Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2013 14:56:10 GMT
249 - Before the 249 was extended to Clapham Common, I thought of a extension from Tooting Bec to Wandsworth via Trinity Road, Hugenot Place (westbound), East Hill, Marcilly Road (eastbound), Wandsworth High Street, Garratt Lane - terminating next to the Arndale car park. This would of created a new link between Streatham & beyond. That would have been a very nice extension, but a bad loss of the main route to Balham without a suitable replacement. The 315 is not enough on its own to cover the link between Balham and Streatham it on its own, and you get usage between Balham High Road and Tooting Bec Road and beyond, , especially at school hours for Chestnut Grove school, that would be left without a direct link. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Apr 24, 2013 15:38:36 GMT
249 - Before the 249 was extended to Clapham Common, I thought of a extension from Tooting Bec to Wandsworth via Trinity Road, Hugenot Place (westbound), East Hill, Marcilly Road (eastbound), Wandsworth High Street, Garratt Lane - terminating next to the Arndale car park. This would of created a new link between Streatham & beyond. That would have been a very nice extension, but a bad loss of the main route to Balham without a suitable replacement. The 315 is not enough on its own to cover the link between Balham and Streatham it on its own, and you get usage between Balham High Road and Tooting Bec Road and beyond, , especially at school hours for Chestnut Grove school, that would be left without a direct link. Maybe if the 255 was extended to Balham at the time, then the 249 could of went up to Wandsworth. Shame really that it probably will never happen  |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Apr 24, 2013 17:25:00 GMT
That would have been a very nice extension, but a bad loss of the main route to Balham without a suitable replacement. The 315 is not enough on its own to cover the link between Balham and Streatham it on its own, and you get usage between Balham High Road and Tooting Bec Road and beyond, , especially at school hours for Chestnut Grove school, that would be left without a direct link. The 315 seems to be one of those "small-bus" routes that does the work of a major trunk route - the P13 in the same area has a similar problem. Rather than supporting trunk routes as such routes are generally supposed to do, they end up providing key links and thus get a bit flooded. An allocation of longer buses would probably be a start - the 10.2m LDP (204) at SW often floats out on the route so that should not be a problem... The 170's DP's & SE's have also done the route on a number of occasions as well. Personally, the 315 should be extended to Crystal Palace via Robson Road, Park Hall Road, Rosendale Road, Tritton Road, Vale Street, St. Gothards Road, Gypsy Road, Gypsy Circus, Dulwich Wood Park, Kingswood Drive, College Road, Fountain Drive & Crystal Palace Park Parade, terminating at Crystal Palace Bus Station. This replaces the 322 between Robson Road & Gypsy Road allowing it to be diverted via Norwood High Street (southbound), Ernest Avenue & Knights Hill (northbound), Gypsy Road, Gypsy Hill, Westow Hill (southbound), Church Road & Westow Street (northbound), Crystal Palace Park Parade, Westwood Hill, Sydenham Road & Bell Green terminating at Lower Sydenham Sainsburys. The replacement of the 450 by the 315 along Kingswood Drive, College Road & Fountain Drive & replaced by the 322 between Crystal Palace Park Parade & Lower Sydenham allows the 450 to be re-routed via College Road, Dulwich Wood Park, Gypsy Circus, South Croxted Road, Park Hall Road, Rosendale Road, Norwood Road, Herne Hill, Milkwood Road, Hinton Road terminating at Loughborough Junction. Buses can use Coldharbour Lane, Herne Hill Road & Wanless Road to return to Hinton Road. This would open up a number of new links 315: Balham & Streatham to Gypsy Circus 322: Clapham Common, Clapham North, Brixton & West Norwood to Sydenham & Lower Sydenham 450: West Croydon, Thornton Heath, Upper Norwood & Crystal Palace to Loughborough Junction Rosendale Road between Park Hall Road & Norwood Road would be served by buses for the first time ever Milkwood Road & Hinton Road would be served by buses for the first time since an 800 series Mobility Route was withdrawn around 2000. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2013 19:45:47 GMT
The 315 seems to be one of those "small-bus" routes that does the work of a major trunk route - the P13 in the same area has a similar problem. I totally agree on the P13, but I think the 315 is generally fine and as a regular use do not see it as a trunk route. Most of the demand is between local residential streets and either the nearest shopping street or Streatham High Road. If anything it is rather short and wasted and could benefit from an extension to create more links and make it more useful. But if the 255 extension ever does get approved I would much prefer to see the 255 and 315 swap routes St Leonard's into Balham though. The nature of the 315 with shorter buses and hail and ride sections would make it far more suited to the residential streets via the Weir Estate. As the 255 which mainly runs on major roads with longer buses it would be more suitable for Bedford Hill. It would also have the added benefit of cutting out the requirement for the 315 to make a right turn off Streatham High Road into Gleneldon Road. I think the usage on Bedford Hill is surprisingly low given the number of homes where it is the nearest route, and I think the frequency is the reason. With a bus at best every 20 minutes it is often quicker (and free) to just walk instead, and I have walked the entire length of Bedford Hill without on many occasions without being passed by a bus. The higher frequency of the 255 could make the bus an option to a lot more people. |
