|
|
Post by rif153 on Mar 31, 2019 18:58:30 GMT
With the 23/332 not now going to Lancaster Gate as planned, there may be stand space there that would be used by something from Marble Arch (137, 189 or 113). It would be interesting to see one of those three terminating at Lancaster Gate and see what the demand is like. I always thought the consultation which proposed using Lancaster Gate to turn the 23 and 332 was just a lazy excuse to not run buses East of Paddington and effectively use Lancaster Gate as a bus stand. If stand space in that area realy does become problematic then two words spring to mind for a TFL soloution - Paddington Basin |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Mar 31, 2019 19:01:08 GMT
Could divert the 2 or 74 to Paddington Basin.
Wasn't it proposed that the 94 would stand on North Row?
|
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Mar 31, 2019 19:07:20 GMT
Could divert the 2 or 74 to Paddington Basin. Wasn't it proposed that the 94 would stand on North Row? I had forgottten but yes you're right |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Mar 31, 2019 19:23:23 GMT
I do fear for the 94 a bit as Shepherds Bush to Marble Arch is covered by the 148 with the only unique part being to Acton Green.
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Mar 31, 2019 19:45:48 GMT
Could divert the 2 or 74 to Paddington Basin. Wasn't it proposed that the 94 would stand on North Row? I take it people who use the 2 to & from Marylebone are not important in all of this? |
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Mar 31, 2019 19:52:04 GMT
I do fear for the 94 a bit as Shepherds Bush to Marble Arch is covered by the 148 with the only unique part being to Acton Green. As a West Londoner, I too fear for the 94. Turnham Green is not too far away from me so I can use hopper to get into Central London for £1.50 (though sadly no longer on the 27) hence I really value the 94. Marble Arch from the West is a poor terminus especially for those less mobile who live on the 94 route and shop on Oxford Street. It would be sad to see that old link once covered by the 88 from Acton Green to Marble Arch broken but I think it is inevitable |
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Mar 31, 2019 19:57:10 GMT
Could divert the 2 or 74 to Paddington Basin. Wasn't it proposed that the 94 would stand on North Row? I take it people who use the 2 to & from Marylebone are not important in all of this? He was suggesting that it is likely that the number of buses between Baker Street and Marble Arch will be reduce. We both identified stand space at Marble Arch and being a problem and looked at nearby alternatives to use and I suggested the vacant stand on North Wharf Road may see use again if TFL are looking for stand space in that area. I never suggested people who don't use the 2 to reach Marylebone are unimportant. I realise the links provided by the 2 are well used and valued but in the current climate, hopper may be used as an excuse to cut one of the 2 or 74 back. The 2 is an important link to have especially because it will soon be the only route serving to forecourt of Marylebone Station therefore I see a cut to the 74 as highly likely but as previously mentioned, stand space at Marble Arch will be problematic |
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Mar 31, 2019 20:07:00 GMT
With the 23/332 not now going to Lancaster Gate as planned, there may be stand space there that would be used by something from Marble Arch (137, 189 or 113). If the 137 were to be chosen to extend in this way, it would, i think, provide the first ever link between Knightsbridge Station and Lancaster Gate Station which, though a bit niche, might be useful to a few. I might even consider it myself if travelling from Streatham Hill to Paddington, now the 159 doesn't cover the full journey and will, in future, cover even less. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Mar 31, 2019 20:15:23 GMT
Not from what I've seen and I've linked photos of how much clearer it is, the only particular problem with black cabs is the cab rank outside Selfridges. Parts of Oxford Street are definitely clearer, although to be fair there are times when congestion returns due to other traffic, primarily taxis. It is therefore not consistent.
What has happened over the years is that the road layout has changed, and more specifically traffic light phasing. This has led to an overall reduction in possible traffic throughput, and given a major part of the traffic was buses, bus 'congestion' was the result. We do need to separate the root cause and symptoms.
You can't provide safer crossing facilities for pedestrians without delaying traffic. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Mar 31, 2019 23:10:02 GMT
I take it people who use the 2 to & from Marylebone are not important in all of this? He was suggesting that it is likely that the number of buses between Baker Street and Marble Arch will be reduce. We both identified stand space at Marble Arch and being a problem and looked at nearby alternatives to use and I suggested the vacant stand on North Wharf Road may see use again if TFL are looking for stand space in that area. I never suggested people who don't use the 2 to reach Marylebone are unimportant. I realise the links provided by the 2 are well used and valued but in the current climate, hopper may be used as an excuse to cut one of the 2 or 74 back. The 2 is an important link to have especially because it will soon be the only route serving to forecourt of Marylebone Station therefore I see a cut to the 74 as highly likely but as previously mentioned, stand space at Marble Arch will be problematic Surely if the 2 & 74 were to be cut, that would of happened during the Baker Street proposals? I mean, the 2 was altered to no longer run via Dorset Square on the approach to Marylebone once the works kicked in. The 2 now only serves the forecourt towards Marylebone only - towards West Norwood, TfL have changed the routing without anyone being informed other than Arriva and it now runs via Marylebone Road with the first stop at the old town hall. I found this out the hard way after enduring a 30 min wait before walking around to the stand and asking two friendly drivers who kindly informed me. TfL didn't even bother telling the organisers of the Red nose Day RM services in Central London last month - the tile & timetable continue to be displayed outside Marylebone but the 2 doesn't stop there. |
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Apr 1, 2019 9:38:34 GMT
Parts of Oxford Street are definitely clearer, although to be fair there are times when congestion returns due to other traffic, primarily taxis. It is therefore not consistent.
