Withdrawn/new bus route ideas

[ADH45258]

Oct 31, 2024 13:23:53 GMT greenboy said:

Oct 31, 2024 1:03:29 GMT ADH45258 said:

Central London restructure idea:

133 - Removed from Holborn, either restored to Liverpool Street, or rerouted to Aldgate via Fenchurch Street.

17 - Diverted between Mansion House and Chancery Lane via the 133 (via St Pauls Station).

59 - Restored to Kings Cross. Capacity maintained via Russell Square by rerouteing the 68 away from Euston instead (the 1 continues to link to Elephant & Castle).

381 - Withdrawn between County Hall and Waterloo IMAX, instead extended to Holborn (133 stand). Continues to link Holborn to London Bridge, and also restores the former RV1 links from Aldwych to Southwark, London Bridge and City Hall. Could consider looping via Mepham Street and Tenison Way to better serve Waterloo Station.

68/172/176/188 - Termini swapped around. Route 188 cut back to Waterloo and the 176 to Aldwych, both to improve reliability. Route 68 rerouted to Tottenham Court Road via Trafalgar Square (replacing the 176), and the 172 extended from Aldwych to TCR via Holborn (replacing the 188).

Night services
N133 - Replaced by a 24-hour service on the 133 to/from Streatham.
N59 - New night route from Kings Cross to Morden.
159 - Night service withdrawn, replaced by the N59 and N109.
N381 - Rerouted to Holborn (West End served by Aldwych instead of Trafalgar Square).
N68 - diverted via Trafalgar Square.

I agree about the 17 and 133 but whether the 59 or 68 should serve Euston is swings and roundabouts, I'd prefer the 68 as it's the more established route and there are tube alternatives to the 59. The 381 routing is a bit indirect between London Bridge and Holborn and also takes it away from St Thomas's Hospital.

The advantage of having the 59 go to Euston is it provides a greater variety of links, while the 1/68 currently run parallel to Elephant & Castle. Not sure how many passengers would travel from Euston to places beyond Elephant, but there is Thameslink available from nearby St Pancras to Loughborough Junction, Herne Hill and Tulse Hill.

The 381 going to Holborn via Waterloo would be a similar distance to the current 133 via St Pauls. I wouldn't say it's indirect, and it would provide some new links including those previously served by the RV1. Regarding St Thomas Hospital, the C10 would still cover some similar links to the east (and the 344 stops a short walk away for links to Southwark). I've also suggested before to extend the 11 from Waterloo to London Bridge (via the 381).

[greenboy]

Nov 2, 2024 12:37:04 GMT ADH45258 said:

Oct 31, 2024 13:23:53 GMT greenboy said:

I agree about the 17 and 133 but whether the 59 or 68 should serve Euston is swings and roundabouts, I'd prefer the 68 as it's the more established route and there are tube alternatives to the 59. The 381 routing is a bit indirect between London Bridge and Holborn and also takes it away from St Thomas's Hospital.

The advantage of having the 59 go to Euston is it provides a greater variety of links, while the 1/68 currently run parallel to Elephant & Castle. Not sure how many passengers would travel from Euston to places beyond Elephant, but there is Thameslink available from nearby St Pancras to Loughborough Junction, Herne Hill and Tulse Hill.

The 381 going to Holborn via Waterloo would be a similar distance to the current 133 via St Pauls. I wouldn't say it's indirect, and it would provide some new links including those previously served by the RV1. Regarding St Thomas Hospital, the C10 would still cover some similar links to the east (and the 344 stops a short walk away for links to Southwark). I've also suggested before to extend the 11 from Waterloo to London Bridge (via the 381).

Again it's swings and roundabouts, TfL decided to remove the 59 from Euston rather than the 68 and I think the only way of keeping both would be to have extended the 59 to Hampstead Heath rather than the 1.

I think the ideal London Bridge to Holborn link would be the 98 but obviously it means another route across London Bridge unless something else is cut.

[mrhk]

Hayes Bus Changes (re-looked):

Routes 90, E6, H98 and U7

90: Withdrawn between Hayes, The Grapes and Northolt Station and diverted to Greenford Station via current route E6. Yeading Tesco loop only served when Tesco is open.

H98: Diverted at Uxbridge County Court to Northolt Station. This will retain most of the current route 90 as far as Harlington Corner (although passengers may use the faster 140/SL9 over this stretch).

E6: Withdrawn completely. See routes 90 and U7 for replacement.

