|
|
Post by ilovelondonbuses on Oct 3, 2024 16:41:10 GMT
239 Wandsworth to Streatham Station (5bph DD) New route between Wandsworth (Ram Street stand) and Streatham Station, following the 44/270 from Wandsworth to Burntwood Lane, 690 to West Norwood, 196 to Crown Point and 249 to Streatham Station (see map below). Runs at 5bph (plus duplicate journey to replace 690) using double deckers.
Other changes - 485 extended to Southside, 690 withdrawn.
Benefits: > Supports the 44/270 along Garratt Lane, with buses which will likely be less crowded due to not serving Tooting. > Provides a "proper" bus service along Burntwood Lane and Nightingale Lane, with new links to Wandsworth and Brixton. > Restores a daytime service along the 690's line of route, which has not existed for many years. > Relieves the 322, providing a more direct service between West Norwood/Tulse Hill and Clapham Common. > Provides a new "round the corner" link from Streatham Station/Streatham Common to West Norwood and Tulse Hill, avoiding Streatham High Road. Problems: > Route might be too long/unreliable. > Overbussing between Brixton and West Norwood potentially??? I really like these proposals and agree with vjaska's suggestions to your post. I do think the route being a West Norwood - Wandsworth route would be a better move than the route going all the way to Streatham Station as it would probably be too long to operate reliably. I think a frequency of every 15 minutes may be better in order not to have excess capacity on that West Norwood to Brixton corridor. On another note, Isn't the route number 239 earmarked for the Brent Cross redevelopment project? Perhaps 392 as the route number would be a better choice for your school route 690 inspired daily route? |
|
|
|
Post by londonbuses on Oct 3, 2024 17:16:36 GMT
239 Wandsworth to Streatham Station (5bph DD) New route between Wandsworth (Ram Street stand) and Streatham Station, following the 44/270 from Wandsworth to Burntwood Lane, 690 to West Norwood, 196 to Crown Point and 249 to Streatham Station (see map below). Runs at 5bph (plus duplicate journey to replace 690) using double deckers.
Other changes - 485 extended to Southside, 690 withdrawn.
Benefits: > Supports the 44/270 along Garratt Lane, with buses which will likely be less crowded due to not serving Tooting. > Provides a "proper" bus service along Burntwood Lane and Nightingale Lane, with new links to Wandsworth and Brixton. > Restores a daytime service along the 690's line of route, which has not existed for many years. > Relieves the 322, providing a more direct service between West Norwood/Tulse Hill and Clapham Common. > Provides a new "round the corner" link from Streatham Station/Streatham Common to West Norwood and Tulse Hill, avoiding Streatham High Road. Problems: > Route might be too long/unreliable. > Overbussing between Brixton and West Norwood potentially??? Thumbs up from me. I think the 690 is wasted as a school route and I do think a proper West Norwood to Clapham link would be very useful given the 322's routing is less direct and prone to capacity issues. It could tie into a restructure of the 322 south of Herne Hill, running via Rosendale Road to Park Hall Road, then down Robson Road into West Norwood, serve the station and then run onto it's current route via Gipsy Road. This would allow bigger buses for the 322 to be used without issue and the 315 could takeover the hail & ride section rather than running to Norwood Garage & Knights Hill and then take over the 450's time consuming section via Kingswood Drive & Fountain Drive to terminate and stand on the parade with the 3 & 227. The 450 could then run direct between the parade & Westwood Hill. The hail & ride section loses links beyond West Norwood but quite a few people alight here anyway for the high street or to catch the 2 & 432 which are more direct to reach Brixton. I quite like all of those ideas, the 322 is certainly in need of longer buses as you say, and the rerouting also reduces the overbussing along that corridor that may have occurred with the addition of my new route. Those changes should also allow the 450's old frequency of 7.5bph to be restored, which I've heard elsewhere is desperately needed between Croydon and Palace! |
|
|
|
Post by londonbuses on Oct 3, 2024 17:39:01 GMT
239 Wandsworth to Streatham Station (5bph DD) New route between Wandsworth (Ram Street stand) and Streatham Station, following the 44/270 from Wandsworth to Burntwood Lane, 690 to West Norwood, 196 to Crown Point and 249 to Streatham Station (see map below). Runs at 5bph (plus duplicate journey to replace 690) using double deckers.
Other changes - 485 extended to Southside, 690 withdrawn.
