|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 17, 2014 3:07:47 GMT
As you may know, due to Putney Bridge being closed for maintenance, Route 265 was diverted at the bridge to Wandsworth via Putney Bridge Road & Route 270 was diverted at the bridge to Putney Common.
Whilst in Wandsworth on Friday waiting for a friend, I was observing 265's and it got me thinking:
Do you think TfL should decide to leave either one or both routes on their current routings or do you think they should return to Putney Bridge Station after the works?
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 17, 2014 3:11:54 GMT
As you may know, due to Putney Bridge being closed for maintenance, Route 265 was diverted at the bridge to Wandsworth via Putney Bridge Road & Route 270 was diverted at the bridge to Putney Common. Whilst in Wandsworth on Friday waiting for a friend, I was observing 265's and it got me thinking: Do you think TfL should decide to leave either one or both routes on their current routings or do you think they should return to Putney Bridge Station after the works? My own answer is I think the 270 should return to Putney Bridge but the 265 should be re-routed to Wandsworth permanently as it provides a potential useful link to Wandsworth from the Kingston Vale & New Malden areas which the route serves/passes near. |
|
|
|
Post by Nathan on Aug 17, 2014 5:46:15 GMT
As you may know, due to Putney Bridge being closed for maintenance, Route 265 was diverted at the bridge to Wandsworth via Putney Bridge Road & Route 270 was diverted at the bridge to Putney Common. Whilst in Wandsworth on Friday waiting for a friend, I was observing 265's and it got me thinking: Do you think TfL should decide to leave either one or both routes on their current routings or do you think they should return to Putney Bridge Station after the works? My own answer is I think the 270 should return to Putney Bridge but the 265 should be re-routed to Wandsworth permanently as it provides a potential useful link to Wandsworth from the Kingston Vale & New Malden areas which the route serves/passes near. Come to think of it, I think you have a very good point there. It would provide a good link for us Kingston Uni students from Wandsworth. Albeit it still doesn't go to two of the main campuses, but we can still get the free uni bus from Roehampton Vale which still beats getting 3 buses from Wandsworth, then Putney, then Roehampton. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2014 14:00:17 GMT
My own answer is I think the 270 should return to Putney Bridge but the 265 should be re-routed to Wandsworth permanently as it provides a potential useful link to Wandsworth from the Kingston Vale & New Malden areas which the route serves/passes near. Come to think of it, I think you have a very good point there. It would provide a good link for us Kingston Uni students from Wandsworth. Albeit it still doesn't go to two of the main campuses, but we can still get the free uni bus from Roehampton Vale which still beats getting 3 buses from Wandsworth, then Putney, then Roehampton. Have to agree. 270 is the link with Putney Bridge Station. Roehampton students use the 72 to Hammersmith for the Underground. 265 staying ay Wandsworth is a good plan. Start the lobbying to TfL now ! |
|
|
|
Post by Nathan on Aug 17, 2014 16:00:19 GMT
Come to think of it, I think you have a very good point there. It would provide a good link for us Kingston Uni students from Wandsworth. Albeit it still doesn't go to two of the main campuses, but we can still get the free uni bus from Roehampton Vale which still beats getting 3 buses from Wandsworth, then Putney, then Roehampton. Have to agree. 270 is the link with Putney Bridge Station. Roehampton students use the 72 to Hammersmith for the Underground. 265 staying ay Wandsworth is a good plan. Start the lobbying to TfL now ! Really? I assumed that people use the 85 or 265 to get to Putney Bridge for the underground there. Either way, I have a strong feeling lots of people would use the Wandsworth-Roehampton Vale connection as its so convenient. |
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Aug 17, 2014 22:32:52 GMT
As you may know, due to Putney Bridge being closed for maintenance, Route 265 was diverted at the bridge to Wandsworth via Putney Bridge Road & Route 270 was diverted at the bridge to Putney Common. Whilst in Wandsworth on Friday waiting for a friend, I was observing 265's and it got me thinking: Do you think TfL should decide to leave either one or both routes on their current routings or do you think they should return to Putney Bridge Station after the works? My own answer is I think the 270 should return to Putney Bridge but the 265 should be re-routed to Wandsworth permanently as it provides a potential useful link to Wandsworth from the Kingston Vale & New Malden areas which the route serves/passes near. I like this idea, when i used to be in the Kingston area a lot, coming from Putney the 265 has always been a useful alternative, the 170 is useful from Clapham junction but only goes as far as Roehampton Danebury Avenue, the 265 however runs via New Malden which is a place a lot of people like going as well. I wonder how many users of the 265 will want the route to continue serving Wandsworth. I don't think many will be too inconvieneced if the 265 did not return to Putney Bridge |
