|
Post by TB123 on Feb 25, 2021 19:37:22 GMT
I would extend the 146 to Crystal Palace via the 227 and reduce the 227 frequency to every 10 minutes. The frequency of the 146 would be standardised to every hour. This would help to alleviate Bromley North of it's stand space issues. Taking the 146 out of Bromley North would make little difference to capacity issues there. And it would be very expensive to extend it to Crystal Palace for very little benefit. Indeed cutting the 227 and extending 146 would mean less buses on that corridor but more cost. Baffling.
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Feb 25, 2021 20:01:41 GMT
I would extend the 146 to Crystal Palace via the 227 and reduce the 227 frequency to every 10 minutes. The frequency of the 146 would be standardised to every hour. This would help to alleviate Bromley North of it's stand space issues. I presume you’re not local. If you were, you wouldn’t be suggesting this. Cutting the 227 would heap huge pressure on the route, and worse, extending the 146 risks ruining the service to Downe.
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Feb 25, 2021 20:08:36 GMT
I would extend the 146 to Crystal Palace via the 227 and reduce the 227 frequency to every 10 minutes. The frequency of the 146 would be standardised to every hour. This would help to alleviate Bromley North of it's stand space issues. I presume you’re not local. If you were, you wouldn’t be suggesting this. Cutting the 227 would heap huge pressure on the route, and worse, extending the 146 risks ruining the service to Downe. Maybe the 146 could stand at plaistow green (Paxton Road)
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Feb 25, 2021 21:01:51 GMT
Restructure ideas for Camden/Holloway areas:
4/271 - Merged to operate between Archway and Moorgate, via the 4 to Highbury & Islington, then the 271. Links from the withdrawn section of the 4 covered by suggestions below, plus existing routes 19 & 43.
143/263 - Option to swap routeings between East Finchley and Archway, if there is demand for a link from Highgate Village towards Holloway.
153 - Possible reroute to go direct along the full length of Liverpool Road, and converted to DDs. 394 - Extended from Angel via the existing 153 to Holloway Road, then serving new roads to terminate around Drayton Park & Arsenal Stations.
40 - Withdrawn between Clerkenwell Green and Blackfriars, instead extended to Angel via route 4.
24 - Cut back to Camden Town, and extended to Highgate Village via the 134 to Archway then the 271. Providing a higher capacity link from Highgate Village towards Camden and Central London (as the 214 can't use DDs).
27 - Extended from Chalk Farm to Hampstead Heath via the 24.
134 - Possible cut back to Camden Town, as the 24 would parallel as far as Archway.
214/C11 - Highgate/Archway termini swapped. Allows the C11 to provide a link between the Hampstead area and Highgate. 214 converted to DDs if they can fit along the C11 routeing near Archway.
88 - If the 214 can convert to DD, and provides enough capacity to/from Parliament Hill, possible return to previous route via Hampstead Road to terminate at Camden Town to improve reliability. In this case, the 134 would be rerouted to Oxford Circus via Albany Street.
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Feb 25, 2021 21:17:42 GMT
Restructure ideas for Camden/Holloway areas: 4/271 - Merged to operate between Archway and Moorgate, via the 4 to Highbury & Islington, then the 271. Links from the withdrawn section of the 4 covered by suggestions below, plus existing routes 19 & 43. 143/263 - Option to swap routeings between East Finchley and Archway, if there is demand for a link from Highgate Village towards Holloway. 153 - Possible reroute to go direct along the full length of Liverpool Road, and converted to DDs. 394 - Extended from Angel via the existing 153 to Holloway Road, then serving new roads to terminate around Drayton Park & Arsenal Stations. 40 - Withdrawn between Clerkenwell Green and Blackfriars, instead extended to Angel via route 4. 24 - Cut back to Camden Town, and extended to Highgate Village via the 134 to Archway then the 271. Providing a higher capacity link from Highgate Village towards Camden and Central London (as the 214 can't use DDs). 27 - Extended from Chalk Farm to Hampstead Heath via the 24. 134 - Possible cut back to Camden Town, as the 24 would parallel as far as Archway. 214/C11 - Highgate/Archway termini swapped. Allows the C11 to provide a link between the Hampstead area and Highgate. 214 converted to DDs if they can fit along the C11 routeing near Archway. 88 - If the 214 can convert to DD, and provides enough capacity to/from Parliament Hill, possible return to previous route via Hampstead Road to terminate at Camden Town to improve reliability. In this case, the 134 would be rerouted to Oxford Circus via Albany Street. I'll give my view and say that the 4, 143, 263 & 271 all work fine. They all should not be meddled with. They all work well and that's the beauty of the network - not much needs to be done to it (though it's clear you think differently ). The full length of the Holloway Road needs the 43, 263 & 271 - hence why the 263 got extended. No need to do anything. The 134 has links to and from the UCH which is a lifeline for residents north of Archway - I don't see the need for it to be hacked back even further.
