|
|
Post by bk10mfe on Apr 21, 2024 21:14:44 GMT
One interesting idea to make the 242 more useful would be to have it swap termini with the 243 south of Shoreditch. The 242 would become Waterloo-Homerton Hospital & the 243 would become Aldgate-Wood Green, a lot like the old 67. The 242 would cover the existing 243 as far as Dalston Junction & other routes like the 76 & 341 cover the 243’s other links towards Tottenham.
|
|
|
|
Post by ronnie on Apr 21, 2024 22:13:08 GMT
One interesting idea to make the 242 more useful would be to have it swap termini with the 243 south of Shoreditch. The 242 would become Waterloo-Homerton Hospital & the 243 would become Aldgate-Wood Green, a lot like the old 67. The 242 would cover the existing 243 as far as Dalston Junction & other routes like the 76 & 341 cover the 243’s other links towards Tottenham. Correct me if I am wrong (not local) but isn’t the 243 like one of the busiest routes overall, and especially in that Wood Green - Tottenham - A10 corridor and then onto the city / Waterloo? Together with the 149 of course, despite paralleling the overground. Sounds like we would be creating 10 problems while trying to solve one, and arguably the 242 still has some rationale The real route which has been adversely hit is the 67. That’s the problem which needs a solution if we do need a problem! |
|
|
|
Post by bk10mfe on Apr 22, 2024 9:15:55 GMT
One interesting idea to make the 242 more useful would be to have it swap termini with the 243 south of Shoreditch. The 242 would become Waterloo-Homerton Hospital & the 243 would become Aldgate-Wood Green, a lot like the old 67. The 242 would cover the existing 243 as far as Dalston Junction & other routes like the 76 & 341 cover the 243’s other links towards Tottenham. Correct me if I am wrong (not local) but isn’t the 243 like one of the busiest routes overall, and especially in that Wood Green - Tottenham - A10 corridor and then onto the city / Waterloo? Together with the 149 of course, despite paralleling the overground. Sounds like we would be creating 10 problems while trying to solve one, and arguably the 242 still has some rationale The real route which has been adversely hit is the 67. That’s the problem which needs a solution if we do need a problem! The 243 is busy yes, but moreso on the Tottenham end of the route which wouldn’t be changed. The 242 has roughly the same frequency as the 243 & the 243 is quite a long route so it would be improved in reliability if it was cut back. I have seen numerous 243’s being curtailed to Holborn or even Old St as well. The 76 also shares a lot in common with the 243, also linking both Waterloo & Old St to the corridor between Dalston & Tottenham. |
|
|
|
Post by londonbusbro on Apr 25, 2024 15:26:48 GMT
I’d expect to see the 45, 357, 414 mentioned however calling routes useless just for being indirect is a bit dramatic. a lot of the time by useless i meant annoying |
|
|
|
Post by ronnie on Apr 25, 2024 16:26:22 GMT
I think some of the routes which I find annoying are the ones which just stop short of a really useful termination point, when they could have been very handy otherwise
Example:
- 25 to city thameslink. It’s annoying as the current terminus is just so short of being useful, Holborn would have been much better (or TCR)
- D3 terminating at city island. The extension to Canning Town would have been so useful
|
|
|
|
Post by Busboy105 on Apr 25, 2024 17:07:01 GMT
I think some of the routes which I find annoying are the ones which just stop short of a really useful termination point, when they could have been very handy otherwise Example: - 25 to city thameslink. It’s annoying as the current terminus is just so short of being useful, Holborn would have been much better (or TCR) - D3 terminating at city island. The extension to Canning Town would have been so useful Holborn might be full now that the 133 stops there now. You can actually walk from the City Island to Canning Town so there's a connection there |
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Apr 25, 2024 17:45:53 GMT
I think some of the routes which I find annoying are the ones which just stop short of a really useful termination point, when they could have been very handy otherwise Example: - 25 to city thameslink. It’s annoying as the current terminus is just so short of being useful, Holborn would have been much better (or TCR) - D3 terminating at city island. The extension to Canning Town would have been so useful Holborn might be full now that the 133 stops there now. You can actually walk from the City Island to Canning Town so there's a connection there The 171's old stand on New Oxford Street is still available. As much as there is stand space at Canning Town bus station after the 330 vacated, I personally feel TfL don't want two routes heading to Bethnal Green from Canning Town. That's how I see it anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by bk10mfe on Apr 25, 2024 18:15:50 GMT
I think some of the routes which I find annoying are the ones which just stop short of a really useful termination point, when they could have been very handy otherwise Example: - 25 to city thameslink. It’s annoying as the current terminus is just so short of being useful, Holborn would have been much better (or TCR) - D3 terminating at city island. The extension to Canning Town would have been so useful Holborn might be full now that the 133 stops there now. You can actually walk from the City Island to Canning Town so there's a connection there I have suggested before to swap the 25 & 133 termini, or revert the 133 back to Liverpool St. |
|
|
|
Post by bk10mfe on May 4, 2024 8:15:00 GMT
This isn’t necessarily a useless route, moreso a useless section of a route. Regarding the 99, is it really needed for it to run down Forest Road & Hazel Road? It already serves Slade Green Station from the other side of the bridge. To me at least, it just seems like a waste of time to do that loop.
