|
Post by wirewiper on Feb 10, 2024 19:05:01 GMT
I completely agree with you, the Greater London shouldn't be a barrier to providing important bus connections. <snip>
Some route extensions are also needed where routes unnecessarily terminate due to the Greater London border, such as extending the 116 from Ashford Hospital to Staines, <snip>
Have always thought the withdrawal of the 116 between Ashford Hospital and Staines was a mistake, providing a direct bus service on the Staines Road corridor would be a non brainer to attract car drivers back onto the bus. The current indirect routeings of the 117 and 203 between Hounslow and Staines are not attractive if you could drive instead. That said I’m not sure there would be enough demand to support a direct service to Staines running x12mins with double deckers, the passenger subsidy would be very high. A better use of the money would be to increase both the 117 and 203 to x15mins. The 117 certainly deserves it at the Hounslow end given that it cannot be decked. An extension of route 116 to Staines would be desireable. It would be the most direct bus route between Hounslow and Staines and could even take a little pressure off the 203, as some passengers in the Bedfont area might transfer to the 116 for Staines. The rail connections between Hounslow and Staines are poor and neither station is well located for the town centre and shops. A very cursory look at the 203 timetables suggests that extending the 116 to Staines Bus Station would require a PVR of 9, so 2 over the current allocation. Alternatively a 15-minute frequency throughout the whole route could just about be operated within the existing PVR, but this might cause capacity issues between Bedfont and Hounslow. A third suggestion would be for alternative journeys only to operate through to Staines on Monday-Saturday daytimes, with the remaining journeys terminating at Ashford Hospital or even cut back to Bedfont Green. However to make the service at all attractive, realistically the through service would have to be increased to every 20 minutes and the daytime short workings to the same frequency and I cannot see this saving much in the way of resources over a 12-minute daytime frequency throughout.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Feb 10, 2024 19:15:25 GMT
Ideas for the Hampstead area: 334 - New route from Finchley Road to Wood Green (Haringey Heartlands), via the C11 to Belsize Park, 268 to Hampstead, 603 to Highgate Wood, then Woodside Avenue, Muswell Hill Broadway, Muswell Hill, Alexandra Palace Way and the W3 to Wood Green. Using SDs about every 20 minutes. Creating an all-day route along the 603's corridor, plus other new links such as between Muswell Hill and Alexandra Palace. C11 - Diverted between Swiss Cottage and Hampstead Heath via the 46, providing a local link between West Hampstead and Hampstead Village. 268 - Cut back to Swiss Cottage, and instead extended to Paddington via the 46. Frequency increased to every 12 minutes. 46 - Withdrawn between Paddington and Hampstead Heath (Southampton Road), and instead extended to Highgate Village, via the C11 to Parliament Hill then the 214. 214 - Restructured to operate between Camden Town and Mile End, as per TFL's previous 205 proposal. Using DDs every 10 minutes. 205 - Withdrawn between Bow and Old Street, and instead extended to Ash Grove via the 55. Creating new links from Kings Cross and Angel to Hoxton and Cambridge Heath. There was already a proposal for 334 to go from Islington Angel to Edmonton Green, somebody suggested from here. Instead of the new route going from Finchley Road to Wood Green. Somebody suggested that 299 should be extended to Hampstead, Swiss Cottage or Finchley Road but curtailed to Southgate which is actually a better option. People wanting to go to Wood Green from Swiss Cottage could just take 31 to Camden Town then the 29 or change at Muswell Hill for the 144. Also, I wouldn’t suggest changing the C11. It’s doing well as it is now. Well a new route along the 603 corridor could use any alternative number. Sending it to Wood Green is more about creating some local links from Wood Green and Alexandra Palace, to Muswell Hill, East Finchley and Highgate, rather than further afield like Swiss Cottage. The 299 idea could work too, but it would be longer and possibly less reliable, since Hampstead can be prone to traffic. Alternatively you could just terminate the new route at Alexandra Palace, which wouldn't be much further than Muswell Hill, or even to somewhere like Crouch End (with the 91's stand possible becoming available soon). The C11 idea is just intended to provide a local link from the area around Hampstead Station across to West Hampstead. But if the C11 needs to remain via Belsize Park, you could instead extend the new route onwards from Finchley Road to West Hampstead, and use the ex-139 stand?
