|
|
Post by WLT892 on May 25, 2009 15:45:14 GMT
www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/projectsandschemes/networkandservices/busrouteco\nsultations/11640.aspx "Route 255 We are working with London Boroughs of Lambeth and Wandsworth to consider extending bus route 255 from Streatham Hill to Balham station. This would provide a bus service to the Hyde Farm, Weir and Molly Huggins Estates, providing residents with connections to Balham High Street, Balham and Streatham Stations, Streatham Hill and Pollards Hill. We propose to extend route 255 to go both ways from Streatham Hill along Sternhold Avenue, Thornton Avenue, Emmanuel Road, Radbourne Road, Weir Road, Old Devonshire Road, Balham High Road, ending at Balham Station. The route would provide a bus service to as many members of the community as possible, but it does involve some parking controls to allow the bus service safe and easy access. Single deck buses would run every 10-12 minutes on Mondays to Saturdays, and every 20 minutes in the evenings and on Sundays. The service would operate between around 0600 and 0100. Consultation We need to hear from users and people living on and near to the proposed new route. Proposed parking and road layout changes (PDF 242KB) (http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/255-consultation-booklet-final.pdf) Have your say We are currently holding a consultation, set to end on Friday 17 July 2009. A public exhibition outlining the extension and the proposed changes to road layouts and parking will be held at the Weir Centre on Saturday 6 June 1100-1300 and on Thursday 11 June 1700-1930. TfL and Lambeth Borough officials will be attending to answer any questions about the proposed extension of the bus route. We will consider all responses before making decisions about the bus route and parking controls. TfL expects to be able to let people know the outcome by autumn 2009. We will let everybody who provides their contact details, know the outcome. Please complete our online feedback form (http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/corporate/projectsandschemes/networkandservices/busro\uteconsultations/route255/default.aspx) by Friday 17 July to get your views heard. "
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2009 21:59:07 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2009 23:58:26 GMT
The 315 is supposed to take half the time of the 249 from Balham Station to St Leonard's with taking the more direct route. But in my experience they take the same amount of time because of the number of people using the 315 along Bedford Hill and Gerard's Road, and the slow boarding and unboarding times of a single door bus.
So given the bigger buses and greater frequency of the 255 compared compared to the 315, I would have thought it would have made more sense to have the 255 take over this busy section, and switch the 315 to run along the new route. The suggested route also seems more suited to the smaller buses used on the 315.
Also, why do they have it run around the High Road, Station Road, Bedford Hill triangle in the opposite direction to the 315? There will be three different services from Balham to St Leonard's and all of them will depart from different stops. Sometimes TfL's thinking makes no sense to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on May 28, 2009 21:37:58 GMT
Also, why do they have it run around the High Road, Station Road, Bedford Hill triangle in the opposite direction to the 315? There will be three different services from Balham to St Leonard's and all of them will depart from different stops. Sometimes TfL's thinking makes no sense to me. To use the 249's old stand as their isn't room to use the 315's stand. Balham Station Road gets quite clogged up so actually makes sense. One which doesn't make sense is the fact it will run along Sternhold Avenue and Thornton Avenue to get to Emmanual Road. Surely the 50 could cope over this tiny section and instead divert the 255 via Streatham Hill and Telford Avenue to Emmanual Road. The 255 has used Telford Avenue before about a year ago due to a diversion so could easily work again. |
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on May 29, 2009 12:00:08 GMT
The 315 is supposed to take half the time of the 249 from Balham Station to St Leonard's with taking the more direct route. But in my experience they take the same amount of time because of the number of people using the 315 along Bedford Hill and Gerard's Road, and the slow boarding and unboarding times of a single door bus. So given the bigger buses and greater frequency of the 255 compared compared to the 315, I would have thought it would have made more sense to have the 255 take over this busy section, and switch the 315 to run along the new route. The suggested route also seems more suited to the smaller buses used on the 315. I agree with you there, however the 're-routed' 315 towards Norwood won't be able to turn left directly into Gleneldon Road from Streatham High Road, the turn is too sharp with its restrictive access. A possible way to combat this is to circle around via Mitcham Lane, Ambleside Avenue and Tooting Bec Gardens, which could take too much time. I've had a look at some of those roads that the 255's meant to be extended through. Radbourne Road seem most unsuitable for anything longer than a 315 type bus, a bit like Woodstock Way with the 152 buses. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2009 17:23:19 GMT
