|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 28, 2013 14:20:51 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With regards to the 415, it really should be withdrawn full stop & the 432 extended over it to Elephant & Castle.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. And I live at the bottom of Tulse Hill - majority of the time, it is certainly not full unless as I mentioned, the 2 & 432 has problems. An extended 432 would have more buses per hour so it would partly cover that issue anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by Connor on Jun 28, 2013 14:21:06 GMT
The 2 and 432 really are quite adequate for Tulse Hill, the 415 was never needed from the outset The peak loadings on the 2 often suggest otherwise. Out of peak hours, the route is very lightly used. So, I wouldn't remove the 415 but go with Moz's idea and merge it with the 255, then extend the southern end to TH garage. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 28, 2013 14:23:04 GMT
The 2 and 432 really are quite adequate for Tulse Hill, the 415 was never needed from the outset The peak loadings on the 2 often suggest otherwise. The 432 covers the 2 between Brixton & West Norwood though, any problems regarding the 2 would be away from that corridor, most likely north of Brixton. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 28, 2013 14:25:22 GMT
The peak loadings on the 2 often suggest otherwise. Out of peak hours, the route is very lightly used. So, I wouldn't remove the 415 but go with Moz's idea and merge it with the 255, then extend the southern end to TH garage. Even in peak hours, the route still isn't that well used. The money spent on the route is a waste and should of been used elsewhere such as decking a single decker route. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2013 15:12:13 GMT
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. Presumably because it is will already be serving the northern part of the development anyway on its current route. As a busy bus that suffers from lost mileage, expecting it to take the entirety of the westbound bus traffic from the site would just make it too unreliable, and the links to the shops and business along Old Kent Road are too important to miss out. The analysis is based on journeys being spread across the 1, 381, 225 and P12 in addition to having the extended 415 and a new route to Lewisham that will terminate within the development. But this is what the developer's report said: |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2013 0:33:01 GMT
I disagree with what you are saying about route 57. I take the bus regularly and although it just serves two more stops after Streatham Hill/Christchurch road, people seem to forget it is serving a community in Clapham Park. Please don't undervalue the need of the 57 in the Clapham Park area, especially with the redevelopment with new flats, and shops being built, many people in fact use it till the last stop. Extending a route to Brixton where there are 8 other routes which run through Brixton plus the longevity of the 57 already, the congestion in Brixton Town Centre and the Brixton stand space is to full capacity. 57 is best left in the Clapham Park area. I mean why do you think they extended the 131 from Wimbledon. 57 could not simply cope. I've never seen a busy 57 along that stretch from the 90's to the present day and I see the route every week (I've also rode the route to & from Clapham Park hundreds of times). A single decker route like the 255 would best placed to serve that stretch as: a) The 137 & 417 serve the same stretch (abeit the 137 starts from the garage) and are the two busiest routes along there b) The 255 could still serve the long awaited extension to Balham & penetrate further into the southern part of Clapham Park & follows the 57 right up to St.Leonard's Church. As for stand space in Brixton, Stockwell Park Walk is one big road full of space for terminating buses and that's including the current terminating routes. Don't forget that the 196 terminated there at the same time as today's routes. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2013 0:48:25 GMT
Its four stops from Telford Av to Clapham Park, the bus isn't going to be fully packed. 57 runs from Kingston, it is not gonna get busy towards or at the start of the route, the whole idea it brings an area like Clapham Park which needs services deep into the South west surburban areas, which no route in the Clapham Park area does. 137 comes from Central Ldn, so it is going to be busier than 57.
The 255 an every 12 mins route, how can that replace 57 frequency, there is no comparison in links into main town centres.
