|
Post by rmz19 on Jun 19, 2015 20:07:08 GMT
This indeed took me by surprise! What on earth was this driver thinking? This is just pure violent behaviour. What puzzles me is the bit where she allegedly 'collapses' to the floor, I mean it's understandable if the driver knocked her out But no sympathy for this idiotic driver whatsoever.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jun 19, 2015 19:53:53 GMT
It's really the insane amount of traffic lights along Oxford Street and New Oxford Street that is the major problem regarding congestion. Anyway, regarding the Oxford Street 'debussing' and pollution reduction, I'd send virtually half the routes via Wigmore Street and the rest remain on Oxford Street. My personal preference are as follows: Reroute the 7, 137 and 189 via Wigmore Street as they all terminate at Oxford Circus, I would also add the 10, 94 and 390 to the list just to ensure Oxford Street sees better traffic flow. The 6, 13, 23, 73 and 139 all remain on Oxford Street. I decided for the 73 not to follow the same principle as the 10 and 390 because it's relatively high frequency would benefit passengers along Oxford Street in light of the bus reduction. But start removing sets of lights and more pedestrian accidents will surely result? Well Zebra Crossings can be implemented in place of existing pedestrian traffic lights, halting bus traffic to cross wouldn't affect traffic flow as much as it currently does due to the bus reduction and less traffic as a result. In addition, those hideos rickshaw things and some of the Taxi stands should be erradicated.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jun 19, 2015 15:33:17 GMT
It's really the insane amount of traffic lights along Oxford Street and New Oxford Street that is the major problem regarding congestion.
Anyway, regarding the Oxford Street 'debussing' and pollution reduction, I'd send virtually half the routes via Wigmore Street and the rest remain on Oxford Street. My personal preference are as follows: Reroute the 7, 137, 159 and 189 via Wigmore Street as they all terminate at either end of Oxford Street. I would also add the 10, 94 and 390 to the list just to ensure Oxford Street sees better traffic flow. The 6, 13, 23, 73 and 139 all remain on Oxford Street. I decided for the 73 not to follow the same principle as the 10 and 390 because it's relatively high frequency would benefit passengers along Oxford Street in light of the bus reduction.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jun 19, 2015 1:50:53 GMT
Well if anybody has a better idea about how to solve the Oxford Street problem I'm all ears Well, the silence has been pretty deafening so far Only correcting your false statement regarding the route length of your extended 159, otherwise my idea of how to solve the Oxford Street problem would've been in a seperate post
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jun 16, 2015 22:41:22 GMT
And now for the hardest bit of the network to consider. Although not a quadrant of London it's the bit where all the quadrants come together and is the source of a great many journeys on the system. I think the Central London bus network is under severe strain because of the scale of road works across the area and also because of changing travel demands. Many routes are losing patronage despite the scale of activity in Central London. There are too many route curtailments and despite being tagged as "temporary" some have been in place for months or years. There has also been a long term policy of removing links which have been lost forever. We have the forever vexed question of Oxford Street which many people define as a problem but not one person has a viable, sustainable solution that preserves an effective operable bus network for day or for night time. There seems to be memory loss by those who support pedestrianising Oxford St that it is an important night bus service artery with services stretching across London. We have yet to see what the "two waying" of Tottenham Court Road coupled with the introduction of Crossrail will do to the bus network. I fear it will mean the network is wrecked. TfL appears to have no strategy at all for the development of bus transport in Central London because all that happens to the network is that there are fewer buses on it and constant changes. It might also be nice to have some of the long standing gaps in the network filled and to ensure there is an adequate spread of inward distribution (e.g. West End, Bloomsbury area, City) from key corridors like Camden and northwards, Old Kent Road and southeastwards and Elephant and Castle and southwards. Some areas do have a spread but others do not with an over concentration of routes into one or two arteries into either the City or past Waterloo. I think we actually need a period of stability for the network during which TfL works out what it wants / needs to do with the network to ensure there is appropriate capacity and a decent spread of links to provide an accessible and easy to use network alongside the tube. The Oxford Street problem is one of square pegs and round holes, only so many buses an hour can be accommodated before everything grinds to a halt and routes like the 137 and 159 which battle their way through only to then turn around and come back again are a poor use of capacity, I can't see why the 159 can't still go to West Hampstead it would be about the same length as the 36 with the 139 withdrawn and the 13 or 189 extended to Waterloo. Extending the 159 to West Hampstead would be the same length as the 36? Most certainly not! The extension would make it around 12 miles in length, the 36 is only a mere 9 miles. Route length is not the issue however, as vjaska mentioned its reliability would be severely compromised due to the resulting excessive running time, which would even give the X26 a run for its money
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jun 16, 2015 19:56:56 GMT
Having previously lived in the Baker Street/Regents Park Area for 6 years, I'm very intrigued by these proposals. It was consistently a nightmare for me to and from school, they seem to be good ideas and may actually benefit the area with regards to traffic flow and congestion.
