|
Post by COBO on Jun 23, 2021 7:23:17 GMT
143: withdrawn between during Monday to Friday daytime between Hendon Central and Brent Cross Shopping Centre. 143D and 643: Discontined. 443: a new route running between Brent Cross and Archway. Via route 143 to Hendon Lane, Gravel Hill, East End Road, High Road East Finchley and route 143 to Archway. It's a double deck route that runs Monday to Friday during the daytime to support the 143. This route was inspired by the 143A. Once again, you're overcomplicating an issue that can easily be solved by decking the 143. In this proposal you have not addressed the 143 overcrowding problems from Brent Cross on the weekends, how would you address this? Your proposal doesn't solve many problems But the issue can’t be solved by decking the 143 because what are you going to do about the residents that are objecting the 143 from being double decked and the other problem is that can a double decker go fully down the whole 143 without any restrictions. To solve the weekend overcrowding then I have the 443 become a daily route.
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Jun 23, 2021 7:41:56 GMT
Personally don't think there would be much demand for the 330 to Canary Wharf - You have both the DLR and Jubilee Line from Canning Town and two bus stops on from Canning Bus Station you can change buses at All Saints for the D6, D7, D8 all which serve Canary Wharf. I would much prefer the 15 extended back to Canning Town provide better westbound links but this will never happen.
Why not extend either the D7 to Canning Town it’s not extended that far and could probably cope with the same or +2 frequency which could be sourced once the 180 moves to stagecoach? The D7 is already a around the houses route and don't see what major benefits a Canning Town to Canary Wharf route brings especially with the DLR and Tube plus 115 is only two stops away from where the D7 terminates towards All Saints.
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Jun 23, 2021 8:04:05 GMT
With excess capacity on the 353 to Forestdale, could the 359 even extend there, with a double run maintained to Addington Interchange? Though part of the idea of extending the 464 would be link Forestdale to the shops at New Addington, as previously covered by the T31. In either case, a 2bhp SD service might be more appropriate than 3bhp DD. With the 359, I also thought a short extension from Purley could be useful, in place of the 439 proposal. The 359 could extend to serve the Higher Drive area, keeping the lower-capacity 434 via Northwood Drive. For the Waddon section of the 439, a frequency increase or DD conversion on the 289 would be sufficient, with interchange between routes at Purley if needed. Would an extension of the 433 to Orpington be out of the question? Completely out of the question. Would add too much running time and wouldn’t cope with school loadings as a single deck route that has to remain single deck (resident objections in Selsdon Vale). Not even slightly viable.
|
|
|
Post by VMH2537 on Jun 23, 2021 8:28:22 GMT
143: withdrawn between during Monday to Friday daytime between Hendon Central and Brent Cross Shopping Centre. 143D and 643: Discontined. 443: a new route running between Brent Cross and Archway. Via route 143 to Hendon Lane, Gravel Hill, East End Road, High Road East Finchley and route 143 to Archway. It's a double deck route that runs Monday to Friday during the daytime to support the 143. This route was inspired by the 143A. Once again, you're overcomplicating an issue that can easily be solved by decking the 143. In this proposal you have not addressed the 143 overcrowding problems from Brent Cross on the weekends, how would you address this? Your proposal doesn't solve many problems Does TFL need a consultation if they want to deck the route?
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Jun 23, 2021 8:29:17 GMT
Would an extension of the 433 to Orpington be out of the question? Completely out of the question. Would add too much running time and wouldn’t cope with school loadings as a single deck route that has to remain single deck (resident objections in Selsdon Vale). Not even slightly viable. I wouldn't say that was totally out of the question but I think a much better option (and I think this should have done in 2000) is to keep the 353 going to Croydon but via the current 466 route and the 466 never extended to Addington. The Forestdale bit could be covered by a double run of the 433.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jun 23, 2021 9:16:07 GMT
Completely out of the question. Would add too much running time and wouldn’t cope with school loadings as a single deck route that has to remain single deck (resident objections in Selsdon Vale). Not even slightly viable. I wouldn't say that was totally out of the question but I think a much better option (and I think this should have done in 2000) is to keep the 353 going to Croydon but via the current 466 route and the 466 never extended to Addington. The Forestdale bit could be covered by a double run of the 433. Plus the 353s freq at the time (4 bph using SDs) would have matched demand better then the 466.
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Jun 23, 2021 9:46:46 GMT
Completely out of the question. Would add too much running time and wouldn’t cope with school loadings as a single deck route that has to remain single deck (resident objections in Selsdon Vale). Not even slightly viable. I wouldn't say that was totally out of the question but I think a much better option (and I think this should have done in 2000) is to keep the 353 going to Croydon but via the current 466 route and the 466 never extended to Addington. The Forestdale bit could be covered by a double run of the 433. Is the 353 really needed. Who wants to travel from New Addington to Orpington? Not many. Agreed, double run the 433 along Courtwood Lane will boost usage along that section, in the same way the 353 killed it off. To me I would curtail the 353 at Hayes Station.
