|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Jul 13, 2021 10:16:41 GMT
Great to see the W15/W17 proposals. I think this idea could still work well and is likely still required as i’m not convinced performance issues are due to the incumbent or previous operators but the challenges of this route. Really hope this comes about once the Hospital is completed in the next few years. Round the corner links to Leyton Station are nice touch also. The 385 idea is interesting. The use of Cherrydown Avenue is a very good one on paper but in reality, The northbound manoeuvre onto Waltham Way from Cherrydown Avenue looks tight. On the occasions i’ve actually managed to see a 385, most of passengers board the route from Hall Lane at the bus stop in front of Chingford Mount Sainsbury’s. My only concern with the W12/W19 swap is it limits the usefulness of any potential extension to Lea Bridge Station (should that become possible). The 215 to Argall Avenue would be interesting. I do think any curtailment of the W12 to Walthamstow Central may lead to scaling the route into 1 bph. I have never understood the councils previous interest in a route serving Orient Way. I’m glad this has been rested for now. I guess things are going “well” for the 158 / W11 as no consideration is given additional services to Blackhorse Road/Lane a major growth area in the borough Also no mention of any new route extension to Whipps Cross Interchange… The split proposed was virtually similar as I said. The southern section as mention would need to still serve Whipps Cross as that is heavily used by people in Hackney and Homerton. The same goes for people from Higham Hill and Palmerston Rd area using the bus to get to Whipps Cross and Leytonstone.Although I think the northern half should have been W17 and southern part W15. The extension of a route to Leyton Mills I cannot see happening unless they create more stand space there. It makes more sense to extend the 215 over that section. The W12 has been ruined imo due to its poor frequency. The running time given was very poor and unachievable due to Waltham Forest councils constant stupid works. The fix by making it 30 minutes has only made people desert the route. |
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Jul 13, 2021 18:42:21 GMT
Great to see the W15/W17 proposals. I think this idea could still work well and is likely still required as i’m not convinced performance issues are due to the incumbent or previous operators but the challenges of this route. Really hope this comes about once the Hospital is completed in the next few years. Round the corner links to Leyton Station are nice touch also. The 385 idea is interesting. The use of Cherrydown Avenue is a very good one on paper but in reality, The northbound manoeuvre onto Waltham Way from Cherrydown Avenue looks tight. On the occasions i’ve actually managed to see a 385, most of passengers board the route from Hall Lane at the bus stop in front of Chingford Mount Sainsbury’s. My only concern with the W12/W19 swap is it limits the usefulness of any potential extension to Lea Bridge Station (should that become possible). The 215 to Argall Avenue would be interesting. I do think any curtailment of the W12 to Walthamstow Central may lead to scaling the route into 1 bph. I have never understood the councils previous interest in a route serving Orient Way. I’m glad this has been rested for now. I guess things are going “well” for the 158 / W11 as no consideration is given additional services to Blackhorse Road/Lane a major growth area in the borough Also no mention of any new route extension to Whipps Cross Interchange… The split proposed was virtually similar as I said. The southern section as mention would need to still serve Whipps Cross as that is heavily used by people in Hackney and Homerton. The same goes for people from Higham Hill and Palmerston Rd area using the bus to get to Whipps Cross and Leytonstone.Although I think the northern half should have been W17 and southern part W15. The extension of a route to Leyton Mills I cannot see happening unless they create more stand space there. It makes more sense to extend the 215 over that section. The W12 has been ruined imo due to its poor frequency. The running time given was very poor and unachievable due to Waltham Forest councils constant stupid works. The fix by making it 30 minutes has only made people desert the route. Given the way the cycling fiasco has gone I wouldn't be surprised if the W12 was rerouted away from Walthamstow Village under cyclist and resident and shopper complaints that the W12 makes the area "too dangerous".
Have only used the W12 a few times and it definitely is a quiet shopper route
|
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Jul 13, 2021 19:11:11 GMT
The split proposed was virtually similar as I said. The southern section as mention would need to still serve Whipps Cross as that is heavily used by people in Hackney and Homerton. The same goes for people from Higham Hill and Palmerston Rd area using the bus to get to Whipps Cross and Leytonstone.Although I think the northern half should have been W17 and southern part W15. The extension of a route to Leyton Mills I cannot see happening unless they create more stand space there. It makes more sense to extend the 215 over that section. The W12 has been ruined imo due to its poor frequency. The running time given was very poor and unachievable due to Waltham Forest councils constant stupid works. The fix by making it 30 minutes has only made people desert the route. Given the way the cycling fiasco has gone I wouldn't be surprised if the W12 was rerouted away from Walthamstow Village under cyclist and resident and shopper complaints that the W12 makes the area "too dangerous".
