Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2016 21:17:58 GMT
I think the strategy here is forcing people onto the more expensive tube, particularly the Central line if, as predicted, the EL takes some pressure off.
Maybe in for the north - south journeys they will force people onto LU lines by curtailing routes north and south of central London where they can find, or even make, space for 'hubs'. I see in the west alone opportunities at Swiss Cottage, Notting Hill, Kensington and even Battersea where all TfL need to do is draft consultations under the guise of 'smoother traffic flows' etc to ensure space for future bus stands for future consultations.
I add that I can't see west - east routes simply being diverted around alternative roads around Oxford Street. I think Val Shawcross has already dismissed Wigmore Street. A lot of people think that routes will go around Green Park but what they won't want is hundreds of buses heading into Piccadilly so think again:
For example do they run the 390 around Green Park or even Euston Road of the Marble Arch - Notting Hill section is catered for by the Central line, 94, 148, and 274 or do they withdraw altogether and look at rerouteing other routes between Kings Cross and Archway? Do they even need the 94 at all? Running it via Green Park - Piccadily is gross duplication at best, and they could simply extend the 148 or even the 31 to Acton Green, which in PVR terms isn't very far away from White City/Shepherd's Bush. These combined theories alone would leave the Marble Arch - Lancaster Gate stretch with half its routes. A high capacity 148 and extended 274 could be deemed sufficient for the MA - NHG corridor!
This to me shows that even routes that don't touch Oxford Street (such as the 9, 14, 22 etc are at risk if they consider that diverting routes via Green Park would leave the area 'overbussed'.
It's not therefore unreasonable to think now that some routes may actually become longer as suggested above
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jul 14, 2016 21:54:02 GMT
For example do they run the 390 around Green Park or even Euston Road of the Marble Arch - Notting Hill section is catered for by the Central line, 94, 148, and 274 or do they withdraw altogether and look at rerouteing other routes between Kings Cross and Archway? Do they even need the 94 at all? Running it via Green Park - Piccadily is gross duplication at best, and they could simply extend the 148 or even the 31 to Acton Green, which in PVR terms isn't very far away from White City/Shepherd's Bush. These combined theories alone would leave the Marble Arch - Lancaster Gate stretch with half its routes. A high capacity 148 and extended 274 could be deemed sufficient for the MA - NHG corridor! You kill the 390. The top bit gets added to the 59. Extend the 30 from Marble Arch to NHG to replace the 390. The 73 and 476 get merged into one route that goes no further than TCR. The 9 and 10 get merged into a single route which runs up Charing X Rd and then via the revised 10 to KX. And so on and so on. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2016 23:01:31 GMT
You kill the 390. The top bit gets added to the 59. Extend the 30 from Marble Arch to NHG to replace the 390. The 73 and 476 get merged into one route that goes no further than TCR. The 9 and 10 get merged into a single route which runs up Charing X Rd and then via the revised 10 to KX. And so on and so on. Sadly it all makes sense, and so do the rumours I'm hearing about the 13 replacing the 82 to Victoria and North Finchley. Hopefully they'll invest the savings in the outer London routes which need increases in frequency (I think someone mentioned the 120 but plenty more examples exist) but I'm not so sure this will happen. Moreover, what about outer London services once Crossrail opens? Will we see the demise of the 607, cuts to the 86? There is scope for this as well if you make people use these more profitable train routes! |
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jul 14, 2016 23:09:56 GMT
Imo using adjacent roads would be the most logical solution if pedestrianisation will go forward. There would be no point whatsoever in diverting all routes a long distance away from Oxford Street i.e. Green Park so as to keep in close proximity to Oxford Street as possible, therefore adjacent roads such as Wigmore Street and Brook Street would be the best way to minimise the inconvenience of a massive diversion. Additionally, Oxford Street routes would see a significant decrease in ridership if they're not kept within the vicinity of the corridor as the majority of their respective ridership are down to passengers using each route running along Oxford Street. Furthermore, this is only a theory, but the perpendicular roads connecting Oxford Street to Wigmore Street and Brook Street could be modified in a way to maximise accessibility through them in order to allow the connection to bus stops to be effective. Not what Val Shawcross was saying. She said "you can't put hundreds of buses down Wigmore St or other side roads". Locals don't want that nor do Westminster City Council. Yes I acknowledge she wasn't saying that nor did I mention she said that. Personally it would make sense to do so more than anything else. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2016 23:12:31 GMT
