|
|
Post by YX10FFN on Nov 19, 2021 1:21:41 GMT
An alternative is to extend the 417 to Anerley to create space from the south. It would be overkill to extend another route to Anerley - the stand has space for 5 vehicles and currently uses a maximum capacity of 4 as 2 249's & 2 432's are permitted at any one time but in order for the 417 to also go there, it would have to strictly be limited to one bus in only. Realistically, the only way a route from the south could stand at Palace currently is run the full length of the parade and turn around using the Fountain Drive roundabout and stand on the parade itself with the 3 & 227 Potentially the alighting point could be part converted to a stand to fit in one more bus? In terms of Palace, buses might as well go down to Fountain Drive to turn as when I last went there in the summer there were 4-5 buses standing on each side of the Parade, not just the 3 and 227 but 122s, 202s, even saw a curtailed 450 sat there, just queues all the way down the parade on both sides. Might one day be a queue all the way down to Fountain Drive! |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 19, 2021 1:26:00 GMT
It would be overkill to extend another route to Anerley - the stand has space for 5 vehicles and currently uses a maximum capacity of 4 as 2 249's & 2 432's are permitted at any one time but in order for the 417 to also go there, it would have to strictly be limited to one bus in only. Realistically, the only way a route from the south could stand at Palace currently is run the full length of the parade and turn around using the Fountain Drive roundabout and stand on the parade itself with the 3 & 227 Potentially the alighting point could be part converted to a stand to fit in one more bus? In terms of Palace, buses might as well go down to Fountain Drive to turn as when I last went there in the summer there were 4-5 buses standing on each side of the Parade, not just the 3 and 227 but 122s, 202s, even saw a curtailed 450 sat there, just queues all the way down the parade on both sides. Might one day be a queue all the way down to Fountain Drive! Interesting, not sure why the other routes were standing there, maybe works at the bus station or turned short? Officially, only the 3 & 227 should be standing on the parade these days - I'd imagine it would be very difficult to extend the bus station northwards with Crystal Palace Park surrounding it even if that part of the park is severely underused. |
|
|
|
Post by YX10FFN on Nov 19, 2021 1:31:02 GMT
Potentially the alighting point could be part converted to a stand to fit in one more bus? In terms of Palace, buses might as well go down to Fountain Drive to turn as when I last went there in the summer there were 4-5 buses standing on each side of the Parade, not just the 3 and 227 but 122s, 202s, even saw a curtailed 450 sat there, just queues all the way down the parade on both sides. Might one day be a queue all the way down to Fountain Drive! Interesting, not sure why the other routes were standing there, maybe works at the bus station or turned short? Officially, only the 3 & 227 should be standing on the parade these days - I'd imagine it would be very difficult to extend the bus station northwards with Crystal Palace Park surrounding it even if that part of the park is severely underused. Was probably something to do with the normal stand being full and buses waiting at the alighting point. With the frequency of the routes serving it the whole thing seems cramped especially at peaks. The 450 was facing Croydon so I assume it had turned via Fountain Drive even though its official curtailment stand should be within the bus station. |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Nov 19, 2021 9:37:28 GMT
I like the majority of the 494 proposal but I just don’t think other routes need to be diverted away in order for it to exist. It’s an interesting proposal and has had thought put into it even if I do disagree with it. There are a number of links on the 358 beyond some of the places you mention that would be broken as a result, again I’d personally leave it as it is. I understand why you diverted the 194 but as I stated previously, it now becomes a needless duplication of the 119 between Croydon & West Wickham IMO - you could for example, extend the 198 to Addington Village via West Way directly onto Shirley Church Road and start the 494 from Shrublands which would preserve existing links and still give Shrublands a link to Bromley. Of course, the big sticking point would be the width restriction at the village of Addington but would be nice if buses could get through Yes they could turn the fire gate on Shirley Church Road into a bus gate, which was the most likely solution I had thought of when looking at the obstacles to get a route through Addington, but as we have seen at Kingsbury with the 303, that's easier said than done. Or they could scrap the width limit altogether but the residents may not be happy about larger vehicles using the village as a rat run. I developed this route plan in consultation with a good friend of mine who lives in New Addington who said its often difficult or daunting for elderly residents to get across Kent Gate Way to use public transport at the interchange, and a bus route through the village would likely be welcomed, but nothing too extravagant. I don't really see why that width restriction is necessary, I can't imagine many lorries going through there if it was removed. I can understand elderly people having difficulty getting to the interchange and this new route would also give a useful link between New Addington and the Shirley and West Wickham area. |
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Nov 19, 2021 15:44:30 GMT
Yes they could turn the fire gate on Shirley Church Road into a bus gate, which was the most likely solution I had thought of when looking at the obstacles to get a route through Addington, but as we have seen at Kingsbury with the 303, that's easier said than done. Or they could scrap the width limit altogether but the residents may not be happy about larger vehicles using the village as a rat run. I developed this route plan in consultation with a good friend of mine who lives in New Addington who said its often difficult or daunting for elderly residents to get across Kent Gate Way to use public transport at the interchange, and a bus route through the village would likely be welcomed, but nothing too extravagant. I don't really see why that width restriction is necessary, I can't imagine many lorries going through there if it was removed. I can understand elderly people having difficulty getting to the interchange and this new route would also give a useful link between New Addington and the Shirley and West Wickham area. In regards to that link, many do speak about it, would it be better (perhaps in regards to costs) to withdraw the 353 between Coney Hall & Forestdale (433 diverted to double run round Courtwood Lane) and it diverted down said route (linking Shrublands to Addington Village) then going directly to New Addington? |
