|
Post by southlondonbus on Nov 26, 2016 21:24:23 GMT
I do think cutting the C2 link to Victoria is a bit odd as it's the easier way to link Oxford Circus with Victoria once full pedestrianisation happens as to get the 390 to Victoria from Euston Road without being able to use the full length of Oxford Street woudk be hard.
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Nov 26, 2016 23:55:26 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. The new 3 & 6 links are indeed good. I think route 22 has just been found as a simple local alternative to route C2 through Mayfair. But yes, as route 390 will still do Tottenham Court Road - Marble Arch - Hyde Park corner, route 10 may as well have been rerouted via Mayfair. Maybe LTs will not fit? In which case, why not revert route 10 to standard buses and redeploy the LTs elsewhere?
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 27, 2016 0:12:05 GMT
I agree but it seems that TfL want pure simplicity at all costs. Parallel night bus routes with their day equivalent regardless of benefit. With night tube I fully expect more night routes to be withdrawn on the basis that 'more people using night tube' and 'not enough patronage weekday nights'. With the current Oxford street shake up already in the cards, which most of us saw coming, I think we can expect this one as well I think TfL has a huge problem in that the night time travel market is changing very rapidly because of Uber and similar services. We don't know changes in the regulatory structure for PH services in London will change the market and especially the volume of supply. It will be interesting to see if the Mayor will hold his nerve in the face of pressure from Uber. I agree some night bus routes may be at risk but the problem TfL have is that there are pretty large flows post 0100 and from 0400 onwards on certain corridors and that's people going to and from work - including to run TfL services and staff depots and control rooms. TfL will rightly be villified if it starts making travel for these people more expensive / difficult. You then get into a bind about what you do - do not run from 0200 to 0400 and have buses and driving sitting around for no good reason when they could be offering a service. Alternatively you end up with really horrible shifts than end of 0230 and others that start at 0330 if you decide to scrap "N" routes but add a few late / early trips on existing routes where that makes sense. However you still have many corridors where that makes no sense whatsoever - instead of the N207 do you have late / early trips on the 94 / 207 / 427 which may or many connect with each other to allow a through trip and who wants to change buses three times in the middle of the night (apart from some Forum members )? It ain't easy to fix at all because quite a lot of people are very reliant on night buses now. TfL have created a form of "success monster" that it can't now tame or make smaller.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 27, 2016 0:14:18 GMT
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.) It certainly did do that. I rode on it when doing my very first "all night" night bus escapade as a student in the 1980s. A Metrobus IIRC.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2016 2:16:34 GMT
I agree but it seems that TfL want pure simplicity at all costs. Parallel night bus routes with their day equivalent regardless of benefit. With night tube I fully expect more night routes to be withdrawn on the basis that 'more people using night tube' and 'not enough patronage weekday nights'. With the current Oxford street shake up already in the cards, which most of us saw coming, I think we can expect this one as well I think TfL has a huge problem in that the night time travel market is changing very rapidly because of Uber and similar services. We don't know changes in the regulatory structure for PH services in London will change the market and especially the volume of supply. It will be interesting to see if the Mayor will hold his nerve in the face of pressure from Uber. I agree some night bus routes may be at risk but the problem TfL have is that there are pretty large flows post 0100 and from 0400 onwards on certain corridors and that's people going to and from work - including to run TfL services and staff depots and control rooms. TfL will rightly be villified if it starts making travel for these people more expensive / difficult. You then get into a bind about what you do - do not run from 0200 to 0400 and have buses and driving sitting around for no good reason when they could be offering a service. Alternatively you end up with really horrible shifts than end of 0230 and others that start at 0330 if you decide to scrap "N" routes but add a few late / early trips on existing routes where that makes sense. However you still have many corridors where that makes no sense whatsoever - instead of the N207 do you have late / early trips on the 94 / 207 / 427 which may or many connect with each other to allow a through trip and who wants to change buses three times in the middle of the night (apart from some Forum members )? It ain't easy to fix at all because quite a lot of people are very reliant on night buses now. TfL have created a form of "success monster" that it can't now tame or make smaller. The rise in easy