And how can you extend a long route such as the 57 further into Brixton. You talk about the low number of passengers on the 57 in Clapham Park, but would there be lots of passengers on the 57 in Brixton Hill, when there are 8 other high frequency routes, plus traffic would just get more congested in Lambeth Town Hall and Brixton Station. Stockwell park walk is long, but again you cannot compare 57 with 196, 57 every 7-8 mins, compared to 196 every 12-15 mins, 57 is going to take way more space. In peak times there won't be space at all. Lastly 333 already runs from Brixton along the same proposed route you are suggesting, so there is no demand for your proposion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2013 0:55:53 GMT
Extending the 137 adds nearly a mile onto the route which already battles traffic in Central London. Diverting the 319 to Streatham Hub breaks the important Tooting Bec to Streatham Hill link, IMO, the 319 should remain as it is. Extending the 60 to Brixton garage could make the route unreliable due to the length of the route plus if Brixton Hill doesn't need another route running along it, then surely the same applies to the northern end of Streatham High Road & Streatham Hill. The G1 is particularly lengthy in its current form - if anything, I'd cut it back from Streatham High Road (Green Lane) to Streatham Hub but let it stand on Streatham High Road. I'd also move the P13 out of the Hub to the street outside so if room was needed for my 64 proposal, then there would no stand issues. I'd also would cut the G1 at the other end of the route between Shaftsbury Estate & Clapham Junction but can't think of a suitable replacement route. I feel the 152 is better for extending to Thornton Heath Station to create a east to west link - something that South London has a lack off. The 219 could then stand at Pollards Hill. So I don't think you understand my logic. Get rid of routes along Streatham High Road which are underused (57, 255 & 319) and replace them with routes that can do with extensions. (60 & 137) You can't really say that it would be wrong to extend the 137 down to Streatham Station because it 'battles traffic in Central London', when you have the 159, a longer route (137 is 7.7 miles long, the 159 around 10 miles long) which passes even more traffic hot spots than the 137. If you were a regular passenger on the 137, then you'd know how tedious it is having to change bus at Christchurch Road simply to go a few stops down the High Street to get Station, shops or the 50/255 bus stop. You can keep repeating how diverting the 319 to Streatham would break the 'important' link to Streatham Hill, the facts are that it isn't that important if most, if not all passengers get off at Streatham, St Leonards Church. After that stop, it pretty much runs back empty to the garage. I see the 319 daily, and I can honestly say say I've never seen more than 7/8 people on board along the Streatham Hill section. Diverting it southwards would make sense as most people use the 319 as a north-south link, this would allow for easy interchange to buses to Croydon and other areas. Another idea could be to extend the 131 to Streatham Hill via Tooting Bec then via the current 319 route, I'm not really sure whether there would be demand for this extension to go ahead though. I don't get why you would object to extending the 60 to a more useful terminus simply because people aren't keen on having another route running along your area (Brixton Hill)?  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2013 1:06:34 GMT
57 would not be able to fit in that small stand space in Streatham Hill, the frequency of the route, means it needs more stand space in peak times and 57 should not be cut, it serves important areas, you shouldnt judge a route by its used passengers or not, Clapham Park residents use that to get into areas further than Streatham, Tooting Wimbledon etc, but I understand where your coming from.
I get 137 at least 5 times a week and its true, its annoying getting off at Christchurch, especially when 417 does not even run into the main Streatham Town Centre, but again I am not sure if there would be space in the hub, for 159, 133, 137, 319 and P13. Except from P13 the rest are very frequent.
319 provides the only link on bus from Clapham Junction and Battersea into Streatham Town Centre, dont underestimate that. You said how annoying it is for passengers to get off at Christchurch and change to buses to Streatham Town Centre, imagine how irritated passengers would feel having to change and cross roads at St Leonards or even walk just to reach the centre. I dont understand the need to extend the 60 further, when there is a hub to change for the 133 and 159. The performance of the 60 will be worsened mate believe me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Connor on Jun 29, 2013 1:54:42 GMT
319 provides the only link on bus from Clapham Junction and Battersea into Streatham Town Centre, dont underestimate that. You said how annoying it is for passengers to get off at Christchurch and change to buses to Streatham Town Centre, imagine how irritated passengers would feel having to change and cross roads at St Leonards or even walk just to reach the centre. Most passengers get on/off the 319 at St Leonards Church anyway to reach the centre/ change buses, so I don't really see it as problem. I dont understand the need to extend the 60 further, when there is a hub to change for the 133 and 159. The performance of the 60 will be worsened mate believe me. It would be expected for the 60's performance to go downhill if extended, but isn't that the case with any route that's extended (specially in busy areas such as Streatham)? In my mind, the positives outweigh the negatives. It would allow the 255 to be withdrawn, assist the 109, as it covers more of London Road than any other route (apart from the 109 itself of course!), it would link areas south of Croydon with the main part of Streatham, and finally would allow much better interchange with other bus routes in the area. |
|
|
|
Post by Connor on Jun 29, 2013 2:18:17 GMT
Its four stops from Telford Av to Clapham Park, the bus isn't going to be fully packed. 57 runs from Kingston, it is not gonna get busy towards or at the start of the route, the whole idea it brings an area like Clapham Park which needs services deep into the South west surburban areas, which no route in the Clapham Park area does. 137 comes from Central Ldn, so it is going to be busier than 57. The 255 an every 12 mins route, how can that replace 57 frequency, there is no comparison in links into main town centres. And how can you extend a long route such as the 57 further into Brixton. You talk about the low number of passengers on the 57 in Clapham Park, but would there be lots of passengers on the 57 in Brixton Hill, when there are 8 other high frequency routes, plus traffic would just get more congested in Lambeth Town Hall and Brixton Station. Stockwell park walk is long, but again you cannot compare 57 with 196, 57 every 7-8 mins, compared to 196 every 12-15 mins, 57 is going to take way more space. In peak times there won't be space at all. Lastly 333 already runs from Brixton along the same proposed route you are suggesting, so there is no demand for your proposion. I agree with the second half of your post but not the first. With the passenger numbers on the 57 at the Clapham Park part, the 255 could easily take over that section and still carry air! For connections to "South west surburban areas", the 355 to Tooting Broadway and changing buses there would probably be quicker than a 57 anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Jun 29, 2013 6:04:21 GMT
