|
|
Post by vjaska on Apr 3, 2020 14:03:34 GMT
I wouldn't call TFL "a joke" over the 48 cuts - I thought it was wayy too many buses and there was also the 56 a long way down the corridor from Bakers Arms to Clapton Pond as well as the 56 meeting the 48/55 at Hackney Downs. I feel like it was a good idea to extend the 388 to London Bridge however I'd have liked it if the 100 was reinstated at E&C. Not from the area so do what you will with my opinion but I’m not convinced at all that the Lea Bridge Road corridor was so overbussed to remove an entire route, especially one with good patronage. The evidence was there in the early weeks with the 55 struggling to cope - I suspect many people gave up and switched to the overcrowded tube network or non public transport methods. It’s very clear TfL have little interest in the network. |
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Apr 3, 2020 14:16:06 GMT
I wouldn't call TFL "a joke" over the 48 cuts - I thought it was wayy too many buses and there was also the 56 a long way down the corridor from Bakers Arms to Clapton Pond as well as the 56 meeting the 48/55 at Hackney Downs. I feel like it was a good idea to extend the 388 to London Bridge however I'd have liked it if the 100 was reinstated at E&C. Not from the area so do what you will with my opinion but I’m not convinced at all that the Lea Bridge Road corridor was so overbussed to remove an entire route, especially one with good patronage. The evidence was there in the early weeks with the 55 struggling to cope - I suspect many people gave up and switched to the overcrowded tube network or non public transport methods. It’s very clear TfL have little interest in the network. Surely there could've been a frequency increase then? Also Oxford Circus - Walthamstow has the Vic at 90 second intervals. |
|
|
|
Post by busoccultation on Apr 3, 2020 14:41:53 GMT
Whether you think that the 48 should have been withdrawn or not, it is fact that the usage on the 48 was on long decline since 2014 where the usage was before then was constantly around 7.4 million per year and since 2014 the usage was declining significantly every year to just 5.2 million a year in the latest stats of 2018/19, which by the way the usage has gone down by 30% in the last 5 years. Before anyone jumps on about being a LT route, the decline had already started when the 48 was at Stagecoach a good few years before it went to Arriva where it started to use LT's.
Year
| Usage Numbers
| | 2012/13 | 7 404 364
| | 2013/14 | 7 359 748
| | 2014/15 | 6 920 294
| | 2015/16 | 6 372 592
| | 2016/17 | 5 958 923
| | 2017/18 | 5 712 619
| | 2018/19 | 5 198 842
|
|
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Apr 3, 2020 14:49:46 GMT
I wouldn't call TFL "a joke" over the 48 cuts - I thought it was wayy too many buses and there was also the 56 a long way down the corridor from Bakers Arms to Clapton Pond as well as the 56 meeting the 48/55 at Hackney Downs. I feel like it was a good idea to extend the 388 to London Bridge however I'd have liked it if the 100 was reinstated at E&C. I used the noun joke as an exaggeration for how ridiculous TfL look for suggesting that Shoreditch-London Bridge was overbussed when they merely replaced the 48 with the 388 so rather than removing 6bph as originally proposed, they only removed 1bph (48 ran with 6bph, 388 has 5bph). Lumping the 48 in the Central London Bus Consultation was probably a move from TfL to try to arouse less attention (and subsequent anger) from their proposals to withdraw the route when in fact it was Lea Bridge Road which TfL felt was the overbussed corridor. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Apr 3, 2020 16:09:26 GMT
Whether you think that the 48 should have been withdrawn or not, it is fact that the usage on the 48 was on long decline since 2014 where the usage was before then was constantly around 7.4 million per year and since 2014 the usage was declining significantly every year to just 5.2 million a year in the latest stats of 2018/19, which by the way the usage has gone down by 30% in the last 5 years. Before anyone jumps on about being a LT route, the decline had already started when the 48 was at Stagecoach a good few years before it went to Arriva where it started to use LT's.