My guesses for route changes would be the 2, 30, 74, 82, 113 and 274 will use Gloucester Place in both directions, and the 13, 139 and 189 will use Baker Street in both directions. My logic behind this is the former routes go towards Marble Arch southbound, which is west of Oxford Street, so they would avoid affecting the Oxford Street flow from Oxford Circus, whereas the latter routes come from the opposite direction northbound from Oxford Circus, so they would take pressure off the part of Oxford Street west of Selfridges. I doubt there will be a looping system so as to simplify the bus routes within the area.
Of course this may all change if rumours concerning bus routes in the area were to go ahead.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jun 16, 2015 15:29:10 GMT
My own selection of ideas: Extend the 159 back to Paddington Basin via Edgware Road & Paddington. TfL exaggerated the truth here when they said the extension wasn't used - 159's wasn't running empty between Marble Arch & Paddington. Anyway, it will assist the 23 from Trafalgar Square to Paddington. Extend the 12 back to Notting Hill Gate via Marble Arch & Lancaster Gate. Gives much needed assistance to the 148. Extend the 9 to London Bridge via the Strand, Ludgate Hill & Monument. Creates a new east to west link across Central London. Extend the 26 to Elephant & Castle via St. George's Circus. Creates a link from Elephant & Castle to Hackney. Extend the 115 to London Bridge via Fenchurch Street & Monument. Links parts of East London with two mainline stations. The 159 shouldnt havd been extended to Paddington Basin in the first place. It was unreliable and frequently turned. The 436 should have got that extension. To be fair it's only a short distance between Marble Arch and Paddington Basin, this distance only added 10 mins max to the journey time and didn't affect the route at all, from what I've observed there weren't alot of turns on the route when it ran up there, the odd turn was probably for other reasons. Having said that, there isn't that much demand in The Basin so Paddington itself is a more convenient destination.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jun 16, 2015 11:45:25 GMT
Central London Bus Routes7- Diverted from East Acton to Chiswick Business Park via the 70 (See 70 for partial replacement) Frequency maintained M-S every 8 mins/ Sunday every 12 mins/ Evening reduced to every 15 mins/ PVR increased to 26. N7 unchanged. If the bridge on the CBP access road is to low then the extension is cut back to Acton High Street with the E10 or E11 extended to CBP. 7- Diverted via Bayswater Road, Lancaster Gate and Eastbourne Terrace instead of Pread Street and Edgware Road. Avoids traffic on Edgware Road thus improving route reliability due to the Chiswick Extension and other traffic hotspots on the route. 8- Diverted to terminate at Regent Street/ Conduit Street instead of Oxford Circus/ Holles Street. Reduces pressure on Holles Street stand. Infrastructure works required: Lengthening to Conduit Street stand (Alternatively Stand could be moved to New Burlington Street) and Right turn for Buses only from Regent Street (Northbound) into Oxford Street (Eastbound).9- Rerouted via Piccadilly Circus instead of Pall Mall (See 15). Brings back links passengers did not want broken.13- Curtailed to Piccadilly Circus. Frees stand space at Aldwych. Improves reliability on the rest of the route.15- Extended to Marble Arch via Pall Mall, St James's Street, Piccadilly, Park Lane and Marble Arch. Creates new links from the East. Also connects parts of the West End.17- Diverted via Fetter Lane instead of Farringdon Road and Charterhouse Street (See 341). Faster routing due to Cycle Superhighway route.40- Diverted to City Hall via New Kent Road and Tower Bridge Road. (See 155 for partial replacement). Supports growthand the demand in the Elephant area.42- Extended to Shoreditch instead of Liverpool Street. Releases stand space for the 153.70- Diverted to East Acton from Du Cane Road and Old Oak Common Lane via the 7. (See 7 for partial replacement) Frequency reduced to M-S every 12 mins/ Sunday every 20 mins/ Evening every 20 mins/ PVR 9. 153- Extended to Liverpool Street/ Worship Street instead of Liverpool Street Bus Station. Releases stand space for new route 335.155- Extended to Aldgate via Newington Causeway, Borough High Street, London Bridge, Gracechurch Street, Fenchurch Street and Aldgate. Connects South West to the Central East. 159- Curtailed to Oxford Circus. As part of reducing bus numbers on Oxford Street. Also releases stand space for the extended 15189- Curtailed to Selfridges. As part of reducing bus numbers on Oxford Street. Also releases stand space for the 159278- New Route introduced between London Bridge and Putney Bridge via Borough High Street, Borough Road, Westminster Bridge Road, Parliament Square, Millbank, Grosvenor Road, Chelsea Embankment, Ashburnham Road (return Edith Grove), King's Road, New King's Road and Fulham High Street. 