SL9: Frequency upgraded to 6bph.

U7: Diverted at Hayes, The Brook House via current route 90 to Kingshill Avenue, 140 to The Grapes, and route E6 to Bull's Bridge Tesco. This would allow the lower half of the E6 to still be connected to Bull's Bridge Tesco whilst the Greenford - Hayes stretch would be covered by the new 90.

Routes 195 and 495

195: Diverted at Hayes Town via Coldharbour Lane to Hayes Sainsbury's. Withdrawn between Charville Lane and Hayes Town.

495: Extended to Charville Lane Estate via current route 195 onward from Hayes Town. This will retain the current 195's connections between Charville Lane to Hayes and even beyond to Southall Station.

U5: Extended to Southall, Town Hall via new route 495. As the 495 running to Charville Lane wouldn't be able to serve Hayes and Harlington, this make for that lost link and allow areas such as West Drayton and Stockley to gain new connections.

[YX18KVJ (DLE30221)]

Nov 2, 2024 19:45:46 GMT mrhk said:

Hayes Bus Changes (re-looked):

Routes 90, E6, H98 and U7

90: Withdrawn between Hayes, The Grapes and Northolt Station and diverted to Greenford Station via current route E6. Yeading Tesco loop only served when Tesco is open.

H98: Diverted at Uxbridge County Court to Northolt Station. This will retain most of the current route 90 as far as Harlington Corner (although passengers may use the faster 140/SL9 over this stretch).

E6: Withdrawn completely. See routes 90 and U7 for replacement.

SL9: Frequency upgraded to 6bph.

U7: Diverted at Hayes, The Brook House via current route 90 to Kingshill Avenue, 140 to The Grapes, and route E6 to Bull's Bridge Tesco. This would allow the lower half of the E6 to still be connected to Bull's Bridge Tesco whilst the Greenford - Hayes stretch would be covered by the new 90.

Routes 195 and 495

195: Diverted at Hayes Town via Coldharbour Lane to Hayes Sainsbury's. Withdrawn between Charville Lane and Hayes Town.

495: Extended to Charville Lane Estate via current route 195 onward from Hayes Town. This will retain the current 195's connections between Charville Lane to Hayes and even beyond to Southall Station.

U5: Extended to Southall, Town Hall via new route 495. As the 495 running to Charville Lane wouldn't be able to serve Hayes and Harlington, this make for that lost link and allow areas such as West Drayton and Stockley to gain new connections.

I don’t think the 90/E6/U7/H98 should be played around with. They seem to run fairly well in their current form.
Though I do agree on the 495/U5/SL9

[mrhk]

Nov 2, 2024 19:45:46 GMT mrhk said:

Hayes Bus Changes (re-looked):

Routes 90, E6, H98 and U7

90: Withdrawn between Hayes, The Grapes and Northolt Station and diverted to Greenford Station via current route E6. Yeading Tesco loop only served when Tesco is open.

H98: Diverted at Uxbridge County Court to Northolt Station. This will retain most of the current route 90 as far as Harlington Corner (although passengers may use the faster 140/SL9 over this stretch).

E6: Withdrawn completely. See routes 90 and U7 for replacement.

SL9: Frequency upgraded to 6bph.

U7: Diverted at Hayes, The Brook House via current route 90 to Kingshill Avenue, 140 to The Grapes, and route E6 to Bull's Bridge Tesco. This would allow the lower half of the E6 to still be connected to Bull's Bridge Tesco whilst the Greenford - Hayes stretch would be covered by the new 90.

Routes 195 and 495

195: Diverted at Hayes Town via Coldharbour Lane to Hayes Sainsbury's. Withdrawn between Charville Lane and Hayes Town.

495: Extended to Charville Lane Estate via current route 195 onward from Hayes Town. This will retain the current 195's connections between Charville Lane to Hayes and even beyond to Southall Station.

U5: Extended to Southall, Town Hall via new route 495. As the 495 running to Charville Lane wouldn't be able to serve Hayes and Harlington, this make for that lost link and allow areas such as West Drayton and Stockley to gain new connections.

I would've thought the 495/U5 changes would've been the ones with the most backlash 😂 but fair enough. Appreciate the reply!

