|
|
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. |
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jul 15, 2016 16:24:28 GMT
The fundamental and obvious issue with withdrawing the overlapping 4xx routes would be the lost links that cannot be feasibly covered with re-extending the original route due to reliability, why go back to a worse state when it's clearly better the way it is now? Some curtailments and extensions here and there perhaps, but I just don't see the pedestrianisation or the Elizabeth Line leading to the extent of withdrawing the overlapping 4xx routes. Baring in mind, the 453 and arguably the 10/390 would be the only overlapping routes directly affected by these schemes, that's not to say they would be axing the former and re-extending the 53 to Piccadilly Circus or Great Portland Street, and Marylebone should not even be contemplated...this is the 53 after all! Yes but who decides that overlapping routes should remain? Not us. Who decides that extending routes and 'broken links' would be worse? Not us. All they'll do (as has already been suggested) is paint pretty pictures in their consultations. They don't even need overall support! 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. |
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jul 15, 2016 11:52:17 GMT
Agree with sid in terms of overlapping routes, in fact I think we could be seeing the end of the 4xx routes (14 414, 52, 452, 53 453 etc) and have routes merged. Emergency services could almost certainly still use Oxford Street, a ban on vehicles does not apply to blues so even rolling through a crowd of people at extreme caution speed would often be quicker than struggling through Piccadilly or Euston Road (no hold ups at signalled junctions etc). I think most people would move if they saw an emergency vehicle trying to pass anyway, there are always a few idiots which is why they would need to come through very slowly. The fundamental and obvious issue with withdrawing the overlapping 4xx routes would be the lost links that cannot be feasibly covered with re-extending the original route due to reliability, why go back to a worse state when it's clearly better the way it is now? Some curtailments and extensions here and there perhaps, but I just don't see the pedestrianisation or the Elizabeth Line leading to the extent of withdrawing the overlapping 4xx routes. Baring in mind, the 453 and arguably the 10/390 would be the only overlapping routes directly affected by these schemes, that's not to say they would be axing the former and re-extending the 53 to Piccadilly Circus or Great Portland Street, and Marylebone should not even be contemplated...this is the 53 after all! |
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jul 15, 2016 2:31:14 GMT
If routes are indeed going to be consequently extended as such then this would be a start of an interesting trend of lengthy routes, whereby the long routes of today would become average and the term 'long' would apply to routes given significant extensions. Perhaps this could somewhat be seen as a nod to the historical era of very lengthy routes. And a nod to giving two hoots about reliability of these extended routes because they will suffer. Unless I read it wrong (most likely seeing as its me), 'snoggle' suggested that something like the 59 being extended to Archway in place of the 390 could be suggested by TfL and if that's the way TfL intend to go, not only will we have a poorer Central network but at the same time, a poorer inner London one too. Indeed. Although interesting, reliability would be a major obstacle to such ideas, which to be frank are mere speculations and unlikely to happen due to the consequence of Inner London's bus network reliability deteriorating significantly. I sincerely hope TFL are not stupid enough to propose such ideas, as if they haven't been stupid enough already...  |
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jul 15, 2016 0:43:15 GMT
Hackney Wick to White City would be a heck of a slog! I agree but then so is White City Shepherds Bush to Camberwell Green. I'm only musing about what might happen. I do feel the only way that TfL can lose stand space in the centre and cope with large scale rationalisation is that *some* routes will have to be extended to pick up route sections lost from existing routes or simply to merge routes together. That is a change in practice and may have profound implications for route allocations. Other routes will no doubt be curtailed elsewhere in the Centre or further out. If routes are indeed going to be consequently extended as such then this would be a start of an interesting trend of lengthy routes, whereby the long routes of today would become average and the term 'long' would apply to routes given significant extensions. Perhaps this could somewhat be seen as a nod to the historical era of very lengthy routes. |
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jul 14, 2016 23:17:45 GMT
Extend the 30 from Marble Arch to NHG to replace the 390. Hackney Wick to White City would be a heck of a slog! |
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jul 14, 2016 23:14:15 GMT
Regarding the reversing of buses. I was told that it was legal but the rule was from horse bus days as horses dont have reverse(or cant walk backwards). Attention this horse is reversing. loool. I could imagine it with the sound effects of the horse. LOL  |
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jul 14, 2016 23:09:56 GMT
Imo using adjacent roads would be the most logical solution if pedestrianisation will go forward. There would be no point whatsoever in diverting all routes a long distance away from Oxford Street i.e. Green Park so as to keep in close proximity to Oxford Street as possible, therefore adjacent roads such as Wigmore Street and Brook Street would be the best way to minimise the inconvenience of a massive diversion. Additionally, Oxford Street routes would see a significant decrease in ridership if they're not kept within the vicinity of the corridor as the majority of their respective ridership are down to passengers using each route running along Oxford Street. Furthermore, this is only a theory, but the perpendicular roads connecting Oxford Street to Wigmore Street and Brook Street could be modified in a way to maximise accessibility through them in order to allow the connection to bus stops to be effective. Not what Val Shawcross was saying. She said "you can't put hundreds of buses down Wigmore St or other side roads". Locals don't want that nor do Westminster City Council. Yes I acknowledge she wasn't saying that nor did I mention she said that. Personally it would make sense to do so more than anything else. |