Have only used the W12 a few times and it definitely is a quiet shopper route
Isn't the whole point of the W12 to serve those back roads hence the tiny Solos? If ever was rerouted it could perhaps finally get some larger buses. |
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Jul 13, 2021 19:34:44 GMT
Given the way the cycling fiasco has gone I wouldn't be surprised if the W12 was rerouted away from Walthamstow Village under cyclist and resident and shopper complaints that the W12 makes the area "too dangerous".
Have only used the W12 a few times and it definitely is a quiet shopper route
Isn't the whole point of the W12 to serve those back roads hence the tiny Solos? If ever was rerouted it could perhaps finally get some larger buses. Oh no I definitely agree about the W12 being a back roady route.
What I was saying was how Walthamstow Village being the way could potentially attract some pedestrianisation calls from residents/shop owners/locals given how focused London councils have been on Low Traffic Neighborhoods etc.
Would bigger buses be required? Don't know how buses would navigate Coppermill Lane area that are longer than the ones offered.
|
|
|
|
Post by VMH2537 on Jul 20, 2021 14:42:06 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Jul 20, 2021 15:34:06 GMT
There are definitely some concerns in this proposal - one of which is the suggestion that the A1010 could see reduced demand and this for me could be the end for the 349, it's IMO been on a tight string since it's cutback from Stoke Newington but definitely capacity will be missed north of Edmonton. This is another one of TFLs ways like with the Uxbridge Road to move people onto the train and I think by the sounds of the Woodbury Down development the 259/279 sound pretty safe.
Another concern for me is the W3, this will make the route problematic if extended to Meridian Water, Harbet Road as that junction can get very bunged up in the peaks when the North Circular goes under and the route would suffer, especially at the southern end where that, the 210 and the W7 can leave with extremely full loads and need reliable routes to roll off the stands. I think this would not be a good idea but having said that Angel Road Superstores may be reasonable.
The worst one has got to be the W11, I don't know how that will be done. Will a double run be done round Chingford Hill Estate as its not clear on the diagram? For a route designed to specifically link the Chingford Hall Estate and Blackhorse Road area into Walthamstow Central I think this will be a complete mess, the route will almost be a circle and I would not be surprised to see the route fall into the congestion problem on the A406. Harbet Road isn't two way also just because the proposal said. I would worry Chingford Hall & Blackhorse Road would likely end up with a less reliable service.
Said my piece on what would be the LV1/2, don't understand their purposes and if one had to be added it would probably be the LV1 if it was me. Pretty ironic coming from TFL though
|
|
|
|
Post by VMH2537 on Jul 20, 2021 16:11:34 GMT
There are definitely some concerns in this proposal - one of which is the suggestion that the A1010 could see reduced demand and this for me could be the end for the 349, it's IMO been on a tight string since it's cutback from Stoke Newington but definitely capacity will be missed north of Edmonton. This is another one of TFLs ways like with the Uxbridge Road to move people onto the train and I think by the sounds of the Woodbury Down development the 259/279 sound pretty safe.
Another concern for me is the W3, this will make the route problematic if extended to Meridian Water, Harbet Road as that junction can get very bunged up in the peaks when the North Circular goes under and the route would suffer, especially at the southern end where that, the 210 and the W7 can leave with extremely full loads and need reliable routes to roll off the stands. I think this would not be a good idea but having said that Angel Road Superstores may be reasonable.
The worst one has got to be the W11, I don't know how that will be done. Will a double run be done round Chingford Hill Estate as its not clear on the diagram? For a route designed to specifically link the Chingford Hall Estate and Blackhorse Road area into Walthamstow Central I think this will be a complete mess, the route will almost be a circle and I would not be surprised to see the route fall into the congestion problem on the A406. Harbet Road isn't two way also just because the proposal said. I would worry Chingford Hall & Blackhorse Road would likely end up with a less reliable service.
