|
Post by 6HP502C on Jun 24, 2022 13:55:52 GMT
|
|
|
Post by YX10FFN on Jun 24, 2022 14:08:56 GMT
(Not aimed at you, aimed at the articles) When the 533 stopped in Chiswick the route was slower, less reliable and as the article even mentions, extremely busy. The notion that the bridge opening to pedestrians meaning that the 533 is carrying fresh air now is totally incorrect, so having it stop in Chiswick again will give the route exactly the same reliability and capacity challenges as before at a lower frequency. The 533 avoiding Chiswick allowed it to serve its primary purpose, connecting Mortlake and Barnes to Hammersmith, far better. The 190 is a perfectly adequate service along that stretch with connections to Hammersmith, the primary destination of Chiswick users. Yet another example of rich people kicking up a fuss and TFL immediately folding.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 24, 2022 14:33:49 GMT
So looks like TfL are killing off the 209 because once it goes every 30 minutes, majority will use other means - could of easily saved money by merging the 209, 378 & 485 into one every 15 minute route running from Wandsworth (ignoring the Riverside change) to Hammersmith Bridge via Putney Bridge, Avondale Road & Wetland double runs I still disagree regarding an Avondale Road double run, given how empty 485s are on the Castelnau stretch I wouldn't mind completely disregarding that section and just having it run Wandsworth-Mortlake. Two 15 minute frequency routes, one Mortlake-Wandsworth and one Castelnau-Hammersmith, whatever numbers they use, is what I'd employ to most accurately match demand. Then why not start the 533 at Avondale Road then? I don't think they should their long standing link to the bridge especially when people cross the railway at Mortlake to access the 209 hence my thinking of just merging three routes into one which saves money in any event and no one loses their current link?
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Jun 24, 2022 15:14:25 GMT
surprised 485 is not mentioned in this. Think we can assume those changes aren't happening anytime soon. Nothing on 485, but other changes are Starting in 3 weeks on 16th July per the article
|
|
|
Post by YX10FFN on Jun 24, 2022 15:22:13 GMT
I still disagree regarding an Avondale Road double run, given how empty 485s are on the Castelnau stretch I wouldn't mind completely disregarding that section and just having it run Wandsworth-Mortlake. Two 15 minute frequency routes, one Mortlake-Wandsworth and one Castelnau-Hammersmith, whatever numbers they use, is what I'd employ to most accurately match demand. Then why not start the 533 at Avondale Road then? I don't think they should their long standing link to the bridge especially when people cross the railway at Mortlake to access the 209 hence my thinking of just merging three routes into one which saves money in any event and no one loses their current link? Valid point about Avondale Road; I think the 209/533 (whatever that Castelnau-Hammersmith route would be called) having a short double run in and out of Mortlake Bus Station is better from a passenger clarity standpoint than having a longer double run all the way from Barnes. Link to the bridge kept and new link to Hammersmith itself.
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Jun 24, 2022 16:47:53 GMT
(Not aimed at you, aimed at the articles) When the 533 stopped in Chiswick the route was slower, less reliable and as the article even mentions, extremely busy. The notion that the bridge opening to pedestrians meaning that the 533 is carrying fresh air now is totally incorrect, so having it stop in Chiswick again will give the route exactly the same reliability and capacity challenges as before at a lower frequency. The 533 avoiding Chiswick allowed it to serve its primary purpose, connecting Mortlake and Barnes to Hammersmith, far better. The 190 is a perfectly adequate service along that stretch with connections to Hammersmith, the primary destination of Chiswick users. Yet another example of rich people kicking up a fuss and TFL immediately folding. It’s not likely to have a big impact on reliability or journey speed, we are talking about serving five more stops in Chiswick in each direction, some of which are next to open spaces and so will have low footfall. There is no change of route, just serving those stops where passengers actively indicate they want to board or alight. It’s pointless buses sailing past stops that people might actually want to use, the 533 is the only bus route between Chiswick and Barnes and the round the corner link will help to attract people who might otherwise have driven adding to traffic congestion. Yes the 533 had capacity issues when Hammersmith Bridge was closed to pedestrians and making space for Mortlake and Barnes residents on buses departing from Hammersmith was fair enough. But the bridge has reopened and passenger demand has fallen. There is plenty of space on the bus for everyone and the service will revert to operating just like almost every other bus route in London.
