|
Post by lonmark on Sept 20, 2023 17:15:27 GMT
I am looking at R1 if go ahead, they need to look at toilet problems for drivers at either Biggin Hill Valley or St Paul's Cray. mmm, that is the question. There’s a driver toilet at the Grovelands terminus Ah I see, thank you for the feedback. :-) I didn't realize that.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Sept 20, 2023 17:21:55 GMT
Thinking about what a better and more extensive set of proposals might look like. The area around Orpington, including places like Sidcup and Biggin Hill (so not just the R routes), certainly seems worth looking at, particularly as there are a lot of low frequency routes. Potentially in some cases passengers may prefer to have fewer but more frequent routes (with more of a turn up and go service), even if this means changing buses to get to certain destinations. Any feedback on the thoughts below? I'm not from the area so my view counts for nothing but I think this is way too many changes - I'm not a fan of these big structural changes that seem to inflict the provinces all the time (which probably is partly why bus transport struggles outside London among other factors). Is the Orpington network so broken that it needs this many changes not to mention the inclusion of 5 other routes that don't even serve the area? To be clear, I wasn't necessarily suggesting to change all of these routes, but just questioning which ones might be worth amending individually or in a similar scale to TFL's proposals.
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Sept 20, 2023 17:50:04 GMT
Thinking about what a better and more extensive set of proposals might look like. The area around Orpington, including places like Sidcup and Biggin Hill (so not just the R routes), certainly seems worth looking at, particularly as there are a lot of low frequency routes. Potentially in some cases passengers may prefer to have fewer but more frequent routes (with more of a turn up and go service), even if this means changing buses to get to certain destinations. Any feedback on the thoughts below? R1/R3 - seem to work well as they are, and could risk reliability issues if extended further as per TFL's proposals. Probably the same for the R4 too. R2/R8 - Might be simpler to just have one route between Biggin Hill and Orpington. The R8 isn't much different in journey times, and the unique section hardly serves any housing etc. Maybe could just have the R2, with passengers at Downe having to take the 146 then change? R5/R10 - An hourly service could be worthwhile to give a clockface timetable for passengers. Could perhaps justify the higher PVR by incorporating Chelsfield Village into the loop, assuming an hourly service would be adequate here? Would also have the advantage of restoring a service to all of Chelsfield, plus introducing bus connections to Knockholt Station to/from nearby villages. R6 - As a short and infrequent route, could easily be incorporated into another service, I think TFL's B14 proposal could work ok. R7 - Chelsfield section as above. Not sure about the Chislehurst end either though, and I wonder if it might be worth diverting to Bromley instead, maybe serving some new roads on the way? Might be more useful to passengers around the local roads in Bickley. And at Chislehurst, in most cases the more frequent 61/162/273 will be preferable. R9 - Seems to work well as a local shuttle into Orpington. I wonder though if residents at the Ramsden Estate might value a direct link beyond Orpington, such as Bromley? A restructure involving the 61/161/126 has often been suggested before. R11 - Probably fine as it is, however another route taking over the Orpington Hospital grounds stop would allow longer SDs to be used for extra capacity, or even DDs? I also wonder if an extension further north from Sidcup to Bexleyheath would be popular? 146 - Infrequent and could have more potential if extended beyond Downe, maybe in partial replacement of the R8? 229 - Has been mentioned that the route is much busier north of Bexleyheath, so could consider splitting to better match each section to demand. As above, a revised R11 could replace it between Sidcup and Bexleyheath? 320 - Could the route maybe be more useful going via Hayes instead of Bromley Common? This would give passengers around Biggin Hill a frequent service to connect with trains at Hayes. The 246 could in turn go via Bromley Common, maybe also diverting something like the 261 via Oakley Road if more capacity is needed? 464 - Not sure if this would be worth looking at if the other Biggin Hill routes are reviewed? 51 - How reliable is this route considering the length? As an alternative to an R11 extension, could the 51 maybe curtail to Queen Marys Hospital, with the Orpington end of the 51 going to Bexleyheath instead? The 51 is a good, reliable service and doesn’t need your changes. Splitting the 229 throws up all sorts of problems, notably broken links from Erith and the need to find space to terminate another pair of services at Bexleyheath, both of which are likely to be frequent. There’s generally not a lot wrong with the 229, it is rarely used end to end and while it’s busy, it isn’t generally chokingly so apart from during school movements. My guess is you are not local and/or you don’t use these services regularly.
