|
Post by danorak on Nov 25, 2016 22:12:30 GMT
ITV London had a piece on the proposals which focused mostly on the air quality in Oxford Street. I have no doubt that taxis will move in to take any roadspace freed up in Oxford Street, until pedestrianisation anyway. Air quality wise, how does a black cab compare to a hybrid bus?
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 25, 2016 22:17:43 GMT
ITV London had a piece on the proposals which focused mostly on the air quality in Oxford Street. I have no doubt that taxis will move in to take any roadspace freed up in Oxford Street, until pedestrianisation anyway. Air quality wise, how does a black cab compare to a hybrid bus?Badly. The taxi trade, partly for understandable reasons, is not exactly keen on fleet renewal and moving to zero emission vehicles. However if they don't then they're going to be dead because they'll be banned from parts of London.
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Nov 25, 2016 22:23:37 GMT
ITV London had a piece on the proposals which focused mostly on the air quality in Oxford Street. I have no doubt that taxis will move in to take any roadspace freed up in Oxford Street, until pedestrianisation anyway. Air quality wise, how does a black cab compare to a hybrid bus? Don't want to go all Casualty but there's long-term damage to vulnerable pedestrians from the harmful air. I suffer from asthma since childhood; it's not anything overbearing now but am still reminded every now and again, my breathing ability in certain harmful instances. Long story short; cycling, walking or working along Oxford Street has adversely affected me and I do notice it. It was deliberate to list them that way as worst offender first. What I found shocking though was working at Oxford Street for 1 week straight; despite me being indoors most of the time, I still noticed at the end of the week that my breathing was abnormal. Air quality matters, and is important to curb on emissions now to prevent long-term respiratory problems later. I normally only go along Oxford Street at night as a pedestrian, avoid it like the plague if cycling. But I'm just a mild case; they're probably people worse than me experiencing far worse symptoms.
|
|
|
Post by Nathan on Nov 25, 2016 22:39:14 GMT
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? It's annoying that many of us have been suggesting this for the longest time now, but no TfL officials have had a flick through our posts to steal some ideas
|
|
|
Post by planesandtrains on Nov 25, 2016 22:44:37 GMT
Certain things irk me. While this is being done to ensure the best, little things like the 22 not serving Piccadilly- it's the one of the many things I associate with the route. But I guess we have to move on. The 23 change though wow. Whoever came up with that must have been having bad dreams.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2016 22:58:55 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. 274
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2016 23:14:30 GMT
Certain things irk me. While this is being done to ensure the best, little things like the 22 not serving Piccadilly- it's the one of the many things I associate with the route. But I guess we have to move on. The 23 change though wow. Whoever came up with that must have been having bad dreams. TfL have split the main consultation into sections and it seems they want to use the 23 to assist the 18 from Ladbroke Grove to Harlesden, possibly Stonebridge, although I feel the 18 needs help eastwards as well. Seems cynical that they proposed the Aldwych-Liverpool Street cut and now they are using this consultation which makes it look like this is what they had in mind all along!
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 25, 2016 23:28:56 GMT
Certain things irk me. While this is being done to ensure the best, little things like the 22 not serving Piccadilly- it's the one of the many things I associate with the route. But I guess we have to move on. The 23 change though wow. Whoever came up with that must have been having bad dreams. TfL have split the main consultation into sections and it seems they want to use the 23 to assist the 18 from Ladbroke Grove to Harlesden, possibly Stonebridge, although I feel the 18 needs help eastwards as well. Seems cynical that they proposed the Aldwych-Liverpool Street cut and now they are using this consultation which makes it look like this is what they had in mind all along! There have been Mayor's Questions about the 18 being under pressure in Wembley so I'm not stunningly surprised to see TfL attempting to provide some relief in that part of London. There is now years of evidence that the only way you get a bus improvement is to nag the Mayor (and therefore TfL) endlessly. Changes to 136 (343), C10 and 415 are examples of this strategy working. The upcoming "green corridor" in Streatham is another example of the same political pressure working.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 25, 2016 23:56:32 GMT
TfL have split the main consultation into sections and it seems they want to use the 23 to assist the 18 from Ladbroke Grove to Harlesden, possibly Stonebridge, although I feel the 18 needs help eastwards as well. Seems cynical that they proposed the Aldwych-Liverpool Street cut and now they are using this consultation which makes it look like this is what they had in mind all along! There have been Mayor's Questions about the 18 being under pressure in Wembley so I'm not stunningly surprised to see TfL attempting to provide some relief in that part of London. There is now years of evidence that the only way you get a bus improvement is to nag the Mayor (and therefore TfL) endlessly. Changes to 136 (343), C10 and 415 are examples of this strategy working. The upcoming "green corridor" in Streatham is another example of the same political pressure working. No doubt Lambeth were involved in getting that green corridor scheme raised - and there's me thinking they were too busy thieving off the rest of us borough constituents
|
|
|
Post by routew15 on Nov 26, 2016 1:00:23 GMT
Some seriously woeful proposals here.
