|
Post by capitalomnibus on Jan 12, 2022 0:12:32 GMT
With rumours that the 102 & 144 could swap routeings, perhaps a restructure could involve the 34 as well - allowing the route to be shortened and run more reliably - particularly as the middle section parallels the 102? 34 - Barnet to Silver Street, then rerouted to terminate at Edmonton Green. 102 - Muswell Hill to Silver Street as present, then extended to Walthamstow Central. 144 - Extended from Muswell Hill to Brent Cross. Seriously, take a good hard think and what would that achieve. Is it just a matter of saying chop and change for a fantasy bus game.
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Jan 12, 2022 6:26:11 GMT
With rumours that the 102 & 144 could swap routeings, perhaps a restructure could involve the 34 as well - allowing the route to be shortened and run more reliably - particularly as the middle section parallels the 102? 34 - Barnet to Silver Street, then rerouted to terminate at Edmonton Green. 102 - Muswell Hill to Silver Street as present, then extended to Walthamstow Central. 144 - Extended from Muswell Hill to Brent Cross. It would not likely involve the 34 because the review is centred around Highgate & the 34 goes nowhere near Highgate or Muswell Hill.
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Jan 12, 2022 6:31:40 GMT
The 357 and 388 both have a lot of duplication with other routes and in these times of cuts it could be argued those passengers can use other routes and the hopper fare. That doesn't mean we just remove them however - I mean the 357 has a hospital link which wouldn't be a great look when TfL themselves have been prioritising such links. Just because a route has duplication with other routes doesn't mean it should be on the chopping block otherwise you may as well completely remove 50% of the network overnight. In regards to the 357 (and this is coming from a backseat POV) we I suppose have two answers to the debate & for some they believe the 215 should replace the 357 to Whipps Cross with the 357 done away with & in the case of the late snoggle & yourself keeping the 357 as is. Unfortunately we will come to no conclusive answer anytime soon but TBH I wouldn’t be surprised if it was looked at.
|
|
|
Post by mkay315 on Jan 12, 2022 6:43:02 GMT
With rumours that the 102 & 144 could swap routeings, perhaps a restructure could involve the 34 as well - allowing the route to be shortened and run more reliably - particularly as the middle section parallels the 102? 34 - Barnet to Silver Street, then rerouted to terminate at Edmonton Green. 102 - Muswell Hill to Silver Street as present, then extended to Walthamstow Central. 144 - Extended from Muswell Hill to Brent Cross. I have one thing to say for the 34. Keep it as it is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2022 7:29:24 GMT
With rumours that the 102 & 144 could swap routeings, perhaps a restructure could involve the 34 as well - allowing the route to be shortened and run more reliably - particularly as the middle section parallels the 102? 34 - Barnet to Silver Street, then rerouted to terminate at Edmonton Green. 102 - Muswell Hill to Silver Street as present, then extended to Walthamstow Central. 144 - Extended from Muswell Hill to Brent Cross. No
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Jan 12, 2022 7:34:11 GMT
With rumours that the 102 & 144 could swap routeings, perhaps a restructure could involve the 34 as well - allowing the route to be shortened and run more reliably - particularly as the middle section parallels the 102? 34 - Barnet to Silver Street, then rerouted to terminate at Edmonton Green. 102 - Muswell Hill to Silver Street as present, then extended to Walthamstow Central. 144 - Extended from Muswell Hill to Brent Cross. Swings and roundabouts, shortens the 34 and 102 but lengthens the 144.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2022 7:34:33 GMT
215 extension to Waltham Cross via Waltham Abbey. It would connect Chingford and Walthamstow very well and I see passengers using this extension.
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Jan 12, 2022 7:50:40 GMT
215 extension to Waltham Cross via Waltham Abbey. It would connect Chingford and Walthamstow very well and I see passengers using this extension. If Hertfordshire or Essex county councils paid for it, then sure. But completely inappropriate for TfL, ie London taxpayers, to subsidise a service outside the area of little use to them.