[VMH2537]

My Enfield Bus Review, 2024

For those who remember a few years ago, I've posted my own bus review within the Enfield borough as well as within other areas locally on what I think could benefit from an improved network either coming from route restructurings or enhancing service patterns. Recently, time has been spent developing a revised review on the same principles with updates to the initial ideas placed. Most of the schemes I believe are cost effective and deliver a net benefit to users overall based on current financial standpoints and aligning with planning objectives from the Mayors transport policy and TfL's pledge to grow service usage. 

This updated review is of the Enfield borough, it does not contain ideas for the Upper Lea Valley corridor, however a separate review paper will be published dedicated specifically for the corridor. Other review papers in the pipeline include one for the Barnet and Waltham Forest boroughs. 

Below is the link for my Enfield Bus Review and would appreciate feedback if possible. 

docs.google.com/document/d/1hy1-WweriTvvt_tWePfVqEnoORj0TisrVmvzxvCKq9k/edit?usp=sharing   

[TB123]

Nov 3, 2024 11:56:42 GMT VMH2537 said:

My Enfield Bus Review, 2024

For those who remember a few years ago, I've posted my own bus review within the Enfield borough as well as within other areas locally on what I think could benefit from an improved network either coming from route restructurings or enhancing service patterns. Recently, time has been spent developing a revised review on the same principles with updates to the initial ideas placed. Most of the schemes I believe are cost effective and deliver a net benefit to users overall based on current financial standpoints and aligning with planning objectives from the Mayors transport policy and TfL's pledge to grow service usage. 

This updated review is of the Enfield borough, it does not contain ideas for the Upper Lea Valley corridor, however a separate review paper will be published dedicated specifically for the corridor. Other review papers in the pipeline include one for the Barnet and Waltham Forest boroughs. 

Below is the link for my Enfield Bus Review and would appreciate feedback if possible. 

docs.google.com/document/d/1hy1-WweriTvvt_tWePfVqEnoORj0TisrVmvzxvCKq9k/edit?usp=sharing   

Interesting ideas, all seem fairly sensible to me. And an excellent level of detail in curating the document.

[ZiyQ]

Nov 3, 2024 11:56:42 GMT VMH2537 said:

My Enfield Bus Review, 2024

For those who remember a few years ago, I've posted my own bus review within the Enfield borough as well as within other areas locally on what I think could benefit from an improved network either coming from route restructurings or enhancing service patterns. Recently, time has been spent developing a revised review on the same principles with updates to the initial ideas placed. Most of the schemes I believe are cost effective and deliver a net benefit to users overall based on current financial standpoints and aligning with planning objectives from the Mayors transport policy and TfL's pledge to grow service usage. 

This updated review is of the Enfield borough, it does not contain ideas for the Upper Lea Valley corridor, however a separate review paper will be published dedicated specifically for the corridor. Other review papers in the pipeline include one for the Barnet and Waltham Forest boroughs. 

Below is the link for my Enfield Bus Review and would appreciate feedback if possible. 

docs.google.com/document/d/1hy1-WweriTvvt_tWePfVqEnoORj0TisrVmvzxvCKq9k/edit?usp=sharing   

Every single one of the proposals looks outstanding, and the effort and quality that has gone into this is fantastic. I'm tempted to comment on a few bits of the proposals, but I might end up clogging a page of this thread.

[vjaska]

Nov 3, 2024 11:56:42 GMT VMH2537 said:

My Enfield Bus Review, 2024

For those who remember a few years ago, I've posted my own bus review within the Enfield borough as well as within other areas locally on what I think could benefit from an improved network either coming from route restructurings or enhancing service patterns. Recently, time has been spent developing a revised review on the same principles with updates to the initial ideas placed. Most of the schemes I believe are cost effective and deliver a net benefit to users overall based on current financial standpoints and aligning with planning objectives from the Mayors transport policy and TfL's pledge to grow service usage. 

This updated review is of the Enfield borough, it does not contain ideas for the Upper Lea Valley corridor, however a separate review paper will be published dedicated specifically for the corridor. Other review papers in the pipeline include one for the Barnet and Waltham Forest boroughs. 

Below is the link for my Enfield Bus Review and would appreciate feedback if possible. 

docs.google.com/document/d/1hy1-WweriTvvt_tWePfVqEnoORj0TisrVmvzxvCKq9k/edit?usp=sharing   

Whilst there are one or two ideas here where I disagree with from an outsiders view, the document itself is some brilliant work, was a pleasure to read

[borneobus]

Nov 3, 2024 11:56:42 GMT VMH2537 said:

My Enfield Bus Review, 2024

For those who remember a few years ago, I've posted my own bus review within the Enfield borough as well as within other areas locally on what I think could benefit from an improved network either coming from route restructurings or enhancing service patterns. Recently, time has been spent developing a revised review on the same principles with updates to the initial ideas placed. Most of the schemes I believe are cost effective and deliver a net benefit to users overall based on current financial standpoints and aligning with planning objectives from the Mayors transport policy and TfL's pledge to grow service usage. 