and prepaid cabs like uber is alarming, uber in particular I'm hearing about more and more so yes it is something of serious concern to TfL (at least it should be) I don't expect a wholesale scrapping of N routes per se, though rereading my post I may have given that impression. My main concern with TfL is that they are systematically, so it appears, scrapping N routes from the centre of London and preferring instead to parallel then to their day equivalents. We see from schemes past and present that they standardised the N35, removed the N47 albeit to introduce the N199, plan the N2 to follow the 2, even make the 23 24-hour to Lancaster Gate which seems like picking a terminus at random (I should really reserve judgment since TfL claim they are still developing their ideas about the 23). My feeling is that in the not-too-distant future, if the day route doesn't serve central London, nor will the night route. Your 94/207/427 example (thanks for keeping it west, helps a lot 😊) wouldn't be so affected in my view, the 207 route heads toward town already and the N207 is essentially an extension of termini (if you count out the short run to White City) so I doubt these types of night route would necessarily be for the chop. My thoughts are, for example, that the N68 could say goodbye to TCR and go to Euston. N18 could also run into Euston to align with 18, this neglecting Portland Place, Regent Street and Trafalgar Square.. Sounds ridiculous but then again some were saying it about N2 and that's set to happen.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Nov 27, 2016 7:56:10 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. The new 3 & 6 links are indeed good. I think route 22 has just been found as a simple local alternative to route C2 through Mayfair. Â But yes, as route 390 will still do Tottenham Court Road - Marble Arch - Hyde Park corner, route 10 may as well have been rerouted via Mayfair. Â Maybe LTs will not fit? Â In which case, why not revert route 10 to standard buses and redeploy the LTs elsewhere? I agree that the 3 and 6 proposals are good. I did suggest doing exactly that with the 22 previously, mainly to maintain a link from Oxford Circus to Knightsbridge when Oxford Street is pedestrianised but I think the link to Victoria should stay, either the C2 or something else.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2016 8:35:28 GMT
Golborne Rd , Kensal Rd & Elkstone Road has lost its night service then. That area is very densely populated and in places is deceivingly quite far from a bus route ( I.e. Bevington Rd/St Josephs Close/Acklam Rd)
How can TfL already know their new 23 needs an all night service ?
Its radically different and doesn't serve the west end or any major hub ... Plus the only night tube stop will be Lancaster Gate.
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Nov 27, 2016 9:28:29 GMT
The new 3 & 6 links are indeed good. I think route 22 has just been found as a simple local alternative to route C2 through Mayfair. But yes, as route 390 will still do Tottenham Court Road - Marble Arch - Hyde Park corner, route 10 may as well have been rerouted via Mayfair. Maybe LTs will not fit? In which case, why not revert route 10 to standard buses and redeploy the LTs elsewhere? I agree that the 3 and 6 proposals are good. I did suggest doing exactly that with the 22 previously, mainly to maintain a link from Oxford Circus to Knightsbridge when Oxford Street is pedestrianised but I think the link to Victoria should stay, either the C2 or something else. You had a creative idea about route 22 for it to be materialising now. Route 10 rerouted via Mayfair would also link Oxford Street with Knightsbridge.
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Nov 27, 2016 13:31:41 GMT
What they should do is extend the 23 from Lancater Gate to Marble and have the night service go further to Trafalgar Square and from Wembley Stadium to Ealing Hospital via the 92.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 27, 2016 14:13:45 GMT
What they should do is extend the 23 from Lancater Gate to Marble and have the night service go further to Trafalgar Square and from Wembley Stadium to Ealing Hospital via the 92. If TfL are really determined to faff around then they should consider doing the following. 1. run the 332 down to Marble Arch, round to Lancaster Gate and then round to Westbourne Park Garage via the 23. That at least means there'd be a link to Marble Arch without the need for stand space there. They can leave the 452's north end alone. I am sceptical that Tower Transit are as resistant to another operator's bus turning / standing at Westbourne Park. It happens in lots of other places in London. There is also the new huge bus deck under construction - loads of space for buses to stand there. 2. if there is a real need for a bus to Wembley from somewhere in Paddington then they could run via Shirland Road up to Kliburn High Road then via the 206, across Queens Park, down Kilburn Lane, Kensla Rise down to Harrow Road and join the 18 there to wherever in Wembley. Bit of a loop the loop there but new links around South Kilburn and Queens Park. These proposals rejig a things a bit at least give a prospect of connecting to other services and reduces some pressure on scarce stand space in and around Marble Arch / Lancaster Gate.