|
|
|
Post by Dad91 on Feb 10, 2024 20:17:56 GMT
where about is new Station being build Lional road I live on Green Dragon towers I can see Sega. All this new Development happing H91 would need bit assistance The entrance would be on the north side of the railway line facing the SEGA site. oh ok thanks. That's good for Green Dragon lane. Residence. if there need to use the station
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Feb 10, 2024 20:29:16 GMT
There was already a proposal for 334 to go from Islington Angel to Edmonton Green, somebody suggested from here. Instead of the new route going from Finchley Road to Wood Green. Somebody suggested that 299 should be extended to Hampstead, Swiss Cottage or Finchley Road but curtailed to Southgate which is actually a better option. People wanting to go to Wood Green from Swiss Cottage could just take 31 to Camden Town then the 29 or change at Muswell Hill for the 144. Also, I wouldn’t suggest changing the C11. It’s doing well as it is now. Well a new route along the 603 corridor could use any alternative number. Sending it to Wood Green is more about creating some local links from Wood Green and Alexandra Palace, to Muswell Hill, East Finchley and Highgate, rather than further afield like Swiss Cottage. The 299 idea could work too, but it would be longer and possibly less reliable, since Hampstead can be prone to traffic. Alternatively you could just terminate the new route at Alexandra Palace, which wouldn't be much further than Muswell Hill, or even to somewhere like Crouch End (with the 91's stand possible becoming available soon). The C11 idea is just intended to provide a local link from the area around Hampstead Station across to West Hampstead. But if the C11 needs to remain via Belsize Park, you could instead extend the new route onwards from Finchley Road to West Hampstead, and use the ex-139 stand? There were problems with the use of the 139’s former stand, so not sure that would be available.
|
|
|
Post by rift on Feb 10, 2024 20:31:10 GMT
Ideas for the Hampstead area: 334 - New route from Finchley Road to Wood Green (Haringey Heartlands), via the C11 to Belsize Park, 268 to Hampstead, 603 to Highgate Wood, then Woodside Avenue, Muswell Hill Broadway, Muswell Hill, Alexandra Palace Way and the W3 to Wood Green. Using SDs about every 20 minutes. Creating an all-day route along the 603's corridor, plus other new links such as between Muswell Hill and Alexandra Palace. C11 - Diverted between Swiss Cottage and Hampstead Heath via the 46, providing a local link between West Hampstead and Hampstead Village. 268 - Cut back to Swiss Cottage, and instead extended to Paddington via the 46. Frequency increased to every 12 minutes. 46 - Withdrawn between Paddington and Hampstead Heath (Southampton Road), and instead extended to Highgate Village, via the C11 to Parliament Hill then the 214. 214 - Restructured to operate between Camden Town and Mile End, as per TFL's previous 205 proposal. Using DDs every 10 minutes. 205 - Withdrawn between Bow and Old Street, and instead extended to Ash Grove via the 55. Creating new links from Kings Cross and Angel to Hoxton and Cambridge Heath. Don’t see the reason to involve the 205 and 214 in plans which involve aress they don’t serve. The 394 extension will link Hoxton to King’s Cross, and I don’t see the section from Bow to Aldgate coping with only the 25, especially after its recent reductions.
