Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2013 10:26:38 GMT
The Wandsworth scheme of 1991 was outrageous. The one bus links that thus scheme choked off were endless. Shepherds Bush - Tooting , Chiswick High Rd - Wandsworth , East Sheen - Kensington , Hounslow -Putney. The legacy lives on now, for whatever reason. The scheme brought minibuses to areas where double decks were always needed. Taking the 220 as an example, the curtailment at Wandsworth has not made it more reliable. If TfL really want to improve routes like the 220 that traverse probably the most congested urban areas in the UK, then you need to put in segregated bus lanes. I couldn't agree more, at the southern end we end up with the 270 that doesn't really go anywhere useful and as you rightly say these shortened routes are no more reliable than they were before. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Apr 26, 2013 11:35:13 GMT
This would then allow the 57 to be diverted at Streatham Place down Brixton Hill to Brixton. Cannot agree with that, the traffic on Brixton Hill, and especially Brixton station, would make it too unreliable. And looping the 255 via Streatham Place seems a completely unnecessary detour that would needlessly extend journey times. One G1 is bad enough! Incidentally, Streatham Village refers just to St Leonard's, originally the village was from around Streatham Green to the police station, which is also how it is used in Lambeth council's local plan. The area around Streatham station they call Streatham South, although with the decade-long redevelopment plans, that are finally approaching completion, most people still call it Streatham Hub. Brixton Hill doesn't have traffic problems unless something serious happens and whilst Brixton can be a nightmare, the extension shouldn't put much more pressure on it. It would certainly open more links as the 57 between Clapham Park & Streatham Hill is quite dead. Looping the 255 via Streatham Place does not turn it into the G1. For starters, it's current routeing is short to say the least while the extension I proposed travels along empty roads with the exception of the South Circular & at Balham. Also, it retains a link to Clapham Park from St. Leonard's Church. I also do my driving lessons along the proposed route and can say that 10.2m vehicles would manage it fine. As for Streatham Hub, I've never heard anyone use that term - people tend to use Streatham Station, Streatham Common either whilst Tesco have mentioned it as Streatham Village. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Apr 26, 2013 11:46:08 GMT
I couldn't agree more, at the southern end we end up with the 270 that doesn't really go anywhere useful and as you rightly say these shortened routes are no more reliable than they were before. So by your logic the 270 should be withdrawn as it is not "useful". Is that what you are suggesting? Just extend the 44 on to Mitcham and leave it at that? Out of curiosity how do you know, on an objective basis, that today's bus routes in the area are no more reliable than the network that ran in the 1990s? Looking at the performance reports for the 220 and 270 there is a significant difference. The 220 barely achieves the minimum standard for excess wait time and has large lost mileage. The 270 regularly reaches or exceeds its EWT target and has much less lost mileage. I cannot imagine users of the 270 would be pleased to see the 220's bad performance transferred on to their route. The 220's link is very important but it is lumbered with dragging through congested centre after congested centre - Harlesden, Shepherds Bush, Hammersmith and Putney. |
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Apr 26, 2013 12:39:41 GMT
Yes I know but to provide a night service Between Kingston and Putney for the suggestion of extending the 430 to Kingston. The 85 is a 24 hour route. Yes I know that but the 85 doesn't go via Sheen, Richmond and Ham which was suggested routing for the 430 to be extended to Kingston and I was only suggesting that the 430 was to be converted into 24 hour service was to provide that routing with a night and have alternative to the 85. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Apr 26, 2013 12:41:32 GMT
The Wandsworth scheme of 1991 was outrageous. The one bus links that thus scheme choked off were endless. Shepherds Bush - Tooting , Chiswick High Rd - Wandsworth , East Sheen - Kensington , Hounslow -Putney. The legacy lives on now, for whatever reason. The scheme brought minibuses to areas where double decks were always needed. Taking the 220 as an example, the curtailment at Wandsworth has not made it more reliable. If TfL really want to improve routes like the 220 that traverse probably the most congested urban areas in the UK, then you need to put in segregated bus lanes. I couldn't agree more, at the southern end we end up with the 270 that doesn't really go anywhere useful and as you rightly say these shortened routes are no more reliable than they were before. So are you suggesting extending the 220 over the 270? If so, your not solving the reliability issues on the 220 that 'rgd976' mentioned. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2013 13:06:24 GMT
Yes the 220 should never have been withdrawn from Tooting.
