|
Post by thesquirrels on Oct 2, 2016 7:33:44 GMT
While it's good that the 388 will become a bit useful by going to the Elephant, I wonder what the rationale is for the 100 terminating at the museum? Is the roundabout the easy turn justification? I thought they could've done something better there, I just can't see it being well used. I am sure it is the roundabout. That and the western end of London Wall are pretty clear at almost all times of day (same can't be said for St. Paul's) so it makes sense to do it that way for want of anywhere further east in the City. There are other stands the route could squeeze into in St. Pauls but by the time a bus has done a circuit of the one way system (twice if using the stands on Angel Street, as I doubt there would be space on the 172 stand outside the back entrance of Barts) I think you're looking at another bus on the PVR. In agreement with routew15 with the idea of extending the 100. I'd go for extending it from the roundabout, up Aldersgate Street, round Smithfield Market, up St. John Street, throw a left along Skinner Street and up Amwell, then across to Russell Square via Calthorpe Street and Guilford Street. There would need to be some sort of bus priority gate put in on Calthorpe Street as there is a 7ft-ish width restriction.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2016 11:33:23 GMT
While it's good that the 388 will become a bit useful by going to the Elephant, I wonder what the rationale is for the 100 terminating at the museum? Is the roundabout the easy turn justification? I thought they could've done something better there, I just can't see it being well used. I am sure it is the roundabout. That and the western end of London Wall are pretty clear at almost all times of day (same can't be said for St. Paul's) so it makes sense to do it that way for want of anywhere further east in the City. There are other stands the route could squeeze into in St. Pauls but by the time a bus has done a circuit of the one way system (twice if using the stands on Angel Street, as I doubt there would be space on the 172 stand outside the back entrance of Barts) I think you're looking at another bus on the PVR. In agreement with routew15 with the idea of extending the 100. I'd go for extending it from the roundabout, up Aldersgate Street, round Smithfield Market, up St. John Street, throw a left along Skinner Street and up Amwell, then across to Russell Square via Calthorpe Street and Guilford Street. There would need to be some sort of bus priority gate put in on Calthorpe Street as there is a 7ft-ish width restriction. Really good idea. One issue..... Calthorpe Street has a width restriction, so the 100 would need a convoluted detour to get round it. It's quite a narrow road so no possibility of a bus gate in the middle of the width restrictor. The other option I guess would be to remove it to permit buses.
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Oct 4, 2016 1:29:29 GMT
I am sure it is the roundabout. That and the western end of London Wall are pretty clear at almost all times of day (same can't be said for St. Paul's) so it makes sense to do it that way for want of anywhere further east in the City. There are other stands the route could squeeze into in St. Pauls but by the time a bus has done a circuit of the one way system (twice if using the stands on Angel Street, as I doubt there would be space on the 172 stand outside the back entrance of Barts) I think you're looking at another bus on the PVR. In agreement with routew15 with the idea of extending the 100. I'd go for extending it from the roundabout, up Aldersgate Street, round Smithfield Market, up St. John Street, throw a left along Skinner Street and up Amwell, then across to Russell Square via Calthorpe Street and Guilford Street. There would need to be some sort of bus priority gate put in on Calthorpe Street as there is a 7ft-ish width restriction. Really good idea. One issue..... Calthorpe Street has a width restriction, so the 100 would need a convoluted detour to get round it. It's quite a narrow road so no possibility of a bus gate in the middle of the width restrictor. The other option I guess would be to remove it to permit buses. The 100 could always run down Rosebery Avenue and do a legal right turn to Gray's Inn Road to then continue at Guilford Street.
|
|
|
Post by theexplorer on Oct 4, 2016 16:41:17 GMT
It could even get electric buses sooner as alot of the R routes are rewarded at TBC so could use the current buses from the 100.