Benefits: > Supports the 44/270 along Garratt Lane, with buses which will likely be less crowded due to not serving Tooting. > Provides a "proper" bus service along Burntwood Lane and Nightingale Lane, with new links to Wandsworth and Brixton. > Restores a daytime service along the 690's line of route, which has not existed for many years. > Relieves the 322, providing a more direct service between West Norwood/Tulse Hill and Clapham Common. > Provides a new "round the corner" link from Streatham Station/Streatham Common to West Norwood and Tulse Hill, avoiding Streatham High Road. Problems: > Route might be too long/unreliable. > Overbussing between Brixton and West Norwood potentially??? I really like these proposals and agree with vjaska's suggestions to your post. I do think the route being a West Norwood - Wandsworth route would be a better move than the route going all the way to Streatham Station as it would probably be too long to operate reliably. I think a frequency of every 15 minutes may be better in order not to have excess capacity on that West Norwood to Brixton corridor. On another note, Isn't the route number 239 earmarked for the Brent Cross redevelopment project? Perhaps 392 as the route number would be a better choice for your school route 690 inspired daily route? I don't think the short section from West Norwood to Streatham section would make the route too unreliable, although I can understand the concern as it is quite a long route already. The issue I can see with terminating at West Norwood is stand space - even if the 315 was extended, I don't think there is enough stand space for another high frequency route. The number 239 seems to pop up again and again in TfL plans and bus studies, but never becomes a reality! An alternative to 239 I was considering was 489, which is a nod to the 690's history as the 189. |
|
|
|
Post by Unorm on Oct 3, 2024 19:16:39 GMT
239 Wandsworth to Streatham Station (5bph DD) New route between Wandsworth (Ram Street stand) and Streatham Station, following the 44/270 from Wandsworth to Burntwood Lane, 690 to West Norwood, 196 to Crown Point and 249 to Streatham Station (see map below). Runs at 5bph (plus duplicate journey to replace 690) using double deckers.
Other changes - 485 extended to Southside, 690 withdrawn.
Benefits: > Supports the 44/270 along Garratt Lane, with buses which will likely be less crowded due to not serving Tooting. > Provides a "proper" bus service along Burntwood Lane and Nightingale Lane, with new links to Wandsworth and Brixton. > Restores a daytime service along the 690's line of route, which has not existed for many years. > Relieves the 322, providing a more direct service between West Norwood/Tulse Hill and Clapham Common. > Provides a new "round the corner" link from Streatham Station/Streatham Common to West Norwood and Tulse Hill, avoiding Streatham High Road. Problems: > Route might be too long/unreliable. > Overbussing between Brixton and West Norwood potentially??? Thumbs up from me. I think the 690 is wasted as a school route and I do think a proper West Norwood to Clapham link would be very useful given the 322's routing is less direct and prone to capacity issues. It could tie into a restructure of the 322 south of Herne Hill, running via Rosendale Road to Park Hall Road, then down Robson Road into West Norwood, serve the station and then run onto it's current route via Gipsy Road. This would allow bigger buses for the 322 to be used without issue and the 315 could takeover the hail & ride section rather than running to Norwood Garage & Knights Hill and then take over the 450's time consuming section via Kingswood Drive & Fountain Drive to terminate and stand on the parade with the 3 & 227. The 450 could then run direct between the parade & Westwood Hill. The hail & ride section loses links beyond West Norwood but quite a few people alight here anyway for the high street or to catch the 2 & 432 which are more direct to reach Brixton. In the past I would agree with the use of unserved Rosendale Road but since then it's been narrowed with a cycle lane (obviously except the section served by 322) which would make it quite hard to have buses stop, I highly suspect. Now I can't ever have 2 432 on an unserved Rosendale Road again if Norwood Road closes  I welcome any improvement to 322 that said, though I'd instead change how whatever route (315 or 322) approach the Vincennes Estate so neither route is forced to single doors, as both will benefit from a higher capacity (and sooner or later, fixed stops would be a must if safety reasons matter, and 315 otherwise is almost there except road markings and physical stop flags). An idea I had to myself was replicating 291; 322 as Brixton to Vale Street, then as normal to Oaks Avenue stop, loops back towards Brixton via Hamilton Road then back to Vale Street as per route to Brixton. Would take an hour from Brixton to Brixton in this case, and ensure zero conflict of two buses in opposite directions ever meeting by St Cloud Road which is far dicier to experience and could silently understand how it's not gotten any larger size fully allocated. Parking would have to be removed for fixed stops so strategically involving