Said my piece on what would be the LV1/2, don't understand their purposes and if one had to be added it would probably be the LV1 if it was me. Pretty ironic coming from TFL though
The way TFL estimated the transfer onto the train from busses is rather shocking, The corridor from Tottenham to Waltham Cross via Edmonton, Ponders End and Enfield Lock has a very high proportion of people from low income backgrounds as they tend to take the bus than pay for expensive rail fares for money savings. Shouldn't have an assumption everyone will be fine |
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Jul 20, 2021 16:20:52 GMT
There are definitely some concerns in this proposal - one of which is the suggestion that the A1010 could see reduced demand and this for me could be the end for the 349, it's IMO been on a tight string since it's cutback from Stoke Newington but definitely capacity will be missed north of Edmonton. This is another one of TFLs ways like with the Uxbridge Road to move people onto the train and I think by the sounds of the Woodbury Down development the 259/279 sound pretty safe.
Another concern for me is the W3, this will make the route problematic if extended to Meridian Water, Harbet Road as that junction can get very bunged up in the peaks when the North Circular goes under and the route would suffer, especially at the southern end where that, the 210 and the W7 can leave with extremely full loads and need reliable routes to roll off the stands. I think this would not be a good idea but having said that Angel Road Superstores may be reasonable.
The worst one has got to be the W11, I don't know how that will be done. Will a double run be done round Chingford Hill Estate as its not clear on the diagram? For a route designed to specifically link the Chingford Hall Estate and Blackhorse Road area into Walthamstow Central I think this will be a complete mess, the route will almost be a circle and I would not be surprised to see the route fall into the congestion problem on the A406. Harbet Road isn't two way also just because the proposal said. I would worry Chingford Hall & Blackhorse Road would likely end up with a less reliable service.
Said my piece on what would be the LV1/2, don't understand their purposes and if one had to be added it would probably be the LV1 if it was me. Pretty ironic coming from TFL though
The way TFL estimated the transfer onto the train from busses is rather shocking, The corridor from Tottenham to Waltham Cross via Edmonton, Ponders End and Enfield Lock has a very high proportion of people from low income backgrounds as they tend to take the bus than pay for expensive rail fares for money savings. Shouldn't have an assumption everyone will be fine Are you speaking about the 279? |
|
|
|
Post by VMH2537 on Jul 20, 2021 16:24:25 GMT
The way TFL estimated the transfer onto the train from busses is rather shocking, The corridor from Tottenham to Waltham Cross via Edmonton, Ponders End and Enfield Lock has a very high proportion of people from low income backgrounds as they tend to take the bus than pay for expensive rail fares for money savings. Shouldn't have an assumption everyone will be fine Are you speaking about the 279? The whole corridor in general ( Routes 149, 259, 279 and the 349 ) |
|
|
|
Post by thesquirrels on Jul 20, 2021 22:50:49 GMT
There are definitely some concerns in this proposal - one of which is the suggestion that the A1010 could see reduced demand and this for me could be the end for the 349, it's IMO been on a tight string since it's cutback from Stoke Newington but definitely capacity will be missed north of Edmonton. This is another one of TFLs ways like with the Uxbridge Road to move people onto the train and I think by the sounds of the Woodbury Down development the 259/279 sound pretty safe.
Another concern for me is the W3, this will make the route problematic if extended to Meridian Water, Harbet Road as that junction can get very bunged up in the peaks when the North Circular goes under and the route would suffer, especially at the southern end where that, the 210 and the W7 can leave with extremely full loads and need reliable routes to roll off the stands. I think this would not be a good idea but having said that Angel Road Superstores may be reasonable.
The worst one has got to be the W11, I don't know how that will be done. Will a double run be done round Chingford Hill Estate as its not clear on the diagram? For a route designed to specifically link the Chingford Hall Estate and Blackhorse Road area into Walthamstow Central I think this will be a complete mess, the route will almost be a circle and I would not be surprised to see the route fall into the congestion problem on the A406. Harbet Road isn't two way also just because the proposal said. I would worry Chingford Hall & Blackhorse Road would likely end up with a less reliable service.