Year
| Usage Numbers
| | 2012/13 | 7 404 364
| | 2013/14 | 7 359 748
| | 2014/15 | 6 920 294
| | 2015/16 | 6 372 592
| | 2016/17 | 5 958 923
| | 2017/18 | 5 712 619
| | 2018/19 | 5 198 842
|
Whilst that is true, 5.2m is still not to be sniffed at. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Apr 3, 2020 16:37:38 GMT
It's not to be sniffed at at all but TFL would have looked at firstly how much spare capacity was on the 55 and 56 and how many broken links there would be ie of that 5.2m how many were simply doing a journey that could still be completed without a change (ie Walthamstow to Clapton, lea bridge road to Hackney or Shoreditch to LB).
|
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Apr 3, 2020 17:33:54 GMT
I wouldn't call TFL "a joke" over the 48 cuts - I thought it was wayy too many buses and there was also the 56 a long way down the corridor from Bakers Arms to Clapton Pond as well as the 56 meeting the 48/55 at Hackney Downs. I feel like it was a good idea to extend the 388 to London Bridge however I'd have liked it if the 100 was reinstated at E&C. Not from the area so do what you will with my opinion but I’m not convinced at all that the Lea Bridge Road corridor was so overbussed to remove an entire route, especially one with good patronage. The evidence was there in the early weeks with the 55 struggling to cope - I suspect many people gave up and switched to the overcrowded tube network or non public transport methods. It’s very clear TfL have little interest in the network. You make a very good point, I lost interest in the changes soon after but the extreme overcrowding that was initially reported on the 55 did seem to die down. Whether that's because it became the new normal, hence not worth reporting or whether it's because people have found alternatives I don't know however 5.2M is not a small number and all those people have to have gone somewhere. It would be very interesting to see the data however the month of March must have thrown everything off balance making it very hard to see any notable increases. I'm not too sure on the 26 and 388s loading levels either but they don't seem to have extreme overcrowding judging by reports, although neither route was suffering chronic overcrowding prior so chances of that being noticed are a lot less. |
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Apr 5, 2020 0:52:17 GMT
NH91: a night route that runs between Hammersmith and Heathrow Terminal 5 vis route H91 to Hounslow West and 482 to Heathrow Terminal 5. To provide the H91 and Heathrow Terminal 4 with a night service.
|
|
|
|
Post by ssmoquette on Apr 6, 2020 21:34:18 GMT
NH91: a night route that runs between Hammersmith and Heathrow Terminal 5 vis route H91 to Hounslow West and 482 to Heathrow Terminal 5. To provide the H91 and Heathrow Terminal 4 with a night service. It sounds like an alright idea. I maybe wouldn't have it go all the way to T5, maybe just T4 and the Cargo Terminal. If it did go to T5, I think it or the N9 should get revised blinds to reflect the quicker route. For example for the N9... "Heathrow Central" then on the qualifying row "THEN TERMINAL 5". Of course, you'd probably need to renumber the H91, as I don't think two seperate letter prefixes are allowed. May I suggest N491, as despite the lack of associated day route remotely nearby, it's unlikely to be confused? Just a suggestion. |
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Apr 6, 2020 21:49:40 GMT
NH91: a night route that runs between Hammersmith and Heathrow Terminal 5 vis route H91 to Hounslow West and 482 to Heathrow Terminal 5. To provide the H91 and Heathrow Terminal 4 with a night service. It sounds like an alright idea. I maybe wouldn't have it go all the way to T5, maybe just T4 and the Cargo Terminal. If it did go to T5, I think it or the N9 should get revised blinds to reflect the quicker route. For example for the N9... "Heathrow Central" then on the qualifying row "THEN TERMINAL 5". Of course, you'd probably need to renumber the H91, as I don't think two seperate letter prefixes are allowed. May I suggest N491, as despite the lack of associated day route remotely nearby, it's unlikely to be confused? Just a suggestion. No to any of that. Why shouldn’t it go to Heathrow Terminal 5? Who’s says that two separate letter prefixes aren’t allowed? The problem with N491 people might confuse it with the 491 and what if one day the 491 needs a night service and N491 is unavailable. No on the blinds saying Heathrow Central then Terminal 5 because it will just confuse people because it’s too much influence to process and surely people can distinguish between a direct and indirect route. How would it unlikely to be confused? |
