|
|
Post by LX09FBJ on Jul 15, 2016 18:42:27 GMT
Just wondering if I should start a new thread about suggestions people have about changes they would make to services in light of the service review and pedestrianisation of Oxford street or leave it here, what does everyone think? Not sure if the pedestrianisation proposal would warrant a new thread. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2016 18:46:24 GMT
Just wondering if I should start a new thread about suggestions people have about changes they would make to services in light of the service review and pedestrianisation of Oxford street or leave it here, what does everyone think? Not sure if the pedestrianisation proposal would warrant a new thread. Thanks, I'll take a gander, might have already posted in there before, d'oh! Btw your link sent me back to this page lol EDIT. I saw a thread on General bus discussion about pedestrianisation of Oxford Street but I think it'll be canned lol |
|
|
|
Post by John tuthill on Jul 15, 2016 18:49:48 GMT
Just wondering if I should start a new thread about suggestions people have about changes they would make to services in light of the service review and pedestrianisation of Oxford street or leave it here, what does everyone think? I suggest we all stand back and watch this Labour lady take on the City of Westminster, and especially the residents of Wigmore Street/Brook Street and all roads north and south that run parallel to Oxford Street   |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2016 18:51:27 GMT
Just wondering if I should start a new thread about suggestions people have about changes they would make to services in light of the service review and pedestrianisation of Oxford street or leave it here, what does everyone think? I suggest we all stand back and watch this Labour lady take on the City of Westminster, and especially the residents of Wigmore Street/Brook Street and all roads north and south that run parallel to Oxford Street Fair enough but I would love to see people's ideas of how THEY would change the bus network to take account of the cuts, I think this event will be a once in a lifetime event (number of route changes alone) EDIT - I do remember some posts in the Fantasy bus thread but that's generic and I wondered if we should have a dedicated thread for Oxford Street ideas alone |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jul 15, 2016 19:04:21 GMT
But there would be no justification in the whole service going to Plumstead. I think both routes are ok as they are but I wouldn't be surprised to see them both cut back to Elephant and Oxford Circus respectively. Having said that I think the 21 and 453 should swap southern terminals but that's a separate issue. I can see the 453 and 21 swapping termini; as per the ludicrous 436 consultation and documents proposing the 115 going via Whitechapel to Aldgate. What I cannot see happening is TfL justifying routes that mirror each other for the majority of its routing. In plain terms, I can't see TfL justifying the 453 if it's just the 53 route from Deptford to Whitehall & only that bit up to Oxford Circus. It's either the 53 goes direct to Plumstead (instead of via the Common) & gets extended to Oxford Circus thus killing the 453; or the 453 will remain unchanged and the 53 unchanged at its south-eastern end but a revised western terminus. Chances are the latter will happen as I doubt the Oxford Street/Regent Street intersection will get pedestrianised over. The point I was making is that the 53 and 453 have a combined frequency of 3/4mins between Lambeth North and Deptford and that level of service is not justified through to Plumstead. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jul 15, 2016 19:09:17 GMT
Whoever decides what should remain or not is besides the point. TFL may be the ultimate decider of what happens but I was subjectively stating what is likely to happen as a consequence of these arguably illogical ideas. We all have the right to express whether something will lead to a positive or negative outcome, in this case I struggle to rationally see any benefit to be gained. Yes and you will note I have said nothing whatsoever to contradict anybody's right to speak up either way. However ridiculous (or not) these changes seem, if I were tasked at cutting expenditure on routes due to funding cuts and Crossrail, the overlapping routes are one of the FIRST routes I'd chop. Here are some examples (sorry if already suggested): - Withdraw 14, extend 414 to Putney Heath - Withdraw 436. Extend 36 back to Lewisham or even withdraw 36 and send another route from Marble Arch to Queens Park and leave the 436 - Withdraw 453. Extend 53 back to Regent Street - Withdraw 430. Extend 