|
|
Post by lundnah on Aug 20, 2019 9:44:20 GMT
I WOULD suggest 207 and 427. They run parallel with 607 for most of their route. Wow someone from West London commenting. Maybe the South Londoners are all on holiday!! The 607 is the very definition of technically unnecessary. |
|
|
|
Post by thelondonthing on Aug 20, 2019 10:29:30 GMT
I believe the 391 will become largely superfluous when it's replaced between Hammersmith and Fulham by the 306. That change will leave the 391 running only between Richmond and Hammersmith, with huge chunks of the route duplicated by other high-frequency services. Between Richmond town centre and Manor Circus, it's covered by the 371, 419, 493, H22, H37, R68 and R70; and from various points between Kew Bridge and Hammersmith, it duplicates the 190, 237 and 267. The route does (and will continue to) provide a necessary service to the Sandycombe Road corridor, between Kew Road and Manor Circus. Clearly, residents in this area deserve and need a bus service, as does Kew Gardens Station, but I don't think the shortened 391 is the best solution, given how few unique connections it would offer. The 391's withdrawal would mean the loss of a direct bus connection between Richmond and Gunnersbury/Chiswick; however, there are multiple options available for passengers to switch between high-frequency routes to reach those stops, via the 65 (changing at Kew Bridge to 237/267) or via the 190 (changing on Chiswick High Road to various routes). The District Line is an additional option to reach Gunnersbury (also London Overground) and Turnham Green. Given those options, I don't think it's unrealistic to consider the 391 a sensible candidate for withdrawal. Some Richmond area services are already under TfL consultation - although the 391 was not one of the routes under review - but while the outcome of that consultation has been delayed by the ongoing Hammersmith Bridge mess, we do know that TfL has identified areas of over-capacity and inefficiency in some parts of the local bus network. We also know that the tiny Richmond Bus Station has a severe shortage of stand space. Killing the 391 would free up some stand space at the bus station, and help to reduce some of that over-capacity between Richmond and Manor Circus (this would also allow the 493 to stand there - another objective of the Richmond area consultation - while further reducing excess capacity to Manor Circus). Extending a route like the 371 from its current Manor Circus terminus to the unused Kew Green stand, via Sandycombe Road and Kew Gardens Station, would ensure these areas stay connected by bus to a major nearby town centre and railway station. Such an extension to an existing route would also be much cheaper than maintaining a standalone 391 service. All of these advantages make the 391 a strong candidate for the chop in my opinion. If - if - the 391 were to live on, I think it would need to be extended beyond, or diverted away, from Hammersmith in order to be truly useful. I've previously suggested elsewhere that a diversion to Westfield White City might be a useful one, offering handy new connections for shoppers and workers in Richmond, Kew and Shepherd's Bush. I still think this would be a good option. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Aug 20, 2019 10:46:17 GMT
Iv thought the same with the 391. Of course it provides some cacapcity along Chiswick High (more needed now the 27 has gone) but the real purpose to the shortened 391 would be Richmond to Chiswick. Despite it becoming a shorter route it's still the longest route to Hammersmith from Richmond so won't have much end to end demand (thou probably is being used more to Hammersmith at the moment with the 33/419 not reaching it). Therefore the 371 could be extended to Turnham Green to maintain links.
Whislt it was slightly mroe direct I can see how most demand on the 27 was to Chiswick from Richmond due to the longer journey to Hammersmith so such a long route made sense to be switched to the newer and much shorter 391 in 1991.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2019 11:53:09 GMT
Couldn't have put it better myself. Bus congestion is an effect of traffic congestion rather than a cause of it. Whilst I agree, in the specific case of the Westbound Strand the cause was the part pedestrianisation of Trafalgar Square. The current road layout doesn't properly cater for either the number of buses or general traffic. The whole thing needs re-visiting, with a particular view to ensuring there is sufficient road capacity for the number of buses.
The Westbound Strand should be a case in point for any changes at Aldwych - do we really want to duplicate the Westbound Strand traffic jams on the Eastbound Strand? If Aldwych is going to be re-modelled, there is a great opportunity to show how well it can be done, with minimal traffic impact and in particular no adverse impact on buses.
