|
|
Post by moz on Jun 5, 2013 15:42:08 GMT
I won't try to quote everybody who replied, but this is re: the London Bridge - West End thing I brought up. Having had another look I think extending the 98 down from Bloomsbury over the 521 to London Bridge could work and along with a rerouting of the 243 between Gray's Inn Road and Holborn via Gray's Inn Road and High Holborn the 521 could be reduced to a rush-hour only Waterloo - Holborn Station shuttle or withdrawn completely. The Citaros could then be upseated and moved elsewhere.
Moz
|
|
|
|
Post by Connor on Jun 8, 2013 22:52:11 GMT
Having the 109 as one of my local routes, the best way I can see the overcrowding issue being tackled is by extending the 403 and/or the 412, both shortish Croydon routes, to Streatham Hill Station. This extension would make these routes quite long, but provides the London Road section with adequate bus services. The bus stand at Streatham Hill Station is currently occupied by the 255, though the 255 could be diverted to terminate at Herne Hill Station via the 201, then chopping the 201 back to Tulse Hill Station. This would also allow the 201 to be converted to double deckers.
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 9, 2013 3:21:34 GMT
Having the 109 as one of my local routes, the best way I can see the overcrowding issue being tackled is by extending the 403 and/or the 412, both shortish Croydon routes, to Streatham Hill Station. This extension would make these routes quite long, but provides the London Road section with adequate bus services. The bus stand at Streatham Hill Station is currently occupied by the 255, though the 255 could be diverted to terminate at Herne Hill Station via the 201, then chopping the 201 back to Tulse Hill Station. This would also allow the 201 to be converted to double deckers. The problem with using either route over that extension is reliability - any further north of Streatham Station and I can see both routes really suffer leaving passengers in Sanderstead, Warlingham & Riddlesdown with a poor service. I think the 64 would be better and I'd only extend it to Streatham Village/Hub as the 109 has plenty of help between there & Brixton. If the 64 developed problems at its southern end, it still has the Tramlink & the T33 to fall back on plus its more frequent than the 403 or 412. As for the 255, my own preference would be to extend it to Balham but via a slightly different route to the proposed route via the 57 to Clapham Park, Poynders Road, Clarence Avenue, Weir Road, Cavendish Road, Old Devonshire Road, Balham High Road to terminate on Balham Station Road, departing via Bedford Lane back to Balham High Road. That allows the 57 to be extended to Brixton as the 57 hardly carries anyone between Clapham Park & Brixton garage. To facilate deckers for the 201, I'd suggest simply re-routing the 201 via Norwood Road mainly because the Tulse Hill to Herne Hill section is lightly used on the route though if replacement is needed - maybe a Herne Hill to Fulham route via the current 201 between Herne Hill & Tulse Hill, the whole length of Christchurch Road, Streatham Place, Atkins Road, Poynders Road, Cavendish Road, The Avenue, Clapham Common North & West Sides, Elspeth Road, Lavender Hill, St. John's Hill, East Hill (southbound), Huguenot Place (northbound), Fairfield Street (southbound), Wandsworth High Street & Ram Street (northbound), Old York Road, Swandon Way, Wandsworth Bridge, Wandsworth Bridge Road, Kings Road, Harwood Road terminating at Fulham Broadway. This would provide many new links such as: Fulham Broadway to Clapham South, Clapham Park, Tulse Hill & Herne Hill Wandsworth to Clapham South, Clapham Park & Tulse Hill Clapham Junction to Clapham Park & Tulse Hill Clapham South to Fulham Broadway, Wandsworth, Tulse Hill & Herne Hill Clapham Park to Fulham Broadway, Wandsworth, Clapham Junction, Tulse Hill & Herne Hill Tulse Hill to Fulham Broadway, Wandsworth, Clapham Junction, Clapham South & Clapham Park Herne Hill to Fulham Broadway, Clapham South & Clapham Park |
|
|
|
Post by marlon101 on Jun 9, 2013 8:49:01 GMT