74 back to Roehampton, withdraw Marble Arch/Hyde Park to Baker Street, other routes to deputise - Wirhdraw 390. Use another route to serve Kings X to Archway - Withdraw 9. Use another route to serve Pall Mall - Not my area but a merge of 73/476 also suggested elsewhere. Which these suggestions you can see that some routes (eg 53 and 414) don't have to travel much further at all. Some links to central London would indeed be broken but this is in anticipation of lower numbers and as already said there will inevitably be cuts to central London. In some cases, new links will be made (in my suggestions alone, people will be able to travel from Roehampton, possibly south London to the fringes of the central zone once more. I think the number of routes through the heart of zone one will be at a premium, how they select these will be interesting if the cuts are as savage as many think. The other thing about cutting parallel routes is the sneaky and shrewd way TfL could set their stall out in consultation. They could on one hand say 'this route will no longer run' but then say 'we will extend this route meaning passengers from this area can travel this far' etc. They can also blah a frequency increase to lure punters into agreeing. So if you have two parallel routes running every 8 minutes each (average headway 4 mins) then you say 'We will increase the frequency to every six minutes' but on one route the people could be drawn in by the increase rather than the number of routes, when in real terms it's a decrease in service. Sounds a bit drastic but I can see a lot of logic in those ideas. I suggested in another thread withdrawing the 74, extending the 430 to Baker Street, rerouting the 414 from South Kensington via the N97 route and cutting the 190 back to Hammersmith. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2016 19:24:31 GMT
Sounds a bit drastic but I can see a lot of logic in those ideas. I suggested in another thread withdrawing the 74, extending the 430 to Baker Street, rerouting the 414 from South Kensington via the N97 route and cutting the 190 back to Hammersmith. If anything I'd extend the 190 to South Ken as the route is already comparatively short, I don't even think the extension would require decking it. I'd still knock back the 430 completely. Your suggestion means Baker Street - Roehampton via Old Brompton Road. I disagree, it takes away from Earls Court and leave part of Cromwell Road unbussed during the day!! I'd just extend the 74 back to Roehampton. If it's too long for reliability, I'd remove it from Baker Street and possibly the Arch Edit. Forgot your 414 idea. I'd still leave it with the 74. In any case I'd remove the 14 altogether as stated with the 414 keeping its place |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 15, 2016 19:42:19 GMT
I suggest we all stand back and watch this Labour lady take on the City of Westminster, and especially the residents of Wigmore Street/Brook Street and all roads north and south that run parallel to Oxford Street Fair enough but I would love to see people's ideas of how THEY would change the bus network to take account of the cuts, I think this event will be a once in a lifetime event (number of route changes alone) EDIT - I do remember some posts in the Fantasy bus thread but that's generic and I wondered if we should have a dedicated thread for Oxford Street ideas alone I've posted some Oxford Street changes up a few months ago in the 'Withdrawn Routes' section before the idea of TfL wholly dismantling the Centreal area bus network came about tangytango.proboards.com/thread/4615/withdrawn-routes-new-route-ideas?page=11&q=oxford+street |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2016 19:52:25 GMT
Fair enough but I would love to see people's ideas of how THEY would change the bus network to take account of the cuts, I think this event will be a once in a lifetime event (number of route changes alone) EDIT - I do remember some posts in the Fantasy bus thread but that's generic and I wondered if we should have a dedicated thread for Oxford Street ideas alone I've posted some Oxford Street changes up a few months ago in the 'Withdrawn Routes' section before the idea of TfL wholly dismantling the Centreal area bus network came about tangytango.proboards.com/thread/4615/withdrawn-routes-new-route-ideas?page=11&q=oxford+streetI'll have to check it later, my phone is dying from being such a keyboard warrior and the link you sent me shows an interesting idea from moz. A few weeks back I'd have agreed with others that these were crazy-long but now look how the pendulum swings... |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jul 15, 2016 20:02:51 GMT
