|
Post by snoggle on Jul 10, 2014 13:46:14 GMT
There are many proposals I have in mind but some are just theoretical I realise that there are some issues with these extensions: 325 to gallions reach 58 to beckton W14/108/262/8/205 to stratford city W11 rerouted to serve chingford morrisons and 397 D8 to leyton asda (more than 10 minutes) 69 to london city airport 330 to canary wharf or the 277 to canning town I agree with the following ideas: Route W14 and 277. If Route 277 was to be extended to Canning Town, I think it would reduce the argument for Route 330 to extend! Having seen the idea yesterday about 277 vs 330 I had a bit of a think. Actually neither idea is as straightforward as it looks. Although the distances involved are short there are sticky traffic junctions to get through and if you extend the 277 how do you serve Tower Hamlets council buildings at Leamouth? If you send buses round the loop in each direction then the extension becomes more costly given the high frequency the 277 runs at. You also have to decide what bits of London you're giving a link to. I'd still be minded to extend the 330 as you might get away with needing 2 extra buses (depending on where you terminate it at CW) whereas the 277 could need 4 extra buses if you still loop it round Leamouth. I'd also suggest that extending the 330, a relatively short route, is likely to be more reliable and less prone to curtailments. Extending the 277 even further might heighten the risk of curtailments at each end. My statements assume no increase in frequencies. I do wonder, though, whether you could get away with reducing the frequency of the 277 somewhat given the Overground has taken patronage away between Hackney and Highbury. A reduced frequency would reduce the cost of an extension.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2014 5:48:20 GMT
I agree with the following ideas: Route W14 and 277. If Route 277 was to be extended to Canning Town, I think it would reduce the argument for Route 330 to extend! Having seen the idea yesterday about 277 vs 330 I had a bit of a think. Actually neither idea is as straightforward as it looks. Although the distances involved are short there are sticky traffic junctions to get through and if you extend the 277 how do you serve Tower Hamlets council buildings at Leamouth? If you send buses round the loop in each direction then the extension becomes more costly given the high frequency the 277 runs at. You also have to decide what bits of London you're giving a link to. I'd still be minded to extend the 330 as you might get away with needing 2 extra buses (depending on where you terminate it at CW) whereas the 277 could need 4 extra buses if you still loop it round Leamouth. I'd also suggest that extending the 330, a relatively short route, is likely to be more reliable and less prone to curtailments. Extending the 277 even further might heighten the risk of curtailments at each end. My statements assume no increase in frequencies. I do wonder, though, whether you could get away with reducing the frequency of the 277 somewhat given the Overground has taken patronage away between Hackney and Highbury. A reduced frequency would reduce the cost of an extension. If anything, the 277 needs a frequency increase. The current one is OK during off-peak times, but during the peak times it can be even worse than the 25, which is something.
|
|
|
Post by Unorm on Jul 11, 2014 8:06:22 GMT
Having seen the idea yesterday about 277 vs 330 I had a bit of a think. Actually neither idea is as straightforward as it looks. Although the distances involved are short there are sticky traffic junctions to get through and if you extend the 277 how do you serve Tower Hamlets council buildings at Leamouth? If you send buses round the loop in each direction then the extension becomes more costly given the high frequency the 277 runs at. You also have to decide what bits of London you're giving a link to. I'd still be minded to extend the 330 as you might get away with needing 2 extra buses (depending on where you terminate it at CW) whereas the 277 could need 4 extra buses if you still loop it round Leamouth. I'd also suggest that extending the 330, a relatively short route, is likely to be more reliable and less prone to curtailments. Extending the 277 even further might heighten the risk of curtailments at each end. My statements assume no increase in frequencies. I do wonder, though, whether you could get away with reducing the frequency of the 277 somewhat given the Overground has taken patronage away between Hackney and Highbury. A reduced frequency would reduce the cost of an extension. If anything, the 277 needs a frequency increase. The current one is OK during off-peak times, but during the peak times it can be even worse than the 25, which is something. That's true, I've seen some packed 277's at times.
|
|
|
Post by routew15 on Jul 11, 2014 10:23:01 GMT
If anything, the 277 needs a frequency increase. The current one is OK during off-peak times, but during the peak times it can be even worse than the 25, which is something. That's true, I've seen some packed 277's at times. I think a reduced frequency is a good idea (speaking from route experience) it can help the route run more reliably. Two routes I use (the W15 & 123) both received frequency de-creases and although they are both still packed and busy, they run very reliably and this is all down to frequency decreases. However, I will say each route varies, but generally speaking less is more for most high frequency routes.
