|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Oct 27, 2021 18:16:18 GMT
For 265, I personally would leave that one alone. By withdrawing between Putney Bridge and Barnes, it hampers links to Roehampton University. Not as bad if you are nearer to Southfields, Richmond, but quite devastating and FAR longer journey (seemly?) if you are an home student travelling from North/West London and want to avoid the train. I say this as an Roehampton graduate who fondly remembers commuting via Westminster to Roehampton back in the day, and this was when 72 was not brutally cut back. 
I can't comment on rest of Barnes/Putney/Wandsworth area as haven't properly ventured to give an opinion.
Both the 430 and 85 link Putney Bridge and Roehampton, being a stone's throw from the university The university is still a walk away from both of the 85 and 430 stops. What would disabled students do? They’d be forced to walk up the hill and then back down it on the other side which isn’t really fair on them. Also the 265 is convenient for Queens Mary’s which houses both major south London mental health facilities and rehab facilities for those who have lost limbs. I myself have used the 265 from both ends to Queen Mary’s and it would be a major loss. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2021 18:29:11 GMT
Both the 430 and 85 link Putney Bridge and Roehampton, being a stone's throw from the university The university is still a walk away from both of the 85 and 430 stops. What would disabled students do? They’d be forced to walk up the hill and then back down it on the other side which isn’t really fair on them. Also the 265 is convenient for Queens Mary’s which houses both major south London mental health facilities and rehab facilities for those who have lost limbs. I myself have used the 265 from both ends to Queen Mary’s and it would be a major loss. What about keeping the 265 as it is as far as Putney Bridge (south side), then extending it via my proposed 378 to Battersea Power station, leaving the 378 as it is. Would this affect the reliability of the 265? I think personally this wouldn't be too bad since there would still be access to the tube at East Putney from Roehampton University. Another option is to extend the 22 to Roehampton, Danebury Avenue via the 265, retaining the link from Roehampton Uni to Putney Bridge, or to retain the 209, but extend it to Roehampton Bessborough Avenue via Sheen Lane (giving that part of Mortlake a bus route besides the 969), South Circular Road, 419 to Roehampton. The 209 would be removed from Avondale Road. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Oct 27, 2021 18:47:29 GMT
The university is still a walk away from both of the 85 and 430 stops. What would disabled students do? They’d be forced to walk up the hill and then back down it on the other side which isn’t really fair on them. Also the 265 is convenient for Queens Mary’s which houses both major south London mental health facilities and rehab facilities for those who have lost limbs. I myself have used the 265 from both ends to Queen Mary’s and it would be a major loss. What about keeping the 265 as it is as far as Putney Bridge (south side), then extending it via my proposed 378 to Battersea Power station, leaving the 378 as it is. Would this affect the reliability of the 265? I think personally this wouldn't be too bad since there would still be access to the tube at East Putney from Roehampton University. Another option is to extend the 22 to Roehampton, Danebury Avenue via the 265, retaining the link from Roehampton Uni to Putney Bridge, or to retain the 209, but extend it to Roehampton Bessborough Avenue via Sheen Lane (giving that part of Mortlake a bus route besides the 969), South Circular Road, 419 to Roehampton. The 209 would be removed from Avondale Road. Extending the 265 isn’t feasible, at the moment the service is manageable on its current route via the A3 even through heavy traffic and accidents. Extending it would leave it very vulnerable to even more traffic hotspots. Believe it or not the Roehampton Asda to Roehampton University link is very popular with students, removing a direct journey without a break would be undesirable. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2021 18:48:29 GMT
