|
Post by joefrombow on Sept 10, 2024 14:50:11 GMT
Making public transport inaccessible or difficult to use to save a LTN , so the rich can use their vehicles but the poor have to walk half a mile sounds about right .
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Sept 10, 2024 15:16:03 GMT
Did someone on here mention the reason why the W12 was restricted to Solo sized vehicles due to Walthamstow Village? Only came to me recently but when I went through there on a Solo, there was a removal truck parked up by the green area just before the bend so if that can make it through, what's to stop it at least keeping the W12 as it was and upgrading it to bigger vehicles, particularly when this section is only served in one direction?
|
|
|
Post by lonmark on Sept 10, 2024 15:36:47 GMT
Did someone on here mention the reason why the W12 was restricted to Solo sized vehicles due to Walthamstow Village? Only came to me recently but when I went through there on a Solo, there was a removal truck parked up by the green area just before the bend so if that can make it through, what's to stop it at least keeping the W12 as it was and upgrading it to bigger vehicles, particularly when this section is only served in one direction? Yeah some road is so narrow. However, for mobility people who better off to get the dail a rides bus to help them get closer to walthamstow Village.
|
|
|
Post by routew15 on Sept 10, 2024 16:55:19 GMT
Did someone on here mention the reason why the W12 was restricted to Solo sized vehicles due to Walthamstow Village? Only came to me recently but when I went through there on a Solo, there was a removal truck parked up by the green area just before the bend so if that can make it through, what's to stop it at least keeping the W12 as it was and upgrading it to bigger vehicles, particularly when this section is only served in one direction? I think the turn into Beulah Road and Addison Road in particular were the problem. Also Church End was quite narrow and tight.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Sept 12, 2024 10:44:16 GMT
I guess all the sabotaging has worked after all, intentionally renumbering the 549 into the W14 which I'm sure went very well and to have users finding out the direct links to Whipps Cross has been taken. Poor users on Nightingale Road now suffering from another service trim. Yet alone today with reports some TfL staff weren't 100% sure of the changes themselves and were just as confused, as well in addition to the ibus announcing the old services *cough * cough Congratulations to the planner and the team behind this, for in my opinion one of the most bizarre ideas been implemented I've seen so far. Even then, I really do fail to comprehend as to what real rationale was really behind the changes for all the links and services to be pulled away. I'm only aware it was to improve services at Coppermill Lane, Remove bus services away from Walthamstow Village, Allocate additional capacity between Leytonstone and Whipps Cross, Create a new direct link to Whipps Cross from Wantstead and improving service provision along the former 549's routing. Whilst these as understood were the merits, my head's really spinning here as to at the same time why Nightingale Lane has to suffer from a frequency decrease? South Woodford links to Whipps Cross being taken away? Those on Snaresbrook and Woodford Roads having their direct Walthamstow Central links taken? TfL themselves has alot of explaining to do. To really avoid all of this nonsense your simple task was the following: 1. Reinstate the former W12's frequency to at least 3bph with possibly enhancements to it's Sunday and Evening services as what's implemented. This would've improved Whipps Cross connections from South Woodford and service provision at Nightingale and Coppermill Lane. 2. Extend the former W13 from Leytonstone to Whipps Cross via the W19's LOR. This again would've created direct links to Whipps Cross Hospital from Wantstead as well allocate additional capacity between Leytonstone and Whipps Cross. 3. Enhance the former 549 to every 30 minutes Monday to Saturdays at least with an hourly service running in the evenings and on Sundays. Much of the route would've received much improved service provision than currently. I think it would have been possible to cover all of TFL's aims with these proposals, but while also maintaining the existing links now broken (such as from Walthamstow to Snaresbrook). My suggestion would be to simply remove the W12 as a hospital link, with other routes covering the necessary connections both towards Walthamstow and Wanstead/Woodford. So operating as present from Coppermill Lane via the revised routeing to Whipps Cross. But instead of serving the hospital grounds, instead continuing direct via Lea Bridge Road, Snaresbrook Road, Snaresbrook Station and Wanstead High Street, then returning to the local roads around Elmcroft Avenue (instead of the W14), to serve South Woodford Station as a double run, and back to the current route to Woodford Bridge. Offering a more direct link from Walthamstow to Snaresbrook, Wanstead and South Woodford. I would then renumber the W14 to a new number to avoid confusion, as there is not much in common with the old W14, and would still allow TFL to remove a 5XX number. New route 449 would fully replace the 549 from Loughton to South Woodford, then extending via the old W14 to Leytonstone, and the W19 to Whipps Cross bus stand (via the hospital grounds). This route would cover the links from Whipps Cross Hospital to Wantead, South Woodford and Woodford. Also increasing in frequency further to every 30 minutes, offering a more attractive frequency to passengers. The W12's capacity between Walthamstow and Whipps Cross Hospital could also be partly replaced by introducing longer 10.8m SDs on the W19. And separately from the W routes, I also think the 357 could have more potential if extended beyond Whipps Cross - could go via the 257 to Green Man Roundabout, then continue east via Wanstead to terminate at Redbridge Station?
|
|
|
Post by imran on Sept 12, 2024 12:17:58 GMT
Seeing how everyone is unhappy about the changes that have been made and have been suggesting their own solutions on how they would made changes, here’s what I would have done if I was in charge of the consultation:
W13: Extend to Leyton Asda and increase the frequency like proposed as it would give passengers on that route an improved service and new links to Leyton from Woodford Wells.
