|
Post by northlondon83 on Jun 20, 2023 13:38:16 GMT
Personally I find the route renumbering quite silly, it's like when they played with the 110, removed about 75% of the route then created an entirely new route to Hammersmith. Either way though it would have been numbered 110 or 391… So the 549 & W14 is a similar situation. If the changes do not happen for whatever reason I would not be surprised if the 549 is renumbered W17. The route number they propose to withdraw will be different from the one that actually gets withdrawn. The new W12 and W14 are really the W14 and 549 respectively so in theory it's the W12 that should be the withdrawn. It's unfortunately a case of the 549 being the only number route in this consultation which is probably why they chose to withdraw it.
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Jun 20, 2023 19:55:50 GMT
Diamond Geezer has done a write up on the proposed changes.
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Jun 20, 2023 20:17:30 GMT
Diamond Geezer has done a write up on the proposed changes.
Good writeup as ever, straightforward and rational explanation. Pretty much the same points I made yesterday in actual fact!
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Jun 20, 2023 21:28:45 GMT
Diamond Geezer has done a write up on the proposed changes.
Good writeup as ever, straightforward and rational explanation. Pretty much the same points I made yesterday in actual fact! Certainly bold to compare your comments to such a established blog like Diamond Geezer! He at least acknowledges how messy the changes especially for those who’s services drop from 30 mins to 60 all to improve the little used 549!
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Jun 20, 2023 21:32:44 GMT
Anyone local bold enough to provide a reasonable estimate of the pvr of the revised routes
|
|
|
Post by northlondon83 on Jun 20, 2023 21:35:49 GMT
Good writeup as ever, straightforward and rational explanation. Pretty much the same points I made yesterday in actual fact! Certainly bold to compare your comments to such a established blog like Diamond Geezer! He at least acknowledges how messy the changes especially for those who’s services drop from 30 mins to 60 all to improve the little used 549! the maps that tfl uses itself are too messy. It seems like changes for changes sake. They could have altered maybe 2 routes instead of 4.
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Jun 20, 2023 21:48:52 GMT
Good writeup as ever, straightforward and rational explanation. Pretty much the same points I made yesterday in actual fact! Certainly bold to compare your comments to such a established blog like Diamond Geezer! He at least acknowledges how messy the changes especially for those who’s services drop from 30 mins to 60 all to improve the little used 549! I also acknowledged those things (feel free to re-read my post), I was just pointing out that they had a very similar view on this consultation to me. I'm sure others would do the same, indeed I've seen them do so many times before (without a response interestingly)
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Jun 20, 2023 22:02:09 GMT
Anyone local bold enough to provide a reasonable estimate of the pvr of the revised routes Had the same thought and had a quick look over bits 549/W14 - 1 to 2 W13 - 5 to 7 (plus school run which assumes stays as is) W12 - would look to be in the region of 10-12 So that's a PVR saving of anything from 0-2.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jun 21, 2023 17:28:35 GMT
Anyone local bold enough to provide a reasonable estimate of the pvr of the revised routes Had the same thought and had a quick look over bits 549/W14 - 1 to 2 W13 - 5 to 7 (plus school run which assumes stays as is) W12 - would look to be in the region of 10-12 So that's a PVR saving of anything from 0-2. I have to say I don't really know the routes well but it does seem like a thinning of services in the guise of answering a request for better links to Whipps Cross. Does seem a bit unfair when there is a glaring saving could me made by rejigging the 14/74/414/430 to remove one of them. Similar to how the 135/277/D6/D7 again could be re organised to axe the D7 now.
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Jun 21, 2023 17:56:37 GMT
Had the same thought and had a quick look over bits 549/W14 - 1 to 2 W13 - 5 to 7 (plus school run which assumes stays as is) W12 - would look to be in the region of 10-12 So that's a PVR saving of anything from 0-2. I have to say I don't really know the routes well but it does seem like a thinning of services in the guise of answering a request for better links to Whipps Cross. Does seem a bit unfair when there is a glaring saving could me made by rejigging the 14/74/414/430 to remove one of them. Similar to how the 135/277/D6/D7 again could be re organised to axe the D7 now. In an ideal world we all know which one TfL should get rid of. The only one that has been superfluous for the last few years.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jun 21, 2023 18:18:08 GMT
I have to say I don't really know the routes well but it does seem like a thinning of services in the guise of answering a request for better links to Whipps Cross. Does seem a bit unfair when there is a glaring saving could me made by rejigging the 14/74/414/430 to remove one of them. Similar to how the 135/277/D6/D7 again could be re organised to axe the D7 now. In an ideal world we all know which one TfL should get rid of. The only one that has been superfluous for the last few years. Whereas the Sutton changes do feel like genuine improvements. The increase in freq to the S4 (and sunday service) and the southern section of the 455 switched to the more frequent 312 plus a new service through the Old Town. Even the 407/443 split seems fairly logical.
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Jun 21, 2023 18:35:36 GMT
In an ideal world we all know which one TfL should get rid of. The only one that has been superfluous for the last few years. Whereas the Sutton changes do feel like genuine improvements. The increase in freq to the S4 (and sunday service) and the southern section of the 455 switched to the more frequent 312 plus a new service through the Old Town. Even the 407/443 split seems fairly logical. More or less. It occurred to me recently that Cheam Village loses its direct link, albeit part time, to Morden.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jun 21, 2023 18:40:01 GMT
Whereas the Sutton changes do feel like genuine improvements. The increase in freq to the S4 (and sunday service) and the southern section of the 455 switched to the more frequent 312 plus a new service through the Old Town. Even the 407/443 split seems fairly logical. More or less. It occurred to me recently that Cheam Village loses its direct link, albeit part time, to Morden. Yes and in reality I doubt many from Epsom and Cheam will go beyond Sutton. St Helier Station is hardly a top destination.
|
|
|
Post by londonbuses on Jun 21, 2023 20:37:00 GMT
Whereas the Sutton changes do feel like genuine improvements. The increase in freq to the S4 (and sunday service) and the southern section of the 455 switched to the more frequent 312 plus a new service through the Old Town. Even the 407/443 split seems fairly logical. More or less. It occurred to me recently that Cheam Village loses its direct link, albeit part time, to Morden. There is an easy fix to that, extend the 93 to Sutton! In reality I've suggested in the past that the current 470 route stays mostly unchanged, just increased to 4bph, diverted between Sutton Common and Morden via the 80, and the Sutton Common Road/Angel Hill junction altered to allow 10.8m buses. A new S2 from Sutton Station to Morden, running at 2bph, would replace the S3 between Sutton and Sutton Common (planned diversion would go ahead) and the 470 between Sutton Common and Morden. This could be extended to Raynes Park over the K5 but I'm not sure about stand space there. The 80 would be reduced drastically to 5bph (with the diverted 470 combining with it to 9bph between Sutton Common and Morden), and the Morden to Hackbridge section would be withdrawn with the 163 being extended to Hackbridge to replace it and also double decked.
|
|
|
Post by northlondon83 on Jun 21, 2023 21:45:54 GMT
The Wanstead consultation is fairly mixed in terms of cost benefit analysis. Diamond Geezer sums it up perfectly but I think that those living in Essex actually benefit the most considering tfl transport outside London is sparse at best. Loughton residents also have the added benefits of being in Zone 6, 12tph off peak, 4 cross border routes. Loughton should really be in London though. It's quite similar to Epsom where they have 6 tfl routes and a zone 6 station.
Going back to the consultation the real losers are those in Walthamstow village who lose their bus route. I also think that there is too much fiddling with routes here.
|
|