|
|
|
Post by mondraker275 on Jul 12, 2014 9:19:35 GMT
I agree with the following ideas: Route W14 and 277. If Route 277 was to be extended to Canning Town, I think it would reduce the argument for Route 330 to extend! Having seen the idea yesterday about 277 vs 330 I had a bit of a think. Actually neither idea is as straightforward as it looks. Although the distances involved are short there are sticky traffic junctions to get through and if you extend the 277 how do you serve Tower Hamlets council buildings at Leamouth? If you send buses round the loop in each direction then the extension becomes more costly given the high frequency the 277 runs at. You also have to decide what bits of London you're giving a link to. I'd still be minded to extend the 330 as you might get away with needing 2 extra buses (depending on where you terminate it at CW) whereas the 277 could need 4 extra buses if you still loop it round Leamouth. I'd also suggest that extending the 330, a relatively short route, is likely to be more reliable and less prone to curtailments. Extending the 277 even further might heighten the risk of curtailments at each end. My statements assume no increase in frequencies. I do wonder, though, whether you could get away with reducing the frequency of the 277 somewhat given the Overground has taken patronage away between Hackney and Highbury. A reduced frequency would reduce the cost of an extension. I dont get the argument between 277 and 330, what areas need serving? Canning Town is well connected to Leamouth, you just get off a 115 at Nutmeg Lane, take a left and a 2 minute walk you see a row of parked 277's. 115 provides a good service where you can change at Poplar/East India Road interchange for other destinations like Canary Wharf or Crossharbour or even Lewisham. Extending the 330 past Canning Town will cause the headache that I get when I use the 115 in the fact it takes 5 minutes to get round the Canning Town Bus station just to get to the eastbound stop. And remember that 330 is the second most efficient bus route as it is, in terms of journeys per km operated. I cant remember the number of times I have made the Clapton to Canning Town journey, there is so many combos of routes that I failed to find the fastest or most efficient.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2014 11:51:41 GMT
Having seen the idea yesterday about 277 vs 330 I had a bit of a think. Actually neither idea is as straightforward as it looks. Although the distances involved are short there are sticky traffic junctions to get through and if you extend the 277 how do you serve Tower Hamlets council buildings at Leamouth? If you send buses round the loop in each direction then the extension becomes more costly given the high frequency the 277 runs at. You also have to decide what bits of London you're giving a link to. I'd still be minded to extend the 330 as you might get away with needing 2 extra buses (depending on where you terminate it at CW) whereas the 277 could need 4 extra buses if you still loop it round Leamouth. I'd also suggest that extending the 330, a relatively short route, is likely to be more reliable and less prone to curtailments. Extending the 277 even further might heighten the risk of curtailments at each end. My statements assume no increase in frequencies. I do wonder, though, whether you could get away with reducing the frequency of the 277 somewhat given the Overground has taken patronage away between Hackney and Highbury. A reduced frequency would reduce the cost of an extension. I dont get the argument between 277 and 330, what areas need serving? Canning Town is well connected to Leamouth, you just get off a 115 at Nutmeg Lane, take a left and a 2 minute walk you see a row of parked 277's. 115 provides a good service where you can change at Poplar/East India Road interchange for other destinations like Canary Wharf or Crossharbour or even Lewisham. Extending the 330 past Canning Town will cause the headache that I get when I use the 115 in the fact it takes 5 minutes to get round the Canning Town Bus station just to get to the eastbound stop. And remember that 330 is the second most efficient bus route as it is, in terms of journeys per km operated. I cant remember the number of times I have made the Clapton to Canning Town journey, there is so many combos of routes that I failed to find the fastest or most efficient. I agree about the 115 it can be a joke waiting to get off at Canning Town Station - When Canning Town Bus Station first opened the 115 used to drop off at the terminating stop then pick up again at the Eastbound stop. I do think a extra service is needed westbound towards Poplar be in the 277 /330 - far too many buses terminate at Canning Town with no forward links.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2014 15:42:12 GMT
I just want to maximise the most out of 24-hour routes kind of an obsession. Personally the 69 is another option which is an alternative and would provide a stratford and canary wharf link other than D8. But I think the 474 is the best option as it will further connect canary wharf with the docklands and is 24 hour
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jul 12, 2014 16:41:50 GMT
That's true, I've seen some packed 277's at times. I think a reduced frequency is a good idea (speaking from route experience) it can help the route run more reliably. Two routes I use (the W15 & 123) both received frequency de-creases and although they are both still packed and busy, they run very reliably and this is all down to frequency decreases. However, I will say each route varies, but generally speaking less is more for most high frequency routes.I'm not convinced that the reductions on the W15 and 123 have worked at all. I have lost track of the ridiculous gaps on the 123 of late - up to 25 minutes on a regular basis. I really want the 10 minute peak and shopping hour frequency back ASAP. To the extent that you get divergence from the headway then the wider the headway the longer the wait for any percentage divergence. Even with considerable turn round allowances the 123 still goes awry. I am less familiar with the W15 but it still bunches and has long gaps. As the busiest single deck service in London it actually deserves more resources to reduce overcrowding by both increasing frequency and a more robust schedule. Unfortunately robust frequencies are in TfL's firing line for taking resources out of routes and thus saving money. We must be at or close to a "tipping point" where this tactic becomes unsustainable for operators and the overall stats start declining. If demand is going down on some routes or there is gross over provision then by all means shift the resources around. That is not the case on the 123 or W15 - they deserve more resource or at least a restoration to the former service levels. It now looks like the T Hale Bus Station changes will now happen on 6 September so another 6 weeks of reduced services on the 123.
