|
Post by greenboy on Oct 5, 2022 10:40:15 GMT
I personally would have merged a Roehampton to Marble Arch route with possibly the 414 Putney Heath to Baker Street or just to Marble Arch aswell. However the 19 then came into play to replace the 14 which would have still left 3 routes from S Kensington to Hyde Park which I'm sure was felt was excessive. However if the 19 dosent divert then it can't replace the 49 which in turn can't extended to East Acton to replace the 72. Unfortunately 1 change can affect many others and you kind of have to have all or nothing of the changes it seems. I think the splitting of the 49 is unnecessary, results in a loss of north-south and cross river links and creates a lot of unnecessary knock on changes. Keeping it as it is would make the other changes far simpler to plan. I don’t think the 49, 283 and enhanced 272 are all required between East Acton and Wood Lane/Shepherds Bush. Maybe keep the 72 at a reduced frequency. There’s probably an element of getting more people onto the West London line but if a reduction is needed on Battersea Bridge Road it would seem simpler to curtail the 345 at Clapham Junction and reroute the 19 to replace that rather than the 49.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Oct 5, 2022 11:44:55 GMT
I think the splitting of the 49 is unnecessary, results in a loss of north-south and cross river links and creates a lot of unnecessary knock on changes. Keeping it as it is would make the other changes far simpler to plan. I don’t think the 49, 283 and enhanced 272 are all required between East Acton and Wood Lane/Shepherds Bush. Maybe keep the 72 at a reduced frequency. There’s probably an element of getting more people onto the West London line but if a reduction is needed on Battersea Bridge Road it would seem simpler to curtail the 345 at Clapham Junction and reroute the 19 to replace that rather than the 49. Two things: The changes have nothing to do with getting people onto certain lines as you keep repeating without any evidence - it’s pretty clear when judging the changes that it simply boils down to financial aspects The 19 is already long enough without faffing about with it to replace the 345 north of Clapham Junction
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Oct 5, 2022 11:51:58 GMT
There’s probably an element of getting more people onto the West London line but if a reduction is needed on Battersea Bridge Road it would seem simpler to curtail the 345 at Clapham Junction and reroute the 19 to replace that rather than the 49. Two things: The changes have nothing to do with getting people onto certain lines as you keep repeating without any evidence - it’s pretty clear when judging the changes that it simply boils down to financial aspects The 19 is already long enough without faffing about with it to replace the 345 north of Clapham Junction I always felt back in 2002/03 the 19 should have been split so that a new route could reach CJ from say Holborn so that it could serve Battersea properly and CJ. Personally I would keep the 49 to CJ, pull the 345 back to CJ with either the 19 or 49 via Beaufort Street.
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Oct 5, 2022 11:56:05 GMT
There’s probably an element of getting more people onto the West London line but if a reduction is needed on Battersea Bridge Road it would seem simpler to curtail the 345 at Clapham Junction and reroute the 19 to replace that rather than the 49. Two things: The changes have nothing to do with getting people onto certain lines as you keep repeating without any evidence - it’s pretty clear when judging the changes that it simply boils down to financial aspects The 19 is already long enough without faffing about with it to replace the 345 north of Clapham Junction The only change I would make to the 19 is to extend it full time to Clapham Junction. Perhaps a new stand on Boutflower Road entering via St John’s Hill and Strath Terrace, exit via Battersea Rise to avoid another route on St John’s Road.
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Oct 5, 2022 12:24:11 GMT
Two things: The changes have nothing to do with getting people onto certain lines as you keep repeating without any evidence - it’s pretty clear when judging the changes that it simply boils down to financial aspects The 19 is already long enough without faffing about with it to replace the 345 north of Clapham Junction The only change I would make to the 19 is to extend it full time to Clapham Junction. Perhaps a new stand on Boutflower Road entering via St John’s Hill and Strath Terrace, exit via Battersea Rise to avoid another route on St John’s Road. The current proposal is to reduce buses on Battersea Bridge Road presumably due to people switching to the tube from Battersea PS? Although the 19 could possibly be extended to the Latchmere?
