|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jan 17, 2021 0:57:53 GMT
I wasn't pulling anything out of the Old Kent Road. The 45 would pretty much replace the 168 on a bus for bus basis.
I still think TfL will deem 100 bph on the Holborn corridor to be too many to not make any changes when they need to cut up to 300 PVR. Iv made a few suggestions based on pervious schemes (48, 88/C2, Finchley Road).
|
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Jan 17, 2021 1:10:10 GMT
I live in the north of the borough too and I think they are good changes. One idea I liked was the idea of a new route down Norbury Hill but this was not viable due to the lack of new housing planned. Overall, most of the gaps in the north of the Borough have been filled in recent times - the network there is generally very good now. The south of the Borough and Sutton definitely warranted attention. Sutton needed attention especially as there a zero per cent chance of the tram coming ever. But most of the changes proposed are for South Sutton, completely the opposite side of Sutton affected by the tram changes |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Jan 17, 2021 8:34:16 GMT
Tfl pushed on with the 88 and C2 with a 95 mins journey time plus the new 110 route. It won't stop them doing it again if it makes a saving. Unfortunately I think you'll find its either join two routes together or loose the links all together. Personally I think the 172 and 168 would be the better two routes to join together with the 45 extending to Old Kent Road to maintain capacity between TESCO and Elephant. That would possibly then free up stand space at Elephant for the 188 which would help improve reliability The 88/C2 merger has worked well and merging the 1, 68 or 172 with the 168 would make sense, better than terminating routes end on and losing various links. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2021 8:50:35 GMT
Sutton needed attention especially as there a zero per cent chance of the tram coming ever. But most of the changes proposed are for South Sutton, completely the opposite side of Sutton affected by the tram changes Still affects changes on the north side with the 80 bring decked and the changes to the 470/S1/S4 etc. The point is it will become clear that the tram is not coming to Sutton. It should have been obvious from the route TfL chose that it’s never coming. You can barely fit two buses side by side on that part of the high street, it would be terrible with trams as well. Construction would kill the high street, local buses and destroy Rose Hill Park. |
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Jan 17, 2021 11:45:47 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jan 17, 2021 13:42:27 GMT
Tfl pushed on with the 88 and C2 with a 95 mins journey time plus the new 110 route. It won't stop them doing it again if it makes a saving. Unfortunately I think you'll find its either join two routes together or loose the links all together. Personally I think the 172 and 168 would be the better two routes to join together with the 45 extending to Old Kent Road to maintain capacity between TESCO and Elephant. That would possibly then free up stand space at Elephant for the 188 which would help improve reliability The 88/C2 merger has worked well and merging the 1, 68 or 172 with the 168 would make sense, better than terminating routes end on and losing various links. The 88 & C2 merger works out much shorter than trying to merge the 1, 68 or 172 with the 168 - whether you dislike me or not, the days of these lengthy routes are long gone. Even then, not sure how you can definitely prove the 88 & C2 merger has worked, any evidence to show this? |
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Jan 17, 2021 13:51:02 GMT
The 88/C2 merger has worked well and merging the 1, 68 or 172 with the 168 would make sense, better than terminating routes end on and losing various links. The 88 & C2 merger works out much shorter than trying to merge the 1, 68 or 172 with the 168 - whether you dislike me or not, the days of these lengthy routes are long gone. Even then, not sure how you can definitely prove the 88 & C2 merger has worked, any evidence to show this? You would need to check the quarterly individual bus route performance statistics on the TFL website in relation to punctuality and reliability. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jan 17, 2021 13:52:39 GMT
Nothing to do with disliking you. We just realise that something will have to go to achieve the 4% cut and we are looking for the least painful option.
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jan 17, 2021 14:13:59 GMT
Nothing to do with disliking you. We just realise that something will have to go to achieve the 4% cut and we are looking for the least painful option. I was referring to the particular member who has a particular dislike for myself - I wasn’t referring to you or anyone else. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jan 17, 2021 14:55:11 GMT
This might seem a bit radical but to remove some capacity what about this;
1. Diverted between TCR and Aldwych via route 176. Would provide a new TSQ to CW link. Removes a Kibgsway route. 188 would maintain a CW to Kingsway route.
