|
|
Post by Connor on Jun 27, 2013 13:59:50 GMT
This might sound crazy, but why not extend the 319 to Thornton Heath Pond. This would take pressure off the 109 over London Road. You could then run the 319 from Thornton Heath Garage (with the 250's E400s), and move the 250 to BN (with buses from the 319).
|
|
|
|
Post by moz on Jun 27, 2013 20:01:47 GMT
Re: all the above^, if you want something to terminate at Streatham hub, you're going to have to take something out - it's full! A boost to the 109 is needed in peaks as it gets hit both ways as opposed to just one way. Something else that may need a boost is Crown Point. Apparently the old SG Smith VW showroom is being demolished and replaced with a branch of Lidl so traffic is going to become mental and bus loadings will too. Might be a cue for the 68 or 315 to be extended up the hill to Crown Point. Moz One of my posts in the middle of the page mentions taking out the P13 so my 64 extension can happen. The P13 can then terminate on the street outside. I also cut the G1 back from its Green Lane stand to stand with the P13 on the street outside the hub. That does make some space, but the 64 would need at least two allocated stands - the P13 currently has one (that's if there's not a 159 parked on it) and this is now, before the delivery lorries for Tesco start arriving. Going back a bit the 45 and 57 only really started going to Clapham Park owing to the split of the London Buses companies and Arriva/Cowie not wanting 'foreign' buses using their garage to turn around in. Over time and a resurgence in popularity of bus use, they've built up their customer base over this section, so withdraw at your peril! The 255 really is the b*stard cousin of the routes up along Streatham High Road, as is the 415 down Brixton Road, so why not combine the two? Cut the P13 back to Tulse Hill then send the 255 round the P13 to Tulse Hill and link onto the 415 to Elephant. Both have the same frequencies and I'm sure there are some spare DLAs to chuck at it! Trouble is........it might become popular! Moz |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2013 23:16:56 GMT
Still wouldn't extend the 137 as a sole action though. The only way this could be justified in my mind would be to cut back the 159 to Streatham Hill, which is extremely duplicated Brixton to Streatham - this would actually create more links, and would allow the 57 to be cut back to St Leonard's (as the 137 would serve the purpose from Clapham Park) so could lead to some savings. My preference would be to alternate the 137 and 159 between terminating at Telford Avenue or Streatham Station. That way it gives a greater choice of destinations from central Streatham while both would still offer a high frequency service even though half of them would terminate at Telford Avenue. It should also avoid the problem of catching a 159 only for it to then sit outside the garage to change drivers while another bus goes past, which is why I never catch a 159 if only going as far as Brixton. Sadly TfL would never allow that to happen even though it would amount to no change in the overall mileage operated but would benefit passengers. But swapping the Streatham Station terminus from the 159 to the 137 would not be popular with the loss of a direct connection from most of Streatham to key parts of the west end at Trafalgar Square and Piccadilly Circus. The loss of peak bus service to Brixton for the Victoria Line would also be a problem. One of my posts in the middle of the page mentions taking out the P13 so my 64 extension can happen. The P13 can then terminate on the street outside. I also cut the G1 back from its Green Lane stand to stand with the P13 on the street outside the hub. Cutting back the G1 will be very unpopular as it would take away the connection between the southern part of Streatham and St George's hospital as well as other unique destinations. As it is there have been multiple campaigns to extended it further into Norbury and Streatham Vale. Even in their most recent consultation on the route, to run the service along Northcote Road following the closure of Bolingbroke Hospital, they were forced to respond to those demands as enough had included it in their responses. As the principle purpose of the G1 was supposed to be connecting areas with their local health services cutting off that hospital link would be difficult. Also operationally it seems wasteful not taking advantage of a useful stand to instead park on congested road, that some fear will only get worse once the Tesco Extra opens with the added traffic to that and to the Arena and leisure centre. As it is the road will be effectively reduced by a lane in that section to allow queueing of the traffic wanting to turn right into the car park. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2013 23:31:09 GMT
The 255 really is the b*stard cousin of the routes up along Streatham High Road, as is the 415 down Brixton Road, so why not combine the two? Cut the P13 back to Tulse Hill then send the 255 round the P13 to Tulse Hill and link onto the 415 to Elephant. Both have the same frequencies and I'm sure there are some spare DLAs to chuck at it! Trouble is........it might become popular! I have complained often about the P13 and the need for an equivalent to the 57 but running from Streatham in to inner south east London. So while the P13 is all we have in that direction I definitely do not want to lose it without a replacement. Would the route even be suitable for double deckers where it loops around the local streets at Pollards Hill, or through the back of Streatham Hill where the roads would not be a problem but the residents will not doubt complain. It also needs to be remembered that as well as the seemingly forgotten 255 extension to Balham, the 415 is eventually intended to be extended to Surrey Canal Road following the redevelopment in that area. |
|
|
|
Post by Connor on Jun 27, 2013 23:34:26 GMT