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Sept 20, 2023 17:51:08 GMT
Thinking about what a better and more extensive set of proposals might look like. The area around Orpington, including places like Sidcup and Biggin Hill (so not just the R routes), certainly seems worth looking at, particularly as there are a lot of low frequency routes. Potentially in some cases passengers may prefer to have fewer but more frequent routes (with more of a turn up and go service), even if this means changing buses to get to certain destinations. Any feedback on the thoughts below? R1/R3 - seem to work well as they are, and could risk reliability issues if extended further as per TFL's proposals. Probably the same for the R4 too. R2/R8 - Might be simpler to just have one route between Biggin Hill and Orpington. The R8 isn't much different in journey times, and the unique section hardly serves any housing etc. Maybe could just have the R2, with passengers at Downe having to take the 146 then change? R5/R10 - An hourly service could be worthwhile to give a clockface timetable for passengers. Could perhaps justify the higher PVR by incorporating Chelsfield Village into the loop, assuming an hourly service would be adequate here? Would also have the advantage of restoring a service to all of Chelsfield, plus introducing bus connections to Knockholt Station to/from nearby villages. R6 - As a short and infrequent route, could easily be incorporated into another service, I think TFL's B14 proposal could work ok. R7 - Chelsfield section as above. Not sure about the Chislehurst end either though, and I wonder if it might be worth diverting to Bromley instead, maybe serving some new roads on the way? Might be more useful to passengers around the local roads in Bickley. And at Chislehurst, in most cases the more frequent 61/162/273 will be preferable. R9 - Seems to work well as a local shuttle into Orpington. I wonder though if residents at the Ramsden Estate might value a direct link beyond Orpington, such as Bromley? A restructure involving the 61/161/126 has often been suggested before. R11 - Probably fine as it is, however another route taking over the Orpington Hospital grounds stop would allow longer SDs to be used for extra capacity, or even DDs? I also wonder if an extension further north from Sidcup to Bexleyheath would be popular? 146 - Infrequent and could have more potential if extended beyond Downe, maybe in partial replacement of the R8? 229 - Has been mentioned that the route is much busier north of Bexleyheath, so could consider splitting to better match each section to demand. As above, a revised R11 could replace it between Sidcup and Bexleyheath? 320 - Could the route maybe be more useful going via Hayes instead of Bromley Common? This would give passengers around Biggin Hill a frequent service to connect with trains at Hayes. The 246 could in turn go via Bromley Common, maybe also diverting something like the 261 via Oakley Road if more capacity is needed? 464 - Not sure if this would be worth looking at if the other Biggin Hill routes are reviewed? 51 - How reliable is this route considering the length? As an alternative to an R11 extension, could the 51 maybe curtail to Queen Marys Hospital, with the Orpington end of the 51 going to Bexleyheath instead? Some interesting suggestions, I think the 51 is probably ok as it is and so is the 464. I'm not sure there would be much benefit in swapping the 246 and 320 routes between Biggin Hill and Bromley? The 229 could be shortened to Thamesmead to Bexleyheath, the section to Sidcup is probably overbussed now and will be even more so when superloop starts. I can't see how a more direct Orpington to Bexleyheath service could be viable and it's a pretty easy change in Sidcup. I do think Ramsden needs a direct link to Bromley, reroute the 61 either replacing the R9 or 353 and something else can cover the Chislehurst section. As for the other R routes I think the R2 and R8 could be merged into one route but I'm not sure much else needs to change? I certainly can't see the sense in the R1 going to Biggin Hill at a higher frequency when the R2 isn't very well used as it is. Although the 146 could possibly be extended to Biggin Hill replacing the R8 but that would mean the section to GSG being abandoned.
|
|
|
Post by rugbyref on Sept 20, 2023 17:57:07 GMT
We have largely looked at the fine detail, but in the bigger picture, what is so broken currently that requires all this costly fiddling?
