|
Post by vjaska on Jun 25, 2022 21:20:46 GMT
I think the combined 378, 419 & 485 idea could work in that form but 6bph is probably too high - currently the 419 is every 12 minutes but that is probably for the Hammersmith Bridge section to Roehampton section so I'd go with an every 15 minute frequency instead (I think when the 419 was just Hammersmith to Richmond, it was just every 15 minutes). The issue then becomes what serves Avondale Road as the link to the District is solved at East Putney with the 485 diversion and the Wetlands can still be served by this merged route which leads to your second idea - I think the 533 probably should remain as it is but extended to Avondale Road and in order to replace the 419 to Roehampton, the 209 may have to extend down there instead at an every 12 or 15 minute frequency. North of the river, the 72 is planned to be replaced by a combination of the 49, 272 & 283 so the 533 should probably remain at Hammersmith to provide the critical link to Barnes & Mortlake. Overall, some good thoughts there I do agree, I think 6bph may be too much and 4bph should be fine - I was mainly just trying to match frequencies up with other routes. I don't see the issue with Avondale Road - it still retains the 209, and has easy access to the 485 at the top of the road to connect with the District Line. With the 72, I completely disagree with the changes being made - the extensions of the 49, 272 and 283 means the withdrawal of the 72 has very little effect on PVR anyway. The 49 extension actually makes complete logical sense, but the rest is pointless. I wonder if TfL have even thought about what will run from Hammersmith to Roehampton once the bridge reopens. The new 72 route also removes the need for the temporary route, and the confusing one way loop of the 533. It additionally means Hammersmith to Roehampton can be done directly again - obviously not the fastest route, but for some users the direct link is important even with the longer journey time. The 209 is being retained but will drop to every 30 minutes which is no good to anyone as people will simply leave it in their droves and ends up withering to a slow death. People at the bottom of Avondale Road cross the railway line to & from the southern side of the tracks which is why I believe personally, some form of route should continue to run down there. The present system of two routes is overkill and causes issues with buses accessing the stand but one route, as it was back when the 209 solely terminated there and at a reasonable frequency, should suffice. In it's current form, I can understand why the 72 is being axed - it's one of two changes proposed that I could actually see the logic in doing so and it will be almost fully replaced in it's current form by the 272's extension alone (except for the tiny bits leading to both termini). The 72 could be re-visited if and when the bridge actually opens up which is anyone's guess right now but as is the current 72 is expendable sadly. The temporary route has been a success given it actually had to gain a frequency increase at one point so I don't think removing it is helpful as is TfL's own current changes to it of reducing frequency and making it serve all stops which seems counter intuitive to me. Again, if and when the bridge opens, I'm sure it would cease to exist having served it's purpose
|
|
|
Post by londonbuses on Jun 25, 2022 21:32:38 GMT
The 209 is being retained but will drop to every 30 minutes which is no good to anyone as people will simply leave it in their droves and ends up withering to a slow death. People at the bottom of Avondale Road cross the railway line to & from the southern side of the tracks which is why I believe personally, some form of route should continue to run down there. The present system of two routes is overkill and causes issues with buses accessing the stand but one route, as it was back when the 209 solely terminated there and at a reasonable frequency, should suffice. In it's current form, I can understand why the 72 is being axed - it's one of two changes proposed that I could actually see the logic in doing so and it will be almost fully replaced in it's current form by the 272's extension alone (except for the tiny bits leading to both termini). The 72 could be re-visited if and when the bridge actually opens up which is anyone's guess right now but as is the current 72 is expendable sadly. The temporary route has been a success given it actually had to gain a frequency increase at one point so I don't think removing it is helpful as is TfL's own current changes to it of reducing frequency and making it serve all stops which seems counter intuitive to me. Again, if and when the bridge opens, I'm sure it would cease to exist having served it's purpose I completely disagree with the 209 being decreased, but do believe if it was kept at 4bph then would suffice for Avondale Road. Very true, in its current form the 72 is basically useless, but in the long term, it makes sense to keep the route for the reopening of the bridge. My 72 route wholly replaces the 533, just making the route in Barnes/Castlenau two way instead of having the loop, and actually gives it a (needed) frequency increase to 6bph. The frequency increase also means it would be viable to serve the stops in Chiswick again, which in TfLs plan with the frequency reduction is clearly going to lead to overcrowding.
