|
|
Post by busaholic on Aug 19, 2019 14:14:30 GMT
That's the 12,38 and 109 out of the window too, then, not to forget the 68, 521 and many other of the most necessary routes in London. I did think at one point there may have been a bounty on the 68 due to the large overlap with the 468 and the large amounts of routes betwen Elephant and Aldwych/Holborn/Russell Square/Euston. Ultermately the 171 paid the price. I look forward to the making of 'Mutiny on the 68' with the late Kenneth Williams making a cameo appearance.  |
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Aug 19, 2019 15:11:10 GMT
That's the 12,38 and 109 out of the window too, then, not to forget the 68, 521 and many other of the most necessary routes in London. I did think at one point there may have been a bounty on the 68 due to the large overlap with the 468 and the large amounts of routes betwen Elephant and Aldwych/Holborn/Russell Square/Euston. Ultermately the 171 paid the price. With changes to the road layout at Holborn on the cards, I wouldn't be surprised if one of the 59 or 68 is cutback. The two now parallel one another from Euston to Waterloo, and I fear if a North-South route is to be cut from Holborn it'll be the 59 cutback to either Aldywch or Waterloo. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Aug 19, 2019 15:25:21 GMT
I doubt either the 59 or 68 would be cut to Aldwych due to planned works there and potentially a reduction in the amount of stand space and there is little space at Waterloo that's why it's mroe possible an entire route would be removed.
|
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Aug 19, 2019 15:57:05 GMT
I doubt either the 59 or 68 would be cut to Aldwych due to planned works there and potentially a reduction in the amount of stand space and there is little space at Waterloo that's why it's mroe possible an entire route would be removed. I could see the 139 being hacked back to its previous terminus of Trafalgar Square as this would reduce the number of buses around the Strand and Aldwych. It might also free stand space at Waterloo if the 59 or 68 were hacked back. Another possibility would be the 6. It's re-routing via Park Lane and Piccadilly has not exactly been a success, so it might be cut to Marble Arch, reducing the amount of stand space needed at Aldwych. Where it would stand at Marble Arch is another matter! Worse the 414 could be extended to Willesden and the 6 removed altogether.
From a passenger perspective it is of course all complete madness , all the above routes are very well used. The 139 in particular is now very busy along the Strand following the removal of so many other routes.
|
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Aug 19, 2019 16:35:48 GMT
I wondered if something from TSQ to Aldwych may be pulled back to Cockspur Street now the 3 has gone. Maybe 6/9 or 87 could be relive pressure on Aldwych.
|
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Aug 19, 2019 16:36:33 GMT
I doubt either the 59 or 68 would be cut to Aldwych due to planned works there and potentially a reduction in the amount of stand space and there is little space at Waterloo that's why it's mroe possible an entire route would be removed. I could see the 139 being hacked back to its previous terminus of Trafalgar Square as this would reduce the number of buses around the Strand and Aldwych. It might also free stand space at Waterloo if the 59 or 68 were hacked back. Another possibility would be the 6. It's re-routing via Park Lane and Piccadilly has not exactly been a success, so it might be cut to Marble Arch, reducing the amount of stand space needed at Aldwych. Where it would stand at Marble Arch is another matter! Worse the 414 could be extended to Willesden and the 6 removed altogether.
From a passenger perspective it is of course all complete madness , all the above routes are very well used. The 139 in particular is now very busy along the Strand following the removal of so many other routes.
Yet despite the removal of the 13 and 23, the Strand is still crawling. It’s appallingly slow along that stretch, with some buses half empty. I think that after the bus stop outside Charing Cross Station, there should be a traffic light holding cars back but allowing buses ahead to use both lanes. Countless times I’ve been on buses stuck right at the end of the Strand, and the matter is worsened by the 11/87/91 (which stop just ahead of all the other routes) and often clog up the bus lane. I could certainly see the 6 being cutback to at least Trafalgar Square if not further, buses don’t carry good leadings along that section. I think despite the 9 being slowed by the rerouting, there is demand for that link to Piccadilly, meanwhile the 6 wouldn’t be a bad candidate to send via Pall Mall, and reduce the gross overbussing on Piccadilly (although the 6 via Pall Mall would be punishing the 6 for the 38’s crime). I don’t see the remodelling of Aldwych happening any time soon. Even if it does, there’s still the Catharine Street stand, and new stand space for buses in those plans so it’s not the end of the world. |
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Aug 19, 2019 16:38:01 GMT
I wondered if something from TSQ to Aldwych may be pulled back to Cockspur Street now the 3 has gone. Maybe 6/9 or 87 could be relive pressure on Aldwych. I think the 6 would have to take the soggy biscuit there, it has the lightest usage of those three |
|
|
|
Post by Green Kitten on Aug 19, 2019 16:49:04 GMT
The 414? If it didn't run one day just get the 6 or 14 instead, both have plenty of spare capacity. I'd also question how necessary the recently introduced 378 is, why not just extend the 22 to Mortlake instead? It seems like such a logical idea, but London Buses are much loath to do it. :/ |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 19, 2019 17:29:44 GMT
I could see the 139 being hacked back to its previous terminus of Trafalgar Square as this would reduce the number of buses around the Strand and Aldwych. It might also free stand space at Waterloo if the 59 or 68 were hacked back. Another possibility would be the 6. It's re-routing via Park Lane and Piccadilly has not exactly been a success, so it might be cut to Marble Arch, reducing the amount of stand space needed at Aldwych. Where it would stand at Marble Arch is another matter! Worse the 414 could be extended to Willesden and the 6 removed altogether.