More road space just attracts more traffic resulting in more congestion, Trafalgar Square will never go back to the way it was and nor should and I look forward to Aldwych being remodeled. Makes for a far more pleasant environment and attracts a lot more visitors to the area. |
|
|
|
Post by Nathan on Aug 20, 2019 11:59:14 GMT
I think the 45 is somewhat redundant now. You could re-route the 35 via Clapham Park and get rid of it to be honest.
You could maybe even argue the 171 might be redundant to a degree. Extend the 172 to Bellingham, increase frequencies of bus route between Peckham and Elephant & Castle and you're good to go.
|
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Aug 20, 2019 12:12:59 GMT
Whilst I agree, in the specific case of the Westbound Strand the cause was the part pedestrianisation of Trafalgar Square. The current road layout doesn't properly cater for either the number of buses or general traffic. The whole thing needs re-visiting, with a particular view to ensuring there is sufficient road capacity for the number of buses.
The Westbound Strand should be a case in point for any changes at Aldwych - do we really want to duplicate the Westbound Strand traffic jams on the Eastbound Strand? If Aldwych is going to be re-modelled, there is a great opportunity to show how well it can be done, with minimal traffic impact and in particular no adverse impact on buses.
More road space just attracts more traffic resulting in more congestion, Trafalgar Square will never go back to the way it was and nor should and I look forward to Aldwych being remodeled. Makes for a far more pleasant environment and attracts a lot more visitors to the area. I’m not disputing Trafalgar Square being far more pleasant. I think the remodelling of Aldwych will make it a more pleasant area too. However, traffic on the road connecting the two, the Strand, is appalling. Really something needs to be done to improve the stationary traffic there even if it is just modifications to phasing, or greater priority for buses. |
|
|
|
Post by aaron1 on Aug 20, 2019 12:13:53 GMT
The 332 Overlaps the 16 from Edgeware Road Station to Cricklewood Bus Gare but it does helps a bit so that I really like to see get reroute it to Warwick Avenue for links
|
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Aug 20, 2019 12:18:05 GMT
I think the 45 is somewhat redundant now. You could re-route the 35 via Clapham Park and get rid of it to be honest. You could maybe even argue the 171 might be redundant to a degree. Extend the 172 to Bellingham, increase frequencies of bus route between Peckham and Elephant & Castle and you're good to go. Wouldn’t rerouting the 35 make it even longer and more circuitous? Not to mention the loss of a stretch of the existing 35 to facilitate this rerouting |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 20, 2019 13:23:05 GMT
I think the 45 is somewhat redundant now. You could re-route the 35 via Clapham Park and get rid of it to be honest. You could maybe even argue the 171 might be redundant to a degree. Extend the 172 to Bellingham, increase frequencies of bus route between Peckham and Elephant & Castle and you're good to go. There’s a few flaws to that: 1) Re-routing the 35 adds on a lot of running time which could lead to reliability 2) An important link from the big Tesco in Brixton is severed for Camberwell & more importantly, Loughborough Junction residents (the P5 is not an adequate replacement for Loughborough residents due to taking longer and having a lower frequency) 3) Taking the 35 away from Acre Lane piles further pressure onto the 37 & 355 (P5 less so) as the Lambeth Town Hall stops are very busy stops in their own right The 45’s usage at the Brixton end has actually done not too bad since the cut - I’ve still seen plenty of decently loaded 45’s including some very busy ones. Ironically, the 35 seems to have a fair number of empty buses and bunching seems to have increased - witnessed three last week running together with the 2nd & 3rd almost empty. As I keep repeating, locally it provides extremely important links that are hard to replicate simply by toying with other routes. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Aug 20, 2019 13:51:41 GMT
I'd have switched the 35 and 45 and the northern end as the Clapham Junction to Elephant section is longer then the Atkins Road to Elephant section of the 45. Most people from Clapham Junction/Common only use the 35 to Brixton and Walworth as it's lot less direct then the 344 and 155 to a Elephant and Beyond. Maybe the 35 and hour long Clapham Junction to Elephant route which would improve reliability.
