|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Apr 20, 2024 16:06:57 GMT
Yet nothing is being done to improve existing route speeds or reliability. Just millions spent on another vanity project that don’t solve the fundamental problems on the roads, just adds more buses to it. Giving people fast express buse routes - which is a credible alternative to the car is hardly a ‘vanity project’. By not laying down methods to increase existing bus speeds the project has no merit in my opinion and is therefore nothing but vanity. All it’s doing is proving Khan could resolve the bus speed issue but is clearly unwilling to do so. I’d have no problem with the existing routes or new proposals but nothing so far has tackled the fundamental issues with the existing bus network. |
|
|
|
Post by mondraker275 on Apr 20, 2024 16:12:51 GMT
I hope that they do take a more proper look at their suggestions once the election has passed. I'm in agreement about the Leytonstone express route and I think if it does get introduced that the 66 will eventually get its frequency reduced. The Stratford-Barnet route I really do hope it's two routes that someone has mistakenly used the same colour for. But then you seem to have a Barnet-Walthamstow route and a Stratford-Walthamstow express route. While Stratford to Walthamstow is a very busy corridor will an express bus help it? I would think increases to the 69 and 97 would be of more help. If memory serves me correctly, first iteration we had of proposals for the Superloop evolved slight from what we have now (It’s not a big difference but it is not identical to map first layed out) It looks like there is a break at Chingford (faint gap in the adjoining circles) so I am assuming we have a Barnet - Chingford and Chingford to Stratford route proposed. Consider the 69 and 97 both run at 7.5 bph an hour I don’t know how much a frequency increase would actually benefit passengers. I think this Superloop route is worth a shot Maybe I’m reading into it too much but I think the colours mean something on this version of Superloop. Green being skip stop routes and yellow/gold being express. Could be wrong but that’s my working theory. If that is the case then the 66 could be absorbed rather reduced, not that that makes the idea any better. The colours probably do mean something. Firstly, all the new routes only seem to use three colours: dark green, green or amber. Therefore, I suspect that it is in the order they will be consulted on and introduced. If we assume the BakerLoop is coming first then that means so will the X112, X472. Probably easy routes to introduce first as well. Then probably the green routes followed by the amber routes. Based on that theory then the Chingford- Stratford is likely to be a split route and may be X97 but not sure why we dont have the station symbol. I do prefer it to go from Leyton to Stratford via 158. I have estimated it to be about 13 stop route which is fine. |
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Apr 20, 2024 16:26:25 GMT
Yet nothing is being done to improve existing route speeds or reliability. Just millions spent on another vanity project that don’t solve the fundamental problems on the roads, just adds more buses to it. Giving people fast express buse routes - which is a credible alternative to the car is hardly a ‘vanity project’. A credible alternative as long as you travelling to points where the Superloop buses stop. Passengers using all stop regular services can end up disadvantaged when frequency reductions take place as a result of the express services being introduced. |
|
|
|
Post by PGAT on Apr 20, 2024 16:31:29 GMT
Giving people fast express buse routes - which is a credible alternative to the car is hardly a ‘vanity project’. A credible alternative as long as you travelling to points where the Superloop buses stop. Passengers using all stop regular services can end up disadvantaged when frequency reductions take place as a result of the express services being introduced. I think only the 183 had cuts as a result of Superloop? |
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Apr 20, 2024 16:42:24 GMT
A credible alternative as long as you travelling to points where the Superloop buses stop. Passengers using all stop regular services can end up disadvantaged when frequency reductions take place as a result of the express services being introduced. I think only the 183 had cuts as a result of Superloop? The 34 did too - but the cuts were hardly drastic and the routes still operate at turn-up-and-go frequencies. The Superloop routes cover the busiest sections of both routes and the busiest stops now have more buses and a greater choice of destinations. The new Superloop proposals are just that at the moment, proposals. There is still a lot of detailed work to be done on actual routes, stops and frequencies and adjustments to parallel routes, and then there are the consultation stages before the finalised routes go out for tender. Also don't forget that overall bus use has increased at a greater rate over orbital corridors where a Superloop route operates, as had already been seen along the X140 route before it was co-opted into the Superloop network. These routes are proven to increase overall bus use in the suburbs, which is the whole point of introducing more. I had thought I wouldn't be in favour of them - I am now. |
|
|
|
Post by uakari on Apr 20, 2024 17:16:01 GMT
Surely if it were to come from that direction, Barnet Spires or Hospital would be the best, probably the latter? I don't think there's stand space at either of them. However Arkley Hotel is unused Of the current termini in Barnet, Arkley Hotel and New Barnet station have space. It would make sense for the route from Harrow to use New Barnet station and the route from Chingford to use Arkley Hotel, with a small overlap. I hope the 384 will return to its original routing through Barnet. I also hope that the interchange between tube and bus at High Barnet station will be made much more accessible. |
|
|
|
Post by LD71YLO (BE37054) on Apr 20, 2024 17:26:29 GMT