|
|
|
Post by riverside on Aug 18, 2014 20:33:19 GMT
My own answer is I think the 270 should return to Putney Bridge but the 265 should be re-routed to Wandsworth permanently as it provides a potential useful link to Wandsworth from the Kingston Vale & New Malden areas which the route serves/passes near. I like this idea, when i used to be in the Kingston area a lot, coming from Putney the 265 has always been a useful alternative, the 170 is useful from Clapham junction but only goes as far as Roehampton Danebury Avenue, the 265 however runs via New Malden which is a place a lot of people like going as well. I wonder how many users of the 265 will want the route to continue serving Wandsworth. I don't think many will be too inconvieneced if the 265 did not return to Putney Bridge Permanently rerouting the 265 to Wandsworth would be detrimental to the 485. This route already has light loadings and could become unviable if the 265 extracted traffic between Putney Common and Wandsworth. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Aug 18, 2014 21:20:13 GMT
Permanently rerouting the 265 to Wandsworth would be detrimental to the 485. This route already has light loadings and could become unviable if the 265 extracted traffic between Putney Common and Wandsworth. Being controversial for a moment you could easily say the 485 is already unviable. It barely reaches 260,000 pax per annum which works back to an average 18 passengers per journey (rough and ready calculation). It's not in the immediate danger zone if TfL had to cut funding as other routes carry fewer people and would be cut first. However TfL could probably construct an argument to get rid of it given there are parallel routes on much of its corridor so people could change buses to make a journey (as they need to do late evenings and Sundays). If passengers can get a better service from Wandsworth on a rerouted 265 then surely it makes sense to find the resources for that by removing the 485? Losing the three buses from the 485 would provide the extra buses the 265 needs to run to Wandsworth. There only looks to be one stop (Beverley Road) which is uniquely served by the 485 and that's not a huge distance from other routes. If the 265 was rerouted then people could change for Hammersmith at Barnes Station. It's a shame the road and pavement layout at the junction of Mill Hill Rd and Rocks Lane doesn't allow bus stops to be provided there to give an interchange at the junction. I imagine there'd be huge objections to removing a few metres of Barnes Common to create the bus stops near the junction. |
|
|
|
Post by riverside on Aug 19, 2014 20:13:44 GMT
Permanently rerouting the 265 to Wandsworth would be detrimental to the 485. This route already has light loadings and could become unviable if the 265 extracted traffic between Putney Common and Wandsworth. Being controversial for a moment you could easily say the 485 is already unviable. It barely reaches 260,000 pax per annum which works back to an average 18 passengers per journey (rough and ready calculation). It's not in the immediate danger zone if TfL had to cut funding as other routes carry fewer people and would be cut first. However TfL could probably construct an argument to get rid of it given there are parallel routes on much of its corridor so people could change buses to make a journey (as they need to do late evenings and Sundays). If passengers can get a better service from Wandsworth on a rerouted 265 then surely it makes sense to find the resources for that by removing the 485? Losing the three buses from the 485 would provide the extra buses the 265 needs to run to Wandsworth. There only looks to be one stop (Beverley Road) which is uniquely served by the 485 and that's not a huge distance from other routes. If the 265 was rerouted then people could change for Hammersmith at Barnes Station. It's a shame the road and pavement layout at the junction of Mill Hill Rd and Rocks Lane doesn't allow bus stops to be provided there to give an interchange at the junction. I imagine there'd be huge objections to removing a few metres of Barnes Common to create the bus stops near the junction. I agree that the 485 under performs but it does provide some useful links between Barnes and Putney/Wandsworth. Its cost recovery ratio