|
|
Post by Unorm on Sept 12, 2024 6:49:04 GMT
The SL6 runs via Brixton as the A23 is easier to negotiate due to bus lanes (Camberwell is only used in emergencies). For me, if the SL6 is to be restructured, it should only stop at Russell Square, Holborn, Aldwych, Waterloo, Lambeth North, Kennington Cross (for Kennington Lane), Oval, Brixton, Tulse Hill and then all stops to West Croydon. Frequency increased to at every 15 minutes and should run to least 21-22:00pm IMO SL6 already is every 15, so an increase would see it as high frequency at every 12 which should be a minimum to cater the existing users and new users. I'd selfishly suggest every 10 but realistically might conflict with parallel routes by overbussing them. I don't think there's much of a case for running the SL6 daily and I certainly don't think an extra stop at Brixton should be added. This is a commuter service and that's why the first set down is Waterloo on northbound journeys to prevent buses getting crowded with short distance passengers and obviously there is the 196 from Upper Norwood to Brixton, an extra stop at Brixton would also remove the flexibility of being able to run via Camberwell. That flexible use tends to be rare, though that doesn't stop that dead in the tracks in terms of diversions. Like a 68/468 in Brixton in a rare example missing portions of it's route, or more. |
|
|
|
Post by busman on Sept 12, 2024 7:02:49 GMT
I don’t think there will be any bearing on Superloop 2. Superloop 2 routes will be funded by TfL, not central government. Two completely different pots of public money. Not necessarily. He had talked about requiring further funds in order to get things like Superloop 2 going. We know the Tories only used to give him half what he asked for and kept it as a yearly one off as opposed to a permanent subsidy. Source? |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Sept 12, 2024 7:25:08 GMT
The SL6 runs via Brixton as the A23 is easier to negotiate due to bus lanes (Camberwell is only used in emergencies). For me, if the SL6 is to be restructured, it should only stop at Russell Square, Holborn, Aldwych, Waterloo, Lambeth North, Kennington Cross (for Kennington Lane), Oval, Brixton, Tulse Hill and then all stops to West Croydon. Frequency increased to at every 15 minutes and should run to least 21-22:00pm IMO SL6 already is every 15, so an increase would see it as high frequency at every 12 which should be a minimum to cater the existing users and new users. I'd selfishly suggest every 10 but realistically might conflict with parallel routes by overbussing them. I don't think there's much of a case for running the SL6 daily and I certainly don't think an extra stop at Brixton should be added. This is a commuter service and that's why the first set down is Waterloo on northbound journeys to prevent buses getting crowded with short distance passengers and obviously there is the 196 from Upper Norwood to Brixton, an extra stop at Brixton would also remove the flexibility of being able to run via Camberwell. That flexible use tends to be rare, though that doesn't stop that dead in the tracks in terms of diversions. Like a 68/468 in Brixton in a rare example missing portions of it's route, or more. It may be rare but that option is available in the event of a problem on the route via Brixton and regardless of that I don't think there's any need for a stop in Brixton or anywhere else for that matter. |
|
|
|
Post by MKAY315 on Sept 12, 2024 7:38:09 GMT
Considering most of the Superloop 2 routes looks literate fantasy, it should be about time resources aren't wasted. What TfL need's to do first is sort out the mess of the SL2 and to the slow and painful SL8 which has been crying for faster speeds and additional capacity. A similar case can be said on the SL9. I agree, some of the Superloop 2 routes aren’t needed IMO - same goes for some of our original superloop routes. It’s time TFL made some improvements to routes and adjustments to maximise efficiency for the SL6, SL7, SL8, SL9 etc. but debatable I think we could live without a SL1 or SL10 really 🤷🏽♂️. Now the Superloop 2 routes arent familiar with my head, but the only useful ones I had imagined is the one that mirrored the 493 slightly and the one that mirrored the 65. Hold on just a minute there player (Teddy Long's famous line in wwe). The SL1 is definitely warranted. It has reduced my journeys on the 34 by 20 minutes and has offered a new link from Walthamstow and Finchley. I can confirm that bus has been welcomed with open arms. The SL10 on the other hand *crickets noise* |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Sept 12, 2024 8:10:10 GMT
