|
Post by rjbarrett5 on Aug 10, 2022 23:34:11 GMT
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. I would assume so as 453 used Tridents until the Citaros arrived; ive seen one with Deptford as a destination. I assume 53 was Oxo to Deptford Bridge?
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Aug 10, 2022 23:46:38 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. I think at the very least, the D3 should be removed from the Isle of Dogs proposals. The proposed routeing between Canary Wharf and Crossharbour doesn't offer much that won't be available anyway using the 135/277/D8. Meanwhile, the section between Wapping and Limehouse is left without a bus service. Even in some parts of Wapping where the revised 100 will still operate, passengers will lose their direct link towards Limehouse and Canary Wharf, and there is no easy alternative even with changing buses.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 11, 2022 2:21:17 GMT
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. 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. That's a rather odd way to look at it - correct me if I'm wrong but it sounds like basically, screw Inner London despite the fact it has low car ownership levels so relies on it's public transport and still has a lot of demand for buses especially in the south despite what some think (just go to one of Inner London's many town centres) to look after the Outer London boroughs rather than a more joined thinking that helps/protects both Inner & Outer
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Aug 11, 2022 2:37:09 GMT
with the amount of chopping and changing I do wonder if the 476 will be on the next route on the chopping block if TfL want to do more cuts. If the changes ever go through it will a form of it's former self.
|
|
|
Post by northlondon83 on Aug 11, 2022 4:59:11 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 You mean instead of the 16 being withdrawn
|
|
|
Post by VMH2537 on Aug 11, 2022 6:19:39 GMT
with the amount of chopping and changing I do wonder if the 476 will be on the next route on the chopping block if TfL want to do more cuts. If the changes ever go through it will a form of it's former self. The 476 I speculate will be involved in the Meridian Water development changes as to why it was retained with minimal purpose. I predict it will swap terminus with the 341 with the N341 retained to serve on its current routings to allow the development to be served by a daily night service. It's noticeable aswell the 476 will be retained on its current 6bph mentioned on the frequency change docs paper whilst the 341 was recently reduced to 5bph. May prove more additional support with a higher service provision from its 6bph as opposed to the current 5bph.
|
|
|
Post by mkay315 on Aug 11, 2022 6:35:47 GMT
After analysing the changes for the past few months, I don’t mind if they do go ahead. Most of them are good compromises in regards to falling demand and a difficult financial situation that TfL are in. Although the 78/388 change is the most mind boggling one to me at the moment. I can see the 24/88 remaining the same and the 205 shortened to maybe Euston to Mile End. The 31 remaining with likely the 113 staying the same but the 189 cut to Baker Street. 11/14 becoming the new numbers for the revised 414 and 507 and possibly a compromise with a drop freq 430 and 74 with the cut to Marble Arch. Everything else including the 12 I can see going ahead. I agree with most of this. However, I think route 414 and 507 numbers will be retained along with the new night routes associated with those routes. I hope as you say that routes 24, 88 and 214 are retained in their current form. But I think route 24 will be withdrawn with all the changes surrounding it happening. Routes 74/N74 I can see definitely going with the revised routes 414/N414 and routes 430/N430 expected to cover most of its existing route. Some predictions Route 507/N507 will be a single decker route. Retaining its existing electric vehicles Route 214 will replace most of the 88 route between Trafalgar Square and Parliament Hill Fields as a single decker route. Retaining its existing electrics. The route could move to either Waterloo garage or Stockwell garage. The 78 and 388 situation is an interesting one as the 388 has changed destinations more time than I could think.
|
|
|
Post by mkay315 on Aug 11, 2022 6:39:17 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 24/88 remaining the same and the 205 shortened to maybe Euston to Mile End. The 31 remaining with likely the 113 staying the same but the 189 cut to Baker Street. 11/14 becoming the new numbers for the revised 414 and 507 and possibly a compromise with a drop freq 430 and 74 with the cut to Marble Arch. Everything else including the 12 I can see going ahead. for the 205 I still think it will go to Bow but for it to go PHF it's a questionable move in my opinion. Where East London has a lot of trains going into Central London they lack on the bus aspect of things. The only buses I can think of that goes into deep central is the 30, 38 and 55. Now that's a far cry from when the 8, 25 and 242 used to go there as well
|
|
|
Post by mkay315 on Aug 11, 2022 6:42:46 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. The 24 I feel are one of those "untouchable" routes that will give TFL a headache if it's tampered with in any shape or form. As for the 16 or 316 being extended via the 332 to Brent Park. It's sort of returning back to it's origins again which I have to ask was the 332 created to relieve the pressure off the 16 in the Edgware Road to Cricklewood corridor?
