u-turn on these plans. I'm still not convinced of the future of the 14 because of this, and the 94 when pedestrianisation kicks in (I can see the 23, 332 or even 30 replacing it to the west although I note the 30 is getting cut to Portman Square as part of this consultation). Of course they could do a '23' with the 94! Happy to be proved wrong!!!
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 25, 2016 20:41:40 GMT
Have to say overall they aren't as bad as I feared: Section 13/N3 - whilst it's nice that Brixton will soon have a direct link to Tottenham Court Road (could be quite useful), the link to Russell Square via Great Russell Street seems like they were scratching around for stand space as do you really need the 3 & 10 along that section especially as the 91 already links Trafalgar Square & Russell Square together. Also, the Tottenham Court Road end of Charing Cross Road attracts heavy traffic so reliability of the 3 may come into question - I'm still 50/50 on that. The 159 has enough spare capacity to cope with the 3 diverting elsewhere at Trafalgar Square so that part of the idea shouldn't be problematic. I do think though the N3 should still serve Oxford Circus & Piccadilly Circus. 137 - one of two changes I've correctly predicted which I'm surprised about. Cutting back to Marble Arch is fairly sensible and there is plenty of stand space along Park Lane & Cumbernauld Gate to utilise - just a shame that it might not still be able to release an extension southwards towards Upper Norwood not to mention the stand at Crown Point being unable to cope with such a high frequency route Section 26 - the second change I correctly predicted. Makes sense to keep at least one through route when Oxford Street inevitably shuts to traffic for good and running via Piccadilly is the easiest option 15/N15 - doesn't surprise me to see it's staying at Trafalgar Square permanently but otherwise, nothing to say on that change Section 38 - like the 15/N15 idea, doesn't surprise me and nothing further to add 172 - though I hear what Nathan says and it's a good point, I like the idea of it serving Farringdon rather than St. Paul's but I'd rather it get extended southwards to Lower Sydenham instead. Wonder where it will stand at Farringdon? 242 - no idea if this is good or not Section 422/N22 - hmm, I'm not sure on this one. Whilst the 22 certainly has scope to extend, does it really need to run to Oxford Circus in place of the C2 especially when the C2 runs via the back streets & Conduit Street which allows it to bypass most traffic C2 - don't agree with cutting it back as I think it was fine as it currently is and as mentioned above, bypasses most of the traffic by running via the back roads - they might as well of not bothered extending it in place of the 8 to Victoria! That said, it will still be a useful link (the route is still a busy one Connor so it's certainly not useless) Section 523 - the worst change by far. Now I think people could accept a cutback between Liverpool Street & Aldwych but I think they are having a laugh here by hacking the route to pieces. The only consolation is the new form of the route though this could of been achieved with a different number 46 - I actually think this is sensible as it's a very long route and a small trim like this may help improve reliability - I've also never noticed it to be busy at the Lancaster Gate end 332 - no idea if this is good or not 452 - interesting change, haven't decided if I'm in favour or not. The stand at Kensal Rise should become less congested as a result and at least a service linking the Sainsburys is retained on Kensal Road, Golborne Road & Elkstone Road Section 625 - surprised that it's remaining in it's current form but not surprised at the frequency decrease - every 7 minutes sounds fair enough 425 - I like this as it gives the much needed support to the 25 & 86 east of Stratford Section 773 - Another that makes sense alongside the 390 - I think I suggested sending it via Piccadilly myself but can't quite remember 390 - Same as above Section 8N2 - I don't agree with this - as sid says, it's just standardisation for the sake of it and instead, it would be better off being curtailed to Victoria and, as 6HP502C and myself have suggested before, extended to Croydon via Norwood Junction to re-establish a night link to Norwood Junction as well as providing one between Croydon & Crystal Palace Just my thoughts
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Nov 25, 2016 21:21:30 GMT
