|
|
Post by JUNIOR26 on Jun 19, 2023 11:35:04 GMT
V interesting. W12 practically turned inside out, the 549 replaced in full with the 4bph W14. Wonder what will happen to the existing 549 contract with Sullivans? Another thought is that W14 won't be awarded despite being extended and takes over the 549 contract. |
|
|
|
Post by BE37054 (quoll662) on Jun 19, 2023 11:38:20 GMT
Like in the 384 consultation, TfL have changed the benchmark for being near a bus service, but this time to 500m! However in this case the consultation also makes it clear that it’s a specific request from Waltham Forest council so not sure TfL gets the blame here. They could say no but it’s better to accept one small request now and get a larger request back at a later date. Thank you - I didn't see that one. |
|
|
|
Post by northlondon83 on Jun 19, 2023 11:40:49 GMT
Not really sure why the W14 designation has to continue here. The new W14 is a completely different route. They may aswell call that one 549 and get rid of W14 Agreed, it doesn't even retain 1 mile of its current routeing. And two thirds of that is already on the 549 route. However, this would mean that the 533 is the only 5xx route, and that itself is a temporary route. I have a feeling that tfl hate big numbers, already binning the 507 and 521 with the 507 number initially being saved with the 11 initially being binned, and the 533 will be binned when Hammersmith Bridge opens, then you've got the 549 or W14 going. I'd retain the 549 number for its current route and then extend to Whipps Cross as proposed. The proposed W12 would be renumbered W14 as it is mostly the W14. The W12 number would then be binned. I don't know why tfl have an obsession about playing around with route numbers. |
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Jun 19, 2023 11:44:14 GMT
Agreed, it doesn't even retain 1 mile of its current routeing. And two thirds of that is already on the 549 route. However, this would mean that the 533 is the only 5xx route, and that itself is a temporary route. I have a feeling that tfl hate big numbers, already binning the 507 and 521 with the 507 number initially being saved with the 11 initially being binned, and the 533 will be binned when Hammersmith Bridge opens, then you've got the 549 or W14 going. I'd retain the 549 number for its current route and then extend to Whipps Cross as proposed. The proposed W12 would be renumbered W14 as it is mostly the W14. The W12 number would then be binned. I don't know why tfl have an obsession about playing around with route numbers. I do not think it is that. The 500 Series numbers have mainly been used in the past few years for temporary routes. This proposal I just see is a way to renumber the 549. Why would TFL hate higher numbers. If that is the case all of the numbers between 1-400 should be used by renumbering 401-499… |
|
|
|
Post by northlondon83 on Jun 19, 2023 11:46:28 GMT
Proposals I would make:
W12 - withdraw the current route between Snaresbrook and Wanstead. Reroute to South Woodford via Wanstead High Street then via its current LOR to South Woodford. Possible double run to Woodbine Place. Frequency increased to 3 or 4 bph.
549 - extended to Whipps Cross via the current W12 route. Frequency increased to 1bph.
W13 and W14 not affected.
|
|
|
|
Post by YX10FFN on Jun 19, 2023 11:51:27 GMT
I do not think it is that. The 500 Series numbers have mainly been used in the past few years for temporary routes. This proposal I just see is a way to renumber the 549. Why would TFL hate higher numbers. If that is the case all of the numbers between 1-400 should be used by renumbering 401-499… But why does the 549 need to be renumbered? It's been like this for a while and regular users know it this way. Especially renumbering it to a route that is also already established. Needless complication in my view |
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Jun 19, 2023 11:54:38 GMT
I do not think it is that. The 500 Series numbers have mainly been used in the past few years for temporary routes. This proposal I just see is a way to renumber the 549. Why would TFL hate higher numbers. If that is the case all of the numbers between 1-400 should be used by renumbering 401-499… But why does the 549 need to be renumbered? It's been like this for a while and regular users know it this way. Especially renumbering it to a route that is also already established. Needless complication in my view I think what the route actually does is more important than the number. Don't see an issue with it being renumbered to W14 |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 19, 2023 11:57:07 GMT
Like in the 384 consultation, TfL have changed the benchmark for being near a bus service, but this time to 500m! However in this case the consultation also makes it clear that it’s a specific request from Waltham Forest council so not sure TfL gets the blame here. They could say no but it’s better to accept one small request now and get a larger request back at a later date. I disagree - like with the 384, I think it’s disgraceful that the 400m figure is once again being shifted about to suit themselves be it TfL or boroughs doing it. One small request could easily be duplicated and turn into something else - it’s now two separate occasions this is happening and the irony is both has happened in Outer London where the improvements were meant to be happening I also feel dropping the W14 to hourly is missing the point of replacing the 549 - as I understand it from others (and my one ride echoed that), it’s patronage is light due to the combination of the areas it runs through but also because of it’s hourly frequency which probably puts potential customers off |
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Jun 19, 2023 11:57:52 GMT
I do not think it is that. The 500 Series numbers have mainly been used in the past few years for temporary routes. This proposal I just see is a way to renumber the 549. Why would TFL hate higher numbers. If that is the case all of the numbers between 1-400 should be used by renumbering 401-499… But why does the 549 need to be renumbered? It's been like this for a while and regular users know it this way. Especially renumbering it to a route that is also already established. Needless complication in my view To be honest who cares. Either way they will do it |
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Jun 19, 2023 12:02:50 GMT
Really not a fan of restructuring I think it causes confusion. I don’t mind when routes are extended or shorted. Much prefer new routes instead of meddling.
