|
|
Post by WH241 on Jun 25, 2023 19:11:47 GMT
Lots of trunk routes are duplicated by others in London it’s just how the network works. Other in east London we have lots of examples and would be very hard to remove a route. It’s not always as simple as just removing one route and increasing the PVR on others. Its been proposed twice by tfl so I think it would be possible. I doubt the 19 and 38 would even need increases with the lower loadings along Shaftesbury Avenue standstill. I wouldn't really trust what was proposed in the central London consultation. The majority was there as a shock value / bargaining tool. |
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Jun 25, 2023 20:32:31 GMT
Its been proposed twice by tfl so I think it would be possible. I doubt the 19 and 38 would even need increases with the lower loadings along Shaftesbury Avenue standstill. However along this corridor there's even more overlap between the 19/38 than the 14/19. Is there a need for two routes between Hyde Park Corner and Islington, assuming capacity meets demand on each section? As part of a wider restructure, I previously suggested splitting the 19 into two overlapping routes to cover the Shaftesbury Avenue corridor, also replacing parts of the 14 and 38. Yes the 14 parallels the Piccadilly Line a lot, but it's still useful for various shorter journeys, particularly where it's more convenient that going up and down escalators. Also with my suggestion to send the 14 to Kings Cross, remember that the Piccadilly Line doesn't serve Euston. Plenty of tourists will arrive by train into Euston, and want an easy connection into the West End. Currently there's no bus link from Euston between the 91 at Holborn/Trafalgar Square and the 73/390 along Oxford Street. Before it was rerouted you could at least walk a short distance to Warren Street for the 14. The Northern line Charing Cross branch at Euston does a similar job to the Piccadilly line at King’s Cross. |
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Jun 25, 2023 20:58:47 GMT
However along this corridor there's even more overlap between the 19/38 than the 14/19. Is there a need for two routes between Hyde Park Corner and Islington, assuming capacity meets demand on each section? As part of a wider restructure, I previously suggested splitting the 19 into two overlapping routes to cover the Shaftesbury Avenue corridor, also replacing parts of the 14 and 38. Yes the 14 parallels the Piccadilly Line a lot, but it's still useful for various shorter journeys, particularly where it's more convenient that going up and down escalators. Also with my suggestion to send the 14 to Kings Cross, remember that the Piccadilly Line doesn't serve Euston. Plenty of tourists will arrive by train into Euston, and want an easy connection into the West End. Currently there's no bus link from Euston between the 91 at Holborn/Trafalgar Square and the 73/390 along Oxford Street. Before it was rerouted you could at least walk a short distance to Warren Street for the 14. The previous proposal to withdraw the 19 between Battersea and Holborn could be revisited, however I'd have it operate as Finsbury Park to Piccadilly Circus alongside: diverting the 22 to Battersea and withdrawing it between Green Park and Oxford Circus, then sending it to Russell Square via the 14. This would retain links on the 19 from Battersea to TCR, whilst an overlap would still exisit between Piccadilly and TCR withdrawing the 14 renumbering the current 414 as the 14 withdraw the 11 between New Kings Road and Fulham Broadway and send to Putney Common withdraw the 137 between Marble Arch and Hyde Park Corner and send to Oxford Circus via the 22 Unfortunately some links will have to be lost like from parts of New Kings Road to Fulham Broadway and from Sloane Square/Battersea Park to Marble Arch but it would be justifiable in my opinion Terminating any route from the south at Marble Arch is a bad idea, heading north from Hyde Park Corner it would only serve a few stops on the west side of Park Lane before terminating inconveniently on the opposite side of the Marble Arch gyratory from the shops where most people want to get to. The pedestrian environment of the west side of Park Lane is enormously affected by the severance effects of being on the wrong side of a three lane highway with subway connections to Mayfair. If you are going to send a route to Marble Arch it may as well continue a bit further and take people directly to where they need to go. |
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Jun 25, 2023 21:08:07 GMT
In response to previous comments, this is what I would suggest overall, as part of a wider restructure:
new route - from Clapham Junction, via Battersea Bridge, then the 19 to Tottenham Court Road, and the 73/390 to Kings Cross.
