|
Post by LondonNorthern on Sept 27, 2020 10:22:16 GMT
The W14 stops close to Hillside Avenue and outside Broadmead and runs pass the main shopping centre at South Woodford at a much better frequency compared to odd 70 min timetable for the 549. Hillside Avenue residents also have the 275 and can change at Woodford Green / The Castle as another option towards South Woodford.
I can't help but feel the 549 is on borrowed time.
A way of cutting costs on the 549 would be to curtail to Buckhurst Hill Station, and reduce to shopping hours only (10.00 to 14.00) on a regular hourly frequency. That seems much more reasonable but that shopping hours only ideology isn't very flexible - maybe 8 til 6?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2020 10:24:27 GMT
A way of cutting costs on the 549 would be to curtail to Buckhurst Hill Station, and reduce to shopping hours only (10.00 to 14.00) on a regular hourly frequency. That seems much more reasonable but that shopping hours only ideology isn't very flexible - maybe 8 til 6? Can I ask why 8 till 6? Don't think it would have much demand? I assume for examples commuters use the Central Line.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2020 10:26:43 GMT
The W14 stops close to Hillside Avenue and outside Broadmead and runs pass the main shopping centre at South Woodford at a much better frequency compared to odd 70 min timetable for the 549. Hillside Avenue residents also have the 275 and can change at Woodford Green / The Castle as another option towards South Woodford.
I can't help but feel the 549 is on borrowed time.
A way of cutting costs on the 549 would be to curtail to Buckhurst Hill Station, and reduce to shopping hours only (10.00 to 14.00) on a regular hourly frequency. I like this! It could work as a crosslink for a school route (If it can take double deckers) if operated at these times a bit like how the 575 to Romford used to run.
|
|
|
Post by londonbuschannel on Sept 27, 2020 10:33:58 GMT
New Route 369: Beam Park-KGH Beam Park Station New Road Ballards Road Church Elm Lane Dagenham Heathway Station (District) Parsloes Avenue Martin's Corner Bennett's Castle Lane Goodmayes Station (TfL Rail) High Road Seven Kings (TfL Rail) Aldborough Road South Eastern Avenue King George Hospital Purpose: To serve Aldbrorough Road South and Beam Park and also to aid the 364 between Heathway and Goodmayes. Personally, I would route it via Goresbrook Road, Lodge Avenue and Goodmayes Lane. I don’t think the 364 needs help with the section between Heathway and Goodmayes. Instead, routing it via Chequers and Goresbrook would bring a new route to an underserved area. In Goresbrook, your best options are the 173 and 287, which can be difficult to get to. It may be the reason TfL are planning to reroute the 287 via Goresbrook Road. But, Lodge Avenue can be useful, as the link would provide a direct connection to Goodmayes. When we get to KGH, I think it’s good. Maybe an extension to Newbury Park at a stretch, but this is fine. If you want to relieve the 364, the possibility of ditching Hail & Ride and going full double deck might seem good, but it’s the residential roads near Seven Kings that’s the problem. My proposed 369 routing would look like this: Beam Park Station Dagenham, New Road Goresbrook Road (close to Becontree Station) Barking, Lodge Avenue Goodmayes Lane Goodmayes Station King George Hospital Newbury Park Station (maybe) The problem is that Goresbrook Road is not accessible from Chequers Corner, you would either have to go down the A13 and back to Gale Street or go via Dagenham Avenue or Downing Road,the latter of which does not even seem suitable for a single decker. Your point is still quite true as Goresbrook would benefit a lot from a bus service but starting at Beam Park would just make the service complicated. A possibility could be having a route begin on Goresbrook Road itself and run via Gale Street,Woodward Road,Lodge Avenue then onwards to some other destination. In my opinion the 364 is in dire need of some support between Dagenham and Goodmayes considering all buses are almost always full at school drop off/pick up time. A possible solution could be a sort of 364A operating with double deckers, running between Ilford (Following the 86 to Goodmayes), KGH (following EL3) or Goodmayes itself to Dagenham East running around the hours of 7 to 10am and 2:30 to 7pm (to accomodate evening rush hour). Of course,this will probably never happen but it will certianly be very useful if it came to fruition.