How about a short projection of the RV1 from Aldwych to T Sq, and if something has to be cut back to fund it, put the 91 in the current RV1 terminal at Aldwych/Covent Garden? The RV1 idea is neat but if there is the big demand that Moz hints at the Hydrogen buses would be inadequate. The RV1 does load to capacity already so more demand would need a type change and I doubt TfL would countenance that. The RV1 is very unusual in that the contract has been extended multiple times without retendering. First have kept it since it started which is something like 10 years. Breaking the Charing Cross - Holborn link provided by the 91 would not be popular as the 91 is pretty quick and far more convenient than the tube given the long access times at CX and poor interchanges with the Picc at Leicester Square or Picc Circus. Patronage on the 91 is very large all day round on the Charing X to Holborn/Euston. It is largely quicker than the tube (where it involves changing lines). |
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Jun 9, 2013 9:53:02 GMT
Having the 109 as one of my local routes, the best way I can see the overcrowding issue being tackled is by extending the 403 and/or the 412, both shortish Croydon routes, to Streatham Hill Station. This extension would make these routes quite long, but provides the London Road section with adequate bus services. The bus stand at Streatham Hill Station is currently occupied by the 255, though the 255 could be diverted to terminate at Herne Hill Station via the 201, then chopping the 201 back to Tulse Hill Station. This would also allow the 201 to be converted to double deckers. The problem with using either route over that extension is reliability - any further north of Streatham Station and I can see both routes really suffer leaving passengers in Sanderstead, Warlingham & Riddlesdown with a poor service. I think the 64 would be better and I'd only extend it to Streatham Village/Hub as the 109 has plenty of help between there & Brixton. If the 64 developed problems at its southern end, it still has the Tramlink & the T33 to fall back on plus its more frequent than the 403 or 412. As for the 255, my own preference would be to extend it to Balham but via a slightly different route to the proposed route via the 57 to Clapham Park, Poynders Road, Clarence Avenue, Weir Road, Cavendish Road, Old Devonshire Road, Balham High Road to terminate on Balham Station Road, departing via Bedford Lane back to Balham High Road. That allows the 57 to be extended to Brixton as the 57 hardly carries anyone between Clapham Park & Brixton garage. To facilate deckers for the 201, I'd suggest simply re-routing the 201 via Norwood Road mainly because the Tulse Hill to Herne Hill section is lightly used on the route though if replacement is needed - maybe a Herne Hill to Fulham route via the current 201 between Herne Hill & Tulse Hill, the whole length of Christchurch Road, Streatham Place, Atkins Road, Poynders Road, Cavendish Road, The Avenue, Clapham Common North & West Sides, Elspeth Road, Lavender Hill, St. John's Hill, East Hill (southbound), Huguenot Place (northbound), Fairfield Street (southbound), Wandsworth High Street & Ram Street (northbound), Old York Road, Swandon Way, Wandsworth Bridge, Wandsworth Bridge Road, Kings Road, Harwood Road terminating at Fulham Broadway. This would provide many new links such as: Fulham Broadway to Clapham South, Clapham Park, Tulse Hill & Herne Hill Wandsworth to Clapham South, Clapham Park & Tulse Hill Clapham Junction to Clapham Park & Tulse Hill Clapham South to Fulham Broadway, Wandsworth, Tulse Hill & Herne Hill Clapham Park to Fulham Broadway, Wandsworth, Clapham Junction, Tulse Hill & Herne Hill Tulse Hill to Fulham Broadway, Wandsworth, Clapham Junction, Clapham South & Clapham Park Herne Hill to Fulham Broadway, Clapham South & Clapham Park Regarding rerouting the 201 via Norwood road, additionally reroute the 322 via Thurlow Park Road and Croxted Road, retaining that local 'round the corner' link. |
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Jun 9, 2013 10:18:05 GMT
The RV1 idea is neat but if there is the big demand that Moz hints at the Hydrogen buses would be inadequate. The RV1 does load to capacity already so more demand would need a type change and I doubt TfL would countenance that. The RV1 is very unusual in that the contract has been extended multiple times without retendering. First have kept it since it started which is something like 10 years. Breaking the Charing Cross - Holborn link provided by the 91 would not be popular as the 91 is pretty quick and far more convenient than the tube given the long access times at CX and poor interchanges with the Picc at Leicester Square or Picc Circus. Patronage on the 91 is very large all day round on the Charing X to Holborn/Euston. It is largely quicker than the tube (where it involves changing lines). Had a thought : maybe extend the 87 from Aldwych to Russell Square, replacing the 188 over that section? Which would make the whole set of changes... * Extend RV1 to Trafalgar Square. Put 91 in Aldwych/Covent Garden terminal. * Replace 91 link by extending 87 from Aldwych to Russell Square, cutting the 188 back to Aldwych. |
