|
|
Post by mark on May 29, 2024 7:24:11 GMT
haveyoursay.tfl.gov.uk/14-414-proposalsConsultation *page* opened....but not the consultation! Due to the general election pre-election period. The 14/414 also serves two election "battleground seats" Cabinet Office guidance advises the postponement of all non-essential consultations between dissolution of Parliament and the date of an election. |
|
|
|
Post by busman on May 29, 2024 8:31:29 GMT
There's obvious anger from all the drivers at Wood Green after this latest bungle. Again he's out in the rain with no umbrella as he announced this   He should just stick to his helicopters and armoured cars   Nothing to see here until after purdah. I’m only here for these articles 😭😭😭 |
|
|
|
Post by sdaniel on May 29, 2024 18:12:59 GMT
I was thinking perhaps…..
14: Rerouted/Extended to Kings Cross via TCR, Warren Street
30: Extended to Lancaster Gate (to replace 274’s withdrawn section between Marble Arch and Lancaster Gate)
73: Extended to Victoria
390: Rerouted to Hammersmith Bus Station/Rerouted via Southampton Row/Russell Square (withdrawn between TCR and Euston Square, replaced by 14) [Also renumbered as Bus Route 10]
274: Rerouted/Extended to South Kensington to support the 14 (withdrawn between Marble Arch & Lancaster Gate)
414: Withdrawn (replaced by 14 & 274)
|
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on May 29, 2024 18:20:29 GMT
I was thinking perhaps….. 14: Rerouted/Extended to Kings Cross via TCR, Warren Street 30: Extended to Lancaster Gate (to replace 274’s withdrawn section between Marble Arch and Lancaster Gate) 73: Extended to Victoria 390: Rerouted to Hammersmith Bus Station/Rerouted via Southampton Row/Russell Square (withdrawn between TCR and Euston Square, replaced by 14) [Also renumbered as Bus Route 10] 274: Rerouted/Extended to South Kensington to support the 14 (withdrawn between Marble Arch & Lancaster Gate) 414: Withdrawn (replaced by 14 & 274) Rather ambitions. I'd be more inclined to; 14 increased to every 8 mins. 414 withdrawn. |
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on May 29, 2024 19:08:15 GMT
I was thinking perhaps….. 14: Rerouted/Extended to Kings Cross via TCR, Warren Street 30: Extended to Lancaster Gate (to replace 274’s withdrawn section between Marble Arch and Lancaster Gate) 73: Extended to Victoria 390: Rerouted to Hammersmith Bus Station/Rerouted via Southampton Row/Russell Square (withdrawn between TCR and Euston Square, replaced by 14) [Also renumbered as Bus Route 10] 274: Rerouted/Extended to South Kensington to support the 14 (withdrawn between Marble Arch & Lancaster Gate) 414: Withdrawn (replaced by 14 & 274) Rather ambitions. I'd be more inclined to; 14 increased to every 8 mins. 414 withdrawn. Be nice if the 14 could go to every 6 min. But basically yes, I agree. It certainly doesn’t need all the convoluted changes set out by sdaniel . |
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on May 29, 2024 19:16:04 GMT
I was thinking perhaps….. 14: Rerouted/Extended to Kings Cross via TCR, Warren Street 30: Extended to Lancaster Gate (to replace 274’s withdrawn section between Marble Arch and Lancaster Gate) 73: Extended to Victoria 390: Rerouted to Hammersmith Bus Station/Rerouted via Southampton Row/Russell Square (withdrawn between TCR and Euston Square, replaced by 14) [Also renumbered as Bus Route 10] 274: Rerouted/Extended to South Kensington to support the 14 (withdrawn between Marble Arch & Lancaster Gate) 414: Withdrawn (replaced by 14 & 274) Rather ambitions. I'd be more inclined to; 14 increased to every 8 mins. 414 withdrawn. Exactly and this is probably what the consultation will be along the lines of. But hey any excuse on here for making changes can't be missed |
