|
|
Post by snoggle on Apr 26, 2013 20:01:13 GMT
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. There is no money for any fundamental rethink of the bus network - certainly not where it would require more resource. Those more "major" things that have occurred recently (Chiswick Business Park, Olympic Park) are all funded with S106 funds. There is next to no TfL money going into them. There is no programme as in 2000-2006 to really expand the network's coverage and capacity. I am struggling to think of any of the 1990s area schemes that have been fundamentally altered since they came in - Walthamstow, Harrow, Sutton, Bexleyheath, Wandsworth, Kingston. Vehicle sizes and some frequencies have been changed over the years and some routes tweaked but I think all of the above are pretty much intact. Happy to be corrected for those who know places like Sutton or Bexley better than I do. |
|
|
|
Post by John tuthill on Apr 26, 2013 22:31:25 GMT
I called it Streatham Hub yesterday when I was there  Yay, I've found someone who uses that name ;D Years ago a cabbie friend of mind told me that when the "Red braces & Gel Lads" started gentrifying parts of South London, he genially had people asking for "St. Reatham", Battersea was referred to either as "South Chelsea" or "Bat-Asia" and Clapham was called "Claam" (Rythmed with Calm) Now you know why 'Merchant Bankers' in cockney slang originated!!  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2013 0:56:18 GMT
Looping the 255 via Streatham Place does not turn it into the G1. Going all the way up Streatham Hill just to come most of the way back via Kings Avenue is a very G1 type loop. To go the half a mile as proposed to Emmanuel Road you are making it go almost an additional extra mile to go up, round, and back down again where they is no demand and not providing any useful new links. Those at Clapham Park and the the top end of Kings Avenue can already use the 355 to get to Balham. The extension is about giving those living within Streatham Hill and Balham links to the two major High Roads, not for making another 11 mile long route that can be unreliable at times (the TfL figures show the lost milage since last summer to be below the minimum standard) even worse. With the Streatham Hub, it is also always called that by the constructors, Lambeth Council, the GLA and local and national papers. It has been the biggest local story in Streatham for a decade, it is a very well known name. www.vinciconstruction.co.uk/streathamhub/www.streathamaction.org.uk/a-short-history-of-the-streatham-hubEven the TfL consultation to extend the 133 said "We propose to extend the route from St. Leonard’s Church to a new stop at Streatham Station on the site of the former Streatham Ice Arena and Leisure Centre, as part of the Streatham Hub development. " consultations.tfl.gov.uk/buses/route-133 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2013 10:15:47 GMT
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. There is no money for any fundamental rethink of the bus network - certainly not where it would require more resource. Those more "major" things that have occurred recently (Chiswick Business Park, Olympic Park) are all funded with S106 funds. There is next to no TfL money going into them. There is no programme as in 2000-2006 to really expand the network's coverage and capacity. I am struggling to think of any of the 1990s area schemes that have been fundamentally altered since they came in - Walthamstow, Harrow, Sutton, Bexleyheath, Wandsworth, Kingston. Vehicle sizes and some frequencies have been changed over the years and some routes tweaked but I think all of the above are pretty much intact. Happy to be corrected for those who know places like Sutton or Bexley better than I do. This would actually save money as the overall PVR would be reduced, no overlap between Putney and Wandsworth and more stand space at Putney Bridge. For anybody going from the Tooting area to the Hammersmith/Shepherds Bush area the current arrangement is useless, they'll have to change bus mid journey and pay again for the pleasure. I suspect the shortening of routes is to make route tendering easier rather than anything to do with reliability. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Apr 27, 2013 10:28:59 GMT
There is no money for any fundamental rethink of the bus network - certainly not where it would require more resource. Those more "major" things that have occurred recently (Chiswick Business Park, Olympic Park) are all funded with S106 funds. There is next to no TfL money going into them. There is no programme as in 2000-2006 to really expand the network's coverage and capacity. I am struggling to think of any of the 1990s area schemes that have been fundamentally altered since they came in - Walthamstow, Harrow, Sutton, Bexleyheath, Wandsworth, Kingston. Vehicle sizes and some frequencies have been changed over the years and some routes tweaked but I think all of the above are pretty much intact. Happy to be corrected for those who know places like Sutton or Bexley better than I do. This would actually save money as the overall PVR would be reduced, no overlap between Putney and Wandsworth and more stand space at Putney Bridge. For anybody going from the Tooting area to the Hammersmith/Shepherds Bush area the current arrangement is useless, they'll have to change bus mid journey and pay again for the pleasure. I suspect the shortening of routes is to make route tendering easier rather than anything to do with reliability. And with this proposal, the section between Wandsworth & Tooting will become unreliable resulting in a longer route that may remove the need to change but also results in making a section that is currently reliable into an unreliable one. Furthermore, your proposal seems to suggest removing the Tooting to Mitcham Common section resulting in Putney residents having to change to get to Mitcham. The TfL figures shows the 220 struggles whilst the 270 doesn't - why would you extend the unreliable route over the reliable one. Saturdays would reek havoc with the extended route whenever Fulham FC play at home at Craven Cottage. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2013 10:49:53 GMT