|
|
|
Post by marlon101 on Jun 9, 2013 17:04:38 GMT
Patronage on the 91 is very large all day round on the Charing X to Holborn/Euston. It is largely quicker than the tube (where it involves changing lines). Had a thought : maybe extend the 87 from Aldwych to Russell Square, replacing the 188 over that section? Which would make the whole set of changes... * Extend RV1 to Trafalgar Square. Put 91 in Aldwych/Covent Garden terminal. * Replace 91 link by extending 87 from Aldwych to Russell Square, cutting the 188 back to Aldwych. Seems like a reasonable idea to me, you've overcome my 91 concerns! I would suggest that the 188 could well be cut back to Aldwych, so long as routes heading up to Euston were strong enough to cope with Waterloo passengers during the peaks. This has got me thinking though, particularly about bus services in the centre of London, surrounding Brian Paddick's pledge during the mayoral elections. Paddick suggested there should be a one-hour bus pass, i.e. if you tapped in your Oyster card you could board as many buses as you'd like within one hour. Where bus services are rather frequent, would bringing this 'ticket' in allow for many bus services to be cut back. For example you could get away with pulling the 91 out without replacing it with the 87 if I knew I could get a bus up to Aldwych (of which there are many at Trafalgar Sq.) and then jump on the many buses running up through Aldwych heading South -> North without being financially penalised. Could this be transferred elsewhere to make net savings? |
|
|
|
Post by Connor on Jun 9, 2013 22:46:40 GMT
Having the 109 as one of my local routes, the best way I can see the overcrowding issue being tackled is by extending the 403 and/or the 412, both shortish Croydon routes, to Streatham Hill Station. This extension would make these routes quite long, but provides the London Road section with adequate bus services. The bus stand at Streatham Hill Station is currently occupied by the 255, though the 255 could be diverted to terminate at Herne Hill Station via the 201, then chopping the 201 back to Tulse Hill Station. This would also allow the 201 to be converted to double deckers. The problem with using either route over that extension is reliability - any further north of Streatham Station and I can see both routes really suffer leaving passengers in Sanderstead, Warlingham & Riddlesdown with a poor service. I think the 64 would be better and I'd only extend it to Streatham Village/Hub as the 109 has plenty of help between there & Brixton. If the 64 developed problems at its southern end, it still has the Tramlink & the T33 to fall back on plus its more frequent than the 403 or 412. As for the 255, my own preference would be to extend it to Balham but via a slightly different route to the proposed route via the 57 to Clapham Park, Poynders Road, Clarence Avenue, Weir Road, Cavendish Road, Old Devonshire Road, Balham High Road to terminate on Balham Station Road, departing via Bedford Lane back to Balham High Road. That allows the 57 to be extended to Brixton as the 57 hardly carries anyone between Clapham Park & Brixton garage. The problem with having any of the Croydon routes terminating at Streatham Station/ Village/ Hub is that they won't be of much a help in dealing with overcrowding as they wouldn't serve the busy stops, Becmead Avenue and St Leonards Church. I don't know how often you travel on the 60 but when I use it (from Streatham Station southbound), it carries very few people before getting busier south. Hence why I think any of the routes should be extended to St Leonards Church at the very least. As for which route should be extended, I still the 403 & 412 would be better as both are short routes which don't normally take more than 30 minutes from end to end and have quite low passenger usage compared to the 64. Why add an extra mile to the 57? It's already a long route, it will simply duplicate the 333 from Tooting Broadway to Brixton and I don't really see the point to that. Better to extend the 137 down to Streatham Station I think. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 9, 2013 23:22:32 GMT