|
|
|
Post by londonbuses on Sept 20, 2023 18:02:37 GMT
I do think Ramsden needs a direct link to Bromley, reroute the 61 either replacing the R9 or 353 and something else can cover the Chislehurst section. Swapping the 61 and 353 between Orpington and Ramsden/Chislehurst is probably the most sensible solution. The slightly lower frequency of the 353 would be fine for the Chislehurst section. The 353 can also be cut back from Forestdale to Addington, with a double run down Courtwood Lane added to the 433.
|
|
|
Post by rugbyref on Sept 20, 2023 18:13:59 GMT
Thinking about what a better and more extensive set of proposals might look like. The area around Orpington, including places like Sidcup and Biggin Hill (so not just the R routes), certainly seems worth looking at, particularly as there are a lot of low frequency routes. Potentially in some cases passengers may prefer to have fewer but more frequent routes (with more of a turn up and go service), even if this means changing buses to get to certain destinations. Any feedback on the thoughts below? R1/R3 - seem to work well as they are, and could risk reliability issues if extended further as per TFL's proposals. Probably the same for the R4 too. R2/R8 - Might be simpler to just have one route between Biggin Hill and Orpington. The R8 isn't much different in journey times, and the unique section hardly serves any housing etc. Maybe could just have the R2, with passengers at Downe having to take the 146 then change? R5/R10 - An hourly service could be worthwhile to give a clockface timetable for passengers. Could perhaps justify the higher PVR by incorporating Chelsfield Village into the loop, assuming an hourly service would be adequate here? Would also have the advantage of restoring a service to all of Chelsfield, plus introducing bus connections to Knockholt Station to/from nearby villages. R6 - As a short and infrequent route, could easily be incorporated into another service, I think TFL's B14 proposal could work ok. R7 - Chelsfield section as above. Not sure about the Chislehurst end either though, and I wonder if it might be worth diverting to Bromley instead, maybe serving some new roads on the way? Might be more useful to passengers around the local roads in Bickley. And at Chislehurst, in most cases the more frequent 61/162/273 will be preferable. R9 - Seems to work well as a local shuttle into Orpington. I wonder though if residents at the Ramsden Estate might value a direct link beyond Orpington, such as Bromley? A restructure involving the 61/161/126 has often been suggested before. R11 - Probably fine as it is, however another route taking over the Orpington Hospital grounds stop would allow longer SDs to be used for extra capacity, or even DDs? I also wonder if an extension further north from Sidcup to Bexleyheath would be popular? 146 - Infrequent and could have more potential if extended beyond Downe, maybe in partial replacement of the R8? 229 - Has been mentioned that the route is much busier north of Bexleyheath, so could consider splitting to better match each section to demand. As above, a revised R11 could replace it between Sidcup and Bexleyheath? 320 - Could the route maybe be more useful going via Hayes instead of Bromley Common? This would give passengers around Biggin Hill a frequent service to connect with trains at Hayes. The 246 could in turn go via Bromley Common, maybe also diverting something like the 261 via Oakley Road if more capacity is needed? 464 - Not sure if this would be worth looking at if the other Biggin Hill routes are reviewed? 51 - How reliable is this route considering the length? As an alternative to an R11 extension, could the 51 maybe curtail to Queen Marys Hospital, with the Orpington end of the 51 going to Bexleyheath instead? Will you please include R3 reliability issues in a survey response, as that is valid.
