|
Post by sdaniel on Aug 31, 2024 20:15:47 GMT
I would have left the 18 and 220 as it is but I’m in support of your 92 and 182 changes, although another alternative could be sending the 182 to Ladbroke Grove, Sainsbury's. Moreover, I would have extended the 16 to Sudbury and extended the 440 to St Raphael’s Estate instead of extending the H17 so that the north part of Kilburn High Road and Cricklewood can have a direct link to Wembley Central and to make space for the 232 terminating at Brent Park Superstores. By the 440 extending to St Raphael’s Estate, there will be a direct link between Wembley Stadium Station and St Raphael’s Estate. Extending the 440 might make it a very long route so I think it should stay as it is. If a connection between Wembley Stadium and St Raphaels Estate is needed, H17 wouldn't be a bad contender to extend there at all as it is already relatively very short and would mirror the current 92 routing between Sudbury and St Raphaels. Where do you think would be a good area to extend the 182 down to if the 92 were to replace it? I would extend the 182 to Ladbroke Grove, Sainsbury's via 18’s way on Harrow Road due to new housing developments at the north of Ladbroke Grove and it would create a new link between Ladbroke Grove and Wembley & Harrow.
|
|
|
Post by georgboy on Aug 31, 2024 20:54:25 GMT
Extending the 440 might make it a very long route so I think it should stay as it is. If a connection between Wembley Stadium and St Raphaels Estate is needed, H17 wouldn't be a bad contender to extend there at all as it is already relatively very short and would mirror the current 92 routing between Sudbury and St Raphaels. Where do you think would be a good area to extend the 182 down to if the 92 were to replace it? I would extend the 182 to Ladbroke Grove, Sainsbury's via 18’s way on Harrow Road due to new housing developments at the north of Ladbroke Grove and it would create a new link between Ladbroke Grove and Wembley & Harrow. Just improving the level of service on the 18 would be an improvement
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 31, 2024 21:42:12 GMT
Since the ambiguity of the 18's contract has sparked discussion on potential cutbacks/pvr changes etc, I propose a few changes to help the 18 run a little more reliably. 18 - Cut back between Sudbury and Willesden Junction, only running between Willesden Junction Station and Euston. 220 - Extended from Willesden Junction to Craven Park to free up space for the 18 to stand at Willesden Junction although, if there is enough stand space at Willesden Junction, this change would not need to happen 182 - Withdrawn between Wembley Triangle and Brent Cross and extended to Kensal Rise via current route 18. This would retain some of the lost connections between Sudbury and Kensal Rise and support the 18 more. 92 - Withdrawn between Wembley Triangle and Brent Park IKEA and extended via current route 182 to Brent Cross. This will make sure Sudbury and Wembley are still connected to Brent Cross with passengers being able to change at these areas for the 182 if they require places beyond Subury e.g. Harrow and Northwick Park H17 - Extended from Wembley Central to Brent Park IKEA. As the H17 currently does shadow the 92 between Sudbury Hill and Wembley, extending it will retain the connections that would otherwise be lost with a diverted 92. Let me know what you think of these changes. Looking at your 182 proposal, your new idea comes out with more running time than the current 182 (10 minutes more give or take which doesn't sound a lot but gives a rough max running time of 106 minutes which is ridiculous in 2024 IMO) and arguably, the current 182 has a far too long max running time of 96 minutes as it is though if it's ever chopped back from Oxhey Lane, that would remedy it some what. Your 92 proposal is similarly problematic time wise - it currently has a 77 minutes max running time and by chopping off the Brent Park section, you save 10 minutes but adding on the 182's current section takes it from 67 to 97 minutes meaning you end up going from two routes (one with 77 & one with 96 max running times) to two routes (one with 97 & one with 106 minutes) in a notorious part of London where congestion is a big issue. TBH, if the 18 really needs looking at (I'm really not sure either way given it's not my area, surely it would be easier and more efficient to just chop it into two overlapping routes rather than including a bunch of other routes into the process? Say (and it's really only off the top of my head, there probably is better suggestions already made) the 18 from Euston to somewhere in Wembley and a new route from Harrow Road, Elgin Avenue to Sudbury Town?
|
|
|
Post by Paul on Sept 1, 2024 15:51:01 GMT
The 432 is short for a reason as suggested above Elmers End is probably the best extension for it if ever considered Extending the 432 a few minutes down the road to Elmers End is one of those situations where it seems like such an obvious thing to do that one wonders why TfL haven’t done it. What possible reasons could there be against it?
|
|
|
Post by abellion on Sept 1, 2024 15:55:26 GMT
The 432 is short for a reason as suggested above Elmers End is probably the best extension for it if ever considered Extending the 432 a few minutes down the road to Elmers End is one of those situations where it seems like such an obvious thing to do that one wonders why TfL haven’t done it. What possible reasons could there be against it? I would like to see that extension too but who knows if there will be enough demand along the road to justify it? Lots of cars around and the current bus service with the infrequent 354 and 356 is very unattractive so people around there are probably using alternate means already
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Sept 1, 2024 16:07:15 GMT
The 432 is short for a reason as suggested above Elmers End is probably the best extension for it if ever considered Extending the 432 a few minutes down the road to Elmers End is one of those situations where it seems like such an obvious thing to do that one wonders why TfL haven’t done it. What possible reasons could there be against it? Indeed, and it's ridiculous that there's no route that does the full length of Elmers End Road yet Beckenham Road has three routes from Penge to Beckenham War Memorial.