The problem with using either route over that extension is reliability - any further north of Streatham Station and I can see both routes really suffer leaving passengers in Sanderstead, Warlingham & Riddlesdown with a poor service. I think the 64 would be better and I'd only extend it to Streatham Village/Hub as the 109 has plenty of help between there & Brixton. If the 64 developed problems at its southern end, it still has the Tramlink & the T33 to fall back on plus its more frequent than the 403 or 412. As for the 255, my own preference would be to extend it to Balham but via a slightly different route to the proposed route via the 57 to Clapham Park, Poynders Road, Clarence Avenue, Weir Road, Cavendish Road, Old Devonshire Road, Balham High Road to terminate on Balham Station Road, departing via Bedford Lane back to Balham High Road. That allows the 57 to be extended to Brixton as the 57 hardly carries anyone between Clapham Park & Brixton garage. The problem with having any of the Croydon routes terminating at Streatham Station/ Village/ Hub is that they won't be of much a help in dealing with overcrowding as they wouldn't serve the busy stops, Becmead Avenue and St Leonards Church. I don't know how often you travel on the 60 but when I use it (from Streatham Station southbound), it carries very few people before getting busier south. Hence why I think any of the routes should be extended to St Leonards Church at the very least. As for which route should be extended, I still the 403 & 412 would be better as both are short routes which don't normally take more than 30 minutes from end to end and have quite low passenger usage compared to the 64. Why add an extra mile to the 57? It's already a long route, it will simply duplicate the 333 from Tooting Broadway to Brixton and I don't really see the point to that. Better to extend the 137 down to Streatham Station I think. The overcrowding happens between Streatham Station & Croydon because the 109 runs by itself between Thornton Heath Pond & Norbury and is also quicker than the 250. The 109 is fine between Streatham & Brixton because of the many routes that serve Brixton Hill, Streatham Hill & the bulk of Streatham High Road. The 60 is different as it travels through Streatham Vale and whilst it gets busy, it's nothing like the 109. Also, any route that terminates at St. Leonard's Church gets stuck in the traffic on Tooting Bec Gardens so there's a chance for reliability to decrease so in that sense, it's better for it to terminate at the hub. The 403 & 412 may have low passenger usage but there's no contingency at the southern end if the routes goes balls up around Streatham & Norbury whereas the 64 has at least has the Tramlink & the T33 to help out as a backup for passengers at the southern end. It also has a much higher frequency than the 403 or 412. You wouldn't be adding a mile to the 57, it would only be half a mile as it takes roughly half a mile from Streatham Hill to Clapham Park and whilst yes it would be duplicating the 333 between Tooting Broadway & Brixton, the 36 & 436 duplicate each other between New Cross Gate & Paddington without issue plus the 333 runs to Elephant & the 57 to Kingston. Patronage on the 57 between Streatham Hill & Clapham Park is very small - one things for sure is the 57 would be well used along Brixton Hill and would connect Brixton with Colliers Wood, Wimbledon & Kingston. Ironically, your extension of the 137 to the hub is 1 mile! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2013 10:20:17 GMT
From the A23/A205 junction at the bottom of Brixton Hill to the junction of Stockwell Road and Stockwell Park Walk for the bus stand is one and a half miles, so it would still be adding a mile to the journey even after accounting for the loss of the section to Atkins Road.
And the congestion between Stockwell Park Walk and Lambeth Town Hall is every bit as bad as it is around St Leonard's, so if extensions to the latter would make a route too unreliable to consider then the same has to apply to Brixton. The Brixton Hill corridor is also very well served, if the 57 was to be extended at the north it would be far more useful using it create new links or bolstering less well served ones.
Where is the demand or value for a 57 extension to Brixton? It is not even the quickest way to get to Kingston from Brixton by bus. The 37 to Putney Hill then the 85 to Kingston takes 64 minutes combined (using TfL's average figures), while just Telford Avenue alone the 57 take 66 minutes. A direct link to Wimbledon would be useful, but then so would one to Lewisham from Streatham but extending the P4 down Brixton Hill would be just as bad. Where specific new links are needed reducing the reliability of existing routes should not be used as an lazy excuse for not creating new routes.