If anything I'd extend the 190 to South Ken as the route is already comparatively short, I don't even think the extension would require decking it. I'd still knock back the 430 completely. Your suggestion means Baker Street - Roehampton via Old Brompton Road. I disagree, it takes away from Earls Court and leave part of Cromwell Road unbussed during the day!! I'd just extend the 74 back to Roehampton. If it's too long for reliability, I'd remove it from Baker Street and possibly the Arch Edit. Forgot your 414 idea. I'd still leave it with the 74. In any case I'd remove the 14 altogether as stated with the 414 keeping its place It wouldn't leave part of Cromwell Road unserved, I'd rerouted the 414 from South Kensington to Hammersmith via the N97. The 430 takes a slightly more direct route than the 74. |
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jul 15, 2016 20:34:48 GMT
Whoever decides what should remain or not is besides the point. TFL may be the ultimate decider of what happens but I was subjectively stating what is likely to happen as a consequence of these arguably illogical ideas. We all have the right to express whether something will lead to a positive or negative outcome, in this case I struggle to rationally see any benefit to be gained. Yes and you will note I have said nothing whatsoever to contradict anybody's right to speak up either way. However ridiculous (or not) these changes seem, if I were tasked at cutting expenditure on routes due to funding cuts and Crossrail, the overlapping routes are one of the FIRST routes I'd chop. Here are some examples (sorry if already suggested): - Withdraw 14, extend 414 to Putney Heath - Withdraw 436. Extend 36 back to Lewisham or even withdraw 36 and send another route from Marble Arch to Queens Park and leave the 436 - Withdraw 453. Extend 53 back to Regent Street - Withdraw 430. Extend 74 back to Roehampton, withdraw Marble Arch/Hyde Park to Baker Street, other routes to deputise - Wirhdraw 390. Use another route to serve Kings X to Archway - Withdraw 9. Use another route to serve Pall Mall - Not my area but a merge of 73/476 also suggested elsewhere. Which these suggestions you can see that some routes (eg 53 and 414) don't have to travel much further at all. Some links to central London would indeed be broken but this is in anticipation of lower numbers and as already said there will inevitably be cuts to central London. In some cases, new links will be made (in my suggestions alone, people will be able to travel from Roehampton, possibly south London to the fringes of the central zone once more. I think the number of routes through the heart of zone one will be at a premium, how they select these will be interesting if the cuts are as savage as many think. The other thing about cutting parallel routes is the sneaky and shrewd way TfL could set their stall out in consultation. They could on one hand say 'this route will no longer run' but then say 'we will extend this route meaning passengers from this area can travel this far' etc. They can also blah a frequency increase to lure punters into agreeing. So if you have two parallel routes running every 8 minutes each (average headway 4 mins) then you say 'We will increase the frequency to every six minutes' but on one route the people could be drawn in by the increase rather than the number of routes, when in real terms it's a decrease in service. My take on your ideas: - I would keep the 36 and 436 as they are. Crossrail and the pedestrianisation of Oxford Street will have no impact on these routes therefore fiddling with them is unnecessary. Removing either one of them would have serious consequences along the busy A202 corridor let alone keeping only one route serving this section. No point in having another route between Queen's Park and Marble Arch as the 36 perfectly justifies why it exists due to its high ridership throughout, this is down to the route itself and the links it provides. - Personally I'd like the 14 and 414 to remain for similar reasons as above, except I would divert it from the top of Edgware Road via Lord's Cricket Ground and Prince Albert Road to Camden Town to introduce new links and avoid unnecessarily duplicating the 6 between Maida Hill and Edgware Road. - I agree with extending the 53 slightly to penetrate further into Central London regardless of the Oxford Street pedestrianisation. Rerouting the 53 away from Plumstead Common would allow the route to reapply a small amount of its lost journey time to the extension whereby the 53 would have a reduced journey time in total. However all of this is NOT at the expense of withdrawing the 453 so as to maintain the busy link to and from Marylebone and Baker Street. Extending the 53 any further is out of the question