|
|
Post by mrhk on Aug 9, 2024 0:34:54 GMT
Don't know if this has been said or if I've said it but I'll say it again.
H11 + H17 -> One route running from Mount Vernon Hospital to Wembley Central, Monstrose Crescent.
Both these routes are relatively similar as they are both short, currently only serving three areas.
H11 - Northwood, Pinner and Harrow
H17 - Harrow, Sudbury and Wembley
Both routes run with a PVR of 7 buses with the same allocation of 10.9m Enviro200MMCs.
Both routes start at around same time (05:30 on weekdays and 06:30 on weekends)
Both routes take around half an hour at peak hours to complete E2E
Benefits of combining the routes
- Freed up stand space at Harrow for other routes
- New connections (for H11/H17 users beyond Harrow)
- Possibly could become a DD route?? Both routes do take on quite the load at Harrow Bus Station and the capacity upgrade would be welcome.
Let me know what you guys think of this one and feel free to chip in with your own ideas.
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 9, 2024 3:16:42 GMT
Don't know if this has been said or if I've said it but I'll say it again. H11 + H17 -> One route running from Mount Vernon Hospital to Wembley Central, Monstrose Crescent. Both these routes are relatively similar as they are both short, currently only serving three areas. H11 - Northwood, Pinner and Harrow H17 - Harrow, Sudbury and Wembley Both routes run with a PVR of 7 buses with the same allocation of 10.9m Enviro200MMCs. Both routes start at around same time (05:30 on weekdays and 06:30 on weekends) Both routes take around half an hour at peak hours to complete E2E Benefits of combining the routes - Freed up stand space at Harrow for other routes - New connections (for H11/H17 users beyond Harrow) - Possibly could become a DD route?? Both routes do take on quite the load at Harrow Bus Station and the capacity upgrade would be welcome. Let me know what you guys think of this one and feel free to chip in with your own ideas. Whilst certainly doable time wise, I don't see much reason to merge the two routes beyond freeing up stand space though I don't think that is a good enough reason to proceed. The main reason these routes exist are as parts of a wider Harrow network hence the H prefix numbering. Judging from the makeup of the route, the H11 is there to connect parts of West Harrow with Harrow & Pinner and to connect Mount Vernon Hospital to Pinner Road & Pinner itself whilst the H17 is there to provide a link from Harrow to Sudbury Hill, connect Whitton Avenue East to multiple areas as well as provide a service to Chaplin Road. Putting all that together, I would struggle to see why current H11 & H17 users would want to go beyond Harrow in either direction as Harrow will be the main draw for both routes (with the H17 also seeing a lot of demand for Wembley Central) and the 182 already provides a more direct link with a higher frequency between Harrow & Wembley Central. |
|
|
|
Post by mrhk on Aug 28, 2024 14:20:57 GMT
In light of the merging of routes 45 and 118, in the same area, I propose that routes 415 and 432 also get merged together as they are both relatively short routes, mirroring eachother from Brixton to Tulse Hill. They also both have similar PVRs, with the 432s beinf 12 and the 415s being 9 buses.