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Jan 12, 2022 7:54:55 GMT
Some ideas for the Greenwich area, in response to the 1/168 consultation and some of the Crossrail proposals: 168 - Unchanged. 188, 199 & 244 - Withdrawn. 1 - Extended from Surrey Quays Shopping Centre (no longer serving Canada Water) to North Greenwich via the 188. Converted to 24-hour service, and existing N1 to be renumbered. 42 - Withdrawn between Liverpool Street and Tower Bridge Road, and instead extended to Canada Water or Surrey Quays via route 188. 129 - Extended from Greenwich to Bellingham via the 199. Option to introduce 24-hour service and/or increase in frequency. 161 - Withdrawn between Woolwich and North Greenwich. 180 - Restructured as proposed to operate between North Greenwich and Erith. 469 - Rerouted between Woolwich and Queen Elizabeth Hospital via the 244. ? - New route from Canada Water to Abbey Wood, via the 199 to Greenwich, 177/180 to Woolwich and the 244 to Abbey Wood. Maintains capacity between Greenwich and Woolwich, and introduces DDs along most of the 244 routeing. Could be numbered 188, 199 or 244, or a new number such as 480. Changes to night routes - the N1 could be attached to the new route above, or alternatively be replaced by making the 177 24-hour and continuing from Peckham to Central London. Route N199 could be merged with the 47's night service. I'm not sure about rerouting the 42 like that, then again it's another route that isn't as well used as it once was. I'd further extend the 129 to Bromley replacing the Catford section of the 320 subject to stand space. Maybe reroute the 47 via Pepys Estate maintaining the link to Lewisham and running the new route direct along Evelyn Street.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2022 8:42:06 GMT
215 extension to Waltham Cross via Waltham Abbey. It would connect Chingford and Walthamstow very well and I see passengers using this extension. If Hertfordshire or Essex county councils paid for it, then sure. But completely inappropriate for TfL, ie London taxpayers, to subsidise a service outside the area of little use to them. This should've happened years ago but now TFL don't want to fund crossborder routes
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Jan 12, 2022 8:44:35 GMT
If Hertfordshire or Essex county councils paid for it, then sure. But completely inappropriate for TfL, ie London taxpayers, to subsidise a service outside the area of little use to them. This should've happened years ago but now TFL don't want to fund crossborder routes Neither does Essex County Council. Well they may do but it isn't a funding priority and I'm not holding my breath for "Bus Back Better" to deliver any goodies to this neck of the woods.
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Jan 12, 2022 8:51:05 GMT
If Hertfordshire or Essex county councils paid for it, then sure. But completely inappropriate for TfL, ie London taxpayers, to subsidise a service outside the area of little use to them. This should've happened years ago but now TFL don't want to fund crossborder routes They've only ever funded cross border routes that reach a traffic objective of value to the London taxpayer, otherwise such services have been funded by home county authorities. Rightfully. As I say, the 215 is not of enough value to London residents to warrant extension
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Jan 12, 2022 8:56:59 GMT
The 357 and 388 both have a lot of duplication with other routes and in these times of cuts it could be argued those passengers can use other routes and the hopper fare. That doesn't mean we just remove them however - I mean the 357 has a hospital link which wouldn't be a great look when TfL themselves have been prioritising such links. Just because a route has duplication with other routes doesn't mean it should be on the chopping block otherwise you may as well completely remove 50% of the network overnight. I never said remove them I was just giving an example. It’s funny how defensive people can be of certain routes but others can be chopped and changed despite good arguments from members who live alone routes and see loading. Cuts are coming thick and fast and would would rather duplicated routes are targeted than unique routes which would have a worse affect. If the hospital link is so important (not saying it isn’t) something would have been done to serve the hospital 7 days a week even if it meant increasing the frequency and converting the route to single decker.
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Jan 12, 2022 12:18:12 GMT
Very little of that is great. I like the idea of the 129 going on to Bellingham instead of the 199, but all I’d do there is just withdraw the 199 south of Lewisham and leave the rest of the service alone. The 180’s TfL proposed new route I’ve always liked and am looking forward to it being enacted, albeit that I think I’d like to bolster the 177 as well, and I’m not sure the 180 is the best route to go to Erith Quarry, I think I’d project the 428 there instead, and stop the 180 in Erith Town Centre. If demand picks up, it might be nice for the 180 to complement the 229 to Bexleyheath, but not in the current covid affected world. The rest, sorry, no. The replacement of part of the 188 with the less frequent 42 in particular is pretty rancid. Speaking of the 180's future routing, maybe one way to bolster the 177 would be to restructure the 199 as a Canada Water to Woolwich route via it's current routing to Greenwich and then follow the 177 to Woolwich with the 129 extended to Catford Bus Garage and the 47 increased in frequency to cover the 199? That’s definitely one of the better ideas for route proposals I’ve seen suggested here. Only thing I think I’d add is an extension on to PD for the 199 if the route is transferred there. Nice.
|
|
|
Post by cl54 on Jan 12, 2022 13:25:37 GMT
Speaking of the 180's future routing, maybe one way to bolster the 177 would be to restructure the 199 as a Canada Water to Woolwich route via it's current routing to Greenwich and then follow the 177 to Woolwich with the 129 extended to Catford Bus Garage and the 47 increased in frequency to cover the 199? That’s definitely one of the better ideas for route proposals I’ve seen suggested here. Only thing I think I’d add is an extension on to PD for the 199 if the route is transferred there. Nice. The 199 suggested diversion leaves Greenwich - Lewisham with one route instead of two. There is nowhere left in Woolwich to turn/stand a bus from the west.
|
|