11 - extended from Fulham Broadway to Hammersmith.
14 - cut back to Piccadilly Circus.
19 - withdrawn between Battersea and Hyde Park Corner, instead rerouted to Victoria.
22 - diverted via Victoria (instead of Knightsbridge).
38 - withdrawn between Victoria and Tottenham Court Road. Rerouted to Homerton Hospital via the 242 (instead of Clapton Pond).
49 - withdrawn between Clapham Junction and Chelsea, instead rerouted to Battersea Power Station via the proposed 211.
67 - re-extended from Dalston back to Aldgate.
319 - cut back from Sloane Square, instead rerouted at Chelsea to South Kensington via the 49.
390 - diverted via Russell Square and the British Museum.
211 / 242 / 414 - withdrawn.
|
|
|
|
Post by northlondon83 on Jun 25, 2023 21:19:21 GMT
The previous proposal to withdraw the 19 between Battersea and Holborn could be revisited, however I'd have it operate as Finsbury Park to Piccadilly Circus alongside: diverting the 22 to Battersea and withdrawing it between Green Park and Oxford Circus, then sending it to Russell Square via the 14. This would retain links on the 19 from Battersea to TCR, whilst an overlap would still exisit between Piccadilly and TCR withdrawing the 14 renumbering the current 414 as the 14 withdraw the 11 between New Kings Road and Fulham Broadway and send to Putney Common withdraw the 137 between Marble Arch and Hyde Park Corner and send to Oxford Circus via the 22 Unfortunately some links will have to be lost like from parts of New Kings Road to Fulham Broadway and from Sloane Square/Battersea Park to Marble Arch but it would be justifiable in my opinion Terminating any route from the south at Marble Arch is a bad idea, heading north from Hyde Park Corner it would only serve a few stops on the west side of Park Lane before terminating inconveniently on the opposite side of the Marble Arch gyratory from the shops where most people want to get to. The pedestrian environment of the west side of Park Lane is enormously affected by the severance effects of being on the wrong side of a three lane highway with subway connections to Mayfair. If you are going to send a route to Marble Arch it may as well continue a bit further and take people directly to where they need to go. Perhaps Portman Square would be better from the south as this would actually serve Marble Arch station |
|
|
|
Post by northlondon83 on Jun 25, 2023 21:21:19 GMT
In response to previous comments, this is what I would suggest overall, as part of a wider restructure: new route - from Clapham Junction, via Battersea Bridge, then the 19 to Tottenham Court Road, and the 73/390 to Kings Cross. 11 - extended from Fulham Broadway to Hammersmith. 14 - cut back to Piccadilly Circus. 19 - withdrawn between Battersea and Hyde Park Corner, instead rerouted to Victoria. 22 - diverted via Victoria (instead of Knightsbridge). 38 - withdrawn between Victoria and Tottenham Court Road. Rerouted to Homerton Hospital via the 242 (instead of Clapton Pond). 49 - withdrawn between Clapham Junction and Chelsea, instead rerouted to Battersea Power Station via the proposed 211. 67 - re-extended from Dalston back to Aldgate. 319 - cut back from Sloane Square, instead rerouted at Chelsea to South Kensington via the 49. 390 - diverted via Russell Square and the British Museum. 211 / 242 / 414 - withdrawn. Any reason for the 319 change? The 345 already links Clapham Junction to South Kensington |
|
|
|
Post by northlondon83 on Jun 25, 2023 21:28:03 GMT
My changes:
59 - sent back to Euston
Because I think that the 59 is the wrong route to withdraw from the Euston to Aldwych corridor. It is the only route that goes to Kennington, whereas the 1, 68 and 168 all go from Euston to Elephant.