therefore the logic in this is to keep the busy 453. - I'm in partial agreement with reinstating the 74 back to Roehampton. It could perhaps get away with it without having serious consequences as the section between Putney and Roehampton would perhaps add another 15 mins to its max running time of 83 mins. Then again, I'm uncertain about this and anymore than 15 mins would risk exceeding a max journey time of 100 mins and would therefore result in reliability issues. - I also partly agree with your ideas regarding the 10 and 390. To compensate for withdrawing the 390, the 10 could be given a frequency increase to x 5-9 mins, therefore the excess patronage resulting from the loss of the 390 would perhaps be catered for. Alternatively, the 390 could remain but curtailed at TCR and extended north of Archway to give the route some useful links and a healthy length to an otherwise short Kings Cross - Archway route. - Withdrawing the 9 is a big 'No' in my book. Extending it to London Bridge however is a big 'Yes'. - I don't think merging the 73 and 476 is a good idea for similar reasons to the 74/430. The 73 currently has a max running time of 90 mins, therefore having a route run between Victoria and Northumberland Park would be very problematic and diffucult to run. Also what frequency would you expect the 73 to have if merged with the 476? The simple answer is it would be very impractical for the former to gain a frequency increase more than what it is at the moment. If my desire of the 73 running along Wigmore Street comes into fruition - alongside some Oxford Street routes (the rest running along Brook street) - then the 476 could be extended over the 73 to Marble arch to provide it with much needed assistance, the 73 could in turn recieve a slight frequency reduction. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2016 20:46:56 GMT
Yes and you will note I have said nothing whatsoever to contradict anybody's right to speak up either way. However ridiculous (or not) these changes seem, if I were tasked at cutting expenditure on routes due to funding cuts and Crossrail, the overlapping routes are one of the FIRST routes I'd chop. Here are some examples (sorry if already suggested): - Withdraw 14, extend 414 to Putney Heath - Withdraw 436. Extend 36 back to Lewisham or even withdraw 36 and send another route from Marble Arch to Queens Park and leave the 436 - Withdraw 453. Extend 53 back to Regent Street - Withdraw 430. Extend 74 back to Roehampton, withdraw Marble Arch/Hyde Park to Baker Street, other routes to deputise - Wirhdraw 390. Use another route to serve Kings X to Archway - Withdraw 9. Use another route to serve Pall Mall - Not my area but a merge of 73/476 also suggested elsewhere. Which these suggestions you can see that some routes (eg 53 and 414) don't have to travel much further at all. Some links to central London would indeed be broken but this is in anticipation of lower numbers and as already said there will inevitably be cuts to central London. In some cases, new links will be made (in my suggestions alone, people will be able to travel from Roehampton, possibly south London to the fringes of the central zone once more. I think the number of routes through the heart of zone one will be at a premium, how they select these will be interesting if the cuts are as savage as many think. The other thing about cutting parallel routes is the sneaky and shrewd way TfL could set their stall out in consultation. They could on one hand say 'this route will no longer run' but then say 'we will extend this route meaning passengers from this area can travel this far' etc. They can also blah a frequency increase to lure punters into agreeing. So if you have two parallel routes running every 8 minutes each (average headway 4 mins) then you say 'We will increase the frequency to every six minutes' but on one route the people could be drawn in by the increase rather than the number of routes, when in real terms it's a decrease in service. My take on your ideas: - I would keep the 36 and 436 as they are. Crossrail and the pedestrianisation of Oxford Street will have no impact on these routes therefore fiddling with them is unnecessary. Removing either one of them would have serious consequences along the busy A202 corridor let alone keeping only one route serving this section. No point in having another route between Queen's Park and Marble Arch as the 36 perfectly justifies why it exists due to its high ridership throughout, this is down to the route itself and the links it provides. - Personally I'd like the 14 and 414 to remain for similar reasons as above, except I would divert it from the top of Edgware Road via Lord's Cricket Ground and Prince Albert Road to