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on May 29, 2024 21:35:06 GMT
I was thinking perhaps….. 14: Rerouted/Extended to Kings Cross via TCR, Warren Street 30: Extended to Lancaster Gate (to replace 274’s withdrawn section between Marble Arch and Lancaster Gate) 73: Extended to Victoria 390: Rerouted to Hammersmith Bus Station/Rerouted via Southampton Row/Russell Square (withdrawn between TCR and Euston Square, replaced by 14) [Also renumbered as Bus Route 10] 274: Rerouted/Extended to South Kensington to support the 14 (withdrawn between Marble Arch & Lancaster Gate) 414: Withdrawn (replaced by 14 & 274) Why do you feel the need to unnecessarily renumber the 390? I do like the idea of the 9 getting support, but the bus network around Marble Arch need not be significantly uplifted for that objective to happen. |
|
|
|
Post by bk10mfe on May 30, 2024 12:39:28 GMT
I was thinking perhaps….. 14: Rerouted/Extended to Kings Cross via TCR, Warren Street 30: Extended to Lancaster Gate (to replace 274’s withdrawn section between Marble Arch and Lancaster Gate) 73: Extended to Victoria 390: Rerouted to Hammersmith Bus Station/Rerouted via Southampton Row/Russell Square (withdrawn between TCR and Euston Square, replaced by 14) [Also renumbered as Bus Route 10] 274: Rerouted/Extended to South Kensington to support the 14 (withdrawn between Marble Arch & Lancaster Gate) 414: Withdrawn (replaced by 14 & 274) Why do you feel the need to unnecessarily renumber the 390? I do like the idea of the 9 getting support, but the bus network around Marble Arch need not be significantly uplifted for that objective to happen. A previous idea that I suggested was to have kept the 10 unchanged in its previous form & withdraw the 390 instead. The 390 would have been the better route to remove as it had fewer unique sections than the 10. The 17 would reroute between Kings Cross & Archway via the 390’s LOR which enables a route to be taken off the Caledonian Road corridor which TfL did try to remove the 259 off of before. I also agree that the buses around Marble Arch involving the 30/274 changes aren’t needed. Maybe if the 74 withdrawal had gone ahead, though I would probably prefer the 74 restructured to operate between Roehampton & Marble Arch at 24hours with the 430 & N74 withdrawn & the 190 possibly extended to South Kensington. |
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on May 30, 2024 13:03:44 GMT
The 414 has seemed like low hanging fruit for cuts for years and serves even less purpose since the Marble Arch cut back, I always thought some of the proposals to cut back on duplication would inevitably be reheated at some point. The ridiculous 6 rerouting via Park Lane ultimately killed the 414. The 74 retains links to Park Lane for many, not that I've ever seen a 414 with more than three people on it up there. Not sure about the 14's frequency increase though as I see others have pointed out. In my experience there are fairly generous levels of bus capacity along Piccadilly as it is, in all honesty, I'm surprised there hasn't been a renewed effort to rationalise the 14/19/38 duplication. Perhaps the solution would have been to truncate the 414 to South Kensington instead seeing as TFL standardisation is anti-short workings so it would effectively be a 14B in all but name.
To free up the South Kensington stand, I would reroute the 430 up to Hammersmith to aid the 220, thus solving quite a few problems in one go.
Also, on the subject of the Putney routes, I'm still not convinced that the 22 to Oxo has worked either.
