|
Post by northlondon83 on Mar 1, 2023 21:05:59 GMT
I agree that I don't see much of a merit to extend the 456 to Crews Hill station, apart from for Crews Hill residents, since most on the train would get out at Enfield Chase and interchange there, Chingford to Edgware may be too much for one bus route, but I could see the merit of a Chingford to Barnet route, perhaps in the form of an 'X307' and possibly a 377 extension to Cockfosters station to provide Cockfosters with a direct link to Enfield Town. I think the 384 needs reviewing with the former 384 being resurrected, and perhaps curtailing the current 384 to New Barnet in addition (as the old 384 would mostly replace the withdrawn section) The 383 should also be extended further north at least to Hadley Green (preferably Potters Bar) now that the 84 has gone More Cross Lea Valley links would be helpful in the Enfield area, like extending the W6 to Chingford Mount, via Fore Street, North Circular Road and 444 from there to Chingford Mount (Without me going to off topic) With enough bus priority along the route, I feel Chingford to Edgware could be done by one route. It is approx 28km route via A110, which is still less operational km than the X26 for comparison. Maybe it is a bit fanatical, I don’t know, but when a route like the X26 exists, it does make you think a lot can be possible. Nonetheless judging by the demand on the 384, something should done there to unlock more longer journeys across outer North London. A 377 extension to Cockfosters is worth more investigation imo than the 456 extension. It would really depend on traffic levels, I've noticed the 307 corridor to be pretty decent so I do think this has some merit to it. I wouldn't go as far to say that the 384 should be extended to Chingford, but perhaps as I said before cut back to New Barnet (which I'm sure would allow it to convert to DD), with a route running from Barnet to Chingford, mostly via the 307/313, allowing for hopper fare interchange between the two, possibly the 384 could be revised to run as an Edgware-Cockfosters route, being tweaked in Barnet to run direct via the 107 (instead of via Quinta Drive), then from New Barnet, via the 307 to Cockfosters Road, turning left to serve Cockfosters station and high street, as currently no route from Cockfosters goes to East Barnet. The old 384 would once again be resurrected
|
|
|
Post by routew15 on Mar 1, 2023 22:22:26 GMT
I don’t think the fault solely lies with TfL here. If the local authority (and to a slightly lesser extent, the train operator) have no solid plans on stand facilities for the 456, then it does not really make sense at this stage for TfL to pursue an extension. I’m not to sure that Crews Hill would really become an interchange point for Great Northern users with the addition of a 456 extension. In terms of attracting people away from cars I totally agree but think that orbital express routes are what will do that. In this part of town a bus route between Chingford and Edgware (mainly via the A110) would be good TfL is a transport authority for London and should be the organisation responsible for provisioning services. Whilst Network rail are the ones that own the land at Crews Hill station, it's not really competent or strategic to leave the local council and other organisations to manage the situation. It is difficult for TfL to provide this though without a stand it is not feasible operationally and the prediction it has come up with say the extension would not be financially feasible either. It can sometimes be easier to do these kind of route extension with S106 local funding when there are local developments but that is unlikely in a rural area like Crews Hill. A similar thing happened in Waltham Forest. WF knew a stand would be needed at Lea Bridge Station for an extension of the W19 but didn’t pursue the option of constructing one. TfL couldn’t/didn’t finance both extension and stand facilities.
|
|
|
Post by routew15 on Mar 1, 2023 23:14:39 GMT
If your view that not providing a basic comprehensive network of linking to users needs are not worth it, then I think we should look at why London's bus network isn't living to its potential. This is an organisation that justify half-hourly services are adequate and wonder why bus usage is declining. "No demand" are common words used. Demand comes when you establish a service and a link. I have said this before, the current planning policy used is not effective and really misses the essentials for user benefits. I agree with you on principle but I do think the mere existence of the 456 (and even the W10) is TfL attempt at providing a comprehensive network. It plugged a hole in the network by serving Farm Road. I don’t think on a route like the 456 taking it over 4bph would do much for increasing usage just yet. Over time it may start to justify 3 bph. I do now think TfL have struck the right balance with taking the W10 and making it the 456 with an extension and improved operational hours. The next reasonable steps should be; starting an hour earlier (0600), finishing an hour later (2100), and 2 bph on a Sunday. I agree that the route planning and particularly network development as not effective, Silvertown Tunnel comes to mind for me.
|
|
|
Post by uakari on Mar 2, 2023 2:39:26 GMT
If your view that not providing a basic comprehensive network of linking to users needs are not worth it, then I think we should look at why London's bus network isn't living to its potential. This is an organisation that justify half-hourly services are adequate and wonder why bus usage is declining. "No demand" are common words used. Demand comes when you establish a service and a link. I have said this before, the current planning policy used is not effective and really misses the essentials for user benefits. I agree with you on principle but I do think the mere existence of the 456 (and even the W10) is TfL attempt at providing a comprehensive network. It plugged a hole in the network by serving Farm Road. I don’t think on a route like the 456 taking it over 4bph would do much for increasing usage just yet. Over time it may start to justify 3 bph. I do now think TfL have struck the right balance with taking the W10 and making it the 456 with an extension and improved operational hours. The next reasonable steps should be; starting an hour earlier (0600), finishing an hour later (2100), and 2 bph on a Sunday. I agree that the route planning and particularly network development as not effective, Silvertown Tunnel comes to mind for me. They're not interested in providing anything resembling a 'comprehensive network' or they would never had done what they did do the 384 and would be replacing the 84 without a second thought.