As an east Londoner; I feel really glad that no drsastic changes were made to the routes serving that part of town. The 8 has been a wounded puppy ever since its harsh withdrawl from Victoria...and look where the C2 is at from 2009; status quo. I love the only bus change bus my mum ever cared about (okay, she loved the E200s & upped frequencies on the 325 lool) was the N8 not going to Victoria. "Why did they make this foolish cut?" "Dunno mum, it's TfL & their money so they can do what they like." "I really would like to have a word with Boris Johnson and wring his ear for trying to make me late to the airport!!" I think the juices in every enthusiast is gushing at the thought of the proposed 23. If we're being honest, the St Paul's section carries so much thin air outside peaks that [TfL feel] drastic change needed to occur. But I digress; Lancaster Gate to Wembley sounds hella interesting to say the least. People, let's not forget the route's 24 hours so new night links will also be created! Speaking of my love for night-time travelling, it's glad to see the N15 finally restored to Oxford Circus. It will give punters greater choice for east London from Oxford Street should the 25 mysteriously become unavailable; and outside of the Night Tube operating hours, will give passengers greater choice in connections. Let's skip the grief for the permanent 15 curtailment to Traflagar Square but at least TfL don't have to worry finding stand space for it Love the sound of the 3 and the new links it would create; somehow I invisaged the 381 going to Clarkenwell Green but please see sentiment directed at route 23 in the City with regards to the 172. Still, there's space for both routes to terminate there.... The 22 going up to Oxford Circus looks good as well; but to say it's a replacement for lost links by the C2 curtailment is down right fraudulent. You might as well extend the 22 up to Camden Town, and TfL could give the C2 the same treatment the 23 got because to me, the route is now worthless again in central London.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2016 21:29:09 GMT
vjaska just a few comments based on yours. 22/C2 not sure this is any good really like others have said. I fear TfL are in a mission to scrap the C2 and cover it by diverting something else in the future. 452 some of us predicted this could happen. I assume it will run direct from Elkstone Road to Harrow Road so this would take it away from WB PK station. Not really ideal though I hear this section was never heavily used. Tower Transit may take note of this one! Lol 23 it's a weird one, they're only just consulting about chopping it to Aldwych and now this. Sadly it looks as if the consultation matters little or not at all. Interesting to see what route it would take to Wembley... all in all it looks like they are making a route out of nothing. 137 like you say plenty of stand space at MAR which makes the 30 cut back a tad bizarre. 332 I like this one, I hope they consider an extension to this though as I find three routes terminating at LAG a bit overkill. It can get busy there but as a terminating point just seems weird and the routes seem 'unfinished'
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 25, 2016 21:30:28 GMT
Well it's taken me a fair while to get through the info. I'm afraid I'm nowhere near as "impressed" as some here seem to be. Some thoughts follow.
1. I never really trust documents or proposals which are not properly spelt / proof read. There are spelling errors, frequency errors, map errors and the grammar is dreadful in places. If this level of sloppiness can reach external publication what does it say about the actual calculations and analysis?
2. The "spirit of Beeching" is alive and well in some of the numerical examples. Interesting choices to assess impacts based on comparative measures of Wednesday demand on Oxford St and to assess route 25 using July numbers when schools are likely shut and people are on holiday. Sorry but that's rubbish and not worthy of TfL.
3. Some of the arguments deployed are all over the place and don't compare like with like. I can't see a logical flow of evidence, cause, effect, solution and expected outcome in a number of these proposals. In fact in some instances TfL clearly have no idea what's going on and how things might change. This is in sharp contrast to other public statements about ridership on the bus network "self restoring" once roadworks complete or the salvation that is supposed to be the Hopper ticket.
4. There is a reliance on the Hopper ticket which I believe is misplaced and over optimistic.
5. It is clear this is a first step in destroying the Central London bus network. There are statements that much of the demand on Oxford St is for through journeys and yet TfL are wiping out that capability on several corridors and it's quite clear to me that all the remaining links are tagged for removal. Once that happens how do people get around?