could be improved by the following measures: (i)Give it a common boarding stop at Hammersmith with the 209, rather than the 419. This would immediately improve loadings. There might also be a case for a slight thinning of the 209 frequency. (ii)Withdraw the 283 between Hammersmith and Barnes. Castelnau tends to be overbussed. The 485 could bifurcate to the Wetlands Centre. The route has 15 mins recovery time either end so no extra resources needed. The 485 could easily cope with the Wetlands loadings. Lack of a Sunday service would be an issue. The 283 does not have many through passengers from its northern section to Barnes. Most links (but not all) would be maintained by the 72. If the 265 is in the future rerouted to Wandsworth then it would not make sense to have 3 of the 4 routes terminating at Wandsworth. Maybe the 485 could be extended via East Hill, Battersea Rise and Clapham Common North Side to Clapham Common Station. This would create some new links and give very slight relief to the 37. |
|
|
|
Post by riverside on Aug 19, 2014 20:15:31 GMT
Being controversial for a moment you could easily say the 485 is already unviable. It barely reaches 260,000 pax per annum which works back to an average 18 passengers per journey (rough and ready calculation). It's not in the immediate danger zone if TfL had to cut funding as other routes carry fewer people and would be cut first. However TfL could probably construct an argument to get rid of it given there are parallel routes on much of its corridor so people could change buses to make a journey (as they need to do late evenings and Sundays). If passengers can get a better service from Wandsworth on a rerouted 265 then surely it makes sense to find the resources for that by removing the 485? Losing the three buses from the 485 would provide the extra buses the 265 needs to run to Wandsworth. There only looks to be one stop (Beverley Road) which is uniquely served by the 485 and that's not a huge distance from other routes. If the 265 was rerouted then people could change for Hammersmith at Barnes Station. It's a shame the road and pavement layout at the junction of Mill Hill Rd and Rocks Lane doesn't allow bus stops to be provided there to give an interchange at the junction. I imagine there'd be huge objections to removing a few metres of Barnes Common to create the bus stops near the junction. I agree that the 485 under performs but it does provide some useful links between Barnes and Putney/Wandsworth. Its cost recovery ratio could be improved by the following measures: (i)Give it a common boarding stop at Hammersmith with the 209, rather than the 419. This would immediately improve loadings. There might also be a case for a slight thinning of the 209 frequency. (ii)Withdraw the 283 between Hammersmith and Barnes. Castelnau tends to be overbussed. The 485 could bifurcate to the Wetlands Centre. The route has 15 mins recovery time either end so no extra resources needed. The 485 could easily cope with the Wetlands loadings. Lack of a Sunday service would be an issue. The 283 does not have many through passengers from its northern section to Barnes. Most links (but not all) would be maintained by the 72. If the 265 is in the future rerouted to Wandsworth then it would not make sense to have 3 of the 4 routes along Putney Bridge Road terminating at Wandsworth. Maybe the 485 could be extended via East Hill, Battersea Rise and Clapham Common North Side to Clapham Common Station. This would create some new links and give very slight relief to the 37. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 19, 2014 20:51:25 GMT
Being controversial for a moment you could easily say the 485 is already unviable. It barely reaches 260,000 pax per annum which works back to an average 18 passengers per journey (rough and ready calculation). It's not in the immediate danger zone if TfL had to cut funding as other routes carry fewer people and would be cut first. However TfL could probably construct an argument to get rid of it given there are parallel routes on much of its corridor so people could change buses to make a journey (as they need to do late evenings and Sundays). If passengers can get a better service from Wandsworth on a rerouted 265 then surely it makes sense to find the resources for that by removing the 485? Losing the three buses from the 485 would provide the extra buses the 265 needs to run to Wandsworth. There only looks to be one stop (Beverley Road) which is uniquely served by the 485 and that's not a huge distance from other routes. If the 265 was rerouted then people could change for Hammersmith at Barnes Station. It's a shame the road and pavement layout at the junction of Mill Hill Rd and Rocks Lane doesn't allow bus stops to be provided there to give an interchange at the junction. I imagine there'd be huge