Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2019 21:47:12 GMT
It should be remembered that from April the ULEZ will mean older cars and vans will have to pay a significant extra pollution.charge inside the congestion zone.At the same time minicabs will lose their exemption from the congestion charge. This is bound to reduce the volume of traffic.The road closures needed for the Holborn station upgrade will reduce the road space in the area and rule out additional stands there. Wasn't that the same rationale behind the congestion charge though? Some/most people will still pay regardless as it would be cheaper than buying a permitted vehicle/less stressful than public transport, same as the congestion charge. Nothing will change, although I hope it does.
|
|
|
Post by cl54 on Feb 3, 2019 0:09:58 GMT
It should be remembered that from April the ULEZ will mean older cars and vans will have to pay a significant extra pollution.charge inside the congestion zone.At the same time minicabs will lose their exemption from the congestion charge. This is bound to reduce the volume of traffic.The road closures needed for the Holborn station upgrade will reduce the road space in the area and rule out additional stands there. Wasn't that the same rationale behind the congestion charge though? Some/most people will still pay regardless as it would be cheaper than buying a permitted vehicle/less stressful than public transport, same as the congestion charge. Nothing will change, although I hope it does.
At a combined £21.50 per day it is likely to have an effect. From October 2021 the ULEZ extends to the North and South Circular boundary.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Feb 3, 2019 1:11:48 GMT
Wasn't that the same rationale behind the congestion charge though? Some/most people will still pay regardless as it would be cheaper than buying a permitted vehicle/less stressful than public transport, same as the congestion charge. Nothing will change, although I hope it does.
At a combined £21.50 per day it is likely to have an effect. From October 2021 the ULEZ extends to the North and South Circular boundary. Without a proper congestion busting policy in place, something else will fill the gap, notably more delivery vans. I also don't see as a big drop in private hire vehicles as your expecting but I really hope your correct
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Feb 3, 2019 12:15:36 GMT
This is what I expect to happen: 6 withdrawn between Aldwych and Trafalgar Square 9 uses Catherine Street stand currently used by RV1 76 withdrawn between Waterloo and St Paul's 87 withdrawn between Aldwych and Horse Guards Parade 172 revised to terminate at Waterloo, the Old Vic with the 26 using the current 76 stand
This is what I would like to happen: 1 merged with 168 to create one Hampstead Heath-Canada Water route 172 extended to Oxford Circus to give the 139 some much needed support
I would be very surprised if TFL don't go ahead with proposed changes to routes 4 and 171.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Feb 3, 2019 12:37:54 GMT
This is what I expect to happen: 6 withdrawn between Aldwych and Trafalgar Square 9 uses Catherine Street stand currently used by RV1 76 withdrawn between Waterloo and St Paul's 87 withdrawn between Aldwych and Horse Guards Parade 172 revised to terminate at Waterloo, the Old Vic with the 26 using the current 76 stand This is what I would like to happen: 1 merged with 168 to create one Hampstead Heath-Canada Water route 172 extended to Oxford Circus to give the 139 some much needed support I would be very surprised if TFL don't go ahead with proposed changes to routes 4 and 171. If you merge the 1 & 168, it would become very unreliable - long routes like that nowadays simply don't work, apart from certain exceptions, mainly due to increasing congestion.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Feb 3, 2019 12:39:02 GMT
The 1 being added to another route is quite a nice idea actually as being the number one route it's a rather sorry little route thou busy on the unique section along Grange Road and Southwark Park Road.
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Feb 3, 2019 12:49:23 GMT
It should be remembered that from April the ULEZ will mean older cars and vans will have to pay a significant extra pollution.charge inside the congestion zone. At the same time minicabs will lose their exemption from the congestion charge. This is bound to reduce the volume of traffic. The road closures needed for the Holborn station upgrade will reduce the road space in the area and rule out additional stands there. I don't think there will be any great change to the number of vehicles in the congestion charge zone as a result of the ULEZ. Most vehicles entering the zone during controlled hours I suspect are already compliant.
As for PHVs having to pay the congestion charge, this I don't think will make a huge difference. This is because the charge is per day, and not per journey. Once a PHV has paid the CC for the day, there is every incentive to stay in the zone, gain more journeys and 'make the most of having paid it'. You may even find an increase in the number of PHVs for this reason.
Let's wait and see, but I don't think these changes will make much difference to the number of vehicles in the congestion charge zone, but I would be delighted to be proved wrong.
|
|
|
Post by ronnie on Feb 3, 2019 13:18:11 GMT
The 1 being added to another route is quite a nice idea actually as being the number one route it's a rather sorry little route thou busy on the unique section along Grange Road and Southwark Park Road. Knowing tfl they would call the merged route 168, thereby getting rid of 1!
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Feb 3, 2019 13:46:33 GMT
This is what I expect to happen: 6 withdrawn between Aldwych and Trafalgar Square 9 uses Catherine Street stand currently used by RV1 76 withdrawn between Waterloo and St Paul's 87 withdrawn between Aldwych and Horse Guards Parade 172 revised to terminate at Waterloo, the Old Vic with the 26 using the current 76 stand This is what I would like to happen: 1 merged with 168 to create one Hampstead Heath-Canada Water route 172 extended to Oxford Circus to give the 139 some much needed support I would be very surprised if TFL don't go ahead with proposed changes to routes 4 and 171. There may not be sufficient stand spaces available for the 76 at St Paul's and the 87 at Whitehall. I think the best solution would be to extend a few routes slightly to fully replace the proposes shortened 11. The 311 could then take the 11 number. In this case, the 91 could be extended to Victoria via Westminster. Then between the 6, 9 and 87 - one route would take the 91's stand at Trafalgar Square, one route would use the RV1's Covent Garden stand, and one route extended via the 11 to Liverpool Street. The 172 could then be curtailed to Waterloo, using stand space from the 4 or 341.