Camden Town to introduce new links and avoid unnecessarily duplicating the 6 between Maida Hill and Edgware Road. - I agree with extending the 53 slightly to penetrate further into Central London regardless of the Oxford Street pedestrianisation. Rerouting the 53 away from Plumstead Common would allow the route to reapply a small amount of its lost journey time to the extension whereby the 53 would have a reduced journey time in total. However all of this is NOT at the expense of withdrawing the 453 so as to maintain the busy link to and from Marylebone and Baker Street. Extending the 53 any further is out of the question therefore the logic in this is to keep the busy 453. - I'm in partial agreement with reinstating the 74 back to Roehampton. It could perhaps get away with it without having serious consequences as the section between Putney and Roehampton would perhaps add another 15 mins to its max running time of 83 mins. Then again, I'm uncertain about this and anymore than 15 mins would risk exceeding a max journey time of 100 mins and would therefore result in reliability issues. - I also partly agree with your ideas regarding the 10 and 390. To compensate for withdrawing the 390, the 10 could be given a frequency increase to x 5-9 mins, therefore the excess patronage resulting from the loss of the 390 would perhaps be catered for. Alternatively, the 390 could remain but curtailed at TCR and extended north of Archway to give the route some useful links and a healthy length to an otherwise short Kings Cross - Archway route. - Withdrawing the 9 is a big 'No' in my book. Extending it to London Bridge however is a big 'Yes'. - I don't think merging the 73 and 476 is a good idea for similar reasons to the 74/430. The 73 currently has a max running time of 90 mins, therefore having a route run between Victoria and Northumberland Park would be very problematic and diffucult to run. Also what frequency would you expect the 73 to have if merged with the 476? The simple answer is it would be very impractical for the former to gain a frequency increase more than what it is at the moment. If my desire of the 73 running along Wigmore Street comes into fruition - alongside some Oxford Street routes (the rest running along Brook street) - then the 476 could be extended over the 73 to Marble arch to provide it with much needed assistance, the 73 could in turn recieve a slight frequency reduction. My ideas are based on what I think TfL would do, or what I would do faced with the task of cutting services, which is why I think your suggestions wouldn't save anywhere near enough money. In an ideal world I'd keep everything as it is now, but the realistic factor is the overlapping routes are at great risk with the onset of Crossrail (possibly showcased by the recent 436 diversion). My ideas reflect savings with a reduction in PVR across the board (bearing in mind TfL's projected fall in usage forecast). Your ideas, which I respect, don't really address many savings at all, in some cases more cost would result. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jul 15, 2016 20:59:03 GMT
Yes and you will note I have said nothing whatsoever to contradict anybody's right to speak up either way. However ridiculous (or not) these changes seem, if I were tasked at cutting expenditure on routes due to funding cuts and Crossrail, the overlapping routes are one of the FIRST routes I'd chop. Here are some examples (sorry if already suggested): - Withdraw 14, extend 414 to Putney Heath - Withdraw 436. Extend 36 back to Lewisham or even withdraw 36 and send another route from Marble Arch to Queens Park and leave the 436 - Withdraw 453. Extend 53 back to Regent Street - Withdraw 430. Extend 74 back to Roehampton, withdraw Marble Arch/Hyde Park to Baker Street, other routes to deputise - Wirhdraw 390. Use another route to serve Kings X to Archway - Withdraw 9. Use another route to serve Pall Mall - Not my area but a merge of 73/476 also suggested elsewhere. Which these suggestions you can see that some routes (eg 53 and 414) don't have to travel much further at all. Some links to central London would indeed be broken but this is in anticipation of lower numbers and as already said there will inevitably be cuts to central London. In some cases, new links will be made (in my suggestions alone, people will be able to travel from Roehampton, possibly south London to the fringes of the central zone once more. I think the number of routes through the heart of zone one will be at a premium, how they select these will be interesting if the cuts are as savage as many think. The other thing about cutting parallel routes is the sneaky and shrewd way TfL could set their stall out in consultation. They could