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 28, 2024 15:28:03 GMT
In light of the merging of routes 45 and 118, in the same area, I propose that routes 415 and 432 also get merged together as they are both relatively short routes, mirroring eachother from Brixton to Tulse Hill. They also both have similar PVRs, with the 432s beinf 12 and the 415s being 9 buses. As a local to both routes, I completely disagree. For starters, you don't just merge routes because they have similar PVR's or are short - not sure why people keep falling for this belief. Secondly, the capacity of both routes is needed as the 432 (and 2 to an extent) loads incredibly heavily out of Brixton and the 415 acts as a capacity sponge that otherwise would result in leaving people behind as what was happening before it;s frequency increase. Thirdly, the max running time of a combined route would be over 90 minutes which IMO, is too much. There would also be little to no new trips being generated because the network where I live is already quite extensive - people south of Tulse Hill who require Elephant have the 196 & 468 & Crystal Palace already has extensive links to a myriad of places Lastly, 100's of routes across London on 100's of different little sections will mirror another route - it's not a good enough reason to simply merge without context of the situation involved. |
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Aug 28, 2024 15:38:19 GMT
In light of the merging of routes 45 and 118, in the same area, I propose that routes 415 and 432 also get merged together as they are both relatively short routes, mirroring eachother from Brixton to Tulse Hill. They also both have similar PVRs, with the 432s beinf 12 and the 415s being 9 buses. I agree with vjaska. The 415 & 432 should not be merged. I have said in the past that these routes should be merged but as someone who regularly does the 2 & 432 the capacity along Tulse Hill is needed even when all 3 buses arrive at once as the trains arrive in Brixton. If you merge the 415 & 432 the frequency of the merged route will need to be doubled. When the Transport UK was on strike last year and the 415 not running it was definitely noticeable. |
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Aug 28, 2024 15:43:11 GMT
In light of the merging of routes 45 and 118, in the same area, I propose that routes 415 and 432 also get merged together as they are both relatively short routes, mirroring eachother from Brixton to Tulse Hill. They also both have similar PVRs, with the 432s beinf 12 and the 415s being 9 buses. As a local to both routes, I completely disagree. For starters, you don't just merge routes because they have similar PVR's or are short - not sure why people keep falling for this belief. Secondly, the capacity of both routes is needed as the 432 (and 2 to an extent) loads incredibly heavily out of Brixton and the 415 acts as a capacity sponge that otherwise would result in leaving people behind as what was happening before it;s frequency increase. Thirdly, the max running time of a combined route would be over 90 minutes which IMO, is too much. There would also be little to no new trips being generated because the network where I live is already quite extensive - people south of Tulse Hill who require Elephant have the 196 & 468 & Crystal Palace already has extensive links to a myriad of places Lastly, 100's of routes across London on 100's of different little sections will mirror another route - it's not a good enough reason to simply merge without context of the situation involved. I think merging the 415/432 (save for the scenario of losing capacity between Brixton and Tulse Hill) would have been a good idea when the 415 only went to Elephant but now it's probably best to keep the routes seperate, especially given the potential to 'bulk out' the 415 by extending it further into the new developments around Bermondsey and Canada Water. I do think it would be good to extend the 432 at the same time to Elmers End (Green) but unfortunately I just can't see there being enough demand to pay for 2 extra double deckers running along that stretch. Maybe if the Elmers End Tesco site was redeveloped with housing (like Kennington or Streatham stores) with some S106 funding to pay for it.... |
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Sept 15, 2024 11:27:56 GMT
Routes 139 could be withdrawn, with route 189 increased appropriately.
The section from West Hampstead to Golders Green was only introduced for operational convenience.
Given the Bakerloo Line in the area, already under-used, this would cover most links. Route 453 could be rerouted via Bond Street Station to maintain some current links. Alternatively, route 176 could be diverted to Oxford Circus and route 15 extended to Tottenham Court Road.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrhk on Sept 15, 2024 12:04:35 GMT
Routes 139 could be withdrawn, with route 189 increased appropriately. The section from West Hampstead to Golders Green was only introduced for operational convenience. Given the Bakerloo Line in the area, already under-used, this would cover most links. Route 453 could be rerouted via Bond Street Station to maintain some current links. Alternatively, route 176 could be diverted to Oxford Circus and route 15 extended to Tottenham Court Road. I thought 139 was extended to replace the old 13? Surely, West Hampstead would've been more convenient for ML |
|
|
|
Post by matthieu1221 on Sept 15, 2024 14:06:30 GMT
Routes 139 could be withdrawn, with route 189 increased appropriately. The section from West Hampstead to Golders Green was only introduced for operational convenience. Given the Bakerloo Line in the area, already under-used, this would cover most links. Route 453 could be rerouted via Bond Street Station to maintain some current links. Alternatively, route 176 could be diverted to Oxford Circus and route 15 extended to Tottenham Court Road. Quite honestly would not approve. This is one of those useful short-hop services in Central London. It's already becoming hard enough to head (figuratively) straight down the road for some quite basic links where one should not be expected to change buses in Central London. Breaking up the 139 would just compound that issue and drive more passengers away.
Looking at your mitigation one by one: 453 (I assume via Baker Street then LOR after Oxford Circus?), why not.
However, 176 (I'm assuming diversion via Piccadilly Circus and Regent Street rather than extension from TCR given the 15 extension), need to retain a link between Leicester Square & E&C & beyond which is incredibly busy especially in the evenings and late evenings.