I have to say that the X65* is a terrible idea. Bus speeds are the best thing about that corridor, barring Kew Bridge and central Richmond, there is barely any traffic. At many times of the day the 65 speeds past many stops between Richmond and Kingston and between Brentford and Ealing, so can almost function as a semi-express route. Adding extra buses in the form of an express route, as southlondon413 suggested, would be counter-intuitive as it would reduce the speeds of both routes 65 and X65, especially around Kew and Brentford. It would also not address the lack of reliability on the 65. If the 65 was left with its current PVR it might just reduce crowding enough to be worthwhile, but if the 65 was reduced at all it would have a huge negative impact as it would represent a frequency cut to most of the smaller stops. Additionally, there is huge schooltime demand for the route. If the X65 did not stop at Tiffin Girls School (also for Kingston Academy and Fern Hill Primary) and the 65's frequency cut, this would have a huge detrimental impact on crowding on the regular 65 and subsequently on non-school passengers using the regular route. Having said that, even stopping at the schools wouldn't help much as most passengers probably wouldn't live near a Superloop stop. If this was introduced with a cut to the frequency of route 65, I would have some harsh words for TfL to ignore in the consultation. Regarding the other express route I'm well placed to write about, this being the X493*. This is significantly a better idea, but still with huge amounts of traffic in Sheen this would leave the route bogged down in traffic at certain times of the day as ADH45258 said. I also fear that this would lead to the 493 being curtailed to Barnes Common, which I'm not sure would be hugely terrible with major links maintained, but I do think that Sheen would still merit three all stops routes. I would probably turn this X493 into an all stops route, with the 493 curtailed somewhere in Roehampton, not sure where yet. As an express route, the X493 does have some more potential though. I wouldn't extend to Streatham as was suggested though as I would doubt there would be much cross Wimbledon traffic and it would then be stuck in traffic in Colliers Wood, assuming it followed the 57 route. I would probably go for a western extension to Osterley, Tesco via West Middlesex Hospital (providing a direct link from Richmond and Sheen). It could possibly even be onto Ealing Hospital via the Great West Road and 195, introducing links which were meant to be introduced back in 2016 and providing Osterley and Isleworth with a link to the poorly connected (from the south and east) Ealing Hospital. However this latter suggestion would probably send reliability down the plughole. The other thing I would consider is routing it via Sheen Lane and the 419, serving the Stag Brewery development and running along a dual carriageway into Richmond. Also I think that Richmond is poorly designed for express routes, least of all an express route interchange, given the heavy traffic and narrow roads in the centre, along with a lack of a 'focal point' for buses unlike existing Superloop interchanges like Walthamstow Central or North Finchley. *I know it will be SL-something, but this is just so you all know what route I'm referring to. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Apr 20, 2024 18:20:57 GMT
I think only the 183 had cuts as a result of Superloop? The 34 did too - but the cuts were hardly drastic and the routes still operate at turn-up-and-go frequencies. The Superloop routes cover the busiest sections of both routes and the busiest stops now have more buses and a greater choice of destinations. The new Superloop proposals are just that at the moment, proposals. There is still a lot of detailed work to be done on actual routes, stops and frequencies and adjustments to parallel routes, and then there are the consultation stages before the finalised routes go out for tender. Also don't forget that overall bus use has increased at a greater rate over orbital corridors where a Superloop route operates, as had already been seen along the X140 route before it was co-opted into the Superloop network. These routes are proven to increase overall bus use in the suburbs, which is the whole point of introducing more. I had thought I wouldn't be in favour of them - I am now. They work in Outer London because the road network is better equipped for their implementation - now take the ones being proposed for Inner London where the road network is ill equipped in comparison and it’s why I’m dubious about some of these working, especially the Streatham to Eltham which I absolutely would love it to work but knowing the western & central sections of the route, I’m yet to be convinced |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Apr 20, 2024 18:26:20 GMT
Yet nothing is being done to improve existing route speeds or reliability. Just millions spent on another vanity project that don’t solve the fundamental problems on the roads, just adds more buses to it. Giving people fast express buse routes - which is a credible alternative to the car is hardly a ‘vanity project’. Vanity project I wouldn’t say it is but I don’t think you quite grasp how some of these corridors aren’t as fast as you think they might be - have you tried using the A205 between Streatham Hill & Lee for instance? |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Apr 20, 2024 18:30:49 GMT
Giving people fast express buse routes - which is a credible alternative to the car is hardly a ‘vanity project’. Vanity project I wouldn’t say it is but I don’t think you quite grasp how some of these corridors aren’t as fast as you think they might be - have you tried using the A205 between Streatham Hill & Lee for instance? I did use the SL3 today end to end and boy was it long ride, hardly any sort of alternative to the car which is likely to be faster in most journeys you'd use the SL3 for. I also used the SL2 to North Woolwich this morning and it's another case where I do wonder how people can say it's an alternative to the car due to the nature of its route. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Apr 20, 2024 18:37:34 GMT