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Feb 10, 2024 20:34:45 GMT
Ideas for the Hampstead area: 334 - New route from Finchley Road to Wood Green (Haringey Heartlands), via the C11 to Belsize Park, 268 to Hampstead, 603 to Highgate Wood, then Woodside Avenue, Muswell Hill Broadway, Muswell Hill, Alexandra Palace Way and the W3 to Wood Green. Using SDs about every 20 minutes. Creating an all-day route along the 603's corridor, plus other new links such as between Muswell Hill and Alexandra Palace. C11 - Diverted between Swiss Cottage and Hampstead Heath via the 46, providing a local link between West Hampstead and Hampstead Village. 268 - Cut back to Swiss Cottage, and instead extended to Paddington via the 46. Frequency increased to every 12 minutes. 46 - Withdrawn between Paddington and Hampstead Heath (Southampton Road), and instead extended to Highgate Village, via the C11 to Parliament Hill then the 214. 214 - Restructured to operate between Camden Town and Mile End, as per TFL's previous 205 proposal. Using DDs every 10 minutes. 205 - Withdrawn between Bow and Old Street, and instead extended to Ash Grove via the 55. Creating new links from Kings Cross and Angel to Hoxton and Cambridge Heath. Don’t see the reason to involve the 205 and 214 in plans which involve aress they don’t serve. The 394 extension will link Hoxton to King’s Cross, and I don’t see the section from Bow to Aldgate coping with only the 25, especially after its recent reductions. I agree that the 205 provides support for the 25 and doubt it would cope on it's own I see the reason given for diverting the 205 to Ash Grove is for the benefit of creating "New" links but what happens to those areas that end up with "broken" links.
|
|
|
Post by londonbuses on Feb 10, 2024 20:36:05 GMT
437 Colliers Wood to Banstead (3bph SD)
Routing - 470 from Colliers Wood to Morden, London Road, Aberconway Road (both directions), 157/164 to Rosehill Roundabout, Reigate Avenue, Oldfields Road, St Dunstans Hill, Lumley Road, Malden Road, Cheam Broadway, 470 to Northey Avenue, Belmont Rise, Brighton Road, Bolters Lane, Banstead High Street.
Frequency - 3bph Bus Type - 10.8m Single Deckers Road modifications needed - New bus stops installed all the way along the A217 Reigate Avenue/Oldfields Road/St Dunstans Hill/Belmont Rise. The left turn from Lumley Road to Malden Road needs to be widened over the corner of the Esso petrol station. New stand installed for one bus behind the stop Banstead/the Woolpack.
Changes to other routes - 470 withdrawn between Morden and Colliers Wood.
The route provides a bus service along the A217 between Rosehill Roundabout and Cheam, a glaringly obvious missing link in my opinion. I'm not entirely sure about the southern section of the route to Banstead, but I can see the Morden to Cheam section being very popular. Interesting route but it would be infinitely quicker to take the 93 and then change to the 151/213/SL7 between Morden and Cheam, same in reverse. I am also certain that regardless of how much that corner on Lumley Road is changed a 10.8m vehicle is not fitting round it. I’ve seen dial-a-ride vehicles get stuck on that corner trying to turn left. I think it would be better to have it go up to the crossroads with Belmont Rise and then turn left towards Cheam Station. I think the timings would be very similar to going via North Cheam, but even so, the new areas the route serves and the new links it provides are the most important reasons for the route. The only issue with the route running up to the crossroads and along Cheam High Street is that it wouldn't be able to serve any of the Cheam Broadway stops. New stops could be added on Station Way, but it would require parking spaces to be removed which could cause complaints.
|
|
|
Post by londonbuses on Feb 10, 2024 20:52:03 GMT
Could this work? 82 Kew Retail Park to Heathrow Central (6bph DD) New route via the South Circular to Kew Bridge then following the N9 to Heathrow Central. Runs at 6bph using DDs. New stand installed as part of the redevelopment of the Kew Retail Park site. Maybe it could have a 24 hour service, timetabled at equal 15 min intervals with the N9 between Kew Bridge and Heathrow Central? 117 Osterley Tesco to Staines (3bph DD) Withdrawn between Isleworth and West Middlesex Hospital and extended to Osterley Tesco via London Road and Syon Lane. Upgraded to double deckers. 235 West Middlesex Hospital to Sunbury Village (7.5bph SD) Withdrawn between Isleworth and Brentford Great West Quarter and extended to West Middlesex Hospital via route 117. H28 Brentford Great West Quarter to Bulls Bridge Tesco (4bph SD) Withdrawn between Busch Corner and Osterley Tesco, and extended to Brentford Great West Quarter via route 235. Frequency increased from 3bph to 4bph. Yes this could be a good compromise. The only thing is that current H28 passengers would lose the link from the Osterley area to West Middlesex Hospital, though perhaps you could extend the E1 south from Osterley to to West Middlesex, double running to the Tesco if needed? Not a bad idea, although the frequency of the E1 might be a bit high. Another idea could be, if there's enough stand space available, to extend the 481 up from West Middlesex Hospital to Osterley Tesco.