the corner by St Cloud Road too. By this point if 291 went from 9.3m Darts to 10.2m E400s, nothing physically stops an LT being a regular on that bit of 322 (or that random X68 for a week during Norwood Road closure) Following from above, 315 extended along Gipsy Hill to replace 322's section. An increase in frequency to at least every 15. I know 322 all too well to experience buses further full up by Norwood Road/Robson Road (being lazy by chosing Brixton or trying to outsmart by taking 2/432) but the estate's link to Tulse Hill-Brixton is still too important to directly remove for an every 20 route 315 considering how packed every 13 322s become. Perhaps if 3 had a higher frequency or a parallel route that diverts at Herne Hill onto Camberwell and Elephant to increase capacity on 3 itself would mitigate some issue of low frequency 315. londonbuses I too support a daily version of 690 though this would certainly exacerbate capacity 196 and 322 have (or lack thereof) between Brixton via Herne Hill and Norwood. That can be solved by routeing 322 along Croxted Road instead which can help relieve 3 in the process |
|
ZiyQ
Conductor
I always end up saying too much - beware of the waffle posts taking up an entire thread’s page…
Posts: 113
|
Post by ZiyQ on Oct 4, 2024 0:59:39 GMT
Enfield Bus Changes:
Route 121: Turnpike Lane Station - Brimsdown (withdrawn between Enfield Chase and Enfield Island Village, rerouted via 191’s route towards Brimsdown) Route 191: Edmonton Green - Cockfosters (withdrawn between Enfield Town and Brimsdown, rerouted and extended to Cockfosters via 307’s way then 299’s way) Route 329: Turnpike Lane - Enfield Island Village (extended to Enfield Island Village via 121’s way from Enfield Town) The 191 is a very indirect route, and could be quite useful if split, but I don’t think this would be the way to do it - it doesn’t really fix any of the capacity problems or the loops near Ponders End and Edmonton, which could be made more useful to provide extra links - what will happen to the current direct links from Enfield Town to Southgate - that might result in extra passengers on the W9, considering that a lot of people who use this section could be typically older. Keeping as close to your proposals as possible, I would make the following routes: Route 121:Turnpike Lane Station - Ponders End StationWithdrawn between Ponders End and Enfield Island Village and extended to new stand (possibly on station forecourt) via current 191. Route 191:
Edmonton Green Bus Station - Carterhatch
Loop on Alma Road and Durants Road withdrawn - goes directly down Ponders End High Street. Curtailed to Carterhatch as well. Route 329:
Turnpike Lane Station - Enfield Island Village
Withdrawn between Little Park Gardens and London Road, extended to Enfield Island Village via 121. New Route:
Edmonton Green Bus Station - Enfield Town
New route, following 279 to South Street, 191 to Alma Road, continuing along Alma Road to Brimsdown, existing 191 to Baker Street, W8 to Enfield Town, and continuing to Little Park Gardens, using stand space freed up by the 329. However, I will admit that these proposals do have some flaws in themselves, and they could end up overbussing some corridors, though some busy ones would get a frequency increase. Whilst the new route is still quite indirect end-to-end, the links within are quite direct, though the 191 could be retained to Brimsdown and there’d be no need for a new bus. |
|
ZiyQ
Conductor
I always end up saying too much - beware of the waffle posts taking up an entire thread’s page…
Posts: 113
|
Post by ZiyQ on Oct 4, 2024 1:20:07 GMT
I'll be starting with a few route ideas around Enfield (and probably not anything too far outside, otherwise we could end up with a 123 proposal to Southend or something), and it would be great to see everyone's thoughts on them. To begin with is new route 391: Route 391: New route from Edmonton Green to Cockfosters, via: Hertford Road, Ponders End Station, Alma Road, Brimsdown Station, Bell Lane, Hertford Road, Turkey Street Station, Turkey Street (bus-only loops with traffic lights installed either side of Turkey Street on Great Cambridge Road and bus gate installed on bridge on Turkey Street), Forty Hill (bus gate installed on roundabout to allow direct access from Forty Hill to Baker Street), Baker Street, Lavender Hill, Gordon Hill Station, Chase Farm Hospital, The Ridgeway, Enfield Road, Oakwood Station and Westpole Avenue. I thought it would be good to start off with this one, as it (hopefully) creates some cross-borough links and serves a lot of roads not currently served. It also provides a link from Chase Farm Hospital to the Piccadilly Line that (apparently) some people want. Nevertheless, I think the route could generate some good demand, but let me know if I've been completely wrong and this route is a terrible idea. This route would run every 20 minutes Monday to Saturday daytime and every 30 Sundays and late evenings. It would likely use >10m single-deck buses, due to length restrictions at Forty Hill. Any feedback would be much appreciated. Route OverviewI enjoyed reading your proposals, though I'd like to provide some fair feedback if that's possible. 