335- New Route introduced between Liverpool Street Bus Station and Turnpike Lane Station via Shoreditch High Street, Hackney Road, Queensbridge Road, Dalston Lane, Pembury Road, Clapton Pond, Upper Clapton Road, Clapton Common, High Road, St Ann's Road, Black Boy Lane, West Green Road and Turnpike Lane Bus Station. To help reduce over crowding on the 67. Creates New links between Clapton and Turnpike Lane, Queensbridge and the City . 341- Diverted via High Holborn and Kingsway instead of Fetter Lane. (See 17)388- Extended to Vauxhall via Blackfriars Bridge, Stamford Street, Waterloo. Further extension to Vauxhall to assist the 77.607- Extended Direct to Marble Arch. Express route reconfigured. Shepherds Bush Green, Adelaide Grove, Bromyard Avenue, Uxbridge County Court and Lees Road stops removed from the route. All remaining 607 stops separated from all other routes. Improves the speed of the service. To Help reduce overcrowding on the 94. Creates a better transit service along the Uxbridge Road.N9- Rerouted via Piccadilly Circus instead of Pall Mall (See N15). Brings back links passengers did not want broken.N15- Extended to Marble Arch via Pall Mall, St James's Street, Piccadilly, Park Lane and Marble Arch. Creates new links from the East. Also connects parts of the West End.RV1- Extended to Aldgate via Minories. Routing is simple due to the 'two-waying' of Minories. Terminates in a better connected area. Some of these ideas are interesting, however there are some issues accompanying them. The 341 is alright as it is, considering its length it would be unwise to reroute it via Holborn as it's quite congested there, its current route is quicker. I acknowledge your point on reducing buses along Oxford Street, but the 159's Marble Arch destination is perfect and shouldn't be changed, although I do welcome an extension back to Paddington, not fussed about it though. The 13 should be left as it is, curtailing it to Piccadilly Circus would put much more pressure on the 6 and 23, the trio assist each other perfectly between Marble Arch and Aldwych. Regarding the 15, if it was to be re-extended back to Paddington then your route via Green Park and Park Lane would be a great alternative, however terminating at Marble Arch wouldn't warrant such a routing as there wouldn't be justified demand. Alternatively, the 15 could be extended to Great Portland Street so it actually serves Oxford Circus without terminating there. I agree with you on the 9, it was exceptionally busy along Piccadilly, especially in the peaks, its current route deals with less pressure while providing Pall Mall and St. James's Park a connection, albeit with modest demand. Perhaps the 22 could be extended to Holborn via Shaftesbury Avenue and use that section? The 9 could then be reinstated via Piccadilly Circus. Diverting the 7 via Lancaster Gate would be unnecessary, traffic along Edgware Road isn't that bad most of the time and the 7 assists the 23 between Oxford Circus and Ladbroke Grove, your extension to Chiswick Business Park would be fine without any modifications to the route. On a side note, the 7 shouldn't have been curtailed to Oxford Circus in the first place and should be re-extended back to Russell Square, a perfectly used route that was ridiculously withdrawn.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jun 16, 2015 9:57:13 GMT
I would say Central London is served with various decent links connecting to areas outside the Zone 1 boundary, however there is an underlying issue which is somewhat overlooked. It is sometimes the case that you have to change routes to reach areas which are in fairly close proximity to one another, something that can easily be resolved with short extensions to existing routes or a minor route adjustment. A route linking the West End with London Bridge is a perfect example that should exist, amongst many other. I agree with twobellstogo about the great effectiveness of cross-city routes and routes between Central London and the suburbs. Regarding the former in particular, routes 19, 21, 23, 24, 27, 28, 36, 88, 148, 168, 328, 390, 414 are all perfect examples, even if there is scope for adjustment, they generally serve their purpose well. In fact I think London needs more of them as they are exceptionally useful. What's lacking at the moment is a south west - north east route crossing Central London, however I do acknowledge a route fulfilling this critieria would prove challenging due to the nature of roads i.e. not as direct as south east - north west, north - south etc, without mirroring existing routes or being indirect and congested. After all, cross-city routes are designed to be as direct as possible. What could be done to combat this is new or existing routes, or both, could use many of the unserved roads within Central London, this would enable much greater accessibility for the public and a quicker journey by potentially avoiding congested hotspots. Additionally, resources such as exclusive traffic lights and restricted turns to buses only would be very convenient and enhance access to the areas within Central London.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jun 14, 2015 22:23:32 GMT
