|
Post by M1104 on Nov 27, 2016 16:50:32 GMT
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. Ah ok! I didn't realise
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2016 17:01:48 GMT
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 I don't think any 452s will turn there since TfL plan to route it to Harrow Road, away from the garage (according to their consultation). Buses wouldn't save much time turning at WBPK but if you factor enforced turns due to roadworks etc they would probably need stand space there, can't think of anywhere else nearby that is available.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 27, 2016 17:08:14 GMT
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 I don't think any 452s will turn there since TfL plan to route it to Harrow Road, away from the garage (according to their consultation). Buses wouldn't save much time turning at WBPK but if you factor enforced turns due to roadworks etc they would probably need stand space there, can't think of anywhere else nearby that is available. I understand that. What I was saying was leave the 452 going to Kensal Rise (if only to annoy the snooty locals ). My amended 332 could run to Westbourne Park garage or Harrow Rd - I don't care which. What I find very odd in the consultation document is that TfL have ruled out a turn at Westbourne Park garage. All I'm saying is that I doubt Tower Transit have actually said no because all operators actually co-operate with each other when push comes to shove. It's rather stupid and short sighted to stick two fingers up to anyone else running buses in London because you never know when you might need their assistance or goodwill. Plus the long history of LT will still pervade these organisations even if they've been sold on to new hands. They may compete for contracts but that's it really.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2016 17:29:19 GMT
I don't think any 452s will turn there since TfL plan to route it to Harrow Road, away from the garage (according to their consultation). Buses wouldn't save much time turning at WBPK but if you factor enforced turns due to roadworks etc they would probably need stand space there, can't think of anywhere else nearby that is available. I understand that. What I was saying was leave the 452 going to Kensal Rise (if only to annoy the snooty locals ). My amended 332 could run to Westbourne Park garage or Harrow Rd - I don't care which. What I find very odd in the consultation document is that TfL have ruled out a turn at Westbourne Park garage. All I'm saying is that I doubt Tower Transit have actually said no because all operators actually co-operate with each other when push comes to shove. It's rather stupid and short sighted to stick two fingers up to anyone else running buses in London because you never know when you might need their assistance or goodwill. Plus the long history of LT will still pervade these organisations even if they've been sold on to new hands. They may compete for contracts but that's it really. Absolutely, and as I've said previously, such a scenario could become favourable when it comes to tender bids.
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Nov 27, 2016 18:31:52 GMT
Another problem with this consultation is TFL is planning to remove another route from Edgware Road after removing the 436 and 159. Routes 23 and 36 are currently struggling after the removal of routes 436 and 159. If the 23 is removed then the routes on Edgware Road are going to get worse.
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Nov 27, 2016 20:25:51 GMT
Another problem with this consultation is TFL is planning to remove another route from Edgware Road after removing the 436 and 159. Routes 23 and 36 are currently struggling after the removal of routes 436 and 159. If the 23 is removed then the routes on Edgware Road are going to get worse. Especially as from Edgware Road to Regent Street, people are losing route 6 as well as route 23. Had it not been clear that this Lancaster Gate - Wembley route would be numbered 23, I'd have thought this was the imminent route 218! After all, it will duplicate route 18 for a fair distance.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 27, 2016 22:07:55 GMT
The other interesting side effect of these changes will be to make any tube strikes vastly more impactful. By stripping out bus capacity and breaking links TfL will remove network resilience in the event of strikes or worse. Clearly you don't plan your network just in case of a tube strike but we know how horrendous it gets for people *now* when there is a strike. Imagine how marvellous it will be when these changes have gone through? It is also worth bearing in mind that the Central area stations on Crossrail are all linked to the adjacent tube stations so a LU strike will most likely knock out Crossrail's central section as well so Crossrail won't be the salvation of the tube. So cut the buses and hand the RMT and ASLEF much more power - sounds like a good plan to me.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 27, 2016 22:11:28 GMT
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. Yes that was one my annoyances with the review document that I failed to list earlier. Made me frown every time I saw it in reference to a NB4L operated route. Means all the calculations and numbers are wrong given the vehicles are licensed for lower legal carrying capacities.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Nov 27, 2016 23:38:43 GMT
Capacity on Edgware Road can always be boosted once Oxford Street is pedestrianised as the Current Baker Street routes like the 2, 74, 82 (13) are likely to run along Marylebone road then down Edgware Road to reach Marble Arch.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 27, 2016 23:54:52 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 see you like one of my previously suggested ideas lol.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Nov 28, 2016 7:42:44 GMT
I understand that. What I was saying was leave the 452 going to Kensal Rise (if only to annoy the snooty locals ). My amended 332 could run to Westbourne Park garage or Harrow Rd - I don't care which. What I find very odd in the consultation document is that TfL have ruled out a turn at Westbourne Park garage. All I'm saying is that I doubt Tower Transit have actually said no because all operators actually co-operate with each other when push comes to shove. It's rather stupid and short sighted to stick two fingers up to anyone else running buses in London because you never know when you might need their assistance or goodwill. Plus the long history of LT will still pervade these organisations even if they've been sold on to new hands. They may compete for contracts but that's it really. Absolutely, and as I've said previously, such a scenario could become favourable when it comes to tender bids. I don't think doing another operator a favour is going to increase anybodys chances of winning a tender, I certainly hope it wouldn't.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Nov 28, 2016 7:52:59 GMT
Capacity on Edgware Road can always be boosted once Oxford Street is pedestrianised as the Current Baker Street routes like the 2, 74, 82 (13) are likely to run along Marylebone road then down Edgware Road to reach Marble Arch. I had assumed that end of Oxford Street would remain open to traffic?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2016 9:52:28 GMT
Absolutely, and as I've said previously, such a scenario could become favourable when it comes to tender bids. I don't think doing another operator a favour is going to increase anybodys chances of winning a tender, I certainly hope it wouldn't. Wasn't the point I was making but okay
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Nov 28, 2016 12:00:49 GMT
I think eventually it will close aswell. I had thought aswell that it would be just Selfridges to Oxford Circus but it seems it's the whole thing.
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Nov 28, 2016 13:18:27 GMT
I think eventually it will close aswell. I had thought aswell that it would be just Selfridges to Oxford Circus but it seems it's the whole thing. After a bit of Googling, I found what Val Shawcross said about pedestrianisation on the Fitzrovia Residents Association website: news.fitzrovia.org.uk/2016/07/25/what-deputy-mayor-valerie-shawcross-said-about-pedestrianisation-of-oxford-street/The key bit: "The outline proposal that we are working with the local partners on now is basically to get Oxford Street pedestrianised in three tranches. This is all provisional and it is very early days, but it would mean getting the two big tranches – Oxford Street East from the new Crossrail station into Oxford Circus first and Oxford Street West stopping just short of Marble Arch second, which would be over three quarters of Oxford Street – done before 2020. The last bit at the Marble Arch end going up to Marble Arch Station is a bit more complex and would probably fall over into the post-election period, but the proposal is to go from Marble Arch to Tottenham Court Road. We have been talking about that enhanced ambition to all of the partners in there and of course, principally, Westminster Council, whose road it is."
|
|