Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2016 8:13:47 GMT
By far the most radical idea is the 23's proposal, TFL are pretty much transforming it to a completely new route, arguably. I suppose when factoring in the Elizabeth Line its fate is somewhat predictable, at least regarding its Central London routing...but Wembley?! Certainly a surprise. I completely disagree with Lancaster Gate being its Central London terminus, Marble Arch is far more ideal so as to retain its close proximity to the West End. On the other hand, at least the 18 will gain some assistance between Ladbroke Grove and Wembley, which is quite a generous overlap. I'm still not convinced it's generous enough, and I think they plan for the 23 to divert at Stonebridge via the A406 to Brent Park before following the 92 to Wembley Arena/Stadium if I've read their separate consultation right. Although tfl suggest this isn't the final draft. |
|
|
|
Post by mondraker275 on Nov 26, 2016 10:51:34 GMT
425 reliability is going to go out the window. I love how how they acknowledge the running time will increase and then do nothing about it. 'It will be fine', like everything else. The superhighway cycle works?, 'the buses will be fine'.
They do mention how they considered preventing the 425 doing a double rounder at Homerton. Now, I know there will be people saying that its a hospital, but having lived in Clapton, and been a regular on that route to Mile End, that double loop is crazy and at times, especially towards Clapton it can take 10 minutes. I remember complaining about this a few years ago. It does not need to serve the Hospital, but a bus stop at Ponsford Street would be enough. Or you could have the Clapton bound 425 use Fenn Street, and avoid the traffic. Many options you could and need to take to help the route if it were going to go to Ilford.
And of course one of my ongoing frustrations: the Bow Flyover. You could save minutes using this as well (Absolutely amazed the D8 is doing the double loop). But do TfL listen to the people who actually take the buses?
There is barely any other bus priority on this route to Ilford (except a few short bus lanes towards Ilford). Its going to be a mess.
|
|
|
|
Post by routew15 on Nov 26, 2016 10:58:18 GMT
By far the most radical idea is the 23's proposal, TFL are pretty much transforming it to a completely new route, arguably. I suppose when factoring in the Elizabeth Line its fate is somewhat predictable, at least regarding its Central London routing...but Wembley?! Certainly a surprise. I completely disagree with Lancaster Gate being its Central London terminus, Marble Arch is far more ideal so as to retain its close proximity to the West End. On the other hand, at least the 18 will gain some assistance between Ladbroke Grove and Wembley, which is quite a generous overlap. I'm still not convinced it's generous enough, and I think they plan for the 23 to divert at Stonebridge via the A406 to Brent Park before following the 92 to Wembley Arena/Stadium if I've read their separate consultation right. Although tfl suggest this isn't the final draft. But if you're doing all of that you may as well extend the 332 to Wembley. |
|
|
|
Post by routew15 on Nov 26, 2016 11:20:40 GMT
425 reliability is going to go out the window. I love how how they acknowledge the running time will increase and then do nothing about it. 'It will be fine', like everything else. The superhighway cycle works?, 'the buses will be fine'. They do mention how they considered preventing the 425 doing a double rounder at Homerton. Now, I know there will be people saying that its a hospital, but having lived in Clapton, and been a regular on that route to Mile End, that double loop is crazy and at times, especially towards Clapton it can take 10 minutes. I remember complaining about this a few years ago. It does not need to serve the Hospital, but a bus stop at Ponsford Street would be enough. Or you could have the Clapton bound 425 use Fenn Street, and avoid the traffic. Many options you could and need to take to help the route if it were going to go to Ilford. And of course one of my ongoing frustrations: the Bow Flyover. You could save minutes using this as well (Absolutely amazed the D8 is doing the double loop). But do TfL listen to the people who actually take the buses? There is barely any other bus priority on this route to Ilford (except a few short bus lanes towards Ilford). Its going to be a mess. It would be easier to most probably divert the 488 as it has loads of common links on with other routes that serve the hospital. Those from South Hackney / Wells Street / Lauriston area that rely on the hospital link the 425 provides would be disadvantaged by this change is the only route to serve these area to/from the hospital. Most other links to the hospital are duplicated 276 & 488 (Hackney Wick/Bow), 308 & 488 (Clapton), 242 & 276 (Hackney), 236 & 488 (Shacklewell), 394 & 242 (Hoxton). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2016 14:04:00 GMT
I'm still not convinced it's generous enough, and I think they plan for the 23 to divert at Stonebridge via the A406 to Brent Park before following the 92 to Wembley Arena/Stadium if I've read their separate consultation right. Although tfl suggest this isn't the final draft. But if you're doing all of that you may as well extend the 332 to Wembley. Don't tell ME, tell TfL lol 😉 |
|
|
|
Post by routew15 on Nov 26, 2016 14:19:20 GMT
But if you're doing all of that you may as well extend the 332 to Wembley. Don't tell ME, tell TfL lol 😉 They won't pay it any mind  |
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Nov 26, 2016 15:12:14 GMT
