|
|
Post by vjaska on Apr 1, 2019 18:10:12 GMT
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. Says who? |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Apr 1, 2019 18:13:36 GMT
So what's the solution? There really is no need for both the 2 and 13 between Victoria and Baker Street. Says who? It's pretty obvious, two routes doing the work of one. |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Apr 1, 2019 18:33:32 GMT
It's pretty obvious, two routes doing the work of one. Certainly doesn't look like the work of one route, especially considering the 13 doesn't go Marylebone |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Apr 1, 2019 18:42:13 GMT
It's pretty obvious, two routes doing the work of one. Certainly doesn't look like the work of one route, especially considering the 13 doesn't go Marylebone Such extravagance might have been ok in the past but if routes need to be cut this is an obvious one. The 74 could go to Marylebone. |
|
|
|
Post by paulsw2 on Apr 1, 2019 19:01:06 GMT
So what's the solution? There really is no need for both the 2 and 13 between Victoria and Baker Street. Says who? There IS a need for both these routes as South London (Vauxhall for an example) is prone to heavy traffic as is Finchley Road this should mean if one route is bogged down in traffic/diversion etc the other is available between Victoria and Baker Street if there is only 1 route no-one will get anywhere the ONLY way forward in this particular case is leave alone the 2 and 13 are both busy in there own right you can't even tweak the frequencies that much because of loadings further along each route I know that using the 2 on almost a daily basis there are times you cannot get on the first sometimes second bus I would assume similar for the 13 on the Finchley road corridor. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Apr 1, 2019 19:07:22 GMT
There IS a need for both these routes as South London (Vauxhall for an example) is prone to heavy traffic as is Finchley Road this should mean if one route is bogged down in traffic/diversion etc the other is available between Victoria and Baker Street if there is only 1 route no-one will get anywhere the ONLY way forward in this particular case is leave alone the 2 and 13 are both busy in there own right you can't even tweak the frequencies that much because of loadings further along each route I know that using the 2 on almost a daily basis there are times you cannot get on the first sometimes second bus I would assume similar for the 13 on the Finchley road corridor. There really isn't, loadings could comfortably be accommodated on one route and there are other options in the event of disruption. Having two routes just in case one goes wrong really is a luxury that can no longer be afforded and clearly a lot of people have abandoned the 13 because of its poor performance. |
|
|
|
Post by 15002 on Apr 1, 2019 19:18:50 GMT
There IS a need for both these routes as South London (Vauxhall for an example) is prone to heavy traffic as is Finchley Road this should mean if one route is bogged down in traffic/diversion etc the other is available between Victoria and Baker Street if there is only 1 route no-one will get anywhere the ONLY way forward in this particular case is leave alone the 2 and 13 are both busy in there own right you can't even tweak the frequencies that much because of loadings further along each route I know that using the 2 on almost a daily basis there are times you cannot get on the first sometimes second bus I would assume similar for the 13 on the Finchley road corridor. There really isn't, loadings could comfortably be accommodated on one route and there are other options in the event of disruption. Having two routes just in case one goes wrong really is a luxury that can no longer be afforded and clearly a lot of people have abandoned the 13 because of its poor performance. Out of curiosity, if the 13 is performing poorly, wouldn’t it be better to keep both the 2 and the 13 the way they are? |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Apr 1, 2019 19:37:48 GMT
There really isn't, loadings could comfortably be accommodated on one route and there are other options in the event of disruption. Having two routes just in case one goes wrong really is a luxury that can no longer be afforded and clearly a lot of people have abandoned the 13 because of its poor performance. Out of curiosity, if the 13 is performing poorly, wouldn’t it be better to keep both the 2 and the 13 the way they are? I see what you mean but it's an expensive way of doing things and would probably mean cutting something else to pay for it. Or just curtail both routes at Marble Arch although I appreciate that interchange isn't great there. |
|
|
|
Post by rhys on Apr 1, 2019 19:57:10 GMT
Out of curiosity, if the 13 is performing poorly, wouldn’t it be better to keep both the 2 and the 13 the way they are? I see what you mean but it's an expensive way of doing things and would probably mean cutting something else to pay for it. Or just curtail both routes at Marble Arch although I appreciate that interchange isn't great there. I don't really think there's much space at Marble Arch for both routes, especially considering future possible cuts TfL have planned. It'd just be best to leave it as it is, in my opinion. Besides, there are so many duplicates across many corridors. Although TfL have been removing a few, there will still be many that will remain. Plus you can't justify cutting a service, just because it's not busy all the time outside of peak hours, as that rule would be applicable to the majority of routes in London. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Apr 1, 2019 20:09:13 GMT
I see what you mean but it's an expensive way of doing things and would probably mean cutting something else to pay for it. Or just curtail both routes at Marble Arch although I appreciate that interchange isn't great there. I don't really think there's much space at Marble Arch for both routes, especially considering future possible cuts TfL have planned. It'd just be best to leave it as it is, in my opinion. Besides, there are so many duplicates across many corridors. Although TfL have been removing a few, there will still be many that will remain. Plus you can't justify cutting a service, just because it's not busy all the time outside of peak hours, as that rule would be applicable to the majority of routes in London. No there's not much stand space at Marble Arch at the moment although there may be in the future, ideally there would be some sort of mini bus station there to facilitate easy interchange between routes. |
|
|
|
Post by VMH2452 on Apr 1, 2019 20:14:01 GMT
