|
Post by george on Oct 9, 2020 14:48:42 GMT
"Similar waste of resources everyone claims the 414 to be' well maybe those people was right but still a lot of them was called armchair experts just because they thought there would be changes to the route. Maybe peoples views should now be listened to even if they think a route could be withdrawn, that's not say you have to agree to it but quite clearly TFL don't see the need for the 414 along certain parts of the route and people have noticed that before but mentioning a route being cut is a no no. You have completely misread what I said - what I was getting at is others have said that the 414 is surplus to requirements rightly or wrongly so where is the logic in extending that same route over the 378 which is lightly loaded on many occasions and can easily be swallowed up by a every 10-12 min 209 as well as the fact that the 414 only adds to the overbussing of Barnes with a double decker 8 min frequency route being overkill for the Putney to Barnes section given it currently is already overkill with a 7-8 min single deck 378 alongside the lower frequency 485 & the 265 as far as Barnes Common. I got it wrong so I've deleted the post. Apologise for misunderstanding it. I though you was suggesting that the people who said the 414 wasn't that busy was wrong.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Oct 9, 2020 15:04:31 GMT
Would it be doable to perhaps extend the 85 to South Kensington via the 14/414? Would still be short than routes such as the 43 or 468. Then maybe increase the 74's frequency slightly to replace the 414 towards Marble Arch, also extend to Roehampton and withdraw the 430. The 190 could possibly extend from West Brompton to South Kensington if needed. I think the case against extending the 85 to South Kensington would be that it can pick up heavy loads from Putney Bridge Station and so really needs to be starting from there but I agree with your other suggestions. Otherwise it might be simpler to just increase the 14's frequency - if this provides excess capacity through the West End then maybe reduce the 38 a bit further?
|
|
|
Post by rm1422 on Oct 9, 2020 15:15:18 GMT
Biggest problem with the 414 is the mess it makes of Putney Bridge. So often there are too many buses sitting there and they get in the way of other traffic. The route should be withdrawn with the 14 given a frequency boost.
The latest timetable means that without the 414 there are no longer enough buses South Kensington - Putney Bridge via Fulham Road.
Most people getting off the 414 at Putney Bridge either walk across the bridge or get another bus, so cutting short another route at Putney Bridge instead would be a mistake.
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Oct 9, 2020 16:16:06 GMT
I think many of us have expected a cut to the 414 to come and to be honest when I saw the consultation in my inbox it didn't surprise me at all to see TfL looking to tamper with the 414. Ever since the 6's patronage fell of a cliff edge with the rerouting via Hyde Park Corner there's been little need for both routes on the northern end from my experiences of seeing both routes before Covid I would say there is slack to be cut. The 6 should really never have been rerouted via Hyde Park Corner but that's another story. I've been an advocate of rerouting the route to Paddington Basin for years and still am as I think it would be a better use of the northern end. As far as TfL cuts go this is one of the more justified ones as there are parts of the bus network which are hard to justify and the northern end of the 414 falls under that category for me and other routes which came in at the start of the century seem the most vulnerable to me (bar the 148). I can see the 414 becoming like the C2 which TfL run down by ensuring its patronage sinks before they go in and kill it off.
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Oct 9, 2020 16:21:07 GMT
Couldn’t the 36 be withdrawn between Paddington and Queens Park, the 414 extended to Queens Park and the 6 rerouted between Queens Park and Edgware Road via route 36.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Oct 9, 2020 16:30:37 GMT
The 414 was basically a 2002 extra route which gave assistance to the 14 and 16 with a round the corner Knightbridge to Edgware Road a link now covered by the 23. Unlike route like the 333, 363 which replaced part of an existing route the 414 didnt.
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Oct 9, 2020 16:47:51 GMT
What a pointless route this new 414 will end up to be, it will just duplicate the 14 and 74. Might as well bin it. I like the idea of extending the new route to Wandsworth. I imagine that is one of the busier sections of the 220, which could be reduced slightly overall (might not be appropriate as Westfield to Harlesden is also very busy) though TfL are in dire straits due to mad lockdowns. Quite honestly I think the 414 has been a pointless route for years, it may have been justified in 2003 when bus travel was on the increase but even the Edgware Road to Knightsbridge link is covered by the 23 now and of course there is the 74 between Marble Arch and South Kensington. The only viable extensions I can think of from Putney Bridge are to Mortlake in place of the 378 or Roehampton in place of the 430. Otherwise it might as well be withdrawn completely with short workings on the 14 between Putney Bridge and South Kensington or Hyde Park Corner as necessary. I am not sure what day to day experience everyone here of the northern section of the 414, but it would wrong to say that it gets no use. I was never a supporter of the re-routing from Maida Vale Elgin Avenue to that of supporting the 6, I always thought that would over bus the common part with the 6, and so it has. Perhaps it should go back to Elgin Avenue. I am not in favour of cutting it back to Marble Arch for all the reasons given here, it will make it a near pointless route. I agree that Marble Arch stand space might be another issue. Although the route maybe seemingly pointless it mustn't be forgotten how little appetite TfL have for short journeys. Extra buses on the 14 to allow the 414 to be axed is not a sensible option unless shorts are used. It is therefore all the more important the 414 does 'something unique'', perhaps going back to Maida Vale, Elgin Avenue. One good thing about this proposal is what it is isn't. A least the proposal isn't to axe the 6 and extend the 414 to Willesden!!