|
|
|
Post by routew15 on Jul 14, 2014 8:56:02 GMT
I think a reduced frequency is a good idea (speaking from route experience) it can help the route run more reliably. Two routes I use (the W15 & 123) both received frequency de-creases and although they are both still packed and busy, they run very reliably and this is all down to frequency decreases. However, I will say each route varies, but generally speaking less is more for most high frequency routes.I'm not convinced that the reductions on the W15 and 123 have worked at all. I have lost track of the ridiculous gaps on the 123 of late - up to 25 minutes on a regular basis. I really want the 10 minute peak and shopping hour frequency back ASAP. To the extent that you get divergence from the headway then the wider the headway the longer the wait for any percentage divergence. Even with considerable turn round allowances the 123 still goes awry. I am less familiar with the W15 but it still bunches and has long gaps. As the busiest single deck service in London it actually deserves more resources to reduce overcrowding by both increasing frequency and a more robust schedule. Unfortunately robust frequencies are in TfL's firing line for taking resources out of routes and thus saving money. We must be at or close to a "tipping point" where this tactic becomes unsustainable for operators and the overall stats start declining. If demand is going down on some routes or there is gross over provision then by all means shift the resources around. That is not the case on the 123 or W15 - they deserve more resource or at least a restoration to the former service levels. It now looks like the T Hale Bus Station changes will now happen on 6 September so another 6 weeks of reduced services on the 123. When I use the 123 Westbound during the afternoon peak every bus is busy (but unlike a couple years back when the service was so bad the 123 became an un-advertised express bus and missed the 10 stops between Wood street and Blackhorse Road Station) I still manage to get on one and I am normally guaranteed another bus within 10 mins of the first one. In my eyes, that is decent in comparison to what the current Eastbound service is like. The Eastbound (Ilford) service runs like how the Westbound (Wood Green) service used to run (during 2011), three buses come between every 15-20mins and all three are packed, mean while tones of people are waiting at nearly every stop along the route. To me, it's surprising that the service towards Ilford runs so bad because on one of the previous timetables (I think it was around the time of contract renewal, March 2012) placed a big emphasis on the afternoon peak and there was an even bigger emphasis placed on increasing the (good running) Eastbound service and decreasing the (already dilapidated) westbound service. However this seems to of been a hidden blessing for us "westbounders" as were the ones who actually were getting the better of two halves. Don't get me wrong, I'm not even close to saying that the 123 is a "good service" or a "good running bus route" I'm just saying from the diabolical service I used to experience on this route it has improved for me, only slightly. When it comes to routes being improved in the Higham Hill Area, the 123 is joint first on the list 1) 158 123 3) W15 then 4) W11. The number of people moving to the Higham hill area is increasing and if TfL do not do something to all four of these routes then there may be serious delays to all these services.