There IS a need for both these routes as South London (Vauxhall for an example) is prone to heavy traffic as is Finchley Road this should mean if one route is bogged down in traffic/diversion etc the other is available between Victoria and Baker Street if there is only 1 route no-one will get anywhere the ONLY way forward in this particular case is leave alone the 2 and 13 are both busy in there own right you can't even tweak the frequencies that much because of loadings further along each route I know that using the 2 on almost a daily basis there are times you cannot get on the first sometimes second bus I would assume similar for the 13 on the Finchley road corridor. There really isn't, loadings could comfortably be accommodated on one route and there are other options in the event of disruption. Having two routes just in case one goes wrong really is a luxury that can no longer be afforded and clearly a lot of people have abandoned the 13 because of its poor performance. I think if TfL thought this, they'd have reduced the frequency of them and prepare to make a cut. I'm not submitting anything else to this discussion. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Apr 1, 2019 21:21:53 GMT
There IS a need for both these routes as South London (Vauxhall for an example) is prone to heavy traffic as is Finchley Road this should mean if one route is bogged down in traffic/diversion etc the other is available between Victoria and Baker Street if there is only 1 route no-one will get anywhere the ONLY way forward in this particular case is leave alone the 2 and 13 are both busy in there own right you can't even tweak the frequencies that much because of loadings further along each route I know that using the 2 on almost a daily basis there are times you cannot get on the first sometimes second bus I would assume similar for the 13 on the Finchley road corridor. There really isn't, loadings could comfortably be accommodated on one route and there are other options in the event of disruption. Having two routes just in case one goes wrong really is a luxury that can no longer be afforded and clearly a lot of people have abandoned the 13 because of its poor performance. I've seen busy 13's recently whilst out & about in North London so not sure how severe this 'abandonment' is? |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Apr 1, 2019 21:32:02 GMT
No there's not much stand space at Marble Arch at the moment although there may be in the future, ideally there would be some sort of mini bus station there to facilitate easy interchange between routes. The far more likely outcome at Marble Arch is a scheme to reconfigure the gyratory and to reduce lane capacity / speed on Park Lane and thereby increased pedestrian circulation space with much larger crossing areas. This will mean that bus stand space will almost certainly be reduced from what is there today. I know you were talking about ideal, rather than probable, scenarios but there is a less than zero chance, IMO, of any sort of bus station or extra bus stand space being created there. |
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Apr 1, 2019 21:33:49 GMT
There really isn't, loadings could comfortably be accommodated on one route and there are other options in the event of disruption. Having two routes just in case one goes wrong really is a luxury that can no longer be afforded and clearly a lot of people have abandoned the 13 because of its poor performance. I think if TfL thought this, they'd have reduced the frequency of them and prepare to make a cut. I'm not submitting anything else to this discussion. I am not quite sure why we are picking on the 2 and 13 here, there are lots of routes that overlap. You could for instance argue to curtail the 468 at Norwood, or even get rid of the 68 as these routes 'duplicate' each other. I am not suggesting this is sensible, but all these sort of changes should be done on the basis of evidence, loadings, links and usage. To say it can't be justified, is obvious or isn't financially viable to have both the 2 and 13 is quite wrong, none of us can really say that, you need a proper cost benefit analysis to determine such things. Personal observations can only go so far, and you really need those from regular frequent users of the route for such observations to be meaningful.
In the case of the 13 there are lots of people who wish to travel beyond Selfridges towards Victoria and I think you will struggle to justify a cut to Marble Arch on any proper cost benefit analysis. Yes it is true that more people want to travel on the 'old 13' into the West End than Victoria, but as sensible as it would be, the 13 isn't going to be re-routed back to the West End anytime soon. The routing to Victoria does seem justifiable, although as I say you would need a proper cost benefit analysis to prove this.
I am not as familiar with the 2 as I am the 13, but it certainly has its users all the way to Marylebone. My observations are that the 13 is busier than the 2, but again you would need a proper cost benefit analysis to determine the sense in continuing the 2 to Marylebone. Now the 2 no longer stops outside Marylebone station going south, I fear the Marylebone justification will not remain as strong.
As matters stand today I think both routes have their place between Victoria and Baker Street, but without a proper cost benefit analysis I cannot be sure. Yes there are other alternative means of travelling in the event of problems, but so what, so there should be in the heart of central London. By the argument of other forms of transport being available, you would terminate the 2 at Brixton and tell people to take the Victoria line, and I don't think anyone is suggesting that.
Looking ahead I could see the 2 cut back to Victoria, but for 'political' reasons to reduce buses in Park Lane, Baker Street etc, rather than for patronage reasons.
|
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Apr 1, 2019 21:41:35 GMT
No there's not much stand space at Marble Arch at the moment although there may be in the future, ideally there would be some sort of mini bus station there to facilitate easy interchange between routes. The far more likely outcome at Marble Arch is a scheme to reconfigure the gyratory and to reduce lane capacity / speed on Park Lane and thereby increased pedestrian circulation space with much larger crossing areas. This will mean that bus stand space will almost certainly be reduced from what is there today. I know you were talking about ideal, rather than probable, scenarios but there is a less than zero chance, IMO, of any sort of bus station or extra bus stand space being created there. I agree, I can't see Marble Arch being made into a bus station. There was an idea to have a tram down Oxford Street from Marble Arch to TCR, and I think they couldn't even find space to terminate the tram at Marble Arch, never mind a whole bus station.
The direction of travel is for narrower roads, more pedestrian space, less time for traffic at traffic lights, and now it seems fewer bus lanes and bus priority measures. Buses are now at the bottom of or close to the bottom of the priority list and that has horrid implications for the bus network. If traffic capacity reductions do happen, that results in bus 'congestion', longer journey times and fewer passengers. Then we see cuts in service to match demand or cut bus 'congestion'. A right old downward spiral.
|
|