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Feb 25, 2021 21:26:57 GMT
I presume you’re not local. If you were, you wouldn’t be suggesting this. Cutting the 227 would heap huge pressure on the route, and worse, extending the 146 risks ruining the service to Downe. Maybe the 146 could stand at plaistow green (Paxton Road) I don’t think the 146 generally is the best choice to move out of the Bromley North terminal. Very difficult to know what could move out of Bromley North as most/all of the terminating routes are either lengthy (including the 138 which only terminates once, at Bromley North), or encounter significant traffic issues. A short extension of the 269 southwards is I think the best of a bad bunch.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Feb 25, 2021 22:55:45 GMT
I would extend the 146 to Crystal Palace via the 227 and reduce the 227 frequency to every 10 minutes. The frequency of the 146 would be standardised to every hour. This would help to alleviate Bromley North of it's stand space issues. I presume you’re not local. If you were, you wouldn’t be suggesting this. Cutting the 227 would heap huge pressure on the route, and worse, extending the 146 risks ruining the service to Downe. Now people understand why I say how local knowledge is important.
|
|
|
Post by YY13VKP on Feb 26, 2021 0:05:44 GMT
I would extend the 146 to Crystal Palace via the 227 and reduce the 227 frequency to every 10 minutes. The frequency of the 146 would be standardised to every hour. This would help to alleviate Bromley North of it's stand space issues. I presume you’re not local. If you were, you wouldn’t be suggesting this. Cutting the 227 would heap huge pressure on the route, and worse, extending the 146 risks ruining the service to Downe. Now this comment is coming from a 146 (part time) local and I have to say this suggestion of the route being extended to Crystal Palace is one of the most ridiculous, nonsensical and pointless suggestions I've seen on this forum. Firstly, why would you extend a route which only has a PVR of 1, and runs at an hourly frequency as it is further from Bromley North? The 146 is only meant to connect Downe with the nearest town centre, which is Bromley. As twobellstogo rightly mentions, such an extension would destroy the 1 hour frequency it currently has into Downe. The PVR would have to be increased which I don't think is adequate, especially for a route serving Downe where the majority of people don't use public transport and the roads are incredibly narrow for a bus? A peak time PVR increase for the 146 would be welcomed, but anything more would be completely inadequate. Bromley is also well linked to Crystal Palace via the 227 and 358, so there is absolutely no need to extend another route to run between Bromley and Crystal Palace, and cutting back the 227 would indeed put more pressure onto a route which is busy at the best of times pre-COVID Also, the 227 sometimes suffers from horrendous traffic delays en route from Crystal Palace, especially between there and Penge so this would also wreck the service into Downe. If the original suggestion was simply to alleviate stand space at Bromley North, moving the 146 makes no sense whatsoever - if anything that takes up the least stand time especially as it's only one bus! If you wanted to help ease pressure on the stand space at Bromley North, perhaps consider terminating a route with a higher PVR, such as the 227 or 269 elsewhere in Bromley, such as Ringers Road?
I completely agree with what vjaska says about local knowledge being important in coming up with such suggestions, because extending or making changes to a bus route really isn't as simple as some people clearly seem to think.
|
|
|
Post by Paul on Feb 26, 2021 14:10:11 GMT
Maybe the 146 could stand at plaistow green (Paxton Road) I don’t think the 146 generally is the best choice to move out of the Bromley North terminal. Very difficult to know what could move out of Bromley North as most/all of the terminating routes are either lengthy (including the 138 which only terminates once, at Bromley North), or encounter significant traffic issues. A short extension of the 269 southwards is I think the best of a bad bunch. With Simpsons Road apparently available, sending the 269 or 227 down that way seems a fair suggestion and would help enormously with finding a space in a congested stand!