W12: Keep the Walthamstow Village section as it’s important to the elderly and disabled people. Other than that, I would still push ahead the frequency increase and extension to Woodford Bridge via Leytonstone, creating a new link between Whipps Cross and Woodford Bridge.
549: I would definitely keep this number and just extend it to Whipps Cross. Introduce a Sunday service and have the frequency at every 30 minutes. Keeps users of Nightingale Lane and Snaresbrook Road happy. The route would use the stand at the hospital that the 357 uses on Sundays.
W14: Now this may sound a bit controversial. I would keep the route the same between Leyton Asda and Charlie Brown’s Roundabout, but instead of going to Woodford Bridge as the W12 takes over that section, I would divert the route to Loughton. First via the 549 to Buckhurst Hill, then via the 167 to Loughton. It creates a new direct bus link from Leyton to Loughton and be handy to people who can’t afford to use the Underground. I would decrease the frequency to every 25 minutes in order to compensate the W13 extension and frequency increase.
And that’s how I would do the changes. I know it’s not perfect, but it’s a good compromise for everyone involved. Woodford Bridge gets a new direct hospital link, Coppermill Lane gets a frequency upgrade, passengers between Loughton and South Woodford get new and improved services, users of Nightingale Lane and Snaresbrook Road keep their half hourly service and hospital link and users of Valley Hill and Loughton Way get an additional bus service. Again, it’s not perfect, but I think this would make everyone happy.
|
|
|
Post by imran on Sept 12, 2024 13:19:00 GMT
And separately from the W routes, I also think the 357 could have more potential if extended beyond Whipps Cross - could go via the 257 to Green Man Roundabout, then continue east via Wanstead to terminate at Redbridge Station? In my opinion personally, that would make the 357 unnecessarily long. It would have to navigate through the already congested roundabout, leading to some potential early curtailments. I think the 357 is fine how it is. It’s already quite long when you think about it and your idea of an extension beyond Whipps Cross would just make even longer. I also don’t think some passengers would happy with the idea of losing their Sunday bus link to the hospital.
|
|
|
Post by routew15 on Sept 12, 2024 13:55:56 GMT
Seeing how everyone is unhappy about the changes that have been made and have been suggesting their own solutions on how they would made changes, here’s what I would have done if I was in charge of the consultation: W13: Extend to Leyton Asda and increase the frequency like proposed as it would give passengers on that route an improved service and new links to Leyton from Woodford Wells. W12: Keep the Walthamstow Village section as it’s important to the elderly and disabled people. Other than that, I would still push ahead the frequency increase and extension to Woodford Bridge via Leytonstone, creating a new link between Whipps Cross and Woodford Bridge. This cannot go ahead without the local councils backing, through the support of the original changes they have made clear it is not on the agenda. They are unlikely to want this route back and at an increased frequency. You cannot use the “stand” that the 357 uses on a weekday. The 357 arrangements works on Sunday as the Hospital grounds are significantly less busy than Mon-Sat. The bus stop L that it stands at would not function effectively if there was a route stationed there on M-S (then on Sunday it would be two routes). The 357 turns around in a parking area that often has ambulances M-F there would be no space outside of maybe Sat and Sun to make this manoeuvre. To make serving the hospital viable you would have to operate a clockwise or anticlockwise loop around the hospital. so not only will there be an increased W13 and 549 there would be W14 to supplement both? Where is all this demand coming from? I don’t think you can always make everyone happy. People that live on the 549 may have been unhappy for years that they have an infrequent service. They now have a more frequent service however it has come at the expense of former W12 passengers north of Wanstead.
|
|
|
Post by Busboy105 on Sept 12, 2024 17:17:39 GMT
Me personally, it doesn't need to be this complicated . If you have to withdraw the W12 from Walthamstow Village, cool. It's nothing we haven't seen before with the R7 and 384 being made more direct at the expense of passengers But meddling with the W12 and W14 (especially the W14 )is just unnecessary. Just extend the 549 to Whipps Cross, renumber it because you want to get rid of the 5xx (bit weird personally), bump up the frequency and ta-da
|
|
|
Post by imran on Sept 14, 2024 10:30:45 GMT
Me personally, it doesn't need to be this complicated . If you have to withdraw the W12 from Walthamstow Village, cool. It's nothing we haven't seen before with the R7 and 384 being made more direct at the expense of passengers But meddling with the W12 and W14 (especially the W14 )is just unnecessary. Just extend the 549 to Whipps Cross, renumber it because you want to get rid of the 5xx (bit weird personally), bump up the frequency and ta-da Like I said, my idea was just was just how I would have done the changes. I didn’t know about the stand arrangements that the 357 has on Sundays. I’m sure a permanent stand could be sorted out during the redevelopment of the hospital. My idea of the W14 overlapping the W13 & 549 is like how most London Bus Routes were in the early-mid 2000s. Lots of routes were overlapping each other during that time, so it would be nothing new with this idea I have thought of.
|
|