|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Oct 15, 2020 22:01:56 GMT
437 for the split 407 and 489 to match the 289 instead of 439. Certainly like that. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Oct 15, 2020 22:28:38 GMT
I agree, certainly with the S1 changes around St Helier, which seem to have been brought about solely for the purpose of facilitating longer buses on the route. Now whilst I do agree, the S1 could do with longer buses, the existing routing seemed to be no problem for OML20240 (10.6m) which used to make regular appearances. In fact, I seem to remember OML20240 switching from mainly serving the 465 to the S1 in the latter months up until its withdrawal. With this rerouting in St Helier, I'd honestly now go to the extent of saying that the S1 has been transfromed into a mostly main road route in comparison to before where it was a bit of a mix of both. Totally unrelated to your post, I still find it funny that many of these changes are basically circulating around making Belmont a major bus interchange when in essence it's a small zone 5 village with a couple thousand residents. Heck, it's station is on a single track line which just 3 years ao had one train an hour. It was even the 10th least used station in London!
I think we will see more schemes removing bus routes from back streets to create faster and more direct main road routes, perhaps a partial reversal of policies in the 1990s and 2000s. See also route 384. As resources get tighter they will be diverted to serve the greatest need along main roads and the max. 400/450m distance from the nearest bus stop policy may be less strictly adhered to in absolutely every residential area. Agree, Belmont is going to turn into a multi-modal interchange! If that does happen, it would certainly be a backwards step and will lead to more people leaving the bus network for other alternatives with car usage not decreasing and probably increasing further. The bus routes that run along back routes are a lifeline to many communities so in effect, these communities are now being told you aren't important and we don't need you......by an organisation needing every penny it can get. If you want to speed up journies, you implement bus priority not remove sections of routes. |
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Oct 15, 2020 22:34:05 GMT
Having looked at this consultation properly can comment properly.
80 cut to Belmont and double decker is a good idea
164 to Sutton Hospital is excellent
312 extended to Purley, Lodge Lane and 166 diverted Pampisford Road makes sense. Brighton Road doesn’t lose out. No more double deckers straying on the 312.
407 & 443 not much to say except change buses. I guess not many use the 407 end to end. You could probably get from Caterham to Sutton by bus avoiding Croydon.
413 extended which is good.
434 to Caterham looks like a way to get rid of it to allow the 439 to stand there.
439 ?? A 434 duplicate guessing new housing? However starts from Waddon Marsh.
S2 pretty much replaces part of the S4 and a small part of the 80.
455 I’m not surprised it’s going and I can see why.
S4 to Waddon Marsh forces passengers to interchange to get tram or bus whearas 455 directly links Croydon
645 extended to Waddon Marsh and renumbered makes sense as 405 has been shortened
|
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Oct 15, 2020 22:37:20 GMT
I think we will see more schemes removing bus routes from back streets to create faster and more direct main road routes, perhaps a partial reversal of policies in the 1990s and 2000s. See also route 384. As resources get tighter they will be diverted to serve the greatest need along main roads and the max. 400/450m distance from the nearest bus stop policy may be less strictly adhered to in absolutely every residential area. Agree, Belmont is going to turn into a multi-modal interchange! If that does happen, it would certainly be a backwards step and will lead to more people leaving the bus network for other alternatives with car usage not decreasing and probably increasing further. The bus routes that run along back routes are a lifeline to many communities so in effect, these communities are now being told you aren't important and we don't need you......by an organisation needing every penny it can get. If you want to speed up journies, you implement bus priority not remove sections of routes. Unfortunately TFL probably dont get many Pennies from the groups that need buses closer to them. |
|
|
|
Post by overgroundcommuter on Oct 16, 2020 1:36:31 GMT
I would have thought TfL have done the numbers and the percentage that use the 455 to/from Ampere Way and Croydon Town Centre can be absorbed onto the existing Wimbledon tram services, although I'd still prefer to have the 455 over the S4 which will interchange with the trams at both Ampere Way and Waddon Marsh.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Oct 16, 2020 4:44:31 GMT
One downside of the 166 change is that the main bus stop in Purley (Downlands precinct) loses not only 3bph to Coulsdon but also the direct link to Chipstead Valley and Banstead. Crossing from that stop to the next is quite long over that massive roundabout. Similar to how it also lost the 405 in the past. On the other hand that stop now gains a service to Old Lodge Lane. Similar to the new 413 section loses the S3 link to Sutton Station and Sutton Police station. I've often wondered whether Pampisford Road needs two routes, isn't the 405 adequate? It's only at school times that section is busy...... the 166 could be left as it is then giving more buses along Brighton Road. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Oct 16, 2020 11:41:03 GMT
One downside of the 166 change is that the main bus stop in Purley (Downlands precinct) loses not only 3bph to Coulsdon but also the direct link to Chipstead Valley and Banstead. Crossing from that stop to the next is quite long over that massive roundabout. Similar to how it also lost the 405 in the past. On the other hand that stop now gains a service to Old Lodge Lane. Similar to the new 413 section loses the S3 link to Sutton Station and Sutton Police station. I've often wondered whether Pampisford Road needs two routes, isn't the 405 adequate? It's only at school times that section is busy...... the 166 could be left as it is then giving more buses along Brighton Road. Brighton Road has seen a massive increase in capacity with the 60 & 466 frequency increases & the 407's double decking so I'm sure it could cope without the 166 - if anything, Brighton Road is probably slightly overbussed as a result of those changes. |
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Oct 16, 2020 11:50:56 GMT
Not a local to the Croydon/Sutton area, so feel free to correct on anything, but some of these changes do seem perhaps unnecessarily complicated - though there is a need for some restructures around the two major towns, especially with some redevelopments and the hospital in Belmont.