objections to removing a few metres of Barnes Common to create the bus stops near the junction. I agree that the 485 under performs but it does provide some useful links between Barnes and Putney/Wandsworth. Its cost recovery ratio could be improved by the following measures: (i)Give it a common boarding stop at Hammersmith with the 209, rather than the 419. This would immediately improve loadings. There might also be a case for a slight thinning of the 209 frequency. (ii)Withdraw the 283 between Hammersmith and Barnes. Castelnau tends to be overbussed. The 485 could bifurcate to the Wetlands Centre. The route has 15 mins recovery time either end so no extra resources needed. The 485 could easily cope with the Wetlands loadings. Lack of a Sunday service would be an issue. The 283 does not have many through passengers from its northern section to Barnes. Most links (but not all) would be maintained by the 72. If the 265 is in the future rerouted to Wandsworth then it would not make sense to have 3 of the 4 routes terminating at Wandsworth. Maybe the 485 could be extended via East Hill, Battersea Rise and Clapham Common North Side to Clapham Common Station. This would create some new links and give very slight relief to the 37. I don't think the 485 could give enough relief to the 35 or 37 as I'd think a decker route would do a better job. Both routes are rammed solid between Clapham Junction & Clapham Common and the 37 is very erratic at times. To solve that issue, extend the 49 to Clapham Common, Old Town or my own favourite, extend the 417 to Clapham Junction. |
|
|
|
Post by Unorm on Aug 26, 2014 14:30:33 GMT
I agree that the 485 under performs but it does provide some useful links between Barnes and Putney/Wandsworth. Its cost recovery ratio could be improved by the following measures: (i)Give it a common boarding stop at Hammersmith with the 209, rather than the 419. This would immediately improve loadings. There might also be a case for a slight thinning of the 209 frequency. (ii)Withdraw the 283 between Hammersmith and Barnes. Castelnau tends to be overbussed. The 485 could bifurcate to the Wetlands Centre. The route has 15 mins recovery time either end so no extra resources needed. The 485 could easily cope with the Wetlands loadings. Lack of a Sunday service would be an issue. The 283 does not have many through passengers from its northern section to Barnes. Most links (but not all) would be maintained by the 72. If the 265 is in the future rerouted to Wandsworth then it would not make sense to have 3 of the 4 routes terminating at Wandsworth. Maybe the 485 could be extended via East Hill, Battersea Rise and Clapham Common North Side to Clapham Common Station. This would create some new links and give very slight relief to the 37. I don't think the 485 could give enough relief to the 35 or 37 as I'd think a decker route would do a better job. Both routes are rammed solid between Clapham Junction & Clapham Common and the 37 is very erratic at times. To solve that issue, extend the 49 to Clapham Common, Old Town or my own favourite, extend the 417 to Clapham Junction. 345 itself is packed sometimes with majority passengers coming from ASDA to Clapham Common (and Brixton is main point, where passengers get off) or anywhere past there. Was thinking 417 to CLJ via 35/7 or 345. But when I saw how 37 was packed one day I thought automatically 417 to CLJ  Is there even space there? If there isn't surely 49 could move to Common? Or C3 swaps terminus with 417 with 417 via 35/37 and C3 via 345 or the swap? |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 26, 2014 17:24:49 GMT
I don't think the 485 could give enough relief to the 35 or 37 as I'd think a decker route would do a better job. Both routes are rammed solid between Clapham Junction & Clapham Common and the 37 is very erratic at times. To solve that issue, extend the 49 to Clapham Common, Old Town or my own favourite, extend the 417 to Clapham Junction. 345 itself is packed sometimes with majority passengers coming from ASDA to Clapham Common (and Brixton is main point, where passengers get off) or anywhere past there. Was thinking 417 to CLJ via 35/7 or 345. But when I saw how 37 was packed one day I thought automatically 417 to CLJ Is there even space there? If there isn't surely 49 could move to Common? Or C3 swaps terminus with 417 with 417 via 35/37 and C3 via 345 or the swap? There is plenty of space at the Battersea Rise terminus where the 49 & 337 stand as the 239 stood there in the past before being merged into the 170. Buses would serve Clapham Junction Station before running up St. John's Hill & turning left into Strath Terrace to reach the stands. |
|
Is there even space there? If there isn't surely 49 could move to Common? Or C3 swaps terminus with 417 with 417 via 35/37 and C3 via 345 or the swap?