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Apr 26, 2013 13:22:29 GMT
Yes the 220 should never have been withdrawn from Tooting. In my view, it would be pointless for the reason above - it won't solve a reliability issue on on the 220 and the 270 seems to run ok so the Mitcham Common to Putney Bridge would then gain an unreliable route. Better to have two routes over a long corridor where one runs fine than one over a corridor that doesn't run fine. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Apr 26, 2013 14:25:23 GMT
I couldn't agree more, at the southern end we end up with the 270 that doesn't really go anywhere useful and as you rightly say these shortened routes are no more reliable than they were before. So by your logic the 270 should be withdrawn as it is not "useful". Is that what you are suggesting? Just extend the 44 on to Mitcham and leave it at that? Out of curiosity how do you know, on an objective basis, that today's bus routes in the area are no more reliable than the network that ran in the 1990s? Looking at the performance reports for the 220 and 270 there is a significant difference. The 220 barely achieves the minimum standard for excess wait time and has large lost mileage. The 270 regularly reaches or exceeds its EWT target and has much less lost mileage. I cannot imagine users of the 270 would be pleased to see the 220's bad performance transferred on to their route. The 220's link is very important but it is lumbered with dragging through congested centre after congested centre - Harlesden, Shepherds Bush, Hammersmith and Putney. Not to mention the sheer amount of traffic in Putney and north of Putney Bridge due to match days at Craven Cottage which certainly doesn't help matters. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2013 14:41:20 GMT
I couldn't agree more, at the southern end we end up with the 270 that doesn't really go anywhere useful and as you rightly say these shortened routes are no more reliable than they were before. So by your logic the 270 should be withdrawn as it is not "useful". Is that what you are suggesting? Just extend the 44 on to Mitcham and leave it at that? Out of curiosity how do you know, on an objective basis, that today's bus routes in the area are no more reliable than the network that ran in the 1990s? Looking at the performance reports for the 220 and 270 there is a significant difference. The 220 barely achieves the minimum standard for excess wait time and has large lost mileage. The 270 regularly reaches or exceeds its EWT target and has much less lost mileage. I cannot imagine users of the 270 would be pleased to see the 220's bad performance transferred on to their route. The 220's link is very important but it is lumbered with dragging through congested centre after congested centre - Harlesden, Shepherds Bush, Hammersmith and Putney. Yes so the 270 operates well but the 220 doesn't, because the 220 goes through the most congested areas. The answer the wandsworth scheme came up with didn't work !! I would argue that giving the 220 extra ground that isn't congested will give it more of a chance. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2013 14:45:47 GMT
As a snapshot , checking the countdown system currently shows the 220 operating very well with no short turns and evenly spaced buses.