1. I can myself as well certainly see a direct link between Edmonton Green and Brimsdown being useful. Though I'll be concerned at the same time routing a single deck route onto Hertford Road towards Pounders End. The 279 and the 349 combined both already get busy and often left at capacity during the peak hours, so any single deck route if a gap or disruption either occurs on the 279 or the 349 will be bound for the single deck route to be squashed. I do agree the 491 isn't the best route towards Brimsdown, though a capacity increase on it will do for the time being. It still shocks me on how TfL even permitted it's reduction to once every 20 minutes from earlier proposals to up it to every 12 minutes back in the days. I do have an idea on how a possible direct Brimsdown to Edmonton Green link can be achieved without routing via Hertford Road, though I'll save the idea post for another time. 2. If any link I can see if the 327 were to ever survive would be restructuring the route south to Brimsdown. As of today, there isn't really of a demand to send another bus route down Brimsdown Avenue and Bell Lane being the 191 already provides enough capacity on the corridor for the time being. The only time where I'll look at sending additional services can be considered if either upgrades to services on the West Anglia Main Line takes place or the implementation for Crossrail 2, both options are unlikely to happen for the time being if not ever, Crossrail 2 in particular. 3. As another person on here mentioned, there are restricted boundaries from trying to cross onto Forty Hill from Turkey Street. Being realistic, it's hard to justify if there's any need for a bus service serving such a remote location. You could route the service via the A10 before reaching Carterhatch Lane, though even again a turn from Turkey Street into the A10 is one way so you may need to adjust some complex routing within. 4. A link between the North East of Enfield and Chase Farm has been suggested on and off on here. Most journeys currently can be done via a hopper fare interchange at Baker Street from the 191 And onto the W8. With this, it's alot harder to justify another service linking directly, though TfL introducing the 310 says otherwise. 5. I always liked the idea to link Chase Farm Hospital towards Oakwood and Cockfosters something I can see being useful and has suggested it in the past, though I'll again think a routing via Uplands Park Road will be more beneficial from the direct routing. If only TfL didn't restructure the 384 bus route the route would be a more ideal choice to extend to Chase Farm. Thanks a lot for the useful feedback - I may have made a revised plan based on some of these points  . 1. I look forward to seeing what you have in store - my best guesses are either Meridian Way or the A10, though I shall wait and see. I use the section on the 279 and 349 every day, so hopefully I know what I’m saying. In my opinion, the capacity problems on that corridor could be fixed relatively easily by replacing the 349 with the 149 on this section, just like the good times  . The 149 is a relatively reliable route, and its extra frequency would help the corridor keep up with demand. Changing the traffic light timings near Nightingale Road should be all that’s needed, considering that the corridor isn’t too heavy with traffic most of the time. (And to whoever says that the 149 would be too long, no is all I have to say  ). With that, the route would be more easily able to cope with demand, and could work well if the other routes are reliable enough. The 491’s criminal frequency also should be sorted out, but the stand at NMH might be a problem. I would even suggest that it could be decked, but some of the routings might be a problem. 2. I definitely agree that Bell Lane isn’t bursting at capacity, but it was the only way I could viably connect the parts together - I did revise this part in the 191 split. 3. What I was suggesting was that the route turned left onto Great Cambridge Road, then did a U-turn with a bit of the central reservation removed, and then back onto LOR. Demand would be low, but I think there could be a few houses beyond the 400m limit. 4. That was also because I couldn’t find a better way to get from Forty Hill to Chase Farm - though it could help with school demand. 5. I like the idea of the Uplands Park Road routing, and I think the 384 could be rerouted back to its former routing and extended to Chase Farm, with the 307 extended to Edgware (I think it would better suit demand) - as you can probably tell, I’m a fan of long routes. All in all, there were definitely some flaws with my proposed route, but thanks for finding some useful links and alternatives |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Oct 4, 2024 1:28:52 GMT