Extend the 30 from Marble Arch to NHG to replace the 390. [/quote] Just a footnote that it would be cool if they not only ran the 30 to NHG but to White City. Common stops, even termini for the 30 and 31 would look awesome! It would still be good if they replaced the 94 Acton Green run with the 31 if the 148's NRM's failed the route test. Sorry, going off on a tangent (even though it does refer to the case in point) |
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jul 14, 2016 23:17:45 GMT
Extend the 30 from Marble Arch to NHG to replace the 390. Hackney Wick to White City would be a heck of a slog! |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jul 14, 2016 23:18:24 GMT
You kill the 390. The top bit gets added to the 59. Extend the 30 from Marble Arch to NHG to replace the 390. The 73 and 476 get merged into one route that goes no further than TCR. The 9 and 10 get merged into a single route which runs up Charing X Rd and then via the revised 10 to KX. And so on and so on. Sadly it all makes sense, and so do the rumours I'm hearing about the 13 replacing the 82 to Victoria and North Finchley. Hopefully they'll invest the savings in the outer London routes which need increases in frequency (I think someone mentioned the 120 but plenty more examples exist) but I'm not so sure this will happen. Moreover, what about outer London services once Crossrail opens? Will we see the demise of the 607, cuts to the 86? There is scope for this as well if you make people use these more profitable train routes! Just to shove the discussion along a little bit there was a different Assembly discussion today about the risks to TfL's budget and what might happen to services. The most interesting aspect for me was that there was a fairly strong consensus from the assembled experts that the mode that was most at risk was buses. This wasn't to do with Oxford St. It was all about the decline we've seen in the last 2 years and then the ongoing risks if bus performance (journey time improvements, reliability etc) did not radically improve. There was a concerted demand that bus priorty needed money and needed a big push from TfL. I wonder if we will see that happen. There is money being spent now but it's lots of small schemes and there's negligible detail about what is happening and where. I can only think of the Brentfield Rd bus lane and the new right turn at Camden Rd for 274s heading to Islington. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jul 14, 2016 23:25:33 GMT
Extend the 30 from Marble Arch to NHG to replace the 390. Hackney Wick to White City would be a heck of a slog! I agree but then so is White City Shepherds Bush to Camberwell Green. I'm only musing about what might happen. I do feel the only way that TfL can lose stand space in the centre and cope with large scale rationalisation is that *some* routes will have to be extended to pick up route sections lost from existing routes or simply to merge routes together. That is a change in practice and may have profound implications for route allocations. Other routes will no doubt be curtailed elsewhere in the Centre or further out. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2016 23:43:30 GMT
Just to shove the discussion along a little bit there was a different Assembly discussion today about the risks to TfL's budget and what might happen to services. The most interesting aspect for me was that there was a fairly strong consensus from the assembled experts that the mode that was most at risk was buses. This wasn't to do with Oxford St. It was all about the decline we've seen in the last 2 years and then the ongoing risks if bus performance (journey time improvements, reliability etc) did not radically improve. There was a concerted demand that bus priorty needed money and needed a big push from TfL. I wonder if we will see that happen. There is money being spent now but it's lots of small schemes and there's negligible detail about what is happening and where. I can only think of the Brentfield Rd bus lane and the new right turn at Camden Rd for 274s heading to Islington. I see these little bus schemes as well, hopefully it's a positive, albeit soft, pointer to more reliable bus services at least. Let's be honest, reliability is the biggest issue TfL have right now, it's not frequency which is driving people away. If I started on the 266 my post would be removed for exceeding bandwidth but I'm happy to see them doing these little things than wishing the problem away |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2016 23:47:10 GMT
Hackney Wick to White City would be a heck of a slog! Yes it would but that is the direction I see routes going in this spending review. The 30 isn't exactly 'round the houses' and is often duplicated so it could probably cope with demand with the extension. Other routes, like snoggle suggested, could be replaced, extended and merged at TfL's will |