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Aug 11, 2022 6:43:10 GMT
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. That's a rather odd way to look at it - correct me if I'm wrong but it sounds like basically, screw Inner London despite the fact it has low car ownership levels so relies on it's public transport and still has a lot of demand for buses especially in the south despite what some think (just go to one of Inner London's many town centres) to look after the Outer London boroughs rather than a more joined thinking that helps/protects both Inner & Outer My point wasn’t necessarily about the south which has largely escaped these proposed changes. But I think particularly in inner North, West and East London bus demand should be better matched to serve more popular modes of transport like the tube. That isn’t to say buses have less need in inner London but they are far more vital in outer and border boroughs where train services can be every half hour or it can be difficult to make the same journey. Of course the bus plays a part and they should be protected but where it should be considered essential to life is the outer boroughs. Frankly TfL should be focusing on and planning expansions of the tube in south London. In an ideal world the Victoria Line would be extended further south to Croydon through Streatham, Thornton Heath and Selhurt. The Northern line would be extended from Battersea to Kingston. The Bakerloo Line would have had its extension to Lewisham built years ago. Bit of a tangent but you get my point.
|
|
|
Post by mkay315 on Aug 11, 2022 6:45:25 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.
I think the D7 situation may surprise some people with the end result but we will see. As for the 135 and 242 I personally think the 242 number might go
|
|
|
Post by mkay315 on Aug 11, 2022 6:49:19 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. It's craziness at this point
|
|
|
Post by mkay315 on Aug 11, 2022 6:51:51 GMT
with the amount of chopping and changing I do wonder if the 476 will be on the next route on the chopping block if TfL want to do more cuts. If the changes ever go through it will a form of it's former self. The 476 I speculate will be involved in the Meridian Water development changes as to why it was retained with minimal purpose. I predict it will swap terminus with the 341 with the N341 retained to serve on its current routings to allow the development to be served by a daily night service. It's noticeable aswell the 476 will be retained on its current 6bph mentioned on the frequency change docs paper whilst the 341 was recently reduced to 5bph. May prove more additional support with a higher service provision from its 6bph as opposed to the current 5bph. The 341 being cut back to Northumberland Park is essentially taking it back to it's 171a days.
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Aug 11, 2022 6:56:01 GMT
That's a rather odd way to look at it - correct me if I'm wrong but it sounds like basically, screw Inner London despite the fact it has low car ownership levels so relies on it's public transport and still has a lot of demand for buses especially in the south despite what some think (just go to one of Inner London's many town centres) to look after the Outer London boroughs rather than a more joined thinking that helps/protects both Inner & Outer My point wasn’t necessarily about the south which has largely escaped these proposed changes. But I think particularly in inner North, West and East London bus demand should be better matched to serve more popular modes of transport like the tube. That isn’t to say buses have less need in inner London but they are far more vital in outer and border boroughs where train services can be every half hour or it can be difficult to make the same journey. Of course the bus plays a part and they should be protected but where it should be considered essential to life is the outer boroughs. Frankly TfL should be focusing on and planning expansions of the tube in south London. In an ideal world the Victoria Line would be extended further south to Croydon through Streatham, Thornton Heath and Selhurt. The Northern line would be extended from Battersea to Kingston. The Bakerloo Line would have had its extension to Lewisham built years ago. IBit of a tangent but you get my point. Unfortunately historically the Central London sections of the tube would not have been able to cope with the massive increase in demand that would be created by extensions to the outer suburbs, now a lot will depend on the post COVID-19 situation and home working as to whether extensions are practical, setting aside issues of cost. I certainly think that those lines should be extended to Lewisham, Streatham and Clapham Junction at least.
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Aug 11, 2022 8:49:21 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.
I think the D7 situation may surprise some people with the end result but we will see. As for the 135 and 242 I personally think the 242 number might go Why would the D7 surprise people? The Isle Of Dogs has a excellent bus and rail network. Unpopular opinion here but if the D7 does survive it will show how bad TfL are at managing finances as the 277 can cover this and gives the route a bit more of a purpose.
The reason I suggested the 242 number survives is it just makes sense for the night element instead of introducing a new N135 which might confuse people. Keep the 242 number and recycle the 135 at a later date.
|
|