This updated review is of the Enfield borough, it does not contain ideas for the Upper Lea Valley corridor, however a separate review paper will be published dedicated specifically for the corridor. Other review papers in the pipeline include one for the Barnet and Waltham Forest boroughs. 

Below is the link for my Enfield Bus Review and would appreciate feedback if possible. 

docs.google.com/document/d/1hy1-WweriTvvt_tWePfVqEnoORj0TisrVmvzxvCKq9k/edit?usp=sharing   

This is a great piece of work, I'm not an Enfield local but am familiar to an extent with most of the locations / routes you mention; some observations if I may...

1) Have you thought about how and who (local MP, Councilors, other local stakeholders) you can present this to in order to gain sponsorship to make some of these changes reality?
2) What are the trade-offs you would consider to implement some of the changes?
3) I had reason a few months ago to be at Crews Hill Station, I thought it bizarre that the 456 doesn't terminate at the station...and that the final 'Crews Hill' bus stop is not walkable

[Eastlondoner62]

Nov 3, 2024 13:37:03 GMT borneobus said:

Nov 3, 2024 11:56:42 GMT VMH2537 said:

My Enfield Bus Review, 2024

For those who remember a few years ago, I've posted my own bus review within the Enfield borough as well as within other areas locally on what I think could benefit from an improved network either coming from route restructurings or enhancing service patterns. Recently, time has been spent developing a revised review on the same principles with updates to the initial ideas placed. Most of the schemes I believe are cost effective and deliver a net benefit to users overall based on current financial standpoints and aligning with planning objectives from the Mayors transport policy and TfL's pledge to grow service usage. 

This updated review is of the Enfield borough, it does not contain ideas for the Upper Lea Valley corridor, however a separate review paper will be published dedicated specifically for the corridor. Other review papers in the pipeline include one for the Barnet and Waltham Forest boroughs. 

Below is the link for my Enfield Bus Review and would appreciate feedback if possible. 

docs.google.com/document/d/1hy1-WweriTvvt_tWePfVqEnoORj0TisrVmvzxvCKq9k/edit?usp=sharing   

This is a great piece of work, I'm not an Enfield local but am familiar to an extent with most of the locations / routes you mention; some observations if I may...

1) Have you thought about how and who (local MP, Councilors, other local stakeholders) you can present this to in order to gain sponsorship to make some of these changes reality?

Not to be a downer on this, but I can't see this getting very far unless it's costed as it will just fall into a 'wishlist' pile once it gets anywhere near TfL and then it needs to be costed. There's some extremely notable ideas in here but if this is going to take money out of a budget where for example you could put towards Bakerloo Line trains then it'll not get too far off the ground.

The landscape in London is far too political. 

[TB123]

Nov 3, 2024 13:46:56 GMT Eastlondoner62 said:

Nov 3, 2024 13:37:03 GMT borneobus said:

This is a great piece of work, I'm not an Enfield local but am familiar to an extent with most of the locations / routes you mention; some observations if I may...

1) Have you thought about how and who (local MP, Councilors, other local stakeholders) you can present this to in order to gain sponsorship to make some of these changes reality?

Not to be a downer on this, but I can't see this getting very far unless it's costed as it will just fall into a 'wishlist' pile once it gets anywhere near TfL and then it needs to be costed. There's some extremely notable ideas in here but if this is going to take money out of a budget where for example you could put towards Bakerloo Line trains then it'll not get too far off the ground.

The landscape in London is far too political. 

This is revenue expenditure. Investment in new Bakerloo trains for example is capital investment - a very different ballgame altogether!

To simplfy it, paying for the weekly shop is a bit different to paying for a new car or a house.

In London, bus services are (with the exception of TfL road bus lanes, bus stations etc) revenue expenditure with little in the way of capital expenditure as this is mostly fulfilled by the operators in depots and bus fleet.

