Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2014 14:51:20 GMT
Now to do one for routes outside of my own local area One route where you'd reduce peak hour services. Please say how much you'd reduce services by.The 38 - has enough buses to cope for a reduction, probably reduce it to a standardised 6 minutes. I'd probably also target a number of other more busy routes around Central London for PVR reductions. The best thing for the 38 IMO would be a tightening of the timetable - current schedules are way too slack even in the peaks. Cut the day-time running time from 1h15m to 1h5m (still more than bendy running times) and you can save about 8 or 9 buses already, without any frequency reductions. Current peak frequency is about the same as what it was in RM days so I probably wouldn't touch it. Off-peak frequency could be reduced to every 4 minutes to save some variable costs.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jan 4, 2014 15:13:41 GMT
We spend a lot of time coming up with ideas to improve bus routes on the forum. However a New Year means we can't keep raiding the piggy bank and have to, instead, sharpen the axe and start cutting services to save money. Therefore your ideas for saving money are requested. Please nominate :- One route you'd scrap altogether without replacement. Route 415 is taken as read so can't be nominated. One route where you'd reduce early morning and evening services. Please say how much you'd reduce services by. You can, if you wish, scrap service at these times completely. One route where you'd reduce peak hour services. Please say how much you'd reduce services by. One route where you'd scrap a section of route. Please say which section you'd scrap. One route where you'd scrap Sunday services. Clearly passengers may be inconvenienced by your proposals but we don't care. We must save money!! I find it quite interesting that whenever we have a post for new route ideas, people always want to extend a route that adds "new links" over existing sections (like the 220 extension to Tooting recently mentioned) but the 415, which provides exclusive links from Tulse Hill to Kennington/Elephant, always gets in the firing line for withdrawal in this of post (I know you are only avoiding a very predictable answer with your post Snoggle!)! Albeit not a very busy route for the areas it serves. The 415 is always in the firing line because the very few links it does provide can be done by the infinitely more important 432 if extended over the 415 to Elephant. Whenever I see the 415, it is little used compared to the 432 yet the 432, a route which is quite busy and the quickest route between Palace & Brixton, was downgraded to accommodate it. You can create a new trunk route along the 415 & 432 by extending the 432 at both ends Anerley to Elmers End via Anerley (Robin Hood) & Birkbeck Station Brixton to Surrey Canal via the 415 to Elephant, then the proposed 415 extension This would create lots of new links and a much improved 432 service. Although there are 2 traffic hotspots (Brixton & Elephant), the rest of the route is relatively traffic free (West Norwood does have niggles but is generally fine).
|
|
|
Post by sw11simon on Jan 4, 2014 16:34:03 GMT
I find it quite interesting that whenever we have a post for new route ideas, people always want to extend a route that adds "new links" over existing sections (like the 220 extension to Tooting recently mentioned) but the 415, which provides exclusive links from Tulse Hill to Kennington/Elephant, always gets in the firing line for withdrawal in this of post (I know you are only avoiding a very predictable answer with your post Snoggle!)! Albeit not a very busy route for the areas it serves. The 415 is always in the firing line because the very few links it does provide can be done by the infinitely more important 432 if extended over the 415 to Elephant. Whenever I see the 415, it is little used compared to the 432 yet the 432, a route which is quite busy and the quickest route between Palace & Brixton, was downgraded to accommodate it. You can create a new trunk route along the 415 & 432 by extending the 432 at both ends Anerley to Elmers End via Anerley (Robin Hood) & Birkbeck Station Brixton to Surrey Canal via the 415 to Elephant, then the proposed 415 extension This would create lots of new links and a much improved 432 service. Although there are 2 traffic hotspots (Brixton & Elephant), the rest of the route is relatively traffic free (West Norwood does have niggles but is generally fine). I do get your argument here, but as the 415 and 432 both basically run every 12 mins over the Tulse Hill common section, the proposal above either reduces the frequency along Tulse Hill by 5 bph or costs a hell of lot of money to boost the 432 to every 6 minutes over that full route described(or even a compromise to every 8 minutes). In addition, the 133 is frequent enough along the common section between Brixton and Elephant for no boost to be required here at all. I doubt the cost v benefit makes it viable. Anyway, it is not the subject of this thread...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2014 17:27:02 GMT
Continuing on the tangent for a while, I always thought the 432 should be extended to Victoria allowing the 2 to be reduced for the quieter section north of Victoria. My suggestion would be to run both routes at 6 bph, which would give the busiest Brixton - Victoria section an extra 4 bph but would mean W Norwood - Brixton loses 1 bph.