Still wouldn't extend the 137 as a sole action though. The only way this could be justified in my mind would be to cut back the 159 to Streatham Hill, which is extremely duplicated Brixton to Streatham - this would actually create more links, and would allow the 57 to be cut back to St Leonard's (as the 137 would serve the purpose from Clapham Park) so could lead to some savings. My preference would be to alternate the 137 and 159 between terminating at Telford Avenue or Streatham Station. That way it gives a greater choice of destinations from central Streatham while both would still offer a high frequency service even though half of them would terminate at Telford Avenue. It should also avoid the problem of catching a 159 only for it to then sit outside the garage to change drivers while another bus goes past, which is why I never catch a 159 if only going as far as Brixton. Sadly TfL would never allow that to happen even though it would amount to no change in the overall mileage operated but would benefit passengers. But swapping the Streatham Station terminus from the 159 to the 137 would not be popular with the loss of a direct connection from most of Streatham to key parts of the west end at Trafalgar Square and Piccadilly Circus. The loss of peak bus service to Brixton for the Victoria Line would also be a problem. One of my posts in the middle of the page mentions taking out the P13 so my 64 extension can happen. The P13 can then terminate on the street outside. I also cut the G1 back from its Green Lane stand to stand with the P13 on the street outside the hub. Cutting back the G1 will be very unpopular as it would take away the connection between the southern part of Streatham and St George's hospital as well as other unique destinations. As it is there have been multiple campaigns to extended it further into Norbury and Streatham Vale. Even in their most recent consultation on the route, to run the service along Northcote Road following the closure of Bolingbroke Hospital, they were forced to respond to those demands as enough had included it in their responses. As the principle purpose of the G1 was supposed to be connecting areas with their local health services cutting off that hospital link would be difficult. Also operationally it seems wasteful not taking advantage of a useful stand to instead park on congested road, that some fear will only get worse once the Tesco Extra opens with the added traffic to that and to the Arena and leisure centre. As it is the road will be effectively reduced by a lane in that section to allow queueing of the traffic wanting to turn right into the car park. Great solution for the 137 and the 159. Would lessen the bunching on the 159. Why not do the same for the 59 and the 133 and lessen bunching on the 133. It would also mean the journey for OOS 133s is slightly shorter to N. |
|
|
|
Post by sw11simon on Jun 28, 2013 0:57:46 GMT
I think you would upset Moz if you reduced the bunching on the 133...
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 28, 2013 8:48:00 GMT
With regards to the 415, it really should be withdrawn full stop & the 432 extended over it to Elephant & Castle. Then, to provide further new links, extend it from Anerley to Elmers End Interchange. I feel this would open more links than extending the 415 to Surrey Quays.
|
|
|
|
Post by sw11simon on Jun 28, 2013 10:10:32 GMT
With regards to the 415, it really should be withdrawn full stop & the 432 extended over it to Elephant & Castle. Then, to provide further new links, extend it from Anerley to Elmers End Interchange. I feel this would open more links than extending the 415 to Surrey Quays. This would take 5 bph away from Tulse Hill - I suspect loadings would suffer unless you diverted a route (118/250) from Brixton Hill. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2013 10:10:46 GMT
With regards to the 415, it really should be withdrawn full stop & the 432 extended over it to Elephant & Castle. Then, to provide further new links, extend it from Anerley to Elmers End Interchange. I feel this would open more links than extending the 415 to Surrey Quays. The Surrey Canal Road extension is not really about creating links though but just a cheap and easy way to provide the 2,500 new homes being built in the area by Millwall's stadium with a bus service. So if the 415 is scrapped or extended elsewhere there will still need to be an alternative option between Surrey Canal Road and at least Elephant & Castle. The only other routes suitable for an extension are the 155, 333, or 432, but it would make them almost 10 miles long which is a length normally only reserved for major trunks, while a separate route just to Elephant and Castle would seem relatively expensive compared to an extension and need additional stand space. |
|
|
|
Post by sw11simon on Jun 28, 2013 10:20:54 GMT
My preference would be to alternate the 137 and 159 between terminating at Telford Avenue or Streatham Station. That way it gives a greater choice of destinations from central Streatham while both would still offer a high frequency service even though half of them would terminate at Telford Avenue. It should also avoid the problem of catching a 159 only for it to then sit outside the garage to change drivers while another bus goes past, which is why I never catch a 159 if only going as far as Brixton. Sadly TfL would never allow that to happen even though it would amount to no change in the overall mileage operated but would benefit passengers. But swapping the Streatham Station terminus from the 159 to the 137 would not be popular with the loss of a direct connection from most of Streatham to key parts of the west end at Trafalgar Square and Piccadilly Circus. The loss of peak bus service to Brixton for the Victoria Line would also be a problem. Cutting back the G1 will be very unpopular as it would take away the connection between the southern part of Streatham and St George's hospital as well as other unique destinations. As it is there have been multiple campaigns to extended it further into Norbury and Streatham Vale. Even in their most recent consultation on the route, to run the service along Northcote Road following the closure of Bolingbroke Hospital, they were forced to respond to those demands as enough had included it in their responses. As the principle purpose of the G1 was supposed to be connecting areas with their local health services cutting off that hospital link would be difficult. Also operationally it seems wasteful