|
Post by rmz19 on Dec 13, 2019 12:44:52 GMT
To be fair it’s probably attracted more people to the route with a better frequency hence why the crowding is just as bad. I think the same with the 158, that’s had a huge increase but it’s still just as overcrowded. I could almost guarantee that will have a massive increase in numbers on next years usage figures. Any overcrowding on the 112 is probably further exasperated by the heavy traffic that causes gaps in the service. Also the 112 will attract a considerable amount of patronage if it's extended to North Finchley via the 232 as TFL proposed not too long ago, which I hope does happen as there is scope for extending the 112. If the extension happens then that's an incentive to convert it to Double Decks.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Dec 10, 2019 23:23:01 GMT
The 306 Is Useless Between Hammersmith & The Vale The 218’s Are Seriously Struggling Don't totally agree with you. Watched the 306's today. They do pick up quite a few passengers towards Hammersmith along the Askew Road. But yes they would be busier if the 266 and 306 swapped stands. This is cost though. To do that it would add a bus each to each route. In addition to this, a lot of the 306s I saw along North End Road, particularly s/b, had good amount of passengers on board. However the terrible congestion along there doesn't really help, including the 28.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Dec 10, 2019 0:00:34 GMT
Maybe.. but if it was competition TfL was after, extending the 23 to Wembley away from its terminus at X would have brought Metroline firmly into the fold as well. As it stood, it was always very unlikely to move operators. Whilst extending the 23 up to Wembley is far from perfect, and I can see that at the expense of a link to Oxford Street it's not the best but it's far better than the botched mess of the 23 we have now. The route has lost purpose, skirting the western edge of the ULEZ means is serves few popular destinations and the destinations it does serve are better reached using other routes in both circumstances. I would like to see a route from Oxford Street which heads down to Notting Hill Gate before turning down Church Street to Kensington then on to Hammersmith and perhaps beyond to Chiswick. Whilst it does duplicate the 27, the great thing about it is that it relives the struggling 94 which regularly leaves Marble Arch packed to the doors, it also provides a link between Kensington and Oxford St lost by the withdrawal of the 10, and adds bus capacity where it's needed. Only downside is over busing Church Street; some may argue the road is already over used with the existence of the 452. Regarding the 23, while I'm completely against its current indirect S-shaped form, I have to admit it is still popular and regularly has decent patronage throughout. I previously suggested extending the 23 via the 18 to Wembley Central when TFL were proposing to obliterate it, running from Marble Arch via line of route to Ladbroke Grove then alongside the 18. It certainly would be more useful this way then how it is now.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Dec 9, 2019 23:47:34 GMT
If anything the reliability of the 45 has probably improved and is attracting new passengers to its round the corner links that you have spoken of. The 45's reliability didn't need improving to begin with and was run quite well. Then again, a route as short as the 45 wouldn't have any reliability issues anyway.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Dec 6, 2019 23:53:21 GMT
Okay, the 140 is changing and been broken up, but its demise is exaggerated. It's not the 48! In principle, the 140's demise is justifiably exaggerated due to the fact that TFL 'are fixing something that isn't broken'. The 140 was perfectly fine the way it was, a very popular route to and from Heathrow Airport that certainly did not deserve to be broken up just to make way for an unnecessary express route as a partial replacement. Now this change will be an inconvenience to a lot of people who use the 140 as it will be required to change buses between the stops the X140 will not serve and the airport. If the 140's reliability was a concern then it could have been cut back to Harrow Bus Station and the link to the airport could have been retained, with a slightly enhanced service on the 340 to compensate for the cut.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Dec 4, 2019 20:48:36 GMT
It's difficult. If I have to pick a favourite it's the E40 MMC (Picked the Hybrid but generally all variants). Then in no particular order this is followed by the EvoSeti, Omnicity, Gemini 3 B5TL, Gemini 2 B9TL, Streetdeck, E40H City and Optare MetroDecker.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Dec 4, 2019 3:10:10 GMT
GAL for me
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Dec 2, 2019 13:25:02 GMT
6 Withdrawn between Piccadilly Circus (94 stand) and Aldwych. 9 Extended from Aldwych to Waterloo. 15 Withdrawn between Aldgate and Trafalgar Square, rerouted via the former 40 to London Bridge. 94 Withdrawn Marble Arch/Portman Square and Piccadilly Circus, rumoured to be happening anyway. 139 Withdrawn Marble Arch and Waterloo. NEW CENTRAL LINK ROUTES CL1 Marble Arch via 139 to Aldwych then via the 15 to Aldgate. CL2 Paddington via 36 to Marble Arch, then as the CL1 to Aldwych then Waterloo Bridge and 381 to London Bridge. Replaces much of the RV1 and provides a link between London Bridge and the west end. 10bph on both the CL1/2 giving a dedicated 20bph service with electric buses between Aldwych and Marble Arch. The downside would obviously be more people having to change buses. It seems like you're removing useful links just for the sake of it. Why resort to curtailing routes to only reintroduce new routes in their place? It's pointless when you can just enhance/modify existing services and avoid the inconvenience of people having to needlessly change buses in the process. All this would do is overcrowd the Underground even more so than it currently is. The bus network in Central London needs to be prioritised.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Dec 2, 2019 2:11:31 GMT
Well, it could go via Fetter Lane, although if that thoroughfare were to have buses again they'd probably prefer the lost Waterloo link. Fetter Lane is problematic. The ideal thing to do would be to send the 341 back down there as I don't think the change has been sucessful, and I don't think its passengers enjoy sitting in traffic on Farringdon Road. Although the consultation suggesting the rerouting would be faster, I think it has, ironically, backfired. Another option to restore a bus service to Fetter Lane would have been to remove the 243 from Kingsway instead of the 171 with the 243 diverted at Holborn to Holborn Circus then down Fetter Lane. The issue is that slows down through travel on the 243, a route I love*, and the route is well used on Kingsway. It would be faster to cut Holborn out of it, but the 243 is very well used in Holborn. The best possible option would be not meddling with the 341 for no reason, I think Farringdon Road would be fine with just the 40 and 63.