I don't think there are any issues with the minor changes around Sutton/Belmont (e.g. the 80/164). The 166/312/455 changes do make some sense, though there may be other alternatives here, the 166 is made slightly longer to/from Croydon which may affect journeys towards Banstead or Epsom.
Regarding the 407, I think the split is perhaps needed, as it is quite long and is said to have traffic issues, plus is unlikely to have many through journeys via Croydon. However, rather than having more routes terminating in Croydon, I think this could have been achieved by either extending a short route to take over part of the 407, or by swapping sections with another route. For example, the 198 is relatively short and has the same frequency as the 407 - these routes perhaps could be restructured to give one route from Sutton to Shrublands, and another from Thornton Heath to Caterham - this would also introduce an east-west route across Croydon for new links. I also think another route might have been better to cover the Old Town link, as the proposed 443 removes the 407's existing link from Caterham to the east side of Croydon Town Centre.
I think there is a need to restructure the S-prefix routes, the existing S4 in particular is quite long and indirect, and some of these changes around Sutton also simplify some routeing and allow longer vehicles on some sections. However, I don't think the revised S4 is a suitable replacement for the Wallington end of the 455 - the S4 uses lower-capacity buses at a lower frequency, and more importantly breaks the link from Croydon to Beddington, serving retail parks, industrial estates and Ikea - especially when the Tram is mentioned to be overcrowded at times. Perhaps a route could be extended from Croydon to Beddington, such as the 412 or 433?
As others have mentioned, other numbers might have been better choices for the new routes, e.g. with possible confusion between the 433 and 443. Maybe 408, 437 or 447 might better correspond with the 407. Also, rather than withdrawing the 455, perhaps the S4 number could have instead been used for the St Helier-Belmont section, with the Belmont-Waddon route instead taking over the 455 number. However, this isn't a new issue - for example the number '409' might have been more logical for the 378.
I can not see what the purpose of the new 439 is - it doesn't link many major destinations and is likely to be infrequent and low-capacity. It also forces the 434 to extend to Caterham, where the 407/443 is likely sufficient, while the 434 routeing - there must be an alternative solution is TFL want to serve both Northwood Avenue and Higher Drive. Waddon Marsh, like the S4, is not a very useful place to terminate, other than being able to change onto Trams. If additional capacity is needed over Purley Way, the 439 is unlikely to make much difference, converting the 289 to DD would be a better solution.
