|
Post by vjaska on Dec 15, 2020 15:34:41 GMT
Would cost money tfl don't have and would go against the desire to reduce buses along Oxford Street. Not really, it could be done with the same PVR. Whilst I don’t agree with TfL, it’s pretty clear they don’t want more routes along Oxford Street hence why the 137 was pulled back to Marble Arch in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Dec 15, 2020 17:09:21 GMT
And they have never formally cancelled plans for the 94, 113 and 159 in order to remove more routes.
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Dec 15, 2020 17:35:26 GMT
And they have never formally cancelled plans for the 94, 113 and 159 in order to remove more routes. If the 159 is still being cut back to Oxford Circus the 137 can use those 'paths'. Either way I don't see footfall returning to previous levels anytime soon so there's not quite the same need to reduce bus levels and the addition of the 137 isn't exactly going to be a return to 'the wall of buses' and Speakers Corner is an awful last stop.
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Dec 15, 2020 22:13:02 GMT
I do wonder if the Lancaster Gate stand is needed for the 414 even if it runs out of service to it Y times of day and other times can squeeze onto the current Marble Arch stands. Is there any reason why the 137 cannot be returned to Oxford Circus to free up stand space? That is far too much like common sense and would require TfL to eat humble pie. Meanwhile we get w pointless extension of route 414 to Lancaster Gate instead. How long before those Oxford Street retailers will be desperate for those withdrawn bus routes to stop outside again given their growing losses and people’s reluctance to use the deep level tubes in particular. Their market is effectively local now, not tourists and visitors from outside the city, they need to think again.
|
|
|
Post by ronnie on Dec 15, 2020 22:18:10 GMT
Is there any reason why the 137 cannot be returned to Oxford Circus to free up stand space? That is far too much like common sense and would require TfL to eat humble pie. Meanwhile we get w pointless extension of route 414 to Lancaster Gate instead. How long before those Oxford Street retailers will be desperate for those withdrawn bus routes to stop outside again given their growing losses and people’s reluctance to use the deep level tubes in particular. Their market is effectively local now, not tourists and visitors from outside the city, they need to think again. Those guys need to be careful what they wish for. They had carried out a concerted campaign against buses .... and now it’s coming back to bite them sadly 😰
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Dec 15, 2020 22:18:34 GMT
And they have never formally cancelled plans for the 94, 113 and 159 in order to remove more routes. If the 159 is still being cut back to Oxford Circus the 137 can use those 'paths'. Either way I don't see footfall returning to previous levels anytime soon so there's not quite the same need to reduce bus levels and the addition of the 137 isn't exactly going to be a return to 'the wall of buses' and Speakers Corner is an awful last stop. This doesn't quite make sense, if you don't see footfall to Oxford Street returning why on earth are you insisting on sending the 137 there? What really should be done with the 137 stand is the 8 returned to stand there to restore the City to West End Link which is completely non-existent now. The 137 is perfectly fine at Marble Arch, although I do think the 159 should continue serving there. I think the best situation with the 414 is if it has to use the Lancaster Gate stand is to just run it to Lancaster Gate in service.
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Dec 15, 2020 22:24:46 GMT
If the 159 is still being cut back to Oxford Circus the 137 can use those 'paths'. Either way I don't see footfall returning to previous levels anytime soon so there's not quite the same need to reduce bus levels and the addition of the 137 isn't exactly going to be a return to 'the wall of buses' and Speakers Corner is an awful last stop. This doesn't quite make sense, if you don't see footfall to Oxford Street returning why on earth are you insisting on sending the 137 there? What really should be done with the 137 stand is the 8 returned to stand there to restore the City to West End Link which is completely non-existent now. The 137 is perfectly fine at Marble Arch, although I do think the 159 should continue serving there. I think the best situation with the 414 is if it has to use the Lancaster Gate stand is to just run it to Lancaster Gate in service. Reduced footfall means less chance of bus/pedestrian accidents. The 137 isn't fine at Marble Arch, Speakers Corner is an awful set down point and the first pick up point is often overcrowded, returning it to Oxford Circus would be a short but very useful extension.
|
|
|
Post by beaver14uk on Dec 15, 2020 22:27:16 GMT
Maybe there are costs involved. quote author=" evergreenadam" source="/post/608893/thread" timestamp="1608070382"] Is there any reason why the 137 cannot be returned to Oxford Circus to free up stand space? That is far too much like common sense and would require TfL to eat humble pie. Meanwhile we get w pointless extension of route 414 to Lancaster Gate instead. How long before those Oxford Street retailers will be desperate for those withdrawn bus routes to stop outside again given their growing losses and people’s reluctance to use the deep level tubes in particular. Their market is effectively local now, not tourists and visitors from outside the city, they need to think again.[/quote]
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Dec 15, 2020 22:28:20 GMT
Is there any reason why the 137 cannot be returned to Oxford Circus to free up stand space? That is far too much like common sense and would require TfL to eat humble pie. Meanwhile we get w pointless extension of route 414 to Lancaster Gate instead. How long before those Oxford Street retailers will be desperate for those withdrawn bus routes to stop outside again given their growing losses and people’s reluctance to use the deep level tubes in particular. Their market is effectively local now, not tourists and visitors from outside the city, they need to think again. Whilst I could understand reducing buses along Oxford Street at the time things have obviously changed and there is still stand space at Oxford Circus for the 137.