Thumbs up from me. I think the 690 is wasted as a school route and I do think a proper West Norwood to Clapham link would be very useful given the 322's routing is less direct and prone to capacity issues. It could tie into a restructure of the 322 south of Herne Hill, running via Rosendale Road to Park Hall Road, then down Robson Road into West Norwood, serve the station and then run onto it's current route via Gipsy Road. This would allow bigger buses for the 322 to be used without issue and the 315 could takeover the hail & ride section rather than running to Norwood Garage & Knights Hill and then take over the 450's time consuming section via Kingswood Drive & Fountain Drive to terminate and stand on the parade with the 3 & 227. The 450 could then run direct between the parade & Westwood Hill. The hail & ride section loses links beyond West Norwood but quite a few people alight here anyway for the high street or to catch the 2 & 432 which are more direct to reach Brixton. In the past I would agree with the use of unserved Rosendale Road but since then it's been narrowed with a cycle lane (obviously except the section served by 322) which would make it quite hard to have buses stop, I highly suspect. Now I can't ever have 2 432 on an unserved Rosendale Road again if Norwood Road closes I welcome any improvement to 322 that said, though I'd instead change how whatever route (315 or 322) approach the Vincennes Estate so neither route is forced to single doors, as both will benefit from a higher capacity (and sooner or later, fixed stops would be a must if safety reasons matter, and 315 otherwise is almost there except road markings and physical stop flags). An idea I had to myself was replicating 291; 322 as Brixton to Vale Street, then as normal to Oaks Avenue stop, loops back towards Brixton via Hamilton Road then back to Vale Street as per route to Brixton. Would take an hour from Brixton to Brixton in this case, and ensure zero conflict of two buses in opposite directions ever meeting by St Cloud Road which is far dicier to experience and could silently understand how it's not gotten any larger size fully allocated. Parking would have to be removed for fixed stops so strategically involving the corner by St Cloud Road too. By this point if 291 went from 9.3m Darts to 10.2m E400s, nothing physically stops an LT being a regular on that bit of 322 (or that random X68 for a week during Norwood Road closure) Following from above, 315 extended along Gipsy Hill to replace 322's section. An increase in frequency to at least every 15. I know 322 all too well to experience buses further full up by Norwood Road/Robson Road (being lazy by chosing Brixton or trying to outsmart by taking 2/432) but the estate's link to Tulse Hill-Brixton is still too important to directly remove for an every 20 route 315 considering how packed every 13 322s become. Perhaps if 3 had a higher frequency or a parallel route that diverts at Herne Hill onto Camberwell and Elephant to increase capacity on 3 itself would mitigate some issue of low frequency 315. londonbuses I too support a daily version of 690 though this would certainly exacerbate capacity 196 and 322 have (or lack thereof) between Brixton via Herne Hill and Norwood. That can be solved by routeing 322 along Croxted Road instead which can help relieve 3 in the process Isn't the cycle lane only between Turney Road & Norwood Road? Even if not, the cycle lane in question would be fairly easy to modify to accommodate some bus stops given it's only a painted line with those flimsy bollards. My 315 proposal would involve it converting to 9.7m dual door single deckers which would be able to get around the hail & ride section and the 315 would increase to every 15 minutes to almost match the 322's current frequency of every 13. Whilst that obviously doesn't address the concerns surrounding the link to Brixton, it should address capacity issues a little better than present. The 322 would convert to 10.2m buses under my proposal. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Oct 4, 2024 7:46:20 GMT
In the past I would agree with the use of unserved Rosendale Road but since then it's been narrowed with a cycle lane (obviously except the section served by 322) which would make it quite hard to have buses stop, I highly suspect. Now I can't ever have 2 432 on an unserved Rosendale Road again if Norwood Road closes I welcome any improvement to 322 that said, though I'd instead change how whatever route (315 or 322) approach the Vincennes Estate so neither route is forced to single doors, as both will benefit from a higher capacity (and sooner or later, fixed stops would be a must if safety reasons matter, and 315 otherwise is almost there except road markings and physical stop flags). An idea I had to myself was replicating 291; 322 as Brixton to Vale Street, then as normal to Oaks Avenue stop, loops back towards Brixton via Hamilton Road then back to Vale Street as per route to Brixton. Would take an hour from Brixton to Brixton in this case, and ensure zero conflict of two buses in opposite directions ever meeting by St Cloud Road which is far dicier to experience and could silently understand how it's not gotten any larger size fully allocated. Parking would have to be removed for fixed stops so strategically involving the corner by St Cloud Road too. By this point if 291 went from 9.3m Darts to 10.2m E400s, nothing physically stops an LT being a regular on that bit of 322 (or that random X68 for a week during Norwood Road closure) Following from above, 315 extended along Gipsy Hill to replace 322's section. An increase in frequency to at