|
|
|
|
Post by galwhv69 on Oct 16, 2020 12:02:14 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Oct 16, 2020 13:00:04 GMT
Still weighing this up fully but I will repeat my plea to get rid of S-series numbers so I don't misread them as 51 etc on my phone... at the very least, don't call a new route S2! I did wonder whether the 439 might usefully run via Pampisford Road instead of duplicating the 289 to provide a new local link from there to Purley Way shops.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Oct 16, 2020 13:03:05 GMT
Not a local to the Croydon/Sutton area, so feel free to correct on anything, but some of these changes do seem perhaps unnecessarily complicated - though there is a need for some restructures around the two major towns, especially with some redevelopments and the hospital in Belmont. I don't think there are any issues with the minor changes around Sutton/Belmont (e.g. the 80/164). The 166/312/455 changes do make some sense, though there may be other alternatives here, the 166 is made slightly longer to/from Croydon which may affect journeys towards Banstead or Epsom. Regarding the 407, I think the split is perhaps needed, as it is quite long and is said to have traffic issues, plus is unlikely to have many through journeys via Croydon. However, rather than having more routes terminating in Croydon, I think this could have been achieved by either extending a short route to take over part of the 407, or by swapping sections with another route. For example, the 198 is relatively short and has the same frequency as the 407 - these routes perhaps could be restructured to give one route from Sutton to Shrublands, and another from Thornton Heath to Caterham - this would also introduce an east-west route across Croydon for new links. I also think another route might have been better to cover the Old Town link, as the proposed 443 removes the 407's existing link from Caterham to the east side of Croydon Town Centre. I think there is a need to restructure the S-prefix routes, the existing S4 in particular is quite long and indirect, and some of these changes around Sutton also simplify some routeing and allow longer vehicles on some sections. However, I don't think the revised S4 is a suitable replacement for the Wallington end of the 455 - the S4 uses lower-capacity buses at a lower frequency, and more importantly breaks the link from Croydon to Beddington, serving retail parks, industrial estates and Ikea - especially when the Tram is mentioned to be overcrowded at times. Perhaps a route could be extended from Croydon to Beddington, such as the 412 or 433? As others have mentioned, other numbers might have been better choices for the new routes, e.g. with possible confusion between the 433 and 443. Maybe 408, 437 or 447 might better correspond with the 407. Also, rather than withdrawing the 455, perhaps the S4 number could have instead been used for the St Helier-Belmont section, with the Belmont-Waddon route instead taking over the 455 number. However, this isn't a new issue - for example the number '409' might have been more logical for the 378. I can not see what the purpose of the new 439 is - it doesn't link many major destinations and is likely to be infrequent and low-capacity. It also forces the 434 to extend to Caterham, where the 407/443 is likely sufficient, while the 434 routeing - there must be an alternative solution is TFL want to serve both Northwood Avenue and Higher Drive. Waddon Marsh, like the S4, is not a very useful place to terminate, other than being able to change onto Trams. If additional capacity is needed over Purley Way, the 439 is unlikely to make much difference, converting the 289 to DD would be a better solution. I agree that the 312/455 make sense although I'm not sure about the need to reroute the 166. I think the 407 makes sense although it will leave a rather short route between Croydon and Sutton and I'd rather extend the 403 back to Sutton where it used to go years ago. Your 198 suggestion is interesting although some people would lose the link to Mayday/CU Hospital. I think the 443 is a better way to serve Old Town than the previously suggested 433 extension (potential for confusing those numbers!) and it'll be interesting to see how that new link works out, the downside of course is that it misses out the High Street. I'm not sure about the 439 other than replacing part of the rerouted 434 it doesn't offer anything that can't be done with a change of bus at Purley. I can't see too much wrong with the rest, the 80 to the prisons was probably a bit excessive and the S2 should be more in line with demand. I agree that the 289 should be double decked, maybe with spare LTs like the 313? |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Oct 16, 2020 13:23:29 GMT
Still weighing this up fully but I will repeat my plea to get rid of S-series numbers so I don't misread them as 51 etc on my phone... at the very least, don't call a new route S2! I did wonder whether the 439 might usefully run via Pampisford Road instead of duplicating the 289 to provide a new local link from there to Purley Way shops. Yes I think that would be a lot more useful running the 439 via Pampisford Road and Denning Avenue and I've overheard somebody in Sutton saying they were waiting for a 51! |
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Oct 16, 2020 18:49:53 GMT