|
|
|
Post by rugbyref on Sept 20, 2023 18:20:47 GMT
Thinking about what a better and more extensive set of proposals might look like. The area around Orpington, including places like Sidcup and Biggin Hill (so not just the R routes), certainly seems worth looking at, particularly as there are a lot of low frequency routes. Potentially in some cases passengers may prefer to have fewer but more frequent routes (with more of a turn up and go service), even if this means changing buses to get to certain destinations. Any feedback on the thoughts below? R1/R3 - seem to work well as they are, and could risk reliability issues if extended further as per TFL's proposals. Probably the same for the R4 too. R2/R8 - Might be simpler to just have one route between Biggin Hill and Orpington. The R8 isn't much different in journey times, and the unique section hardly serves any housing etc. Maybe could just have the R2, with passengers at Downe having to take the 146 then change? R5/R10 - An hourly service could be worthwhile to give a clockface timetable for passengers. Could perhaps justify the higher PVR by incorporating Chelsfield Village into the loop, assuming an hourly service would be adequate here? Would also have the advantage of restoring a service to all of Chelsfield, plus introducing bus connections to Knockholt Station to/from nearby villages. R6 - As a short and infrequent route, could easily be incorporated into another service, I think TFL's B14 proposal could work ok. R7 - Chelsfield section as above. Not sure about the Chislehurst end either though, and I wonder if it might be worth diverting to Bromley instead, maybe serving some new roads on the way? Might be more useful to passengers around the local roads in Bickley. And at Chislehurst, in most cases the more frequent 61/162/273 will be preferable. R9 - Seems to work well as a local shuttle into Orpington. I wonder though if residents at the Ramsden Estate might value a direct link beyond Orpington, such as Bromley? A restructure involving the 61/161/126 has often been suggested before. R11 - Probably fine as it is, however another route taking over the Orpington Hospital grounds stop would allow longer SDs to be used for extra capacity, or even DDs? I also wonder if an extension further north from Sidcup to Bexleyheath would be popular? 146 - Infrequent and could have more potential if extended beyond Downe, maybe in partial replacement of the R8? 229 - Has been mentioned that the route is much busier north of Bexleyheath, so could consider splitting to better match each section to demand. As above, a revised R11 could replace it between Sidcup and Bexleyheath? 320 - Could the route maybe be more useful going via Hayes instead of Bromley Common? This would give passengers around Biggin Hill a frequent service to connect with trains at Hayes. The 246 could in turn go via Bromley Common, maybe also diverting something like the 261 via Oakley Road if more capacity is needed? 464 - Not sure if this would be worth looking at if the other Biggin Hill routes are reviewed? 51 - How reliable is this route considering the length? As an alternative to an R11 extension, could the 51 maybe curtail to Queen Marys Hospital, with the Orpington end of the 51 going to Bexleyheath instead? Some interesting suggestions, I think the 51 is probably ok as it is and so is the 464. I'm not sure there would be much benefit in swapping the 246 and 320 routes between Biggin Hill and Bromley? The 229 could be shortened to Thamesmead to Bexleyheath, the section to Sidcup is probably overbussed now and will be even more so when superloop starts. I can't see how a more direct Orpington to Bexleyheath service could be viable and it's a pretty easy change in Sidcup. I do think Ramsden needs a direct link to Bromley, reroute the 61 either replacing the R9 or 353 and something else can cover the Chislehurst section. As for the other R routes I think the R2 and R8 could be merged into one route but I'm not sure much else needs to change? I certainly can't see the sense in the R1 going to Biggin Hill at a higher frequency when the R2 isn't very well used as it is. Although the 146 could possibly be extended to Biggin Hill replacing the R8 but that would mean the section to GSG being abandoned. Where on the current R9 loop would your proposed 61 extension terminate in Ramsden? Surely not one continuous service from and to Bromley North?
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Sept 20, 2023 19:08:29 GMT
We have largely looked at the fine detail, but in the bigger picture, what is so broken currently that requires all this costly fiddling? Probably nothing - I still think some of the recent Newham changes were change for changes sake. Up until recently the bus network was so stable and hardly ever had changes made but now it seems a consultation comes along every couple of months.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Sept 20, 2023 20:32:52 GMT
We have largely looked at the fine detail, but in the bigger picture, what is so broken currently that requires all this costly fiddling? Probably nothing - I still think some of the recent Newham changes were change for changes sake. Up until recently the bus network was so stable and hardly ever had changes made but now it seems a consultation comes along every couple of months. Makes me wonder what will be in store for Bromley. This is changes to 3 routes and 2 withdrawn. Will something be instore for some of the 3xx series ex commercial Metrobus routes and the 138 made longer.
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Sept 20, 2023 21:13:26 GMT
We have largely looked at the fine detail, but in the bigger picture, what is so broken currently that requires all this costly fiddling? You seem mega local - what do you think generally about TfL’s proposals?