15, TCR is the 'wrong' way for a logical extension. Sure, to retain links to Aldwych, but in it itself on that short segment there aren't a massive number of pax doing TCR <-> Aldwych via Strand and going no further. The 176's attraction is linking Waterloo & far beyond (late evenings when things get very busy -- 80% of passengers stay on beyond Waterloo). If you wanted TCR to the East say the City, would be quicker to take the 8 and change and I assume anyway longer journeys were not what you had in mind for this extension.
Separately to all this, given the state of the Bakerloo Line rolling stock and absolute lack of movement on replacement or possible mitigation, it might be prudent not to rely on it to retain links (and either way I think most people would use their two feet to walk as that's more attractive than heading up and down to the tube for short hops in Central London if the bus doesn't get them there reasonably directly without needing a swap).
|
|
|
|
Post by ian on Sept 15, 2024 15:32:00 GMT
Routes 139 could be withdrawn, with route 189 increased appropriately. The section from West Hampstead to Golders Green was only introduced for operational convenience. Given the Bakerloo Line in the area, already under-used, this would cover most links. Route 453 could be rerouted via Bond Street Station to maintain some current links. Alternatively, route 176 could be diverted to Oxford Circus and route 15 extended to Tottenham Court Road. I thought 139 was extended to replace the old 13? Surely, West Hampstead would've been more convenient for ML Route 139's extension to Golders Green was indeed to mitigate loss of old 13, and maintain links to central London from Golders Green and parts of Childs Hill so its abolition would sever those links. |
|
|
|
Post by greg on Sept 15, 2024 16:21:57 GMT
Routes 139 could be withdrawn, with route 189 increased appropriately. The section from West Hampstead to Golders Green was only introduced for operational convenience. Given the Bakerloo Line in the area, already under-used, this would cover most links. Route 453 could be rerouted via Bond Street Station to maintain some current links. Alternatively, route 176 could be diverted to Oxford Circus and route 15 extended to Tottenham Court Road. While I’d heavily disagree, I wouldn’t rule it out because it not the worst of resourceful measures. Id disagree with your proposals though, and a more simpler change would be to reroute the 274 to Waterloo instead from Marble Arch. I’d argue no route needs to be extended to Lancaster Gate and the link to Baker Street still gets maintained as thats the most popular travel pattern west of Oxford Circus. The 274 is regularly a short route so should be able to handle the extension to Waterloo. However the cons are: Baker Street to Fortune Green is a very popular link, and while it can be done on the 13/113, there are people in the Abbey Road corridor that wouldnt be able to walk further enough to Finchley Road, and rely on the 139 for this. An idea that could be suggested is a reroute of route 187 from Hall Road replacing the 139 to this section and being extended to West Hampstead (stand is only unavailable to LTs and high frequency routes). It then would be withdrawn from Hall Road junction with SJW Road up to the 02 Centre, but this should be fine as you have the 46, and 13/113 from SJW. The 187 is definitely the least used route on the Finchley Road corridor anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Sept 15, 2024 17:47:05 GMT
Routes 139 could be withdrawn, with route 189 increased appropriately. The section from West Hampstead to Golders Green was only introduced for operational convenience. Given the Bakerloo Line in the area, already under-used, this would cover most links. Route 453 could be rerouted via Bond Street Station to maintain some current links. Alternatively, route 176 could be diverted to Oxford Circus and route 15 extended to Tottenham Court Road. The 139 does look vulnerable, the 189 could perhaps be rerouted via Mill Lane and the 32 rerouted via Quex Road and Abbey Road to keep the round the corner link if a stand can be found somewhere near Lords Cricket Ground? The 94 could perhaps be extended to Waterloo and the 189 rerouted to Piccadilly Circus? |
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Sept 15, 2024 17:51:01 GMT
Routes 139 could be withdrawn, with route 189 increased appropriately. The section from West Hampstead to Golders Green was only introduced for operational convenience. Given the Bakerloo Line in the area, already under-used, this would cover most links. Route 453 could be rerouted via Bond Street Station to maintain some current links. Alternatively, route 176 could be diverted to Oxford Circus and route 15 extended to Tottenham Court Road. Quite honestly would not approve. This is one of those useful short-hop services in Central London. It's already becoming hard enough to head (figuratively) straight down the road for some quite basic links where one should not be expected to change buses in Central London. Breaking up the 139 would just compound that issue and drive more passengers away.