Said my piece on what would be the LV1/2, don't understand their purposes and if one had to be added it would probably be the LV1 if it was me. Pretty ironic coming from TFL though
The way TFL estimated the transfer onto the train from busses is rather shocking, The corridor from Tottenham to Waltham Cross via Edmonton, Ponders End and Enfield Lock has a very high proportion of people from low income backgrounds as they tend to take the bus than pay for expensive rail fares for money savings. Shouldn't have an assumption everyone will be fine All I can see in the report is predictions that demand on the A1010 corridor will continue to increase - it is the increase in streetscape works along the route by the Boroughs, as they seek to intensify the use of those High Streets, in return for more footfall and revenue, which will make it more difficult to operate bus services as road capacity is removed further and bus journey times are extended further still. It is sensible that they acknowledge this challenge. There has to come a crunch point where it makes more sense to bolster the parallell rail service to mop up the railheaders who can afford it, and leave the buses to those who need them. The idea of flooding Fore Street with 40bph+ at average speeds of less than 8kph looks, objectively, like a poor use of TfL resources when there is so much potential in a directly parallel rail route. And, for better or worse, the long terraced streets behind the High Road and Fore Street are getting popular with a new generation of homebuyers and renters who are more likely to be able to afford the train and will use it if it is attractive enough. The line up to Edmonton Green has had a 10 minute service all day in the past - Network SouthEast tried it for a period, reviving the historic 'Jazz Line' brand, but I think the 1990 recession did for it. So the existing signalling should allow for it, though there are probably concerns about taking up spare paths needed for when the Tottenham Hale line is out. Without very expensive resignalling work it is very unlikely that TfL will be able to get any paths above 6tph, so I can't see the rail service becoming so frequent as to fatally undermine any bus provision in a hurry. The modelling tells us a 10 minute service is the tipping point where people will decide it's worth waiting around - at sometimes quite hostile feeling stations - rather than jumping on the first bus down. I have watched the 279 corridor gradually get slower over the last 25 years. There is a definite and demonstrable need for a high frequency service, and that isn't going to change, but travel speeds have dropped to the point where there has to be a better and more cost effective way to get people north and south through Tottenham and Edmonton. |
|
|
|
Post by VMH2537 on Jul 21, 2021 0:21:36 GMT
The way TFL estimated the transfer onto the train from busses is rather shocking, The corridor from Tottenham to Waltham Cross via Edmonton, Ponders End and Enfield Lock has a very high proportion of people from low income backgrounds as they tend to take the bus than pay for expensive rail fares for money savings. Shouldn't have an assumption everyone will be fine All I can see in the report is predictions that demand on the A1010 corridor will continue to increase - it is the increase in streetscape works along the route by the Boroughs, as they seek to intensify the use of those High Streets, in return for more footfall and revenue, which will make it more difficult to operate bus services as road capacity is removed further and bus journey times are extended further still. It is sensible that they acknowledge this challenge. There has to come a crunch point where it makes more sense to bolster the parallell rail service to mop up the railheaders who can afford it, and leave the buses to those who need them. The idea of flooding Fore Street with 40bph+ at average speeds of less than 8kph looks, objectively, like a poor use of TfL resources when there is so much potential in a directly parallel rail route. And, for better or worse, the long terraced streets behind the High Road and Fore Street are getting popular with a new generation of homebuyers and renters who are more likely to be able to afford the train and will use it if it is attractive enough. The line up to Edmonton Green has had a 10 minute service all day in the past - Network SouthEast tried it for a period, reviving the historic 'Jazz Line' brand, but I think the 1990 recession did for it. So the existing signalling should allow for it, though there are probably concerns about taking up spare paths needed for when the Tottenham Hale line is out. Without very expensive resignalling work it is very unlikely that TfL will be able to get any paths above 6tph, so I can't see the rail service becoming so frequent as to fatally undermine any bus provision in a hurry. The modelling tells us a 10 minute service is the tipping point where people will decide it's worth waiting around - at sometimes quite hostile feeling stations - rather than jumping on the first bus down. I have watched the 279 corridor gradually get slower over the last 25 years. There is a definite and demonstrable need for a high frequency service, and that isn't going to change, but travel speeds have dropped to the point where there has to be a better and more cost effective way to get people north and south through Tottenham and Edmonton. Sorting out the rail issue may not be easy, its the bottleneck at Bethnal Green as the line's traffic merges into a tight and narrow 2 tracks as the rest of the tracks are for the GEML. There are current talks that could free up spaces at the Bethnal Green approach once the Elizabeth Line opens diverting some of the traffic. Something that could make space for a possible tweaking in frequency, may make 6tbp from Edmonton but only 3tph on the Enfield and Cheshunt Branches Even if a 6tph service is on the line, only 3 tph will serve North of Edmonton, That's were the busses could still be high. There are already servere overcrowdings on the 279 and the 349 during the peaks north of Edmonton and is likely to increase further with developments taking place at Edmonton Green |
