|
Post by YX10FFN on Jun 1, 2022 19:40:33 GMT
I think vjaska alluded to this but another concern is the 3. Like the 59 and 133, I can only see this receiving reasonable loads at peaks. From much of the 3's suburban section, there are clearly quicker ways to get to Victoria, the 2, the 36, not least the Victoria Line. Can see this as another lazy change to tick a box replacing a certain section of route that will inevitably get culled further in due course.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2022 19:49:14 GMT
I think vjaska alluded to this but another concern is the 3. Like the 59 and 133, I can only see this receiving reasonable loads at peaks. From much of the 3's suburban section, there are clearly quicker ways to get to Victoria, the 2, the 36, not least the Victoria Line. Can see this as another lazy change to tick a box replacing a certain section of route that will inevitably get culled further in due course. I like the 3 to Victoria, it’s practically empty going up to Whitehall and it’s actually pretty useful for people who live and work in that densely populated part of Lambeth North.
|
|
|
Post by YX10FFN on Jun 1, 2022 20:15:49 GMT
Regarding the 31, my solution is to extend the 28 to Camden Town. It's not ideal but its more workable than the 113. Then maybe extend the 302 to Harrow Road, Prince of Wales to replace the 28.
|
|
|
Post by junaid151000 on Jun 1, 2022 21:19:41 GMT
Just saying, when all of these changes go live, everyone is gonna be confused
|
|
|
Post by transportizm on Jun 1, 2022 21:38:09 GMT
I feel like the West London Bus Changes are actually very good. I wonder if it is a positive consultation when will it happen?
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 1, 2022 21:57:51 GMT
I think vjaska alluded to this but another concern is the 3. Like the 59 and 133, I can only see this receiving reasonable loads at peaks. From much of the 3's suburban section, there are clearly quicker ways to get to Victoria, the 2, the 36, not least the Victoria Line. Can see this as another lazy change to tick a box replacing a certain section of route that will inevitably get culled further in due course. I like the 3 to Victoria, it’s practically empty going up to Whitehall and it’s actually pretty useful for people who live and work in that densely populated part of Lambeth North. It’s no good to everyone south of there though especially on the Brixton to Palace section where a surprising amount of people would remain on the 3 rather than jump on the tube. Now they’re forced to change regardless
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 1, 2022 22:01:27 GMT
The 53 is used by people from across South East London who are referred to St Thomas's rather than hospitals more local to them so to say it's only a few stops is missing the point big time. It's a poor cut and should be called out for what it is. The conflict with the Mayor’s policies in relation to improving access to hospitals is very ironic. See also the proposed removal of route 56 from St Bart’s Hospital which has a lot of patient referrals from east London. Whoever designed these proposals has little understanding of how London works as a city. I almost wonder whether some of the proposed changes are deliberately designed to be so bad that they can be sacrificed at a later date and TfL can claim they listened to the consultation responses. Indeed, I mean I now gain a direct link to St Bart’s and yet it’s practically useless to us south of the river yet the 56 which linked St Bart’s to Whipps Cross, both I believe under the same trust, is losing it. And to further make it even more absurd, I will either have to change bus or walk 10 minutes to connect to my local hospital which is the one I use the most - you couldn’t make this stuff up even if you tried
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2022 22:24:21 GMT
The conflict with the Mayor’s policies in relation to improving access to hospitals is very ironic. See also the proposed removal of route 56 from St Bart’s Hospital which has a lot of patient referrals from east London. Whoever designed these proposals has little understanding of how London works as a city. I almost wonder whether some of the proposed changes are deliberately designed to be so bad that they can be sacrificed at a later date and TfL can claim they listened to the consultation responses. Indeed, I mean I now gain a direct link to St Bart’s and yet it’s practically useless to us south of the river yet the 56 which linked St Bart’s to Whipps Cross, both I believe under the same trust, is losing it. And to further make it even more absurd, I will either have to change bus or walk 10 minutes to connect to my local hospital which is the one I use the most - you couldn’t make this stuff up even if you tried Bart’s catchment area is Hackney and City. There is no point having the 133 serve Barts from a patients point of view at all. Having said that the 56 will still actually serve the hospital so it’s not a massive deal.