From a passenger perspective it is of course all complete madness , all the above routes are very well used. The 139 in particular is now very busy along the Strand following the removal of so many other routes.
Yet despite the removal of the 13 and 23, the Strand is still crawling. It’s appallingly slow along that stretch, with some buses half empty. I think that after the bus stop outside Charing Cross Station, there should be a traffic light holding cars back but allowing buses ahead to use both lanes. Countless times I’ve been on buses stuck right at the end of the Strand, and the matter is worsened by the 11/87/91 (which stop just ahead of all the other routes) and often clog up the bus lane. I could certainly see the 6 being cutback to at least Trafalgar Square if not further, buses don’t carry good leadings along that section. I think despite the 9 being slowed by the rerouting, there is demand for that link to Piccadilly, meanwhile the 6 wouldn’t be a bad candidate to send via Pall Mall, and reduce the gross overbussing on Piccadilly (although the 6 via Pall Mall would be punishing the 6 for the 38’s crime). I don’t see the remodelling of Aldwych happening any time soon. Even if it does, there’s still the Catharine Street stand, and new stand space for buses in those plans so it’s not the end of the world. And that is why it’s disgraceful when it’s alleged that so called bus congestion is the problem when it’s really a smokescreen from the real issue which is other vehicles. No politician will back this of course because bus passengers don’t get them into office. |
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Aug 19, 2019 17:32:46 GMT
Yet despite the removal of the 13 and 23, the Strand is still crawling. It’s appallingly slow along that stretch, with some buses half empty. I think that after the bus stop outside Charing Cross Station, there should be a traffic light holding cars back but allowing buses ahead to use both lanes. Countless times I’ve been on buses stuck right at the end of the Strand, and the matter is worsened by the 11/87/91 (which stop just ahead of all the other routes) and often clog up the bus lane. I could certainly see the 6 being cutback to at least Trafalgar Square if not further, buses don’t carry good leadings along that section. I think despite the 9 being slowed by the rerouting, there is demand for that link to Piccadilly, meanwhile the 6 wouldn’t be a bad candidate to send via Pall Mall, and reduce the gross overbussing on Piccadilly (although the 6 via Pall Mall would be punishing the 6 for the 38’s crime). I don’t see the remodelling of Aldwych happening any time soon. Even if it does, there’s still the Catharine Street stand, and new stand space for buses in those plans so it’s not the end of the world. And that is why it’s disgraceful when it’s alleged that so called bus congestion is the problem when it’s really a smokescreen from the real issue which is other vehicles. No politician will back this of course because bus passengers don’t get them into office. Couldn't have put it better myself. Bus congestion is an effect of traffic congestion rather than a cause of it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2019 18:11:36 GMT
And that is why it’s disgraceful when it’s alleged that so called bus congestion is the problem when it’s really a smokescreen from the real issue which is other vehicles. No politician will back this of course because bus passengers don’t get them into office. Couldn't have put it better myself. Bus congestion is an effect of traffic congestion rather than a cause of it. When there is a rake of buses at the lights on the north side of Waterloo Bridge with handfuls of passengers on board what else can you call it but bus congestion? |
|
|
|
Post by I-Azusio-I on Aug 19, 2019 18:27:08 GMT
Does 199 count?
Just 47 or even 188 > 180 > any bus going from Lewisham to Bellingham
The only section it has to itself [and N199] is Pepys Estate (short walking distances from Evelyn Street - 47/188). The route itself isn’t unnecessary and is also a better alternative to 47 most of the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Aug 19, 2019 18:31:18 GMT
Couldn't have put it better myself. Bus congestion is an effect of traffic congestion rather than a cause of it. When there is a rake of buses at the lights on the north side of Waterloo Bridge with handfuls of passengers on board what else can you call it but bus congestion? I’m not denying that bus congestion exists. However, bus congestion is caused by poor phasing, and is a byproduct of congestion. To combat bus congestion, priority measures are needed. |
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Aug 19, 2019 19:25:13 GMT
And that is why it’s disgraceful when it’s alleged that so called bus congestion is the problem when it’s really a smokescreen from the real issue which is other vehicles. No politician will back this of course because bus passengers don’t get them into office. Couldn't have put it better myself. Bus congestion is an effect of traffic congestion rather than a cause of it. Whilst I agree, in the specific case of the Westbound Strand the cause was the part pedestrianisation of Trafalgar Square. The current road layout doesn't properly cater for either the number of buses or general traffic. The whole thing needs re-visiting, with a particular view to ensuring there is sufficient road capacity for the number of buses.
The Westbound Strand should be a case in point for any changes at Aldwych - do we really want to duplicate the Westbound Strand traffic jams on the Eastbound Strand? If Aldwych is going to be re-modelled, there is a great opportunity to show how well it can be done, with minimal traffic impact and in particular no adverse impact on buses.
|
|
|
|
Post by localet44 on Aug 19, 2019 19:43:26 GMT
I did think at one point there may have been a bounty on the 68 due to the large overlap with the 468 and the large amounts of routes betwen Elephant and Aldwych/Holborn/Russell Square/Euston. Ultermately the 171 paid the price. With changes to the road layout at Holborn on the cards, I wouldn't be surprised if one of the 59 or 68 is cutback. The two now parallel one another from Euston to Waterloo, and I fear if a North-South route is to be cut from Holborn it'll be the 59 cutback to either Aldywch or Waterloo. Surely the 68 would be the route to withdraw from the Waterloo to Euston route. The 68 could be withdrawn and the 468 could be extended from Elephant & Castle to Waterloo or Aldwych providing an overlapping section with the 168 from Elephant & Castle towards Euston. |
|
