|
Post by COBO on Jul 8, 2020 20:56:05 GMT
40: extended from Clerkenwell Green to Kings Cross via route 63 to Kings Cross to link Walworth Road to Kings Cross. Or withdrawn between Elephant & Castle and Clerkenwell Green and diverted to Aldgate via it’s old route. To restore old links. 45: extended from Elephant & Castle to Aldgate via route 40s old routing to Aldgate. To restore Fenchurch Street with a bus route. Or extended from Elephant & Castle to Kings Cross to restore an old link. 67: extended from Dalston to Aldgate via route 242 to Aldgate. to restore an old link. 242: withdrawn between Shoreditch and Aldgate. Diverted to Liverpool Street via route 388 to Liverpool Street. To restore old links.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jul 8, 2020 21:24:28 GMT
Restores old links but would cost TFL the money saved from the cuts to those routes unfortunately.
|
|
|
Post by routew15 on Jul 8, 2020 22:29:43 GMT
I think the Central London changes have bedded in relatively ok. I don't think any of the changes should be reversed at this stage, barring in mind it has only been a year.
On observation pre/post-lockdown the 35 is one route that I continue to see overloaded. The extra peak journeys on this route do not seem effective. I would extend the 45 to London Bridge to soak up passengers left behind at Southwark Street southbound bus stop.
I do not see the desire others have with serving Fenchurch Street. It was lightly used when the 40 ran along there with most people alighting at Aldgate. Most of these trips appears to have moved to the 343, which on observations has had an uptake in rides north of Elephant & Castle.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Jul 8, 2020 23:01:42 GMT
At one point I thought it would be good if the 349 was extended to Waltham Cross and the 279 had dropped slightly and run all journeys from Waltham Cross to Holloway. At the time when the 279 was shortened there were shorts from Waltham X to Ponders End that the 349 could have replaced on that section as it's the only section along that corridor that is solo (most of the Waltham Cross/Holloway section is backed up with either the 349/259 plus 149) and the 279 is massively busy end to end. I think there may be a case to restructure routes along the north-south corridor in North London, with many busy and lengthly routes such as the 279. With the 279, I think that rather than extending the 349 and almost replicating the it, the 279 could be shorted to run between Tottenham and Waltham Cross only, but at a higher frequency to run more reliably. Then reroute the 349 to Manor House and possible increase the frequency of this route as well - the 349 could then take some passengers away from the 279 who aren't going beyond Southbury. The 341 is another quite lengthly route - perhaps this could be restructured with the 476, which serves similar areas but is slightly more direct and has a shorter section in Central London. The 341 could be cut back to Northumberland Park Station and rerouted via Stoke Newington. With the 476 taking the 341's routeing via Manor House, and extended to Angel Road. The 67/242 changes have been contraversial, I think rather than making the 67 into a very short route, this could have instead involved the longer route 243. I would have left the 67 unchanged, but instead cut the 243 back to Dalston Junction. Then reroute the 242 to Waterloo via Old Street and Holborn. The revised 242 and existing 76 would continue most links, while introducing some new links from Homerton. The 253/254 corridor is said to have reduced significantly in usage. The 106 & 254 could perhaps merged - with the 106 extended to Aldgate and Holloway. The revised 106 and the 253 could adjust frequencies as needed. I think a new route could also be introduced, to provide new links between Tottenham, Hackney and Stratford, as well as assisting the southern end of the 192. This could start at Stratford City, go via the 388 to Hackney Wick, 30 to Hackney Central, 56 to Clapton, 253 to Stamford Hill, then along the A10 to Seven Sisters, via the 41 to Tottenham Hale and via the 192 to terminate at Angel Road Ikea.