|
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on May 4, 2024 8:50:21 GMT
This isn’t necessarily a useless route, moreso a useless section of a route. Regarding the 99, is it really needed for it to run down Forest Road & Hazel Road? It already serves Slade Green Station from the other side of the bridge. To me at least, it just seems like a waste of time to do that loop. One word - accessibility. |
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on May 4, 2024 8:51:24 GMT
This isn’t necessarily a useless route, moreso a useless section of a route. Regarding the 99, is it really needed for it to run down Forest Road & Hazel Road? It already serves Slade Green Station from the other side of the bridge. To me at least, it just seems like a waste of time to do that loop. The 99 has no choice but to loop Slade Green because of a Width Restriction on Slade Green Road. The most obvious answer if you have ever sat on the 99. You cannot miss the width restriction. This section of route exists as far as when the B13 then 469 now 99 doing this. Even if the width restriction didn’t exist I would still have the 99 do that loop. To serve the residents. A few weeks ago I got on the 436 with a family member and they complained how the 436 has to double run the Vauxhall Bus Station. When the consultation came out I suggested the bus stop for Camberwell to be moved to avoid the 436 doing this to swap the Nine Elms bound Stop with the Camberwell bound stop. Overall I would class this as a stupid practice. |
|
|
|
Post by 6HP502C on May 4, 2024 13:39:04 GMT
This isn’t necessarily a useless route, moreso a useless section of a route. Regarding the 99, is it really needed for it to run down Forest Road & Hazel Road? It already serves Slade Green Station from the other side of the bridge. To me at least, it just seems like a waste of time to do that loop. The 99 has no choice but to loop Slade Green because of a Width Restriction on Slade Green Road. The most obvious answer if you have ever sat on the 99. You cannot miss the width restriction. This section of route exists as far as when the B13 then 469 now 99 doing this. Even if the width restriction didn’t exist I would still have the 99 do that loop. To serve the residents. A few weeks ago I got on the 436 with a family member and they complained how the 436 has to double run the Vauxhall Bus Station. When the consultation came out I suggested the bus stop for Camberwell to be moved to avoid the 436 doing this to swap the Nine Elms bound Stop with the Camberwell bound stop. Overall I would class this as a stupid practice. Lots of people complain about the 436 at Vauxhall but there weren't any plans to change it. It would cause more problems than it solves if the common stop with the 36 and 185 was broken and if you start moving other routes around, you create more movements and loops, or overload bus stops. To date nobody has proposed a workable solution so the 436 stays as it is. |
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on May 4, 2024 13:51:16 GMT
The 99 has no choice but to loop Slade Green because of a Width Restriction on Slade Green Road. The most obvious answer if you have ever sat on the 99. You cannot miss the width restriction. This section of route exists as far as when the B13 then 469 now 99 doing this. Even if the width restriction didn’t exist I would still have the 99 do that loop. To serve the residents. A few weeks ago I got on the 436 with a family member and they complained how the 436 has to double run the Vauxhall Bus Station. When the consultation came out I suggested the bus stop for Camberwell to be moved to avoid the 436 doing this to swap the Nine Elms bound Stop with the Camberwell bound stop. Overall I would class this as a stupid practice. Lots of people complain about the 436 at Vauxhall but there weren't any plans to change it. It would cause more problems than it solves if the common stop with the 36 and 185 was broken and if you start moving other routes around, you create more movements and loops, or overload bus stops. To date nobody has proposed a workable solution so the 436 stays as it is.This would not cause any problems at all by go visit Vauxhall Bus Station and you will see. The 36 185 N136 both enter the bus station from Vauxhall Bridge Road and serve Bus Stop C. Swapping over with Stop E does not do a thing other than drive a few more feet. The 344 to Clapham Junction enters Vauxhall Bus Station via South Lambeth Road. Problem solved. 