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Dec 15, 2020 22:29:13 GMT
This doesn't quite make sense, if you don't see footfall to Oxford Street returning why on earth are you insisting on sending the 137 there? What really should be done with the 137 stand is the 8 returned to stand there to restore the City to West End Link which is completely non-existent now. The 137 is perfectly fine at Marble Arch, although I do think the 159 should continue serving there. I think the best situation with the 414 is if it has to use the Lancaster Gate stand is to just run it to Lancaster Gate in service. Reduced footfall means less chance of bus/pedestrian accidents. The 137 isn't fine at Marble Arch, Speakers Corner is an awful set down point and the first pick up point is often overcrowded, returning it to Oxford Circus would be a short but very useful extension. I really don't think it would be, you already have other routes going down Park Lane from Oxford Street so you'd just be adding another duplicate route. You're far better off extending the 8 to Oxford Circus to use that space. Once again if there's less chance of bus/pedestrian accidents due to the reduced footfall it'll be more worthwhile sending the 8 there instead.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Dec 15, 2020 22:53:59 GMT
Similar to how Bayswater Road would have been a bad last stop for the 94. The North Row idea was better as it would have saved having to cross the roads to reach Oxford Street. The 10/23 routing atleats stops at Edgware Road which is a bit better for Oxford Street.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Dec 15, 2020 23:25:10 GMT
This doesn't quite make sense, if you don't see footfall to Oxford Street returning why on earth are you insisting on sending the 137 there? What really should be done with the 137 stand is the 8 returned to stand there to restore the City to West End Link which is completely non-existent now. The 137 is perfectly fine at Marble Arch, although I do think the 159 should continue serving there. I think the best situation with the 414 is if it has to use the Lancaster Gate stand is to just run it to Lancaster Gate in service. Reduced footfall means less chance of bus/pedestrian accidents. The 137 isn't fine at Marble Arch, Speakers Corner is an awful set down point and the first pick up point is often overcrowded, returning it to Oxford Circus would be a short but very useful extension. The first pick up point is overcrowded but it's not down solely to the 137 but actually because a number of routes serve there and the ones that head into inner London all generally pick up good loads - it's a stop I've used many times when getting the 2 back home. Returning it to Oxford Circus won't necessarily solve this issue. The alighting point is awful but not sure what else you can do to change that whilst it's still terminating at Marble Arch - it's not going to go back to Oxford Circus which is a shame.
|
|
|
Post by londontravel on Dec 16, 2020 8:03:40 GMT
Maybe extending it to Portman Square would make it a bit more useful, and would bring passengers into Oxford Street a bit more.
|
|
|
Post by abc on Dec 16, 2020 12:55:44 GMT
This doesn't quite make sense, if you don't see footfall to Oxford Street returning why on earth are you insisting on sending the 137 there? What really should be done with the 137 stand is the 8 returned to stand there to restore the City to West End Link which is completely non-existent now. The 137 is perfectly fine at Marble Arch, although I do think the 159 should continue serving there. I think the best situation with the 414 is if it has to use the Lancaster Gate stand is to just run it to Lancaster Gate in service. Reduced footfall means less chance of bus/pedestrian accidents. The 137 isn't fine at Marble Arch, Speakers Corner is an awful set down point and the first pick up point is often overcrowded, returning it to Oxford Circus would be a short but very useful extension. Very well said from someone who prior to COVID used 137 every day and had to endure buses deciding to skip the stop every other week.
|
|
|
Post by abc on Dec 16, 2020 12:58:59 GMT
Reduced footfall means less chance of bus/pedestrian accidents. The 137 isn't fine at Marble Arch, Speakers Corner is an awful set down point and the first pick up point is often overcrowded, returning it to Oxford Circus would be a short but very useful extension. The first pick up point is overcrowded but it's not down solely to the 137 but actually because a number of routes serve there and the ones that head into inner London all generally pick up good loads - it's a stop I've used many times when getting the 2 back home. Returning it to Oxford Circus won't necessarily solve this issue. The alighting point is awful but not sure what else you can do to change that whilst it's still terminating at Marble Arch - it's not going to go back to Oxford Circus which is a shame. Personally, I switch to 137 at London Hilton Hotel if on a Victoria bound bus even if I have to walk between stops. I use Hyde Park Corner for 74 and 414.
|
|