|
Post by rif153 on Aug 10, 2022 18:31:19 GMT
So now that the consultation has been concluded. What's everyone's thoughts on this. Also how many of these plans do you think will press on and why? Let's hear this I can see the 332 being withdrawn instead of the 332, breaks fewer links and one of the 16/316 extended to Brent Park to replace the 332. I agree with others the 24 may be saved given the uproar the change has caused, I suspect TFL purposely proposed withdrawing the iconic 24 to provoke a reaction. At a push I could see a fudge with the changes to routes in Chelsea, residents there successfully blocked a proposed Crossrail 2 station and the previous 11/19/22/311 proposal though this may make TFL even more determined to go ahead (no pun intended!) with the proposals.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Aug 10, 2022 20:55:36 GMT
So now that the consultation has been concluded. What's everyone's thoughts on this. Also how many of these plans do you think will press on and why? Let's hear this Can see the D7 cut 100% going ahead as the majority of the route is going to be covered. Not sure about the 135 /242 and if it goes ahead I wonder which number will survive? maybe the 242 N242 is the better choice.
The entire D7 route would be covered with 277 proposal, effectively it's just extending from Mile End to Dalston. However in my opinion, the 277 should be kept as it is (as should the D3), instead adjusting the D6 to cover the D7's links, perhaps just divert via Manchester Road and Island Gardens. Could also swap the 135/D8 routeings between Canary Wharf and Crossharbour. With the 135/242, there wouldn't really be much savings from merging them, as it's quite a short overlap. Might be easier to just cut back the 135 to Liverpool Street?
|
|
|
Post by Busboy105 on Aug 10, 2022 21:00:19 GMT
So now that the consultation has been concluded. What's everyone's thoughts on this. Also how many of these plans do you think will press on and why? Let's hear this Can see the D7 cut 100% going ahead as the majority of the route is going to be covered. Not sure about the 135 /242 and if it goes ahead I wonder which number will survive? maybe the 242 N242 is the better choice.
Maybe 242 as the proposed 135 is basically a restructured 242
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Aug 10, 2022 21:01:10 GMT
Can see the D7 cut 100% going ahead as the majority of the route is going to be covered. Not sure about the 135 /242 and if it goes ahead I wonder which number will survive? maybe the 242 N242 is the better choice.
The entire D7 route would be covered with 277 proposal, effectively it's just extending from Mile End to Dalston. However in my opinion, the 277 should be kept as it is (as should the D3), instead adjusting the D6 to cover the D7's links, perhaps just divert via Manchester Road and Island Gardens. Could also swap the 135/D8 routeings between Canary Wharf and Crossharbour. With the 135/242, there wouldn't really be much savings from merging them, as it's quite a short overlap. Might be easier to just cut back the 135 to Liverpool Street? Or even Aldgate using the 343s stand and keep the 242 on its current route. The 277 would arguably go back to its 1989/1990 routing doing the entire All Saints to Westferry routing around the Isle of Dogs bar the slight diversion to take in Spindrift Ave.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Aug 10, 2022 21:24:39 GMT
Charlton and Blackheath have probably given up on trying to save the 53 and since it barely reaches central London anyways now probably will accept that bar St Thomas' or visit to Lower Marsh they are probably changing buses anyways now so may as well at Elephant.
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Aug 10, 2022 21:24:59 GMT
Can see the D7 cut 100% going ahead as the majority of the route is going to be covered. Not sure about the 135 /242 and if it goes ahead I wonder which number will survive? maybe the 242 N242 is the better choice.
The entire D7 route would be covered with 277 proposal, effectively it's just extending from Mile End to Dalston. However in my opinion, the 277 should be kept as it is (as should the D3), instead adjusting the D6 to cover the D7's links, perhaps just divert via Manchester Road and Island Gardens. Could also swap the 135/D8 routeings between Canary Wharf and Crossharbour. With the 135/242, there wouldn't really be much savings from merging them, as it's quite a short overlap. Might be easier to just cut back the 135 to Liverpool Street? I have to be careful with my wording but sometimes feels people go against TfL proposals just because they want to feel their ideas are better. The 277 is fairly short now so see no problem with extending over the D7. The D6 is a very busy route and would need converting to double decker if adjusted. Don’t get me wrong TfL make mistakes! Think some of the east London changes made in May are awful but sometimes proposals are challenged just for the sake of it.