|
|
|
Post by thesquirrels on Jul 21, 2021 7:49:48 GMT
All I can see in the report is predictions that demand on the A1010 corridor will continue to increase - it is the increase in streetscape works along the route by the Boroughs, as they seek to intensify the use of those High Streets, in return for more footfall and revenue, which will make it more difficult to operate bus services as road capacity is removed further and bus journey times are extended further still. It is sensible that they acknowledge this challenge. There has to come a crunch point where it makes more sense to bolster the parallell rail service to mop up the railheaders who can afford it, and leave the buses to those who need them. The idea of flooding Fore Street with 40bph+ at average speeds of less than 8kph looks, objectively, like a poor use of TfL resources when there is so much potential in a directly parallel rail route. And, for better or worse, the long terraced streets behind the High Road and Fore Street are getting popular with a new generation of homebuyers and renters who are more likely to be able to afford the train and will use it if it is attractive enough. The line up to Edmonton Green has had a 10 minute service all day in the past - Network SouthEast tried it for a period, reviving the historic 'Jazz Line' brand, but I think the 1990 recession did for it. So the existing signalling should allow for it, though there are probably concerns about taking up spare paths needed for when the Tottenham Hale line is out. Without very expensive resignalling work it is very unlikely that TfL will be able to get any paths above 6tph, so I can't see the rail service becoming so frequent as to fatally undermine any bus provision in a hurry. The modelling tells us a 10 minute service is the tipping point where people will decide it's worth waiting around - at sometimes quite hostile feeling stations - rather than jumping on the first bus down. I have watched the 279 corridor gradually get slower over the last 25 years. There is a definite and demonstrable need for a high frequency service, and that isn't going to change, but travel speeds have dropped to the point where there has to be a better and more cost effective way to get people north and south through Tottenham and Edmonton. Sorting out the rail issue may not be easy, its the bottleneck at Bethnal Green as the line's traffic merges into a tight and narrow 2 tracks as the rest of the tracks are for the GEML. There are current talks that could free up spaces at the Bethnal Green approach once the Elizabeth Line opens diverting some of the traffic. Something that could make space for a possible tweaking in frequency, may make 6tbp from Edmonton but only 3tph on the Enfield and Cheshunt Branches Even if a 6tph service is on the line, only 3 tph will serve North of Edmonton, That's were the busses could still be high. There are already servere overcrowdings on the 279 and the 349 during the peaks north of Edmonton and is likely to increase further with developments taking place at Edmonton Green TfL's intention seems to be to send the southern end of any supplemental service on to Barking via the South Tottenham curve rather than try to shoehorn any more services through the bottleneck section. Can the turnback facility at Cheshunt take 3tph? I thought there would need to be a 4/2 split with Enfield getting the benefit. Agreed that the section north of EG absolutely wouldn't be able to take any further reduction and any Overground enhancements would likely not benefit that section - apart from anything else there are only two stations - three if you include Theobalds Grove, and two of those are some distance from the bus corridor. My thoughts are mostly directed at the slog section between Edmonton Green and Tottenham/Seven Sisters. |
|
|
|
Post by VMH2537 on Jul 21, 2021 9:21:40 GMT
Sorting out the rail issue may not be easy, its the bottleneck at Bethnal Green as the line's traffic merges into a tight and narrow 2 tracks as the rest of the tracks are for the GEML. There are current talks that could free up spaces at the Bethnal Green approach once the Elizabeth Line opens diverting some of the traffic. Something that could make space for a possible tweaking in frequency, may make 6tbp from Edmonton but only 3tph on the Enfield and Cheshunt Branches Even if a 6tph service is on the line, only 3 tph will serve North of Edmonton, That's were the busses could still be high. There are already servere overcrowdings on the 279 and the 349 during the peaks north of Edmonton and is likely to increase further with developments taking place at Edmonton Green TfL's intention seems to be to send the southern end of any supplemental service on to Barking via the South Tottenham curve rather than try to shoehorn any more services through the bottleneck section. Can the turnback facility at Cheshunt take 3tph? I thought there would need to be a 4/2 split with Enfield getting the benefit. Agreed that the section north of EG absolutely wouldn't be able to take any further reduction and any Overground enhancements would likely not benefit that section - apart from anything