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Oct 5, 2022 12:29:34 GMT
Two things: The changes have nothing to do with getting people onto certain lines as you keep repeating without any evidence - it’s pretty clear when judging the changes that it simply boils down to financial aspects The 19 is already long enough without faffing about with it to replace the 345 north of Clapham Junction I always felt back in 2002/03 the 19 should have been split so that a new route could reach CJ from say Holborn so that it could serve Battersea properly and CJ. Personally I would keep the 49 to CJ, pull the 345 back to CJ with either the 19 or 49 via Beaufort Street. That's exactly what I was suggesting, 19 via Beaufort Street and the 49 can be CJ to East Acton.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Oct 5, 2022 12:45:53 GMT
I always felt back in 2002/03 the 19 should have been split so that a new route could reach CJ from say Holborn so that it could serve Battersea properly and CJ. Personally I would keep the 49 to CJ, pull the 345 back to CJ with either the 19 or 49 via Beaufort Street. That's exactly what I was suggesting, 19 via Beaufort Street and the 49 can be CJ to East Acton. I can see high opposition to the loss of a Kings Road to Kensington High Street link whereas whilst some journeys would obviously be broken such as Clapham Common to Battersea Latchmere I do think a Clapham Junction to Peckham would be a good route still.
|
|
|
Post by northlondon83 on Oct 5, 2022 13:01:39 GMT
I always felt back in 2002/03 the 19 should have been split so that a new route could reach CJ from say Holborn so that it could serve Battersea properly and CJ. Personally I would keep the 49 to CJ, pull the 345 back to CJ with either the 19 or 49 via Beaufort Street. That's exactly what I was suggesting, 19 via Beaufort Street and the 49 can be CJ to East Acton. I do see benefits of a East Acton to CJ route like the direct link from East Acton to Kensington and South Kensington (would be quicker than 70). If it wasn't for the low bridge, I would extend it further to Willesden Junction or possibly CMH
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Oct 5, 2022 14:45:27 GMT
That's exactly what I was suggesting, 19 via Beaufort Street and the 49 can be CJ to East Acton. I do see benefits of a East Acton to CJ route like the direct link from East Acton to Kensington and South Kensington (would be quicker than 70). If it wasn't for the low bridge, I would extend it further to Willesden Junction or possibly CMH Are you suggesting a Clapham Junction to Willesden Junction or Central Middlesex Hospital because if so, it would bring little benefit given East Acton & Shepherd's Bush already have links to both places and it would be pretty lengthy overall
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Oct 5, 2022 14:48:29 GMT
Two things: The changes have nothing to do with getting people onto certain lines as you keep repeating without any evidence - it’s pretty clear when judging the changes that it simply boils down to financial aspects The 19 is already long enough without faffing about with it to replace the 345 north of Clapham Junction The only change I would make to the 19 is to extend it full time to Clapham Junction. Perhaps a new stand on Boutflower Road entering via St John’s Hill and Strath Terrace, exit via Battersea Rise to avoid another route on St John’s Road. Personally, I'd leave it as it is as I don't think extra capacity south of Battersea Bridge is needed and it already travels through enough hotspots elsewhere without lengthening the route. Were policies implemented to significantly lower congestion levels across London, then I'd revisit your idea as it's not a bad one by any means.
|
|
|
Post by northlondon83 on Oct 5, 2022 15:41:41 GMT
I do see benefits of a East Acton to CJ route like the direct link from East Acton to Kensington and South Kensington (would be quicker than 70). If it wasn't for the low bridge, I would extend it further to Willesden Junction or possibly CMH Are you suggesting a Clapham Junction to Willesden Junction or Central Middlesex Hospital because if so, it would bring little benefit given East Acton & Shepherd's Bush already have links to both places and it would be pretty lengthy overall Yes but possibly with a 228 cut back to East Acton or frequency decrease. I do think something should extend from East Acton to Willesden Junction especially when/if Old Oak Common station opens
|
|
|
Post by transportizm on Oct 8, 2022 15:00:00 GMT
MyLondon have been commenting over the past few days about the bus changes, one of the articles was about the 12 and 148 bus change saying that it be the slowest bus route in London.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Oct 8, 2022 16:28:31 GMT
MyLondon have been commenting over the past few days about the bus changes, one of the articles was about the 12 and 148 bus change saying that it be the slowest bus route in London. Yes I saw that. I hadn't realised the 148 was as u reliable as it seems to be.
|
|
|
Post by transportizm on Oct 23, 2022 17:54:50 GMT
MyLondon have been commenting over the past few days about the bus changes, one of the articles was about the 12 and 148 bus change saying that it be the slowest bus route in London. Yes I saw that. I hadn't realised the 148 was as u reliable as it seems to be. I always thought it was very reliable to be honest and also it is a quick route until Central London.
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Oct 23, 2022 18:06:04 GMT
Yes I saw that. I hadn't realised the 148 was as u reliable as it seems to be. I always thought it was very reliable to be honest and also it is a quick route until Central London. I've never had any particular problems with the 148.
|
|