least every 15. I know 322 all too well to experience buses further full up by Norwood Road/Robson Road (being lazy by chosing Brixton or trying to outsmart by taking 2/432) but the estate's link to Tulse Hill-Brixton is still too important to directly remove for an every 20 route 315 considering how packed every 13 322s become. Perhaps if 3 had a higher frequency or a parallel route that diverts at Herne Hill onto Camberwell and Elephant to increase capacity on 3 itself would mitigate some issue of low frequency 315. londonbuses I too support a daily version of 690 though this would certainly exacerbate capacity 196 and 322 have (or lack thereof) between Brixton via Herne Hill and Norwood. That can be solved by routeing 322 along Croxted Road instead which can help relieve 3 in the process Isn't the cycle lane only between Turney Road & Norwood Road? Even if not, the cycle lane in question would be fairly easy to modify to accommodate some bus stops given it's only a painted line with those flimsy bollards. My 315 proposal would involve it converting to 9.7m dual door single deckers which would be able to get around the hail & ride section and the 315 would increase to every 15 minutes to almost match the 322's current frequency of every 13. Whilst that obviously doesn't address the concerns surrounding the link to Brixton, it should address capacity issues a little better than present. The 322 would convert to 10.2m buses under my proposal. What happened about the proposal to extend to Springfield. I can't recall if the consultation ever came back saying they were or weren't going ahead with the plan? |
|
|
|
Post by Unorm on Oct 4, 2024 8:39:28 GMT
Isn't the cycle lane only between Turney Road & Norwood Road? Even if not, the cycle lane in question would be fairly easy to modify to accommodate some bus stops given it's only a painted line with those flimsy bollards. My 315 proposal would involve it converting to 9.7m dual door single deckers which would be able to get around the hail & ride section and the 315 would increase to every 15 minutes to almost match the 322's current frequency of every 13. Whilst that obviously doesn't address the concerns surrounding the link to Brixton, it should address capacity issues a little better than present. The 322 would convert to 10.2m buses under my proposal. They have expanded the cycle lane further down Rosendale Road after Turney Road to the junction with A205 and to Park Hall Road by this point (residents even having issues) although it seems Streetview doesn't have that updated yet. Checking Lambeth it seems they'll go further beyond to Gipsy Hill somehow. An every 15 315 with dual doors is great along with returning the promised-but-scrapped direct Streatham link along Robson Road. There are definitely some that use 315 and 322 so that's a benefit there in reducing change. I still feel there's more to lose from the loss of 322 in the estate where it's busy to/from, than a 315 could gain taking some burden of journeys that swap from other routes whilst creating more journey changes. If it were the other way around, 315 could easily use Gipsy Road and be faster between Gipsy Hill and West Norwood, with the same every 15 frequency which would be more efficient most of the time. I'm conflicted that I want to eat my cake and have it. Perhaps extending 315 as-is over 322 and keeping 322 unchanged isn't weird as it adds capacity, bizarre as it sounds. Even if it means changing 315 and 322 to both be every 15 separately. Though this would negatively impact the Clapham end of 322. A fix 322 needs is having a robust schedule that didn't necessitate regression of it's frequency from every 12 to 'temporary' (permanent) every 13 which would increase reliability and not have it as a bunched bus magnet - which can also be done with your reroute removing the Hail and Ride which can save time. Dual doors for reduced dwell time. I would not bet anything if 322 could become more reliable than 432 again with the above fixes, unless 322 becomes every 10 as 432 is. |
|
|
|
Post by Unorm on Oct 4, 2024 8:40:49 GMT
Isn't the cycle lane only between Turney Road & Norwood Road? Even if not, the cycle lane in question would be fairly easy to modify to accommodate some bus stops given it's only a painted line with those flimsy bollards. My 315 proposal would involve it converting to 9.7m dual door single deckers which would be able to get around the hail & ride section and the 315 would increase to every 15 minutes to almost match the 322's current frequency of every 13. Whilst that obviously doesn't address the concerns surrounding the link to Brixton, it should address capacity issues a little better than present. The 322 would convert to 10.2m buses under my proposal. What happened about the proposal to extend to Springfield. I can't recall if the consultation ever came back saying they were or weren't going ahead with the plan? Going ahead, to be confirmed when it seems |
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Oct 4, 2024 15:43:33 GMT
Restructure idea around Croydon/Sutton - responding to changes from that consultation, as well as discussion around the 463, and the previously proposed SL5/SL7 changes.