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Jul 8, 2020 23:19:47 GMT
At one point I thought it would be good if the 349 was extended to Waltham Cross and the 279 had dropped slightly and run all journeys from Waltham Cross to Holloway. At the time when the 279 was shortened there were shorts from Waltham X to Ponders End that the 349 could have replaced on that section as it's the only section along that corridor that is solo (most of the Waltham Cross/Holloway section is backed up with either the 349/259 plus 149) and the 279 is massively busy end to end. I think there may be a case to restructure routes along the north-south corridor in North London, with many busy and lengthly routes such as the 279. With the 279, I think that rather than extending the 349 and almost replicating the it, the 279 could be shorted to run between Tottenham and Waltham Cross only, but at a higher frequency to run more reliably. Then reroute the 349 to Manor House and possible increase the frequency of this route as well - the 349 could then take some passengers away from the 279 who aren't going beyond Southbury. The 341 is another quite lengthly route - perhaps this could be restructured with the 476, which serves similar areas but is slightly more direct and has a shorter section in Central London. The 341 could be cut back to Northumberland Park Station and rerouted via Stoke Newington. With the 476 taking the 341's routeing via Manor House, and extended to Angel Road. The 67/242 changes have been contraversial, I think rather than making the 67 into a very short route, this could have instead involved the longer route 243. I would have left the 67 unchanged, but instead cut the 243 back to Dalston Junction. Then reroute the 242 to Waterloo via Old Street and Holborn. The revised 242 and existing 76 would continue most links, while introducing some new links from Homerton. The 253/254 corridor is said to have reduced significantly in usage. The 106 & 254 could perhaps merged - with the 106 extended to Aldgate and Holloway. The revised 106 and the 253 could adjust frequencies as needed. I think a new route could also be introduced, to provide new links between Tottenham, Hackney and Stratford, as well as assisting the southern end of the 192. This could start at Stratford City, go via the 388 to Hackney Wick, 30 to Hackney Central, 56 to Clapton, 253 to Stamford Hill, then along the A10 to Seven Sisters, via the 41 to Tottenham Hale and via the 192 to terminate at Angel Road Ikea. How would you have merged the 106 and 254?
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Jul 8, 2020 23:25:05 GMT
467 Extended to Esher from Hook via the Hook by Pass past Hinchley Wood Station, Remains hourly with the extra school trips which would also extend to Lower Green. This is probably more of a fantasy wish than realistic, yet would provide a handy link to Esher direct from Hook, Chessington and Ewell. Infrastructure in place for bus stops en route from the by gone days of the 72 , 152 and 189 former bus stops. This I think is actually quite a nice idea : the only small problem I see is stand space in Esher : the K3 only just fits on the main stand in the high street. If you extended it further down the Portsmouth Road the first realistic turning point is Cobham Village. It’s theoretically possible to turn buses in the grounds of the ACS International School in Fairmile, but how willing they would be to accept a double deck bus on their grounds every hour is an interesting question!
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 8, 2020 23:29:24 GMT
I think the Central London changes have bedded in relatively ok. I don't think any of the changes should be reversed at this stage, barring in mind it has only been a year. On observation pre/post-lockdown the 35 is one route that I continue to see overloaded. The extra peak journeys on this route do not seem effective. I would extend the 45 to London Bridge to soak up passengers left behind at Southwark Street southbound bus stop. I do not see the desire others have with serving Fenchurch Street. It was lightly used when the 40 ran along there with most people alighting at Aldgate. Most of these trips appears to have moved to the 343, which on observations has had an uptake in rides north of Elephant & Castle. I think the 35's frequency increase was a mess overall - at the southern end, the route has begun bunching quite often and not carrying the same loads as it did pre 45 cut
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 8, 2020 23:41:39 GMT
At one point I thought it would be good if the 349 was extended to Waltham Cross and the 279 had dropped slightly and run all journeys from Waltham Cross to Holloway. At the time when the 279 was shortened there were shorts from Waltham X to Ponders End that the 349 could have replaced on that section as it's the only section along that corridor that is solo (most of the Waltham Cross/Holloway section is backed up with either the 349/259 plus 149) and the 279 is massively busy end to end. I think there may be a case to restructure routes along the north-south corridor in North London, with many busy and lengthly routes such as the 279. With the 279, I think that rather than extending the 349 and almost replicating the it, the 279 could be shorted to run between Tottenham and Waltham Cross only, but at a higher frequency to run more reliably. Then reroute the 349 to Manor House and possible increase the frequency of this route as well - the 349 could then take some passengers away from the 279 who aren't going beyond Southbury. The 341 is another quite