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Feb 26, 2021 14:15:53 GMT
Ideas for route 166, due to the route being indirect and the irregular Epsom workings:
Option A:
312 - When extended to Old Lodge Lane, diverted fully along the 455 routeing between Croydon and Purley 166 - Withdrawn, with no replacement between Purley and Croydon, following frequency increases to other routes along Brighton Road 359 - Extended from Purley to Banstead, but directly via Foxley Lane, Little Woodcote Lane and Croydon Lane 434 - Rerouted at Purley to terminate at Cane Hill 404 - Cut back to Coulsdon, and extended to Epsom Hospital via the 166 to Woodmansterne (plus a double run to Rickman Hill), then Woodmansterne Lane to Banstead (serving a new stretch of road) and the 166 to Epsom. Provides a regular service through to Epsom, with higher frequency but lower capacity vehicles.
Option B:
410 - Rerouted to serve the 455 routeing around Beddington, retaining the Beddington-Croydon link (but continuing via Croydon Road to Wallington). S4 - Split route revised to operate between Banstead and Croydon, via the S1 to Belmont, S4 to Roundshaw, 455 to Croydon Road then the 410. To provide a more direct link between Banstead and Croydon, and introduce a new link from Belmont to Croydon. Could extend from Banstead to Epsom depending on the frequency. 166 - Could be reduced to operate between Banstead and Croydon only, or merged with the 359 to operate between Banstead and Addington.
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Feb 26, 2021 14:19:04 GMT
I presume you’re not local. If you were, you wouldn’t be suggesting this. Cutting the 227 would heap huge pressure on the route, and worse, extending the 146 risks ruining the service to Downe. Now people understand why I say how local knowledge is important. Utter facts right here. It's starting to get annoying the same routes coming up again and again. There are lots of proposals coming up for the 143 & C11 - but when you look at things like links you can say "hey there's one thing here that connects it to the same place" but the truth is they are very busy in their current form and if they are so busy why change them? I think when some people propose, this is a creative forum but sometimes for simplicity it's better to introduce one than break 5 up and try and Frankenstein it to make new links. Example, the 268 is one that keeps on giving in terms of proposals, but the truth is there is nothing that would replace it well. The 240 comes up again and again as a replacement but it's not adequate due to the traffic it would encounter.
|
|
|
Post by busoccultation on Feb 26, 2021 14:25:15 GMT
I don’t think the 146 generally is the best choice to move out of the Bromley North terminal. Very difficult to know what could move out of Bromley North as most/all of the terminating routes are either lengthy (including the 138 which only terminates once, at Bromley North), or encounter significant traffic issues. A short extension of the 269 southwards is I think the best of a bad bunch. With Simpsons Road apparently available, sending the 269 or 227 down that way seems a fair suggestion and would help enormously with finding a space in a congested stand! While I'm not a local, but I do feel like the 269 is poorly served with the all the shops in the town centre when going back towards Bexleyheath compared to every other Bromley routes and it's quite a long walk for some to the Widmore Road / Kentish Way stop even from the northern parts of The Glade such as the Boots inside the shopping centre. Sending the 269 to the South would mean anyone who wants to go towards Bickley/Chislehurst wouldn't have to rely on the 162 for that.
