|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Nov 24, 2019 8:33:28 GMT
I wonder if any plans are thought of for the Selfridges to Marble Arch section. Stand space probably being the issue at M arch but I can quite easily see the 2/13/30/74/113/189/274 being viewed as ripe for a rationalisation between Baker Street and M Arch. Maybe the 74/414 merging or the 113 or 189 cut to Baker Street I'm a big proponent of reconnecting Paddington Basin to the bus network. I think that sending the 74 up to Paddington Basin to replneish bus capacity on Edgware Road at the expense of the 414 would be a good idea. In the 159 cutback consultation, one of the alternatives considered was to send the 414 to Paddington Basin which would reduce duplication between 6 and 414. I've previously suggested extending the 137 up to Paddington Basin, but the 74 is a good candidate too. It seems ridiculous that there are so many routes between Baker Street and Marble Arch as you say, diverting the 113 to Marble Arch will further increase duplication. I think the 113 should rerouted between Oxford Circus and Baker Street via Marylebone and Portland Place as this does at least maintain a Finchley Road-Oxford Circus, this could come at expense of a 453 cutback to Oxford Circus. Given that routes 205 terminates at Paddigton from the east, this would be a suitable extension to Paddington Basin. I exclude route 332 as this has been touted for a rerouting south of Kilburn High Road.
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Nov 24, 2019 8:56:00 GMT
I'm a big proponent of reconnecting Paddington Basin to the bus network. I think that sending the 74 up to Paddington Basin to replneish bus capacity on Edgware Road at the expense of the 414 would be a good idea. In the 159 cutback consultation, one of the alternatives considered was to send the 414 to Paddington Basin which would reduce duplication between 6 and 414. I've previously suggested extending the 137 up to Paddington Basin, but the 74 is a good candidate too. It seems ridiculous that there are so many routes between Baker Street and Marble Arch as you say, diverting the 113 to Marble Arch will further increase duplication. I think the 113 should rerouted between Oxford Circus and Baker Street via Marylebone and Portland Place as this does at least maintain a Finchley Road-Oxford Circus, this could come at expense of a 453 cutback to Oxford Circus. Given that routes 205 terminates at Paddigton from the east, this would be a suitable extension to Paddington Basin. I exclude route 332 as this has been touted for a rerouting south of Kilburn High Road. I think those plans for Paddington for the 23, 46, and 332 have been quietly killed off. The 23 to Wembley is dead now, which I think is a huge shame. The 16 has had a PVR cut so I'm not sure that TfL would be so irresponsible as to further erode bus services along Edgware Road.
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Nov 24, 2019 9:01:14 GMT
Given that routes 205 terminates at Paddigton from the east, this would be a suitable extension to Paddington Basin. I exclude route 332 as this has been touted for a rerouting south of Kilburn High Road. I think those plans for Paddington for the 23, 46, and 332 have been quietly killed off. The 23 to Wembley is dead now, which I think is a huge shame. The 16 has had a PVR cut so I'm not sure that TfL would be so irresponsible as to further erode bus services along Edgware Road. As compensation for route 23 diverted to Wembley, route 452 would have been diverted to Westbourne Park. This could have added inspiration to TT (X) to bid for route 452.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Nov 24, 2019 17:49:37 GMT
Again quite a hefty drop to the 52 has probably saved the 452 to Kensal Rise.
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Nov 24, 2019 21:43:09 GMT
Again quite a hefty drop to the 52 has probably saved the 452 to Kensal Rise. I think its a shame rerouting the 452 to Westbourne Park didn't go ahead as that would help to give the northern end of this route so more purpose, I did think the 452 was treading on thin ice for a while but it seems to be safe for now. However, I would rather see the 452 withdrawn than the 48.