Looking at your mitigation one by one: 453 (I assume via Baker Street then LOR after Oxford Circus?), why not.
However, 176 (I'm assuming diversion via Piccadilly Circus and Regent Street rather than extension from TCR given the 15 extension), need to retain a link between Leicester Square & E&C & beyond which is incredibly busy especially in the evenings and late evenings.
15, TCR is the 'wrong' way for a logical extension. Sure, to retain links to Aldwych, but in it itself on that short segment there aren't a massive number of pax doing TCR <-> Aldwych via Strand and going no further. The 176's attraction is linking Waterloo & far beyond (late evenings when things get very busy -- 80% of passengers stay on beyond Waterloo). If you wanted TCR to the East say the City, would be quicker to take the 8 and change and I assume anyway longer journeys were not what you had in mind for this extension.
Separately to all this, given the state of the Bakerloo Line rolling stock and absolute lack of movement on replacement or possible mitigation, it might be prudent not to rely on it to retain links (and either way I think most people would use their two feet to walk as that's more attractive than heading up and down to the tube for short hops in Central London if the bus doesn't get them there reasonably directly without needing a swap).
I welcome you looking at all my detail. I was concerned about the loss of the link from Waterloo to Regent Street by route 139 - hence my route 176 proposal - but overlooked the link to Leicester Square. So, rather than extend route 15 to Tottenham Court Road, they could extend route 29 to Waterloo or even Elephant & Castle. |
|
|
|
Post by thekbq14 on Sept 15, 2024 18:08:57 GMT
As a local to both routes, I completely disagree. For starters, you don't just merge routes because they have similar PVR's or are short - not sure why people keep falling for this belief. Secondly, the capacity of both routes is needed as the 432 (and 2 to an extent) loads incredibly heavily out of Brixton and the 415 acts as a capacity sponge that otherwise would result in leaving people behind as what was happening before it;s frequency increase. Thirdly, the max running time of a combined route would be over 90 minutes which IMO, is too much. There would also be little to no new trips being generated because the network where I live is already quite extensive - people south of Tulse Hill who require Elephant have the 196 & 468 & Crystal Palace already has extensive links to a myriad of places Lastly, 100's of routes across London on 100's of different little sections will mirror another route - it's not a good enough reason to simply merge without context of the situation involved. I think merging the 415/432 (save for the scenario of losing capacity between Brixton and Tulse Hill) would have been a good idea when the 415 only went to Elephant but now it's probably best to keep the routes seperate, especially given the potential to 'bulk out' the 415 by extending it further into the new developments around Bermondsey and Canada Water. I do think it would be good to extend the 432 at the same time to Elmers End (Green) but unfortunately I just can't see there being enough demand to pay for 2 extra double deckers running along that stretch. Maybe if the Elmers End Tesco site was redeveloped with housing (like Kennington or Streatham stores) with some S106 funding to pay for it.... I agree, and I don't see the Tesco at Elmers End or the industrial estates nearby being redeveloped either. Especially with new flats already been built on the other side of the bridge by Longheath Gardens/Arena tram stop semi recently. With Croydon Council even at one point wanting to redevelop the Golf Course before local opposition. The only other way I can see an extension of the 432 down to Elmers End is if the Bakerloo get extended to Hayes, and tfl from there would want to create a faster link from Crystal Palace to Elmers End as the 358 already does that link albeit slower, however there's local opposition and funding issues with the extension plus the route will be the same up until Lewisham where even though more frequent will be slower, so there's no real reason why they will postpone it apart from funding issues. |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Sept 15, 2024 18:18:33 GMT
In light of the merging of routes 45 and 118, in the same area, I propose that routes 415 and 432 also get merged together as they are both relatively short routes, mirroring eachother from Brixton to Tulse Hill. They also both have similar PVRs, with the 432s beinf 12 and the 415s being 9 buses. It's been suggested on here before, the only argument against it is whether the current capacity is needed between Brixton and Tulse Hill and if it is could it be provided in another way? |
|