172 - sent to St Bart's via the current 59. I know the 172 used to go to the City via a different route to feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about demand to the City and whether there is demand to St Bart's from the areas where the 172 serves
27 - cut back to Hammersmith bus station and extended to Hampstead Heath via the 168. Would no longer serve Hampstead Road and would serve Eversholt Street instead. To retain links lost on the 168
134 - extended to Baker Street station. Would still serve University College Hospital. To retain the Baker Street to Mornington Crescent link
1 - would remain as it currently is
188 - withdrawn between Russell Square and Elephant and Castle to improve reliability
168 - withdrawn
|
|
|
|
Route 414
Jun 25, 2023 21:46:33 GMT
via mobile
Post by WH241 on Jun 25, 2023 21:46:33 GMT
My changes: 59 - sent back to Euston Because I think that the 59 is the wrong route to withdraw from the Euston to Aldwych corridor. It is the only route that goes to Kennington, whereas the 1, 68 and 168 all go from Euston to Elephant. 172 - sent to St Bart's via the current 59. I know the 172 used to go to the City via a different route to feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about demand to the City and whether there is demand to St Bart's from the areas where the 172 serves 27 - cut back to Hammersmith bus station and extended to Hampstead Heath via the 168. Would no longer serve Hampstead Road and would serve Eversholt Street instead. To retain links lost on the 168 134 - extended to Baker Street station. Would still serve University College Hospital. To retain the Baker Street to Mornington Crescent link 1 - would remain as it currently is 188 - withdrawn between Russell Square and Elephant and Castle to improve reliability 168 - withdrawn Am I missing something as this has nothing to do with the 14 or 414? O and can we at least give the 59 chance! TfL rarely back track on changes! The 23 is a rare case. |
|
|
|
Post by northlondon83 on Jun 25, 2023 21:56:27 GMT
My changes: 59 - sent back to Euston Because I think that the 59 is the wrong route to withdraw from the Euston to Aldwych corridor. It is the only route that goes to Kennington, whereas the 1, 68 and 168 all go from Euston to Elephant. 172 - sent to St Bart's via the current 59. I know the 172 used to go to the City via a different route to feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about demand to the City and whether there is demand to St Bart's from the areas where the 172 serves 27 - cut back to Hammersmith bus station and extended to Hampstead Heath via the 168. Would no longer serve Hampstead Road and would serve Eversholt Street instead. To retain links lost on the 168 134 - extended to Baker Street station. Would still serve University College Hospital. To retain the Baker Street to Mornington Crescent link 1 - would remain as it currently is 188 - withdrawn between Russell Square and Elephant and Castle to improve reliability 168 - withdrawn Am I missing something as this has nothing to do with the 14 or 414? O and can we at least give the 59 chance! TfL rarely back track on changes! The 23 is a rare case. Yes it does have something to do with the 414 as they are both part of the Central London changes. Conversations drift away from the topic focus as someone brought up the 14 being lightly used on the Russell Square end and how it is duplicated by the 19 and 38 and so people came up with their own changes. As for the 59 it has been shown that people from the Brixton and Streatham area do not get referred to Bart's. |
|
|
|
Route 414
Jun 25, 2023 22:01:41 GMT
via mobile
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Jun 25, 2023 22:01:41 GMT
My changes: 59 - sent back to Euston Because I think that the 59 is the wrong route to withdraw from the Euston to Aldwych corridor. It is the only route that goes to Kennington, whereas the 1, 68 and 168 all go from Euston to Elephant. 172 - sent to St Bart's via the current 59. I know the 172 used to go to the City via a different route to feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about demand to the City and whether there is demand to St Bart's from the areas where the 172 serves 27 - cut back to Hammersmith bus station and extended to Hampstead Heath via the 168. Would no longer serve Hampstead Road and would serve Eversholt Street instead. To retain links lost on the 168 134 - extended to Baker Street station. Would still serve University College Hospital. To retain the Baker Street to Mornington Crescent link 1 - would remain as it currently is 188 - withdrawn between Russell Square and Elephant and Castle to improve reliability 168 - withdrawn Am I missing something as this has nothing to do with the 14 or 414? O and can we at least give the 59 chance! TfL rarely back track on changes! The 23 is a rare case. I wouldn't say the 23 is a back track, it's purpose was to replace the 6 in this instance, not to restore links it previously provided following backlash. I think the 59 at Barts is more so just a way to cull it early rather than genuinely providing new links. Most people which require heart attention from the South will get referred to Brompton or St Thomas' instead of Barts so I can't see a case of it being use to the end, just more so somewhere it's out the way to stand. The 59 cut probably will come into its own when Euston falls apart due to HS2 works. |
