|
Post by vjaska on Jun 19, 2023 15:41:58 GMT
That's the thought I've got from those who know the 549 better than me - for me, I only see decline on the W14 if these changes going ahead as I don't think TfL are learning their lessons when it comes to low frequency routes and the dangers of them facing frequency cuts which can affect them badly. I can understand trying to replace the 549 but it feels like a fudge to do it with the W14 - if anything, the W12 looks the better route to do it with as ADH45258 mentioned so ignoring any restructuring of that route that would likely need to take place although looking at max running times, a combined W12 & 549 would be just over 90 minutes which is doable especially if the re-routed section in Walthamstow & Whipps Cross saves a few minutes. That way, the W13 & W14 can still be amended at their southern ends as per the consultation but the W14 would continue to Woodford Bridge and wouldn't drop to hourly and the W12 will remain half hourly, which on the old 549 section might actually attract more people to use the service otherwise then, there really is no point to this. Not sure I would actually suggest merging the 549 and W12, as they would require different frequencies and unlikely to be any useful new links created. But I think the 549 and W12 should each be evaluated on its own. The 549 could maybe just extend to Wanstead replacing the W12's side roads here, use shorter buses but a slight increase in frequency. If TFL want to remove the 5** numbers for permament routes, then simply renumber to 449 for example. The W12 should just focus on providing a direct (and more frequent) Walthamstow to South Woodford link, removing the Walthamstow Village routeing and Whipps Cross Hospital loop. Other routes like the W14/W15/W16/W19 would maintain links. Maybe also divert the W19 to Coppermill Lane - and the W12 then operating a core section between Argall Avenue and South Woodford, with options to extend further at either end for new links. I don't think the different frequencies would matter in this case because there is no obvious benefit to keeping the 549's replacement as an hourly route (the W14 is actually an increase from every hour and a half to every hour in this consultation but hardly feels like anything great TBH) other than to cut costs, as the W14 is simply likely going to be carrying a similar load and we know TfL aren't making these changes for useful new links sake even if they may say they do. As my earlier idea, a merged W12 & 549 might not bring obvious new links but it would be doable in 90 minutes given the two current routes together hit that as max running time and we would then know for sure if the 549's current sections higher frequency can attract some extra people on board given how important revenue should be to TfL and if it doesn't work, cut the W12 back to the next suitable place at the border and bin the Essex section but this doesn't feel like trying and feels inevitable the W14 will instead be binned at a later date.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Jun 19, 2023 15:51:25 GMT
Not sure I would actually suggest merging the 549 and W12, as they would require different frequencies and unlikely to be any useful new links created. But I think the 549 and W12 should each be evaluated on its own. The 549 could maybe just extend to Wanstead replacing the W12's side roads here, use shorter buses but a slight increase in frequency. If TFL want to remove the 5** numbers for permament routes, then simply renumber to 449 for example. The W12 should just focus on providing a direct (and more frequent) Walthamstow to South Woodford link, removing the Walthamstow Village routeing and Whipps Cross Hospital loop. Other routes like the W14/W15/W16/W19 would maintain links. Maybe also divert the W19 to Coppermill Lane - and the W12 then operating a core section between Argall Avenue and South Woodford, with options to extend further at either end for new links. I don't think the different frequencies would matter in this case because there is no obvious benefit to keeping the 549's replacement as an hourly route (the W14 is actually an increase from every hour and a half to every hour in this consultation but hardly feels like anything great TBH) other than to cut costs, as the W14 is simply likely going to be carrying a similar load and we know TfL aren't making these changes for useful new links sake even if they may say they do. As my earlier idea, a merged W12 & 549 might not bring obvious new links but it would be doable in 90 minutes given the two current routes together hit that as max running time and we would then know for sure if the 549's current sections higher frequency can attract some extra people on board given how important revenue should be to TfL and if it doesn't work, cut the W12 back to the next suitable place at the border and bin the Essex section but this doesn't feel like trying and feels inevitable the W14 will instead be binned at a later date. I think an easy cut could be to curtail the 549 to terminate at Buckhurst Hill. Then swap the 167/397 routeings between Buckhurst Hill and Loughton, with both routes serving the station. This means the 167 would also then replace the Essex end of the 549, while the 397 would restore the link from Buckhurst Hill to Debden. While the frequency would be a bit excessive, in terms of being operationally simpler, maybe you could look at the W14 serving Woodford Bridge as a double run, then continuing to Woodford Station and taking over part of the 549 to Buckhurst Hill? In this scenario, the W13 could still extend to Leyton Asda, with the W14 operating Leytonstone to Buckhurst Hill at every 20-30 minutes?