|
|
|
Post by sdaniel on Feb 10, 2024 20:55:10 GMT
There was already a proposal for 334 to go from Islington Angel to Edmonton Green, somebody suggested from here. Instead of the new route going from Finchley Road to Wood Green. Somebody suggested that 299 should be extended to Hampstead, Swiss Cottage or Finchley Road but curtailed to Southgate which is actually a better option. People wanting to go to Wood Green from Swiss Cottage could just take 31 to Camden Town then the 29 or change at Muswell Hill for the 144. Also, I wouldn’t suggest changing the C11. It’s doing well as it is now. Well a new route along the 603 corridor could use any alternative number. Sending it to Wood Green is more about creating some local links from Wood Green and Alexandra Palace, to Muswell Hill, East Finchley and Highgate, rather than further afield like Swiss Cottage. The 299 idea could work too, but it would be longer and possibly less reliable, since Hampstead can be prone to traffic. Alternatively you could just terminate the new route at Alexandra Palace, which wouldn't be much further than Muswell Hill, or even to somewhere like Crouch End (with the 91's stand possible becoming available soon). The C11 idea is just intended to provide a local link from the area around Hampstead Station across to West Hampstead. But if the C11 needs to remain via Belsize Park, you could instead extend the new route onwards from Finchley Road to West Hampstead, and use the ex-139 stand? I understand what you’re saying, but as a NW/North London resident, I would much prefer a Swiss Cottage to Southgate link rather than a Swiss Cottage to Wood Green link. Furthermore, Fitzjohn’s Avenues traffic isn’t as bad as Pilgrims Lane. But regarding a Hampstead to West Hampstead link, you could make a new route. Preferably numbered 239 running from Whitestone Pond/Jack Straw’s Castle to Neasden via, Hampstead, Swiss Cottage, South Hampstead, West Hampstead, Iverson Road to get to Brondesbury & Kilburn Stations, Cricklewood Lane, then following 16/245 to Neasden.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Feb 10, 2024 20:59:12 GMT
Ideas for the Hampstead area: 334 - New route from Finchley Road to Wood Green (Haringey Heartlands), via the C11 to Belsize Park, 268 to Hampstead, 603 to Highgate Wood, then Woodside Avenue, Muswell Hill Broadway, Muswell Hill, Alexandra Palace Way and the W3 to Wood Green. Using SDs about every 20 minutes. Creating an all-day route along the 603's corridor, plus other new links such as between Muswell Hill and Alexandra Palace. C11 - Diverted between Swiss Cottage and Hampstead Heath via the 46, providing a local link between West Hampstead and Hampstead Village. 268 - Cut back to Swiss Cottage, and instead extended to Paddington via the 46. Frequency increased to every 12 minutes. 46 - Withdrawn between Paddington and Hampstead Heath (Southampton Road), and instead extended to Highgate Village, via the C11 to Parliament Hill then the 214. 214 - Restructured to operate between Camden Town and Mile End, as per TFL's previous 205 proposal. Using DDs every 10 minutes. 205 - Withdrawn between Bow and Old Street, and instead extended to Ash Grove via the 55. Creating new links from Kings Cross and Angel to Hoxton and Cambridge Heath. Don’t see the reason to involve the 205 and 214 in plans which involve aress they don’t serve. The 394 extension will link Hoxton to King’s Cross, and I don’t see the section from Bow to Aldgate coping with only the 25, especially after its recent reductions. You could continue the revised 214 to Bow if needed. The point of involving the 205 if that a split has often been suggested for this route for reliability, and I think TFL's proposal to send it to Camden would work if the Paddington section is kept too alongside. I also think the Hackney Road corridor could do with a westward link beyond Old Street, the less direct 394 doesn't entire solve this, as the extension will only serve the redevelopments to the north, and won't stop near Kings Cross St Pancras Station. Alternatively, you could forget the 205 here, however my revised 46 would replace the 214 between Highgate and Camden, so something else will still need to replace the rest of the 214, at least from Camden Town to Angel.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Feb 10, 2024 21:01:33 GMT
Don’t see the reason to involve the 205 and 214 in plans which involve aress they don’t serve. The 394 extension will link Hoxton to King’s Cross, and I don’t see the section from Bow to Aldgate coping with only the 25, especially after its recent reductions. I agree that the 205 provides support for the 25 and doubt it would cope on it's own I see the reason given for diverting the 205 to Ash Grove is for the benefit of creating "New" links but what happens to those areas that end up with "broken" links. The revised 214 is basically TFL's 205 proposal, so would still maintain links between Kings Cross and Mile End, and could continue to Bow if needed - so the 25 would not be on its own here.
