|
Post by LD71YLO (BE37054) on Dec 14, 2021 19:29:57 GMT
These proposals are obviously well thought through but there's a few issues I've identified. - Think the 33 and 371 will become too long from these changes. The 33 is slammed with Upper Richmond Road and you're adding to that Fulwell, Hampton Hill and a pretty indirect route in Hampton. The 371 also has plenty of delays in its current form to deal with, and you're adding to that Hogarth Roundabout and Chiswick High Road. - The 190 change wouldn't really be worth it, as by and large you're putting it along established corridors that cater for their demand well at the moment in the 195 and 267. Also the new roads in West Ealing are not wide enough for buses, particularly Raymond Avenue/Woodstock Avenue. - If I remember correctly the H28 proposal received serious backlash at its initial release. Also you're leaving Wood Lane unserved. - I don't think the problem with the 27's low demand to CBP was the lack of a bus stop at the southern entrance, it was that the links east of the park were already covered by the District Line, so most park employees would just make the short walk to Gunnersbury Station. The park is already roughly linked with the Acton/East Acton area from the 70 so this wouldn't be providing much new. - Whilst I agree that the 110 probably needs to be looked at again regarding length/reliability, imo rerouting it to Grove Park is not the solution. Grove Park is already linked to Richmond by the 190 so all this would provide is a link to Kew Bridge (where Chiswick Station is served by the same line anyway) and a new link to Kew which I don't think would receive enough patronage. - I don't mind the idea of the 437/493 changes, however there is a possibility of overcrowding on the less frequent 437 serving the busy Roehampton-East Sheen link. I'd probably up the frequency to 12 during peaks and 15 all other times. I'd also rather the 437 serve St Margarets, which whilst duplicating the H37 to Isleworth would still create new links. First and second points: maybe I should just leave the 33/190/371/R70. Could the 33 go elsewhere other than Hampton as the 421 would take on the Waldegrave Road area? Could it terminate in Twickenham somewhere? Third point: Could the H28 and 437 both stand at Osterley? If not, an alternative could be to find space at WMH if there is any or extend the 437 itself to Brentford. Fourth point: It was removed due to people wanting it there overbussing. An 8bph DD is a totally different story to a 4bph SD. Fifth point: The 190 is 700 or so metres away from the closest part of Grove Park so not really the case. Sixth point: Go ahead and increase the frequency. I think it should run over Twickenham Bridge as it would serve closer to Pools on the Park, but then this could be served by a diverted R70 if it were to be retained.
|
|
|
Post by YX10FFN on Dec 14, 2021 19:39:19 GMT
These proposals are obviously well thought through but there's a few issues I've identified. - Think the 33 and 371 will become too long from these changes. The 33 is slammed with Upper Richmond Road and you're adding to that Fulwell, Hampton Hill and a pretty indirect route in Hampton. The 371 also has plenty of delays in its current form to deal with, and you're adding to that Hogarth Roundabout and Chiswick High Road. - The 190 change wouldn't really be worth it, as by and large you're putting it along established corridors that cater for their demand well at the moment in the 195 and 267. Also the new roads in West Ealing are not wide enough for buses, particularly Raymond Avenue/Woodstock Avenue. - If I remember correctly the H28 proposal received serious backlash at its initial release. Also you're leaving Wood Lane unserved. - I don't think the problem with the 27's low demand to CBP was the lack of a bus stop at the southern entrance, it was that the links east of the park were already covered by the District Line, so most park employees would just make the short walk to Gunnersbury Station. The park is already roughly linked with the Acton/East Acton area from the 70 so this wouldn't be providing much new. - Whilst I agree that the 110 probably needs to be looked at again regarding length/reliability, imo rerouting it to Grove Park is not the solution. Grove Park is already linked to Richmond by the 190 so all this would provide is a link to Kew Bridge (where Chiswick Station is served by the same line anyway) and a new link to Kew which I don't think would receive enough patronage. - I don't mind the idea of the 437/493 changes, however there is a possibility of overcrowding on the less frequent 437 serving the busy Roehampton-East Sheen link. I'd probably up the frequency to 12 during peaks and 15 all other times. I'd also rather the 437 serve St Margarets, which whilst duplicating the H37 to Isleworth would still create new links. First and second points: maybe I should just leave the 33/190/371/R70. Could the 33 go elsewhere other than Hampton as the 421 would take on the Waldegrave Road area? Could it terminate in Twickenham