What has happened over the years is that the road layout has changed, and more specifically traffic light phasing. This has led to an overall reduction in possible traffic throughput, and given a major part of the traffic was buses, bus 'congestion' was the result. We do need to separate the root cause and symptoms.
You can't provide safer crossing facilities for pedestrians without delaying traffic. That is largely down to road layout and there even there, there are different choices that can be made. There should be a proper discussion if you restrict traffic so as to create 'bus congestion', so the best and most appropriate options can be chosen. What we have today is a completely disjointed situation where traffic changes are made without due consideration to the bus network and bus passengers. Remember many of the pedestrians for whom these improvements are made are also bus passengers.
As for pedestrian safety, the biggest problem with crossing facilities is that they are ignored by pedestrians! Most pedestrians (circa 80% I think was quoted somewhere) cross when they perceive it to be safe, rather than wait for the 'green man' (btw I am in the 80% group). I had a discussion with the police when general traffic was banned from Bank junction, and indeed the reduction did help reduce the number of accidents. I then posed a simple question as to what would likely happen to the accident rate given the traffic ban, and also before the ban if pedestrians could only cross when there was a 'green man'. Answer was you'd also almost eliminate pedestrian accidents at the junction regardless of the traffic ban if pedestrians only crossed when the 'green man' showed. So the biggest improvement in pedestrian crossing safety is for pedestrians to only cross when the 'green man' shows. Now before anyone jumps on me, I am not suggesting that is enforced, far from it, people should be left to cross at their discretion, but that will inevitably mean a higher accident rate.
|
|
|
|
Post by sid on Apr 1, 2019 13:31:56 GMT
You can't provide safer crossing facilities for pedestrians without delaying traffic. That is largely down to road layout and there even there, there are different choices that can be made. There should be a proper discussion if you restrict traffic so as to create 'bus congestion', so the best and most appropriate options can be chosen. What we have today is a completely disjointed situation where traffic changes are made without due consideration to the bus network and bus passengers. Remember many of the pedestrians for whom these improvements are made are also bus passengers.
As for pedestrian safety, the biggest problem with crossing facilities is that they are ignored by pedestrians! Most pedestrians (circa 80% I think was quoted somewhere) cross when they perceive it to be safe, rather than wait for the 'green man' (btw I am in the 80% group). I had a discussion with the police when general traffic was banned from Bank junction, and indeed the reduction did help reduce the number of accidents. I then posed a simple question as to what would likely happen to the accident rate given the traffic ban, and also before the ban if pedestrians could only cross when there was a 'green man'. Answer was you'd also almost eliminate pedestrian accidents at the junction regardless of the traffic ban if pedestrians only crossed when the 'green man' showed. So the biggest improvement in pedestrian crossing safety is for pedestrians to only cross when the 'green man' shows. Now before anyone jumps on me, I am not suggesting that is enforced, far from it, people should be left to cross at their discretion, but that will inevitably mean a higher accident rate.
That's just it, provide decent crossing facilities and people won't need to risk crossing on the red man. Oxford Circus lights work very well, all traffic comes to a halt and pedestrians can cross diagonally or whatever way they wish. If they had to cross one junction and then have to wait again they would be more likely to cross on the red man.
What sort of "proper discussion" did you have in mind? What we have today is a massive improvement and I have to say I really don't see what the problem is? The bus services seem perfectly adequate for demand, the 7 and 390 are busier since the 10/23 change but I don't see any overcrowding other than occasionally on the 94 and that should be resolved once Crossrail opens.
Buses aren't the be all and end all, they're just part of the overall picture.
|
|
|
|
Post by sid on Apr 1, 2019 13:45:58 GMT
I'm a bit surprised TFL haven't thinned out Selfridges to Marble Arch yet. Probably lack to stand space at Marble Arch but with the 189 back to Marble Arch and the 113 proposed to divert there again, there is the 2, 13, 74, 113, 189 and 274 from there to Baker Street. I think it might be hard to justify both the 2 and 13 between Victoria and Baker Street. I wouldn't be surprised to see the 2 cut back to Victoria, the alternative would be to merge the two routes and restore the 2 to Golders Green in place of the 13 with something else taking over the North Finchley section. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Apr 1, 2019 18:03:59 GMT
I'm a bit surprised TFL haven't thinned out Selfridges to Marble Arch yet. Probably lack to stand space at Marble Arch but with the 189 back to Marble Arch and the 113 proposed to divert there again, there is the 2, 13, 74, 113, 189 and 274 from there to Baker Street. I think it might be hard to justify both the 2 and 13 between Victoria and Baker Street. I wouldn't be surprised to see the 2 cut back to Victoria, the alternative would be to merge the two routes and restore the 2 to Golders Green in place of the 13 with something else taking over the North Finchley section. The 2 is busy along the vast majority of its route despite running parallel to the Victoria Line for a substantial section so it would be ridiculous to cut it at all. It would also be ridiculous and unworkable to extend it to Golders Green - far too long an extension in this day and age. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Apr 1, 2019 18:09:45 GMT
I think it might be hard to justify both the 2 and 13 between Victoria and Baker Street. I wouldn't be surprised to see the 2 cut back to Victoria, the alternative would be to merge the two routes and restore the 2 to Golders Green in place of the 13 with something else taking over the North Finchley section. The 2 is busy along the vast majority of its route despite running parallel to the Victoria Line for a substantial section so it would be ridiculous to cut it at all. It would also be ridiculous and unworkable to extend it to Golders Green - far too long an extension in this day and age. So what's the solution? There really is no need for both the 2 and 13 between Victoria and Baker Street. |
|