|
|
|
Post by Paul on Sept 1, 2024 17:58:25 GMT
Extending the 432 a few minutes down the road to Elmers End is one of those situations where it seems like such an obvious thing to do that one wonders why TfL haven’t done it. What possible reasons could there be against it? I would like to see that extension too but who knows if there will be enough demand along the road to justify it? Lots of cars around and the current bus service with the infrequent 354 and 356 is very unattractive so people around there are probably using alternate means already I think it’s probably very much a ‘build it and they will come’ situation. A direct link between the Tram and Crystal Palace would surely be welcome and might even tempt people out of their cars. It’s not impossible to do that; I’ve had one or two people, usually late at night, tell me they’ve switched from their to the SL3 because of the quick link it provides for them. It’s a tiny sample size, granted, but it proves that people are willing to switch if the situation is right
|
|
|
Post by aaron1 on Sept 2, 2024 14:24:10 GMT
It time for bus routes to be longer like 460 extend to Barnet Chesterfield Road or Hospital via N5 and at the same time extend 245 to North Finchley to free up space at Golders Green
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Sept 2, 2024 15:03:42 GMT
It time for bus routes to be longer like 460 extend to Barnet Chesterfield Road or Hospital via N5 and at the same time extend 245 to North Finchley to free up space at Golders Green Can I ask why you think bus routes should be longer given congestion and running times are not decreasing and, if anything, increasing instead?
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Sept 2, 2024 16:02:49 GMT
310: rerouted between Finsbury Park and Hornsey Road via Hornsey Road, Seven Sisters Road and route 29. Converted to double deck.
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Sept 2, 2024 18:23:52 GMT
88: withdrawn between Camden Town and Parliament Hill Fields. 143: withdrawn between Highgate Village and Archway. Diverted to Mornington Crescent via route 214 to Bayham Street, Crowndale Road,!Milbrook Place and Hampstead Road. Converted to 24 hour service. maintain links lost by the 214. 214: withdrawn between Parliament Hill Fields and Highgate Village. Converted to double deck.
|
|
|
Post by mrhk on Sept 3, 2024 19:21:52 GMT
337 extended from Richmond to Hounslow via current route H37 with a slight diversion in Isleworth to avoid low bridge and allow the route to continue using DDs. Instead of running via St Johns Road, the new route would continue on Twickenham Road, past West Middlesex Hosp. and then via routes 235/7/E8 to Hounslow Bus Station where it would then continue to the Blenheim Centre.
|
|
|
Post by mrhk on Sept 3, 2024 20:05:21 GMT
260: diverted between Harlesden Jubilee Clock to Golders Green via current route 226. 460 largely mirrors route 260 with not very many connections. At least with this routing, the routes dont shadow eachother as much as they currently do.
266/460: Slight frequency increase on both routes to make sure connections aren't lost.
226: Withdrawn betwen Harlesden Jubilee Clock and Golders Green, replaced by 260 between Central Middlesex Hosp and Golders Green. On the southern end, an extension to Brentford (either Commerce Road or County Court).
E2: Withdrawn wholly, replaced by route 226 between Brentford and Ealing and E9 between Ealing and Greenford.
E3/E8/E9: Frequency increase to make sure connections are still retained
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Sept 3, 2024 20:10:38 GMT
260: diverted between Harlesden Jubilee Clock to Golders Green via current route 226. 460 largely mirrors route 260 with not very many connections. At least with this routing, the routes dont shadow eachother as much as they currently do. 266/460: Slight frequency increase on both routes to make sure connections aren't lost. 226: Withdrawn betwen Harlesden Jubilee Clock and Golders Green, replaced by 260 between Central Middlesex Hosp and Golders Green. On the southern end, an extension to Brentford (either Commerce Road or County Court). E2: Withdrawn wholly, replaced by route 226 between Brentford and Ealing and E9 between Ealing and Greenford. E3/E8/E9: Frequency increase to make sure connections are still retained Your going to replace the E2 that uses double deckers with the 226 that can only use single deckers because of the low bridge at Hanger Lane between Ealing and Brentford 😂 there is a reason why the E2 uses double deckers and replacing it a single deck route is not a good idea. So you’ll leave the Willesden High Road and Willesden Green without a link to Central Middlesex Hospital. How about extending the 460 to Central Middlesex Hospital so those links are maintained.
|
|
|
Post by CircleLineofLife on Sept 3, 2024 21:06:24 GMT
260: diverted between Harlesden Jubilee Clock to Golders Green via current route 226. 460 largely mirrors route 260 with not very many connections. At least with this routing, the routes dont shadow eachother as much as they currently do. 266/460: Slight frequency increase on both routes to make sure connections aren't lost. 226: Withdrawn betwen Harlesden Jubilee Clock and Golders Green, replaced by 260 between Central Middlesex Hosp and Golders Green. On the southern end, an extension to Brentford (either Commerce Road or County Court). E2: Withdrawn wholly, replaced by route 226 between Brentford and Ealing and E9 between Ealing and Greenford. E3/E8/E9: Frequency increase to make sure connections are still retained This proposal doesnt work, especially when they likely split the 226 in 2 anyways when OOC finally comes and will not need a frequency of a double decker 260. Secondly, the Willesden Golders Green Split is needed especially during the school run and peak hours you will often see shuttles of 260s or 460s going between Willesden and Golders Green only. If the 460 was to be extend it should be north not south as the links to West London from Willesden and Cricklewood are much better than the links to North London which need improving such as Barnet. As it also doesn't make sense how from Cricklewood to Finchley Central there is no direct link to Barnet despite being in the Barnet Borough. Especially if TfL want to hit their objective of 80% sustainable travel by 2041, these are the proposals that actually matter.
|
|