|
|
|
Post by overgroundcommuter on Jun 1, 2022 22:40:32 GMT
Regarding the loss of bus services to hospitals, the access to Guys lost when the 40 was re-routed was ignored. They'll finally get their wish to cut the 53 which will see 12 and 53 passengers getting onto 453s to St Thomas'.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jun 2, 2022 6:34:47 GMT
Regarding the loss of bus services to hospitals, the access to Guys lost when the 40 was re-routed was ignored. They'll finally get their wish to cut the 53 which will see 12 and 53 passengers getting onto 453s to St Thomas'. The Whitehall stand isn't even being used now the 3 has diverted so without the 12 the 53 would have still provided two Elephant to Whitehall routes.
|
|
|
Post by CircleLineofLife on Jun 2, 2022 10:32:44 GMT
Regarding the 31, my solution is to extend the 28 to Camden Town. It's not ideal but its more workable than the 113. Then maybe extend the 302 to Harrow Road, Prince of Wales to replace the 28. Camden to Wandsworth, would be slightly long. The 302 is a bus that can afford a few more miles on it though. But I think when OOC will be finished it will be removed from KR and extended there. Maybe a reroute of the 187 between Elgin Ave and KR.
|
|
|
Post by BE37054 (quoll662) on Jun 2, 2022 11:46:23 GMT
I feel like the West London Bus Changes are actually very good. I wonder if it is a positive consultation when will it happen? I'm sorry, I have to disagree with you there. First, the 9 will not cope without any full support from Hammersmith east of Kensington High Street. Also the 113 will most likely be unworkable and put even more pressure on the poor old 13. The 148 will also just get even more unreliable.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jun 2, 2022 12:27:43 GMT
I feel like the West London Bus Changes are actually very good. I wonder if it is a positive consultation when will it happen? I'm sorry, I have to disagree with you there. First, the 9 will not cope without any full support from Hammersmith east of Kensington High Street. Also the 113 will most likely be unworkable and put even more pressure on the poor old 13. The 148 will also just get even more unreliable. The Putney area changes I largely agree with thou I think I would have jigged the 14 and 74 and withdrew the 414 and 430 thou I think I would have stayed with the original thoughts and had the 14 from Piccadilly and 74 from Marble Arch to Roehampton and not diverted the 19 and kept the 49 as it is and left East Acton to an increased 272 plus the 7, 220 and 283 offering support.
|
|
|
Post by JUNIOR26 on Jun 2, 2022 12:33:06 GMT
Regarding the 31, my solution is to extend the 28 to Camden Town. It's not ideal but its more workable than the 113. Then maybe extend the 302 to Harrow Road, Prince of Wales to replace the 28. Camden to Wandsworth, would be slightly long. The 302 is a bus that can afford a few more miles on it though. But I think when OOC will be finished it will be removed from KR and extended there. Maybe a reroute of the 187 between Elgin Ave and KR. Those plans to extend route 302 to Old Oak Common have been scrapped and were replaced with future changes to route 226 which invloves splitting the route into two with a Golders Green-Old Oak Common route giving links to Cricklewood and Willesden and a Ealing Broadway-Neasden route. These won't happen until the 2030s if taken forward.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 2, 2022 13:48:31 GMT
I'm sorry, I have to disagree with you there. First, the 9 will not cope without any full support from Hammersmith east of Kensington High Street. Also the 113 will most likely be unworkable and put even more pressure on the poor old 13. The 148 will also just get even more unreliable. The Putney area changes I largely agree with thou I think I would have jigged the 14 and 74 and withdrew the 414 and 430 thou I think I would have stayed with the original thoughts and had the 14 from Piccadilly and 74 from Marble Arch to Roehampton and not diverted the 19 and kept the 49 as it is and left East Acton to an increased 272 plus the 7, 220 and 283 offering support. Personally, I thought the only somewhat sensible part was withdrawing the 72 in favour of the 272 extending to Hammersmith & 283 to the northern side of the bridge. It made a lot of sense given the bridge won't be opening anytime soon and if the bridge does open to buses, they'd likely then extend the 283 back to Barnes and say hopper fare via 419 for anyone wanting Barnes Station & Roehampton as every journey matters
|
|