6. TfL have turned their own policies on their head and are happy to create massive dislocation of journey patterns and to force people to change buses or modes solely to save money. I have read scores of Consultation Letters over the years where proposal after proposal was turned down because a couple of hundred journey links were broken. Here we have thousands and thousands of broken links and somehow this is acceptable? Excuse me but who sanctioned this? Where was it signed off?
7. The striking thing is that there is no acknowledgement that the decline on the bus network is the direct and absolute responsibility of TfL and their policies and their funding. They have woefully mismanaged the road and bus network in order to meet ludicrous policies from the last Mayor and now bus passengers pay the price of that arrogance and wrong headedness. Just in passing TfL have elsewhere published a paper showing the E-W CSH scheme is £18m over budget and was basically rushed through and botched just so Bozza could open it in May this year. An utter disgrace.
8. There is very little in these proposals that I like as I don't really see the point of much of this. There is no evidence anywhere that people kicked off routes that won't run through Regent St or Oxford St can actually be carried on those routes that remain. What's the point of diverting the 3, for example, if people can't get on the 159 or 453 at Whitehall in the rush hours?
9. It is interesting that TfL are devoid of ideas as to how to cope with changes in Night Time travel. They're just sitting there shrugging their shoulders with no answer. Clearly cutting night bus frequencies is not (presently) acceptable to City Hall which is why none appear here.
10. I just love (not!) the unstated arrogance that all the other proposals such as the Finchley Road stuff will all happen regardless. So much for consultation and petitions and campaigns.
Not sure I can be ar*ed to comment route by route because TfL clearly can't be bothered to do the work to put out a properly written, properly researched piece of work. They're going to implement this lot and then in less than a year we get the next phase to strip out buses on the 24, 29, 176, 390, 73, 38, 19, 139, 159 etc.
Clearly TfL have judged that as the Mayor hasn't got the bus network as a key priority or manifesto commitment they can get away with this. It also shows what happens when the top man knows nothing about buses at all and when the relevant deputy has so many responsibilities that they're not unduly bothered either. A shambles in the making with an even bigger one to follow.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2016 21:35:27 GMT
Hear hear to most of your points snoggle, notably 5 and 10 for me
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Nov 25, 2016 22:04:55 GMT
vjaska just a few comments based on yours. 22/C2 not sure this is any good really like others have said. I fear TfL are in a mission to scrap the C2 and cover it by diverting something else in the future. 452 some of us predicted this could happen. I assume it will run direct from Elkstone Road to Harrow Road so this would take it away from WB PK station. Not really ideal though I hear this section was never heavily used. Tower Transit may take note of this one! Lol 23 it's a weird one, they're only just consulting about chopping it to Aldwych and now this. Sadly it looks as if the consultation matters little or not at all. Interesting to see what route it would take to Wembley... all in all it looks like they are making a route out of nothing. 137 like you say plenty of stand space at MAR which makes the 30 cut back a tad bizarre. 332 I like this one, I hope they consider an extension to this though as I find three routes terminating at LAG a bit overkill. It can get busy there but as a terminating point just seems weird and the routes seem 'unfinished' The 46 will be cut back to Paddington; so unless I missed out something, the 2 routes terminating at Lancaster Gate will be the 23 and the 332.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 25, 2016 22:08:08 GMT
And just for the record, before anyone gets "smart", I am not saying there is not a need for some changes. Clearly there are problems to be fixed and there are difficult external pressures. I do, however, feel we deserve something rather better than what TfL have put out. I also think we need some more honesty about the "direction of travel" for bus policy in Zone 1 so that people are not lulled into a false sense of security that because their route is not mentioned this time that they are somehow "safe". The other thing that is really striking is that this is about "managing decline" and there is no sense of any "commercial" nous in London Buses as to how the bus network can be rejuvinated.
|
|