To use the 249's old stand as their isn't room to use the 315's stand. Balham Station Road gets quite clogged up so actually makes sense. What else stops alongside the station? Even at peak times I have only ever seen a 315 there, so I would have thought there would be room for both? There is at least surely enough room in the gap between the stand and bus stop itself to fit another bus in. Or they could have the 315 stand at the bus stop itself (just like the 133s do at St Leonard's rather than use a separate stand) and then the 255 can use the current stand as a stop as well? One which doesn't make sense is the fact it will run along Sternhold Avenue and Thornton Avenue to get to Emmanual Road. Surely the 50 could cope over this tiny section and instead divert the 255 via Streatham Hill and Telford Avenue to Emmanual Road. I think there are speed bumps on that section of Telford Avenue? If so I can understand them wanting to avoid them. Also as adding to traffic levels is part of the consideration in planning routes, maybe they felt it was not a good idea to add an extra bus route to what is already a very busy corridor on Streatham Hill? I agree with you there, however the 're-routed' 315 towards Norwood won't be able to turn left directly into Gleneldon Road from Streatham High Road, the turn is too sharp with its restrictive access. A possible way to combat this is to circle around via Mitcham Lane, Ambleside Avenue and Tooting Bec Gardens, which could take too much time. All they would need to do to allow buses to make a left turn is to redesign the 'extended' bit of pavement outside Barclays Bank, which they built over the road to narrow the junction, to allow a wider turning curve. For other traffic it is only used as a left turn from the High Road it would not cause any problems to anything else.. That way they also get rid of the need for the right turn for the 315, preventing it and the rest of traffic being help up as it needs to cross. |
|
|
|
Post by dla389 on May 29, 2009 21:13:36 GMT
I've always wanted the 255 extended further north to Balham after the 50 took over it's routing between the Streatham Hill and Stockwell section, so I'd be more than happy to fill in the feedback form and agree to the proposal. If these proposals are to go through, I would like to see a southbound extension to Thornton Heath via Galpins Road, London Road and Brigstock Road, providing a slight frequency increase is applied. In this case, new links will be created which would proove very popular amongst shoppers and commuters in-between those key areas. One which doesn't make sense is the fact it will run along Sternhold Avenue and Thornton Avenue to get to Emmanual Road. Surely the 50 could cope over this tiny section and instead divert the 255 via Streatham Hill and Telford Avenue to Emmanual Road. The 255 has used Telford Avenue before about a year ago due to a diversion so could easily work again. Luke, I very much favour your idea of using Telford Avenue which should be a rather quicker routing than having go through Sternhold and Thornton Avenue's, but isn't the turning from Streatham Hill into Telford Avenue too narrow on both lanes? I can understand it was used as a diversion route but these days I observe plenty of cars parked on both sides of the road (which are allocated), prooving difficult for the buses to get by each other in the long run. I don't think the speed bumps would be any issue. Radbourne Road is another one, the road being far too narrow to acommodate DWL's running side by side to each other. I know for a fact the DWL Cadet's are much wider (not sure by how many cm) in comparison with the PDL/DDL Pointer class, so this is rather questionable. I wonder how the 10.8m Pointers will manage the whole proposed route with all the twists and tight turns? Knowing how many tight and abstrusive twists there are along Radbourne Road, the size of the allocated vehicles may have to be dropped from 10.8m and restricted to at least 10.2m. Currently the 255 uses a mix of 10.2m DDL's and DWL's, as well as 10.8m PDL's. |
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on May 29, 2009 22:35:26 GMT
If these proposals are to go through, I would like to see a southbound extension to Thornton Heath via Galpins Road, London Road and Brigstock Road, providing a slight frequency increase is applied. In this case, new links will be created which would proove very popular amongst shoppers and commuters in-between those key areas. I think the 152 would be better for that southern extention as it would create a new and unique bus link between Thornthon Heath, Mitcham and Merton. On top of that, the route's double deck capable unlike the 255 (if and when that's extended to Balham). Having said that, I'm suprised the 255 hasn't been extended to Thornton Heath Garage, especially as that depot runs the route. I remember the 319 didn't always terminate at BN garage. |
|
|
|
Post by dla389 on May 30, 2009 12:32:06 GMT
If these proposals are to go through, I would like to see a southbound extension to Thornton Heath via Galpins Road, London Road and Brigstock Road, providing a slight frequency increase is applied. In this case, new links will be created which would proove very popular amongst shoppers and commuters in-between those key areas. I think the 152 would be better for that southern extention as it would create a new and unique bus link between Thornthon Heath, Mitcham and Merton. On top of that, the route's double deck capable unlike the 255 (if and when that's extended to Balham). So are you saying the current 255 (Pollards Hill - Streatham Hill Station) is capable to run double deckers? |
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on May 30, 2009 12:42:04 GMT