As for Atkins Road, it is quite obvious the main reason for it being the terminus is because it is where the nearest stand is. The same reason where non-Arriva buses turn short in the area it is at the Brixton Hill or Streatham Hill Christchurch Road stops, so they can turn off and use it. And at least outside of the peaks it is a reasonably quiet section with having three lanes on Streatham Place so the extra run to it does not impact reliability.
|
|
|
|
Post by Connor on Jun 10, 2013 11:29:29 GMT
The overcrowding happens between Streatham Station & Croydon because the 109 runs by itself between Thornton Heath Pond & Norbury and is also quicker than the 250. The 109 is fine between Streatham & Brixton because of the many routes that serve Brixton Hill, Streatham Hill & the bulk of Streatham High Road. The 60 is different as it travels through Streatham Vale and whilst it gets busy, it's nothing like the 109. Also, any route that terminates at St. Leonard's Church gets stuck in the traffic on Tooting Bec Gardens so there's a chance for reliability to decrease so in that sense, it's better for it to terminate at the hub. The 403 & 412 may have low passenger usage but there's no contingency at the southern end if the routes goes balls up around Streatham & Norbury whereas the 64 has at least has the Tramlink & the T33 to help out as a backup for passengers at the southern end. It also has a much higher frequency than the 403 or 412. We'll have to agree to disagree. You wouldn't be adding a mile to the 57, it would only be half a mile as it takes roughly half a mile from Streatham Hill to Clapham Park and whilst yes it would be duplicating the 333 between Tooting Broadway & Brixton, the 36 & 436 duplicate each other between New Cross Gate & Paddington without issue plus the 333 runs to Elephant & the 57 to Kingston. Patronage on the 57 between Streatham Hill & Clapham Park is very small - one things for sure is the 57 would be well used along Brixton Hill and would connect Brixton with Colliers Wood, Wimbledon & Kingston. Ironically, your extension of the 137 to the hub is 1 mile! Streatham Hill - Clapham Park Stand = 0.5 miles Streatham Hill - Brixton Stand = 1.6 miles Work it out. Please don't compare the 36 & 436 to the 57 & 333, the demand levels are totally different! Brixton Hill does no need any more bus routes running along it, most passengers will have no problems taking the 333 to Tooting Broadway, then changing for a 57 or 131 onwards to Kingston or Colliers Wood or wherever. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 10, 2013 13:22:42 GMT
The overcrowding happens between Streatham Station & Croydon because the 109 runs by itself between Thornton Heath Pond & Norbury and is also quicker than the 250. The 109 is fine between Streatham & Brixton because of the many routes that serve Brixton Hill, Streatham Hill & the bulk of Streatham High Road. The 60 is different as it travels through Streatham Vale and whilst it gets busy, it's nothing like the 109. Also, any route that terminates at St. Leonard's Church gets stuck in the traffic on Tooting Bec Gardens so there's a chance for reliability to decrease so in that sense, it's better for it to terminate at the hub. The 403 & 412 may have low passenger usage but there's no contingency at the southern end if the routes goes balls up around Streatham & Norbury whereas the 64 has at least has the Tramlink & the T33 to help out as a backup for passengers at the southern end. It also has a much higher frequency than the 403 or 412. We'll have to agree to disagree. You wouldn't be adding a mile to the 57, it would only be half a mile as it takes roughly half a mile from Streatham Hill to Clapham Park and whilst yes it would be duplicating the 333 between Tooting Broadway & Brixton, the 36 & 436 duplicate each other between New Cross Gate & Paddington without issue plus the 333 runs to Elephant & the 57 to Kingston. Patronage on the 57 between Streatham Hill & Clapham Park is very small - one things for sure is the 57 would be well used along Brixton Hill and would connect Brixton with Colliers Wood, Wimbledon & Kingston. Ironically, your extension of the 137 to the hub is 1 mile! Streatham Hill - Clapham Park Stand = 0.5 miles Streatham Hill - Brixton Stand = 1.6 miles Work it out. Please don't compare the 36 & 436 to the 57 & 333, the demand levels are totally different! Brixton Hill does no need any more bus routes running along it, most passengers will have no problems taking the 333 to Tooting Broadway, then changing for a 57 or 131 onwards to Kingston or Colliers Wood or wherever. Whether your right or wrong, do not get high & mighty by saying, "work it out" - theres no need to speak like that!!! I'm looking at how the 57 could be better utilised at its northern end and running to Clapham Park isn't utilising the 57 at all. Yes, it would add an extra route to Brixton Hill but do remember - everything that runs along Brixton Hill, bar the 45 & 59, carries substantial loads - I can only see the 57 taking a bit of pressure off the other routes. The 333 is also not as frequent as the 57 and most people would prefer not to change. It would alsp only add on around 10-15 mins time. |