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Nov 19, 2021 15:52:22 GMT
I don't really see why that width restriction is necessary, I can't imagine many lorries going through there if it was removed. I can understand elderly people having difficulty getting to the interchange and this new route would also give a useful link between New Addington and the Shirley and West Wickham area. In regards to that link, many do speak about it, would it be better (perhaps in regards to costs) to withdraw the 353 between Coney Hall & Forestdale (433 diverted to double run round Courtwood Lane) and it diverted down said route (linking Shrublands to Addington Village) then going directly to New Addington? 353 .. what would be it's travel objective and who would actually use it? |
|
|
|
Post by YX10FFN on Nov 19, 2021 15:54:57 GMT
I don't really see why that width restriction is necessary, I can't imagine many lorries going through there if it was removed. I can understand elderly people having difficulty getting to the interchange and this new route would also give a useful link between New Addington and the Shirley and West Wickham area. In regards to that link, many do speak about it, would it be better (perhaps in regards to costs) to withdraw the 353 between Coney Hall & Forestdale (433 diverted to double run round Courtwood Lane) and it diverted down said route (linking Shrublands to Addington Village) then going directly to New Addington? That's a reasonable suggestion, one danger is you are potentially putting more pressure on the 314 by leaving it alone to the direct Hayes-Addington link. And I assume you would be cutting the 314 itself back to Addington Village and replacing that with the 353 in order to take that to New Addington (which is fine just wanted to clarify) |
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Nov 19, 2021 16:00:23 GMT
In regards to that link, many do speak about it, would it be better (perhaps in regards to costs) to withdraw the 353 between Coney Hall & Forestdale (433 diverted to double run round Courtwood Lane) and it diverted down said route (linking Shrublands to Addington Village) then going directly to New Addington? 353 .. what would be it's travel objective and who would actually use it? Well I'm only going off what greenboy stated about the link between N Addington and W Wickham/Shrublands but I do appreciate you know lots about the Addington area so perhaps I'll leave that to others lke you to comment on as to what to do. |
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Nov 19, 2021 16:07:15 GMT
In regards to that link, many do speak about it, would it be better (perhaps in regards to costs) to withdraw the 353 between Coney Hall & Forestdale (433 diverted to double run round Courtwood Lane) and it diverted down said route (linking Shrublands to Addington Village) then going directly to New Addington? That's a reasonable suggestion, one danger is you are potentially putting more pressure on the 314 by leaving it alone to the direct Hayes-Addington link. And I assume you would be cutting the 314 itself back to Addington Village and replacing that with the 353 in order to take that to New Addington (which is fine just wanted to clarify) No I didn't suggest cutting the 314 back.
|
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Nov 19, 2021 16:31:45 GMT
353 .. what would be it's travel objective and who would actually use it? Well I'm only going off what greenboy stated about the link between N Addington and W Wickham/Shrublands but I do appreciate you know lots about the Addington area so perhaps I'll leave that to others lke you to comment on as to what to do. My thinking would be that the 314 would be so much quicker from AVI to Coney Hall, so that section would really be restricted to local traffic, and there is not really what I would call a traffic objective on that section. Addington Village is also pretty small, and very much doubt it would generate much extra custom ... maybe wrong, but no longer know people that live there now ... generally keep away from this thread, so leave it there. |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Nov 19, 2021 17:39:07 GMT
I don't really see why that width restriction is necessary, I can't imagine many lorries going through there if it was removed. I can understand elderly people having difficulty getting to the interchange and this new route would also give a useful link between New Addington and the Shirley and West Wickham area. In regards to that link, many do speak about it, would it be better (perhaps in regards to costs) to withdraw the 353 between Coney Hall & Forestdale (433 diverted to double run round Courtwood Lane) and it diverted down said route (linking Shrublands to Addington Village) then going directly to New Addington? I see what you mean, the 433 would certainly be better for Courtwood Lane than the 353 but the 494 route suggested also has the benefit of replacing part of the 358 route which is then able to take a more direct route. |
|
|
|
Post by londonboy71 on Nov 19, 2021 21:36:47 GMT
New Route EH1
Ealing Broadway
South Ealing
Boston Manor
Ealing Hospital
Southall Station
Merrick Road
Norwood Green
Tentelow Lane
Windmill Lane
Osterley Tesco
New kinks from S Ealing to Ealing Hospital and Norwood Green
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 19, 2021 22:58:42 GMT
New Route EH1 Ealing Broadway South Ealing Boston Manor Ealing Hospital Southall Station Merrick Road Norwood Green Tentelow Lane Windmill Lane Osterley Tesco New kinks from S Ealing to Ealing Hospital and Norwood Green The restriction at Windmill Lane would sadly scupper such a route not to mention the bridge is designated a weak one with a 3T limit, however, there will eventually be a route from Ealing Broadway to Osterley Tesco via a different routing if the E1 extension happens |
|
|
|
Post by londonboy71 on Nov 20, 2021 21:40:05 GMT
New Route EH1 Ealing Broadway South Ealing Boston Manor Ealing Hospital Southall Station Merrick Road Norwood Green Tentelow Lane Windmill Lane Osterley Tesco New kinks from S Ealing to Ealing Hospital and Norwood Green The restriction at Windnot mill Lane would sadly scupper such a route not to mention the bridge is designated a weak one with a 3T limit, however, there will eventually be a route from Ealing Broadway to Osterley Tesco via a different routing if the E1 extension happens Not over the bridge.left turn from Tentelow Lane into Windmill Lane I'm very local so I know the road layout |
|
|
|
Post by londonboy71 on Nov 20, 2021 21:41:03 GMT
Sorry I meant right turn
|
|