Its four stops from Telford Av to Clapham Park, the bus isn't going to be fully packed. 57 runs from Kingston, it is not gonna get busy towards or at the start of the route, the whole idea it brings an area like Clapham Park which needs services deep into the South west surburban areas, which no route in the Clapham Park area does. 137 comes from Central Ldn, so it is going to be busier than 57. The 255 an every 12 mins route, how can that replace 57 frequency, there is no comparison in links into main town centres. And how can you extend a long route such as the 57 further into Brixton. You talk about the low number of passengers on the 57 in Clapham Park, but would there be lots of passengers on the 57 in Brixton Hill, when there are 8 other high frequency routes, plus traffic would just get more congested in Lambeth Town Hall and Brixton Station. Stockwell park walk is long, but again you cannot compare 57 with 196, 57 every 7-8 mins, compared to 196 every 12-15 mins, 57 is going to take way more space. In peak times there won't be space at all. Lastly 333 already runs from Brixton along the same proposed route you are suggesting, so there is no demand for your proposion. The 57 is long enough and there is High Demand along the route. Extending it to Brixton will make the service quality drop, Clapham Park is a fine place to Terminate the route. |
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Jun 29, 2013 7:07:34 GMT
319 provides the only link on bus from Clapham Junction and Battersea into Streatham Town Centre, dont underestimate that. You said how annoying it is for passengers to get off at Christchurch and change to buses to Streatham Town Centre, imagine how irritated passengers would feel having to change and cross roads at St Leonards or even walk just to reach the centre. Most passengers get on/off the 319 at St Leonards Church anyway to reach the centre/ change buses, so I don't really see it as problem. I dont understand the need to extend the 60 further, when there is a hub to change for the 133 and 159. The performance of the 60 will be worsened mate believe me. It would be expected for the 60's performance to go downhill if extended, but isn't that the case with any route that's extended (specially in busy areas such as Streatham)? In my mind, the positives outweigh the negatives. It would allow the 255 to be withdrawn, assist the 109, as it covers more of London Road than any other route (apart from the 109 itself of course!), it would link areas south of Croydon with the main part of Streatham, and finally would allow much better interchange with other bus routes in the area. If the 255 is withdrawn, punters lose out on a bus service along Stamford Road, Norbury and Stamford Way, North Mitcham. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 29, 2013 13:18:22 GMT
Its four stops from Telford Av to Clapham Park, the bus isn't going to be fully packed. 57 runs from Kingston, it is not gonna get busy towards or at the start of the route, the whole idea it brings an area like Clapham Park which needs services deep into the South west surburban areas, which no route in the Clapham Park area does. 137 comes from Central Ldn, so it is going to be busier than 57. The 255 an every 12 mins route, how can that replace 57 frequency, there is no comparison in links into main town centres. And how can you extend a long route such as the 57 further into Brixton. You talk about the low number of passengers on the 57 in Clapham Park, but would there be lots of passengers on the 57 in Brixton Hill, when there are 8 other high frequency routes, plus traffic would just get more congested in Lambeth Town Hall and Brixton Station. Stockwell park walk is long, but again you cannot compare 57 with 196, 57 every 7-8 mins, compared to 196 every 12-15 mins, 57 is going to take way more space. In peak times there won't be space at all. Lastly 333 already runs from Brixton along the same proposed route you are suggesting, so there is no demand for your proposion. I agree with the second half of your post but not the first. With the passenger numbers on the 57 at the Clapham Park part, the 255 could easily take over that section and still carry air! For connections to "South west surburban areas", the 355 to Tooting Broadway and changing buses there would probably be quicker than a 57 anyway. This post, I definitely agree with - the 57 is easily the route along Streatham Place/Atkins Road that carries less passengers. The 417 carries healthy loads in both directions, the 137 does towards Streatham Hill, the 45 does towards Clapham Park due to the Doctors Surgery & takes lots of passengers during school opening & closing times. The 57 does neither & an extended 255 with single deckers could easily cover that section. I also agree with that Clapham Park is already linked to South West London in the form of the 355 - that route should be double decked too but that's another story  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2013 17:37:19 GMT
355 does not go into deep suburban areas, is Mitcham Fair Green, a deep surburban area? 355 is always packed, a route the elderly use from doing their shopping at Brixton, it should definetly not be the main link even as far as Mitcham! Yes 137 takes more passengers, but 137 and 417 demand is high between Clapham Comm and Telford Av. 45 provides a key link into Camberwell, La retraite school girls use that all the time. 57 does get used and works very well. Its main purpose is to cut off at Streatham Town Centre and serve residents and the community of Clapham Park, it is not going to be fully packed.
57 goes Raynes Park, Coombe, Norbiton, these are deep suburban areas, mostly it goes by itself. If you know about the Clapham Park project and what it is going to bring to the community where I live, 57 will be much more in demand than now once the project is completed. My point I am trying to make is 57 should be left as it is, 255 cannot cover that section, because we are losing links into areas where we would have to get train from Balham to reach. 255 if TFL backed what they planned should go through Radbourne Road, to reach Balham, because that area really lacks any half decent transport connections into town centres. You have to walk a long time just to reach a 50 bus stop or Balham Town Centre, the elderly continue to suffer.
|
|