Not necessarily. He had talked about requiring further funds in order to get things like Superloop 2 going. We know the Tories only used to give him half what he asked for and kept it as a yearly one off as opposed to a permanent subsidy. Source? I doubt I could find it now but it was very much a message throughout the General Election about how he would be working with central government to get things like Superloop 2 started etc. |
|
|
|
Post by busman on Sept 12, 2024 8:14:01 GMT
I doubt I could find it now but it was very much a message throughout the General Election about how he would be working with central government to get things like Superloop 2 started etc. Superloop 2 was an election pledge by the MoL (like the 310) and was not reliant on funding from, what was at the time, an unknown government pending a general election. Additional funds are only needed for large costly infrastructure projects that would significantly benefit other parts of the country. Think new trains, new train lines (e.g. Bakerloo extension, DLR to Thamesmead etc). Adding a few bus routes does not fall into the same magnitude of cost or national impact, so I think you may have got confused with the meaning behind any statement Unless a new statement has been made directly stating that Superloop 2 needs additional government funding, then nothing has changed. TfL will still be working on proposals for consultation at an unspecified date. We might hear more from the MoL soon in response to this motion requesting collaboration to prioritise bringing Superloop to underserved communities in Waltham Forest, Havering and the more rural parts of Bromley…. So if you want to speculate, ‘SL5 to….Orpington Station. The next stop is….Locksbottom St Michael’s Church’ might be closer to reality than to say Superloop 2 routes won’t be introduced due to lack of central government funding www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-london-assembly-does/london-assembly-press-releases/assembly-calls-mayor-engage-superloop-2-routes |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Sept 12, 2024 8:14:02 GMT
I doubt I could find it now but it was very much a message throughout the General Election about how he would be working with central government to get things like Superloop 2 started etc. I don't believe Superloop 2 required government funding, only electrics by 2030 did. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Sept 12, 2024 8:21:35 GMT
I doubt I could find it now but it was very much a message throughout the General Election about how he would be working with central government to get things like Superloop 2 started etc. I don't believe Superloop 2 required government funding, only electrics by 2030 did. I can't see thou how so many extra routes thou can be introduced based on current finances unless that annual subsidy is increased. Last time he asked from £500m and he got £250m from the Tories and that's not guaranteed each year. |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Sept 12, 2024 8:53:40 GMT
I don't believe Superloop 2 required government funding, only electrics by 2030 did. I can't see thou how so many extra routes thou can be introduced based on current finances unless that annual subsidy is increased. Last time he asked from £500m and he got £250m from the Tories and that's not guaranteed each year. TfLs finances have changed a lot since then, they've got some extra money now and have turned a surplus in the most recent financial year. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Sept 12, 2024 9:17:43 GMT
I can't see thou how so many extra routes thou can be introduced based on current finances unless that annual subsidy is increased. Last time he asked from £500m and he got £250m from the Tories and that's not guaranteed each year. TfLs finances have changed a lot since then, they've got some extra money now and have turned a surplus in the most recent financial year. Ok Clearly I must have mis understood him. |
|
|
|
Post by aaron1 on Sept 12, 2024 9:28:15 GMT
For Long time I always wanted a Express route from Edgware to Victoria that just follows N32 that way it will take off presser of routes like 6 16 32 98 316 142 189 292 like it calling points are
Edgware Community Hospital
Bunt Oak Broadway
Annesley Avenue/The Green Way
Hendon Magistrates Court to link with SL10
don't know to skip Staples Corner to make go over the fly over
Stop at Cricklewood Bus Garage
Mora Road then The Crown
then don't know to make it stop at Mill Line or no stop to Kilburn Station
Brondesbury station
Stopping at Kilburn High road then Kilburn High road station
Stopping at Elgin Avenue after
Edgware Road Station Bakerloo
Stop at Marble Arch station Edgware Road then Park Line then
London Hilton Hotel
Hyde Park Corner
and it Last Stop Victoria
Route will run from Edgware Garage
|
|
|
|
Post by busman on Sept 12, 2024 9:28:57 GMT