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Apr 24, 2013 20:55:27 GMT
414 - Withdraw the 414 between Hyde Park Corner and Maida Hill and reroute it via the 14 to Tottenham Court Road. This will relief the busy 14. That would make the 414 one of the most pointless bus routes, unless you extend it further e.g. to Holborn, King's Cross or Wimbledon, Wandsworth, Roehampton etc. Well what about extending the 414 to Kingston, this would provide Kingston a link with Central London. |
|
|
|
Post by Connor on Apr 24, 2013 22:13:43 GMT
That would have been a very nice extension, but a bad loss of the main route to Balham without a suitable replacement. The 315 is not enough on its own to cover the link between Balham and Streatham it on its own, and you get usage between Balham High Road and Tooting Bec Road and beyond, , especially at school hours for Chestnut Grove school, that would be left without a direct link. The 315 seems to be one of those "small-bus" routes that does the work of a major trunk route - the P13 in the same area has a similar problem. Rather than supporting trunk routes as such routes are generally supposed to do, they end up providing key links and thus get a bit flooded. An allocation of longer buses would probably be a start - the 10.2m LDP (204) at SW often floats out on the route so that should not be a problem... I think that the 255 should be converted to DDs, extended southwards to Thornton Heath Pond, northwards to Balham via the route 315 (rerouted via Oakmead Road to avoid the low bridge), maybe even to Clapham Junction. It'd be a well-used route if routed by Bedford Hill; like others, I find the 315 service quite bad, so I just walk to Streatham in around 20 mins. Rather walk than wait ages for a 315, or the 249 takes ages to reach Streatham.  The 255 would look bangin' with double deckers. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Apr 24, 2013 23:03:29 GMT
Well what about extending the 414 to Kingston, this would provide Kingston a link with Central London. That would make the peak running times on the route nearly 2 hours, as it would essentially add the entire 85 onto the end of the route. The 430 could be extended to Kingston, as that already reaches Roehampton and is generally lightly used - South Kensington is then a good place to make further connections - and there'd be an alternative to Putney for the 85. That's not a bad idea. |
|
|
|
Post by LX09FBJ on Apr 25, 2013 9:23:44 GMT
That would make the 414 one of the most pointless bus routes, unless you extend it further e.g. to Holborn, King's Cross or Wimbledon, Wandsworth, Roehampton etc. Agreed - odd proposal given it would make the 14 and 414 the exact same route! The 14 already has a 5 min frequency in the peaks, I'm not sure how much relief it really needs. The Putney - Central London corridor already has the 14, 22, and 74. Similarly for the 430, which already supports the 74 and is pretty lightly used. If anything that should have less resources thrown at it, rather than more. The routeing of the 430 is slightly different from the 74 between West Brompton and South Kensington, and it's more direct than the 74. Also in the Putney area, extend the 37 and withdraw the 337, and that way Richmond-Putney gets another 24-hour bus route, and would make for a more direct 'old' 37. Another idea which I like, but not too keen in practise is to extend the 337 via H22 and withdrawing that route. |
|
|
|
Post by LX09FBJ on Apr 25, 2013 9:46:32 GMT
The routeing of the 430 is slightly different from the 74 between West Brompton and South Kensington, and it's more direct than the 74. Also in the Putney area, extend the 37 and withdraw the 337, and that way Richmond-Putney gets another 24-hour bus route, and would make for a more direct 'old' 37. Another idea which I like, but not too keen in practise is to extend the 337 via H22 and withdrawing that route. The 430's routing between West Brompton and South Kensington is the only difference I can see between the 74 and 430, as I think I noted in another post. An 8-min frequency on the route seems like a bit of a waste, if you ask me. As for the 37 I'm not sure I want to see that extended back over the old routing. The 37 can suffer reliability issues already, so you'd probably end up with a worse service on both ends of te route. There's already scope for further connections at Putney, to Kingston and Richmond etc. so I'm not sure a through service is necessary anyway. Richmond-Putney already has the N22, so I'm not particularly convinced it needs another route covering the same section. Personally I still stand by extending the 430 from Roehampton to Kingston, which would then allow a reduction on the 85 and new links northward from Kingston. A 430 to Kingston should IMHO have a different routing than the 85, say via Sheen and Ham via 371, but then via the 65 direct route, instead of the side roads served by the 371 (which will stay as-is). It will also give the 337 some relief. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Apr 25, 2013 10:38:54 GMT
Agreed - odd proposal given it would make the 14 and 414 the exact same route! The 14 already has a 5 min frequency in the peaks, I'm not sure how much relief it really needs. The Putney - Central London corridor already has the 14, 22, and 74. Similarly for the 430, which already supports the 74 and is pretty lightly used. If anything that should have less resources thrown at it, rather than more. The routeing of the 430 is slightly different from the 74 between West Brompton and South Kensington, and it's more direct than the 74. Also in the Putney area, extend the 37 and withdraw the 337, and that way Richmond-Putney gets another 24-hour bus route, and would make for a more direct 'old' 37. Another idea which I like, but not too keen in practise is to extend the 337 via H22 and withdrawing that route. As 'mredd' stated, the 37 suffers from reliability issues because of the volume of traffic it takes along the route as well as using two sections of the South Circular & traffic at Brixton & Peckham. The only thing the 37 needs is some help along the Clapham Junction to Clapham Common section which it & the 35 struggles between (an extended 417 is my preferred choice), and possibly a frequency increase. If the 337 needs a night service, then it should made 24 hours. |