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Sept 27, 2020 10:43:10 GMT
That seems much more reasonable but that shopping hours only ideology isn't very flexible - maybe 8 til 6? Can I ask why 8 till 6? Don't think it would have much demand? I assume for examples commuters use the Central Line. Alright I think I have a better option. This would help tackle car usage in South Woodford. This would be a setup similar to that of the H9/H10. Route 549: Discontinued. New routes 548 & 549 Route 548 would run route 179 to Woodford Green before then taking Snakes Lane West, Kings Avenue, Queens Avenue, Monkhams Drive, Monkhams Avenue, The Green, Monkhams Lane, Knighton Drive, Forest Way, Farm Way, Forest Edge, Kings Place, Queens Road, Victoria Road and Buckhurst Hill Station before taking current route 549 to South Woodford. Route 549 would be the 548 in reverse, it would take current route 549 to Buckhurst Hill, before taking Victoria Road, Princes Road, Farm Way, Forest Way, Knighton Drive, Monkhams Lane, The Green, Monkhams Avenue, Monkhams Drive, Queens Avenue, Kings Avenue, Snakes Lane West, Johnston Road before taking Route 179 to South Woodford. How is that?
|
|
|
Post by britishguy54 on Sept 27, 2020 11:49:30 GMT
Personally, I would route it via Goresbrook Road, Lodge Avenue and Goodmayes Lane. I don’t think the 364 needs help with the section between Heathway and Goodmayes. Instead, routing it via Chequers and Goresbrook would bring a new route to an underserved area. In Goresbrook, your best options are the 173 and 287, which can be difficult to get to. It may be the reason TfL are planning to reroute the 287 via Goresbrook Road. But, Lodge Avenue can be useful, as the link would provide a direct connection to Goodmayes. When we get to KGH, I think it’s good. Maybe an extension to Newbury Park at a stretch, but this is fine. If you want to relieve the 364, the possibility of ditching Hail & Ride and going full double deck might seem good, but it’s the residential roads near Seven Kings that’s the problem. My proposed 369 routing would look like this: Beam Park Station Dagenham, New Road Goresbrook Road (close to Becontree Station) Barking, Lodge Avenue Goodmayes Lane Goodmayes Station King George Hospital Newbury Park Station (maybe) The problem is that Goresbrook Road is not accessible from Chequers Corner, you would either have to go down the A13 and back to Gale Street or go via Dagenham Avenue or Downing Road,the latter of which does not even seem suitable for a single decker. Your point is still quite true as Goresbrook would benefit a lot from a bus service but starting at Beam Park would just make the service complicated. A possibility could be having a route begin on Goresbrook Road itself and run via Gale Street,Woodward Road,Lodge Avenue then onwards to some other destination. In my opinion the 364 is in dire need of some support between Dagenham and Goodmayes considering all buses are almost always full at school drop off/pick up time. A possible solution could be a sort of 364A operating with double deckers, running between Ilford (Following the 86 to Goodmayes), KGH (following EL3) or Goodmayes itself to Dagenham East running around the hours of 7 to 10am and 2:30 to 7pm (to accomodate evening rush hour). Of course,this will probably never happen but it will certianly be very useful if it came to fruition. A potential solution to the Goresbrook Road dilemma is to link it to the A1306/Ripple Road. There is currently a school with a slip road that could be widened and extended to the A1306. Or possibly let Goresbrook Road link to Ripple Road directly just west of Chequers Corner. About the routing in Becontree, I was thinking of having the gate at Maplestead Road removed to let the route go past. Or the potential of letting it go on the section of Porters Avenue not currently served by buses via Becontree Station. I’m not sure a 364A would help, as I am a local in Dagenham, the 364 does not need help, only at Sydney Russel School it needs help, but Jo Richardson Community School and Monteagle Primary School, two of local schools, don’t have a direct bus stop at all, especially as TfL got rid of suffixed routes for a reason. Although, a new route would be useful for Sydney Russell’s School crowd. A route between Chadwell Heath and Hornchurch (similar time one of my previous ideas) could be a possibility. And here is a concept for a new route: 348: Chadwell Heath Becontree, Martins Corner Parsloes Avenue Dagenham Heathway Station Dagenham East, Church Lane South Hornchurch, Rainham Road Elm Park Station Suttons Avenue Hornchurch Town Centre