Ideas I particularly oppose - N3 / 242 / 22 / N22 / 23 / 73 / 390
is it right to assume that TfL believes that there will be a total transfer of passengers from buses to the Elizabeth Line?
These plans are extremely consequential and I completely recognise that TfL needs to make some tough decision on what to do with the bus network however now more than ever TfL needs to ensure that they have listened to the consultation responses for all elements of the consultation. I believe there is a lot at stake for TfLs image and integrity if they cannot acknowledge the bus passengers desires from this consultation.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 26, 2016 1:18:42 GMT
is it right to assume that TfL believes that there will be a total transfer of passengers from buses to the Elizabeth Line? This is one of the things I find especially puzzling. I suspect the models work on the basis of people using the fastest modes and while that is true in part there are issues about costs, waiting times, transfer times etc which cut across any assumptions about mass transfer to faster rail modes. I've no doubt Crossrail will be quick but it won't run at tube like frequencies off peak and the stations are deep and long. Given the way TfL fares are going to (not) change relative to caps and Travelcard prices which will keep increasing there are also issues about fare penalties on interchange. That has to deter some people who opt of Travelcards and go PAYG only. TfL are also assuming that Crossrail is going to affect places like Piccadilly Circus and the Strand and it goes nowhere near there. If there'd been a stop at Holborn then perhaps arguable that people would walk from the Aldwych area but that's not happening. As someone said elsewhere TfL are almost making use of Crossrail an "article of faith" in their planning whereas there can be evidence about that until 2019 at the earliest. We're therefore being asked to accept that premise and have modal choice removed *in advance* of the service actually running. Doesn't seem terribly sensible to me.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Nov 26, 2016 2:14:31 GMT
Where to start? I personally struggle to rationally see any logic behind most of these ideas, but this is TFL after all! The most radical ideas here are the 3, 6, 23, 332 and 390 proposals.
The 3's proposal is certainly surprising, I suppose rather than cutting it to Piccadilly Circus TFL have ambitiously decided to reroute/extend it to Russell Square. However this link is questionable regarding popularity, Great Portland Street would be a far better terminus as this would retain the 3's link to Oxford Circus. Ditto the 15, which would be more desirable than permanently cutting it to Trafalgar Square.
Personally I would prefer if the 6 remains to serve Oxford Street, the route's high patronage is partly down to passengers using the route along its West End routing via Oxford Circus. Diverting it via Hyde Park Corner would not bode well in this regard and is a far less popular and less useful link than the current routing. What is really being benefitted here aside from reducing buses along Oxford Street? Not much I'd say.
By far the most radical idea is the 23's proposal, TFL are pretty much transforming it to a completely new route, arguably. I suppose when factoring in the Elizabeth Line its fate is somewhat predictable, at least regarding its Central London routing...but Wembley?! Certainly a surprise. I completely disagree with Lancaster Gate being its Central London terminus, Marble Arch is far more ideal so as to retain its close proximity to the West End. On the other hand, at least the 18 will gain some assistance between Ladbroke Grove and Wembley, which is quite a generous overlap.