What about keeping the 265 as it is as far as Putney Bridge (south side), then extending it via my proposed 378 to Battersea Power station, leaving the 378 as it is. Would this affect the reliability of the 265? I think personally this wouldn't be too bad since there would still be access to the tube at East Putney from Roehampton University. Another option is to extend the 22 to Roehampton, Danebury Avenue via the 265, retaining the link from Roehampton Uni to Putney Bridge, or to retain the 209, but extend it to Roehampton Bessborough Avenue via Sheen Lane (giving that part of Mortlake a bus route besides the 969), South Circular Road, 419 to Roehampton. The 209 would be removed from Avondale Road. Extending the 265 isn’t feasible, at the moment the service is manageable on its current route via the A3 even through heavy traffic and accidents. Extending it would leave it very vulnerable to even more traffic hotspots. Believe it or not the Roehampton Asda to Roehampton University link is very popular with students, removing a direct journey without a break would be undesirable. My proposed 265 would still serve both of those places |
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Oct 27, 2021 18:56:45 GMT
Extending the 265 isn’t feasible, at the moment the service is manageable on its current route via the A3 even through heavy traffic and accidents. Extending it would leave it very vulnerable to even more traffic hotspots. Believe it or not the Roehampton Asda to Roehampton University link is very popular with students, removing a direct journey without a break would be undesirable. My proposed 265 would still serve both of those places A Tolworth to Battersea route along the existing 265 route to Putney St Mary’s Church and then through Wandsworth would be too long. It would be massively vulnerable to traffic and just wouldn’t work. Then you have the issue of Putney Bridge Road being over-bussed so you really aren’t solving a problem in the area, merely shifting it elsewhere. Withdrawing the 270 wouldn’t work as it would be the only route to directly serve Putney Bridge from Wandsworth and adding the 265 to Putney high street and via East Putney would make it even longer and serve a massive U, not to mention adding more buses to Putney high street when TfL has reduced the numbers in recent years. I just don’t see how extending or altering the 265 would help when it manages as it is now. |
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Oct 27, 2021 19:13:40 GMT
Something I noticed is this thread is for new bus route ideas but the majority of suggestions are just bolting on sections to existing routes. We are really lucky to have a stable (Or did have until the cuts started) network in London and do wonder if changes are suggested for changes sake.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2021 19:30:55 GMT
My proposed 265 would still serve both of those places A Tolworth to Battersea route along the existing 265 route to Putney St Mary’s Church and then through Wandsworth would be too long. It would be massively vulnerable to traffic and just wouldn’t work. Then you have the issue of Putney Bridge Road being over-bussed so you really aren’t solving a problem in the area, merely shifting it elsewhere. Withdrawing the 270 wouldn’t work as it would be the only route to directly serve Putney Bridge from Wandsworth and adding the 265 to Putney high street and via East Putney would make it even longer and serve a massive U, not to mention adding more buses to Putney high street when TfL has reduced the numbers in recent years. I just don’t see how extending or altering the 265 would help when it manages as it is now. I never mentioned withdrawing the 270. I just wanted to create new links from Battersea Power station to places like Barnes and Putney. Perhaps the 265 isn't the right route to extend, maybe the 209 as it isn't too long. My 209 would be removed from Avondale Road and extended to Battersea via Sheen Lane, South Circular Road to Wandsworth, 44 to Battersea Park, 344 to Battersea Power station. The 87 and 156 could perhaps swap routes between Vauxhall and Wandsworth Road, with the former extended to Barnes Pond via the 37 to Putney, Putney High Street and 265 to Barnes Pond. The 39 would also be extended to Battersea Power station via route 344 to retain the link from Southfields to Battersea |
|
|
|
Post by LD71YLO (BE37054) on Oct 27, 2021 20:04:53 GMT
A Tolworth to Battersea route along the existing 265 route to Putney St Mary’s Church and then through Wandsworth would be too long. It would be massively vulnerable to traffic and just wouldn’t work. Then you have the issue of Putney Bridge Road being over-bussed so you really aren’t solving a problem in the area, merely shifting it elsewhere. Withdrawing the 270 wouldn’t work as it would be the only route to directly serve Putney Bridge from Wandsworth and adding the 265 to Putney high street and via East Putney would make it even longer and serve a massive U, not to mention adding more buses to Putney high street when TfL has reduced the numbers in recent years. I just don’t see how extending or altering the 265 would help when it manages as it is now. I never mentioned withdrawing the 270. I just wanted to create