|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Aug 19, 2019 19:54:58 GMT
Would make the 468 quite long. They could swap the 50 and 468 to shorten it. If and it's a massive if, then I can see the 68 being slid and the 468 withdrawn. Would make it less notice to the public axing the 468 and not the 68.
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 19, 2019 20:02:50 GMT
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 The 68 could be withdrawn and the 468 could be extended from Elephant & Castle to Waterloo or Aldwych providing an overlapping section with the 168 from Elephant & Castle towards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. This could cause reliability issues to the 468 given its long length already. There is no need to withdraw the 68. |
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Aug 19, 2019 20:03:48 GMT
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 The 68 could be withdrawn and the 468 could be extended from Elephant & Castle to Waterloo or Aldwych providing an overlapping section with the 168 from Elephant & Castle towards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. I don't see a total withdrawal of the 68 as likely. Its a vital trunk route, and the 468 is too long already without extending it on to Waterloo. Furthermore, there isn't sufficient capacity on the 168/468 to cope without the 68. However, if a 68 withdrawal is on the cards, then the 468's rerouting to terminate on Newington Causeway may have been a cynical move to take patronage away from the 68. |
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Aug 19, 2019 20:07:25 GMT
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 The 68 could be withdrawn and the 468 could be extended from Elephant & Castle to Waterloo or Aldwych providing an overlapping section with the 168 from Elephant & Castle towards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. This could cause reliability issues to the 468 given its long length already. There is no need to withdraw the 68. , you're a Brixton local so I'd be keen to know your thoughts on this. What do you think the likelihood of the 59 being pulled out of Holborn? And do you think its more likely that the 59 or 68 would be the Aldywch-Euston roure which is cut? |
|
|
|
Post by redexpress on Aug 19, 2019 20:44:24 GMT
Ignoring the debate over the necessity or not of these sorts of routes, I always thought the 317 was a good example. There are loads of buses between Enfield and Baird Road stop. From here there is the more frequent 217 to Waltham Cross. The 231 is similar but without the convenient same stop interchange (although one only has to cross the road). 217, 231 and 317 are good examples because they are all technically "unnecessary". Except that you can't withdraw all three because they all depend on each other for their unnecessary-ness! |
|
|
|
Post by redexpress on Aug 19, 2019 20:56:02 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. 109 has a bit of road to itself in Norbury (well it is shared with the N109, but I'm assuming that doesn't count for the purposes of this thread). |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 19, 2019 22:18:02 GMT
This could cause reliability issues to the 468 given its long length already. There is no need to withdraw the 68. , you're a Brixton local so I'd be keen to know your thoughts on this. What do you think the likelihood of the 59 being pulled out of Holborn? And do you think its more likely that the 59 or 68 would be the Aldywch-Euston roure which is cut? Given TfL's lack of interest in it's passengers, it wouldn't surprise me. It all depends how brutal the next mayor will want to be with phase 2 of the Central London cuts. |
|
|
|
Post by YY13VKP on Aug 19, 2019 22:34:25 GMT
I think the R9 is slightly unnecessary, it's route is pretty much already covered by the 353 and R2
|
|
|
|
Post by lundnah on Aug 19, 2019 22:46:13 GMT
I think the R9 is slightly unnecessary, it's route is pretty much already covered by the 353 and R2 But the R9 is not technically unnecessary, as it runs along four roads no other route covers. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 19, 2019 23:27:37 GMT
I think the R9 is slightly unnecessary, it's route is pretty much already covered by the 353 and R2 But the R9 is not technically unnecessary, as it runs along four roads no other route covers. Although your general point is correct, is it not just two roads that the R9 doesn't serve - Avalon Road & Chelsfield Lane. Everything else is served by at least one other route AFAIK? |
|
|
|
Post by lundnah on Aug 20, 2019 0:04:19 GMT
But the R9 is not technically unnecessary, as it runs along four roads no other route covers. Although your general point is correct, is it not just two roads that the R9 doesn't serve - Avalon Road & Chelsfield Lane. Everything else is served by at least one other route AFAIK? And Spur Road and one end of Tintagel Road.
Pedantry aside, the R9 is not technically unnecessary.
|
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Aug 20, 2019 6:36:40 GMT
vjaska, you're a Brixton local so I'd be keen to know your thoughts on this. What do you think the likelihood of the 59 being pulled out of Holborn? And do you think its more likely that the 59 or 68 would be the Aldywch-Euston roure which is cut? Given TfL's lack of interest in it's passengers, it wouldn't surprise me. It all depends how brutal the next mayor will want to be with phase 2 of the Central London cuts. In reality it seems The Mayors are quite happy to leave it to TFL. They are probably fully aware that it's a result of budget cuts and their other schemes like cycling damaging passenger numbers so I would expect little opposition from whoever wins. I cant imagine what would be in phase 2 of the Central London cuts? |
|
|
|
Post by londonboy71 on Aug 20, 2019 9:25:48 GMT
I WOULD suggest 207 and 427. They run parallel with 607 for most of their route. Wow someone from West London commenting. Maybe the South Londoners are all on holiday!!
|
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Aug 20, 2019 9:39:12 GMT
I WOULD suggest 207 and 427. They run parallel with 607 for most of their route. Wow someone from West London commenting. Maybe the South Londoners are all on holiday!! You sound like the bus planning department when justifying the 427's cutback |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 20, 2019 9:40:49 GMT
Although your general point is correct, is it not just two roads that the R9 doesn't serve - Avalon Road & Chelsfield Lane. Everything else is served by at least one other route AFAIK? And Spur Road and one end of Tintagel Road. Pedantry aside, the R9 is not technically unnecessary.
Ok, so three roads then. |
|