This would actually save money as the overall PVR would be reduced, no overlap between Putney and Wandsworth and more stand space at Putney Bridge. For anybody going from the Tooting area to the Hammersmith/Shepherds Bush area the current arrangement is useless, they'll have to change bus mid journey and pay again for the pleasure. I suspect the shortening of routes is to make route tendering easier rather than anything to do with reliability. And with this proposal, the section between Wandsworth & Tooting will become unreliable resulting in a longer route that may remove the need to change but also results in making a section that is currently reliable into an unreliable one. Furthermore, your proposal seems to suggest removing the Tooting to Mitcham Common section resulting in Putney residents having to change to get to Mitcham. The TfL figures shows the 220 struggles whilst the 270 doesn't - why would you extend the unreliable route over the reliable one. Saturdays would reek havoc with the extended route whenever Fulham FC play at home at Craven Cottage. No I meant to say that I was suggesting the 220 goes to Mitcham. Of course Fulham played at Craven Cottage prior to the 1991 changes, I fail to see why it has apparently only become an insurmountable problem since then, of course several other routes (inc the 270) are effected. On a general note extending routes to any popular destination will inevitably result in buses going through more traffic congestion, of course the overall aim is to get people out of cars and onto buses and thus reduce this congestion. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Apr 27, 2013 11:30:40 GMT
There is no money for any fundamental rethink of the bus network - certainly not where it would require more resource. Those more "major" things that have occurred recently (Chiswick Business Park, Olympic Park) are all funded with S106 funds. There is next to no TfL money going into them. There is no programme as in 2000-2006 to really expand the network's coverage and capacity. I am struggling to think of any of the 1990s area schemes that have been fundamentally altered since they came in - Walthamstow, Harrow, Sutton, Bexleyheath, Wandsworth, Kingston. Vehicle sizes and some frequencies have been changed over the years and some routes tweaked but I think all of the above are pretty much intact. Happy to be corrected for those who know places like Sutton or Bexley better than I do. This would actually save money as the overall PVR would be reduced, no overlap between Putney and Wandsworth and more stand space at Putney Bridge. For anybody going from the Tooting area to the Hammersmith/Shepherds Bush area the current arrangement is useless, they'll have to change bus mid journey and pay again for the pleasure. I suspect the shortening of routes is to make route tendering easier rather than anything to do with reliability. Would it save money? Can you provide the PVR calculations and your assumptions? The services run to slightly different frequencies with the 220 seeing much more peak enhancement than the 270. Out of curiosity you're content to more than halve the capacity on the Putney - Wandsworth section are you? I wonder if the people who use the buses would be happy too? Where is your evidence to show that significant numbers of people are genuinely inconvenienced by not being able to travel on a direct bus from south of Wandsworth to north of Putney Bridge? It is all very well just repeating "it was better in the old days" (which is the subtext of your argument) while conveninently forgetting that routes like the 220 ran in sections anyway with frequent curtailments. |
|
|
|
Post by Connor on Apr 27, 2013 11:37:23 GMT
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  Why leave the 255 terminating in the middle of a place with bad transport links, and low usage? I think the 152 would also benefit from an extension to Thornton Heath Pond. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2013 11:44:29 GMT
This would actually save money as the overall PVR would be reduced, no overlap between Putney and Wandsworth and more stand space at Putney Bridge. For anybody going from the Tooting area to the Hammersmith/Shepherds Bush area the current arrangement is useless, they'll have to change bus mid journey and pay again for the pleasure. I suspect the shortening of routes is to make route tendering easier rather than anything to do with reliability. Would it save money? Can you provide the PVR calculations and your assumptions? The services run to slightly different frequencies with the 220 seeing much more peak enhancement than the 270. Out of curiosity you're content to more than halve the capacity on the Putney - Wandsworth section are you? I wonder if the people who use the buses would be happy too? Where is your evidence to show that significant numbers of people are genuinely inconvenienced by not being able to travel on a direct bus from south of Wandsworth to north of Putney Bridge? It is all very well just repeating "it was better in the old days" (which is the subtext of your argument) while conveninently forgetting that routes like the 220 ran in sections anyway with frequent curtailments. Less buses overall would be needed. Is there any evidence that the overlap between Wandsworth and Putney is needed or is this just the inevitable result of shortening routes? Is it not reasonable to assume people from Mitcham/Tooting area will need to go to Hammersmith/Shepherds Bush? Even more so since Westfield opened. Nothing to do with any "old days", the current arrangement has been in place for more than 20 years and perhaps its time for a change? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2013 11:54:57 GMT
Following the principle whereby a trunk route has been split into sections and renumbered cannot revert back to one long route , I cannot see how this would be impossible.