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Apr 26, 2013 15:09:24 GMT
So by your logic the 270 should be withdrawn as it is not "useful". Is that what you are suggesting? Just extend the 44 on to Mitcham and leave it at that? Out of curiosity how do you know, on an objective basis, that today's bus routes in the area are no more reliable than the network that ran in the 1990s? Looking at the performance reports for the 220 and 270 there is a significant difference. The 220 barely achieves the minimum standard for excess wait time and has large lost mileage. The 270 regularly reaches or exceeds its EWT target and has much less lost mileage. I cannot imagine users of the 270 would be pleased to see the 220's bad performance transferred on to their route. The 220's link is very important but it is lumbered with dragging through congested centre after congested centre - Harlesden, Shepherds Bush, Hammersmith and Putney. Yes so the 270 operates well but the 220 doesn't, because the 220 goes through the most congested areas. The answer the wandsworth scheme came up with didn't work !! I would argue that giving the 220 extra ground that isn't congested will give it more of a chance. The answer that the Wandsworth scheme came up worked in regards of the 220 as it meant the people who used the Wandsworth to Mitcham Cricketers section (obviously now terminates at Mitcham Common) had a reliable service in the form of the 270. If the 220 was to go back, those people who live along the current 270 would gain a poor service because of the 220's struggles from Putney onwards. Giving the 220 extra ground will certainly not help it! |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Apr 26, 2013 15:39:09 GMT
As a snapshot , checking the countdown system currently shows the 220 operating very well with no short turns and evenly spaced buses. I am sure you will acknowledge that that is a tiny snapshot of the route's performance. I referred to the published reports from TfL which shows performance over a 2 year period. I think we could all look at Countdown for any reasonably frequent service and see "good" or "bad" performance depending on when and where we looked. Aggregated performance over a long time period tends to give a better view even when it contradicts our personal perceptions / experience - I certainly feel like that when I look at my local route and think "eh?, can't be right" but I'm not on every bus all day, every day. |
|
|
|
Post by beaver14uk on Apr 26, 2013 18:45:24 GMT
I called it Streatham Hub yesterday when I was there  Cannot agree with that, the traffic on Brixton Hill, and especially Brixton station, would make it too unreliable. And looping the 255 via Streatham Place seems a completely unnecessary detour that would needlessly extend journey times. One G1 is bad enough! Incidentally, Streatham Village refers just to St Leonard's, originally the village was from around Streatham Green to the police station, which is also how it is used in Lambeth council's local plan. The area around Streatham station they call Streatham South, although with the decade-long redevelopment plans, that are finally approaching completion, most people still call it Streatham Hub. Brixton Hill doesn't have traffic problems unless something serious happens and whilst Brixton can be a nightmare, the extension shouldn't put much more pressure on it. It would certainly open more links as the 57 between Clapham Park & Streatham Hill is quite dead. Looping the 255 via Streatham Place does not turn it into the G1. For starters, it's current routeing is short to say the least while the extension I proposed travels along empty roads with the exception of the South Circular & at Balham. Also, it retains a link to Clapham Park from St. Leonard's Church. I also do my driving lessons along the proposed route and can say that 10.2m vehicles would manage it fine. As for Streatham Hub, I've never heard anyone use that term - people tend to use Streatham Station, Streatham Common either whilst Tesco have mentioned it as Streatham Village. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Apr 26, 2013 19:39:35 GMT
I called it Streatham Hub yesterday when I was there Brixton Hill doesn't have traffic problems unless something serious happens and whilst Brixton can be a nightmare, the extension shouldn't put much more pressure on it. It would certainly open more links as the 57 between Clapham Park & Streatham Hill is quite dead. Looping the 255 via Streatham Place does not turn it into the G1. For starters, it's current routeing is short to say the least while the extension I proposed travels along empty roads with the exception of the South Circular & at Balham. Also, it retains a link to Clapham Park from St. Leonard's Church. I also do my driving lessons along the proposed route and can say that 10.2m vehicles would manage it fine. As for Streatham Hub, I've never heard anyone use that term - people tend to use Streatham Station, Streatham Common either whilst Tesco have mentioned it as Streatham Village. Yay, I've found someone who uses that name ;D |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2013 19:53:38 GMT
I am sure you will acknowledge that that is a tiny snapshot of the route's performance. I referred to the published reports from TfL which shows performance over a 2 year period. I think we could all look at Countdown for any reasonably frequent service and see "good" or "bad" performance depending on when and where we looked. Aggregated performance over a long time period tends to give a better view even when it contradicts our personal perceptions / experience - I certainly feel like that when I look at my local route and think "eh?, can't be right" but I'm not on every bus all day, every day.[/quote]
The operator no doubt tries its best to run the 220 without massive delays, bunching and lost mileage. Perhaps it has improved since the driver change overs in Shepherds Bush have stopped.
I know TfL keep things in check, but a scheme as large as it was, to remain in place twenty years later , with an increase in patronage and changing travel patterns, perhaps it is time for a rethink.
|
|
