|
Post by vjaska on Jul 11, 2019 1:13:16 GMT
With both uncertainty over if or when the bridge will be fixed, and complaints over TFL's temporary bus changes, I think a permanent set of changes is needed. TFL can then revise or revert these if/when the bridge allows traffic again. It seems many passengers in the area around Barnes are opting to take the bus to Castelnau then walk over the bridge, or to use South Western Railway services rather than the tube from Hammersmith or Putney Bridge, with both the temporary 533 and revised 209 having low usage. Route 72 should be restored to Roehampton, but via the 220 to Putney then the 265, as well as converted to DD to relieve congestion. Frequency could then possibly be reduced due to the added capacity. Route 283 could be extended in place to Hammersmith Bridge (north side) to continue that link. With the overlap of the 265 to Putney Bridge, this could perhaps be re-routed to Castelnau, restoring a link to Roehampton. Passengers on route 209 seem to want a restored link to Hammersmith Bridge (south side), which the 533 currently provides but at a low frequency. I would merge the 209 and 533 together to a single route from Castelnau to Mortlake via the former 209, then continuing to Hammersmith via Chiswick Bridge (along the 533 route) - running at a higher frequency than the 533. Fixed bus stops could perhaps be added along Great West Road. In addition, I would go ahead with the consulted proposals to route 485 at Wandsworth Riverside. The increased frequency would partly replace the 209 to Putney, and retaining a link from Barnes to the District Line, but instead at East Putney. Furthermore, I would then merge this with route 419, creating a Richmond-Wandsworth Riverside route operating every 20 minutes, looping via Castelnau (including the 419 hail-and-ride section and Barnes wetland centre). The 110 proposal would not take place in this case, but could perhaps still divert via St Margarets to terminate at Manor Circus. One additional change could be for the 190 to convert to DDs (could be on next tender due soon), as the route may have taken additional passengers from the 419, as it continues to link Hammersmith to North Sheen and Richmond. That's actually a good set of ideas though I'd make one tweak to it - instead of the 485 terminating at Wandsworth Riverside, I'd not even have it serve there and just run it on as present to Wandsworth Southside instead.
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Jul 11, 2019 6:44:14 GMT
With both uncertainty over if or when the bridge will be fixed, and complaints over TFL's temporary bus changes, I think a permanent set of changes is needed. TFL can then revise or revert these if/when the bridge allows traffic again. It seems many passengers in the area around Barnes are opting to take the bus to Castelnau then walk over the bridge, or to use South Western Railway services rather than the tube from Hammersmith or Putney Bridge, with both the temporary 533 and revised 209 having low usage. Route 72 should be restored to Roehampton, but via the 220 to Putney then the 265, as well as converted to DD to relieve congestion. Frequency could then possibly be reduced due to the added capacity. Route 283 could be extended in place to Hammersmith Bridge (north side) to continue that link. With the overlap of the 265 to Putney Bridge, this could perhaps be re-routed to Castelnau, restoring a link to Roehampton. Passengers on route 209 seem to want a restored link to Hammersmith Bridge (south side), which the 533 currently provides but at a low frequency. I would merge the 209 and 533 together to a single route from Castelnau to Mortlake via the former 209, then continuing to Hammersmith via Chiswick Bridge (along the 533 route) - running at a higher frequency than the 533. Fixed bus stops could perhaps be added along Great West Road. In addition, I would go ahead with the consulted proposals to route 485 at Wandsworth Riverside. The increased frequency would partly replace the 209 to Putney, and retaining a link from Barnes to the District Line, but instead at East Putney. Furthermore, I would then merge this with route 419, creating a Richmond-Wandsworth Riverside route operating every 20 minutes, looping via Castelnau (including the 419 hail-and-ride section and Barnes wetland centre). The 110 proposal would not take place in this case, but could perhaps still divert via St Margarets to terminate at Manor Circus. One additional change could be for the 190 to convert to DDs (could be on next tender due soon), as the route may have taken additional passengers from the 419, as it continues to link Hammersmith to North Sheen and Richmond. The 190 has just gotten a 2 year extension
|
|
|
Post by thelondonthing on Jul 11, 2019 15:54:28 GMT
For those who haven't ventured into the Upcoming Changes thread recently, it seems that the 209 is indeed being split into two routes (via foxhat ): - Route 209 will be altered to run from Mortlake Avondale Road to Castelnau
- New route 378 will run from Mortlake Avondale Road to Putney Bridge
The changes will come into effect on 3 August. Both routes will operate at reduced frequencies compared with the current 209. This seems to me like another misstep. TfL appears obsessed with preserving services as they were before the bridge closure, making as few changes to them as possible - presumably, so that when the bridge reopens, such changes can be easily reversed, additions like the 533 and 378 can be easily withdrawn, and everything can get 'back to normal'. But the consequence of that approach is gross inefficiency, with the area now served by an excess of overlapping routes - and yet somehow, there are still glaring problems unresolved (e.g. the broken link between Roehampton and Hammersmith). Instead of logically considering how best to serve Barnes and the surrounding areas over the next three years, TfL is doggedly stuck in a short-term frame of mind, and the result is a mess.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jul 11, 2019 15:56:23 GMT
Rather then change all the bus stops to PB would it simply not be easier for the 378 to be added to stops between Avondale Road and Castlenau.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jul 11, 2019 16:09:05 GMT
Rather then change all the bus stops to PB would it simply not be easier for the 378 to be added to stops between Avondale Road and Castlenau. That's what I would have thought.