By far the most radical idea is the 23's proposal, TFL are pretty much transforming it to a completely new route, arguably. I suppose when factoring in the Elizabeth Line its fate is somewhat predictable, at least regarding its Central London routing...but Wembley?! Certainly a surprise. I completely disagree with Lancaster Gate being its Central London terminus, Marble Arch is far more ideal so as to retain its close proximity to the West End. On the other hand, at least the 18 will gain some assistance between Ladbroke Grove and Wembley, which is quite a generous overlap. I'm still not convinced it's generous enough, and I think they plan for the 23 to divert at Stonebridge via the A406 to Brent Park before following the 92 to Wembley Arena/Stadium if I've read their separate consultation right. Although tfl suggest this isn't the final draft. I suspect that TfL proposes keeping the 23 number for an almost entirely different route because it had its fingers burnt by the 13. 'We're not withdrawing the 23, just running it somewhere else'. It's interesting to note the 23's migration west. I know the route disappeared for a few years in the 80s but its roots are clearly in the service that ran out to Becontree Heath/Rainham. In other news, diamond geezer's blog has a useful article on the proposals today while London Travel Watch has now added its report to the papers for this week's board meeting. It doesn't add up to much, they suggest running the 22 through to Parliament Hill which looks a clear non-starter (TfL did consider, but discounted, rerouting the 88 over the remnant C2). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2016 16:24:16 GMT
I'm still not convinced it's generous enough, and I think they plan for the 23 to divert at Stonebridge via the A406 to Brent Park before following the 92 to Wembley Arena/Stadium if I've read their separate consultation right. Although tfl suggest this isn't the final draft. I suspect that TfL proposes keeping the 23 number for an almost entirely different route because it had its fingers burnt by the 13. 'We're not withdrawing the 23, just running it somewhere else'. It's interesting to note the 23's migration west. I know the route disappeared for a few years in the 80s but its roots are clearly in the service that ran out to Becontree Heath/Rainham. In other news, diamond geezer's blog has a useful article on the proposals today while London Travel Watch has now added its report to the papers for this week's board meeting. It doesn't add up to much, they suggest running the 22 through to Parliament Hill which looks a clear non-starter (TfL did consider, but discounted, rerouting the 88 over the remnant C2). Good information, cheers for that! I'm not sure if anyone here actually likes the 23 idea (I support the routeing but I mean keeping it numbered such. As mentioned before it's now under two separate consultations... the second of which supersedes the first! Absolutely no chance the 23 will continue beyond Aldwych now despite the opposition, unless TfL are one step ahead of the game! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2016 16:35:47 GMT
The 3 and 6 proposals sound quite positive but the N2 is just standardisation for the sake of it and quite ridiculous if the 82 is going to become 24 hour! To be fair the N2 is duplicated by the N136 for some distance. People going from Trafalgar Square/Whitehall to Victora, Vauxhall, Stockwell, Brixton or Crystal Palace have other options so I won't protest too much about the removal from Trafalgar Square. That said, I don't think there is any point in rerouting it to Marylebone - between the 36 and 453, people heading south already have provisions. I seriously doubt there's any demand at night along Park Lane or Baker Street to justify this. If the resources are there to extend the route, I'd sooner see a night service introduced to Croydon via Norwood Junction, which would benefit more people. Also, there are still some mistakes in that map. I can't see the 3 running via both Strand (Southampton Street) and Charing Cross Road. I think we are the only ones not that dissatisfied about the N2 following the 2, yes it is standardisation but that's exactly what TfL want, to make the bus network simpler. And that's why it HAS to go to Marylebone... they can't at least be accused of double standards in that respect. For obvious reasons buses have to head further out of London for links etc and some are broken by removing the N2 from the Square (as well as other schemes TfL may want to implement, which seems pretty clear from other changes such as 23/N23) |
|
|
|
Post by northken on Nov 26, 2016 17:18:47 GMT
Reading through the West End Services Review, a reason for withdrawing the 23 between Aldwych and Liverpool Street in the last consultation was: This doesn't seem to be in line with the review, which says: Talk about moving the goalposts! |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 26, 2016 18:12:25 GMT
Reading through the West End Services Review, a reason for withdrawing the 23 between Aldwych and Liverpool Street in the last consultation was: This doesn't seem to be in line with the review, which says: Talk about moving the goalposts! I could give a less polite description.   More seriously that is just one example of the inconsistency in these proposals. You have to wonder quite what is going on. I'm even a bit doubtful as to what "busiest point" actually means. Is is where buses are fullest or is it the point on the route with the largest number of people who board the route in question? Given I can think of two very different interpretations what does it say about what the consultation is trying to convey to people? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2016 18:31:08 GMT
Actually i am sort of as a loss to why TFL call these consultations as they invariably pass the changes through - TFL are definitely responsible for the reduction in passenger numbers as they manger the road infrastructure which has been decimated with various big projects causing the gridlock of our central road system.
