Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2021 8:31:46 GMT
In all seriousness the 414 should really be sacrificed to save the 14. Why, if TfL think that the heaviest loadings on the 14 are between Putney Bridge and Hyde Park Corner, then the 414 serves as a localised shuttle to support the 14. The 414 also misses out the section of the 14 between Hyde Park Corner and Russell Square so it could give a more reliable service than the 14 between Putney Bridge and Hyde Park Corner especially when the section north of Marble Arch is lopped off.
TfL want all journeys on a route to operate the full length of the route, as TfL don't like short journeys as most passengers cannot cope with reading destination blinds as they can just about manage to read 14 or 414 but as for where the bus is actually going to, no chance. Therefore TfL would not permit the 14 to have short journeys to cover the busier section.
The 414 serves no distinct unique locations and only serves like you say as a shuttle. The reality is between Hyde Park Corner and Putney there is also the option of the 14, 22 and 74 to use albeit by different routes. Frankly if cut to Marble Arch or Lancaster Gate the 414 will serve an even smaller demographic, one that could easily be replaced by a small PVR increase on the 6 and 14. Let’s say plus 3 on the 14 and plus 2 on the 6, saves 17 buses. I just find it interesting how TfL have cut the 14s PVR over the last few years but hasn’t touched the 414, the most useless route under TfL. The need for it is long gone in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Jul 11, 2021 9:51:42 GMT
Why, if TfL think that the heaviest loadings on the 14 are between Putney Bridge and Hyde Park Corner, then the 414 serves as a localised shuttle to support the 14. The 414 also misses out the section of the 14 between Hyde Park Corner and Russell Square so it could give a more reliable service than the 14 between Putney Bridge and Hyde Park Corner especially when the section north of Marble Arch is lopped off.
TfL want all journeys on a route to operate the full length of the route, as TfL don't like short journeys as most passengers cannot cope with reading destination blinds as they can just about manage to read 14 or 414 but as for where the bus is actually going to, no chance. Therefore TfL would not permit the 14 to have short journeys to cover the busier section.
The 414 serves no distinct unique locations and only serves like you say as a shuttle. The reality is between Hyde Park Corner and Putney there is also the option of the 14, 22 and 74 to use albeit by different routes. Frankly if cut to Marble Arch or Lancaster Gate the 414 will serve an even smaller demographic, one that could easily be replaced by a small PVR increase on the 6 and 14. Let’s say plus 3 on the 14 and plus 2 on the 6, saves 17 buses. I just find it interesting how TfL have cut the 14s PVR over the last few years but hasn’t touched the 414, the most useless route under TfL. The need for it is long gone in my opinion. I'm sure when football fans flooded Piccadilly on Wednesday night, passengers didn't use the 414 when the 14 wasn't around 'cause it was a useless route...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2021 10:04:18 GMT
The 414 serves no distinct unique locations and only serves like you say as a shuttle. The reality is between Hyde Park Corner and Putney there is also the option of the 14, 22 and 74 to use albeit by different routes. Frankly if cut to Marble Arch or Lancaster Gate the 414 will serve an even smaller demographic, one that could easily be replaced by a small PVR increase on the 6 and 14. Let’s say plus 3 on the 14 and plus 2 on the 6, saves 17 buses. I just find it interesting how TfL have cut the 14s PVR over the last few years but hasn’t touched the 414, the most useless route under TfL. The need for it is long gone in my opinion. I'm sure when football fans flooded Piccadilly on Wednesday night, passengers didn't use the 414 when the 14 wasn't around it 'cause it was a useless route... 1 day of potential heavy usage is moot compared to 364 days of low usage. It’s not really the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Jul 11, 2021 10:10:56 GMT
I'm sure when football fans flooded Piccadilly on Wednesday night, passengers didn't use the 414 when the 14 wasn't around it 'cause it was a useless route... 1 day of potential heavy usage is moot compared to 364 days of low usage. It’s not really the same thing. There's a reason the 414 isn't absorbed into the 14, you may not accept it but TfL has bestowed such reasoning to keep the 414 alive. In the past I'd use to think deckers were a waste on routes 145 and 241 with my perception of low usage when viewing the routes. Now one route is (was) 24 hours on weekends and the other an important local link to Westfield shopping centre. I don't have the same antiquated line of thinking to these routes now; I heavily persuade you to view the 414 in the same light.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2021 10:20:02 GMT
1 day of potential heavy usage is moot compared to 364 days of low usage. It’s not really the same thing. There's a reason the 414 isn't absorbed into the 14, you may not accept it but TfL has bestowed such reasoning to keep the 414 alive. In the past I'd use to think deckers were a waste on routes 145 and 241 with my perception of low usage when viewing the routes. Now one route is (was) 24 hours on weekends and the other an important local link to Westfield shopping centre. I don't have the same antiquated line of thinking to these routes now; I heavily persuade you to view the 414 in the same light. Please enlighten me as to reason TfL values the 414? Do either the 145 or 241 entirely mirror other routes? It’s not really the same thing, is it?
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Jul 11, 2021 10:41:46 GMT
There's a reason the 414 isn't absorbed into the 14, you may not accept it but TfL has bestowed such reasoning to keep the 414 alive. In the past I'd use to think deckers were a waste on routes 145 and 241 with my perception of low usage when viewing the routes. Now one route is (was) 24 hours on weekends and the other an important local link to Westfield shopping centre. I don't have the same antiquated line of thinking to these routes now; I heavily persuade you to view the 414 in the same light. Please enlighten me as to reason TfL values the 414? Do either the 145 or 241 entirely mirror other routes? It’s not really the same thing, is it? I don't work for TfL so I wouldn't know. Somebody else mentioned the 129. It mirrors other routes/ has no unique or solo section, yet carries something like 5 million passengers in a normal year. Would you define that as a useless route?