|
|
|
Post by 6HP502C on Jun 26, 2022 0:12:01 GMT
The temporary route has been a success given it actually had to gain a frequency increase at one point so I don't think removing it is helpful as is TfL's own current changes to it of reducing frequency and making it serve all stops which seems counter intuitive to me. Again, if and when the bridge opens, I'm sure it would cease to exist having served it's purpose The 533's frequency was increased because the bridge closed to pedestrians. Its function changed from a nominal 2bph service providing an accessible way to cross the river, to a lifeline for anyone relying on public transport to get between Castelnau/Barnes/Mortlake and Hammersmith. Now that the bridge has reopened to pedestrians and cyclists, the 533 is a lot less busy and the number of people wanting it in the busiest hours would probably only fill 2 buses, with perhaps a few on a third on a busy day. With that in mind, widening the headway to every 17 minutes in the peaks doesn't cause anybody to be left behind. It gives buses an extra 10 minutes to complete a rounder, which is enough to cover the extra stops. (Not aimed at you, aimed at the articles) When the 533 stopped in Chiswick the route was slower, less reliable and as the article even mentions, extremely busy. The notion that the bridge opening to pedestrians meaning that the 533 is carrying fresh air now is totally incorrect, so having it stop in Chiswick again will give the route exactly the same reliability and capacity challenges as before at a lower frequency. The 533 avoiding Chiswick allowed it to serve its primary purpose, connecting Mortlake and Barnes to Hammersmith, far better. The 190 is a perfectly adequate service along that stretch with connections to Hammersmith, the primary destination of Chiswick users. Yet another example of rich people kicking up a fuss and TFL immediately folding. The 533 did have a period of turbulent service following the closure of Hammersmith Bridge to pedestrians. Traffic increased markedly in the area resulting in buses not being able to complete a rounder in the time it was previously ok with. This meant Hogarth Roundabout turns and large gaps at Hammersmith which of course meant capacity was compromised. As a result, TfL put two interventions in - removing the loop via the upper bus station and operating express between Hammersmith and Mortlake Cemetery. As for the route being made unreliable. Do you think this will definitely be the case? Widening the headway gives 10 extra minutes to complete a rounder and TfL aren't proposing to reinstate the upper bus station stop. So a different setup to when it did have issues.
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Jun 26, 2022 17:40:47 GMT
The 209 is being retained but will drop to every 30 minutes which is no good to anyone as people will simply leave it in their droves and ends up withering to a slow death. People at the bottom of Avondale Road cross the railway line to & from the southern side of the tracks which is why I believe personally, some form of route should continue to run down there. The present system of two routes is overkill and causes issues with buses accessing the stand but one route, as it was back when the 209 solely terminated there and at a reasonable frequency, should suffice. In it's current form, I can understand why the 72 is being axed - it's one of two changes proposed that I could actually see the logic in doing so and it will be almost fully replaced in it's current form by the 272's extension alone (except for the tiny bits leading to both termini). The 72 could be re-visited if and when the bridge actually opens up which is anyone's guess right now but as is the current 72 is expendable sadly. The temporary route has been a success given it actually had to gain a frequency increase at one point so I don't think removing it is helpful as is TfL's own current changes to it of reducing frequency and making it serve all stops which seems counter intuitive to me. Again, if and when the bridge opens, I'm sure it would cease to exist having served it's purpose I completely disagree with the 209 being decreased, but do believe if it was kept at 4bph then would suffice for Avondale Road.
Very true, in its current form the 72 is basically useless, but in the long term, it makes sense to keep the route for the reopening of the bridge.