463 - Withdrawn, replaced by revised 151 and new route 305. No replacement between Wallington and Beddington, with the 410/S4 available.
SL5/SL7 - Revised to terminate in Sutton, terminating at the 407/S4 stand. Route S4 to stand at Bushey Road, with the 213 and/or 413 terminating inside the bus garage. SL7 to also serve additional stops between Kingston and Heathrow.
407 - Withdrawn between Caterham and Croydon Town Centre (SL5 stand), and extended from Sutton to Worcester Park via the 151. Maintains a local link across Sutton with the SL7 being cut back.
151 - Withdrawn between Worcester Park and Sutton Station. Extended from Wallington to Coulsdon via the 463. Frequency reduced to every 15 minutes.
305 - New route from Purley (Old Lodge Lane) to Pollards Hill, via the former 455 to Beddington (Therapia Lane), then the 463. Restoring a direct link from Beddington to Croydon. Operating every 15 minutes.
S4 - Diverted in Wallington via Marlowe Way and Beddington Farm Road (instead of Beddington Lane and Coomber Way).
312 - Withdrawn between Old Lodge Lane and Purley, and instead extended to Caterham via the 407. Converted to DDs.
166 - Restored to operate direct between Croydon and Purley via Brighton Road.
|
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Oct 4, 2024 16:18:13 GMT
Restructure idea around Croydon/Sutton - responding to changes from that consultation, as well as discussion around the 463, and the previously proposed SL5/SL7 changes. 463 - Withdrawn, replaced by revised 151 and new route 305. No replacement between Wallington and Beddington, with the 410/S4 available. SL5/SL7 - Revised to terminate in Sutton, terminating at the 407/S4 stand. Route S4 to stand at Bushey Road, with the 213 and/or 413 terminating inside the bus garage. SL7 to also serve additional stops between Kingston and Heathrow. 407 - Withdrawn between Caterham and Croydon Town Centre (SL5 stand), and extended from Sutton to Worcester Park via the 151. Maintains a local link across Sutton with the SL7 being cut back. 151 - Withdrawn between Worcester Park and Sutton Station. Extended from Wallington to Coulsdon via the 463. Frequency reduced to every 15 minutes. 305 - New route from Purley (Old Lodge Lane) to Pollards Hill, via the former 455 to Beddington (Therapia Lane), then the 463. Restoring a direct link from Beddington to Croydon. Operating every 15 minutes. S4 - Diverted in Wallington via Marlowe Way and Beddington Farm Road (instead of Beddington Lane and Coomber Way). 312 - Withdrawn between Old Lodge Lane and Purley, and instead extended to Caterham via the 407. Converted to DDs. 166 - Restored to operate direct between Croydon and Purley via Brighton Road. The SL5/SL7 changes appear to have been quietly dropped - and I think most of us would agree with that. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Oct 4, 2024 16:48:18 GMT
Restructure idea around Croydon/Sutton - responding to changes from that consultation, as well as discussion around the 463, and the previously proposed SL5/SL7 changes. 463 - Withdrawn, replaced by revised 151 and new route 305. No replacement between Wallington and Beddington, with the 410/S4 available. SL5/SL7 - Revised to terminate in Sutton, terminating at the 407/S4 stand. Route S4 to stand at Bushey Road, with the 213 and/or 413 terminating inside the bus garage. SL7 to also serve additional stops between Kingston and Heathrow. 407 - Withdrawn between Caterham and Croydon Town Centre (SL5 stand), and extended from Sutton to Worcester Park via the 151. Maintains a local link across Sutton with the SL7 being cut back. 151 - Withdrawn between Worcester Park and Sutton Station. Extended from Wallington to Coulsdon via the 463. Frequency reduced to every 15 minutes. 305 - New route from Purley (Old Lodge Lane) to Pollards Hill, via the former 455 to Beddington (Therapia Lane), then the 463. Restoring a direct link from Beddington to Croydon. Operating every 15 minutes. S4 - Diverted in Wallington via Marlowe Way and Beddington Farm Road (instead of Beddington Lane and Coomber Way). 312 - Withdrawn between Old Lodge Lane and Purley, and instead extended to Caterham via the 407. Converted to DDs. 166 - Restored to operate direct between Croydon and Purley via Brighton Road. The major issue with this proposal is the 213/413, there simply isn’t the room to have them stand in the garage all day. Otherwise I don’t hate these suggestions. |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Oct 4, 2024 16:51:31 GMT