|
|
|
Post by routew15 on Oct 4, 2016 17:18:41 GMT
I am sure it is the roundabout. That and the western end of London Wall are pretty clear at almost all times of day (same can't be said for St. Paul's) so it makes sense to do it that way for want of anywhere further east in the City. There are other stands the route could squeeze into in St. Pauls but by the time a bus has done a circuit of the one way system (twice if using the stands on Angel Street, as I doubt there would be space on the 172 stand outside the back entrance of Barts) I think you're looking at another bus on the PVR. In agreement with routew15 with the idea of extending the 100. I'd go for extending it from the roundabout, up Aldersgate Street, round Smithfield Market, up St. John Street, throw a left along Skinner Street and up Amwell, then across to Russell Square via Calthorpe Street and Guilford Street. There would need to be some sort of bus priority gate put in on Calthorpe Street as there is a 7ft-ish width restriction. Really good idea. One issue..... Calthorpe Street has a width restriction, so the 100 would need a convoluted detour to get round it. It's quite a narrow road so no possibility of a bus gate in the middle of the width restrictor. The other option I guess would be to remove it to permit buses. I think an extension to Russell Square is something that could be of benefit and easy to implement but the route it takes is important in that. Whilst I like the idea of the 100 serving the back roads of Clerkenwell/ Mount Plasant, I think it is important that the routing does not cause any issues with residents or campaigners namely the cyclist. This option of 100 extension would result in it sharing the same road as the Quietway 2(?) and directly crossing over the soon to be extended CS6. Quite a few cycle campaigners are opposed To sharing roads that have 6bph or higher, just look at the CS3 improvement works in Shadwell where respondents suggest changing/removing the 100 from the area to make the road quiter.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Oct 4, 2016 19:45:02 GMT
I think an extension to Russell Square is something that could be of benefit and easy to implement but the route it takes is important in that. Whilst I like the idea of the 100 serving the back roads of Clerkenwell/ Mount Plasant, I think it is important that the routing does not cause any issues with residents or campaigners namely the cyclist. This option of 100 extension would result in it sharing the same road as the Quietway 2(?) and directly crossing over the soon to be extended CS6. Quite a few cycle campaigners are opposed To sharing roads that have 6bph or higher, just look at the CS3 improvement works in Shadwell where respondents suggest changing/removing the 100 from the area to make the road quiter. I think those cycle campaigners need to look at the volumes of buses that run beside cycle lanes in the Netherlands. Way more than 6 tph in many towns and cities. Now the traffic culture is a bit different in NL but since when did cyclists dictate the numbers of buses running on a road? They need to go and sort themselves out rather than bossing everyone around.
|
|
|
Post by routew15 on Oct 4, 2016 20:20:32 GMT
I think an extension to Russell Square is something that could be of benefit and easy to implement but the route it takes is important in that. Whilst I like the idea of the 100 serving the back roads of Clerkenwell/ Mount Plasant, I think it is important that the routing does not cause any issues with residents or campaigners namely the cyclist. This option of 100 extension would result in it sharing the same road as the Quietway 2(?) and directly crossing over the soon to be extended CS6. Quite a few cycle campaigners are opposed To sharing roads that have 6bph or higher, just look at the CS3 improvement works in Shadwell where respondents suggest changing/removing the 100 from the area to make the road quiter. I think those cycle campaigners need to look at the volumes of buses that run beside cycle lanes in the Netherlands. Way more than 6 tph in many towns and cities. Now the traffic culture is a bit different in NL but since when did cyclists dictate the numbers of buses running on a road? They need to go and sort themselves out rather than bossing everyone around. To be honest Im just glad that this way of thinking does not seem to be on TfLs agenda and i hope it remains that way. Personally I would feel more uneasy with 6 lorries per hour on a road, in comparison to 6 buses per hour. I think 6bph on a central London is quite low so I personally do not see a problem. When I've cycled along Cable Street I barely see the D3 or 100 and if i do they are normally stationary.