|
|
|
Post by thelondonthing on Jul 11, 2019 17:49:15 GMT
Rather then change all the bus stops to PB would it simply not be easier for the 378 to be added to stops between Avondale Road and Castlenau. I think this fits with my point earlier regarding TfL's approach to keeping everything as close as possible to how it was before the bridge closure, while adding new bits (like the 533 and 378) as interim measures. Restoring the 209 to its original routing as far as Castelnau fits with this ethos. It means that when the bridge reopens, the 209 will already be running along most of its original route, and can simply be 're-extended' to run through to Hammersmith again, while the 378 can be easily withdrawn.
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Jul 11, 2019 18:03:44 GMT
Slightly curious though as to why they chose route number 378, 509 might have been more fitting. Or perhaps there is the possibility of the 378 being made permanent even if Hammersmith Bridge ever reopens for buses.
|
|
|
Post by george on Jul 11, 2019 18:05:53 GMT
Slightly curious though as to why they chose route number 378, 509 might have been more fitting. Or perhaps there is the possibility of the 378 being made permanent even if Hammersmith Bridge ever reopens for buses. I was thinking this as well
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Jul 11, 2019 18:14:18 GMT
Slightly curious though as to why they chose route number 378, 509 might have been more fitting. Or perhaps there is the possibility of the 378 being made permanent even if Hammersmith Bridge ever reopens for buses. I wonder too, it seems very strange they have gone for a number which suggests a permanent route. Maybe they're hopefully once the bridge is fixed that they could effectively keep the two separate routes. The other alternative is that they're not expecting the bridge fixed anytime soon to a point the route will pretty much be permanent
|
|
|
Post by rhys on Jul 11, 2019 18:22:30 GMT
Slightly curious though as to why they chose route number 378, 509 might have been more fitting. Or perhaps there is the possibility of the 378 being made permanent even if Hammersmith Bridge ever reopens for buses. I wonder too, it seems very strange they have gone for a number which suggests a permanent route. Maybe they're hopefully once the bridge is fixed that they could effectively keep the two separate routes. The other alternative is that they're not expecting the bridge fixed anytime soon to a point the route will pretty much be permanent Well a lot of news reports are suggesting the closure could be permanent [1]. Even if funds are gained, it'll be pretty costly, and take years to repair. So I'd imagine TfL are integrating route 378 as a permanent change. [1]. londonist.com/london/transport/hammersmith-bridge-could-be-closed-to-cars-for-good
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Jul 11, 2019 18:30:07 GMT
I think the 209 change is a good move. TfL naively assumed many 209 passengers just wanted Hammersmith for the tube but of course other factors draw people to Hammersmith, and many clearly weren't excited by the prospect of boarding the Distrct Line at Putney Bridge instead. Walking over the bridge has become very popular with bus passenger, something TfL failed to anticipate when the initally made the Hammersmith Bridge Changes. I suspsect part of the reason the 209 was moved away to Putney Bridge was to ease pressure on the stand space at Lonsdale Road, perhaps that is part of the reason why TfL decided not to divert the full 209 route to Castelnau. The interesting thing will be seeing how popular the revised 209 is, particularly now it'll duplicate the 419 and 533. I suspect the 209 will be pretty well used and maybe even patronage will pick up on the 378, the lower frequency being more appropriate for demand between Barnes and Putney Bridge.
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Jul 11, 2019 18:32:22 GMT
Slightly curious though as to why they chose route number 378, 509 might have been more fitting. Or perhaps there is the possibility of the 378 being made permanent even if Hammersmith Bridge ever reopens for buses. I wonder too, it seems very strange they have gone for a number which suggests a permanent route. Maybe they're hopefully once the bridge is fixed that they could effectively keep the two separate routes. The other alternative is that they're not expecting the bridge fixed anytime soon to a point the route will pretty much be permanent I think TfL are hoping that having the 378 permanenly will please the 22 to Barnes lobby thus giving TfL an excuse not to extend the 22 there as they can say you've got your Putney link now
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2019 19:13:24 GMT
So will London General subsequently operate both the 209 and 378 ? Presume the 533 is being withdrawn then ?
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Jul 11, 2019 19:41:10 GMT
So will London General subsequently operate both the 209 and 378 ? Presume the 533 is being withdrawn then ? The 533 is here to stay, even though with the 209 change, Barnes-Castelnau may well end up being overbussed.
It hasn't been confirmed whether London General will run the 378 or not, however myself and many other forum members believe that GAL running the 378 using buses ordered for the 209 but not needed on it due to the lower frequency will be used for the 378 - this is probably the most likely outcome
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jul 11, 2019 21:29:03 GMT
I think the 419 is somehow seem as 'replacing' lost capacity from the 72. I like the 419 going to Barnes Pond as it allows the 419 to reach the Bridge. Lonsdale Road it a bit of treck to the Bridge when I did it only to then have the walk to Hammersmith aswell.
|
|