Not a local to the Croydon/Sutton area, so feel free to correct on anything, but some of these changes do seem perhaps unnecessarily complicated - though there is a need for some restructures around the two major towns, especially with some redevelopments and the hospital in Belmont. I don't think there are any issues with the minor changes around Sutton/Belmont (e.g. the 80/164). The 166/312/455 changes do make some sense, though there may be other alternatives here, the 166 is made slightly longer to/from Croydon which may affect journeys towards Banstead or Epsom. Regarding the 407, I think the split is perhaps needed, as it is quite long and is said to have traffic issues, plus is unlikely to have many through journeys via Croydon. However, rather than having more routes terminating in Croydon, I think this could have been achieved by either extending a short route to take over part of the 407, or by swapping sections with another route. For example, the 198 is relatively short and has the same frequency as the 407 - these routes perhaps could be restructured to give one route from Sutton to Shrublands, and another from Thornton Heath to Caterham - this would also introduce an east-west route across Croydon for new links. I also think another route might have been better to cover the Old Town link, as the proposed 443 removes the 407's existing link from Caterham to the east side of Croydon Town Centre. I think there is a need to restructure the S-prefix routes, the existing S4 in particular is quite long and indirect, and some of these changes around Sutton also simplify some routeing and allow longer vehicles on some sections. However, I don't think the revised S4 is a suitable replacement for the Wallington end of the 455 - the S4 uses lower-capacity buses at a lower frequency, and more importantly breaks the link from Croydon to Beddington, serving retail parks, industrial estates and Ikea - especially when the Tram is mentioned to be overcrowded at times. Perhaps a route could be extended from Croydon to Beddington, such as the 412 or 433? As others have mentioned, other numbers might have been better choices for the new routes, e.g. with possible confusion between the 433 and 443. Maybe 408, 437 or 447 might better correspond with the 407. Also, rather than withdrawing the 455, perhaps the S4 number could have instead been used for the St Helier-Belmont section, with the Belmont-Waddon route instead taking over the 455 number. However, this isn't a new issue - for example the number '409' might have been more logical for the 378. I can not see what the purpose of the new 439 is - it doesn't link many major destinations and is likely to be infrequent and low-capacity. It also forces the 434 to extend to Caterham, where the 407/443 is likely sufficient, while the 434 routeing - there must be an alternative solution is TFL want to serve both Northwood Avenue and Higher Drive. Waddon Marsh, like the S4, is not a very useful place to terminate, other than being able to change onto Trams. If additional capacity is needed over Purley Way, the 439 is unlikely to make much difference, converting the 289 to DD would be a better solution. I agree that the 312/455 make sense although I'm not sure about the need to reroute the 166. I think the 407 makes sense although it will leave a rather short route between Croydon and Sutton and I'd rather extend the 403 back to Sutton where it used to go years ago. Your 198 suggestion is interesting although some people would lose the link to Mayday/CU Hospital. I think the 443 is a better way to serve Old Town than the previously suggested 433 extension (potential for confusing those numbers!) and it'll be interesting to see how that new link works out, the downside of course is that it misses out the High Street. I'm not sure about the 439 other than replacing part of the rerouted 434 it doesn't offer anything that can't be done with a change of bus at Purley. I can't see too much wrong with the rest, the 80 to the prisons was probably a bit excessive and the S2 should be more in line with demand. I agree that the 289 should be double decked, maybe with spare LTs like the 313? Excellent idea about the 289 getting decked - possibly when 319 conversion comes the HVs could move to the 160 and the Ts move to the 289 |
|
|
|
Post by portman227 on Oct 16, 2020 20:59:19 GMT
Interesting changes, quite confusing between the new routes, so many changes i'm gonna have to digest however the extension and cutbacks i somewhat understand. 455 was imminent as its far too long of a route, however i would have liked 166 to stay as it is and 312 and 405 to cover pampisford road. Just a bit of reliability onto 166 as its route to Epsom would be really really long, and i would have thought the 166 would get a permanent extension to Epsom in these changes but that looks to not happen now
Also these new routings means a new interchange at Waddon marsh, i'm not sure where they would terminate, maybe the loop the 289 and 455 use to serve? The S4 could have gone to Croydon essentially imo and upgrade to 10.2m
One thing i will say is now passenger behaviour will now change, considering 407 is only between sutton and croydon, X26 will now see a higher passenger usage. I believe passengers would be far more inclined to use the x26 is quicker in that sense and even wait for the bus to turn up.
|
|
|
|
Post by jay38a on Oct 16, 2020 21:19:17 GMT
Interesting changes, quite confusing between the new routes, so many changes i'm gonna have to digest however the extension and cutbacks i somewhat understand. 455 was imminent as its far too long of a route, however i would have liked 166 to stay as it is and 312 and 405 to cover pampisford road. Just a bit of reliability onto 166 as its route to Epsom would be really really long, and i would have thought the 166 would get a permanent extension to Epsom in these changes but that looks to not happen now Also these new routings means a new interchange at Waddon marsh, i'm not sure where they would terminate, maybe the loop the 289 and 455 use to serve? The S4 could have gone to Croydon essentially imo and upgrade to 10.2m One thing i will say is now passenger behaviour will now change, considering 407 is only between sutton and croydon, X26 will now see a higher passenger usage. I believe passengers would be far more inclined to use the x26 is quicker in that sense and even wait for the bus to turn up. Unfortunately the 166 wouldn't get extended to Epsom on all journeys as Banstead to Epsom is funded by Surrey CC |
|