|
|
|
Post by busoccultation on Jun 19, 2023 16:02:40 GMT
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… Agree if that is the case, we would have ended up with what is like in the West Midlands where NXWM are having multiple 1's, 2's, 3's, 4's etc... within few miles of each other, where previously some of those routes in the Black Country area were numbered in the 3 digit numbers.
|
|
|
Post by abc on Jun 19, 2023 17:17:41 GMT
However, this would mean that the 533 is the only 5xx route, and that itself is a temporary route. Perhaps TFL is trying to eliminate the 500 regular routes: 507/521 gone and now 549.
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Jun 19, 2023 17:20:56 GMT
I wonder what the overall impact on PVR will be? Does it save money?
|
|
|
Post by rj131 on Jun 19, 2023 17:30:13 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… Agree if that is the case, we would have ended up with what is like in the West Midlands where NXWM are having multiple 1's, 2's, 3's, 4's etc... within few miles of each other, where previously some of those routes in the Black Country area were numbered in the 3 digit numbers. I don’t think what the OP was saying is entirely nonsensical. TfL don’t like higher numbers (I wouldn’t go so far as *hate*) in that to appease customers they bin the higher numbers and keep the lower ones due to their ‘prestige’. And he’s probably also right in that they’re trying to get rid of the 500 numbers because they don’t fit. Especially the 549 as that was a provincial route taken under TfL’s wing and then kept the number, even though it didn’t fall into their numbering preferences. But you’re right in that they’re definitely not interested I getting rid of numbers up to 499 for the sake of it, but it makes sense to have all of their main routes under 500 imo. Obviously the red arrow routes had their purpose and the 5** was their distinction and it worked, but now they’re gone the 549 sticks out like a sore thumb, so I can completely understand TfL’s logic of wanting to keep 5-series routes for temporary purposes.
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Jun 19, 2023 17:33:11 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? No, the W14 would be reduced in frequency to hourly.
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Jun 19, 2023 17:36:26 GMT
I would bring back the W10 number, and use for the proposed Loughton-Whipps Cross route.
The use of the route number W12 would be discontinued, the route would be replaced partly by the new W10 and partly by changes to the W14 (see below).
The W14 would continue in its current form between Woodford Bridge and Leytonstone (Green Man), and would then operate via Leytonstone Station and Whipps Cross Hospital before continuing to Walthamstow, replacing that section of the W12.
W13 extended to Leyton Superstores as proposed.
|
|
|
Post by joefrombow on Jun 19, 2023 18:00:40 GMT
I wonder what the overall impact on PVR will be? Does it save money? Will save money somewhere as effectively the current W14 contract I'm assuming would be dead and the 549 contract would be the W14 contract but still ran cheaper than the current W14 and current 549
|
|
|
Post by Green Kitten on Jun 19, 2023 18:05:39 GMT
Is there a supporting document provided? Might have missed it, because at first glance it seems like change for the sake of change.
I understand Waltham Forest council are not keen on buses through Walthamstow Village. Getting rid of that section could improve the size of buses used on that route. I do agree with posts talking about the 500m distance between bus stops, then again Walthamstow Village visitors are mostly just hipsters anyway.