|
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Aug 20, 2019 14:19:59 GMT
That's the 12,38 and 109 out of the window too, then, not to forget the 68, 521 and many other of the most necessary routes in London. 109 has a bit of road to itself in Norbury (well it is shared with the N109, but I'm assuming that doesn't count for the purposes of this thread). Well, that's settled then. The ex-tram route with the most frequent service could become a Streatham High Road (Green Lanes) to Thornton Heath Garage shuttle with a PVR of 3/4 (?) to satisfy the Purists: better still to put it out of its misery, don't you think? rolls eyes. I know you're not advocating it, by the way, you're far too sensible. |
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Aug 20, 2019 14:24:09 GMT
I WOULD suggest 207 and 427. They run parallel with 607 for most of their route. Wow someone from West London commenting. Maybe the South Londoners are all on holiday!! The 607 is the very definition of technically unnecessary. By that criterion, the X68 would be too. By that criterion, there'd be no purpose for this Bus Forum, either. |
|
|
|
Post by ronnie on Aug 20, 2019 15:03:30 GMT
This thread can open up a can of worms to be honest
Technically every bus has some degree of overlap with other routes. That’s why its a bus network! If one only had 1 route running down every street then I am not even daring to think of crowding levels
There may be a few corridors where you May get away with slashing a route or two. However do too much and this would become a big disaster
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul on Aug 20, 2019 15:11:06 GMT
Technically every bus has some degree of overlap with other routes. That’s why its a bus network! If one only had 1 route running down every street then I am not even daring to think of crowding levels Which does rather beg the question: which is the loneliest route? Which route has the least amount of overlap with another route? |
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Aug 20, 2019 15:26:56 GMT
Whilst I agree, in the specific case of the Westbound Strand the cause was the part pedestrianisation of Trafalgar Square. The current road layout doesn't properly cater for either the number of buses or general traffic. The whole thing needs re-visiting, with a particular view to ensuring there is sufficient road capacity for the number of buses.
The Westbound Strand should be a case in point for any changes at Aldwych - do we really want to duplicate the Westbound Strand traffic jams on the Eastbound Strand? If Aldwych is going to be re-modelled, there is a great opportunity to show how well it can be done, with minimal traffic impact and in particular no adverse impact on buses.
More road space just attracts more traffic resulting in more congestion, Trafalgar Square will never go back to the way it was and nor should and I look forward to Aldwych being remodeled. Makes for a far more pleasant environment and attracts a lot more visitors to the area. I am afraid it is not that simple. In principle more road space attracts more traffic, but not necessarily. In the case of central London this will be true off peak, but during congestion charge hours very much less so. A bit more or less capacity here or there in central London won't in itself attract more cars due to the Charge. The Charge has reduced the number of private cars to a very small level. Today congestion in the Charge zone during hours is down to significantly less road space, road works, a vast increase in the number of private hire vehicles and also delivery vehicles. TfL is working with many of the delivery firms to improve delivery timing, so that will help. Arguably we need to get people to use other forms of public transport (bus, tube) rather than private hire. I think that unfortunately private hire has taken away passengers from buses and tubes rather than out of their cars.
It is quite ridiculous that buses are being touted as a cause of congestion when it is clear the real problem is the reduced road space. When road layouts change the traffic impact needs to be properly considered and to ensure that buses are not delayed as a result of such changes. London is a modern City which on its existing economic model needs sufficient road space for the City to flourish, however much we may prefer that not to be the case.
In the case of Trafalgar Square I didn't suggest it went back to the old road layout, indeed I didn't come up with any particular solution to resolving the congestion on the Strand, only that something needs to be done. As for what should be done, that's another matter and for another post.
As for Aldwych, whatever isn't or is done it needs to be an improvement in all respects. People need to be able to get to Aldwych, so say part of Aldwych is closed off and pedestrianised, how will people get there? No one has suggested re-opening the old Tube station, so many people would get there by bus. It will hardly be attractive for them to do so, if they are sitting in a long jam to get to / from The Aldwych.
|
|