|
|
|
Post by JUNIOR26 on Aug 10, 2022 21:40:12 GMT
So now that the consultation has been concluded. What's everyone's thoughts on this. Also how many of these plans do you think will press on and why? Let's hear this I can see the 332 being withdrawn instead of the 332, breaks fewer links and one of the 16/316 extended to Brent Park to replace the 332. I agree with others the 24 may be saved given the uproar the change has caused, I suspect TFL purposely proposed withdrawing the iconic 24 to provoke a reaction. At a push I could see a fudge with the changes to routes in Chelsea, residents there successfully blocked a proposed Crossrail 2 station and the previous 11/19/22/311 proposal though this may make TFL even more determined to go ahead (no pun intended!) with the proposals. I assume you mean the 332 being withdrawn instead of the 16. You've put "the 332 being withdrawn instead of the 332" lol. As for someone that works at W, I do think a route will be removed from Edgware Road. I can see a Brent Park - Victoria route happening, (pre-1997 coming back), but I think one of the following will happen: 1. Route 16 gets withdrawn, the 332 gets diverted away from Paddington and gets extended to Victoria and *possibly* the 32 extended to Paddington via Maida Hill and the 6, 98 and 23 changes don't go ahead as I think those ones TFL didn't think through. I will be very intrigued to see what alternative TFL will have with the 23 as I honestly can't see it going back to Aldwych. 2. Route 332 gets withdrawn and the 16 is retained but takes over the remainder of the current 332 contract, and gets extended to Brent Park, then becoming a Brent Park - Victoria route (pre-1997). I'm literally just waiting till when this consultation report is out, I just know it ain't going to look pretty.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 10, 2022 21:47:52 GMT
The entire D7 route would be covered with 277 proposal, effectively it's just extending from Mile End to Dalston. However in my opinion, the 277 should be kept as it is (as should the D3), instead adjusting the D6 to cover the D7's links, perhaps just divert via Manchester Road and Island Gardens. Could also swap the 135/D8 routeings between Canary Wharf and Crossharbour. With the 135/242, there wouldn't really be much savings from merging them, as it's quite a short overlap. Might be easier to just cut back the 135 to Liverpool Street? I have to be careful with my wording but sometimes feels people go against TfL proposals just because they want to feel their ideas are better. The 277 is fairly short now so see no problem with extending over the D7. The D6 is a very busy route and would need converting to double decker if adjusted. Don’t get me wrong TfL make mistakes! Think some of the east London changes made in May are awful but sometimes proposals are challenged just for the sake of it. Can I genuinely ask which proposals you think are challenged just for the sake of it?
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Aug 10, 2022 22:05:34 GMT
I have to be careful with my wording but sometimes feels people go against TfL proposals just because they want to feel their ideas are better. The 277 is fairly short now so see no problem with extending over the D7. The D6 is a very busy route and would need converting to double decker if adjusted. Don’t get me wrong TfL make mistakes! Think some of the east London changes made in May are awful but sometimes proposals are challenged just for the sake of it. Can I genuinely ask which proposals you think are challenged just for the sake of it? I would say it's been more the public that have challenged them for the sake of it when they haven't properly read the consultation. Like I said before iv seen articles talking about how important the 24 is for Royal Free and UCH without realising the the 88 will still cover it, Pimlico will be totally isolated again not realising the 214 will maintain a link to TSQ and Camden Town and someone claiming they would have to take 4 buses if the 12 us axed when in reality it would max be 148 then 159/214/453 to reach Oxford Circus or the 176 still directly from Dulwich to TSQ.
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Aug 10, 2022 22:29:14 GMT
Can I genuinely ask which proposals you think are challenged just for the sake of it? I would say it's been more the public that have challenged them for the sake of it when they haven't properly read the consultation. Like I said before iv seen articles talking about how important the 24 is for Royal Free and UCH without realising the the 88 will still cover it, Pimlico will be totally isolated again not realising the 214 will maintain a link to TSQ and Camden Town and someone claiming they would have to take 4 buses if the 12 us axed when in reality it would max be 148 then 159/214/453 to reach Oxford Circus or the 176 still directly from Dulwich to TSQ. Sadly people don’t think logically and only see what they want, rather than what options are still available to them. I’m not saying these changes are good or bad, I’m Switzerland but ultimately if they allow for long term protection of routes in outer zones where demand is considerably higher than that is what matters.
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Aug 10, 2022 22:31:52 GMT
I suspect some of the more high profile routes will be 'saved' in some form although I can't see much of a case for saving the 12, the 148 proposal does make sense.
I wouldn't be surprised if the 31 is reprieved and the 113 as far as Baker Street Station with the 189 withdrawn and replaced by changes to other routes at the northern end.
Hopefully something better than the 135/242 merger which won't offer much in the way of savings.
I wouldn't be surprised if the 211 stays as it is with something else (rerouted 306?) doing the Battersea PS link.
The rest will probably go ahead pretty much as proposed.
|
|
|
Post by mkay315 on Aug 10, 2022 23:06:31 GMT
Charlton and Blackheath have probably given up on trying to save the 53 and since it barely reaches central London anyways now probably will accept that bar St Thomas' or visit to Lower Marsh they are probably changing buses anyways now so may as well at Elephant. This is a sad state of affairs. TFL have been hellbent on cutting that route back to Elephant and it looks like they may have finally got their wish.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Aug 10, 2022 23:19:06 GMT
Charlton and Blackheath have probably given up on trying to save the 53 and since it barely reaches central London anyways now probably will accept that bar St Thomas' or visit to Lower Marsh they are probably changing buses anyways now so may as well at Elephant. This is a sad state of affairs. TFL have been hellbent on cutting that route back to Elephant and it looks like they may have finally got their wish. Could have had 23 years now of what was the planned 453. There would be many who wouldn't even know the 53 ran to Woolwich and Plumstead.
|
|
|
Post by rjbarrett5 on Aug 10, 2022 23:23:11 GMT
This is a sad state of affairs. TFL have been hellbent on cutting that route back to Elephant and it looks like they may have finally got their wish. Could have had 23 years now of what was the planned 453. There would be many who wouldn't even know the 53 ran to Woolwich and Plumstead. What was the planned 453?
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Aug 10, 2022 23:31:29 GMT
Could have had 23 years now of what was the planned 453. There would be many who wouldn't even know the 53 ran to Woolwich and Plumstead. What was the planned 453? Plumstead Station to Elephant & Castle Be interested to know if any NVs or early Tridents had blinds for it as I recall the 53 via points on both buses had New Cross as the last point and didn't mention Deptford, Blackheath or Woolwich which would suggest they were ordered with the planned changes in mind.
|
|