|
|
|
Post by mondraker275 on Jul 14, 2014 9:43:48 GMT
I'm not convinced that the reductions on the W15 and 123 have worked at all. I have lost track of the ridiculous gaps on the 123 of late - up to 25 minutes on a regular basis. I really want the 10 minute peak and shopping hour frequency back ASAP. To the extent that you get divergence from the headway then the wider the headway the longer the wait for any percentage divergence. Even with considerable turn round allowances the 123 still goes awry. I am less familiar with the W15 but it still bunches and has long gaps. As the busiest single deck service in London it actually deserves more resources to reduce overcrowding by both increasing frequency and a more robust schedule. Unfortunately robust frequencies are in TfL's firing line for taking resources out of routes and thus saving money. We must be at or close to a "tipping point" where this tactic becomes unsustainable for operators and the overall stats start declining. If demand is going down on some routes or there is gross over provision then by all means shift the resources around. That is not the case on the 123 or W15 - they deserve more resource or at least a restoration to the former service levels. It now looks like the T Hale Bus Station changes will now happen on 6 September so another 6 weeks of reduced services on the 123. When I use the 123 Westbound during the afternoon peak every bus is busy (but unlike a couple years back when the service was so bad the 123 became an un-advertised express bus and missed the 10 stops between Wood street and Blackhorse Road Station) I still manage to get on one and I am normally guaranteed another bus within 10 mins of the first one. In my eyes, that is decent in comparison to what the current Eastbound service is like. The Eastbound (Ilford) service runs like how the Westbound (Wood Green) service used to run (during 2011), three buses come between every 15-20mins and all three are packed, mean while tones of people are waiting at nearly every stop along the route. To me, it's surprising that the service towards Ilford runs so bad because on one of the previous timetables (I think it was around the time of contract renewal, March 2012) placed a big emphasis on the afternoon peak and there was an even bigger emphasis placed on increasing the (good running) Eastbound service and decreasing the (already dilapidated) westbound service. However this seems to of been a hidden blessing for us "westbounders" as were the ones who actually were getting the better of two halves. Don't get me wrong, I'm not even close to saying that the 123 is a "good service" or a "good running bus route" I'm just saying from the diabolical service I used to experience on this route it has improved for me, only slightly. When it comes to routes being improved in the Higham Hill Area, the 123 is joint first on the list 1) 158 123 3) W15 then 4) W11. The number of people moving to the Higham hill area is increasing and if TfL do not do something to all four of these routes then there may be serious delays to all these services. It will be interesting to see what happens when Palmerston Road reopens later this year. I expect to see a consultation soon, and expect W11 and W15 to return to serve them as before,but it will be interesting to see if they take that opportunity to make any changes to the service, as they do tend to do a lot of analysis before they put something out to consultation.
|
|
|
Post by routew15 on Jul 14, 2014 10:18:21 GMT
When it comes to routes being improved in the Higham Hill Area, the 123 is joint first on the list 1) 158 123 3) W15 then 4) W11. The number of people moving to the Higham hill area is increasing and if TfL do not do something to all four of these routes then there may be serious delays to all these services. It will be interesting to see what happens when Palmerston Road reopens later this year. I expect to see a consultation soon, and expect W11 and W15 to return to serve them as before,but it will be interesting to see if they take that opportunity to make any changes to the service, as they do tend to do a lot of analysis before they put something out to consultation. There needs to be a vigorous consultation on the Higham Hill Area Bus Routes, this concerns the 123 158 W11 & W15 This consultation should focus on the plans TfL have to improve the 123 & 158 it should then state the 3 options they have for the W11 & W15 Option 1) Both Routes go back to there previous routing via Palmerston Road Option 2) Both Routes stay on their current routing (W15) via Blackhorse Road (W11) via Bell Corner Option 3) Route W15 returns to Palmerston Road and Route W11 stays via Bell Corner My preferred option is number 3
|
|
|
Post by bigbaddom1981 on Jul 15, 2014 13:41:03 GMT
My suggestions W3 extend from Northumberland Park via Angel Road and to Lea Valley Leisure Complex 102 rerouted from Silver Street via Montagu Road, Bounces Road, and Hertford Road to create extra support/capacity over existing routes and provide a night service to previously unserved areas 76 to Tottenham Hale My idea from dec 2013. Looks like final idea will become a reality soon haha!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2014 15:57:21 GMT
The 263 has recently been extended to Highbury Barn and, about a year ago, the 103 was extended from Rainham War Memorial to Rainham Station.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2014 23:21:42 GMT
I would really like to see the 59 extended to St Leonard's where it could use the old 133 stand. The unique links to Waterloo, Euston, St Pancras, and Kings Cross would be extremely useful with the area not being on the tube, but starting at Telford Avenue it is another bus service away for the majority of Streatham.
|
|
|
Post by Unorm on Oct 1, 2014 21:15:27 GMT
Would be cool if 337 was extended to Clapham Common to relieve 35 and 37 between Clapham Common and Clapham Junction. In exchange the 417 can be extended via 345 so stand space is fairly euqal.
|
|