|
|
|
Post by moz on Jun 10, 2013 15:55:01 GMT
We'll have to agree to disagree. Streatham Hill - Clapham Park Stand = 0.5 miles Streatham Hill - Brixton Stand = 1.6 miles Work it out. Please don't compare the 36 & 436 to the 57 & 333, the demand levels are totally different! Brixton Hill does no need any more bus routes running along it, most passengers will have no problems taking the 333 to Tooting Broadway, then changing for a 57 or 131 onwards to Kingston or Colliers Wood or wherever. Whether your right or wrong, do not get high & mighty by saying, "work it out" - theres no need to speak like that!!! I'm looking at how the 57 could be better utilised at its northern end and running to Clapham Park isn't utilising the 57 at all. Yes, it would add an extra route to Brixton Hill but do remember - everything that runs along Brixton Hill, bar the 45 & 59, carries substantial loads - I can only see the 57 taking a bit of pressure off the other routes. The 333 is also not as frequent as the 57 and most people would prefer not to change. It would alsp only add on around 10-15 mins time. The 57 could actually do with being cut back to Streatham Hill Station, allowing it to get on with its core southern section rather than messing about in inner south London. The 255 could then take over and follow the proposed alternative (somewhere up there^ by vjaska) routing to Balham. Doubt anything will get extended to Streatham Hub as it is full to bursting now, though it was lovely without the 60 for those few months. If an increase down Brixton Hill is needed (in peaks yes, outside, no) then you could do this by cutting the 415 and extending the 432 in its place, this would save 2 or 3 buses that could then be added to an increased 109. Note: I resisted the temptation to run the 109 to Elephant instead of the 415, but I suspect the buses saved from cutting the 415 would just about cover it. Moz |
|
|
|
Post by Connor on Jun 10, 2013 21:06:10 GMT
Whether your right or wrong, do not get high & mighty by saying, "work it out" - theres no need to speak like that!!! The irony!!!    Agree with Moz, cut the 57 back to Streatham Hill Station and move the 255 elsewhere, possibly extend the 255 in both directions. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 10, 2013 23:49:58 GMT
Whether your right or wrong, do not get high & mighty by saying, "work it out" - theres no need to speak like that!!! I'm looking at how the 57 could be better utilised at its northern end and running to Clapham Park isn't utilising the 57 at all. Yes, it would add an extra route to Brixton Hill but do remember - everything that runs along Brixton Hill, bar the 45 & 59, carries substantial loads - I can only see the 57 taking a bit of pressure off the other routes. The 333 is also not as frequent as the 57 and most people would prefer not to change. It would alsp only add on around 10-15 mins time. The 57 could actually do with being cut back to Streatham Hill Station, allowing it to get on with its core southern section rather than messing about in inner south London. The 255 could then take over and follow the proposed alternative (somewhere up there^ by vjaska) routing to Balham. Doubt anything will get extended to Streatham Hub as it is full to bursting now, though it was lovely without the 60 for those few months. If an increase down Brixton Hill is needed (in peaks yes, outside, no) then you could do this by cutting the 415 and extending the 432 in its place, this would save 2 or 3 buses that could then be added to an increased 109. Note: I resisted the temptation to run the 109 to Elephant instead of the 415, but I suspect the buses saved from cutting the 415 would just about cover it. Moz I've never been particularly fond of Streatham Hill Station as a terminus due to a lack of interchange stop at Streatham Hill Station itself. Its a shame that any terminating bus can't serve the stop at the former Megabowl and then use Ardwell Road, Blairderry Road & Sternhold Avenue to return to Streatham High Road. Stand space here would be an issue as well as the narrow roads. |
|