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jul 14, 2016 12:06:32 GMT
I heard that there would be a bus review later this year and so not surprised. One thing about pedestrianisation that I am surprised to read, is that there is no plans to use adjacent roads. I am sure that there are 'options' coming and that using adjacent road is one of them, but we wait and see. Imo using adjacent roads would be the most logical solution if pedestrianisation will go forward. There would be no point whatsoever in diverting all routes a long distance away from Oxford Street i.e. Green Park so as to keep in close proximity to Oxford Street as possible, therefore adjacent roads such as Wigmore Street and Brook Street would be the best way to minimise the inconvenience of a massive diversion. Additionally, Oxford Street routes would see a significant decrease in ridership if they're not kept within the vicinity of the corridor as the majority of their respective ridership are down to passengers using each route running along Oxford Street. Furthermore, this is only a theory, but the perpendicular roads connecting Oxford Street to Wigmore Street and Brook Street could be modified in a way to maximise accessibility through them in order to allow the connection to bus stops to be effective. |
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jul 13, 2016 21:57:53 GMT
9523's cooling fan is on overdrive! The loudest fan I've ever heard on an E40 to date.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jul 13, 2016 10:34:43 GMT
Regarding the reversing of buses. I was told that it was legal but the rule was from horse bus days as horses dont have reverse(or cant walk backwards). Attention this horse is reversing. 'Attention this horse is reversing'...loool  |
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jul 12, 2016 23:44:37 GMT
Integral Enviro 400H for me but only on Euro VI. They sound really nice, are ridiculously fast and treat hills like straight roads. The same applies to the B5LH but I just prefer the Integral a bit more. I also prefer the euro6 E40Hs but i prefer the early Stagecoach and Abellio ones that bit more with the 'whooshing' noise and randomise engine revving... adding character to their acceleration. Definitely the Euro VI E40H for me too. All Euro VI E40Hs have that signature 'whooshing' sound when accelerating at high speed, this is down to the rectangular shaped exhaust that exhibits this noise, ditto the E20D. |
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jul 12, 2016 12:07:25 GMT
Maybe they need to promote their bus services better. Especially in Central London. Whenever I work on the streets in the West End, the questions asked of me are not "What bus can I take to St Pauls" .... It's "Where is the stop for the Big Bus tour" or similar. Either that, or tube related questions. TfL don't actively market the bus network at all. Obviously there is a "base" volume of users on every route but there must be plenty of discretionary patronage to chase after. I'm sceptical that Central London offers much scope at the moment. This is because there is so much disruption and journey times are so unpredictable that it's not the best option for a lot of people. Many tourists are reluctant public transport users and buses are bottom of the pile of their options. I'm not surprised that tour buses, with their simple but expensive tickets / leaflets / guides at stops and on buses, are a more attractive option. It takes the "fear" out of navigating London's complex street pattern. I always use the buses in cities I visit but I'm not normal.   Hmmm I wouldn't be so sure, tourists still use Central London buses in abundance from my frequent observations and there are no signs of abating. Sure tour buses are a more 'fun' way of navigating Central London but that is seen more as a luxury than a means of transport, however buses are the basic and fundamental form of transport whereby tourists in London travel between points of interests within city. Any patronage decrease regarding London's bus network would largely consist of commuters and citizens who acknowledge all the works and projects taking place within the city that affect buses and resort to using other means of transport instead. |
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jul 12, 2016 11:47:33 GMT
Bus routes I would swap or extend. - Swapping routes 183 and 83 meaning Middlesex University gets more frequent buses.
- Withdraw the Willesden - White City section on the 260 and extend the 460 to White City (aka Shepherds Bush)
- 268 Extended to Hendon, Brent Green
Extend route N13 to St Puals certain buses will terminate at Aldwych - Extend route 16 by withdrawing the 32 to Cricklewood this will make a direct link between Edgware and Victoria.
- Extend route 292 to Kingsbury
- New Route 239 - Euston Station Bus Station - Holborn Station Kingsway - Waterloo Station Waterloo Road - Trafalgar Square Charing Cross Stn - Piccadilly Circus Regent Street - Oxford Circus - Portman Street Oxford Street -
Gloucester Place Dorset Square - Swiss Cottage Station - Finchley Road Station - Finchley Road Platt's Lane - Golders Green Station Bus Station - Brent Cross Station - Brent Cross Shopping Centre. Because this is in the 'Fantasy' thread I will refrain from posting any negativity The only idea that is actually feasible and useful is the one I highlighted. |
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jul 11, 2016 0:12:15 GMT
Trust isn't the issue as the contract specifies single deck operation, which Abellio is adhering to. Go Ahead did the same when they ran the route. I know but loadings on the route clearly justify double deckers. There is still room for a frequency increase for the C10, an increase to x6-8 mins coupled with the longer length of the MMCs may alleviate overcrowding on the route. |
|