The other place that on the surface seem overbussed is Ealing - Greenford with god knows how many E-routes. I'd have thought at least one of them could be 'rationalised away' ...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2014 19:36:11 GMT
We spend a lot of time coming up with ideas to improve bus routes on the forum. However a New Year means we can't keep raiding the piggy bank and have to, instead, sharpen the axe and start cutting services to save money. Therefore your ideas for saving money are requested. Please nominate :- One route you'd scrap altogether without replacement. Route 415 is taken as read so can't be nominated. One route where you'd reduce early morning and evening services. Please say how much you'd reduce services by. You can, if you wish, scrap service at these times completely. One route where you'd reduce peak hour services. Please say how much you'd reduce services by. One route where you'd scrap a section of route. Please say which section you'd scrap. One route where you'd scrap Sunday services. Clearly passengers may be inconvenienced by your proposals but we don't care. We must save money!! I find it quite interesting that whenever we have a post for new route ideas, people always want to extend a route that adds "new links" over existing sections (like the 220 extension to Tooting recently mentioned) but the 415, which provides exclusive links from Tulse Hill to Kennington/Elephant, always gets in the firing line for withdrawal in this of post (I know you are only avoiding a very predictable answer with your post Snoggle!)! Albeit not a very busy route for the areas it serves. One route you'd scrap altogether without replacement: This is difficult, someone is always going to be inconvenienced as I cannot think of a route that completely mirrors other routes. So thinking of routes where alternatives (changes) are viable to do the same journey in general I am going to plump for route 452. One route where you'd reduce early morning and evening services: This will sound like I am picking on a certain garage, and as a route I regularly use I would not really want it to happen, but the C3 would easily cope with a reduced frequency at these times. One route where you'd reduce peak hour services: A few months ago I would have said route 12 but it has been done! So I'll go for the C3 again - the double deckers never a full load so a reduction would cope without leaving people behind. One route where you'd scrap a section of route: I'll wind a few people up here... route 53 between Elephant and Whitehall. There is capacity on 12/453 to take the people that travel north of Elephant and as far as I can tell most people boarding a Whitehall to travel south change off other buses anyway and could continue to Elephant to make this change. One route where you'd scrap Sunday services: Focussing on routes where other options are generally available (even if it means a change of buses) & linking it to a route that goes to an area of lower demand (The City) I am going to plump for route 11 for low(ish) overall realistic effect.[/ quote] What has extending the 220 got to do with the 415? The plan is to withdraw the 415 and extend the 432 to Elephant & Castle so no links would be lost. The only change would be reducing the number of buses along Tulse Hill to a more realistic level.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2014 19:42:44 GMT
Very silly thing to do would be to shorten both routes to Harrow Bus Station. Both routes are well used all the way up to Harrow Weald and the infrequent Nd non reliable 258 and 340 can not make up for these losses if they were to materialise. Also the 182 serves western side of Uxbridge Road in the Harow Weald area ans axing it from there would mean a 15 minute walk at least to the nearest bus stop, needless to say most of the residents in that area are elderly, so it's at least a 25 minute walk for them. Those at Uxbridge Road / Oxhey Lane could also use the H14. But that said I'd probably keep the 182 but cut the section of 140 north of Harrow. I'd also be tempted to increase the 258 to every 12 so that it can be properly coordinated with the 142 and 340. What one could also do is to only send 5 out of the 7 or 8 bph from the 182 to north of Harrow you have three 5-bph routes to the roundabout offering a combined uniform 4-minute headway. The H14 is another infrequent route, and what about the people who live near the top of Uxbridge Road. Cutting the 2 routes would create more of a problem than a solution. Cutting the 140 is another idea that shouldn't be thought of, it is the only direct link from Northolt to that side of Harrow and widely used by school children and people going to work. One suggestion I'd have is to run the route via Belsize road down to Oxhey Lane, a practise they so often. What id instead do is decrease the running time between South Harrow and Harrow Weald to make for more effective running. I'd suggest decreasing the PVR from the 24 to 20 and using 4 vehicles on a half hourly express 140 running from Harrow Bus Station to Heathrow calling at South Harrow Station, Northolt Station, Hayes & Harlington Station and Heathrow Airport Central Bus Station.