*I work in Holborn, and the 243 has become my favourite route on Kingsway since the 171 cutback. The route in general is great, but its my preffered option to reach Waterloo now (other than walking if Kingsway is gridlocked).
The 171 should not have been cut back at all, one of many silly moves by TFL. The 171 was serving its puprose well and was often busy from the get go at Holborn in the peaks. Regarding Fetter Lane, it wouldn't be wise to modify the 243 as such as it gets busy at Holborn as you mention, also the 55 needs as much assistance as it can get between Holborn and Shoreditch. If anything the 243 should have a frequency increase in the peaks. I would re-extend the 45 to King's Cross albeit deviating slightly via Fetter Lane then to line of route like it has been. The 45 should never have been cut back to what is now a short and somewhat useless route, it was needlessly removed from Grays Inn Road where it saw regular use along that corridor. The 40 can then return to its previous destination at Aldgate, another popular link pointlessly destroyed, thus providing Fenchurch Street a bus service once again. I do agree with rerouting the 341 via Farringdon though as it speeds up journies on the route slightly.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Dec 1, 2019 20:34:13 GMT
The 6 should remain terminating at Aldwych as it's still a popular link to and from there, it also provides an alternative routing to the 139 towards the Marble Arch area so it's a useful assistance. Your comment regarding the 6 being 'the most lightly used' of the routes along the Strand isn't logical as it terminates at the eastern end of the corridor therefore it will naturally be less busy than the the through routes along there, the same can be said about the 87 too. My idea of extending the 6 to Blackfriars might be a radical one, but the 6 would provide a means of linking the station with the West End, this might prove popular just like its recent diversion via Piccadilly has. The 4 isn't a sensible comparison in this regard as there is relatively less demand amongst the public between Blackfriars station and the areas the 4 traverses through. Whereas the public would find a Blackfriars and West End connection more popular and attractive, especially commuters during the peaks. As mentioned previously, any 'lost patronage' since its diversion away from Oxford Circus has been partially regained because of its increasing popularity along Piccadilly. Regarding the 9, its current max running time is 56 mins. It does contend with congestion at times, but certainly not to the extent of it suffering from reliability issues. It's still a short route so an extension is possible. The proximity of London Bridge to Aldwych is tempting so the 9 is a fitting route for the extension, especially when factoring in the provision of new links. Having said that, extending an existing route within the Oxford Circus/TCR areas would be a more attractive idea. Your Blackfriars extension is an intersting idea, however there already are a number of routes linking to nearby Fleet Street (also connecting to Thameslink at City TL). However, what could be useful is to extend the 6 beyond Blackfriars Station, to go over Blackfriars Bridge then via the 381 to London Bridge Station. This would reintroduce some of the RV1's links (from London Bridge & Bankside to the West End), but much more directly that the RV1's loop via the London Eye, as well as new links west of Aldwych. Extending the 6 to London Bridge via the 381 seems interesting as there would be a case for it, but the reality is the 6 would struggle and extending it any further than Blackfriars would lead to reliability issues. The 9 is a more logical route to extend via your suggested routing. Just an idea, perhaps the 6 could be extended over the bridge to Waterloo? This would somewhat assist the 139 that solely provides the Waterloo - West End link and introduce new links in the process.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Dec 1, 2019 0:03:50 GMT
Regarding the 6, I'm a regular user of the route as it's one of my local routes. I was against the 6 being rerouted via Piccadilly, however over the time since this change it has proved popular and is often busy along that section, especially in the peaks. Empty buses on the route are only seen during the quiter times, as should be expected. The 414 is the route that provides excess capacity between HPC and Maida Hill so it should be rerouted elsewhere, the 6 can cope alone along the common section. The 6 certainly does not need a frequency decrease as it's a busy route. If anything, I would extend the it to Blackfriars to provide new links to and from the station. I would also extend the 9 to London Bridge to provide new links between London Bridge and the West End. The Strand. Its a permanent standstill. Its an overbused corridor. It has eight bus routes. The 6 is in my experienced the most lightly used of those routes. I see no need for the 6 to continue to Aldwych anymore. It is now paralleld by the 9 between HPC and Aldwych, however there is a stark dichotomy in the loadings each routes carries. The 6 should remain terminating at Aldwych as it's still a popular link to and from there, it also provides an alternative routing to the 139 towards the Marble Arch area so it's a useful assistance. Your comment regarding