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Oct 10, 2016 19:44:06 GMT
Something I was thinking. If/When the 100 gets cut to the London Wall would it still be logical for Mandela Way to operate it. I imagine dead runs would be a complete pain as they'd all have to run through Central London in some way. Maybe SI could take it on as it's not too far from Shadwell.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Oct 10, 2016 20:17:02 GMT
Something I was thinking. If/When the 100 gets cut to the London Wall would it still be logical for Mandela Way to operate it. I imagine dead runs would be a complete pain as they'd all have to run through Central London in some way. Maybe SI could take it on as it's not too far from Shadwell. They only need to hop across Tower Bridge don't they? It's not *that* far from Mandela Way. Crew changes might be awkward but not insurmountable. If you can run the 19 from two garages not on the route at all ...... the 100's almost a breeze in comparison.
|
|
|
Post by T.R. on Feb 21, 2017 15:06:35 GMT
Update: Email from TfL, and it's going ahead in April.
So I suspect the other Liverpool Street consultation is going ahead...?
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Feb 21, 2017 15:11:26 GMT
Consultation reportResponse to issues raisedNo update, yet, to the Liverpool St set of changes affecting the 11, 42, 78, 133, 214 and 153. Not read them yet to see what was said and how TfL went "hand wavey" "Oh do go away with your comments and moans". EDIT - you have to wonder if the people in the COnsultation Team have been told to be "on message". Read this depressing response to issues raised by people in Wapping. So, in short, all the stuff said by Mike Brown and Leon Daniels about bus priority changes and other things cannot and will not apply to route 100? There is also an admission of defeat here that it is impossible to do anything to encourage more patronage. That is in direct contradiction to the TfL business plan which is predicated around a 11% patronage increase on the network. Even allowing for variation across London you will never, ever get 11% increase unless you can also get Zone 1 services back into some sort of health. So who is telling porky pies? - the consultation people, senior TfL people or those who created the business plan? You have to wonder if anyone bothered to review this report before it was allowed "into the wild".
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Feb 21, 2017 18:56:06 GMT
Update: Email from TfL, and it's going ahead in April. So I suspect the other Liverpool Street consultation is going ahead...? Surprise, surprise, more oppose than agree yet it just sails through - may as well just announce the changes the day before they happen TBH.
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Feb 22, 2017 0:04:36 GMT
Consultation reportResponse to issues raisedNo update, yet, to the Liverpool St set of changes affecting the 11, 42, 78, 133, 214 and 153. Not read them yet to see what was said and how TfL went "hand wavey" "Oh do go away with your comments and moans". EDIT - you have to wonder if the people in the COnsultation Team have been told to be "on message". Read this depressing response to issues raised by people in Wapping. So, in short, all the stuff said by Mike Brown and Leon Daniels about bus priority changes and other things cannot and will not apply to route 100? There is also an admission of defeat here that it is impossible to do anything to encourage more patronage. That is in direct contradiction to the TfL business plan which is predicated around a 11% patronage increase on the network. Even allowing for variation across London you will never, ever get 11% increase unless you can also get Zone 1 services back into some sort of health. So who is telling porky pies? - the consultation people, senior TfL people or those who created the business plan? You have to wonder if anyone bothered to review this report before it was allowed "into the wild".
I agree, and I think the TfL Business plan will prove to be incorrect in that respect. Very sadly I think it is more likely on current policies that there will be an 11% decrease in patronage across the network, rather than an 11% increase. I hope I am wrong here.
|
|
|
Post by riverside on Feb 22, 2017 16:21:41 GMT
A decline in patronage on route 100 of over 40% since 2010 is a worryingly large drop in passengers and should be ringing alarm bells in TfL. Instead they seem to accept that their job is to manage the decline of bus services in central London. All very depressing.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Feb 22, 2017 16:33:17 GMT
A decline in patronage on route 100 of over 40% since 2010 is a worryingly large drop in passengers and should be ringing alarm bells in TfL. Instead they seem to accept that their job is to manage the decline of bus services in central London. All very depressing. Looking at the magic spreadsheet it's actually 45% since 2010. There was a huge drop, more than 550k pass jnys, in 2015/16. This will be the result of the CSH works in and around Tower Hill and on Blackfriars Road and gyratory works at E&C - a triple whammy of delays. The performance graphs for the route are woeful - the route has never met its targets except for 3 periods out of 26 for EWT. Can't imagine Go Ahead have been very happy about that. Meanwhile Abellio will no doubt be delighted they lost the route given what followed.
|
|