Taking the 220 as an example still, when it was a through route Before the change the pvr was 16.
The 270 initial pvr was 10.
The pvr now on the 220 is 25 and the 270 is 14.
I reckon a trunk route harlesdon to Mitcham with a pvr of 35 would be reliable enough ?
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Apr 27, 2013 12:57:05 GMT
The 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 Why leave the 255 terminating in the middle of a place with bad transport links, and low usage? I think the 152 would also benefit from an extension to Thornton Heath Pond. An extended 64 will create more links than an extended 255. I agree about the 152 being extended to Thornton Heath Pond or even right up to the Station. |
|
|
|
Post by riverside on Apr 28, 2013 11:37:43 GMT
There's definitely plenty of space on the 485 between Putney and Wandsworth to absorb any displaced passengers from the loss of the 270. The 220 has always struggled. Choosing it to be one of the first one man operated double decker routes was a disaster for such a busy service. Compared to the 1970s/1980s, the 220 appears to run better nowadays. In my childhood at weekends the Riverside crews on the 255 would wait for an already busy southbound 220 come along the Shepherds Bush Road. They would give it a minute and then depart. By the time the 255 pulled into Butterwick, the RM on the 220 was pulling away packed to the roof. The virtually new RML on the 255 would leave Butterwick virtually empty and then punch up the 220 all the way to Wandsworth. The 220 would continue to struggle to Tooting, while the 255 carried on the short distance to Clapham Junction. So the 220 struggling is nothing new.
Great memories of rides on the 255 but obviously the punching up is what caused the withdrawal of the route and the loss of several round the corner links.
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Apr 28, 2013 18:16:59 GMT
There's definitely plenty of space on the 485 between Putney and Wandsworth to absorb any displaced passengers from the loss of the 270. The 220 has always struggled. Choosing it to be one of the first one man operated double decker routes was a disaster for such a busy service. Compared to the 1970s/1980s, the 220 appears to run better nowadays. If people feel there is a need to improve N-S links across Putney I do wonder if the 485 offers a better and cheaper prospect. It starts from a lower cost base which means expansion might well be cheaper. There is potential to extend this service north of Hammersmith and south of Wandsworth. An interesting observation about how the antics of staff could wreck the viability of a bus service and result in its loss for the travelling public. Looking back at the history of the route it was an interesting cross Hammersmith link. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Apr 28, 2013 19:40:43 GMT
Snoggle will not like this one, but the 375 should be an hourly service. Given Havering-atte-Bower is in Greater London I hardly feel it's fair that the more frequent bus service to Romford is actually a commerical service by Go-Ahead. I understand Passingford Bridge and Stapleford Abbotts are in Essex but Passingford Bridge seems to be to be only chosen because it's the first place that's it's reasonable to turn around! I think TFL's service to Havering-atte-Bower should at least match that of the 575 - again, although the 575 offers a discounted service for Oyster holders, I'm guessing this is more to compensate for the lack of decent service on the 375 than necessarily because it's massively commercially viable. It would only take one more bus to provide an hourly service, or in fact better than hourly. Where's the "thumbs down" button?  |
|
|
|
Post by Connor on Apr 28, 2013 20:33:52 GMT
Thought I'd throw a bunch of wild ideas into the open.  - Extend the 137 to Streatham (Station, Hub, South, Village... )
- Extend the 60 to Streatham Hill (Station or Telford Avenue)
- Extend the 255 to Balham via the current 315 (allowing the 315 to be withdrawn)
- Reroute the G1 to West Norwood via the current 315 (allowing the 315 to be withdrawn)
- Reroute the 319 to the current G1 stand at Streatham, Green Lane.
- Extend the 64 to Streatham (Station, Hub, South, Village... ) via the 109, which desperately needs a route to help it out.
- Extend the 152 to Thornton Heath Pond, at least.
- Extend the 255 to West Croydon
- Extend the 466 to Caterham Station
- Extend the 270 to current 198 stand at Thornton Heath High Street
- Extend the 198 to Norwood Junction Station
- Extend the 415 to Purley (via West Norwood, Streatham Common, Thornton Heath Pond, then via the 289 to Purley (allowing the current 289 to be withdrawn); also rerouted to Vauxhall at the north end.
- New express route X28, from Thornton Heath Pond to Dartford (stopping between the 289's current routing to Elmers End, then Bromley, Chistlehurst Road/Chistlehurst, Sidcup, Coldblow, Dartford Heath) (allowing the current 289 to be withdrawn)
|
|