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Oct 9, 2020 17:42:26 GMT
I think the 14 could easily cope along the Fulham Road and so do others so I guess that rather settled.
The 414, if in that form could be withdrawn easily as covered by the 14 & 74.
Now comes the 430. The 430 isn't vulnerable as such, and I certainly wouldn't advocate extending the 74 given it has to battle the western end of Oxford Street. However amongst fellow forum members lots of people have encouraged the discontinuation of the 74 between Baker Street and Marble Arch so let's now say the 74 is withdrawn there. The 74 now is Marble Arch to Putney.
The 430 could always be extended to Marble Arch in place of the 414 though it seems demand is also rather scarse along there so maybe not.
The 74 & 430 are rather similar between Marble Arch & AF apart from between Earls Court and South Ken. I think that the 430 could be rerouted down Munster Road in order to have a bus down there and then take Route 14 to Fulham High St where route 430 reconnects to its current routing.
However, I wouldn't encourage the merging of the 74 & 430 for reliability reasons. The 430 battles traffic on the A205 however so would mean reliability problems elsewhere. So now that the 74 is pulled out from Baker Street, the route could be extended to Paddington Basin via the way the 159 used to go.
Just some ideas
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Oct 9, 2020 19:25:34 GMT
I think the 14 could easily cope along the Fulham Road and so do others so I guess that rather settled. The 414, if in that form could be withdrawn easily as covered by the 14 & 74. Now comes the 430. The 430 isn't vulnerable as such, and I certainly wouldn't advocate extending the 74 given it has to battle the western end of Oxford Street. However amongst fellow forum members lots of people have encouraged the discontinuation of the 74 between Baker Street and Marble Arch so let's now say the 74 is withdrawn there. The 74 now is Marble Arch to Putney. The 430 could always be extended to Marble Arch in place of the 414 though it seems demand is also rather scarse along there so maybe not. The 74 & 430 are rather similar between Marble Arch & AF apart from between Earls Court and South Ken. I think that the 430 could be rerouted down Munster Road in order to have a bus down there and then take Route 14 to Fulham High St where route 430 reconnects to its current routing. However, I wouldn't encourage the merging of the 74 & 430 for reliability reasons. The 430 battles traffic on the A205 however so would mean reliability problems elsewhere. So now that the 74 is pulled out from Baker Street, the route could be extended to Paddington Basin via the way the 159 used to go. Just some ideas I did wonder whether TfL would look at trying to merge the 414 and 430. If the 430 is deemed superfluous whilst the 414 survives then diverting the 414 via Old Brompton Road via Finborough Road towards Marble Arch/Redcliffe Gardens towards Putney Bridge. That way you would retain the Old Brompton Road-Putney link and do away with the 430. The 414 could then be extended at the southern end to Roehampton via the 430.
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Oct 9, 2020 19:36:03 GMT
"We could introduce the change in autumn 2021". Not exactly agile is it? If TfL's situation is that pressing, should it really take a year to do this?
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Oct 9, 2020 20:48:18 GMT
I suppose they are linking it in with the tender renewal hence the 2021 date.
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Oct 9, 2020 20:49:34 GMT
I suppose they are linking it in with the tender renewal hence the 2021 date. If I am right I believe that will be when the new contract starts so will be easier to do it then.
|
|
|
Post by LJ17THF on Oct 9, 2020 20:57:02 GMT
I wouldn't doubt TfL would withdraw this route at the next big cut consultation like we had last year, it is largely duplicated by the 14 already (like the 45 and 35), and it could be replaced with a major increase on the 14. Or, to make it more useful, I'd recommend rerouting it to somewhere like Camden Town or to Waterloo, as a link that goes directly to Hyde Park from there doesn't exist, but I doubt that will go ahead, the route is barely needed anyway according to locals, and I'm not even sure if stand space is even available at either termini.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Oct 9, 2020 21:00:48 GMT
I do wonder if it would merge with the 94 to similar to the 10/23 at some point.
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Oct 9, 2020 21:18:30 GMT
I wouldn't doubt TfL would withdraw this route at the next big cut consultation like we had last year, it is largely duplicated by the 14 already (like the 45 and 35), and it could be replaced with a major increase on the 14. Or, to make it more useful, I'd recommend rerouting it to somewhere like Camden Town or to Waterloo, as a link that goes directly to Hyde Park from there doesn't exist, but I doubt that will go ahead, the route is barely needed anyway according to locals, and I'm not even sure if stand space is even available at either termini. The stand where the 88 used to stand in Camden Town is available perhaps it cold go there.
|
|