not taking advantage of a useful stand to instead park on congested road, that some fear will only get worse once the Tesco Extra opens with the added traffic to that and to the Arena and leisure centre. As it is the road will be effectively reduced by a lane in that section to allow queueing of the traffic wanting to turn right into the car park. Great solution for the 137 and the 159. Would lessen the bunching on the 159. Why not do the same for the 59 and the 133 and lessen bunching on the 133. It would also mean the journey for OOS 133s is slightly shorter to N. In principle splitting these routes to teminate between Streatham Hill & Streatham Station seems a good idea, and would create more passenger options. However, in reality I think it may cause a lot of discontent as it would create harder service levels to maintain. I am thinking from a route control perspective, but in my experience a lot of 159's are curtailed at Streatham Hill due to late running. If you halved the service through to St Leonard's then one curtailment would mean three consecutive buses not going through, and then perception of a much poorer service. Repeat that over the other three routes and you have a good idea in principle, but one that ends up giving passengers the perceptive of a bad service, i.e. unable to meet their expectations. It would not cause more curtailments overall, but would give the perception of more curtailments as more routes would be affected. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 28, 2013 12:21:12 GMT
With regards to the 415, it really should be withdrawn full stop & the 432 extended over it to Elephant & Castle. Then, to provide further new links, extend it from Anerley to Elmers End Interchange. I feel this would open more links than extending the 415 to Surrey Quays. This would take 5 bph away from Tulse Hill - I suspect loadings would suffer unless you diverted a route (118/250) from Brixton Hill. The 415 is hardly busy though, the purpose of it is to link Tulse Hill residents with Brixton Road. It's only ever busy if either the 2 or 432 are encountering problems. Besides, an extended 432 would have to much better frequency than the current one so that would surely compensate for the 5 bph lost. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 28, 2013 12:50:20 GMT
With regards to the 415, it really should be withdrawn full stop & the 432 extended over it to Elephant & Castle. Then, to provide further new links, extend it from Anerley to Elmers End Interchange. I feel this would open more links than extending the 415 to Surrey Quays. The Surrey Canal Road extension is not really about creating links though but just a cheap and easy way to provide the 2,500 new homes being built in the area by Millwall's stadium with a bus service. So if the 415 is scrapped or extended elsewhere there will still need to be an alternative option between Surrey Canal Road and at least Elephant & Castle. The only other routes suitable for an extension are the 155, 333, or 432, but it would make them almost 10 miles long which is a length normally only reserved for major trunks, while a separate route just to Elephant and Castle would seem relatively expensive compared to an extension and need additional stand space. So why not divert the 1, gives the Surrey Canal area a good frequency route and serves Elephant & Castle as well. Not only that but the route would clock in at around 9 miles, including a double run along a part of Ilderton Road. |
|
|
|
Post by Connor on Jun 28, 2013 13:05:35 GMT
With regards to the 415, it really should be withdrawn full stop & the 432 extended over it to Elephant & Castle. Then, to provide further new links, extend it from Anerley to Elmers End Interchange. I feel this would open more links than extending the 415 to Surrey Quays. The Surrey Canal Road extension is not really about creating links though but just a cheap and easy way to provide the 2,500 new homes being built in the area by Millwall's stadium with a bus service. So if the 415 is scrapped or extended elsewhere there will still need to be an alternative option between Surrey Canal Road and at least Elephant & Castle. The only other routes suitable for an extension are the 155, 333, or 432, but it would make them almost 10 miles long which is a length normally only reserved for major trunks, while a separate route just to Elephant and Castle would seem relatively expensive compared to an extension and need additional stand space. Extend the 129 instead. Extend to Elephant & Castle. Via the current 129 to Greenwich, then the 177 to New Cross Gate, then via: - Casella Road (westbound only)/ Billington Road (eastbound only)
- Camplin Road/ Mercury Way
- Surrey Canal Road and Station
- Ilderton Road
- South Bermondsey, then via the 1 to Tower Bridge Road
- Long Lane/ Borough
- Elephant & Castle
Lots of little back roads, low bridges and one way systems in the Surrey Canal area, but this route should allow double deckers to be used. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2013 13:41:43 GMT
With regards to the 415, it really should be withdrawn full stop & the 432 extended over it to Elephant & Castle. Then, to provide further new links, extend it from Anerley to Elmers End Interchange. I feel this would open more links than extending the 415 to Surrey Quays. This would take 5 bph away from Tulse Hill - I suspect loadings would suffer unless you diverted a route (118/250) from Brixton Hill. The 2 and 432 really are quite adequate for Tulse Hill, the 415 was never needed from the outset |
|
|
|
Post by paulsw2 on Jun 28, 2013 13:44:33 GMT
With regards to the 415, it really should be withdrawn full stop & the 432 extended over it to Elephant & Castle. Then, to provide further new links, extend it from Anerley to Elmers End Interchange. I feel this would open more links than extending the 415 to Surrey Quays. I live at the top of Tulse Hill and if it wasnt for the 415 I would be unable to get on a bus in the morning peak and when the schools chuck out in the afternoon.The 415 can also be full and standing after the 4th or 5th stop as well.There IS a need for the 415 as when the 2/432 are disrupted it does provide a service into Brixton. |
|