somewhere? Third point: Could the H28 and 437 both stand at Osterley? If not, an alternative could be to find space at WMH if there is any or extend the 437 itself to Brentford. Fourth point: It was removed due to people wanting it there overbussing. An 8bph DD is a totally different story to a 4bph SD. Fifth point: The 190 is 700 or so metres away from the closest part of Grove Park so not really the case. Sixth point: Go ahead and increase the frequency. I think it should run over Twickenham Bridge as it would serve closer to Pools on the Park, but then this could be served by a diverted R70 if it were to be retained. I wasn’t talking about the reason the 27 was removed, but throughout its time running to CBP it suffered embarrassingly low demand. This is due to the reason I mentioned. The removal of the 27 along Chiswick High Road is another subject. The Pools on the Park stub is so underused that you could remove it tomorrow and people wouldn’t care. There’s plenty more demand in St Margaret’s, especially as that’s the busy core of the H37. The 437, whilst being less frequent than the H37 so over busing wouldn’t be an issue, would support it to Richmond and Isleworth, whilst providing a new direct link to WMH and the mega Tesco at Osterley.
|
|
|
Post by LD71YLO (BE37054) on Dec 14, 2021 20:30:30 GMT
First and second points: maybe I should just leave the 33/190/371/R70. Could the 33 go elsewhere other than Hampton as the 421 would take on the Waldegrave Road area? Could it terminate in Twickenham somewhere? Third point: Could the H28 and 437 both stand at Osterley? If not, an alternative could be to find space at WMH if there is any or extend the 437 itself to Brentford. Fourth point: It was removed due to people wanting it there overbussing. An 8bph DD is a totally different story to a 4bph SD. Fifth point: The 190 is 700 or so metres away from the closest part of Grove Park so not really the case. Sixth point: Go ahead and increase the frequency. I think it should run over Twickenham Bridge as it would serve closer to Pools on the Park, but then this could be served by a diverted R70 if it were to be retained. I wasn’t talking about the reason the 27 was removed, but throughout its time running to CBP it suffered embarrassingly low demand. This is due to the reason I mentioned. The removal of the 27 along Chiswick High Road is another subject. The Pools on the Park stub is so underused that you could remove it tomorrow and people wouldn’t care. There’s plenty more demand in St Margaret’s, especially as that’s the busy core of the H37. The 437, whilst being less frequent than the H37 so over busing wouldn’t be an issue, would support it to Richmond and Isleworth, whilst providing a new direct link to WMH and the mega Tesco at Osterley. Good idea. So, how about this: 33/R70 - As now 190/371 - As now 437/493 - 437 diverted via St Margarets, 493 as per original 378/419/485 - As per original plan? 110/272/440 - 440 as per original then extended to Grove Park, 272 rerouted via Wellesley Road, 110 as now 281/421 - As now? N22/N27/N33 - N33 withdrawal, N27 extended via 33 full way, N22 as now H28 - As now 490 - As per original plan
|
|
|
Post by YX10FFN on Dec 14, 2021 21:13:34 GMT
I wasn’t talking about the reason the 27 was removed, but throughout its time running to CBP it suffered embarrassingly low demand. This is due to the reason I mentioned. The removal of the 27 along Chiswick High Road is another subject. The Pools on the Park stub is so underused that you could remove it tomorrow and people wouldn’t care. There’s plenty more demand in St Margaret’s, especially as that’s the busy core of the H37. The 437, whilst being less frequent than the H37 so over busing wouldn’t be an issue, would support it to Richmond and Isleworth, whilst providing a new direct link to WMH and the mega Tesco at Osterley. Good idea. So, how about this: 33/R70 - As now 190/371 - As now 437/493 - 437 diverted via St Margarets, 493 as per original 378/419/485 - As per original plan? 110/272/440 - 440 as per original then extended to Grove Park, 272 rerouted via Wellesley Road, 110 as now 281/421 - As now? N22/N27/N33 - N33 withdrawal, N27 extended via 33 full way, N22 as now H28 - As now 490 - As per original plan Where would the 272 terminate? There's some merit to the 281/421 idea but if I'm honest the 281 works really well as it is between Twickenham and Hounslow. Whilst you may not be breaking links you are switching things around quite heavily which could confuse and frustrate passengers. Even before the bridge closure the 33 wasn't heavily used at night, the only reason the N33 exists is to serve East Sheen. If we are using the N27 to replace the N33 I'd probably leave it at Richmond given the N27's other responsibilities and let the N22 work Richmond-Twickenham-Fulwell by itself. Fulwell is walking distance from Teddington and you can get the 281 from Twickenham.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2021 10:51:49 GMT
Routes 21, 73 and 476
Option 1: 476 - extended to Oxford Circus via 73.