I think the 152 would be better for that southern extention as it would create a new and unique bus link between Thornthon Heath, Mitcham and Merton. On top of that, the route's double deck capable unlike the 255 (if and when that's extended to Balham). So are you saying the current 255 (Pollards Hill - Streatham Hill Station) is capable to run double deckers? Well I'm not entirely sure about Stanford Road/Stanford Way as it may have low tree branches which could do some damage to the upper deck. Other than that, a double decker should be no more problematic than a double decker on the 152 at Woodstock Way.....and that road is narrower than Stanford Road/Way. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on May 30, 2009 12:47:53 GMT
To use the 249's old stand as their isn't room to use the 315's stand. Balham Station Road gets quite clogged up so actually makes sense. What else stops alongside the station? Even at peak times I have only ever seen a 315 there, so I would have thought there would be room for both? There is at least surely enough room in the gap between the stand and bus stop itself to fit another bus in. Or they could have the 315 stand at the bus stop itself (just like the 133s do at St Leonard's rather than use a separate stand) and then the 255 can use the current stand as a stop as well? I think there are speed bumps on that section of Telford Avenue? If so I can understand them wanting to avoid them. Also as adding to traffic levels is part of the consideration in planning routes, maybe they felt it was not a good idea to add an extra bus route to what is already a very busy corridor on Streatham Hill? I agree with you there, however the 're-routed' 315 towards Norwood won't be able to turn left directly into Gleneldon Road from Streatham High Road, the turn is too sharp with its restrictive access. A possible way to combat this is to circle around via Mitcham Lane, Ambleside Avenue and Tooting Bec Gardens, which could take too much time. All they would need to do to allow buses to make a left turn is to redesign the 'extended' bit of pavement outside Barclays Bank, which they built over the road to narrow the junction, to allow a wider turning curve. For other traffic it is only used as a left turn from the High Road it would not cause any problems to anything else.. That way they also get rid of the need for the right turn for the 315, preventing it and the rest of traffic being help up as it needs to cross. I don't see speed humps being an issue really considering that their are double deck routes which use roads full of speed humps. You have a good point about putting it along Streatham Hill but I just think it would be wasted if it followed the 50. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2009 14:31:13 GMT
I don't see speed humps being an issue really considering that their are double deck routes which use roads full of speed humps. You have a good point about putting it along Streatham Hill but I just think it would be wasted if it followed the 50. When they have speed humps on bus routes though they use those split type ones so the bus can drive through them. I am not sure if Telford Avenue is suitable for those. Also something else I have thought of, it is a residential street and maybe the residents there do not want a regular bus service? I cannot see it being any quicker going that way, so it would only make sense to go that way if there is local demand. |
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on May 31, 2009 15:00:24 GMT
I don't see speed humps being an issue really considering that their are double deck routes which use roads full of speed humps. You have a good point about putting it along Streatham Hill but I just think it would be wasted if it followed the 50. When they have speed humps on bus routes though they use those split type ones so the bus can drive through them. I am not sure if Telford Avenue is suitable for those. Also something else I have thought of, it is a residential street and maybe the residents there do not want a regular bus service? I cannot see it being any quicker going that way, so it would only make sense to go that way if there is local demand. Just thought I'd add that double deck route 77 has proper full width speed bumps along Earlsfield Road. |
|
|
|
Post by dla389 on May 31, 2009 16:46:46 GMT
When they have speed humps on bus routes though they use those split type ones so the bus can drive through them. I am not sure if Telford Avenue is suitable for those. Also something else I have thought of, it is a residential street and maybe the residents there do not want a regular bus service? I cannot see it being any quicker going that way, so it would only make sense to go that way if there is local demand. Just thought I'd add that double deck route 77 has proper full width speed bumps along Earlsfield Road. Same with Bensham Manor Road in Thornton Heath, it's not an official bus route, but the 50 and 468 are using that road as a diversion route due to roadworks along Whitehorse Road. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2009 19:52:12 GMT
When they have speed humps on bus routes though they use those split type ones so the bus can drive through them. I am not sure if Telford Avenue is suitable for those. Also something else I have thought of, it is a residential street and maybe the residents there do not want a regular bus service? I cannot see it being any quicker going that way, so it would only make sense to go that way if there is local demand. Just thought I'd add that double deck route 77 has proper full width speed bumps along Earlsfield Road. I am surprised by that. Can understand them putting up with it on diversions when there is no better alternative, but would never have thought they would expect passengers or buses to have to deal with them permanently. Guess it rules out that idea then, thanks for pointing it out. |
|