Is one of the goals trying to find a way to save money whilst improving the frequency of the 549/W14 back to 1bph? I can see where they’re going with the proposals, make the W13 even more useful whilst removing a contract.
Numbers, really? I sort of understand the low numbers such as 11, 12, 14 and 16 in danger of being lost. But 549? W14? Really?! Who cares.
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Jun 19, 2023 19:15:26 GMT
Is there a supporting document provided? Might have missed it, because at first glance it seems like change for the sake of change. I understand Waltham Forest council are not keen on buses through Walthamstow Village. Getting rid of that section could improve the size of buses used on that route. I do agree with posts talking about the 500m distance between bus stops, then again Walthamstow Village visitors are mostly just hipsters anyway. Is one of the goals trying to find a way to save money whilst improving the frequency of the 549/W14 back to 1bph? I can see where they’re going with the proposals, make the W13 even more useful whilst removing a contract. Numbers, really? I sort of understand the low numbers such as 11, 12, 14 and 16 in danger of being lost. But 549? W14? Really?! Who cares. Not local, so feel free to ignore me, but my gut says that the new 549/W14 thing shouldn’t be numbered either of those - maybe 449 would be a better choice? As for the route changes I don’t know enough about the area to pass judgment.
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Jun 19, 2023 19:19:27 GMT
Is there a supporting document provided? Might have missed it, because at first glance it seems like change for the sake of change. I understand Waltham Forest council are not keen on buses through Walthamstow Village. Getting rid of that section could improve the size of buses used on that route. I do agree with posts talking about the 500m distance between bus stops, then again Walthamstow Village visitors are mostly just hipsters anyway. Is one of the goals trying to find a way to save money whilst improving the frequency of the 549/W14 back to 1bph? I can see where they’re going with the proposals, make the W13 even more useful whilst removing a contract. Numbers, really? I sort of understand the low numbers such as 11, 12, 14 and 16 in danger of being lost. But 549? W14? Really?! Who cares. No one cares that's what makes the renumbering so stupid! the new W14 is an extension of the current 549, renumber as W114 as no useful benefit apart from change for changes sake.
|
|
|
Post by lundnah on Jun 19, 2023 20:20:38 GMT
Is there a supporting document provided? Might have missed it, because at first glance it seems like change for the sake of change. Here's a 36-page Equality Impact Assessment.
|
|
|
Post by routew15 on Jun 19, 2023 21:48:10 GMT
I think these are good proposals. The W12 is probably my favourite improvement from this and can actually see myself using it. TfL have also managed to achieve something from WF Development Paper, by increasing the number of buses down to Coppermill Lane which is really good. I agree with the post that mentioned further extending the W13 to Stratford City. It is something that has come up before in Olympic Prk Consultation, but maybe out of scope of this consultation.
A small problem that occurred to me is there are going to be a hell of a lot more buses using Hoe Street between Church Hill Road and Selborne Road. Currently 34, 97, 212, 215, 275, 357. Then the X34 (possibly even the X123) and now also the W12.
An extra 4 bph on the Whipps Cross Hosp to Leytonstone Corridor, going from 14-16 bph to 18-20 bph, will continue to help with this high demand section. I do wonder if it may result in rationalisation of the W15 and W19s frequencies further down the line.
I recently travelled on the 549 and I think hourly is about right for the frequency for the W14. I’m not sure a Sunday is really required. I think similar operation hours of the 397 on the W14 would be fine. I don’t think it is mentioned in the consultation but it would be good if the W14 could extend into the Hospital once redeveloped.
|
|
|
Post by routew15 on Jun 19, 2023 21:49:58 GMT
If all goes ahead as proposed, I then expect these changes to be implemented from 7th September 2024 as that's when the W12, W14 and W14 contracts are set to expire (6th September 2024). Has the date changed for W14 renewal? Waltham Forest routes are normally renewed in February/ March (except the W19 normally November)
|
|