on one hand say 'this route will no longer run' but then say 'we will extend this route meaning passengers from this area can travel this far' etc. They can also blah a frequency increase to lure punters into agreeing. So if you have two parallel routes running every 8 minutes each (average headway 4 mins) then you say 'We will increase the frequency to every six minutes' but on one route the people could be drawn in by the increase rather than the number of routes, when in real terms it's a decrease in service. My take on your ideas: - I would keep the 36 and 436 as they are. Crossrail and the pedestrianisation of Oxford Street will have no impact on these routes therefore fiddling with them is unnecessary. Removing either one of them would have serious consequences along the busy A202 corridor let alone keeping only one route serving this section. No point in having another route between Queen's Park and Marble Arch as the 36 perfectly justifies why it exists due to its high ridership throughout, this is down to the route itself and the links it provides. - Personally I'd like the 14 and 414 to remain for similar reasons as above, except I would divert it from the top of Edgware Road via Lord's Cricket Ground and Prince Albert Road to Camden Town to introduce new links and avoid unnecessarily duplicating the 6 between Maida Hill and Edgware Road. - I agree with extending the 53 slightly to penetrate further into Central London regardless of the Oxford Street pedestrianisation. Rerouting the 53 away from Plumstead Common would allow the route to reapply a small amount of its lost journey time to the extension whereby the 53 would have a reduced journey time in total. However all of this is NOT at the expense of withdrawing the 453 so as to maintain the busy link to and from Marylebone and Baker Street. Extending the 53 any further is out of the question therefore the logic in this is to keep the busy 453. - I'm in partial agreement with reinstating the 74 back to Roehampton. It could perhaps get away with it without having serious consequences as the section between Putney and Roehampton would perhaps add another 15 mins to its max running time of 83 mins. Then again, I'm uncertain about this and anymore than 15 mins would risk exceeding a max journey time of 100 mins and would therefore result in reliability issues. - I also partly agree with your ideas regarding the 10 and 390. To compensate for withdrawing the 390, the 10 could be given a frequency increase to x 5-9 mins, therefore the excess patronage resulting from the loss of the 390 would perhaps be catered for. Alternatively, the 390 could remain but curtailed at TCR and extended north of Archway to give the route some useful links and a healthy length to an otherwise short Kings Cross - Archway route. - Withdrawing the 9 is a big 'No' in my book. Extending it to London Bridge however is a big 'Yes'. - I don't think merging the 73 and 476 is a good idea for similar reasons to the 74/430. The 73 currently has a max running time of 90 mins, therefore having a route run between Victoria and Northumberland Park would be very problematic and diffucult to run. Also what frequency would you expect the 73 to have if merged with the 476? The simple answer is it would be very impractical for the former to gain a frequency increase more than what it is at the moment. If my desire of the 73 running along Wigmore Street comes into fruition - alongside some Oxford Street routes (the rest running along Brook street) - then the 476 could be extended over the 73 to Marble arch to provide it with much needed assistance, the 73 could in turn recieve a slight frequency reduction. I wouldn't disagree with leaving the 36/436 as they are, rather than increasing the 36 to every 4mins, seriously overbussing the Queens Park section, just run both routes every 8minutes and introduce a new route between New Cross and Battersea and possibly beyond. I don't think both the 14 and 414 are really needed between South Kensington and Putney Bridge. I think the 53 and 453 are pretty much ok as they are, I certainly wouldn't remove the 53 from Plumstead Common. I suspect a route diverted away from Oxford Street will provide the link to Marylebone in the future. A through service between Roehampton and Central London is certainly viable whether it be the 74 or 430 or maybe even the 14? I don't think both the 73 and 476 can be justified between Euston and Stokey so the latter has to go, extend the 73 to Tottenham Hale and reroute the 76 back to Northumberland Park. |
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jul 15, 2016 21:21:56 GMT
