|
Post by greenboy on Jun 1, 2022 11:19:47 GMT
I really do wish that TfL had funding from the government again. Have you got access to a magic money tree?
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jun 1, 2022 11:24:23 GMT
What’s the total PVR saving? For all this work and confusion I would very much hope its high and atleast can be considered worthwhile from a cost benefit
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Jun 1, 2022 11:25:08 GMT
So the 14 gets know replacement between Russell Square and Tottenham Court Road. No replacement on this section.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jun 1, 2022 11:26:13 GMT
The 476 gets butchered again. Yes. Must have been the temptation of the 21 stand becoming spare.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Jun 1, 2022 11:30:43 GMT
From quickly reading through all the changes, my main observation is how overly complicated each set of proposals seem. There must be far simpler (and therefore cheaper) ways for TFL to make the relevant cuts.
For example, the withdrawal of the 24 includes a complicated restructure of the 88, 205 and 214. But the only section that is actually lost is the western end of the 205 (and the Moorgate end of the 214). Surely you could just cut the 205 back to Kings Cross, and leave the other routes mostly as they are?
Having said that, I really think a link between Paddington and Kings Cross needs to be kept - a short extension of the 18 to Kings Cross might be enough, or even reroute the revised 27 to Kings Cross (instead of Chalk Farm)?
As others have mentioned, one of the most problematic changes seems to be the 113 to White City. Just so TFL can cut back the southern ends of the 113/189, plus also means excess capacity between Swiss Cottage and Kilburn as the two will overlap. Similarly to above, couldn't the 31 just stay unchanged, then create some stand space around Finchley Road or Swiss Cotfage to curtail the 113? The shortened 189 between Kilburn and Brent Cross could possibly be incorporated into another route, for example a 316 extension to Brent Cross and DD conversion.
The measures taken to replace the 521 also seem unecessary, with indirect extensions of the 59 and 133. If cuts have to be made, the existing links provided by the 17, 26, 243, etc should be enough to cover the 521. Potentially this could be more expensive than keeping the 521, as the 59/133 will run at weekends too, and provide more capacity than currently deemed necessary along the 521 route due to using DDs. Similarly, does the 72 withdrawal make any savings, when the current route is maintained in its entirety by the 49/272? Might the 272/283 be sufficient to East Acton without the 49?
I do wonder if some of these changes are intended to be contraversial and not necessarily to be taken forward, but TFL trying to get more government funding to keep some of these routes running. Especially as many of the lower/traditional numbers are gone despite much of the route being kept as another number, such as 24/214, 12/507, 14/414 etc.
|
|
|
Post by YX10FFN on Jun 1, 2022 11:32:32 GMT
|
|
|
Post by kmkcheng on Jun 1, 2022 11:40:35 GMT
So the 14 gets know replacement between Russell Square and Tottenham Court Road. Probably expect passengers to use the Piccadilly line
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Jun 1, 2022 11:40:39 GMT
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jun 1, 2022 11:50:46 GMT
From looking at the list of routes last Thursday, apart from the 72 I didn't think Hammersmith would be that affected. How wrong I was with it loosing the 23, 27 and 211 to Central London with the 272 and 328 providing little compromise.
|
|
|
Post by ian on Jun 1, 2022 11:55:00 GMT
From looking at the list of routes last Thursday, apart from the 72 I didn't think Hammersmith would be that affected. How wrong I was with it loosing the 23, 27 and 211 to Central London with the 272 and 328 providing little compromise. Yes, at a quick read through the main losers are actually people outside central London using the bus to access central London, e.g. on 74, 113, 4 et al I think another initial observation is how much of this is a drawing exercise in covering bits of removed routes with regard to (obviously) saving costs, and minimal gain in creating restructured routes that may generate demand. I can't believe there would be much, if any, demand from/to the traditional 113 route in say Hendon or Childs Hill to suddenly go to/from Holland Park for example. Another point I think I have noticed is an increase in N prefixed routes? As opposed to 24 hr ones.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 1, 2022 11:55:41 GMT
So the list pretty much confirms where the 248 buses are coming from. The cuts are bad but not as extensive as I thought they would be! The famous 414 and 94 never made the list. As mentioned several times previously, the 248 will already be able to pick from a number of already spare LT’s across operators - this consultation won’t have nothing to do with the 248
|
|
|
Post by joefrombow on Jun 1, 2022 11:58:11 GMT
Given the magnitude of these changes could we not have a thread for each area i.e East London , West etc ?
As for the East London changes where is the sense in having a ultra long route i.e 135 and then a ridiculously short route D3 to serve areas which could easily be made by changing bus as they do now (Leamouth to Crossharbour Asda) and inconveniencing people from Wapping who want to travel east by cutting off all their links East ?
I don't know the answers but this isn't it but ultimately travel patterns have changed and money is scarce .
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 1, 2022 12:00:42 GMT
A petition needs to be set up to save every one of these routes from being killed because this is just plain unacceptable to hear and is even worse than pedestrianising Oxford Street and reducing buses from there. A petition will do nothing. TfL don’t listen and these cuts are a done deal. They made a mess of the east London changes going ahead with changes proposed 3 years ago despite things that might have changed in that time. We now have people having to walk some distance for connecting buses whilst revised routes are carrying fresh air. A petition was made for the 19 by residents in Battersea & a Labour MP (and not by rich people of Kings Road as a rumour suggested) which ultimately was saved and which has currently also survived this big cut so it shows in the odd example, it can work
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Jun 1, 2022 12:02:38 GMT
So the list pretty much confirms where the 248 buses are coming from. The cuts are bad but not as extensive as I thought they would be! The famous 414 and 94 never made the list. As mentioned several times previously, the 248 will already be able to pick from a number of already spare LT’s across operators - this consultation won’t have nothing to do with the 248 Okay well it was a simple mistake! Just found it strange that Arriva would have 16 spare LTs. There is no need for the tone in reply to me. I see much worse speculation here and made a simple mistake.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jun 1, 2022 12:03:10 GMT
A petition will do nothing. TfL don’t listen and these cuts are a done deal. They made a mess of the east London changes going ahead with changes proposed 3 years ago despite things that might have changed in that time. We now have people having to walk some distance for connecting buses whilst revised routes are carrying fresh air. A petition was made for the 19 by residents in Battersea & a Labour MP (and not by rich people of Kings Road as a rumour suggested) which ultimately was saved and which has currently also survived this big cut so it shows in the odd example, it can work Unfortunately the 14 and 49 has now paid the price as it is going to maintain the west end to S Kensington link.
|
|