|
Post by bk10mfe on Feb 10, 2024 22:25:58 GMT
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. Yeah I agree with this. I think the 67 should have been kept down that corridor instead of the 242. The 254 is a lot faster to get to Hackney from Aldgate. The 30 however has quite a busy corridor & could do with assistance.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Feb 10, 2024 22:36:47 GMT
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. Yeah I agree with this. I think the 67 should have been kept down that corridor instead of the 242. The 254 is a lot faster to get to Hackney from Aldgate. The 30 however has quite a busy corridor & could do with assistance. Without the stand at Highbury & Islington Station unfortunately it would be difficult for the 277 to return to there which arguably was one of the reasons for the 277 withdrawal along there. That said again the LO which didn't exist along there in 2010 would have taken some demand away again.
|
|
|
Post by londonbuses on Feb 10, 2024 22:37:55 GMT
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. I wouldn't withdraw the 470 in favour of this route, as it would break the link from Sutton to the back roads in Sutton Common and St Helier, which probably isn't a great idea as the route is well used by OAPs travelling into Sutton Town Centre. I don't think Lumley Road needs a bus route either, I was only suggesting it solely as a cut through to allow the route to serve Cheam Village. I definitely don't think the route should use shorter buses, so I'd just send it down to the crossroads and along Cheam High Street as you suggested before, and the loss of 5 parking spaces (3 northbound and 2 southbound) on Station Way for new bus stops would just have to be accepted.
|
|
|
Post by B9TL205 on Feb 10, 2024 22:47:43 GMT
Yeah I agree with this. I think the 67 should have been kept down that corridor instead of the 242. The 254 is a lot faster to get to Hackney from Aldgate. The 30 however has quite a busy corridor & could do with assistance. Without the stand at Highbury & Islington Station unfortunately it would be difficult for the 277 to return to there which arguably was one of the reasons for the 277 withdrawal along there. That said again the LO which didn't exist along there in 2010 would have taken some demand away again. Couldn't buses turn around Canonbury Lane instead?
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Feb 11, 2024 4:58:23 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. Surely the reason why the 242 was retained along Kingsland Road instead of the 67 was because the 242 can provide the round the corner link from Kingsland Road to Hackney Central and Homerton Hospital.
|
|
|
Post by bk10mfe on Feb 11, 2024 7:06:17 GMT
Yeah I agree with this. I think the 67 should have been kept down that corridor instead of the 242. The 254 is a lot faster to get to Hackney from Aldgate. The 30 however has quite a busy corridor & could do with assistance. Without the stand at Highbury & Islington Station unfortunately it would be difficult for the 277 to return to there which arguably was one of the reasons for the 277 withdrawal along there. That said again the LO which didn't exist along there in 2010 would have taken some demand away again. I think the 277 could go to Newington Green now as the 21 has vacated stand space there. Newington Green doesn’t really have a good link to Hackney as right now it only has the indirect 236.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Feb 11, 2024 12:04:48 GMT
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. Surely the reason why the 242 was retained along Kingsland Road instead of the 67 was because the 242 can provide the round the corner link from Kingsland Road to Hackney Central and Homerton Hospital. That probably was the reason tbh. Also the 67 does have bits in common with the 243 (Shoreditch to Stamford Hill and Wood Green Station) so the 149/242/243 were probably deemed most useful to provide the Dalston to Shoreditch capacity.
|
|
|
Post by bk10mfe on Feb 11, 2024 21:49:19 GMT
Surely the reason why the 242 was retained along Kingsland Road instead of the 67 was because the 242 can provide the round the corner link from Kingsland Road to Hackney Central and Homerton Hospital. That probably was the reason tbh. Also the 67 does have bits in common with the 243 (Shoreditch to Stamford Hill and Wood Green Station) so the 149/242/243 were probably deemed most useful to provide the Dalston to Shoreditch capacity. The 67 is faster in getting to Wood Green as it avoids Tottenham & also I believe is less busy.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Feb 11, 2024 22:16:22 GMT
That probably was the reason tbh. Also the 67 does have bits in common with the 243 (Shoreditch to Stamford Hill and Wood Green Station) so the 149/242/243 were probably deemed most useful to provide the Dalston to Shoreditch capacity. The 67 is faster in getting to Wood Green as it avoids Tottenham & also I believe is less busy. But really that is where the hopper fare now comes in. Wood Green down to Dalston covers most the local links along St Ann's Road etc and if you want to go beyond DJ then it's a change on to the first 149/242/243.
|
|
|
Post by bk10mfe on Feb 12, 2024 10:49:04 GMT
New route 471: Would run between Heathrow Central & Ealing Broadway via 278 to Hayes Asda, 195 to Ealing Hospital & 207 to Ealing Broadway. Would stand on the E1 stand in Ealing when that gets extended to Osterley. Relives some stress off certain routes, notably the 105, 195 & 207/SL8.