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Nov 27, 2016 14:48:51 GMT
What they should do is extend the 23 from Lancater Gate to Marble and have the night service go further to Trafalgar Square and from Wembley Stadium to Ealing Hospital via the 92. If TfL are really determined to faff around then they should consider doing the following. 1. run the 332 down to Marble Arch, round to Lancaster Gate and then round to Westbourne Park Garage via the 23. That at least means there'd be a link to Marble Arch without the need for stand space there. They can leave the 452's north end alone. I am sceptical that Tower Transit are as resistant to another operator's bus turning / standing at Westbourne Park. It happens in lots of other places in London. There is also the new huge bus deck under construction - loads of space for buses to stand there. 2. if there is a real need for a bus to Wembley from somewhere in Paddington then they could run via Shirland Road up to Kliburn High Road then via the 206, across Queens Park, down Kilburn Lane, Kensla Rise down to Harrow Road and join the 18 there to wherever in Wembley. Bit of a loop the loop there but new links around South Kilburn and Queens Park. These proposals rejig a things a bit at least give a prospect of connecting to other services and reduces some pressure on scarce stand space in and around Marble Arch / Lancaster Gate. Or instead of butchering the 23 just extend the 332 from Brent Park to Wembley and I would also do what you suggested by extending it from Paddington to Marble Arch via Lancaster Gate. Then convert it to 24 hours.
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Nov 27, 2016 15:38:13 GMT
I also think that the 189 should be extended from Marble Arch to Notting Hill Gate or even further to White City to replace the 390 because the 94 and 148 need relief along Bayswater Road and removing the 390 removes this relief.
I would also leave the 23 alone and withdraw the 452 between Ladbroke Grove Sainsbury's and Kensal Rise and divert it to Wembley Stadium via Kensal Green, College Park, Willesden Junction, Harlesden and Brent Park.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 27, 2016 16:16:03 GMT
I also think that the 189 should be extended from Marble Arch to Notting Hill Gate or even further to White City to replace the 390 because the 94 and 148 need relief along Bayswater Road and removing the 390 removes this relief. I would also leave the 23 alone and withdraw the 452 between Ladbroke Grove Sainsbury's and Kensal Rise and divert it to Wembley Stadium via Kensal Green, College Park, Willesden Junction, Harlesden and Brent Park. Actually that's something any of the routes terminating / planned to terminate at Lancaster Gate could do - run on to Notting Hill Gate. Heck I wouldn't even grumble too much about the 274 doing that. It would give it some purpose west of Selfridges as it's rarely got anyone on board when it comes round to Marble Arch. I know Notting Hill Carnival should not ovely influence bus planning as it's 2 days in a year but buses heading west / NW of Marble Arch were utterly heaving this year. People crushed up to windscreens and I expect it is far worse at night when there's more of a rush to leave. If TfL take out the 390 and 23 then that's a very serious loss of capacity and we know the tube can't really take any more people at carnival time.
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Nov 27, 2016 16:28:59 GMT
I also think that the 189 should be extended from Marble Arch to Notting Hill Gate or even further to White City to replace the 390 because the 94 and 148 need relief along Bayswater Road and removing the 390 removes this relief. The 189 doesn't go to Marble Arch although it passes within walking distance to it at Selfridges. The 159* however could be extended to Notting Hill Gate so as to better overlap the 94. It would also re-establish a direct bus link between Notting Hill Gate and Trafalgar Square. * - bearing in mind other possible plans for it to be cut back and/or rerouted
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Nov 27, 2016 16:37:59 GMT
I also think that the 189 should be extended from Marble Arch to Notting Hill Gate or even further to White City to replace the 390 because the 94 and 148 need relief along Bayswater Road and removing the 390 removes this relief. The 189 doesn't go to Marble Arch although it passes within walking distance to it at Selfridges. The 159* however could be extended to Notting Hill Gate so as to better overlap the 94. It would also re-establish a direct bus link between Notting Hill Gate and Trafalgar Square. * - bearing in mind other possible plans for it to be cut back and/or rerouted I'm sorry I should have mentioned that I was speaking from what the view of what TFL are planning for the 189 from the consultation and not the present day 189 but your idea is not bad.
|
|