|
|
|
Post by John tuthill on Apr 25, 2013 10:49:22 GMT
The routeing of the 430 is slightly different from the 74 between West Brompton and South Kensington, and it's more direct than the 74. Also in the Putney area, extend the 37 and withdraw the 337, and that way Richmond-Putney gets another 24-hour bus route, and would make for a more direct 'old' 37. Another idea which I like, but not too keen in practise is to extend the 337 via H22 and withdrawing that route. As 'mredd' stated, the 37 suffers from reliability issues because of the volume of traffic it takes along the route as well as using two sections of the South Circular & traffic at Brixton & Peckham. The only thing the 37 needs is some help along the Clapham Junction to Clapham Common section which it & the 35 struggles between (an extended 417 is my preferred choice), and possibly a frequency increase. If the 337 needs a night service, then it should made 24 hours. or as I've mentioned before extend the 49 to Clapham Common Old Town? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2013 10:52:30 GMT
The routeing of the 430 is slightly different from the 74 between West Brompton and South Kensington, and it's more direct than the 74. Also in the Putney area, extend the 37 and withdraw the 337, and that way Richmond-Putney gets another 24-hour bus route, and would make for a more direct 'old' 37. Another idea which I like, but not too keen in practise is to extend the 337 via H22 and withdrawing that route. As 'mredd' stated, the 37 suffers from reliability issues because of the volume of traffic it takes along the route as well as using two sections of the South Circular & traffic at Brixton & Peckham. The only thing the 37 needs is some help along the Clapham Junction to Clapham Common section which it & the 35 struggles between (an extended 417 is my preferred choice), and possibly a frequency increase. If the 337 needs a night service, then it should made 24 hours. I'd certainly agree with extending the 37 back to Richmond, far too many routes were chopped up in the Wandsworth scheme of 1991 including the 49 and 220 which I'd return to Streatham and Tooting respectivley. Its questionable whether shortening routes does make them more reliable and even it does its at too greater cost, we end up with routes like the 270 which don't really go anywhere. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Apr 25, 2013 10:54:38 GMT
The 315 seems to be one of those "small-bus" routes that does the work of a major trunk route - the P13 in the same area has a similar problem. Rather than supporting trunk routes as such routes are generally supposed to do, they end up providing key links and thus get a bit flooded. An allocation of longer buses would probably be a start - the 10.2m LDP (204) at SW often floats out on the route so that should not be a problem... I think that the 255 should be converted to DDs, extended southwards to Thornton Heath Pond, northwards to Balham via the route 315 (rerouted via Oakmead Road to avoid the low bridge), maybe even to Clapham Junction. It'd be a well-used route if routed by Bedford Hill; like others, I find the 315 service quite bad, so I just walk to Streatham in around 20 mins. Rather walk than wait ages for a 315, or the 249 takes ages to reach Streatham. The 255 would look bangin' with double deckers. ;DThe 315 isn't bad, it's just got a lesser frequency than other routes in the area. I don't agree with diverting the 255 via Bedford Hill & the 315 taking over the 255 north of Streatham. If anything, the 315 should be converted to 10.2m buses, the frequency increased to 15 mins & extended to Crystal Palace via my proposed route on the previous page. The 255 could then be extended to Balham via Streatham Hill, Streatham Place, Atkins Road, Clapham Park, Kings Avenue, Thornton Road and then following the proposed route. This would then allow the 57 to be diverted at Streatham Place down Brixton Hill to Brixton. As for the southern end, I'd leave the 255 serving Pollards Hill and extend the 64 to Streatham Village (others may say Streatham Station ;D) via the 109 to help it out & also connects Addington Village & New Addington further into Inner London. Only my thoughts though |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Apr 25, 2013 10:57:19 GMT
As 'mredd' stated, the 37 suffers from reliability issues because of the volume of traffic it takes along the route as well as using two sections of the South Circular & traffic at Brixton & Peckham. The only thing the 37 needs is some help along the Clapham Junction to Clapham Common section which it & the 35 struggles between (an extended 417 is my preferred choice), and possibly a frequency increase. If the 337 needs a night service, then it should made 24 hours. or as I've mentioned before extend the 49 to Clapham Common Old Town? Lol, you really like that idea ;D It's a good idea but I'd personally think taking one route away from the Old Town would be better than adding one. Still, I do like that idea, more new links created that could be beneficial |
|
|
|
Post by John tuthill on Apr 25, 2013 11:34:36 GMT
or as I've mentioned before extend the 49 to Clapham Common Old Town? Lol, you really like that idea ;D It's a good idea but I'd personally think taking one route away from the Old Town would be better than adding one. Still, I do like that idea, more new links created that could be beneficial And it's not adding that much extra milage to the existing route |
|