68. Diverts at Holborn to TCR. Removes a route from Southampton Row
176. Withdrawn between TCR and Elephant or maybe even Camberwell Green.
Route 12 would maintained a TSQ to Camberwell/Dulwich link, 68 to TCR/Waterloo to Camberwell maintained.
Downside would be East Dulwich, Forest Hill and Penge link lost beyond Elephant but realistically its a 90 min trek end to end.
What does anyone think?
|
|
|
|
Post by greg on Jan 17, 2021 21:12:52 GMT
The 88/C2 merger has worked well and merging the 1, 68 or 172 with the 168 would make sense, better than terminating routes end on and losing various links. The 88 & C2 merger works out much shorter than trying to merge the 1, 68 or 172 with the 168 - whether you dislike me or not, the days of these lengthy routes are long gone. Even then, not sure how you can definitely prove the 88 & C2 merger has worked, any evidence to show this? It has as a local but it has its downsides too with Warren Street having no link to Piccadilly now. But the 88 also has often curtailments which is one of the main issues. Stockwell, Vauxhall, Camden Town, Oxford Circus have been a lot I have seen since the merger |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Jan 17, 2021 21:23:16 GMT
The 88/C2 merger has worked well and merging the 1, 68 or 172 with the 168 would make sense, better than terminating routes end on and losing various links. The 88 & C2 merger works out much shorter than trying to merge the 1, 68 or 172 with the 168 - whether you dislike me or not, the days of these lengthy routes are long gone. Even then, not sure how you can definitely prove the 88 & C2 merger has worked, any evidence to show this? I think an important factor to also consider is that the cut back C2 had minimal traffic to deal with too, the most was at Kentish Town plus the rerouting via the old C2 route at Great Portland Street also saved some time it would previously use to battle through traffic at Warren Street. I don't know how merging the 172 would go, but it'd certainly not be anywhere near usable if sent all the way to Brockley Rise. New Cross is a standstill at the best of times and having a route go all the way up to Hampstead Heath would be nothing short of disaster. Merging it with the 68 would obviously cause a loss of links to the OKR area and the route will also have to start battling it through Camberwell, while not as bad as New Cross is still far from ideal. The 1 is probably the best shout however reliability will almost certainly take a hit if merged with the 168. |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Jan 18, 2021 13:19:28 GMT
This might seem a bit radical but to remove some capacity what about this; 1. Diverted between TCR and Aldwych via route 176. Would provide a new TSQ to CW link. Removes a Kibgsway route. 188 would maintain a CW to Kingsway route. 68. Diverts at Holborn to TCR. Removes a route from Southampton Row 176. Withdrawn between TCR and Elephant or maybe even Camberwell Green. Route 12 would maintained a TSQ to Camberwell/Dulwich link, 68 to TCR/Waterloo to Camberwell maintained. Downside would be East Dulwich, Forest Hill and Penge link lost beyond Elephant but realistically its a 90 min trek end to end. What does anyone think? I think there would be uproar about East Dulwich losing its West End link, obviously Penge and Forest Hill are further afield. I thought the 2019 changes should have been..... 40 Rerouted to Tottenham Court Road. 45 Remained as it was to Clerkenwell Green, just Kings Cross section axed. 176 Reduced to Penge to Elephant & Castle. Or vice versa for the 40/176. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2021 22:29:46 GMT
The best way forward in my opinion is to wait a while till Summer the earliest before making changes/reductions to routes.
Yes I know Central London is dead quiet now but fingers crossed with the vaccine rollout some normality will happen with workers returning to work.
I'm not gonna speculate too deeply into what routes may or may not be changed/cut as per the title of this thread it will happen from now until 2024, so we have ages to go.
Should any route withdrawals/shortenings take place the usual consultation process will be followed.
|
|
|
|
Post by greg on Jan 21, 2021 0:22:09 GMT
Is the 46 the first route affected by the 4% mileage cut? Seems TFL were quite quick with this or is it because of a complete different reason
|
|