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Feb 26, 2021 14:46:24 GMT
Ideas for route 166, due to the route being indirect and the irregular Epsom workings: Option A: 312 - When extended to Old Lodge Lane, diverted fully along the 455 routeing between Croydon and Purley 166 - Withdrawn, with no replacement between Purley and Croydon, following frequency increases to other routes along Brighton Road 359 - Extended from Purley to Banstead, but directly via Foxley Lane, Little Woodcote Lane and Croydon Lane 434 - Rerouted at Purley to terminate at Cane Hill 404 - Cut back to Coulsdon, and extended to Epsom Hospital via the 166 to Woodmansterne (plus a double run to Rickman Hill), then Woodmansterne Lane to Banstead (serving a new stretch of road) and the 166 to Epsom. Provides a regular service through to Epsom, with higher frequency but lower capacity vehicles. Option B: 410 - Rerouted to serve the 455 routeing around Beddington, retaining the Beddington-Croydon link (but continuing via Croydon Road to Wallington). S4 - Split route revised to operate between Banstead and Croydon, via the S1 to Belmont, S4 to Roundshaw, 455 to Croydon Road then the 410. To provide a more direct link between Banstead and Croydon, and introduce a new link from Belmont to Croydon. Could extend from Banstead to Epsom depending on the frequency. 166 - Could be reduced to operate between Banstead and Croydon only, or merged with the 359 to operate between Banstead and Addington. Basically trying to rewrite the two last consultations for the area. Prefer the TfL proposals if I am honest, too many routes made convoluted, slowing journies down.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Feb 26, 2021 15:42:34 GMT
Ideas for route 166, due to the route being indirect and the irregular Epsom workings: Option A: 312 - When extended to Old Lodge Lane, diverted fully along the 455 routeing between Croydon and Purley 166 - Withdrawn, with no replacement between Purley and Croydon, following frequency increases to other routes along Brighton Road 359 - Extended from Purley to Banstead, but directly via Foxley Lane, Little Woodcote Lane and Croydon Lane 434 - Rerouted at Purley to terminate at Cane Hill 404 - Cut back to Coulsdon, and extended to Epsom Hospital via the 166 to Woodmansterne (plus a double run to Rickman Hill), then Woodmansterne Lane to Banstead (serving a new stretch of road) and the 166 to Epsom. Provides a regular service through to Epsom, with higher frequency but lower capacity vehicles. Option B: 410 - Rerouted to serve the 455 routeing around Beddington, retaining the Beddington-Croydon link (but continuing via Croydon Road to Wallington). S4 - Split route revised to operate between Banstead and Croydon, via the S1 to Belmont, S4 to Roundshaw, 455 to Croydon Road then the 410. To provide a more direct link between Banstead and Croydon, and introduce a new link from Belmont to Croydon. Could extend from Banstead to Epsom depending on the frequency. 166 - Could be reduced to operate between Banstead and Croydon only, or merged with the 359 to operate between Banstead and Addington. Obviously, someone like YY13VKP and 725DYE can give a better insight but a lot of Option A sounds awful in all honestly - the link from Croydon beyond Coulsdon is severed and a much longer 404 service would be detrimental to the people living on the current routing especially as the 404 is purposefully designed to bring the residents from Old Coulsdon to either the Tesco at Caterham-On-The-Hill or to the shops and stations at Coulsdon. The 312 idea is probably the only one I can see a lot of logic in - it depends how much the roads around South Croydon require a link to West Croydon as then the 166 could keep it's current routing and leave the 312 to fully replace the 455 between Fairfield Halls & Old Lodge Lane instead. Regarding Option B, the 410 idea is a decent one providing something else takes over the 410 between Wallington & Croydon as I don't think the S4 is a good replacement for the 410's current section and I'm not sure if anyone from Belmont will require Croydon when Sutton is nearby and has a good enough range of shops. I see no need to mess with the 166, especially any idea of merging with the 359.
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Feb 26, 2021 15:42:49 GMT
Ideas for route 166, due to the route being indirect and the irregular Epsom workings: Option A: 312 - When extended to Old Lodge Lane, diverted fully along the 455 routeing between Croydon and Purley 166 - Withdrawn, with no replacement between Purley and Croydon, following frequency increases to other routes along Brighton Road 359 - Extended from Purley to Banstead, but directly via Foxley Lane, Little Woodcote Lane and Croydon Lane 434 - Rerouted at Purley to terminate at Cane Hill 404 - Cut back to Coulsdon, and extended to Epsom Hospital via the 166 to Woodmansterne (plus a double run to Rickman Hill), then Woodmansterne Lane to Banstead (serving a new stretch of road) and the 166 to Epsom. Provides a regular service through to Epsom, with higher frequency but lower capacity vehicles. Option B: 410 - Rerouted to serve the 455 routeing around Beddington, retaining the Beddington-Croydon link (but continuing via Croydon Road to Wallington). S4 - Split route revised to operate between Banstead and Croydon, via the S1 to Belmont, S4 to Roundshaw, 455 to Croydon Road then the 410. To provide a more direct link between Banstead and Croydon, and introduce a new link from Belmont to Croydon. Could extend from Banstead to Epsom depending on the frequency. 166 - Could be reduced to operate between Banstead and Croydon only, or merged with the 359 to operate between Banstead and Addington. This would cut lots of links and also lead to excess or inadequate freqeuencies on some corridors. It's very clear there is no local knowledge here. The TfL proposals are much better
|
|