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Sept 27, 2020 12:05:55 GMT
A way of cutting costs on the 549 would be to curtail to Buckhurst Hill Station, and reduce to shopping hours only (10.00 to 14.00) on a regular hourly frequency. That seems much more reasonable but that shopping hours only ideology isn't very flexible - maybe 8 til 6? Similar hours to the one wirewiper mentioned are already in place for the 347, 385, H3 & W10 and have been for years
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Sept 27, 2020 12:07:17 GMT
The problem is that Goresbrook Road is not accessible from Chequers Corner, you would either have to go down the A13 and back to Gale Street or go via Dagenham Avenue or Downing Road,the latter of which does not even seem suitable for a single decker. Your point is still quite true as Goresbrook would benefit a lot from a bus service but starting at Beam Park would just make the service complicated. A possibility could be having a route begin on Goresbrook Road itself and run via Gale Street,Woodward Road,Lodge Avenue then onwards to some other destination. In my opinion the 364 is in dire need of some support between Dagenham and Goodmayes considering all buses are almost always full at school drop off/pick up time. A possible solution could be a sort of 364A operating with double deckers, running between Ilford (Following the 86 to Goodmayes), KGH (following EL3) or Goodmayes itself to Dagenham East running around the hours of 7 to 10am and 2:30 to 7pm (to accomodate evening rush hour). Of course,this will probably never happen but it will certianly be very useful if it came to fruition. A potential solution to the Goresbrook Road dilemma is to link it to the A1306/Ripple Road. There is currently a school with a slip road that could be widened and extended to the A1306. Or possibly let Goresbrook Road link to Ripple Road directly just west of Chequers Corner. About the routing in Becontree, I was thinking of having the gate at Maplestead Road removed to let the route go past. Or the potential of letting it go on the section of Porters Avenue not currently served by buses via Becontree Station. I’m not sure a 364A would help, as I am a local in Dagenham, the 364 does not need help, only at Sydney Russel School it needs help, but Jo Richardson Community School and Monteagle Primary School, two of local schools, don’t have a direct bus stop at all, especially as TfL got rid of suffixed routes for a reason. Although, a new route would be useful for Sydney Russell’s School crowd. A route between Chadwell Heath and Hornchurch (similar time one of my previous ideas) could be a possibility. And here is a concept for a new route: 348: Chadwell Heath Becontree, Martins Corner Parsloes Avenue Dagenham Heathway Station Dagenham East, Church Lane South Hornchurch, Rainham Road Elm Park Station Suttons Avenue Hornchurch Town Centre Quite a few issues with this. Sydney Russell has only one route stopping outside, however does have the 62 and 145 literally one stop away and the children often walk to these routes should they need them. Therefore those that need Chadwell Heath will use the 62, those that needs Heathway and Dagenham East will use the 364 and it's unlikely they will need to get beyond Dagenham East as that's in the borough of Havering. The rest of Dagenham is linked by the 145, you have the 5 and EL2 nearby going to Becontree Heath as well and you have the 62 going Barking so I don't think any new bus route in that area is even needed. As a result this new route doesn't make any sense. I don't know why you are so insistent on Barking and Dagenham needing a new route, as someone who lives there it really doesn't need a flesh out new route. The borough is very weird in the fact is only has one town centre at Barking and the rest of it is purely residential with small areas in Becontree and of course the bit around at the station at Dagenham Heathway. Together all the routes that already exist in the area connect the places very well, within the borough itself there's not many missing around the corner links that you have in many other boroughs which may have more routes. The most I've said the borough has needed is just another route heading West as there's really only three routes that do that but even that would be more so for crowd control rather than flat out new links that people will not need.