|
|
|
|
Post by greg on May 30, 2024 15:07:13 GMT
The 414 has seemed like low hanging fruit for cuts for years and serves even less purpose since the Marble Arch cut back, I always thought some of the proposals to cut back on duplication would inevitably be reheated at some point. The ridiculous 6 rerouting via Park Lane ultimately killed the 414. The 74 retains links to Park Lane for many, not that I've ever seen a 414 with more than three people on it up there. Not sure about the 14's frequency increase though as I see others have pointed out. In my experience there are fairly generous levels of bus capacity along Piccadilly as it is, in all honesty, I'm surprised there hasn't been a renewed effort to rationalise the 14/19/38 duplication. Perhaps the solution would have been to truncate the 414 to South Kensington instead seeing as TFL standardisation is anti-short workings so it would effectively be a 14B in all but name. To free up the South Kensington stand, I would reroute the 430 up to Hammersmith to aid the 220, thus solving quite a few problems in one go. Also, on the subject of the Putney routes, I'm still not convinced that the 22 to Oxo has worked either. Ive always hoped one day (would never happen) that TFL swap the 24/38 routings between Cambridge Circus and Victoria. It reduces the duplication and adds new and unserved links for both routes. The only minor issue I can see with it is Victoria Street getting two buses towards Hackney albeit different routings in Central London which may not be needed, and another route further south being removed, both the 26/38 would finish at Victoria leaving the 11/148 only routes heading south. If it was to happen, the 29/88 would be the replacement for any broken 24 links other than Victoria Street, which is a short walk away from Parliament Square and the 24 would still serve Victoria. I think the 14/19/24 via Piccadilly and 29/38/176 via TSQ would be much more useful |
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on May 30, 2024 20:45:13 GMT
The 414 has seemed like low hanging fruit for cuts for years and serves even less purpose since the Marble Arch cut back, I always thought some of the proposals to cut back on duplication would inevitably be reheated at some point. The ridiculous 6 rerouting via Park Lane ultimately killed the 414. The 74 retains links to Park Lane for many, not that I've ever seen a 414 with more than three people on it up there. Not sure about the 14's frequency increase though as I see others have pointed out. In my experience there are fairly generous levels of bus capacity along Piccadilly as it is, in all honesty, I'm surprised there hasn't been a renewed effort to rationalise the 14/19/38 duplication. Perhaps the solution would have been to truncate the 414 to South Kensington instead seeing as TFL standardisation is anti-short workings so it would effectively be a 14B in all but name. To free up the South Kensington stand, I would reroute the 430 up to Hammersmith to aid the 220, thus solving quite a few problems in one go. Also, on the subject of the Putney routes, I'm still not convinced that the 22 to Oxo has worked either. It's not often the case but I do hope the wealthy residents in the Chelsea area continue to fight for the 19 for decades to come. Maybe all of them are Arsenal supporters and take the 19 to Highbury on match days! Think it's unanimous to say that no route that has trundled through Mayfair in the past 15 years has been a success. Seeing as the Elizabeth line is running and TfL are proposing lengthier routes, perhaps this is the chance for the 8 to be reinstated to Victoria. It would kill a few birds with a single stone, one of which is giving east London a proper link back to Oxford Street. Or another route, if people deviate from labelling the 55 being a north-east London route. |
|
|
|
Post by bk10mfe on May 30, 2024 21:51:48 GMT
The 414 has seemed like low hanging fruit for cuts for years and serves even less purpose since the Marble Arch cut back, I always thought some of the proposals to cut back on duplication would inevitably be reheated at some point. The ridiculous 6 rerouting via Park Lane ultimately killed the 414. The 74 retains links to Park Lane for many, not that I've ever seen a 414 with more than three people on it up there. Not sure about the 14's frequency increase though as I see others have pointed out. In my experience there are fairly generous levels of bus capacity along Piccadilly as it is, in all honesty, I'm surprised there hasn't been a renewed effort to rationalise the 14/19/38 duplication. Perhaps the solution would have been to truncate the 414 to South Kensington instead seeing as TFL standardisation is anti-short workings so it would effectively be a 14B in all but name. To free up the South Kensington stand, I would reroute the 430 up to Hammersmith to aid the 220, thus solving quite a few problems in one go. Also, on the subject of the Putney routes, I'm still not convinced that the 22 to Oxo has worked either. It's not often the case but I do hope the wealthy residents in the Chelsea area continue to fight for the 19 for decades to