|
|
|
Post by Busboy105 on Feb 12, 2024 12:46:55 GMT
New route 471: Would run between Heathrow Central & Ealing Broadway via 278 to Hayes Asda, 195 to Ealing Hospital & 207 to Ealing Broadway. Would stand on the E1 stand in Ealing when that gets extended to Osterley. Relives some stress off certain routes, notably the 105, 195 & 207/SL8. This could take passengers away from the Elizabeth line which is a big no no from TfL
|
|
|
Post by londonbuses on Feb 12, 2024 12:57:48 GMT
New route 471: Would run between Heathrow Central & Ealing Broadway via 278 to Hayes Asda, 195 to Ealing Hospital & 207 to Ealing Broadway. Would stand on the E1 stand in Ealing when that gets extended to Osterley. Relives some stress off certain routes, notably the 105, 195 & 207/SL8. A much easier way of relieving the 105 end to end could be to withdraw the E6 between Hayes and Bulls Bridge and extend it down to Heathrow Central via the 278, and upgrade it to double deckers. The H28 could be extended from Bulls Bridge to Hayes to replace the E6. The 195 can simply be double decked too, and I doubt TfL would choose to add any more routes along Uxbridge Road after drastically cutting back the 427.
|
|
|
Post by bk10mfe on Feb 12, 2024 13:07:57 GMT
New route 471: Would run between Heathrow Central & Ealing Broadway via 278 to Hayes Asda, 195 to Ealing Hospital & 207 to Ealing Broadway. Would stand on the E1 stand in Ealing when that gets extended to Osterley. Relives some stress off certain routes, notably the 105, 195 & 207/SL8. A much easier way of relieving the 105 end to end could be to withdraw the E6 between Hayes and Bulls Bridge and extend it down to Heathrow Central via the 278, and upgrade it to double deckers. The H28 could be extended from Bulls Bridge to Hayes to replace the E6. The 195 can simply be double decked too, and I doubt TfL would choose to add any more routes along Uxbridge Road after drastically cutting back the 427. Yeah I didn’t agree with the 427 change & I’ve heard the 207/SL8 aren’t coping particularly well, hence why I decided to add this route. You’re rerouted E6 also wouldn’t help with the 105 for most of the route, as it wouldn’t run to Southall. Perhaps though you could withdraw the H32 between Hounslow & Hounslow West & divert it to Heathrow Central to provide another option for a Heathrow-Southall link. There are already a large number of routes along the Hounslow-Hounslow West corridor & the 120 is faster going from Hounslow to Southall.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Feb 12, 2024 14:52:17 GMT
A much easier way of relieving the 105 end to end could be to withdraw the E6 between Hayes and Bulls Bridge and extend it down to Heathrow Central via the 278, and upgrade it to double deckers. The H28 could be extended from Bulls Bridge to Hayes to replace the E6. The 195 can simply be double decked too, and I doubt TfL would choose to add any more routes along Uxbridge Road after drastically cutting back the 427. Yeah I didn’t agree with the 427 change & I’ve heard the 207/SL8 aren’t coping particularly well, hence why I decided to add this route. You’re rerouted E6 also wouldn’t help with the 105 for most of the route, as it wouldn’t run to Southall. Perhaps though you could withdraw the H32 between Hounslow & Hounslow West & divert it to Heathrow Central to provide another option for a Heathrow-Southall link. There are already a large number of routes along the Hounslow-Hounslow West corridor & the 120 is faster going from Hounslow to Southall. Have you considered that there might be a good reason why there are a large number of routes between Hounslow & Hounslow West? Just because a corridor has a large number of routes doesn't mean it automatically should have one or more removed. I mean, I'm not talking from knowledge or experience but I suspect some people living along the H32 wouldn't be pleased to see it diverted away from Hounslow especially when Heathrow to Southall has already both the 105 & Elizabeth line linking the two with the 105 being more direct than any diverted H32. The 120 has been mentioned on here several times as needing some assistance so whilst indeed it's faster, removing alternative options between Hounslow & Southall seems quite counter productive to the 120's own issues even if they take completely different routes.
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Feb 12, 2024 15:38:35 GMT
Yeah I didn’t agree with the 427 change & I’ve heard the 207/SL8 aren’t coping particularly well, hence why I decided to add this route. Your rerouted E6 also wouldn’t help with the 105 for most of the route, as it wouldn’t run to Southall. Perhaps though you could withdraw the H32 between Hounslow & Hounslow West & divert it to Heathrow Central to provide another option for a Heathrow-Southall link. There are already a large number of routes along the Hounslow-Hounslow West corridor & the 120 is faster going from Hounslow to Southall. Have you considered that there might be a good reason why there are a large number of routes between Hounslow & Hounslow West? Just because a corridor has a large number of routes doesn't mean it automatically should have one or more removed. I mean, I'm not talking from knowledge or experience but I suspect some people living along the H32 wouldn't be pleased to see it diverted away from Hounslow especially when Heathrow to Southall has already both the 105 & Elizabeth line linking the two with the 105 being more direct than any diverted H32. The 120 has been mentioned on here several times as needing some assistance so whilst indeed it's faster, removing alternative options between Hounslow & Southall seems quite counter productive to the 120's own issues even if they take completely different routes. The H32 provides the direct link to Hounslow town centre for much of central and northern Heston, removing it would be unacceptable. The 482 also links Southall with Heathrow.
|
|