new links from Battersea Power station to places like Barnes and Putney. Perhaps the 265 isn't the right route to extend, maybe the 209 as it isn't too long. My 209 would be removed from Avondale Road and extended to Battersea via Sheen Lane, South Circular Road to Wandsworth, 44 to Battersea Park, 344 to Battersea Power station. The 87 and 156 could perhaps swap routes between Vauxhall and Wandsworth Road, with the former extended to Barnes Pond via the 37 to Putney, Putney High Street and 265 to Barnes Pond. The 39 would also be extended to Battersea Power station via route 344 to retain the link from Southfields to Battersea This shows how little you know about the network here! The 265 doesn't serve Barnes Pond. The extended 209 would be circuitous and face a massive traffic hotspot in East Sheen. It would be quicker to catch the 485 and change to the 156 (or 87 under that change). I also think your extended 87 would be too long and too high-frequency for the line of route it would take. Don't forget that it serves Whitehall and Parliament Square, two of the top traffic hotspots in London. Just stick with your proposal to extend the 378 and 306, with the 485 staying the same. The 378 would work well as a SD Battersea - Mortlake route, but does Barnes/Mortlake really need a Battersea Power Station link? |
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Oct 27, 2021 20:08:50 GMT
A Tolworth to Battersea route along the existing 265 route to Putney St Mary’s Church and then through Wandsworth would be too long. It would be massively vulnerable to traffic and just wouldn’t work. Then you have the issue of Putney Bridge Road being over-bussed so you really aren’t solving a problem in the area, merely shifting it elsewhere. Withdrawing the 270 wouldn’t work as it would be the only route to directly serve Putney Bridge from Wandsworth and adding the 265 to Putney high street and via East Putney would make it even longer and serve a massive U, not to mention adding more buses to Putney high street when TfL has reduced the numbers in recent years. I just don’t see how extending or altering the 265 would help when it manages as it is now. I never mentioned withdrawing the 270. I just wanted to create new links from Battersea Power station to places like Barnes and Putney. Perhaps the 265 isn't the right route to extend, maybe the 209 as it isn't too long. My 209 would be removed from Avondale Road and extended to Battersea via Sheen Lane, South Circular Road to Wandsworth, 44 to Battersea Park, 344 to Battersea Power station. The 87 and 156 could perhaps swap routes between Vauxhall and Wandsworth Road, with the former extended to Barnes Pond via the 37 to Putney, Putney High Street and 265 to Barnes Pond. The 39 would also be extended to Battersea Power station via route 344 to retain the link from Southfields to Battersea Again adding more unnecessary buses to Putney High Street which is already packed with traffic and often congested. You want to add two routes to the junction with Upper Richmond Road, a junction often besotted with extreme congestion. Regarding the 87 I’m not even sure that LTs would fit around the Barnes Pond turnaround and I just don’t agree with your proposed swapping of the 87 and 156 routings, it just seems unnecessary and the 39/156 serve different parts of Southfields with neither meeting until after the mini roundabout at the junction of Granville Road and Merton Road so I’m not sure what links from Southfields you are referring to. I’m also confused as to why there would need to be another link over the 344s routing when it is sufficient and already has the 44 supporting on most of the route and easy interchanges from other routes to both the 44 and 344 already. I’m sorry but when there is already so many routes provided from Battersea to Clapham including numerous rail links your plans don’t make much sense. |
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Oct 27, 2021 20:13:31 GMT
440: Withdrawn between Harrow Road and Wembley Stadium. Diverted to Sudbury Town via route 18 to Wembley, route 83 to Alperton, Bridgewater Road and Station Approach. To link Ealing Road and Wembley Central with Central Middlesex Hospital and providing a round a corner link between Bridgewater Road and Ealing Road. What are you going to replace the 440 with? I'd suggest the H17 could go there or even as far as Brent Park Tesco to give Harrow a link to Brent Park, though I wouldn't send the 440 to Sudbury via Alperton, it just seems too long. Also this might overbus Wembley High Road. Another option is to extend the 223 to Sudbury Town via your proposed 440 extension, leave the 440 as it is and extend the H17 to CMH via the 440 It was apart of bigger plan that I didn’t mention. I was going