73 - day route withdrawn
21 - extended to Stoke Newington via 73. Cut back to New Cross Gate. Routes 53 and 453 still link Lewisham as far as Bricklayers Arms.
Reasons: To merge 73 and 476
Option 2: 476 - as above
73 - withdrawn between Oxford Circus and King's Cross, but extended to Walthamstow via route N73. Night route to be renumbered 73 (24 hour service). Reason: to provide Blackhorse Road with a day link to central London, and to link Stoke Newington and Walthamstow in the day.
21 - retained as it is.
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Dec 15, 2021 11:02:00 GMT
Routes 21, 73 and 476 Option 1: 476 - extended to Oxford Circus via 73. 73 - day route withdrawn 21 - extended to Stoke Newington via 73. Cut back to New Cross Gate. Routes 53 and 453 still link Lewisham as far as Bricklayers Arms. Reasons: To merge 73 and 476 Option 2: 476 - as above 73 - withdrawn between Oxford Circus and King's Cross, but extended to Walthamstow via route N73. Night route to be renumbered 73 (24 hour service). Reason: to provide Blackhorse Road with a day link to central London, and to link Stoke Newington and Walthamstow in the day. 21 - retained as it is. 73 & 476 has been suggested numerous times too.
|
|
|
Post by rjbarrett5 on Dec 15, 2021 11:15:25 GMT
Routes 21, 73 and 476 Option 1: 476 - extended to Oxford Circus via 73. 73 - day route withdrawn 21 - extended to Stoke Newington via 73. Cut back to New Cross Gate. Routes 53 and 453 still link Lewisham as far as Bricklayers Arms. Reasons: To merge 73 and 476 Option 2: 476 - as above 73 - withdrawn between Oxford Circus and King's Cross, but extended to Walthamstow via route N73. Night route to be renumbered 73 (24 hour service). Reason: to provide Blackhorse Road with a day link to central London, and to link Stoke Newington and Walthamstow in the day. 21 - retained as it is. Lewisham Way will suffer from a 21 curtailment. The corridor arguably needs another route, and due to the 436 diversion doesn’t have a link north of the river.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2021 11:30:52 GMT
Routes 21, 73 and 476 Option 1: 476 - extended to Oxford Circus via 73. 73 - day route withdrawn 21 - extended to Stoke Newington via 73. Cut back to New Cross Gate. Routes 53 and 453 still link Lewisham as far as Bricklayers Arms. Reasons: To merge 73 and 476 Option 2: 476 - as above 73 - withdrawn between Oxford Circus and King's Cross, but extended to Walthamstow via route N73. Night route to be renumbered 73 (24 hour service). Reason: to provide Blackhorse Road with a day link to central London, and to link Stoke Newington and Walthamstow in the day. 21 - retained as it is. Lewisham Way will suffer from a 21 curtailment. The corridor arguably needs another route, and due to the 436 diversion doesn’t have a link north of the river. The 436 should really go back to Paddington imo
|
|
|
Post by LD71YLO (BE37054) on Dec 15, 2021 17:29:01 GMT
Good idea. So, how about this: 33/R70 - As now 190/371 - As now 437/493 - 437 diverted via St Margarets, 493 as per original 378/419/485 - As per original plan? 110/272/440 - 440 as per original then extended to Grove Park, 272 rerouted via Wellesley Road, 110 as now 281/421 - As now? N22/N27/N33 - N33 withdrawal, N27 extended via 33 full way, N22 as now H28 - As now 490 - As per original plan Where would the 272 terminate? There's some merit to the 281/421 idea but if I'm honest the 281 works really well as it is between Twickenham and Hounslow. Whilst you may not be breaking links you are switching things around quite heavily which could confuse and frustrate passengers. Even before the bridge closure the 33 wasn't heavily used at night, the only reason the N33 exists is to serve East Sheen. If we are using the N27 to replace the N33 I'd probably leave it at Richmond given the N27's other responsibilities and let the N22 work Richmond-Twickenham-Fulwell by itself. Fulwell is walking distance from Teddington and you can get the 281 from Twickenham. CBP. Power Road as an alternative but a bit of a 'nothing' terminus. Okay let's leave the 281. I agree with you on the N27. What about Waldegrave Road though? Does that need a night service?