Restructure idea around Croydon/Sutton - responding to changes from that consultation, as well as discussion around the 463, and the previously proposed SL5/SL7 changes. 463 - Withdrawn, replaced by revised 151 and new route 305. No replacement between Wallington and Beddington, with the 410/S4 available. SL5/SL7 - Revised to terminate in Sutton, terminating at the 407/S4 stand. Route S4 to stand at Bushey Road, with the 213 and/or 413 terminating inside the bus garage. SL7 to also serve additional stops between Kingston and Heathrow. 407 - Withdrawn between Caterham and Croydon Town Centre (SL5 stand), and extended from Sutton to Worcester Park via the 151. Maintains a local link across Sutton with the SL7 being cut back. 151 - Withdrawn between Worcester Park and Sutton Station. Extended from Wallington to Coulsdon via the 463. Frequency reduced to every 15 minutes. 305 - New route from Purley (Old Lodge Lane) to Pollards Hill, via the former 455 to Beddington (Therapia Lane), then the 463. Restoring a direct link from Beddington to Croydon. Operating every 15 minutes. S4 - Diverted in Wallington via Marlowe Way and Beddington Farm Road (instead of Beddington Lane and Coomber Way). 312 - Withdrawn between Old Lodge Lane and Purley, and instead extended to Caterham via the 407. Converted to DDs. 166 - Restored to operate direct between Croydon and Purley via Brighton Road. The only problems I can see is there would be some consternation about the loss of the link to St Helier hospital from Cheam and Worcester Park and it would be an awkward change from the 407 in Sutton and possibly some objections to all day double deckers on the Clockhouse Farm loop. |
|
|
|
Post by londonbuses on Oct 4, 2024 16:55:41 GMT
Restructure idea around Croydon/Sutton - responding to changes from that consultation, as well as discussion around the 463, and the previously proposed SL5/SL7 changes. 463 - Withdrawn, replaced by revised 151 and new route 305. No replacement between Wallington and Beddington, with the 410/S4 available. SL5/SL7 - Revised to terminate in Sutton, terminating at the 407/S4 stand. Route S4 to stand at Bushey Road, with the 213 and/or 413 terminating inside the bus garage. SL7 to also serve additional stops between Kingston and Heathrow. 407 - Withdrawn between Caterham and Croydon Town Centre (SL5 stand), and extended from Sutton to Worcester Park via the 151. Maintains a local link across Sutton with the SL7 being cut back. 151 - Withdrawn between Worcester Park and Sutton Station. Extended from Wallington to Coulsdon via the 463. Frequency reduced to every 15 minutes. 305 - New route from Purley (Old Lodge Lane) to Pollards Hill, via the former 455 to Beddington (Therapia Lane), then the 463. Restoring a direct link from Beddington to Croydon. Operating every 15 minutes. S4 - Diverted in Wallington via Marlowe Way and Beddington Farm Road (instead of Beddington Lane and Coomber Way). 312 - Withdrawn between Old Lodge Lane and Purley, and instead extended to Caterham via the 407. Converted to DDs. 166 - Restored to operate direct between Croydon and Purley via Brighton Road. I think now TfL have dropped the SL5/SL7 changes, they should be left alone now, although I would increase the SL7 to 5bph and consider new stops at Beddington, Hanworth and Harlington Corner. For the 151/463 changes, I don't think the residents of the Clockhouse estate would be happy with double deckers running around their roads every 15 minutes, longer buses are definitely needed around there but not deckers. The 151 between Sutton and Wallington would also not cope running every 15 minutes, although if it stays on its existing routing to Worcester Park then I would suggest decreasing it from 6bph to 5bph and increasing the busier 213 from 5bph to 6bph, which is PVR neutral. I don't mind the other changes, but you appear to have left the northern half of Beddington Lane without a bus service, which is not ideal, especially with the amount of warehouses around there as well as C and BC garages. |
|
. The 149 is a relatively reliable route, and its extra frequency would help the corridor keep up with demand. Changing the traffic light timings near Nightingale Road should be all that’s needed, considering that the corridor isn’t too heavy with traffic most of the time. (And to whoever says that the 149 would be too long, no is all I have to say 
). With that, the route would be more easily able to cope with demand, and could work well if the other routes are reliable enough. The 491’s criminal frequency also should be sorted out, but the stand at NMH might be a problem. I would even suggest that it could be decked, but some of the routings might be a problem.