lengthly route - perhaps this could be restructured with the 476, which serves similar areas but is slightly more direct and has a shorter section in Central London. The 341 could be cut back to Northumberland Park Station and rerouted via Stoke Newington. With the 476 taking the 341's routeing via Manor House, and extended to Angel Road. The 67/242 changes have been contraversial, I think rather than making the 67 into a very short route, this could have instead involved the longer route 243. I would have left the 67 unchanged, but instead cut the 243 back to Dalston Junction. Then reroute the 242 to Waterloo via Old Street and Holborn. The revised 242 and existing 76 would continue most links, while introducing some new links from Homerton. The 253/254 corridor is said to have reduced significantly in usage. The 106 & 254 could perhaps merged - with the 106 extended to Aldgate and Holloway. The revised 106 and the 253 could adjust frequencies as needed. I think a new route could also be introduced, to provide new links between Tottenham, Hackney and Stratford, as well as assisting the southern end of the 192. This could start at Stratford City, go via the 388 to Hackney Wick, 30 to Hackney Central, 56 to Clapton, 253 to Stamford Hill, then along the A10 to Seven Sisters, via the 41 to Tottenham Hale and via the 192 to terminate at Angel Road Ikea. Once again, you are falling into the same old traps - the long routes that have survived do so because of certain conditions, you don't just suddenly makes changes for the sake of it. If traffic continues to get worse, then they will likely rightfully succumb but right now, I don't think most of the changes above make too much sense especially merging the 106 & 254 together which leaves the 253 as the lone route between Upper Clapton & Finsbury Park. Both the 253 & 254 currently run every 6-7 minutes whereas the 106 is every 10 minutes and arguably, the 253 sits in more traffic than the 254 does so leaving the 253 on the solo section could cause issues. The only idea I do like is your new route idea but if your going to assist the 192, terminating it at IKEA only solves part of the problem as the route is still very busy beyond there - you'll have to at least get it to Edmonton which might actually be doable in all fairness especially as the 388 section will save loads of time (running via the 56 is a good idea as well) as long as Eastway doesn't play up.
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Jul 9, 2020 10:44:08 GMT
I think the Central London changes have bedded in relatively ok. I don't think any of the changes should be reversed at this stage, barring in mind it has only been a year. On observation pre/post-lockdown the 35 is one route that I continue to see overloaded. The extra peak journeys on this route do not seem effective. I would extend the 45 to London Bridge to soak up passengers left behind at Southwark Street southbound bus stop. I do not see the desire others have with serving Fenchurch Street. It was lightly used when the 40 ran along there with most people alighting at Aldgate. Most of these trips appears to have moved to the 343, which on observations has had an uptake in rides north of Elephant & Castle. I think the main problem with the Central London changes has proven to be the change to the 40 which I think was very poor and the route was much better in its old form. I understood the rationale behind cutting the 45 back but extending the 40 over Blackfriars Bridge in its place was a very poor move on TFL's part. The cynic in me does wonder if the only thing stopping TfL from reducing to one Elephant-Blackfriars route (not something I condone) is the Thameslink station at Elephant being inaccessible. I've said it before and I'll say it again. I really don't see the need for four routes on Farringdon Road. From my observations the 341 was well used along Fetter Lane and removing the route from there was very poor and unnecessary after all whenever I saw 172's on that stretch they were always lightly used so I don't see the need for that Waterloo-Farringdon Road link.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 9, 2020 11:41:51 GMT
I think the Central London changes have bedded in relatively ok. I don't think any of the changes should be reversed at this stage, barring in mind it has only been a year. On observation pre/post-lockdown the 35 is one route that I continue to see overloaded. The extra peak journeys on this route do not seem effective. I would extend the 45 to London Bridge to soak up passengers left behind at Southwark Street southbound bus stop. I do not see the desire others have with serving Fenchurch Street. It was lightly used when the 40 ran along there with most people alighting at Aldgate. Most of these trips appears to have moved to the 343, which on observations has had an uptake in rides north of Elephant & Castle. I think the main problem with the Central London changes has proven to be the change to the 40 which I think was very poor and the route was much better in its old form. I understood the rationale behind cutting the 45 back but extending the 40 over Blackfriars Bridge in its place was a very poor move on TFL's part. The cynic in me does wonder if the only thing stopping TfL from reducing to one Elephant-Blackfriars route (not something I condone) is the Thameslink station at Elephant being inaccessible. I've said it before and I'll say it again. I really don't see the need for four routes on Farringdon Road. From my observations the 341 was well used along Fetter Lane and removing the route from there was very poor and unnecessary after all whenever I saw 172's on that stretch they were always lightly used so I don't see the need for that Waterloo-Farringdon Road link. There was no rationale to cut the 45 to Elephant either especially when they then extended the 40 to Clerkenwell Green in its place - could of saved money on timetables & replacing tiles by simply diverting the 45 to Clerkenwell Green