156 terminates at Vauxhall so is not affected. What I have put in Bold is a load of rubbish the Solution is there they are just too lazy to do it. I wonder how many people on the 436 miss connections because of this rubbish. But Every Journey Matters right… Oh Please Overload Bus Stops look how big Vauxhall Bus Station is ⬇️⬇️⬇️ Solution 156 344 436 towards Nine Elms serve Stop C 36 185 N136 towards Camberwell serve Stop E This is what I suggested in the consultation so to suggest no solution has been made is utter rubbish. Eliminates 436 loop however it will serve the same stops but in different directions. Those who get on the wrong bus get used to it or read the notices and blinds. consultation |
|
|
|
Post by mondraker275 on May 4, 2024 16:27:01 GMT
Lots of people complain about the 436 at Vauxhall but there weren't any plans to change it. It would cause more problems than it solves if the common stop with the 36 and 185 was broken and if you start moving other routes around, you create more movements and loops, or overload bus stops. To date nobody has proposed a workable solution so the 436 stays as it is.This would not cause any problems at all by go visit Vauxhall Bus Station and you will see. The 36 185 N136 both enter the bus station from Vauxhall Bridge Road and serve Bus Stop C. Swapping over with Stop E does not do a thing other than drive a few more feet. The 344 to Clapham Junction enters Vauxhall Bus Station via South Lambeth Road. Problem solved. 156 terminates at Vauxhall so is not affected. What I have put in Bold is a load of rubbish the Solution is there they are just too lazy to do it. I wonder how many people on the 436 miss connections because of this rubbish. But Every Journey Matters right… Oh Please Overload Bus Stops look how big Vauxhall Bus Station is ⬇️⬇️⬇️ Solution 156 344 436 towards Nine Elms serve Stop C 36 185 N136 towards Camberwell serve Stop E This is what I suggested in the consultation so to suggest no solution has been made is utter rubbish. Eliminates 436 loop however it will serve the same stops but in different directions. Those who get on the wrong bus get used to it or read the notices and blinds. consultation I always feel like Vauxhall needs an entrance opposite Albert Embankment or a contraflow to allow entrance to the north entrance. It is one of the most annoying stations. |
|
|
|
Post by 6HP502C on May 4, 2024 18:23:19 GMT
Lots of people complain about the 436 at Vauxhall but there weren't any plans to change it. It would cause more problems than it solves if the common stop with the 36 and 185 was broken and if you start moving other routes around, you create more movements and loops, or overload bus stops. To date nobody has proposed a workable solution so the 436 stays as it is.This would not cause any problems at all by go visit Vauxhall Bus Station and you will see. The 36 185 N136 both enter the bus station from Vauxhall Bridge Road and serve Bus Stop C. Swapping over with Stop E does not do a thing other than drive a few more feet. The 344 to Clapham Junction enters Vauxhall Bus Station via South Lambeth Road. Problem solved. 156 terminates at Vauxhall so is not affected. What I have put in Bold is a load of rubbish the Solution is there they are just too lazy to do it. I wonder how many people on the 436 miss connections because of this rubbish. But Every Journey Matters right… Oh Please Overload Bus Stops look how big Vauxhall Bus Station is ⬇️⬇️⬇️ Solution 156 344 436 towards Nine Elms serve Stop C 36 185 N136 towards Camberwell serve Stop E This is what I suggested in the consultation so to suggest no solution has been made is utter rubbish. Eliminates 436 loop however it will serve the same stops but in different directions. Those who get on the wrong bus get used to it or read the notices and blinds. consultation Where the 436 enters Vauxhall Bus Station, it completely misses Stop E, so a full circuit of the bus station would still be needed with your suggestion. Google Maps shot. How is the solution you propose workable? |
|