[Eastlondoner62]

Nov 3, 2024 13:54:44 GMT TB123 said:

Nov 3, 2024 13:46:56 GMT Eastlondoner62 said:

Not to be a downer on this, but I can't see this getting very far unless it's costed as it will just fall into a 'wishlist' pile once it gets anywhere near TfL and then it needs to be costed. There's some extremely notable ideas in here but if this is going to take money out of a budget where for example you could put towards Bakerloo Line trains then it'll not get too far off the ground.

The landscape in London is far too political. 

This is revenue expenditure. Investment in new Bakerloo trains for example is capital investment - a very different ballgame altogether!

To simplfy it, paying for the weekly shop is a bit different to paying for a new car or a house.

In London, bus services are (with the exception of TfL road bus lanes, bus stations etc) revenue expenditure with little in the way of capital expenditure as this is mostly fulfilled by the operators in depots and bus fleet.

Very true in one is capital investment, however where is the revenue to expend on such an ambitious project in one sole borough of London? All 32 need a share and this level of investment into a borough is going to be very hard for anyone to justify. It will all have to be funded by cuts as TfL aren't likely to turn a surplus again and these cuts will all have to come from somewhere. It's an extremely unfair distribution of resources and which is why I say will be a non-starter if taken up with a local MP or assembly member as it won't be long until someone in another part of London pipes up about how they're not getting the investment. 

[TB123]

A few central London changes ideas, mainly linked to Oxford Street pedestrianisation. I don't envy TfL planners....

2 - diverted via Edgware Road to Marylebone and onto a suitable stand around the vicinity of Lords Cricket Ground/St John's Wood 
6 - diverted at Hyde Park Corner to terminate at South Kensington via existing 414 LoR
7 - withdrawn between Marble Arch and Oxford Circus. Extended to Old Oak Common station when it opens. Rerouted to take existing 23 LoR between Westbourne Grove and Ladbroke Grove. 
N7 - extended to Victoria and Rayners Lane
9 - frequency increased to 8bph
13 - withdrawn between Portman Square and Victoria. Night service withdrawn.
N13 - new route between Victoria and North Finchley via Edgware Road and 13 LoR
14 - diverted to Warren Street (unless British Museum pedestriansation is dropped)
22 - diverted to terminate at Piccadily Circus
23 - withdrawn between Marble Arch and Aldywch. Diverted via Chepstow Road to run directly to Westbourne Park station, then extended via Harrow Road and 18 LoR to Wembley Central. Frequency increased to 6bph. Night service withdrawn.
N23 - new service between Westbourne Park and Liverpool Street via existing 23 (and 26) LoR. 2bph frequency all week long.
27 - withdrawn between Hammersmith Bus Station and Hammersmith Grove. Frequency increased to 8bph. N27 withdrawn and converted to 24hr. Diverted to run via Euston.
30 - withdrawn between Marble Arch and Euston
38 - withdrawn between Hackney Central and Clapton. Frequency reduced to 6bph.
'38A' - new route between Piccadilly Circus and Clapton Pond via 38 LoR. Frequency of 6bph.
53 - frequency reduced to 6bph.
N53 - extended to Oxford Circus
55 - withdrawn between Oxford Circus and Tottenham Court Road
59 - diverted to Russell Square. Frequency reduced to 6bph
73 - diverted at Tottenham Court Road to Trafalgar Square via 29 LoR
74 - diverted to Lancaster Gate
94 - diverted at Marble Arch via 23/139 LoR to Aldwych and Waterloo
98 - diverted to Victoria
109 - frequency reduced to 8bph
113 - withdrawn between Portman Square and Marble Arch
133 - reduced to 7bph
139 - after Baker Street, revised to run via 453 LoR to Elephant & Castle
172 - extended to St Bartholomew's Hospital
176 - diverted to Holborn
188 - withdrawn to Aldwych
189 - diverted via Wigmore Street to Oxford Circus
205 - diverted to Portman Square
274 - diverted via Wigmore Street to Oxford Circus
390 - diverted via Great Portland Street and 22 LoR
452 - diverted to Westbourne Park garage via 23 LoR
453 - withdrawn
468 - frequency reduced to 6bph
Bakerloop - Oxford Circus to Lewisham, all stops via 453 LoR as far as Elephant & Castle, then limited stop to Lewisham via New Kent Road and 21 LoR. Frequency of 6bph
SL'53' - Aldwych to Waterloo via 172 and 53 LoR, all stops as far as Elephant & Castle then limited stop to Woolwich. Frequency of 6bph.
SL6 - restructured to run limited stop along existing route via Brixton. Frequency of 5bph. Extended to Euston when HS2 works allow
SL'109' Elephant & Castle to Croydon via 35 and 109 LoRs. Frequency of 6bph.