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Jun 24, 2022 17:52:52 GMT
The 533 proposals seem like madness me why on earth do TFL think reducing the frequency and introducing new stops along the A316 is a good idea. The route will effectively become an X190 for people on the section from Chiswick Bridge to Hogarth Roundabout which will make it even busier. To introduce both at once doesn't make sense to me.
Seen quite a few comments in the guestbook of people saying that Barnes would benefit from a link to Charing Cross Hospital makes me think the 378 should be extended up to Hammersmith to provide this. Of course that won't happen as TFL need to save money and they're withdrawing the 74 because Fulham Palace Road is, in their eyes, overbussed.
|
|
|
Post by abellion on Jun 24, 2022 18:14:16 GMT
I hope any non-withdrawal changes to the 485 include an extension to Southside and even a frequency increase. It finishes randomly on Ram Street, barely shows up compared to the 220 and 270 with worse operating hours and has less useful links (Barnes vs Hammersmith/Tooting). If anything the 265 might as well be diverted to Wandsworth again
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Jun 24, 2022 19:35:46 GMT
Not local so take my comments with a pinch of salt - but wasn’t it easier (plus more savings) to just get rid of the 209? An unattractive 30 min frequency isn’t exactly going to attract people so let’s cut to the chase and do what you want to do but don’t dare to do The 17 min frequency on the 533 - frequencies being made up as we go? I suspect that by making the 533 all stopping it will take a little longer to complete the route. To save TfL increasing the PVR by 1 they will reduce the frequency from 15 to 17 minutes to compensate. I'll leave it to you all to decide whether making it all stopping is more beneficial to passengers or for a low frequency route have a clock face 15 minute frequency is better.
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Jun 24, 2022 20:11:36 GMT
Not local so take my comments with a pinch of salt - but wasn’t it easier (plus more savings) to just get rid of the 209? An unattractive 30 min frequency isn’t exactly going to attract people so let’s cut to the chase and do what you want to do but don’t dare to do The 17 min frequency on the 533 - frequencies being made up as we go? I suspect that by making the 533 all stopping it will take a little longer to complete the route. To save TfL increasing the PVR by 1 they will reduce the frequency from 15 to 17 minutes to compensate. I'll leave it to you all to decide whether making it all stopping is more beneficial to passengers or for a low frequency route have a clock face 15 minute frequency is better. 17 minutes frequency is worst than 20 minutes intervals The extra 3 minutes potential wait is not as troublesome as having buses at different times every hour. At least with a 20 minute interval it repeats same time every hour, so locals can remember it for their stop With a 17 minute interval, it is 1 hour 8 minutes later an hour latr
|
|
|
Post by george on Jun 25, 2022 12:12:24 GMT
Although already pointed out the comment section is not going to change things it's still great to see that people are using it as it shows how important bus services are to people. On a separate point it's sad to see how much routes in those areas have changed since the bridge closed, remember the time when 209 where always very busy and 72 where packed that a lot of the time you couldn't get on.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jun 25, 2022 15:00:53 GMT
Although already pointed out the comment section is not going to change things it's still great to see that people are using it as it shows how important bus services are to people. On a separate point it's sad to see how much routes in those areas have changed since the bridge closed, remember the time when 209 where always very busy and 72 where packed that a lot of the time you couldn't get on. I know far cry from the 209 every 4-6 mins pre 2019.
|
|
|
Post by londonbuses on Jun 25, 2022 18:05:41 GMT
Wouldn't it make sense to just combine a lot of routes in the area?
