|
Post by sid on Feb 19, 2018 23:04:07 GMT
Wait,WHAT!Have TFL gone crazy and are increasing frequencies again! I better start celebrating before they realize and switch it back! Just thought I would throw this in: What is the point of this?
|
|
|
Post by routew15 on Feb 19, 2018 23:23:52 GMT
7. I trust Wandsworth Council will happily toddle along and make the traffic light changes at Upper Richmond Road in due time and at their own cost (hah!). But this junction is on the TLRN, surely it’s still TfL that will plan and fund junction changes (hence the relatively confident turnaround of the first phase of the scheme)
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Feb 20, 2018 0:12:05 GMT
7. I trust Wandsworth Council will happily toddle along and make the traffic light changes at Upper Richmond Road in due time and at their own cost (hah!). But this junction is on the TLRN, surely it’s still TfL that will plan and fund junction changes (hence the relatively confident turnaround of the first phase of the scheme) Fair comment - I had not realised it was on the South Circ which is a TfL responsibility. Even so TfL are not exactly overflowing with cash for the road network - it's being taken from the LU fares surplus as TfL receive no govt funding.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Feb 20, 2018 1:48:31 GMT
But this junction is on the TLRN, surely it’s still TfL that will plan and fund junction changes (hence the relatively confident turnaround of the first phase of the scheme) Fair comment - I had not realised it was on the South Circ which is a TfL responsibility. Even so TfL are not exactly overflowing with cash for the road network - it's being taken from the LU fares surplus as TfL receive no govt funding. Which probably explains the lack of investment in the South Circular in general (by that, I don't mean things like widening schemes as that's unrealistic) - for example, they've decided to convert a large chunk of the North Circular Road to LED's whereas the South Circular has largely been forgotten about other than a small section in Woolwich & some actual significant investment on the section between Cedars Road at Clapham Common & Spencer Park (some of this is the A3 rather than the A205 but it was done together as was West Hill which is the A3) where new columns & LED's were fitted though the Upper Richmond Road section has just seen LED's fitted so the small bits that are being done are seemingly fluctuating in how much is spent where. In contrast, some cash strapped councils are putting more effort into funding their road networks.
|
|
|
Post by riverside on Feb 20, 2018 20:36:23 GMT
The 283 could often be found running along Castelnau empty or with a small number of people on board. The frequency of the accompanying routes meant that the 283 only ever carried reasonable numbers if there was a significant gap on the 33/72/209. Its permanent truncation at Hammersmith should not cause any problems. When the route was introduced in 1983 it was designed to link the White City Estate with both Hammersmith and Hammersmith Hospital and these plans will see it still fulfilling this role. Incidentally the residents had an advantage in getting a new bus service at the time as their GLC member was Dave Wetzel who was chairman of the GLC transport committee. If my memory serves me right he was an ex conductor from Hounslow Garage. The doubling of frequency and introduction of a 7 day a week service will help the 485 to play a more useful role between Hammersmith and Barnes Village and hopefully will lead to an increase in loadings between Barnes and Putney/Wandsworth. The diversion via Putney High Street is to be welcomed. One problem for services departing Hammersmith for Castelnau is the configuration of bus stops in the Lower Bus Station at Hammersmith. Space constraints mean that there probably is no ideal solution. There has been one reshuffle that involved the 266 and 209 swapping stands. At present the 419 and 485 share a departure stop. Given the present half hourly frequency of the 485 most people wanting a bus to Castelnau will go to the 209 stop or the 33/72 stop, as they are far more frequent. This means that 485s leave Hammersmith with very small loads. If this scheme comes to fruition then I suggest TfL need to look at the stops again. Ideally the 209, 419 and 485 need to share a common stop. Having said all of the above given the present trend for cuts across the network I am very surprised that the 485 out of all routes is going against the trend and getting a frequency increase(although partly paid for by the 209 and 283 reduction). I presume some Section 106 money will fund the extension to the Wandsworth Riverside Quarter.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2018 20:54:50 GMT
I think TfL have hit this just right. I’ve always felt the 485 should serve a better purpose and with this it should. Tbh the 283 to Hammersmith should be fine, it’s hugely busy between there and White City if a 220 doesn’t show up first so this should still help to maintain links. Some minor tweaks like the 485 serving Southside would be better but on the whole a good proposal.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2018 21:16:29 GMT
I can't help thinking it paves the way once the bridge works are complete for the 283 to run to Mortlake using possibly double dockers. Interesting point
|
|
|
Post by RandomBusesGirl on Feb 21, 2018 16:29:41 GMT
Well 283 was already said to be permanently cut back like 2-3 years ago, so not sure why it's being said again Glad I've done the lost section back in the day 485 sounds very interesting - yay for being able to explore more of the city - although shame it's gonna go to one of those crappy overpriced areas I'll never be able to afford to live in even if I sell myself 😂
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Mar 25, 2018 10:44:08 GMT
Consultation closes today, so if you intended to reply, do it today
|
|
|
Post by COBO on May 18, 2019 10:17:17 GMT
I wonder if TfL will be going ahead with this.
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on May 18, 2019 13:10:26 GMT
I wonder if TfL will be going ahead with this. I hope they do. I'm a supporter of the sending the 485 down Putney High Street
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on May 18, 2019 13:26:56 GMT
I wonder if TfL will be going ahead with this. Obviously the Hammersmith Bridge restrictions then full closure created a problem. However the last time I looked at this consultation, about a week ago, TfL had not reached a conclusion. This seems to be odd on something that is relatively straightforward and where the 283 has happened by default. Other than concerns about the number of buses standing / turning at Castlenau I'm not sure what the problem can be unless the residents at Wandsworth Riverside have objected vehemently to buses standing outside their flats. The diversion in Putney and enhanced frequency were supposed to start in 2018 with the Riverside extension at some point in 2019. Looks like this one has been left to drift for some reason.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on May 18, 2019 19:08:54 GMT
Well the 209 paralleling the 485 now from Putney/St Mary's Church to Barnes Pond every 4-6 mins, and the paralleling the 220/270 I doubt demand for a 15 mins freq is there on the 485 at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Jun 9, 2021 20:22:05 GMT
I hear that this is going ahead on 6 November 2021 is that true?
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Jun 9, 2021 21:01:45 GMT
I hear that this is going ahead on 6 November 2021 is that true? Yes confirmed in the upcoming changes thread.
|
|