My 72 route wholly replaces the 533, just making the route in Barnes/Castlenau two way instead of having the loop, and actually gives it a (needed) frequency increase to 6bph. The frequency increase also means it would be viable to serve the stops in Chiswick again, which in TfLs plan with the frequency reduction is clearly going to lead to overcrowding. There's no hope in saving the 72. In its current form, it's far too regular as essentially a local route; those frequencies were designed for cross-river travel. It's a shame that a very popular route that was proposed double deckers years ago is now being withdrawn. The irony being Hammersmith Bridge was a death knell for the 72 in the past and is back again to finish the job.
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Jun 26, 2022 21:49:22 GMT
TfL are getting a pasting on the guestbook comments on the consultation page, particularly for the frequency reductions to the 209 and 533.
|
|
|
Post by uakari on Jun 27, 2022 2:30:50 GMT
Can someone explain why they say this isn't a consultation and they are just going ahead with the changes? I thought they had to consult on all route changes? Is it because the ones being rerouted are classed as 'temporary routes'?
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Jun 27, 2022 5:24:47 GMT
Can someone explain why they say this isn't a consultation and they are just going ahead with the changes? I thought they had to consult on all route changes? Is it because the ones being rerouted are classed as 'temporary routes'? 2 different elements: frequency change doesn’t require a consultation the re-routing seems to officially be a restoration of normal route from a temporary route (and this is a bit of a grey area for this as the current routing came about as a result of short notice emergency changes when Hammersmith bridge was closed). So I think it is still falling under temporary route rules.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jun 27, 2022 7:16:50 GMT
Can someone explain why they say this isn't a consultation and they are just going ahead with the changes? I thought they had to consult on all route changes? Is it because the ones being rerouted are classed as 'temporary routes'? 2 different elements: frequency change doesn’t require a consultation the re-routing seems to officially be a restoration of normal route from a temporary route (and this is a bit of a grey area for this as the current routing came about as a result of short notice emergency changes when Hammersmith bridge was closed). So I think it is still falling under temporary route rules. Yes Im pretty sure when the 378 was introduced (or possibly even when the 209 was diverted to PB) that the routing was always going to be along the full length of Church Street. So is more a realisation of 3 year old plans. The 209 and 533 are really just freq reductions (the 533 is still going to be more frequent then when it started in 2019).
|
|
|
Post by YX10FFN on Jun 27, 2022 9:38:39 GMT
2 different elements: frequency change doesn’t require a consultation the re-routing seems to officially be a restoration of normal route from a temporary route (and this is a bit of a grey area for this as the current routing came about as a result of short notice emergency changes when Hammersmith bridge was closed). So I think it is still falling under temporary route rules. Yes Im pretty sure when the 378 was introduced (or possibly even when the 209 was diverted to PB) that the routing was always going to be along the full length of Church Street. So is more a realisation of 3 year old plans. The 209 and 533 are really just freq reductions (the 533 is still going to be more frequent then when it started in 2019). Granted the 533 is going to be more frequent than when it started, but the sticking point for me is that there are now established travel patterns on the 533, and that can be seen by peak loads. There are plenty of quiet stretches during the day and I’m fine for the frequency to be adjusted to cater to that reduced demand. But there is ample evidence of the route’s importance to commuting and school users, so especially if there are now going to be Chiswick users relying on the route, the peak frequency must reflect that.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jun 27, 2022 10:23:00 GMT
Yes Im pretty sure when the 378 was introduced (or possibly even when the 209 was diverted to PB) that the routing was always going to be along the full length of Church Street. So is more a realisation of 3 year old plans. The 209 and 533 are really just freq reductions (the 533 is still going to be more frequent then when it started in 2019). Granted the 533 is going to be more frequent than when it started, but the sticking point for me is that there are now established travel patterns on the 533, and that can be seen by peak loads. There are plenty of quiet stretches during the day and I’m fine for the frequency to be adjusted to cater to that reduced demand. But there is ample evidence of the route’s importance to commuting and school users, so especially if there are now going to be Chiswick users relying on the route, the peak frequency must reflect that. I totally agree. I personally would axe the 209 now with the 378 linking the bus station as far as the Red lion with the 419 and 533 linking the top of Avondale Road to Hammersmith Birdge and castlenau (in the opposite direction as the 419 comes down it and). 419 and 533 every 12 mins to more then provide enough capacity around Barnes.