I think only the 183 had cuts as a result of Superloop? The 34 did too - but the cuts were hardly drastic and the routes still operate at turn-up-and-go frequencies. The Superloop routes cover the busiest sections of both routes and the busiest stops now have more buses and a greater choice of destinations. The new Superloop proposals are just that at the moment, proposals. There is still a lot of detailed work to be done on actual routes, stops and frequencies and adjustments to parallel routes, and then there are the consultation stages before the finalised routes go out for tender. Also don't forget that overall bus use has increased at a greater rate over orbital corridors where a Superloop route operates, as had already been seen along the X140 route before it was co-opted into the Superloop network. These routes are proven to increase overall bus use in the suburbs, which is the whole point of introducing more. I had thought I wouldn't be in favour of them - I am now. Are they though? We have TfL telling us they have seen increases on existing routes but have failed to confirm how parallel routes numbers are doing. Even then we won’t have proper figures, note the same with ULEZ, until after the election meaning Londoners have no choice but to trust that these figures are accurate. We don’t even know how many new passengers these routes have created or if it just people switching over. For all we know having an increased SL7 for example increasing by a large figure over the Sutton to Kingston stretch could be the same as the 213 dropping in passenger numbers. This ultimately would leave the 213 open to a frequency reduction which in my view only leaves those beyond the stretch of SL7, either it’s too far for them to walk to a stop or it’s counterintuitive to take a bus to a bus, in a worse position all because TfL and the mayor don’t see the need of these people. As I’ve said previously TfL should focus on working with councils to maintain road speeds, launch new bus lanes and other radical schemes like road restrictions in town centres to speed up main roads. It just, again in my view, creates a two tier system for bus passengers. It’s crazy we now have main roads running at 20mph but side roads are maintained at 30mph, it’s just ludicrous. |
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Apr 20, 2024 19:47:49 GMT
A credible alternative as long as you travelling to points where the Superloop buses stop. Passengers using all stop regular services can end up disadvantaged when frequency reductions take place as a result of the express services being introduced. I think only the 183 had cuts as a result of Superloop? This and the 34 as mentioned by wirewiper. I think people would be very naive if they think all the additional routes will be introduced without any frequency adjustments on other routes. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Apr 20, 2024 20:11:16 GMT
I think only the 183 had cuts as a result of Superloop? This and the 34 as mentioned by wirewiper. I think people would be very naive if they think all the additional routes will be introduced without any frequency adjustments on other routes. Certainly the 65 would be a very likely candidate to drop in freq plus the 97. The 66 aswell would have a direct competition. In a city where as little as 50% of users pay fares I do find all this sudden increase quite baffling. Wasn't that long there was no money to keep the 16, 168, 271, 507, 521 plus the Chiswick section of the 27, Whitehall section of the 53, TCR of the 134 etc etc. Coupled with large increases on operating costs. I know the 28 you pointed out had increased highly since last contract and carries less passengers then in the mid to late 2010s. |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Apr 20, 2024 20:14:28 GMT
This and the 34 as mentioned by wirewiper . I think people would be very naive if they think all the additional routes will be introduced without any frequency adjustments on other routes. Certainly the 65 would be a very likely candidate to drop in freq plus the 97. The 66 aswell would have a direct competition. In a city where as little as 50% of users pay fares I do find all this sudden increase quite baffling. Wasn't that long there was no money to keep the 16, 168, 271, 507, 521 plus the Chiswick section of the 27, Whitehall section of the 53, TCR of the 134 etc etc. Coupled with large increases on operating costs. I know the 28 you pointed out had increased highly since last contract and carries less passengers then in the mid to late 2010s. In all fairness I believe while there were these cuts, they were always justified by improvements to outer London bus services further down the line. Outer London still has a very very very long way to go in terms of getting its bus network up to scratch similar to that of inner London. But outer London does also need some radial routes as opposed to orbital routes. It would have been nice to see routes like an X15 or an X25 in this round, probably also backed up by the X68 going full time and an X279 too. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Apr 20, 2024 20:35:25 GMT
Certainly the 65 would be a very likely candidate to drop in freq plus the 97. The 66 aswell would have a direct competition. In a city where as little as 50% of users pay fares I do find all this sudden increase quite baffling. Wasn't that long there was no money to keep the 16, 168, 271, 507, 521 plus the Ch iswick section of the 27, Whitehall section of the 53, TCR of the 134 etc etc. Coupled with large increases on operating costs. I know the 28 you pointed out had increased highly since last contract and carries less passengers then in the mid to late 2010s. In all fairness I believe while there were these cuts, they were always justified by improvements to outer London bus services further down the line. Outer London still has a very very very long way to go in terms of getting its bus network up to scratch similar to that of inner London. But outer London does also need some radial routes as opposed to orbital routes. It would have been nice to see routes like an X15 or an X25 in this round, probably also backed up by the X68 going full time and an X279 too. Thou I wouldn't necessarily say there were many capacity issues in outer London or if there were increases to current routes like in Sutton/Croydon area as opposed to totally new services. |
|