I don't believe Superloop 2 required government funding, only electrics by 2030 did. I can't see thou how so many extra routes thou can be introduced based on current finances unless that annual subsidy is increased. Last time he asked from £500m and he got £250m from the Tories and that's not guaranteed each year. TfL actually generates a profit from its operations (see the link to the draft 23/24 annual report below). TfL pays bus operators to provide specific services at a price that is within its means. It doesn’t own any of the buses (aside from LTs), drivers etc. Superloop 2 can be paid for by TfL. Especially if revenue, passenger and population growth continues at the current trajectory. The Standard (don’t laugh) reported the cost of Superloop 1 as £6M. That sounds really low to me. I don’t have time to do this, but I’m wonder what the total value of the Superloop contracts are per year? Plus the cost of infrastructure and marketing. If it really was £6M, then comparing that to a £138M operating profit and an average £1.9bn per year of Capital Expenditure (CapEx), the costs of implementing Superloop 2 become a local decision for TfL and the MoL. Certainly not government level. Capital Expenditure is a different kettle of fish. This is where TfL ask for government support. The latest settlement in late 2023 was £250M, which is the figure you are referring to. plural noun: capital expenditures money spent by a business or organization on acquiring or maintaining fixed assets, such as land, buildings, and equipment. So for Superloop 2, they might need some fancy new bus stops, hopefully some bus priority measures etc…but that is not going to impact the £1.9bn a year on TfL spends on capex projects. This amount is across road and rail infrastructure and central government funding is needed to deliver train refurbishments, tube and DLR extensions, net zero, vision zero etc. Generally, these large projects generate jobs in other parts of the country (such as the order for new Lizzie Line trains) and high ROI to the government from investment in London infrastructure. Hence the government is willing to part with those sums based on value to the taxpayer. This is weighted against the political optics of the gutter press branding it as a bailout or handout from Westminster to their friends in London. Anyhow, this post is way longer than I had intended :-) board.tfl.gov.uk/documents/s22831/Appendix%201%20Annual%20Report%20and%20Accounts%202024%20Draft.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Sept 12, 2024 11:06:06 GMT
I agree, some of the Superloop 2 routes aren’t needed IMO - same goes for some of our original superloop routes. It’s time TFL made some improvements to routes and adjustments to maximise efficiency for the SL6, SL7, SL8, SL9 etc. but debatable I think we could live without a SL1 or SL10 really 🤷🏽♂️. Now the Superloop 2 routes arent familiar with my head, but the only useful ones I had imagined is the one that mirrored the 493 slightly and the one that mirrored the 65. Hold on just a minute there player (Teddy Long's famous line in wwe). The SL1 is definitely warranted. It has reduced my journeys on the 34 by 20 minutes and has offered a new link from Walthamstow and Finchley. I can confirm that bus has been welcomed with open arms. The SL10 on the other hand *crickets noise* Even if routes like the SL1 are well used, I'm not sure there is much advantage in having a Superloop service where the majority of the route is along a fast road like the North Circular - as all-stops services will be quite fast anyway. For the same reason, I'm not sure some of the Superloop 2 proposals are needed, such as those along the 66 and 112 corridors. TFL also stated that the main purpose of the Superloop is to link major town centres in outer London, while the only examples of these on the SL1 and SL10 are Walthamstow and Harrow respectively. With both of these routes, I think a better solution would be to restructure the stopping services to cover the links and capacity required. Something like the following for example: 334 - Renumbering of the SL1, serving all stops. 34 - Withdrawn between Walthamstow and Edmonton. 191 - Withdrawn between Brimsdown and Enfield, and instead extended from Edmonton Green to Walthamstow, via Fore Street to Angel Corner then the 34 (introducing new links from Walthamstow up the Lea Valley). 391 - New route between Edmonton Green and Brimsdown, via the W8 to Enfield then the 191. W8 - Withdrawn. 329 extended to Chase Farm, and the W6 extended to Picketts Lock. 183 - Withdrawn between Pinner and Harrow. SL10 withdrawn (no replacement at the Finchley end). 373 - New route from Pinner to Brent Cross, via the 183 to Kenton, then Draycott Avenue, Woodcock Hill, The Mall, Kingsbury Circle, 183 again to West Hendon Broadway and the 142 to Brent Cross. |
|
|
|
Post by bluepuffy on Sept 12, 2024 11:19:25 GMT