to reroute the 18 to Wembley Stadium in the 440’s place. Then have a new express route X18 running between Harrow and Euston via route 182 and 18 to maintain links. I suppose the H17 could be rerouted between Whitton Avenue East and Wembley via Ealing Road and Bridgwater Road. Extended to Central Middlesex Hospital via the 83 to Wembley Triangle and 440 to Central Middlesex Hospital. Also extending it from Harrow to Northwick Park Hospital via 183 to Northwick Park Roundabout and H9 to Northwick Park Hospital. To link Sudbury Hill with Northwick Park Hospital. Then extend the 223 to Westway Cross Retail Park via the H17 to Whitton Avenue East and Greenford Road. To create new links and to maintain a link between Chaplin Road and Harrow. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2021 20:24:40 GMT
I never mentioned withdrawing the 270. I just wanted to create new links from Battersea Power station to places like Barnes and Putney. Perhaps the 265 isn't the right route to extend, maybe the 209 as it isn't too long. My 209 would be removed from Avondale Road and extended to Battersea via Sheen Lane, South Circular Road to Wandsworth, 44 to Battersea Park, 344 to Battersea Power station. The 87 and 156 could perhaps swap routes between Vauxhall and Wandsworth Road, with the former extended to Barnes Pond via the 37 to Putney, Putney High Street and 265 to Barnes Pond. The 39 would also be extended to Battersea Power station via route 344 to retain the link from Southfields to Battersea The 265 doesn't serve Barnes Pond. Just stick with your proposal to extend the 378 and 306, with the 485 staying the same. The 378 would work well as a SD Battersea - Mortlake route, but does Barnes/Mortlake really need a Battersea Power Station link? In regards to your first point, I meant the 485. In regards to your second point, it would create new links from Battersea Power station |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2021 20:28:29 GMT
I never mentioned withdrawing the 270. I just wanted to create new links from Battersea Power station to places like Barnes and Putney. Perhaps the 265 isn't the right route to extend, maybe the 209 as it isn't too long. My 209 would be removed from Avondale Road and extended to Battersea via Sheen Lane, South Circular Road to Wandsworth, 44 to Battersea Park, 344 to Battersea Power station. The 87 and 156 could perhaps swap routes between Vauxhall and Wandsworth Road, with the former extended to Barnes Pond via the 37 to Putney, Putney High Street and 265 to Barnes Pond. The 39 would also be extended to Battersea Power station via route 344 to retain the link from Southfields to Battersea Again adding more unnecessary buses to Putney High Street which is already packed with traffic and often congested. You want to add two routes to the junction with Upper Richmond Road, a junction often besotted with extreme congestion. Regarding the 87 I’m not even sure that LTs would fit around the Barnes Pond turnaround and I just don’t agree with your proposed swapping of the 87 and 156 routings, it just seems unnecessary and the 39/156 serve different parts of Southfields with neither meeting until after the mini roundabout at the junction of Granville Road and Merton Road so I’m not sure what links from Southfields you are referring to. I’m also confused as to why there would need to be another link over the 344s routing when it is sufficient and already has the 44 supporting on most of the route and easy interchanges from other routes to both the 44 and 344 already. I’m sorry but when there is already so many routes provided from Battersea to Clapham including numerous rail links your plans don’t make much sense. Because I want to link Barnes with Battersea. If the 378 also went via the 485 between Putney and Wandsworth it would go pretty near the Wandsworth RIverside Quarter development, perhaps there could be a link between there and Battersea Power? |
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Oct 27, 2021 20:41:08 GMT
Again adding more unnecessary buses to Putney High Street which is already packed with traffic and often congested. You want to add two routes to the junction with Upper Richmond Road, a junction often besotted with extreme congestion. Regarding the 87 I’m not even sure that LTs would fit around the Barnes Pond turnaround and I just don’t agree with your proposed swapping of the 87 and 156 routings, it just seems unnecessary and the 39/156 serve different parts of Southfields with neither meeting until after the mini roundabout at the junction of Granville Road and Merton Road so I’m not sure what links from Southfields you are referring to. I’m also confused as to why there would need to be another link over the 344s routing when it is sufficient