the 6 being 'the most lightly used' of the routes along the Strand isn't logical as it terminates at the eastern end of the corridor therefore it will naturally be less busy than the the through routes along there, the same can be said about the 87 too. My idea of extending the 6 to Blackfriars might be a radical one, but the 6 would provide a means of linking the station with the West End, this might prove popular just like its recent diversion via Piccadilly has. The 4 isn't a sensible comparison in this regard as there is relatively less demand amongst the public between Blackfriars station and the areas the 4 traverses through. Whereas the public would find a Blackfriars and West End connection more popular and attractive, especially commuters during the peaks. As mentioned previously, any 'lost patronage' since its diversion away from Oxford Circus has been partially regained because of its increasing popularity along Piccadilly. Regarding the 9, its current max running time is 56 mins. It does contend with congestion at times, but certainly not to the extent of it suffering from reliability issues. It's still a short route so an extension is possible. The proximity of London Bridge to Aldwych is tempting so the 9 is a fitting route for the extension, especially when factoring in the provision of new links. Having said that, extending an existing route within the Oxford Circus/TCR areas would be a more attractive idea.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Nov 30, 2019 15:20:56 GMT
I'd be amazed with Holborn and Aldwych being remodeled if there aren't anymore. I think the 6 or 9 are likely to be cut to TS. I think the 6's future in its current form has been looking ominous for a whole. The route is a shadow of its former self; its patronage has slid off a cliff edge since the ridiculous rerouting. I think the the 6 should be cutback to Trafalgar Square at the very least, and have a frequency cut to reduce the number of empty buses on that route. The 9 is well used on the Strand and shouldn't be cutback. Regarding the 6, I'm a regular user of the route as it's one of my local routes. I was against the 6 being rerouted via Piccadilly, however over the time since this change it has proved popular and is often busy along that section, especially in the peaks. Empty buses on the route are only seen during the quiter times, as should be expected. The 414 is the route that provides excess capacity between HPC and Maida Hill so it should be rerouted elsewhere, the 6 can cope alone along the common section. The 6 certainly does not need a frequency decrease as it's a busy route. If anything, I would extend the it to Blackfriars to provide new links to and from the station. I would also extend the 9 to London Bridge to provide new links between London Bridge and the West End.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Nov 27, 2019 0:20:37 GMT
I can't agree I'm afraid it is overbussed. You only have the see 3 38s go past in a row at Piccadilly with very few people on them to see see why I'm saying it's overbussed but I respect you're opinion on it. I'm sure those passengers could wait for 5 minutes like every other passenger has to do in London. All for supporting routes to get saved but at the same time think it's only fair to share what I see on here. The 38 is a tough one, it can certainly manage with a frequency cut easily. The amount of empty buses that fly through Tottenham Court Road in the peak is ridiculous when there's a 55 carrying a crowded load at the exact same stop. However there have been plenty of times I've also seen busy 38s, to put it this way I'd have much gathered the 38 be the route to take a cut instead of the 25 and 18. Hmm I'm not so sure. Judging by my frequent observation of the 38, I think it's justified at its current frequency during the peaks. Buses are usually crowded in the busy hours despite the regular bunching that occurs. It's also worth noting that it only takes a relatively small gap between buses for crowds to gather at stops along the West End section of the route because of its volatile nature, especially when you factor in the relatively less frequent 19 alongside which could do with a frequency increase in the peaks. Outside the peaks the 38's frequency can be reduced but fiddling with it during the peaks would be asking for trouble.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Nov 26, 2019 3:11:35 GMT
Maybe this will lead to a resurgence in bus usage? Hopefully justifying the reverse of some of the damage done to the bus network already. Might be getting ahead of myself a bit here...
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Nov 25, 2019 20:41:45 GMT
True point that I forgot about that. I still wonder if it’ll go ahead you know though but that’s totally another matter. Hopefully it does, it's more damage to the economy not expanding it than expanding. The whole fiasco is just making London look like a laughing stock compared to the likes of Charles De Gaulle, Frankfurt, Barajas, Hamad and Dubai. Absolutely agree. It's unfathomable how an airport the scale of Heathrow, being one of the busiest worldwide, only has 2 runways. A third runway would alleviate air traffic thus help with fuel economy. Expanding would also increase capacity, allowing more flights to be operated to and from London therefore helping the economy.
|
|