Hold on just a minute there player (Teddy Long's famous line in wwe). The SL1 is definitely warranted. It has reduced my journeys on the 34 by 20 minutes and has offered a new link from Walthamstow and Finchley. I can confirm that bus has been welcomed with open arms. The SL10 on the other hand *crickets noise* Even if routes like the SL1 are well used, I'm not sure there is much advantage in having a Superloop service where the majority of the route is along a fast road like the North Circular - as all-stops services will be quite fast anyway. For the same reason, I'm not sure some of the Superloop 2 proposals are needed, such as those along the 66 and 112 corridors. TFL also stated that the main purpose of the Superloop is to link major town centres in outer London, while the only examples of these on the SL1 and SL10 are Walthamstow and Harrow respectively. With both of these routes, I think a better solution would be to restructure the stopping services to cover the links and capacity required. Something like the following for example: 334 - Renumbering of the SL1, serving all stops. 34 - Withdrawn between Walthamstow and Edmonton. 191 - Withdrawn between Brimsdown and Enfield, and instead extended from Edmonton Green to Walthamstow, via Fore Street to Angel Corner then the 34 (introducing new links from Walthamstow up the Lea Valley). 391 - New route between Edmonton Green and Brimsdown, via the W8 to Enfield then the 191. W8 - Withdrawn. 329 extended to Chase Farm, and the W6 extended to Picketts Lock. 183 - Withdrawn between Pinner and Harrow. SL10 withdrawn (no replacement at the Finchley end). 373 - New route from Pinner to Brent Cross, via the 183 to Kenton, then Draycott Avenue, Woodcock Hill, The Mall, Kingsbury Circle, 183 again to West Hendon Broadway and the 142 to Brent Cross. To be fair, I'd say it's unfair to say that ' TFL also stated that the main purpose of the Superloop is to link major town centres in outer London, while the only examples of these on the SL1 and SL10 ' when in those areas, they would be considered major town centres for the area. Not every route is going to be blessed like the SL7 where it runs through the heart of three boroughs, an airport, and said boroughs surrounding smaller towns. The SL5 imo is the worst offender, yes a fast connection between Croydon and Bromley is great, but it doesn't connect any of the surrounding areas to either of those places either, it's more like hail and ride up until just before Eden Park. If they moved it to go through Beckenham first then it would be slightly better for sure, but Sadiq wouldn't like the prospect of a fast route that could be better than, or rival the Tramlink (that desperately needs any help it can get). |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Sept 12, 2024 11:21:07 GMT
Hold on just a minute there player (Teddy Long's famous line in wwe). The SL1 is definitely warranted. It has reduced my journeys on the 34 by 20 minutes and has offered a new link from Walthamstow and Finchley. I can confirm that bus has been welcomed with open arms. The SL10 on the other hand *crickets noise* Even if routes like the SL1 are well used, I'm not sure there is much advantage in having a Superloop service where the majority of the route is along a fast road like the North Circular - as all-stops services will be quite fast anyway. For the same reason, I'm not sure some of the Superloop 2 proposals are needed, such as those along the 66 and 112 corridors. TFL also stated that the main purpose of the Superloop is to link major town centres in outer London, while the only examples of these on the SL1 and SL10 are Walthamstow and Harrow respectively. With both of these routes, I think a better solution would be to restructure the stopping services to cover the links and capacity required. Something like the following for example: 334 - Renumbering of the SL1, serving all stops. 34 - Withdrawn between Walthamstow and Edmonton. 191 - Withdrawn between Brimsdown and Enfield, and instead extended from Edmonton Green to Walthamstow, via Fore Street to Angel Corner then the 34 (introducing new links from Walthamstow up the Lea Valley). 391 - New route between Edmonton Green and Brimsdown, via the W8 to Enfield then the 191. W8 - Withdrawn. 329 extended to Chase Farm, and the W6 extended to Picketts Lock. 183 - Withdrawn between Pinner and Harrow. SL10 withdrawn (no replacement at the Finchley end). 373 - New route from Pinner to Brent Cross, via the 183 to Kenton, then Draycott Avenue, Woodcock Hill, The Mall, Kingsbury Circle, 183 again to West Hendon Broadway and the 142 to Brent Cross. So you would withdraw two routes even if they were successful? That’s a very odd way to approach a network especially when you’re proposing to then mess with a bunch of others |
|