|
|
|
Post by abellion on Dec 15, 2021 18:50:58 GMT
Routes 21, 73 and 476 Option 1: 476 - extended to Oxford Circus via 73. 73 - day route withdrawn 21 - extended to Stoke Newington via 73. Cut back to New Cross Gate. Routes 53 and 453 still link Lewisham as far as Bricklayers Arms. Reasons: To merge 73 and 476 Option 2: 476 - as above 73 - withdrawn between Oxford Circus and King's Cross, but extended to Walthamstow via route N73. Night route to be renumbered 73 (24 hour service). Reason: to provide Blackhorse Road with a day link to central London, and to link Stoke Newington and Walthamstow in the day. 21 - retained as it is. Wouldn't it make sense to extend the 73 to Northumberland Park and withdraw the 476 in the first option - 73 is far more historically significant, plus TfL seem to favour the lower number And for the second, you could just re-route the 476 to Walthamstow, stops any confusion from having 476s on Oxford Street when the 73 has been going there for so long. I think a local might have better comments to make but is another route really needed between Central London and Tottenham when so many routes do it already?
|
|
|
Post by YX10FFN on Dec 15, 2021 19:07:24 GMT
Where would the 272 terminate? There's some merit to the 281/421 idea but if I'm honest the 281 works really well as it is between Twickenham and Hounslow. Whilst you may not be breaking links you are switching things around quite heavily which could confuse and frustrate passengers. Even before the bridge closure the 33 wasn't heavily used at night, the only reason the N33 exists is to serve East Sheen. If we are using the N27 to replace the N33 I'd probably leave it at Richmond given the N27's other responsibilities and let the N22 work Richmond-Twickenham-Fulwell by itself. Fulwell is walking distance from Teddington and you can get the 281 from Twickenham. I agree with you on the N27. What about Waldegrave Road though? Does that need a night service? Its close enough to Twickenham, Stanley Road or Teddington that it wouldn't be the end of the world without. I've been in the Strawberry Hill area at night a few times before and end up walking to Twickenham as the N33 is so infrequent.
|
|
|
Post by VMH2537 on Dec 15, 2021 19:24:39 GMT
Routes 21, 73 and 476 Option 1: 476 - extended to Oxford Circus via 73. 73 - day route withdrawn 21 - extended to Stoke Newington via 73. Cut back to New Cross Gate. Routes 53 and 453 still link Lewisham as far as Bricklayers Arms. Reasons: To merge 73 and 476 Option 2: 476 - as above 73 - withdrawn between Oxford Circus and King's Cross, but extended to Walthamstow via route N73. Night route to be renumbered 73 (24 hour service). Reason: to provide Blackhorse Road with a day link to central London, and to link Stoke Newington and Walthamstow in the day. 21 - retained as it is. Wouldn't it make sense to extend the 73 to Northumberland Park and withdraw the 476 in the first option - 73 is far more historically significant, plus TfL seem to favour the lower number And for the second, you could just re-route the 476 to Walthamstow, stops any confusion from having 476s on Oxford Street when the 73 has been going there for so long. I think a local might have better comments to make but is another route really needed between Central London and Tottenham when so many routes do it already? Merging the two routes will result in a overstretch on running times, particularly as the 476 is eventually planned to extend to Meridian Water replacing Route 341 serving the site. If any reductions were to happen on the Stoke Newington to Angel corridor, it will likely reroute elsewhere. It's possible it could reroute to Clapton Pond on a neutral reallocation without additional costs as currently there are no direct links to Tottenham.