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Jun 27, 2022 19:20:16 GMT
Granted the 533 is going to be more frequent than when it started, but the sticking point for me is that there are now established travel patterns on the 533, and that can be seen by peak loads. There are plenty of quiet stretches during the day and I’m fine for the frequency to be adjusted to cater to that reduced demand. But there is ample evidence of the route’s importance to commuting and school users, so especially if there are now going to be Chiswick users relying on the route, the peak frequency must reflect that. I totally agree. I personally would axe the 209 now with the 378 linking the bus station as far as the Red lion with the 419 and 533 linking the top of Avondale Road to Hammersmith Birdge and castlenau (in the opposite direction as the 419 comes down it and). 419 and 533 every 12 mins to more then provide enough capacity around Barnes. I would imagine come the 209 reduction any passengers that did actually specifically use it would be enticed to stop using it, I cannot see someone specifically waiting for it every half an hour.
Perhaps scrap the 209 as you say and use the MMCs for a retain on the 485 from it.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jun 27, 2022 19:29:32 GMT
I totally agree. I personally would axe the 209 now with the 378 linking the bus station as far as the Red lion with the 419 and 533 linking the top of Avondale Road to Hammersmith Birdge and castlenau (in the opposite direction as the 419 comes down it and). 419 and 533 every 12 mins to more then provide enough capacity around Barnes. I would imagine come the 209 reduction any passengers that did actually specifically use it would be enticed to stop using it, I cannot see someone specifically waiting for it every half an hour. Perhaps scrap the 209 as you say and use the MMCs for a retain on the 485 from it.
Most usage of the 209 will simply be if it comes along first. Unless someone really doesn't want to walk to the top of Avondale Road the 378 will get them as far as Red Lion and the 419/533 to the Bridge.
|
|
|
Post by YX10FFN on Jul 4, 2022 10:11:56 GMT
I’ve seen comments about wanting to provide a link to Charing Cross Hospital. By using the resources currently allocated to the 378, and taking into account the frequency cut, I think the 378 could be extended to Hammersmith via Fulham Palace Road with savings still made. There are a few other benefits, such as a new link between West Fulham and Barnes plus supporting the 220 along that section. Obvious drawback would be traffic issues. But I’d like to see them consult on that at least and see what feedback they get.
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Jul 4, 2022 18:08:40 GMT
I’ve seen comments about wanting to provide a link to Charing Cross Hospital. By using the resources currently allocated to the 378, and taking into account the frequency cut, I think the 378 could be extended to Hammersmith via Fulham Palace Road with savings still made. There are a few other benefits, such as a new link between West Fulham and Barnes plus supporting the 220 along that section. Obvious drawback would be traffic issues. But I’d like to see them consult on that at least and see what feedback they get. Not saying that they’re getting the same form of outcome BUT would a 430 diversion perhaps to Shepherd’s Bush perhaps not be more cost effective? It would help support the 220 & have a similar running time to what it has at the moment (I think it would even drop a bus) and perhaps have that as an alternative to the 272 extension? It would also help restore what was an extremely popular link on the 72.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 4, 2022 19:40:42 GMT
I’ve seen comments about wanting to provide a link to Charing Cross Hospital. By using the resources currently allocated to the 378, and taking into account the frequency cut, I think the 378 could be extended to Hammersmith via Fulham Palace Road with savings still made. There are a few other benefits, such as a new link between West Fulham and Barnes plus supporting the 220 along that section. Obvious drawback would be traffic issues. But I’d like to see them consult on that at least and see what feedback they get. Not saying that they’re getting the same form of outcome BUT would a 430 diversion perhaps to Shepherd’s Bush perhaps not be more cost effective? It would help support the 220 & have a similar running time to what it has at the moment (I think it would even drop a bus) and perhaps have that as an alternative to the 272 extension? It would also help restore what was an extremely popular link on the 72. The 272 extension is proposed to cover the current 72 though so you essentially are then removing the 72 and not replacing most of it with a similar direct connection but a change at Shepherd's Bush instead
|
|