My ideas are based on what I think TfL would do, or what I would do faced with the task of cutting services, which is why I think your suggestions wouldn't save anywhere near enough money. In an ideal world I'd keep everything as it is now, but the realistic factor is the overlapping routes are at great risk with the onset of Crossrail (possibly showcased by the recent 436 diversion). My ideas reflect savings with a reduction in PVR across the board (bearing in mind TfL's projected fall in usage forecast). Your ideas, which I respect, don't really address many savings at all, in some cases more cost would result. Arguably it can be said that your ideas may not actually be as cost effective as they seem due to the consequences they would have i.e. increased frequency, increased PVR (a large scale reduction in PVR is highly unlikely after the schemes take place imo), diverted routes, added route length leading to increased operational costs and extra resources needed, not forgetting the inconveniences caused amongst the public. I would argue that savings do not need be made as the bus network is generally fine the way it is. Of course that's not to say there aren't some concerns that need to be addressed however not to the extent of radically 'reshaping' the bus network as per your suggestions, but I respect the rationale behind your ideas. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2016 4:09:17 GMT
My ideas are based on what I think TfL would do, or what I would do faced with the task of cutting services, which is why I think your suggestions wouldn't save anywhere near enough money. In an ideal world I'd keep everything as it is now, but the realistic factor is the overlapping routes are at great risk with the onset of Crossrail (possibly showcased by the recent 436 diversion). My ideas reflect savings with a reduction in PVR across the board (bearing in mind TfL's projected fall in usage forecast). Your ideas, which I respect, don't really address many savings at all, in some cases more cost would result. Arguably it can be said that your ideas may not actually be as cost effective as they seem due to the consequences they would have i.e. increased frequency, increased PVR (a large scale reduction in PVR is highly unlikely after the schemes take place imo), diverted routes, added route length leading to increased operational costs and extra resources needed, not forgetting the inconveniences caused amongst the public. I would argue that savings do not need be made as the bus network is generally fine the way it is. Of course that's not to say there aren't some concerns that need to be addressed however not to the extent of radically 'reshaping' the bus network as per your suggestions, but I respect the rationale behind your ideas. There are ways in which they can easily save costs by shaving PVR: - a simple case scenario, two overlap routes at 20 PVR each, you extend one route and increase the frequency slightly, giving an extra 10 PVR (which is VERY generous in this example) but the other route you cut completely. You instantly cut 10 buses. Any problems the extended route has with reliability can further be reduced by implementing booked 'turns', it may disbenefit some but as we all know as many routes reach their end on the outer end of London the bus isn't exactly full, so they could save even more PVR in that sense (would work in the evening peak better than the AM peak) I don't think my ideas 'reshape' bus services at all, or even radically, as many of them are simply a revert to how they once were. I have not suggested any major diversions etc, mainly curtailments within London and extensions on the other end which I think is a realistic opportunity for TfL to address the cost saving issue that they do need to implement (at least, according to themselves) I think they would be mad, with Crossrail, Oxford Street, NLE and let's not forget HS1/2 all in the pipeline that they do next to nothing to eliminate journeys by bus in central London. Routeing everything via Green Park or Euston Square/Wigmore Street/other parallel roads simply isn't an option. Another cert for me is the loss of the 94... I've mentioned it before but add the following: if Oxford Street gets pedestrianised and Crossrail does indeed relieve the Central line there is absolutely no way TfL will want the 94 to run because people will be travelling cheaper with spare capacity on trains (I still can't actually see that in the peak either but hey ho) Even now you will see people boarding in Oxford Street to travel to Shepherds Bush. That's one thing TfL won't stand for once they can claim there is space on their rail networks. The short Shepherds Bush - Acton section can still run via another route (eg 31) and the 94 won't be missed if other routes simply get a minor PVR increase - |
|