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Mar 2, 2023 11:21:44 GMT
If your view that not providing a basic comprehensive network of linking to users needs are not worth it, then I think we should look at why London's bus network isn't living to its potential. This is an organisation that justify half-hourly services are adequate and wonder why bus usage is declining. "No demand" are common words used. Demand comes when you establish a service and a link. I have said this before, the current planning policy used is not effective and really misses the essentials for user benefits. I agree with you on principle but I do think the mere existence of the 456 (and even the W10) is TfL attempt at providing a comprehensive network. It plugged a hole in the network by serving Farm Road. I don’t think on a route like the 456 taking it over 4bph would do much for increasing usage just yet. Over time it may start to justify 3 bph. I do now think TfL have struck the right balance with taking the W10 and making it the 456 with an extension and improved operational hours. The next reasonable steps should be; starting an hour earlier (0600), finishing an hour later (2100), and 2 bph on a Sunday. I agree that the route planning and particularly network development as not effective, Silvertown Tunnel comes to mind for me. Route planning and network development are heavily affected by TfL’s finances, there is simply no headroom these days for experimentation or to subsidise a service that may be loss making in its first few years, unless financial contributions are made by developers or others. There are plenty of schemes that would probably be successful after a few years but TfL must adopt a low risk approach to avoid racking up more debt. It’s a very different scenario to the 90s and 00s when a lot of bus route changes were designed to chase new passengers in unserved or underserved areas.
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Mar 4, 2023 10:44:21 GMT
Thanks for posting, been keeping an eye out for this Is this something that is produced regularly for individual routes or just a one off associated with the introduction of a new route. It would be useful if more route changes could be reviewed in this level of detail - particularly the recent central area changes.
|
|
|
Post by VMH2537 on Apr 3, 2023 8:54:02 GMT
The Meridian Water bus development paper should be published in the fourth quarter of this year.
|
|
|
Post by VMH2537 on Jun 12, 2023 9:58:19 GMT
A review of the W16 is being conducted if it could double run via Whipps Cross bus stand. There understandably has been strong requests from residents in Chingford and Highams Park. Not sure if this coincides with the upcoming Whipps Cross consultation?
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jun 12, 2023 10:17:36 GMT
A review of the W16 is being conducted if it could double run via Whipps Cross bus stand. There understandably has been strong requests from residents in Chingford and Highams Park. Not sure if this coincides with the upcoming Whipps Cross consultation? Surely a double run via Whipps Cross thou would largely do what the 357 does atleast as far as Chingfore Mount and Hatch.
|
|
|
Post by mondraker275 on Jun 12, 2023 15:00:38 GMT
A review of the W16 is being conducted if it could double run via Whipps Cross bus stand. There understandably has been strong requests from residents in Chingford and Highams Park. Not sure if this coincides with the upcoming Whipps Cross consultation? Used to take this regularly and always thought that could be an option but I would have it one-way (towards Leytonstone) as I suspect people dont have much of an issue taking W12 from inside the hospital and changing at the same stop on Shernall Street (short journey). The other way seems to be less convenient (although the inconvenience is minimal to be honest either way). Also, towards Chingford Mount you have the diversion through the back roads in Baker Arms, so adding another double loop will not be helpful. I always assumed that the Whipps Cross was just going to involve a frequency increase for the W12 but looks like it could be wider.
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Jun 16, 2023 11:00:40 GMT
Bromley area network review planned for 23/24 as well as a Lewisham/Catford review.
Out come the crayons! 😂
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jun 16, 2023 11:02:25 GMT
Bromley area network review planned for 23/24 as well as a Lewisham/Catford review. Out come the crayons! 😂 I think we know now a review means simply switching a couple of routes between 2 different roads. Look at Wembley
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Jun 16, 2023 16:59:44 GMT
Bromley area network review planned for 23/24 as well as a Lewisham/Catford review. Out come the crayons! 😂 Possibly a thinning out of the Lewisham to Catford direct corridor? I have often thought that one of the routes along there might be cut back (not that I agree with that!). I guess time will tell.
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Jun 16, 2023 17:40:41 GMT
Bromley area network review planned for 23/24 as well as a Lewisham/Catford review. Out come the crayons! 😂 47 curtailed to Lewisham? Or even withdrawn completely with the 453 running to Lewisham via Brookmill Road.
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Jun 16, 2023 17:59:43 GMT
Bromley area network review planned for 23/24 as well as a Lewisham/Catford review. Out come the crayons! 😂 47 curtailed to Lewisham? Or even withdrawn completely with the 453 running to Lewisham via Brookmill Road. The 47 looks most vulnerable south of Lewisham. Not sure it would go completely.
|
|