I think this is realistic enough: ? The jagged '1' and Hammersmith Bus Station in the background gives it away
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jun 14, 2015 22:17:46 GMT
I have a few times to and from Hyde Park Corner, they are slightly better than the previous models although they don't match the Air Cooling systems on conventional buses, like the ADHs on the 27 for instance. Speaking of the newer LTs, I was recently on the 73 late at night and it was being thrashed along Park Lane...it sounded downright brilliant With the engine working or not? I think they sound ridiculously agricultural when the engines are working full pelt. It just sounds so wrong on what is supposed to be a modern bus. The engine was off, it had a somewhat robotic high pitched sound which I really like. I agree, when the engine is working that's when it sounds awful, it's like air being forcefully pushed out of an obstructed exhaust which completely ruins its modern appeal.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jun 14, 2015 19:06:10 GMT
--- Has anyone ridden the 73 LTs on a hot day? Are they any better?--- *coined by me. Royal Flush = complete a week's duty with all buses to VictoriaI have a few times to and from Hyde Park Corner, they are slightly better than the previous models although they don't match the Air Cooling systems on conventional buses, like the ADHs on the 27 for instance. Speaking of the newer LTs, I was recently on the 73 late at night and it was being thrashed along Park Lane...it sounded downright brilliant
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jun 14, 2015 18:58:42 GMT
Not really clapped out as such, but LT388 has a gigantic dent along the lower right side. 'The Dent Attractor' would be a fitting nickname for the LTs...so many of them dented these days!
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jun 14, 2015 18:45:42 GMT
From my observations, the 286 could warrant deckers though I'm not a regular user. The residents of the large housing area that the B14, R1 & R11 passes through south of Foots Cray, I suspect, would welcome a slightly more frequent service to the store and wouldn't add much time on either. That has also been my experience of the 286 with full to bursting buses at the Greenwich end at peak times. The route was restricted by the tree problems in Rochester Way for a while but that has now been sorted allowing the 132 to be double decked. I also regularly witness the 286 full to the brim at times. The 286 indeed could do with DDs coupled with a slight frequency reduction to every 12 mins, or it can stick with LWB SDs and gain a frequency increase to every 8 mins.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jun 8, 2015 8:51:14 GMT
To be honest the 228 is hardly used well, apart from being handy along the entire length of Ladbroke Grove I never really understood its introduction in the first place. It's pretty much a second 187 with a complicated route, axeing it completely wouldn't cause any significant issues. I can see the logic behind your interesting 206 proposal, the issue however is Route B would mirror the 187 to an extent i.e. going past Queen's Park, Harlesden and Central Middlesex Hospital. Perhaps the 187 could be extended to Ealing Broadway from Central Middlesex Hospital via Route B, assisting the 226 along the common section. As I mentioned in a previous post I couldn't see a reason to replace it, however the point you make is valid. I think the parrallel between the 187 and Route B is minor, it's not as parrallel as the 204 and 79. Howver I disagree with extending the 187 alongside the 226, I don think there is enough passenger demand to have two routes heading to virtually the same place. Also there's been a history of one low frequency routes in the Montpelier area (PR1 & 226) so to have two routes may ruffle some feathers. Yes having the 187 and 226 along a lightly used section wouldn't be wise, the 187 could go via Abbey Road, Twyford Abbey Road, Hanger Lane and onto Uxbridge Road instead, leaving the Montpelier area exclusively to the 226, providing an alternative means to Ealing Broadway from other areas along the route. From previous observations the 226 is rammed in the peaks to and from Ealing Broadway, this would be a welcoming introduction as well as a useful one.
|
|