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Jun 23, 2021 10:05:40 GMT
I wouldn't say that was totally out of the question but I think a much better option (and I think this should have done in 2000) is to keep the 353 going to Croydon but via the current 466 route and the 466 never extended to Addington. The Forestdale bit could be covered by a double run of the 433. Is the 353 really needed. Who wants to travel from New Addington to Orpington? Not many. Agreed, double run the 433 along Courtwood Lane will boost usage along that section, in the same way the 353 killed it off. To me I would curtail the 353 at Hayes Station. I think you're right, there's not much need for the 353 in its current form and even the reduced x 20 minutes headway is generous, shame as I remember it being quite well used when it went to Croydon. Either return it to Croydon instead of the 466 or cut it back to Hayes as you suggested.
|
|
|
Post by aaron1 on Jun 23, 2021 12:17:14 GMT
16 316 332 changes
16 extend to Wembley Park via 245 but runs pass Gladstone Park
316 extend to Brent Park Tesco via 332 but runs Gladstone Park
332 extend to Earl's Court, Tesco via 94 to Notting Hill Gate then via 27 to Holland Road then to Earl's Court, Tesco via 49
So Gladstone Park and and Crest road will have 3 buses each
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2021 13:30:40 GMT
16 316 332 changes 16 extend to Wembley Park via 245 but runs pass Gladstone Park 316 extend to Brent Park Tesco via 332 but runs Gladstone Park 332 extend to Earl's Court, Tesco via 94 to Notting Hill Gate then via 27 to Holland Road then to Earl's Court, Tesco via 49 So Gladstone Park and and Crest road will have 3 buses each Don't see the point of the 332 extension and route 49 doesn't serve Earl's Court
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 23, 2021 13:46:42 GMT
16 316 332 changes 16 extend to Wembley Park via 245 but runs pass Gladstone Park 316 extend to Brent Park Tesco via 332 but runs Gladstone Park 332 extend to Earl's Court, Tesco via 94 to Notting Hill Gate then via 27 to Holland Road then to Earl's Court, Tesco via 49 So Gladstone Park and and Crest road will have 3 buses each Earl's Court, Tesco stand is only big enough for the C3 which can have two buses on stand quite often.
|
|
|
Post by Paul on Jun 23, 2021 15:27:09 GMT
Is the 353 really needed. Who wants to travel from New Addington to Orpington? Not many. Agreed, double run the 433 along Courtwood Lane will boost usage along that section, in the same way the 353 killed it off. To me I would curtail the 353 at Hayes Station. I think you're right, there's not much need for the 353 in its current form and even the reduced x 20 minutes headway is generous, shame as I remember it being quite well used when it went to Croydon. Either return it to Croydon instead of the 466 or cut it back to Hayes as you suggested. Terminating a regular service at Hayes Station wouldn’t work. Coney Hall might work if you created a new stand on the Croydon Road spur that the 138/246 use
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 23, 2021 16:29:04 GMT
I wouldn't say that was totally out of the question but I think a much better option (and I think this should have done in 2000) is to keep the 353 going to Croydon but via the current 466 route and the 466 never extended to Addington. The Forestdale bit could be covered by a double run of the 433. Is the 353 really needed. Who wants to travel from New Addington to Orpington? Not many. Agreed, double run the 433 along Courtwood Lane will boost usage along that section, in the same way the 353 killed it off. To me I would curtail the 353 at Hayes Station. Is the 353 really needed. Who wants to travel from New Addington to Orpington? Not many. Agreed, double run the 433 along Courtwood Lane will boost usage along that section, in the same way the 353 killed it off. To me I would curtail the 353 at Hayes Station. I think you're right, there's not much need for the 353 in its current form and even the reduced x 20 minutes headway is generous, shame as I remember it being quite well used when it went to Croydon. Either return it to Croydon instead of the 466 or cut it back to Hayes as you suggested. Whilst I agree that the 353 should never of been diverted into Forestdale, terminating it at Hayes (or even at Coney Hall) would surely be the end of the route? Not a great advert for public transport that would be and a home run for car usage. Surely, it would be better to restructure the route, maybe explore a new link for it east of Hayes like diverting it to Shrublands via Glebe Way & West Wickham and increase it back to 15 minutes - the cut to 20 has surely put off many regulars anywhere as people vote with their feet.
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Jun 23, 2021 16:42:46 GMT
Once again, you're overcomplicating an issue that can easily be solved by decking the 143. In this proposal you have not addressed the 143 overcrowding problems from Brent Cross on the weekends, how would you address this? Your proposal doesn't solve many problems But the issue can’t be solved by decking the 143 because what are you going to do about the residents that are objecting the 143 from being double decked and the other problem is that can a double decker go fully down the whole 143 without any restrictions. To solve the weekend overcrowding then I have the 443 become a daily route. Yes a double decker can go down the 143s full route it's been mentioned on here before. If I was in charge I'd tell the residents to deal with it and there are much worse problems in the world (harsh I know) Money is not unlimited so having a 143/443 is an absolute no, I'd much rather if money was to be spent locally that it be used on opening up brand new links such as to and from the Royal Free or even use that money to imburse routes like the 251 with a capacity increase.
Once again, this debate has been done to death and unless TFL has a magic money tree I cannot see them introducing two near identical routes side by side. Plus you leave the overcrowding Finchley High Street section to the 143 which is single decker (which is far busier than down past Holmwood Gardens) so you aren't solving any problems there.
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Jun 23, 2021 16:47:22 GMT
But the issue can’t be solved by decking the 143 because what are you going to do about the residents that are objecting the 143 from being double decked and the other problem is that can a double decker go fully down the whole 143 without any restrictions. To solve the weekend overcrowding then I have the 443 become a daily route. Yes a double decker can go down the 143s full route it's been mentioned on here before. If I was in charge I'd tell the residents to deal with it and there are much worse problems in the world (harsh I know) Money is not unlimited so having a 143/443 is an absolute no, I'd much rather if money was to be spent locally that it be used on opening up brand new links such as to and from the Royal Free or even use that money to imburse routes like the 251 with a capacity increase.
Once again, this debate has been done to death and unless TFL has a magic money tree I cannot see them introducing two near identical routes side by side. Plus you leave the overcrowding Finchley High Street section to the 143 which is single decker (which is far busier than down past Holmwood Gardens) so you aren't solving any problems there.
You don’t know what TfL are planing to do and confirmed it?
|
|