Interested to hear any feed back as always

[matthieu1221]

Nov 3, 2024 14:33:34 GMT TB123 said:

A few central London changes ideas, mainly linked to Oxford Street pedestrianisation. I don't envy TfL planners....

2 - diverted via Edgware Road to Marylebone and onto a suitable stand around the vicinity of Lords Cricket Ground/St John's Wood 
6 - diverted at Hyde Park Corner to terminate at South Kensington via existing 414 LoR
7 - withdrawn between Marble Arch and Oxford Circus. Extended to Old Oak Common station when it opens. Rerouted to take existing 23 LoR between Westbourne Grove and Ladbroke Grove. 
N7 - extended to Victoria and Rayners Lane
9 - frequency increased to 8bph
13 - withdrawn between Portman Square and Victoria. Night service withdrawn.
N13 - new route between Victoria and North Finchley via Edgware Road and 13 LoR
14 - diverted to Warren Street (unless British Museum pedestriansation is dropped)
22 - diverted to terminate at Piccadily Circus
23 - withdrawn between Marble Arch and Aldywch. Diverted via Chepstow Road to run directly to Westbourne Park station, then extended via Harrow Road and 18 LoR to Wembley Central. Frequency increased to 6bph. Night service withdrawn.
N23 - new service between Westbourne Park and Liverpool Street via existing 23 (and 26) LoR. 2bph frequency all week long.
27 - withdrawn between Hammersmith Bus Station and Hammersmith Grove. Frequency increased to 8bph. N27 withdrawn and converted to 24hr. Diverted to run via Euston.
30 - withdrawn between Marble Arch and Euston
38 - withdrawn between Hackney Central and Clapton. Frequency reduced to 6bph.
'38A' - new route between Piccadilly Circus and Clapton Pond via 38 LoR. Frequency of 6bph.
53 - frequency reduced to 6bph.
N53 - extended to Oxford Circus
55 - withdrawn between Oxford Circus and Tottenham Court Road
59 - diverted to Russell Square. Frequency reduced to 6bph
73 - diverted at Tottenham Court Road to Trafalgar Square via 29 LoR
74 - diverted to Lancaster Gate
94 - diverted at Marble Arch via 23/139 LoR to Aldwych and Waterloo
98 - diverted to Victoria
109 - frequency reduced to 8bph
113 - withdrawn between Portman Square and Marble Arch
133 - reduced to 7bph
139 - after Baker Street, revised to run via 453 LoR to Elephant & Castle
172 - extended to St Bartholomew's Hospital
176 - diverted to Holborn
188 - withdrawn to Aldwych
189 - diverted via Wigmore Street to Oxford Circus
205 - diverted to Portman Square
274 - diverted via Wigmore Street to Oxford Circus
390 - diverted via Great Portland Street and 22 LoR
452 - diverted to Westbourne Park garage via 23 LoR
453 - withdrawn
468 - frequency reduced to 6bph
Bakerloop - Oxford Circus to Lewisham, all stops via 453 LoR as far as Elephant & Castle, then limited stop to Lewisham via New Kent Road and 21 LoR. Frequency of 6bph
SL'53' - Aldwych to Waterloo via 172 and 53 LoR, all stops as far as Elephant & Castle then limited stop to Woolwich. Frequency of 6bph.
SL6 - restructured to run limited stop along existing route via Brixton. Frequency of 5bph. Extended to Euston when HS2 works allow
SL'109' Elephant & Castle to Croydon via 35 and 109 LoRs. Frequency of 6bph.

Interested to hear any feed back as always

Lots to digest! Wish we had easy map making tools to visualise it better!

Only thing that springs to mind is if I'm reading this correctly, the loss of any cross-river bus (to Waterloo and E&C) with you rerouting the 176 away from Leceister Square which is a very popular link (southbound moreso than northbound) in the afternoons and evenings. I don't quite see the point of extending the 73 as mitigation as it would simply duplicate the 24 and 29 from all the way up at Warren Street (plus partially the 14 as you are returning that to Warren Street). I do think a route will have to be maintained to Oxford Circus from the east which would likely be the 73 (remains to be seen how but perhaps making Goodge Street two way?).