|
|
|
Post by rugbyref on Sept 20, 2023 21:38:37 GMT
We have largely looked at the fine detail, but in the bigger picture, what is so broken currently that requires all this costly fiddling? You seem mega local - what do you think generally about TfL’s proposals? Well initially, tinkering for the sake of it. Specifically on the R3, this will become too long in the sense of traffic conditions, so will become unreliable. The current R2 could retain its current number without confusion. There is sense in no longer having both numbers R1 and R11 going to GSG; the number of people who board the wrong bus from Orpington High Street is significant, as the blinds look similar with a quick glance. I see very few people use the B14 between the High Street and Station. The B14 could terminate in Gravel Pit, using the vacated R2 bay, then return to Bexleyheath via the War Memorial roundabout. This would also help ease congestion at Orpington Station when the 358 gets a dedicated recharging bay. A simple change at the Locksbottom end of the R3 would be to stand with the 336 by Sainsbury, saving awkward right turn out of PRU hospital. The R2(R1) would be longer in terms of delays along Sevenoaks Way and become unreliable at the Biggin Hill end of route. So there are minor tweaks that could be made without much disruption. I can’t see at the moment confirmation of the PVR and frequency of each proposed route; I just hope there are no hidden cuts.
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Sept 20, 2023 22:21:54 GMT
You seem mega local - what do you think generally about TfL’s proposals? Well initially, tinkering for the sake of it. Specifically on the R3, this will become too long in the sense of traffic conditions, so will become unreliable. The current R2 could retain its current number without confusion. There is sense in no longer having both numbers R1 and R11 going to GSG; the number of people who board the wrong bus from Orpington High Street is significant, as the blinds look similar with a quick glance. I see very few people use the B14 between the High Street and Station. The B14 could terminate in Gravel Pit, using the vacated R2 bay, then return to Bexleyheath via the War Memorial roundabout. This would also help ease congestion at Orpington Station when the 358 gets a dedicated recharging bay. A simple change at the Locksbottom end of the R3 would be to stand with the 336 by Sainsbury, saving awkward right turn out of PRU hospital. The R2(R1) would be longer in terms of delays along Sevenoaks Way and become unreliable at the Biggin Hill end of route. So there are minor tweaks that could be made without much disruption. I can’t see at the moment confirmation of the PVR and frequency of each proposed route; I just hope there are no hidden cuts. Very naughty for TfL to not have included the proposed frequencies and hours of operation. They did in the Walthamstow consultation and may have got stung with the scrutiny it created. Surely there should be consistency about the quality of the information presented in the various consultations. You cannot divorce structural changes to the bus network from frequency of service as this often goes the heart of matters relating to capacity. However there is now the ability to ask for such matters to be clarified by using the ask a question facility on the consultation website and some of those questions/answers make it onto the relevant consultation webpage as FAQs.
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Sept 20, 2023 23:05:36 GMT
The B14/R6 change is one of the great old chestnuts: I've seen this one suggested so many times in route change discussion. Same with the 1/168 changes that are coming along.
The change in Petts Wood to the R3 interests me as I assumed it already ran like this. The replacement of the R2 by the R1 seems reasonable: I think the link to the PRU hospital from Biggin Hill, rather than just the narrow roads on the R8, necessitates its survival. However the R3 continues to be a ludicrously convoluted service. Anyone boarding for the PRU at Green St Green will get their money's worth.
Overall though, I'm another who would like to see a more root and branch rework of the Orpington network. The shopping area has migrated north to Sevenoaks Way since Roundabout days, the PRU is a more significant hospital and the network has got rather muddled with the lengthy 273 and B14 performing local roles.
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Sept 21, 2023 6:42:33 GMT
The B14/R6 change is one of the great old chestnuts: I've seen this one suggested so many times in route change discussion. Same with the 1/168 changes that are coming along. The change in Petts Wood to the R3 interests me as I assumed it already ran like this. The replacement of the R2 by the R1 seems reasonable: I think the link to the PRU hospital from Biggin Hill, rather than just the narrow roads on the R8, necessitates its survival. However the R3 continues to be a ludicrously convoluted service. Anyone boarding for the PRU at Green St Green will get their money's worth. Overall though, I'm another who would like to see a more root and branch rework of the Orpington network. The shopping area has migrated north to Sevenoaks Way since Roundabout days, the PRU is a more significant hospital and the network has got rather muddled with the lengthy 273 and B14 performing local roles. The R2/R6 seems such an obvious one, rather like the 1/168, with the B14 using the current R2 stand thus reducing congestion at the station. Nugent Retail Park is very popular, 3 hours free parking I think, and maybe bus provision could be improved. It would be quicker to walk from GSG to PRU rather than use the R3!
|
|