I'm not fond of the C2 being curtailed to Oxford Circus, it seems as if TFL are proposing its Mayfair routing to be replaced by the 22 just for the sake of appeasement by having a route run through there. This isn't a well thought out idea, the C2's useful link between Victoria and Camden Town would be lost and the route should remain as it is. The 22 could instead be given a useful extension to King's Cross via Shaftesbury Avenue and Holborn for instance, bypassing TCR.
I disagree with cutting the 242 short of the West End to St. Paul's, it would be far more desirable to retain the 242's West End link, or at least cut it to Holborn as this does not significantly compromise the route by curtailing it a long way from the area, also this would mean still supporting the 25 to and from Holborn.
I struggle to see any benefit from rerouting the 332 via Shirland Road and Warwick Avenue, completely pointless. There would be superfluous capacity along Shirland Road as the 414 uselessly traverses there, even if the 414 is removed from there and rerouted elsewhere (which would be great) the 332 should remain serving Maida Vale/Edgware Road as the 16 and 98 benefit from the route's assistance.
As for the 73 and 390, regarding the latter how would the 94 and 148 cope between Marble Arch and Notting Hill Gate? Not so great I'd imagine. The 73 could still terminate at Victoria by rerouting it via Regent Street and Piccadilly, perhaps even replacing routings with the C2 between Oxford Circus and Green Park. Also increasing the 390's frequency to the 73's level would not be ideal as the latter's routing justifies its high frequency, some sections along the 390 is adequately catered for with its relatively modest frequency.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 26, 2016 3:30:32 GMT
is it right to assume that TfL believes that there will be a total transfer of passengers from buses to the Elizabeth Line? That's the feeling I've got and I'm afraid I far from share that view. Crossrail won't compete with buses no matter how much TfL think it will which is why it's imperative that routes like the 7 need to remain in some form because when people reach their nearest station, they don't simply teleport to their to front door. Far from competing, buses will actually compliment and work in tandem with Crossrail so heavens knows why they are so gung ho in removing routes. I mean, what happens when Crossrail is shut for engineering works and the railway replacement service buckles under the strain?
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Nov 26, 2016 8:08:01 GMT
Oh wow I can't believe that TFL are picking up an axe and are literally butchering the 23 to pieces. Well at least the 18 will finally get some assistance it just a shame that the section between Kensal Green and Baker Street isn't getting assistance.
I wonder if the 46 will be converted.
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Nov 26, 2016 8:11:52 GMT
Having had a bit more time to digest, it is clear when you read the main document that TFL have decided on major cuts, and where possible scrap a route where 2 or 3 run similar.
They have organised the consultations into corridors, where a second and/or third route gets involved. The long review documents multiple references to busiest sections and bus per hour seems to be starting point, excess capacity goes (clearly bulldoze to the lowest frequency in case a token increase needs to be conceded after consultation). I use term concede because it is obviously aimed at being a done deal.
Seems could have been more consolidation, but couple of consolidations didn't happen as there is reluctance to extend other routes over about 3 hour round trip for reliability reasons. I also suspect a deadline had been set and they ran out of time, possibly dropped a couple of corridors as some corridors seem untouched. Also as snoggle has pointed out proof reading appears rushed.
One of the naughty bits of the main document is the reference to 87 capacity buses on some routes (as it keeps quiet on the NRM routes as these have lower capacity). I don't like this selective (spin) approach.
The introduction dates are vague, but it appears it will only work if phased in selected sequences as some changes require stands to be vacated by other routes. The earliest defined date seems to be loss of a temporary stand near Tottenham Court Road in 2017
My guess is the 23 (and related routes) will be last to change because it is based on transferring a large chunk of passengers to Elizabeth line, which doesn't open until December 2018
I think the night routes have been left in the too difficult for now box. I would guess they will get a wholesale consultation of their own once there is a few months travel data following introduction of all 5 night tubes. So night bus routes consultation will probably wait until next summer (I know there is some tweaks in this round, but that's more to do with mimicking day routes).
The consultation has kept clear of vehicle type changes. I guess it is to minimise any noise (consultation replies) that could slow the inevitable process. We all know the consultation is a done deal but legally has to be done, which is why I take the view that could have been a lot worse.
|
|