come. Maybe all of them are Arsenal supporters and take the 19 to Highbury on match days! Think it's unanimous to say that no route that has trundled through Mayfair in the past 15 years has been a success. Seeing as the Elizabeth line is running and TfL are proposing lengthier routes, perhaps this is the chance for the 8 to be reinstated to Victoria. It would kill a few birds with a single stone, one of which is giving east London a proper link back to Oxford Street. Or another route, if people deviate from labelling the 55 being a north-east London route. Sending the 8 back to Victoria could work, I’d imagine it wouldn’t be any harder to manage that route than the current 26. You would need to remove LT’s from the 8 but the 8 could easily swap vehicles with the 205. I imagine if the 22 isn’t needed to run to Oxford Circus anymore, you could probably merge it with the 11 into a Putney Common-Waterloo route, which on the whole would make more savings for TfL. |
|
|
|
Post by greg on May 30, 2024 22:24:53 GMT
It's not often the case but I do hope the wealthy residents in the Chelsea area continue to fight for the 19 for decades to come. Maybe all of them are Arsenal supporters and take the 19 to Highbury on match days! Think it's unanimous to say that no route that has trundled through Mayfair in the past 15 years has been a success. Seeing as the Elizabeth line is running and TfL are proposing lengthier routes, perhaps this is the chance for the 8 to be reinstated to Victoria. It would kill a few birds with a single stone, one of which is giving east London a proper link back to Oxford Street. Or another route, if people deviate from labelling the 55 being a north-east London route. Sending the 8 back to Victoria could work, I’d imagine it wouldn’t be any harder to manage that route than the current 26. You would need to remove LT’s from the 8 but the 8 could easily swap vehicles with the 205. I imagine if the 22 isn’t needed to run to Oxford Circus anymore, you could probably merge it with the 11 into a Putney Common-Waterloo route, which on the whole would make more savings for TfL. 8 to Victoria via the 22 routing would vary as successful in my opinion. Would it not be far more useful via Selfridges, Marble Arch and HPC and retouting the 390 via Green Park instead? |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on May 30, 2024 23:49:21 GMT
It's not often the case but I do hope the wealthy residents in the Chelsea area continue to fight for the 19 for decades to come. Maybe all of them are Arsenal supporters and take the 19 to Highbury on match days! Think it's unanimous to say that no route that has trundled through Mayfair in the past 15 years has been a success. Seeing as the Elizabeth line is running and TfL are proposing lengthier routes, perhaps this is the chance for the 8 to be reinstated to Victoria. It would kill a few birds with a single stone, one of which is giving east London a proper link back to Oxford Street. Or another route, if people deviate from labelling the 55 being a north-east London route. Sending the 8 back to Victoria could work, I’d imagine it wouldn’t be any harder to manage that route than the current 26. You would need to remove LT’s from the 8 but the 8 could easily swap vehicles with the 205. I imagine if the 22 isn’t needed to run to Oxford Circus anymore, you could probably merge it with the 11 into a Putney Common-Waterloo route, which on the whole would make more savings for TfL. I would be against any idea of touching the 11 - let it breathe in it's new role now it can be actually relied on turn up without much issue rather than making further unnecessary cuts - the network needs to start growing again rather than continually making ineffective mergers just for financial affairs. |
|
|
|
Post by matthieu1221 on May 31, 2024 0:57:47 GMT
The 414 has seemed like low hanging fruit for cuts for years and serves even less purpose since the Marble Arch cut back, I always thought some of the proposals to cut back on duplication would inevitably be reheated at some point. The ridiculous 6 rerouting via Park Lane ultimately killed the 414. The 74 retains links to Park Lane for many, not that I've ever seen a 414 with more than three people on it up there. Not sure about the 14's frequency increase though as I see others have pointed out. In my experience there are fairly generous levels of bus capacity along Piccadilly as it is, in all honesty, I'm surprised there hasn't been a renewed effort to rationalise the 14/19/38 duplication. Perhaps the solution would have been to truncate the 414 to South Kensington instead seeing as TFL standardisation is anti-short workings so it would effectively be a 14B in all but name. To free up the South Kensington stand, I would reroute the 430 up to Hammersmith to aid the 220, thus solving quite a few problems in one go. Also, on the subject of the Putney routes, I'm still not convinced that the 22 to Oxo has worked either. The 414 would have been more useful if it didn't toss people off on the far side of Park Lane at Marble Arch. The pick up stop -- closer to civilisation -- does get decent boardings. |
|