|
|
|
Post by rj131 on Nov 24, 2019 22:07:29 GMT
Again quite a hefty drop to the 52 has probably saved the 452 to Kensal Rise. I think its a shame rerouting the 452 to Westbourne Park didn't go ahead as that would help to give the northern end of this route so more purpose, I did think the 452 was treading on thin ice for a while but it seems to be safe for now. However, I would rather see the 452 withdrawn than the 48. I see why you’d think the 452 could be in danger with it just being carbon copies of other routes stitched together, but I didn’t think it was ever vulnerable. If it was vulnerable TfL would have dealt with it on its recent retender as it’s the perfect time to change it, with either a big drop or simply not being retendered at all. It already had a cut just before Abellio handed over the route to TT so fortunately it had already been dealt with
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Nov 24, 2019 22:32:23 GMT
The 452 like with the 414 struggled to gain large numbers of passengers as they didn't actually replace any route but more supported. Had the 452 taken over the Willesden to Kensal Rise section of the 52 then it would have had a more in built audience like with the 333/363/432 etc. The growth has been slow but the reduction to the 52 will probably help it become more useful. Unfortunately it's harder for it to take some pressure off the 137 as it doesn't run to Clapham Common. Had it run to the Common then the 137 would probably have dropped to every 8-10 mins as there is the 417 to BN for support and demand for the 137 falters after Clap Comm.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 25, 2019 11:18:01 GMT
The 452 like with the 414 struggled to gain large numbers of passengers as they didn't actually replace any route but more supported. Had the 452 taken over the Willesden to Kensal Rise section of the 52 then it would have had a more in built audience like with the 333/363/432 etc. The growth has been slow but the reduction to the 52 will probably help it become more useful. Unfortunately it's harder for it to take some pressure off the 137 as it doesn't run to Clapham Common. Had it run to the Common then the 137 would probably have dropped to every 8-10 mins as there is the 417 to BN for support and demand for the 137 falters after Clap Comm. I’m afraid this isn’t true - the 452 since it’s inception gained a good amount of passengers and shouldn’t of been cut before nor should any further cut depend on what happens with the 52. The 452 has unfairly been castigated on here many times. Support and demand does not falter after Clapham Common - there is a reason why the 137 & 417 (137A before that) have both run up to Streatham Hill at the very least. Once towards the end of Kings Avenue, it gets quieter as you finish serving the residential areas bar the one on Atkins Road
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Nov 25, 2019 17:57:48 GMT
I think its a shame rerouting the 452 to Westbourne Park didn't go ahead as that would help to give the northern end of this route so more purpose, I did think the 452 was treading on thin ice for a while but it seems to be safe for now. However, I would rather see the 452 withdrawn than the 48. I see why you’d think the 452 could be in danger with it just being carbon copies of other routes stitched together, but I didn’t think it was ever vulnerable. If it was vulnerable TfL would have dealt with it on its recent retender as it’s the perfect time to change it, with either a big drop or simply not being retendered at all. It already had a cut just before Abellio handed over the route to TT so fortunately it had already been dealt with I think that the Vauxhall extension has helped to serve the route as it serves more purpose now it terminates at a major transport hub thus increasing the wealth of options available there as well as adding bus capacity to Wandsworth Road to ease pressure on the 77 and 87.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 25, 2019 18:17:51 GMT
I see why you’d think the 452 could be in danger with it just being carbon copies of other routes stitched together, but I didn’t think it was ever vulnerable. If it was vulnerable TfL would have dealt with it on its recent retender as it’s the perfect time to change it, with either a big drop or simply not being retendered at all. It already had a cut just before Abellio handed over the route to TT so fortunately it had already been dealt with I think that the Vauxhall extension has helped to serve the route as it serves more purpose now it terminates at a major transport hub thus increasing the wealth of options available there as well as adding bus capacity to Wandsworth Road to ease pressure on the 77 and 87. I think your being a tad harsh - it's always had a purpose since introduction and outlived what is was partially introduced for (Western extension of the congestion charge zone) - the Vauxhall extension has merely given it a further purpose on it's existing purposes by relieving the 77 & 87 as you rightly mention.
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Apr 22, 2020 21:38:39 GMT
So if the 94 was to be diverted to North Row how would it turn around? Where would the pick up stop be? And would it serve Marble Arch stop (P)?
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Apr 23, 2020 10:52:44 GMT
I'm not sure. Iv never been able to work it out. I would imagine it will drop off Marble Arch/Bayswater Road then right into Park Lane then left into North Row to drop off and stand. Then leave the stand and maybe pick up there then pick up at the Marble Arch station stop then proceed along Bayswater Road as normal. Or it could do that in reverse?
|
|
|
Post by greg on Apr 24, 2020 7:58:18 GMT
So if the 94 was to be diverted to North Row how would it turn around? Where would the pick up stop be? And would it serve Marble Arch stop (P)? There is a back road to turn around on the side of Primark so I am guessing the first stop would be on Bayswater Road as the stops infront of Primark are for routes terminating at Marble Arch only except the 274. Maybe a new stop for the 94 and 274 can be created. One thing I’m not sure about is how stand space can be made in North Row 50% of it has no footpath for Primark deliveries it doesn’t seem like a good stand. I think it should stand where the Tour buses stand instead on Park Lane and then via North Row or even terminate at Portman Square for Selfridges.
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Apr 24, 2020 8:04:16 GMT
So if the 94 was to be diverted to North Row how would it turn around? Where would the pick up stop be? And would it serve Marble Arch stop (P)? There is a back road to turn around on the side of Primark so I am guessing the first stop would be on Bayswater Road as the stops infront of Primark are for routes terminating at Marble Arch only except the 274. Maybe a new stop for the 94 and 274 can be created. One thing I’m not sure about is how stand space can be made in North Row 50% of it has no footpath for Primark deliveries it doesn’t seem like a good stand. I think it should stand where the Tour buses stand instead on Park Lane and then via North Row or even terminate at Portman Square for Selfridges. Doesn't the 94 stop outside Primark now? First stop in Bayswater Road would be totally unsatisfactory.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Apr 24, 2020 16:43:15 GMT
With other consultations being pushed through 112/withdrawn 611 and now the 384 I wouldn't be surprised to suddenly see the Oxford Street Ammendments pushed through with the 94 and 113 squeezed into the current Marble Arch stands and the 159 back to Oxo due to their new financial constraints.
|
|