|
|
|
Post by george on Apr 6, 2020 21:53:37 GMT
It sounds like an alright idea. I maybe wouldn't have it go all the way to T5, maybe just T4 and the Cargo Terminal. If it did go to T5, I think it or the N9 should get revised blinds to reflect the quicker route. For example for the N9... "Heathrow Central" then on the qualifying row "THEN TERMINAL 5". Of course, you'd probably need to renumber the H91, as I don't think two seperate letter prefixes are allowed. May I suggest N491, as despite the lack of associated day route remotely nearby, it's unlikely to be confused? Just a suggestion. No to any of that. Why shouldn’t it go to Heathrow Terminal 5? Who’s says that two separate letter prefixes aren’t allowed? The problem with N491 people might confuse it with the 491 and what if one day the 491 needs a night service and N491 is unavailable. No on the blinds saying Heathrow Central then Terminal 5 because it will just confuse people because it’s too much influence to process and surely people can distinguish between a direct and indirect route. How would it unlikely to be confused? You could use the same argument with the N20. |
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Apr 6, 2020 21:54:17 GMT
No to any of that. Why shouldn’t it go to Heathrow Terminal 5? Who’s says that two separate letter prefixes aren’t allowed? The problem with N491 people might confuse it with the 491 and what if one day the 491 needs a night service and N491 is unavailable. No on the blinds saying Heathrow Central then Terminal 5 because it will just confuse people because it’s too much influence to process and surely people can distinguish between a direct and indirect route. How would it unlikely to be confused? You could use the same argument with the N20. I guess. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Apr 6, 2020 22:08:50 GMT
It sounds like an alright idea. I maybe wouldn't have it go all the way to T5, maybe just T4 and the Cargo Terminal. If it did go to T5, I think it or the N9 should get revised blinds to reflect the quicker route. For example for the N9... "Heathrow Central" then on the qualifying row "THEN TERMINAL 5". Of course, you'd probably need to renumber the H91, as I don't think two seperate letter prefixes are allowed. May I suggest N491, as despite the lack of associated day route remotely nearby, it's unlikely to be confused? Just a suggestion. No to any of that. Why shouldn’t it go to Heathrow Terminal 5? Who’s says that two separate letter prefixes aren’t allowed? The problem with N491 people might confuse it with the 491 and what if one day the 491 needs a night service and N491 is unavailable. No on the blinds saying Heathrow Central then Terminal 5 because it will just confuse people because it’s too much influence to process and surely people can distinguish between a direct and indirect route. How would it unlikely to be confused? NH91 would be far more confusing than N491 - I don't see how there would be confusion with the 491 & N491 given they're in two completely different parts of London. |
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Apr 6, 2020 22:09:52 GMT
No to any of that. Why shouldn’t it go to Heathrow Terminal 5? Who’s says that two separate letter prefixes aren’t allowed? The problem with N491 people might confuse it with the 491 and what if one day the 491 needs a night service and N491 is unavailable. No on the blinds saying Heathrow Central then Terminal 5 because it will just confuse people because it’s too much influence to process and surely people can distinguish between a direct and indirect route. How would it unlikely to be confused? NH91 would be far more confusing than N491 - I don't see how there would be confusion with the 491 & N491 given they're in two completely different parts of London. Maybe your right. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Apr 6, 2020 22:17:19 GMT
Maybe N591 similar to the N550 and N550. I belive at one point the N5 and N20 were going to be renumbered to N520 and not sure if N555 or N505.
|
|