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Sept 27, 2020 12:46:50 GMT
That seems much more reasonable but that shopping hours only ideology isn't very flexible - maybe 8 til 6? Similar hours to the one wirewiper mentioned are already in place for the 347, 385, H3 & W10 and have been for years However this 4 are amongst the 10 least used routes. The 549 only gets such poor usage because it follows the Central Line rather than serving Woodford & Roding Valley residential areas.
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Sept 27, 2020 13:21:42 GMT
Similar hours to the one wirewiper mentioned are already in place for the 347, 385, H3 & W10 and have been for years However this 4 are amongst the 10 least used routes. The 549 only gets such poor usage because it follows the Central Line rather than serving Woodford & Roding Valley residential areas. Do you not think there is some correlation as to no of passengers and hours/miles operated? If those routes operated longer hours, do not think their passenger numbers would go up?
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Sept 27, 2020 13:23:28 GMT
Similar hours to the one wirewiper mentioned are already in place for the 347, 385, H3 & W10 and have been for years However this 4 are amongst the 10 least used routes. The 549 only gets such poor usage because it follows the Central Line rather than serving Woodford & Roding Valley residential areas. Do you not think there is some correlation as to no of passengers and hours/miles operated? If those routes operated longer hours, do not think their passenger numbers would go up? Similarly, if you reduced the 549s operating hours to match these routes, then would the no of passengers on the 549 go down likewise?
|
|
|
Post by rift on Sept 27, 2020 13:26:54 GMT
|
|
|
Post by galwhv69 on Sept 27, 2020 13:39:25 GMT
No, the old "Withdrawn/new bus route ideas" got deleted, think the admins were trying to recover it
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Sept 27, 2020 13:50:19 GMT
However this 4 are amongst the 10 least used routes. The 549 only gets such poor usage because it follows the Central Line rather than serving Woodford & Roding Valley residential areas. Do you not think there is some correlation as to no of passengers and hours/miles operated? If those routes operated longer hours, do not think their passenger numbers would go up? Similarly, if you reduced the 549s operating hours to match these routes, then would the no of passengers on the 549 go down likewise? I think if a proposal like this were to go ahead, there would have to be a look at the most popular times of the day for those using the 549 and seeing where the most popular sections of the route are. I presume the link to the Sainsbury's in Loughton is incredibly popular because it's a big supermarket but I think the 549 could be removed from the Buckhurst Hill to Loughton corridor given that the 20 & 397 could easily cope along that section. The issue would be where people who live in Buckhurst Hill & Roding Valley go and do shopping, South Woodford doesn't have the most variety where the 549 currently terminates. I'm no expert on the area, so for all I know this could be waffle, but this is why I proposed my 548/549 proposal so that their could be a clockwise and anti clockwise route serving the housing of Roding Valley, Buckhurst Hill & Woodford Green, still continuing to serve the current 549 routing and now serving South Woodford High Street & Buckhurst Hill Shopping area. It's really difficult with these sorts of routes because no one gets on them but uses them until the end. The 549 should certainly be up for consultation and Frankly rather than getting the residents to somehow come across it whilst surfing the net, maybe TfL should send flyers round.
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Sept 27, 2020 15:15:06 GMT
However this 4 are amongst the 10 least used routes. The 549 only gets such poor usage because it follows the Central Line rather than serving Woodford & Roding Valley residential areas. Do you not think there is some correlation as to no of passengers and hours/miles operated? If those routes operated longer hours, do not think their passenger numbers would go up? Routes that only operate between the peaks have one advantage - they can be operated with minimal resources. Increasing the hours of operation may increase the number of passengers - but if those passengers do not increase the revenue sufficiently to cover the full cost of an additional vehicle and driver the routes may become even less economically viable. Of course the availability (or otherwise) of financial support can also be a factor.
|
|