|
|
|
Post by bk10mfe on Feb 10, 2024 21:36:22 GMT
Proposed changes to routes 67 & 242:
67: Re-extended to Aldgate 242: Withdrawn between Dalston Junction & Aldgate. Extended to Holloway Nags Head via 30 to Highbury & Islington & Holloway Road. Now the 242 provides the 30 some assistance as well as a new round corner link.
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Feb 10, 2024 21:38:08 GMT
Interesting route but it would be infinitely quicker to take the 93 and then change to the 151/213/SL7 between Morden and Cheam, same in reverse. I am also certain that regardless of how much that corner on Lumley Road is changed a 10.8m vehicle is not fitting round it. I’ve seen dial-a-ride vehicles get stuck on that corner trying to turn left. I think it would be better to have it go up to the crossroads with Belmont Rise and then turn left towards Cheam Station. I think the timings would be very similar to going via North Cheam, but even so, the new areas the route serves and the new links it provides are the most important reasons for the route. The only issue with the route running up to the crossroads and along Cheam High Street is that it wouldn't be able to serve any of the Cheam Broadway stops. New stops could be added on Station Way, but it would require parking spaces to be removed which could cause complaints. I don’t think it would. The 93 only takes about 20-30 minutes to get to North Cheam from Morden. The 213/151/SL7 are very frequent, I’ve never had to wait more than 2-3 minutes after alighting from a 93. You routing up St Helier Avenue would be significantly longer. At such a low frequency I struggle to see anyone switching between Morden and Cheam. It would probably find a decent load on the route you’ve suggested but I would suggest withdrawing the 470 entirely having it follow the 470s route to Oldfields Road before picking up your suggested routing to Banstead. I’d suggest 8.9m vehicles, maybe 9.3m which would be more suitable for your suggested routing on Lumley Road. Although I’m still not convinced it needs a bus route.
|
|
|
Post by sdaniel on Feb 10, 2024 21:53:03 GMT
Proposed changes to routes 67 & 242: 67: Re-extended to Aldgate 242: Withdrawn between Dalston Junction & Aldgate. Extended to Holloway Nags Head via 30 to Highbury & Islington & Holloway Road. Now the 242 provides the 30 some assistance as well as a new round corner link. Certainly agree with 67 being restored back to Aldgate from Wood Green. It made no sense of curtailing it to Dalston. But I’d prefer 242 if it got restored to Tottenham Court Road like it used to. Same scenario with the 134.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Feb 10, 2024 22:19:55 GMT
Proposed changes to routes 67 & 242: 67: Re-extended to Aldgate 242: Withdrawn between Dalston Junction & Aldgate. Extended to Holloway Nags Head via 30 to Highbury & Islington & Holloway Road. Now the 242 provides the 30 some assistance as well as a new round corner link. Certainly agree with 67 being restored back to Aldgate from Wood Green. It made no sense of curtailing it to Dalston. But I’d prefer 242 if it got restored to Tottenham Court Road like it used to. Same scenario with the 134. It did make sense as the time as along that stretch of the route the 149 and 242 were sufficient down to Shoreditch. Obviously the 242 could have been curtailed to Dalston instead but either way the again the LO had taken away demand.
|
|