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Jul 11, 2021 10:47:39 GMT
1 day of potential heavy usage is moot compared to 364 days of low usage. It’s not really the same thing. There's a reason the 414 isn't absorbed into the 14, you may not accept it but TfL has bestowed such reasoning to keep the 414 alive. In the past I'd use to think deckers were a waste on routes 145 and 241 with my perception of low usage when viewing the routes. Now one route is (was) 24 hours on weekends and the other an important local link to Westfield shopping centre. I don't have the same antiquated line of thinking to these routes now; I heavily persuade you to view the 414 in the same light. And there is a reason why TfL are cutting 300 buses and surely it makes sense to do so in a way that causes the least inconvenience and the 414, which carry little more than fresh air most of the time, is an obvious candidate. It's certainly better than reducing the much busier 14.
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Jul 11, 2021 11:08:25 GMT
There's a reason the 414 isn't absorbed into the 14, you may not accept it but TfL has bestowed such reasoning to keep the 414 alive. In the past I'd use to think deckers were a waste on routes 145 and 241 with my perception of low usage when viewing the routes. Now one route is (was) 24 hours on weekends and the other an important local link to Westfield shopping centre. I don't have the same antiquated line of thinking to these routes now; I heavily persuade you to view the 414 in the same light. And there is a reason why TfL are cutting 300 buses and surely it makes sense to do so in a way that causes the least inconvenience and the 414, which carry little more than fresh air most of the time, is an obvious candidate. It's certainly better than reducing the much busier 14. So why then was the 414's contract renewed, unlike the 10, the old 13 and C2 where their contract wasn't renewed? The 414 is getting a PVR cut when it will be permanently curtailed to Marble Arch/Lancaster Gate, so it doesn't escape the central London slash.
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Jul 11, 2021 11:12:03 GMT
And there is a reason why TfL are cutting 300 buses and surely it makes sense to do so in a way that causes the least inconvenience and the 414, which carry little more than fresh air most of the time, is an obvious candidate. It's certainly better than reducing the much busier 14. So why then was the 414's contract renewed, unlike the 10, the old 13 and C2 where their contract wasn't renewed? The 414 is getting a PVR cut when it will be permanently curtailed to Marble Arch/Lancaster Gate, so it doesn't escape the central London slash. And it will be little more than a short working of the 14 apart from the Marble Arch/Lancaster Gate section, may as well just axe it completely.
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Jul 11, 2021 11:40:30 GMT
So why then was the 414's contract renewed, unlike the 10, the old 13 and C2 where their contract wasn't renewed? The 414 is getting a PVR cut when it will be permanently curtailed to Marble Arch/Lancaster Gate, so it doesn't escape the central London slash. And it will be little more than a short working of the 14 apart from the Marble Arch/Lancaster Gate section, may as well just axe it completely. The obvious issue that clearly seems to be getting overlooked here is that TfL while in full cuts mode has still established the 414 is needed to support the 14. So chances are TfL has probably done every sum possible to see if they can kill off the whole route but it's not worked out. I think that's enough justification in itself that the route is needed south of Marble Arch.
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Jul 11, 2021 11:49:26 GMT
And it will be little more than a short working of the 14 apart from the Marble Arch/Lancaster Gate section, may as well just axe it completely. The obvious issue that clearly seems to be getting overlooked here is that TfL while in full cuts mode has still established the 414 is needed to support the 14. So chances are TfL has probably done every sum possible to see if they can kill off the whole route but it's not worked out. I think that's enough justification in itself that the route is needed south of Marble Arch. If the 414 didn't operate tomorrow I doubt many people would even notice, they would just use the 6,14,23 or 74 instead.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jul 11, 2021 12:06:01 GMT
And it will be little more than a short working of the 14 apart from the Marble Arch/Lancaster Gate section, may as well just axe it completely. The obvious issue that clearly seems to be getting overlooked here is that TfL while in full cuts mode has still established the 414 is needed to support the 14. So chances are TfL has probably done every sum possible to see if they can kill off the whole route but it's not worked out. I think that's enough justification in itself that the route is needed south of Marble Arch. The advantage the 414 does have is that it allows the solo sections of the 14 to have been scaled back and possibly will drop again as Hyde Park Corner to TCR doesn't need an increase and PB to Putney heath doesn't either. Axe the 414 then probaly 3 or more 14s per hour would be needed.
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Jul 11, 2021 12:07:52 GMT
The obvious issue that clearly seems to be getting overlooked here is that TfL while in full cuts mode has still established the 414 is needed to support the 14. So chances are TfL has probably done every sum possible to see if they can kill off the whole route but it's not worked out. I think that's enough justification in itself that the route is needed south of Marble Arch. If the 414 didn't operate tomorrow I doubt many people would even notice, they would just use the 6,14,23 or 74 instead. Then all of these routes would be very crowded. There's many routes that people do not specifically wait for, but just get when it comes first and then this does relieve whatever the other routes along the corridor are.
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Jul 11, 2021 12:24:58 GMT
The obsession with cutting routes is a joke and not a funny one.
Even after a route have been awarded people are still debating the need! I'm sure TfL knows what it's doing.
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Jul 11, 2021 12:48:08 GMT
The obsession with cutting routes is a joke and not a funny one. Even after a route have been awarded people are still debating the need! I'm sure TfL knows what it's doing. The joke is that you were suggesting recently that the X68 should be cut.
|
|