|
|
|
Post by paulsw2 on Jan 4, 2014 20:03:42 GMT
I find it quite interesting that whenever we have a post for new route ideas, people always want to extend a route that adds "new links" over existing sections (like the 220 extension to Tooting recently mentioned) but the 415, which provides exclusive links from Tulse Hill to Kennington/Elephant, always gets in the firing line for withdrawal in this of post (I know you are only avoiding a very predictable answer with your post Snoggle!)! Albeit not a very busy route for the areas it serves. quote] What has extending the 220 got to do with the 415? The plan is to withdraw the 415 and extend the 432 to Elephant & Castle so no links would be lost. The only change would be reducing the number of buses along Tulse Hill to a more realistic level. It is already hard enough to try and get on a bus in the peaks as it is already a reduction in frequency is definitely not needed I speak from personal experience as I use 2 415 432
|
|
|
Post by Nathan on Jan 4, 2014 20:07:48 GMT
I'd scrap the 138, 178, 199, 231, 296, 312, 330, 332, 396, B11, T32, T33. Ok the 178 always full and it has an useful link as its serves Lewisham, Kidbrooke and QE Hospital. The B11 lone serves Alsike Road and Lodge Hill and is always full. 199 lone seves Pepys Estate you would need to stick a route through there Hmm...maybe you could extend the 1 from Canada Water to Deptford Bridge via Pepys Estate then via the 47 route. Or if it's too far it can turn at the roundabout at Deptford Chruch Street. But it might as well go the whole way to Deptford Bridge.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2014 20:28:59 GMT
It is already hard enough to try and get on a bus in the peaks as it is already a reduction in frequency is definitely not needed I speak from personal experience as I use 2 415 432 More buses at peak times.......fine. But the 2, 415 and 432 are not needed all day
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jan 4, 2014 20:54:45 GMT
It is already hard enough to try and get on a bus in the peaks as it is already a reduction in frequency is definitely not needed I speak from personal experience as I use 2 415 432 And I use all three routes and I can tell you that you can easily board a 415 no problem in the peaks because it is simply not busy enough - at times, if N had any single deckers, you could throw one out onto the 415 during peaks. The 2 is quite busy over a large chunk of the route as is the 432 so why not increase both routes and extend the 432 over it to create more links.
|
|
|
Post by Connor on Jan 4, 2014 21:00:30 GMT
More buses at peak times.......fine. But the 2, 415 and 432 are not needed all day I agree, but I've always thought the best solution to this problems is to introduce more school routes, to prevent school kids from flooding 'regular' services in the peaks. Reintroduce the 689?
|
|
|
Post by LX09FBJ on Jan 4, 2014 21:46:20 GMT
One route you'd scrap altogether without replacement. Hmm... hard one
One route where you'd reduce early morning and evening services. Please say how much you'd reduce services by. You can, if you wish, scrap service at these times completely. 25, make have a service relative to demand, I hardly doubt that a night bus running every 8 minutes on an Tuesday night is going to be overcrowded (say apart from major events, e.g. the Olympics). So the Sun-Thurs night service down to every 12-15 minutes.
One route where you'd reduce peak hour services. Please say how much you'd reduce services by. 25. Reduce it to a uniform service about every 6-7 minutes between Oxford Circus and Ilford (or Stratford, see below).
One route where you'd scrap a section of route. Please say which section you'd scrap. 25 Stratford-Ilford, and replace it with more buses on the 86 (although that route already has a high PVR) Maybe an extended 425 to Ilford with a higher frequency (every 6-8 mins Mon-Sat, 10 mins Sun) could be a viable replacement.
One route where you'd scrap Sunday services. Dunno, also a hard one.