What’s the point in renumbering the 549 to W14 especially as both routes run close to each other.
The only route left alone is the W13 with its extension to Leyton! I assume the W12 will be upgraded to bigger buses other it might struggle on the sections of the old W14.
|
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Jun 19, 2023 12:08:30 GMT
Agree with what's already been said, there's such little resemblance between the current W14 and the new one what's the point of keeping the number just creates unnecessary confusion.
I thought the point of the 549 was that its a quiet backwater route, running through rural areas on the periphery of London. I see the W14 will drop to hourly but is much really gained by this reorganisation?
|
|
|
|
Post by joefrombow on Jun 19, 2023 12:25:41 GMT
Agree with what's already been said, there's such little resemblance between the current W14 and the new one what's the point of keeping the number just creates unnecessary confusion. I thought the point of the 549 was that its a quiet backwater route, running through rural areas on the periphery of London. I see the W14 will drop to hourly but is much really gained by this reorganisation? All seems pointless to me this "restructure" the W14 won't be the W14 so may aswell keep the 549 number as it is a extension to that route and dont see the saving in essentially making a route that serves a chunk of Essex more frequent and running later in the evenings and Sundays when it is underused really as is , Seems they are Making a storm in a teacup for no reason and Waltham Forest council are not content with making roads inaccessible for cars and vans also want to make them inaccessible to buses too , overall just seems like change for the sake of change people from Loughton+ Woodford can change quite easily "thanks to the Mayor of London's hopper fare" to a bus at South Woodford , Wanstead or Leytonstone to access Whipps Cross and that's the justification so I don't know strange one . |
|
|
|
Post by joefrombow on Jun 19, 2023 12:32:15 GMT
Agree with what's already been said, there's such little resemblance between the current W14 and the new one what's the point of keeping the number just creates unnecessary confusion. I thought the point of the 549 was that its a quiet backwater route, running through rural areas on the periphery of London. I see the W14 will drop to hourly but is much really gained by this reorganisation? All seems pointless to me this "restructure" the W14 won't be the W14 so may aswell keep the 549 number as it is a extension to that route and dont see the saving in essentially making a route that serves a chunk of Essex more frequent and running later in the evenings and Sundays when it is underused really as is , Seems they are Making a storm in a teacup for no reason and Waltham Forest council are not content with making roads inaccessible for cars and vans also want to make them inaccessible to buses too , overall just seems like change for the sake of change people from Loughton+ Woodford can change quite easily "thanks to the Mayor of London's hopper fare" to a bus at South Woodford , Wanstead or Leytonstone to access Whipps Cross and that's the justification so I don't know strange one . To add I do know the justification is money like always but the 549 contract can't cost that much money so don't really see what will be saved and seems alot of change and upheaval to save little money . |
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Jun 19, 2023 12:33:01 GMT
But why does the 549 need to be renumbered? It's been like this for a while and regular users know it this way. Especially renumbering it to a route that is also already established. Needless complication in my view I think what the route actually does is more important than the number. Don't see an issue with it being renumbered to W14 If what the route does is important why renumber it! Absolutely nothing wrong with keeping the 549 number. Just causes confusion on the section where both the W14 and 549 run currently. Yes people will get used to the changes but a lot of these recent consultations are changes for changes sake! TfL seems obsessed with sending routes to the same destination via different routes! Woodford Bridge now will have two routes to Walthamstow. |
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Jun 19, 2023 12:34:37 GMT
Some thoughts on these proposals:
I assume longer vehicles can now be used on the W12, since it will no longer serve Walthamstow Village? At least 9.7m would be useful, considering it replaces much of the W14 which has 10.8m at the moment.
However, I'm not sure it really makes sense to attach the W12 to the Woodford Bridge section, since it's quite indirect. I thought this consultation would have been a good opportunity to introduce a direct Walthamstow to South Woodford link.
If the revised W14 were to take on the current 549 contract, would Sullivan need to find something shorter to use - not sure if a 10.9m MMC would fit around the backstreets between South Woodford and Wanstead?
The W13 extension is generally ok, but a further extension to Stratford City via the 388 could have been quite useful - providing various new links, including better connections to/from Leyton retail park.
Overall I think the 549 and W12 could have been worth looking at independently - maybe alongside other routes like the 385, W11 or W15. But the W13 and W14 are probably best left as they are.
|
|