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Feb 3, 2019 14:21:46 GMT
This is what I expect to happen: 6 withdrawn between Aldwych and Trafalgar Square 9 uses Catherine Street stand currently used by RV1 76 withdrawn between Waterloo and St Paul's 87 withdrawn between Aldwych and Horse Guards Parade 172 revised to terminate at Waterloo, the Old Vic with the 26 using the current 76 stand This is what I would like to happen: 1 merged with 168 to create one Hampstead Heath-Canada Water route 172 extended to Oxford Circus to give the 139 some much needed support I would be very surprised if TFL don't go ahead with proposed changes to routes 4 and 171. There may not be sufficient stand spaces available for the 76 at St Paul's and the 87 at Whitehall. I think the best solution would be to extend a few routes slightly to fully replace the proposes shortened 11. The 311 could then take the 11 number. In this case, the 91 could be extended to Victoria via Westminster. Then between the 6, 9 and 87 - one route would take the 91's stand at Trafalgar Square, one route would use the RV1's Covent Garden stand, and one route extended via the 11 to Liverpool Street. The 172 could then be curtailed to Waterloo, using stand space from the 4 or 341. I agree that the 91 should be extended beyond Trafalgar Square, almost empty buses sit in the traffic jam towards Trafalgar Square on the Strand and most people want to go further. It may as well run through to Victoria replacing the proposed shortened route 11. 6 will duplicate route 9 between Hyde Park Corner and Aldwych once route 9 is diverted to original routeing via Trafalgar Square. Can’t see that lasting. 6 to terminate at Trafalgar Square and 9 extended to Liverpool Street. Either 87 or 172 could run to Holborn, using 171 stand and other to use RV1 stand at Aldwych.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Feb 3, 2019 15:00:33 GMT
The 1 being added to another route is quite a nice idea actually as being the number one route it's a rather sorry little route thou busy on the unique section along Grange Road and Southwark Park Road. It’s only a good idea if it runs reliably and the problem is, you risk reliability by tacking it onto something else - nostalgia needs to be separated from practically.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Feb 3, 2019 15:10:28 GMT
This is what I expect to happen: 6 withdrawn between Aldwych and Trafalgar Square 9 uses Catherine Street stand currently used by RV1 76 withdrawn between Waterloo and St Paul's 87 withdrawn between Aldwych and Horse Guards Parade 172 revised to terminate at Waterloo, the Old Vic with the 26 using the current 76 stand This is what I would like to happen: 1 merged with 168 to create one Hampstead Heath-Canada Water route 172 extended to Oxford Circus to give the 139 some much needed support I would be very surprised if TFL don't go ahead with proposed changes to routes 4 and 171. There may not be sufficient stand spaces available for the 76 at St Paul's and the 87 at Whitehall. I think the best solution would be to extend a few routes slightly to fully replace the proposes shortened 11. The 311 could then take the 11 number. In this case, the 91 could be extended to Victoria via Westminster. Then between the 6, 9 and 87 - one route would take the 91's stand at Trafalgar Square, one route would use the RV1's Covent Garden stand, and one route extended via the 11 to Liverpool Street. The 172 could then be curtailed to Waterloo, using stand space from the 4 or 341. By extending the 91 as some sort of partial replacement for the 11, you are breaking links across Central London further limiting the ability to cross from one side to the other for people who are unable to use the Underground for a number of reasons. Furthermore, 91’s currently sit in heavy traffic on the Strand trying to reach Trafalgar Square so why sit through more along Victoria Street & around Parliament Square & Whitehall. The 3’s stand becomes empty when it takes the 53’s stand at Whitehall.
|
|
|
Post by John tuthill on Feb 3, 2019 15:47:16 GMT
click hereSTRAND ALDWYCH PROPOSALS have a look at the link above. The Aldwych was created in the 1920s when Kingsway was constructed, and I'll stand corrected if I'm wrong, but it's always been a one-way system(?) Seriously, is there a department that is hell bent of screwing up London? What with Trafalgar Square, and all the cycle routes I'm glad I don't work in London anymore. What it must be to be a service engineer with a van full of spares.......
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Feb 3, 2019 16:27:45 GMT
The 3’s stand becomes empty when it takes the 53’s stand at Whitehall. No it won't, the Central London Bus Consultation quite clearly states that the 3 is being cut back to Whitehall to free up its current stand for the 22.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Feb 3, 2019 17:15:30 GMT
The Aldwych was created in the 1920s when Kingsway was constructed, and I'll stand corrected if I'm wrong, but it's always been a one-way system(?) Seriously, is there a department that is hell bent of screwing up London? What with Trafalgar Square, and all the cycle routes I'm glad I don't work in London anymore. What it must be to be a service engineer with a van full of spares....... As I've said before highway engineering has phases as to what is "in fashion" and what isn't. They seem to spend a lot of time doing things and later undoing them and the redoing them again. There has always been a political / lobbying aspect behind these changes. It is rarely anything to do with a balanced assessment of overall transport *needs* and how to achieve an appropriate balance. Sadly "balance" is always defined by personal prejudices as to how individuals believe they should be allowed to travel without recognising the needs of others. What we are seeing now is a "fad" towards lowering speed and reducing road space and forcing people on to main roads only. Unfortunately it has gone so far that it is also making bus services less effective / less efficient which is a frankly ridiculous outcome.
|
|