|
|
|
Post by abellion on Jun 25, 2023 22:08:50 GMT
Am I missing something as this has nothing to do with the 14 or 414? O and can we at least give the 59 chance! TfL rarely back track on changes! The 23 is a rare case. As for the 59 it has been shown that people from the Brixton and Streatham area do not get referred to Bart's. That was pretty obvious already! |
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Jun 25, 2023 22:12:53 GMT
Am I missing something as this has nothing to do with the 14 or 414? O and can we at least give the 59 chance! TfL rarely back track on changes! The 23 is a rare case. Yes it does have something to do with the 414 as they are both part of the Central London changes. Conversations drift away from the topic focus as someone brought up the 14 being lightly used on the Russell Square end and how it is duplicated by the 19 and 38 and so people came up with their own changes. As for the 59 it has been shown that people from the Brixton and Streatham area do not get referred to Bart's. Just dragging more fantasy ideas into other threads just like you did on the W14 and 549 thread with the Ilford routes. Here’s the thing buses are not just there just to serve hospitals! I really don’t get this who ha about the short distance lost from Holborn to Euston! The 59 change was made to compensate for the loss of the 521 not to link Bart’s with south London!! |
|
|
|
Post by northlondon83 on Jun 25, 2023 22:17:22 GMT
Yes it does have something to do with the 414 as they are both part of the Central London changes. Conversations drift away from the topic focus as someone brought up the 14 being lightly used on the Russell Square end and how it is duplicated by the 19 and 38 and so people came up with their own changes. As for the 59 it has been shown that people from the Brixton and Streatham area do not get referred to Bart's. Just dragging more fantasy ideas into other threads just like you did on the W14 and 549 thread with the Ilford routes. Here’s the thing buses are not just there to serve hospitals! I really don’t get this who who ha about the short distance lost from Holborn to Euston! The 59 change was made to compensate for the loss of the 521 not to link Bart’s with south London!! No idea why you're getting so narky with me and you're doing it on the thread about the bus driver jumping the red light. People are allowed to express their opinions, whether you like my opinions about topics or not, you shouldn't really be shutting down mins or others opinions about things. Honestly I don't see why you care so much about the 59. It just strikes me as the wrong route to extend. I think the only reason why you're defending tfl is because you don't use the route yourself whereas others on this forum do, so have a think about what you say before you start shutting down other people's opinions |
|
|
|
Route 414
Jun 25, 2023 23:10:07 GMT
via mobile
Post by greenboy on Jun 25, 2023 23:10:07 GMT
As for the 59 it has been shown that people from the Brixton and Streatham area do not get referred to Bart's. That was pretty obvious already! Rerouting the 59 wasn't intended as a link to Barts, although there may be staff living in South London who find it useful, but the main purpose was to replace part of the 521 and Barts just happens to be a convenient terminus. If it wasn't rerouted to Barts the 59 would probably have been cut back to Holborn. |
|
|
|
Post by matthieu1221 on Jun 26, 2023 11:10:39 GMT
A lot of changes could be facilitated if the network fully became an interchange one rather than the current odd hybrid with a dwindling amount of point to point connections and more and more journeys where you are expected to change buses.
A proper interchange network requires good interchange locations (HPC and Marble Arch ideally should be restructured into convenient places to change buses with short walks, the current trend of relocating bus stops further from intersections -- hello TCR and Piccadilly Circus -- also doesn't help) -- and if duplication of routes is reduces, a decent frequency is needed so changing buses doesn't add 12 minutes at most to your journey if you end up just missing the bus you want to switch to.
For instance, if a HPC interchange became more convenient, a 414 withdrawn could easily be mitigated by the 74 (same-stop interchange currently) AND 2, 6, 13, 23, 36, 137, 148 & 390 (currently a long trek or a *very* long trek). Basically anything heading up Park Lane. At the moment, because it is so inconvenient to change to anything else, someone changing from the 14 to the 74 might be put off from ever attempting it again if they just miss the connecting 74. Then again, it's debatable whether there actually is much demand in the first place given how the Marble Arch terminus of the 414 isn't very useful in the first place and likely has driven some customers away.
|
|