What does amaze me is that the 15 gets no real air play yet is almost becoming a non entity - Blackwall to Trafalgar Sq - I think it should have been extended to Victoria rather than cut back to TS.
And what real research has been done to customers to ensure that they distinctly know people don want to travel through central london , not convinced that this is anything other than ways to accommodate the pedestrianization of OS which realistically is a waste of money and unnecessary.
The 8 should have been extended to Stratford City
The 242 should have some better Central links rather than cut back to St Pauls
|
|
|
|
Post by 6HP502C on Nov 26, 2016 19:56:59 GMT
I think we are the only ones not that dissatisfied about the N2 following the 2, yes it is standardisation but that's exactly what TfL want, to make the bus network simpler. And that's why it HAS to go to Marylebone... they can't at least be accused of double standards in that respect. For obvious reasons buses have to head further out of London for links etc and some are broken by removing the N2 from the Square (as well as other schemes TfL may want to implement, which seems pretty clear from other changes such as 23/N23) Sometimes routes are rationalised and other times, they aren't. It's less to do with double standards as it is to do with providing benefit to those who might otherwise be isolated from the bus network at night. In recent years the N83 and N205 were un-24 houred and the N113 and N199 were introduced. We've also recently seen a load of routes changed to provide a night service - but only on two nights of the week. I have a view that rationalising the N2 to serve a peripheral part of the central area which is dead at night and already covered by night routes 36 and 453 heading into South London is a poor use of resources. Pulling it out of Trafalgar Square isn't particularly controversial and I too wouldn't complain if it was cut back to Victoria and extended at the other end to give Crystal Palace to Croydon a night service. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Nov 26, 2016 20:32:31 GMT
I think we are the only ones not that dissatisfied about the N2 following the 2, yes it is standardisation but that's exactly what TfL want, to make the bus network simpler. And that's why it HAS to go to Marylebone... they can't at least be accused of double standards in that respect. For obvious reasons buses have to head further out of London for links etc and some are broken by removing the N2 from the Square (as well as other schemes TfL may want to implement, which seems pretty clear from other changes such as 23/N23) Sometimes routes are rationalised and other times, they aren't. It's less to do with double standards as it is to do with providing benefit to those who might otherwise be isolated from the bus network at night. In recent years the N83 and N205 were un-24 houred and the N113 and N199 were introduced. We've also recently seen a load of routes changed to provide a night service - but only on two nights of the week. I have a view that rationalising the N2 to serve a peripheral part of the central area which is dead at night and already covered by night routes 36 and 453 heading into South London is a poor use of resources. Pulling it out of Trafalgar Square isn't particularly controversial and I too wouldn't complain if it was cut back to Victoria and extended at the other end to give Crystal Palace to Croydon a night service. Actually a more radical idea would be to run the 2 from Norwood Garage all the way to North Finchley which shouldn't be a problem at night and have an N432 from Brixton to Crystal Palace then via the 157 to Norwood Junction then via the 312 to Croydon. I think the N13 is fine as it is, serving the night spots but when Oxford Street is pedestrianised it will no longer be possible. I'm assuming Oxford Street will be paved over otherwise it might still be possible to run buses along there at night? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2016 20:34:17 GMT
I think we are the only ones not that dissatisfied about the N2 following the 2, yes it is standardisation but that's exactly what TfL want, to make the bus network simpler. And that's why it HAS to go to Marylebone... they can't at least be accused of double standards in that respect. For obvious reasons buses have to head further out of London for links etc and some are broken by removing the N2 from the Square (as well as other schemes TfL may want to implement, which seems pretty clear from other changes such as 23/N23) Sometimes routes are rationalised and other times, they aren't. It's less to do with double standards as it is to do with providing benefit to those who might otherwise be isolated from the bus network at night. In recent years the N83 and N205 were un-24 houred and the N113 and N199 were introduced. We've also recently seen a load of routes changed to provide a night service - but only on two nights of the week. I have a view that rationalising the N2 to serve a peripheral part of the central area which is dead at night and already covered by night routes 36 and 453 heading into South London is a poor use of resources. Pulling it out of Trafalgar Square isn't particularly controversial and I too wouldn't complain if it was cut back to Victoria and extended at the other end to give Crystal Palace to Croydon a night service. I agree but it seems that TfL want pure simplicity at all costs. Parallel night bus routes with their day equivalent regardless of benefit. With night tube I fully expect more night routes to be withdrawn on the basis that 'more people using night tube' and 'not enough patronage weekday nights'. With the current Oxford street shake up already in the cards, which most of us saw coming, I think we can expect this one as well |
|
More seriously that is just one example of the inconsistency in these proposals. You have to wonder quite what is going on. I'm even a bit doubtful as to what "busiest point" actually means. Is is where buses are fullest or is it the point on the route with the largest number of people who board the route in question? Given I can think of two very different interpretations what does it say about what the consultation is trying to convey to people?