|
|
|
Post by bengady3 on Jan 4, 2014 23:19:41 GMT
We spend a lot of time coming up with ideas to improve bus routes on the forum. However a New Year means we can't keep raiding the piggy bank and have to, instead, sharpen the axe and start cutting services to save money. Therefore your ideas for saving money are requested. Please nominate :- One route you'd scrap altogether without replacement. Route 415 is taken as read so can't be nominated. One route where you'd reduce early morning and evening services. Please say how much you'd reduce services by. You can, if you wish, scrap service at these times completely. One route where you'd reduce peak hour services. Please say how much you'd reduce services by. One route where you'd scrap a section of route. Please say which section you'd scrap. One route where you'd scrap Sunday services. Clearly passengers may be inconvenienced by your proposals but we don't care. We must save money!! To scrap without replacement - This is a tough one, as any route scrapped would inconvenience many people. As suggested by sw11simon I think the best way to approach it is to replace a route where alternatives do exist, so I'd go for either the 332, 414, 430 or 452. To reduce early morning and evening services - I think quite a few routes could receive an off-peak reduction without too many people noticing. The routes 414/430/452 mentioned above could be reduced to 15 minutes, or the 52 which currently runs with an 8 min evening frequency could probably be reduced to 10 or 12 minutes without huge trouble. To reduce peak hour services - This is a tough one - the obvious choices of 12 and 38 have now gone ahead! Having a flick through londonbusroutes.net most routes with enhanced peak frequencies are very high demand services - the 209 and W7 have some of the highest peak frequencies in London but I have little idea what demand on these services is like. To scrap a section of a route - Again, this another tough one. At a push I suppose the 181 could lose its Downham - Grove Park section, the 53 could lose the Elephant - Whitehall section, the 159 between Marble Arch and Paddington or the 390 could be removed between Marble Arch and Notting Hill. None of these would be particularly desirable but there is at least an alternative available in most cases. To scrap a Sunday service on a route - Probably the 23 - there are alternatives in the 7/8/11, and demand can't be too high on Sundays. Extend route 430 to New Malden but I would agree on withdrawning 452 But I think 53 should still go to Whitehall that means people maybe in Woolwich won't have a link to Central London Why reduce the route 414 it can help the route 14 because it can get packed somtimes between Hyde Park and Putney Bridge
|
|
|
Post by Nathan on Jan 5, 2014 0:13:16 GMT
To scrap without replacement - This is a tough one, as any route scrapped would inconvenience many people. As suggested by sw11simon I think the best way to approach it is to replace a route where alternatives do exist, so I'd go for either the 332, 414, 430 or 452. To reduce early morning and evening services - I think quite a few routes could receive an off-peak reduction without too many people noticing. The routes 414/430/452 mentioned above could be reduced to 15 minutes, or the 52 which currently runs with an 8 min evening frequency could probably be reduced to 10 or 12 minutes without huge trouble. To reduce peak hour services - This is a tough one - the obvious choices of 12 and 38 have now gone ahead! Having a flick through londonbusroutes.net most routes with enhanced peak frequencies are very high demand services - the 209 and W7 have some of the highest peak frequencies in London but I have little idea what demand on these services is like. To scrap a section of a route - Again, this another tough one. At a push I suppose the 181 could lose its Downham - Grove Park section, the 53 could lose the Elephant - Whitehall section, the 159 between Marble Arch and Paddington or the 390 could be removed between Marble Arch and Notting Hill. None of these would be particularly desirable but there is at least an alternative available in most cases. To scrap a Sunday service on a route - Probably the 23 - there are alternatives in the 7/8/11, and demand can't be too high on Sundays. Extend route 430 to New Malden but I would agree on withdrawning 452 But I think 53 should still go to Whitehall that means people maybe in Woolwich won't have a link to Central London Why reduce the route 414 it can help the route 14 because it can get packed somtimes between Hyde Park and Putney Bridge I think that the 53 should be cut back too. The 453 is MORE than enough capable. Generally, the 453 never gets overly crowded. There are even some buses during the peak time that are only moderately populated. And the same goes for the 53. The 53 is only needed between Elephant and Woolwich.
|
|
|
Post by Mokujin on Jan 5, 2014 0:24:20 GMT
Ok the 178 always full and it has an useful link as its serves Lewisham, Kidbrooke and QE Hospital. The B11 lone serves Alsike Road and Lodge Hill and is always full. 199 lone seves Pepys Estate you would need to stick a route through there Hmm...maybe you could extend the 1 from Canada Water to Deptford Bridge via Pepys Estate then via the 47 route. Or if it's too far it can turn at the roundabout at Deptford Chruch Street. But it might as well go the whole way to Deptford Bridge. I agree. I have recommended this before but there is no stand space available for route 1 at Deptford Bridge. But it would be useful as route 1 is a short route and it could relieve overcrowding on 47 and 188 and also serve Pepys Estate along with it's night predecessor, N1.
|
|