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Dec 15, 2021 19:49:39 GMT
Routes 21, 73 and 476 Option 1: 476 - extended to Oxford Circus via 73. 73 - day route withdrawn 21 - extended to Stoke Newington via 73. Cut back to New Cross Gate. Routes 53 and 453 still link Lewisham as far as Bricklayers Arms. Reasons: To merge 73 and 476 Option 2: 476 - as above 73 - withdrawn between Oxford Circus and King's Cross, but extended to Walthamstow via route N73. Night route to be renumbered 73 (24 hour service). Reason: to provide Blackhorse Road with a day link to central London, and to link Stoke Newington and Walthamstow in the day. 21 - retained as it is. Wouldn't it make sense to extend the 73 to Northumberland Park and withdraw the 476 in the first option - 73 is far more historically significant, plus TfL seem to favour the lower number And for the second, you could just re-route the 476 to Walthamstow, stops any confusion from having 476s on Oxford Street when the 73 has been going there for so long. I think a local might have better comments to make but is another route really needed between Central London and Tottenham when so many routes do it already? You'd have to up the 73 quite a large amount to make up for the lost capacity.
I think the 476 reroute to Mornington Crescent or Camden Town would be a better way of addressing overbussing issues with the 74 extended to Camden Town with perhaps the 74 cutback to Putney Bridge and the 414 instead plonked into AF. Or you could plonk the 14 into AF and the 414 into Putney Heath.
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Dec 15, 2021 21:30:43 GMT
Routes 21, 73 and 476 Option 1: 476 - extended to Oxford Circus via 73. 73 - day route withdrawn 21 - extended to Stoke Newington via 73. Cut back to New Cross Gate. Routes 53 and 453 still link Lewisham as far as Bricklayers Arms. Reasons: To merge 73 and 476 Option 2: 476 - as above 73 - withdrawn between Oxford Circus and King's Cross, but extended to Walthamstow via route N73. Night route to be renumbered 73 (24 hour service). Reason: to provide Blackhorse Road with a day link to central London, and to link Stoke Newington and Walthamstow in the day. 21 - retained as it is. I'd always favoured a route running up to Walthamstow via the N73, possibly up to St James Street seeing as there would be stand issues at the central bus station. Unfortunately the 73 has struggled to serve Seven Sisters at all times of the day when it was there, so its frequency would be hard to justify along Forest Road. Shame though as the 123 would benefit with another route properly paralleling/assisting it along the Forest Road corridor.
|
|
|
Post by Busboy105 on Dec 15, 2021 22:46:52 GMT
Routes 21, 73 and 476 Option 1: 476 - extended to Oxford Circus via 73. 73 - day route withdrawn 21 - extended to Stoke Newington via 73. Cut back to New Cross Gate. Routes 53 and 453 still link Lewisham as far as Bricklayers Arms. Reasons: To merge 73 and 476 Option 2: 476 - as above 73 - withdrawn between Oxford Circus and King's Cross, but extended to Walthamstow via route N73. Night route to be renumbered 73 (24 hour service). Reason: to provide Blackhorse Road with a day link to central London, and to link Stoke Newington and Walthamstow in the day. 21 - retained as it is. I'd always favoured a route running up to Walthamstow via the N73, possibly up to St James Street seeing as there would be stand issues at the central bus station. Unfortunately the 73 has struggled to serve Seven Sisters at all times of the day when it was there, so its frequency would be hard to justify along Forest Road. Shame though as the 123 would benefit with another route properly paralleling/assisting it along the Forest Road corridor. One change that I've seen and really like (shout out to the OP who put that forgot who it was), you could withdraw Edmonton Green- Lea Valley Leisure Centre from the W8 and extend it to Walthamstow Central via Tottenham Hale and Forest Road and have the 192 or W6 replace the W8 between Edmonton Green and LVLC.
|
|