The 378, 419 and 485 could be combined into the 485 from Wandsworth to Richmond running at 6bph SD with a route of Wandsworth Southside, Upper Richmond Road, Putney High St, 485 to Castlenau then 419 to Richmond. The tube link is provided at East Putney.
The 72, 419 and 533 could be combined into the 72 from White City to Roehampton running at 6bph SD with a route of 72 to Hammersmith, 533 to Barnes Bridge (stopping in Chiswick as planned) then 419 to Roehampton. The 49 can be extended to East Acton to replace the remaining section of the 72 as I believe is planned anyway.
Then leave the 209 at 4bph as now.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 25, 2022 19:45:25 GMT
Wouldn't it make sense to just combine a lot of routes in the area? The 378, 419 and 485 could be combined into the 485 from Wandsworth to Richmond running at 6bph SD with a route of Wandsworth Southside, Upper Richmond Road, Putney High St, 485 to Castlenau then 419 to Richmond. The tube link is provided at East Putney. The 72, 419 and 533 could be combined into the 72 from White City to Roehampton running at 6bph SD with a route of 72 to Hammersmith, 533 to Barnes Bridge (stopping in Chiswick as planned) then 419 to Roehampton. The 49 can be extended to East Acton to replace the remaining section of the 72 as I believe is planned anyway. Then leave the 209 at 4bph as now. I think the combined 378, 419 & 485 idea could work in that form but 6bph is probably too high - currently the 419 is every 12 minutes but that is probably for the Hammersmith Bridge section to Roehampton section so I'd go with an every 15 minute frequency instead (I think when the 419 was just Hammersmith to Richmond, it was just every 15 minutes). The issue then becomes what serves Avondale Road as the link to the District is solved at East Putney with the 485 diversion and the Wetlands can still be served by this merged route which leads to your second idea - I think the 533 probably should remain as it is but extended to Avondale Road and in order to replace the 419 to Roehampton, the 209 may have to extend down there instead at an every 12 or 15 minute frequency. North of the river, the 72 is planned to be replaced by a combination of the 49, 272 & 283 so the 533 should probably remain at Hammersmith to provide the critical link to Barnes & Mortlake. Overall, some good thoughts there
|
|
|
Post by londonbuses on Jun 25, 2022 21:06:33 GMT
I think the combined 378, 419 & 485 idea could work in that form but 6bph is probably too high - currently the 419 is every 12 minutes but that is probably for the Hammersmith Bridge section to Roehampton section so I'd go with an every 15 minute frequency instead (I think when the 419 was just Hammersmith to Richmond, it was just every 15 minutes). The issue then becomes what serves Avondale Road as the link to the District is solved at East Putney with the 485 diversion and the Wetlands can still be served by this merged route which leads to your second idea - I think the 533 probably should remain as it is but extended to Avondale Road and in order to replace the 419 to Roehampton, the 209 may have to extend down there instead at an every 12 or 15 minute frequency. North of the river, the 72 is planned to be replaced by a combination of the 49, 272 & 283 so the 533 should probably remain at Hammersmith to provide the critical link to Barnes & Mortlake. Overall, some good thoughts there I do agree, I think 6bph may be too much and 4bph should be fine - I was mainly just trying to match frequencies up with other routes. I don't see the issue with Avondale Road - it still retains the 209, and has easy access to the 485 at the top of the road to connect with the District Line. With the 72, I completely disagree with the changes being made - the extensions of the 49, 272 and 283 means the withdrawal of the 72 has very little effect on PVR anyway. The 49 extension actually makes complete logical sense, but the rest is pointless. I wonder if TfL have even thought about what will run from Hammersmith to Roehampton once the bridge reopens. The new 72 route also removes the need for the temporary route, and the confusing one way loop of the 533. It additionally means Hammersmith to Roehampton can be done directly again - obviously not the fastest route, but for some users the direct link is important even with the longer journey time.
|
|