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Jul 9, 2020 12:07:15 GMT
I think there may be a case to restructure routes along the north-south corridor in North London, with many busy and lengthly routes such as the 279. With the 279, I think that rather than extending the 349 and almost replicating the it, the 279 could be shorted to run between Tottenham and Waltham Cross only, but at a higher frequency to run more reliably. Then reroute the 349 to Manor House and possible increase the frequency of this route as well - the 349 could then take some passengers away from the 279 who aren't going beyond Southbury. The 341 is another quite lengthly route - perhaps this could be restructured with the 476, which serves similar areas but is slightly more direct and has a shorter section in Central London. The 341 could be cut back to Northumberland Park Station and rerouted via Stoke Newington. With the 476 taking the 341's routeing via Manor House, and extended to Angel Road. The 67/242 changes have been contraversial, I think rather than making the 67 into a very short route, this could have instead involved the longer route 243. I would have left the 67 unchanged, but instead cut the 243 back to Dalston Junction. Then reroute the 242 to Waterloo via Old Street and Holborn. The revised 242 and existing 76 would continue most links, while introducing some new links from Homerton. The 253/254 corridor is said to have reduced significantly in usage. The 106 & 254 could perhaps merged - with the 106 extended to Aldgate and Holloway. The revised 106 and the 253 could adjust frequencies as needed. I think a new route could also be introduced, to provide new links between Tottenham, Hackney and Stratford, as well as assisting the southern end of the 192. This could start at Stratford City, go via the 388 to Hackney Wick, 30 to Hackney Central, 56 to Clapton, 253 to Stamford Hill, then along the A10 to Seven Sisters, via the 41 to Tottenham Hale and via the 192 to terminate at Angel Road Ikea. How would you have merged the 106 and 254? The 106 would keep its current routeing between Finsbury Park and Whitechapel, but extend from its current termini to Holloway and Aldgate respectively. The 254 would be withdrawn, replaced by the revised 106 at an increased frequency, plus either an enhanced 253 or my suggestion for a new Stratford-Hackney-Tottenham route (to cover the section via Clapton Common).
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 9, 2020 14:39:25 GMT
How would you have merged the 106 and 254? The 106 would keep its current routeing between Finsbury Park and Whitechapel, but extend from its current termini to Holloway and Aldgate respectively. The 254 would be withdrawn, replaced by the revised 106 at an increased frequency, plus either an enhanced 253 or my suggestion for a new Stratford-Hackney-Tottenham route (to cover the section via Clapton Common). The new route idea is good but not at the expense of the cross Stamford Hill section being solely down to the 253.
|
|
|
Post by greg on Jul 9, 2020 17:58:08 GMT
Route 67 to be rerouted from Stamford Hill via the 476 to Islington, Angel and terminate there. Route 73 extended to Tottenham via route 476 (if there is demand, then all the way to Northumberland Park). Route 476 withdrawn
If there is more buses needed between Dalston and Stamford Hill, then I’d extend the 277 down there. But surely the 76, 149 and 243 is enough but I’ve never been down there so no idea.
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Jul 9, 2020 18:23:58 GMT
Route 67 to be rerouted from Stamford Hill via the 476 to Islington, Angel and terminate there. Route 73 extended to Tottenham via route 476 (if there is demand, then all the way to Northumberland Park). Route 476 withdrawn If there is more buses needed between Dalston and Stamford Hill, then I’d extend the 277 down there. But surely the 76, 149 and 243 is enough but I’ve never been down there so no idea. Or extend the 349 to Dalston Junction. What's going to Northumberland Park if not the 476? The 73 already runs at double the frequency of the 476, but would need to be beefed up even further if the 476's support was withdrawn. You would then over-bus Stamford Hill to Tottenham.
|
|
|
Post by greg on Jul 9, 2020 19:15:28 GMT
Route 67 to be rerouted from Stamford Hill via the 476 to Islington, Angel and terminate there. Route 73 extended to Tottenham via route 476 (if there is demand, then all the way to Northumberland Park). Route 476 withdrawn If there is more buses needed between Dalston and Stamford Hill, then I’d extend the 277 down there. But surely the 76, 149 and 243 is enough but I’ve never been down there so no idea. Or extend the 349 to Dalston Junction. What's going to Northumberland Park if not the 476? The 73 already runs at double the frequency of the 476, but would need to be beefed up even further if the 476's support was withdrawn. You would then over-bus Stamford Hill to Tottenham. Got me there, I’m not sure. I thought it would be okay without the 476 between Northumberland Park and Tottenham. And with the 349, that is actually a good idea and the 277 is already long as it is. You could maybe extend the W3 to Tottenham to replace the 476?
|
|