and already has the 44 supporting on most of the route and easy interchanges from other routes to both the 44 and 344 already. I’m sorry but when there is already so many routes provided from Battersea to Clapham including numerous rail links your plans don’t make much sense. Because I want to link Barnes with Battersea. If the 378 also went via the 485 between Putney and Wandsworth it would go pretty near the Wandsworth RIverside Quarter development, perhaps there could be a link between there and Battersea Power? Why is it needed when the residents of Barnes are far more likely to just take the train and there are already enough links to do the journey with only one interchange. So tell me if you added the 378 to Putney Bridge Road what would you sacrifice to ensure it isn’t over-bussed whilst maintaining both the 220 and 270, both of which are vital links to Putney Bridge. Reducing them in frequency isn’t an option as then the other parts of the routes would suffer. Adding the 378 to Putney High Street also isn’t an option, so what are you prepared to cut? Really just extending the operating hours of the 485 and adding the double run to Riverside would mean that Barnes to Battersea would be doable within the hopper fare, no 378 required to indulge you. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2021 20:53:38 GMT
Because I want to link Barnes with Battersea. If the 378 also went via the 485 between Putney and Wandsworth it would go pretty near the Wandsworth RIverside Quarter development, perhaps there could be a link between there and Battersea Power? Why is it needed when the residents of Barnes are far more likely to just take the train and there are already enough links to do the journey with only one interchange. So tell me if you added the 378 to Putney Bridge Road what would you sacrifice to ensure it isn’t over-bussed whilst maintaining both the 220 and 270, both of which are vital links to Putney Bridge. Reducing them in frequency isn’t an option as then the other parts of the routes would suffer. Adding the 378 to Putney High Street also isn’t an option, so what are you prepared to cut? Really just extending the operating hours of the 485 and adding the double run to Riverside would mean that Barnes to Battersea would be doable within the hopper fare, no 378 required to indulge you. Either: Route the 378 via Putney High Street and South Circular to Wandsworth, then on my proposed route to Battersea, whilst cutting the 74 to Putney Bridge (people can change onto a 430). Or extend the 485 to Battersea via my proposed 378 extension. It would either serve Putney High Street and South Circular, or via its current route with the double run at Riverside. No other routes would change in frequency or route length. Out of those two proposals, I think the latter is more favourable because it results in minimal disruption. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Oct 27, 2021 21:00:11 GMT
Why is it needed when the residents of Barnes are far more likely to just take the train and there are already enough links to do the journey with only one interchange. So tell me if you added the 378 to Putney Bridge Road what would you sacrifice to ensure it isn’t over-bussed whilst maintaining both the 220 and 270, both of which are vital links to Putney Bridge. Reducing them in frequency isn’t an option as then the other parts of the routes would suffer. Adding the 378 to Putney High Street also isn’t an option, so what are you prepared to cut? Really just extending the operating hours of the 485 and adding the double run to Riverside would mean that Barnes to Battersea would be doable within the hopper fare, no 378 required to indulge you. Either: Route the 378 via Putney High Street and South Circular to Wandsworth, then on my proposed route to Battersea, whilst cutting the 74 to Putney Bridge (people can change onto a 430). Or extend the 485 to Battersea via my proposed 378 extension. It would either serve Putney High Street and South Circular, or via its current route with the double run at Riverside. No other routes would change in frequency or route length. Out of those two proposals, I think the latter is more favourable because it results in minimal disruption. You’re missing the point that there really doesn’t need to be another route between Clapham and Battersea, least of all a low frequency service just to satisfy your need for a direct link. Even then Putney High Street does not need another route even if you cut the 74 which would have nowhere to stand at the Putney Bridge stands are packed. You need to let it go and realise it just isn’t feasible when a simple 485 operating hour extension and a double run solves your determination for an unnecessary Barnes to Battersea link. |
|