else there are only two stations - three if you include Theobalds Grove, and two of those are some distance from the bus corridor. My thoughts are mostly directed at the slog section between Edmonton Green and Tottenham/Seven Sisters. The turnback facility at Cheshunt is only one track meaning a frequency of over 4tbp is unviable from the amount of traffic it will create though before LO took over there were some through services to Hertford East beyond Cheshunt. It's one of the main reasons why the GOBLIN line has a frequency of 4tbph from the one track terminus at Gospel Oak and Barking. Enfield Town on the other hand has the capacity to handle a tube styled frequency as it has 3 tracks on its terminus - hence the possible reason why they may put more services there instead of the Cheshunt line |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Jul 21, 2021 9:37:46 GMT
TfL's intention seems to be to send the southern end of any supplemental service on to Barking via the South Tottenham curve rather than try to shoehorn any more services through the bottleneck section. Can the turnback facility at Cheshunt take 3tph? I thought there would need to be a 4/2 split with Enfield getting the benefit. Agreed that the section north of EG absolutely wouldn't be able to take any further reduction and any Overground enhancements would likely not benefit that section - apart from anything else there are only two stations - three if you include Theobalds Grove, and two of those are some distance from the bus corridor. My thoughts are mostly directed at the slog section between Edmonton Green and Tottenham/Seven Sisters. The turnback facility at Cheshunt is only one track meaning a frequency of over 4tbp is unviable from the amount of traffic it will create though before LO took over there were some through services to Hertford East beyond Cheshunt. It's one of the main reasons why the GOBLIN line has a frequency of 4tbph from the one track terminus at Gospel Oak and Barking. Enfield Town on the other hand has the capacity to handle a tube styled frequency as it has 3 tracks on its terminus - hence the possible reason why they may put more services there instead of the Cheshunt line The GOBLIN's frequency isn't hampered by the Gospel Oak or Barking termini. I believe its more to do with freight traffic as to why its frequency is limited. Barking at least technically has two terminal platforms as Platform 7 is regularly used and Barking Riverside will have two bays. |
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Jul 21, 2021 21:39:17 GMT
All I can see in the report is predictions that demand on the A1010 corridor will continue to increase - it is the increase in streetscape works along the route by the Boroughs, as they seek to intensify the use of those High Streets, in return for more footfall and revenue, which will make it more difficult to operate bus services as road capacity is removed further and bus journey times are extended further still. It is sensible that they acknowledge this challenge. There has to come a crunch point where it makes more sense to bolster the parallell rail service to mop up the railheaders who can afford it, and leave the buses to those who need them. The idea of flooding Fore Street with 40bph+ at average speeds of less than 8kph looks, objectively, like a poor use of TfL resources when there is so much potential in a directly parallel rail route. And, for better or worse, the long terraced streets behind the High Road and Fore Street are getting popular with a new generation of homebuyers and renters who are more likely to be able to afford the train and will use it if it is attractive enough. The line up to Edmonton Green has had a 10 minute service all day in the past - Network SouthEast tried it for a period, reviving the historic 'Jazz Line' brand, but I think the 1990 recession did for it. So the existing signalling should allow for it, though there are probably concerns about taking up spare paths needed for when the Tottenham Hale line is out. Without very expensive resignalling work it is very unlikely that TfL will be able to get any paths above 6tph, so I can't see the rail service becoming so frequent as to fatally undermine any bus provision in a hurry. The modelling tells us a 10 minute service is the tipping point where people will decide it's worth waiting around - at sometimes quite hostile feeling stations - rather than jumping on the first bus down. I have watched the 279 corridor gradually get slower over the last 25 years. There is a definite and demonstrable need for a high frequency service, and that isn't going to change, but travel speeds have dropped to the point where there has to be a better and more cost effective way to get people north and south through Tottenham and Edmonton. Sorting out the rail issue may not be easy, its the bottleneck at Bethnal Green as the line's traffic merges into a tight and narrow 2 tracks as the rest of the tracks are for the GEML. There are current talks that could free up spaces at the Bethnal Green approach once the Elizabeth Line opens diverting some of the traffic. Something that could make space for a possible tweaking in frequency, may make 6tbp from Edmonton but only 3tph on the Enfield and Cheshunt Branches Even if a 6tph service is on the line, only 3 tph will serve North of Edmonton, That's were the busses could still be high. There are already servere overcrowdings on the 279 and the 349 during the peaks north of Edmonton and is likely to increase further with developments taking place at Edmonton Green Edmonton Green is not a development - it is being redeveloped but no residences are being added. |
|