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jul 15, 2016 0:43:15 GMT
Hackney Wick to White City would be a heck of a slog! I agree but then so is White City Shepherds Bush to Camberwell Green. I'm only musing about what might happen. I do feel the only way that TfL can lose stand space in the centre and cope with large scale rationalisation is that *some* routes will have to be extended to pick up route sections lost from existing routes or simply to merge routes together. That is a change in practice and may have profound implications for route allocations. Other routes will no doubt be curtailed elsewhere in the Centre or further out. If routes are indeed going to be consequently extended as such then this would be a start of an interesting trend of lengthy routes, whereby the long routes of today would become average and the term 'long' would apply to routes given significant extensions. Perhaps this could somewhat be seen as a nod to the historical era of very lengthy routes. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 15, 2016 2:16:11 GMT
I agree but then so is White City Shepherds Bush to Camberwell Green. I'm only musing about what might happen. I do feel the only way that TfL can lose stand space in the centre and cope with large scale rationalisation is that *some* routes will have to be extended to pick up route sections lost from existing routes or simply to merge routes together. That is a change in practice and may have profound implications for route allocations. Other routes will no doubt be curtailed elsewhere in the Centre or further out. If routes are indeed going to be consequently extended as such then this would be a start of an interesting trend of lengthy routes, whereby the long routes of today would become average and the term 'long' would apply to routes given significant extensions. Perhaps this could somewhat be seen as a nod to the historical era of very lengthy routes. And a nod to giving two hoots about reliability of these extended routes because they will suffer. Unless I read it wrong (most likely seeing as its me), 'snoggle' suggested that something like the 59 being extended to Archway in place of the 390 could be suggested by TfL and if that's the way TfL intend to go, not only will we have a poorer Central network but at the same time, a poorer inner London one too. |
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jul 15, 2016 2:31:14 GMT
If routes are indeed going to be consequently extended as such then this would be a start of an interesting trend of lengthy routes, whereby the long routes of today would become average and the term 'long' would apply to routes given significant extensions. Perhaps this could somewhat be seen as a nod to the historical era of very lengthy routes. And a nod to giving two hoots about reliability of these extended routes because they will suffer. Unless I read it wrong (most likely seeing as its me), 'snoggle' suggested that something like the 59 being extended to Archway in place of the 390 could be suggested by TfL and if that's the way TfL intend to go, not only will we have a poorer Central network but at the same time, a poorer inner London one too. Indeed. Although interesting, reliability would be a major obstacle to such ideas, which to be frank are mere speculations and unlikely to happen due to the consequence of Inner London's bus network reliability deteriorating significantly. I sincerely hope TFL are not stupid enough to propose such ideas, as if they haven't been stupid enough already...  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2016 3:04:02 GMT
Indeed. Although interesting, reliability would be a major obstacle to such ideas, which to be frank are mere speculations and unlikely to happen due to the consequence of Inner London's bus network reliability deteriorating significantly. I sincerely hope TFL are not stupid enough to propose such ideas, as if they haven't been stupid enough already... It may be mere speculation, it remains to be seen. But if buses are less crowded as TfL predicts, will they consider routes too 'long' if they were extended? Would they care about reliability if a handful of users are forced to change buses through curtailments owing to congestion etc? Not so sure about either of those, especially to and from central London if they curtail routes short before London them send them back for right time. It's just another tactic that COULD be used to squeeze people onto rail, which would further enhance the 'evidence' that bus usage is dropping. I'd be incredibly surprised if this hasn't been thought of, let alone discussed at TfL HQ. |
|
|
|
Post by Unorm on Jul 15, 2016 5:05:13 GMT
I'd guess for reliability issues longer routes would have split sections maybe. Bad side would be dealing with frequencies without overbussing like say for example if 3 was extended back to Camden Town. A Camden Town to Kennington or Brixton and Regent Street as usual to usual Crystal Palace.
The problem would be better solved on routes with busier inner sections like routes split into bendies or so. Perhaps this could work with 59 to Archway. Just my simple thoughts.
|
|
