Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2013 18:11:57 GMT
Willesden Junction Depot (or Station) - North Acton Station - Chase Road/North Acton Road - Acton Lane - Central Middlesex Hospital - Abbey Road - North Circular Road - (passing Stonebridge Park, Neasden Lane and Edgware Road A5) - Brent Cross - North Circular Road - Bounds Green Road - Bounds Green Station - Wood Green Station - Lordship Lane N22 - Bruce Grove - Tottenham High Road - Tottenham Hale Station (or Tottenham Garage.
REASONS
Almost no existing direct bus/train links between North West London (NW10 area) and North London (NActon o22/N15 area)
Alternative route between Willesden Junction and Central Middlesex Hospital utilizing a long abandoned stretch of route (when one route was divided into two routes) that needs a service.
Although the North Circular Road stretch might seem a little much, there are many residential roads off the NCR with potential passengers possibly wanting to go either towards Stonebridge/North Acton or towards Wood Green/Tottenham. The current main NCR route 102 is both rather meandering and serves neither Wood Green or South Tottenham.
Sorry, I have only the one route to offer.
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 29, 2013 19:09:00 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. A project doesn't always bring around higher demand, no one can actually know what demand there will be when future projects are completed. As for the 355, it needs to be double decked as I already mentioned, that's why it is packed. A extended 255 could do the 57's job in the Clapham Park area and still serve the Radbourne Road area, killing two objectives with one route. Extend it to Balham Station via the 57 to Clapham Park, then Kings Avenue, Thornton Road, Emmanuel Road, Radbourne Road, Weir Road, Cavendish Road, Omerley Road (until Old Devonshire Road is deemed suitable), Balham High Road and terminate on Balham Station Road where the 249 used to stand. This actually gives the 255 more purpose as well other than just serving the Stanford Road/Stanford Way community. |
|
|
|
Post by moz on Jun 30, 2013 15:32:46 GMT
415 to Surrey Canal Road. Not sure what routing it would take, but I suspect with only three extra buses it would be direct along New/Old Kent Roads. If a bus-only right turn could be introduced from New Kent Road into Rodney Place then it could run along Rodney Place, Rodney Road and the northern end of Albany Road back out into Old Kent Road. This would help the 343 out a little as well as return a service to the top end of Albany Road (though admittedly there's not much up there).
Moz
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2013 16:11:43 GMT
The routing of the 415 extension was decided to be via New Kent Road, Old Kent Road and Ilderton Road.
The preferred routing in the site then is a loop running from Ilderton Road into Surrey Canal Road,, Rollins Street, and Surrey Canal Road Station link to terminate at the station. Entering service there, they will turn into Surrey Canal Road then Ilderton Road.
That routing is dependent on developers being able to provide space for layover facilities at Surrey Canal Road Station. If that is not possible the alternative routing would instead loop from Ilderton Road to Rollins Street, Rollins Street/Surrey Canal Road link, Surrey Canal Road and terminating there before it crosses the London Bridge railway line. Entering service it will just continue on to Ilderton Road.
The new Lewisham service will enter the site from the east along Surrey Canal Road and use the same loop as chosen for the 415, standing on the Rollins Street/Surrey Canal Road link. From Surrey Canal Road it will turn into Trundleys Road and complement the 225 to Lewisham to provide 7 buses per hour between there and Lewisham, using 3 vehicles to run every 20 minutes during Monday to Saturday daytimes, and every 30 minutes evenings and sundays.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2013 20:00:55 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. A project doesn't always bring around higher demand, no one can actually know what demand there will be when future projects are completed. As for the 355, it needs to be double decked as I already mentioned, that's why it is packed. A extended 255 could do the 57's job in the Clapham Park area and still serve the Radbourne Road area, killing two objectives with one route. Extend it to Balham Station via the 57 to Clapham Park, then Kings Avenue, Thornton Road, Emmanuel Road, Radbourne Road, Weir Road, Cavendish Road, Omerley Road (until Old Devonshire Road is deemed suitable), Balham High Road and terminate on Balham Station Road where the 249 used to stand. This actually gives the 255 more purpose as well other than just serving the Stanford Road/Stanford Way community. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2013 20:01:33 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. A project doesn't always bring around higher demand, no one can actually know what demand there will be when future projects are completed. As for the 355, it needs to be double decked as I already mentioned, that's why it is packed. A extended 255 could do the 57's job in the Clapham Park area and still serve the Radbourne Road area, killing two objectives with one route. Extend it to Balham Station via the 57 to Clapham Park, then Kings Avenue, Thornton Road, Emmanuel Road, Radbourne Road, Weir Road, Cavendish Road, Omerley Road (until Old Devonshire Road is deemed suitable), Balham High Road and terminate on Balham Station Road where the 249 used to stand. This actually gives the 255 more purpose as well other than just serving the Stanford Road/Stanford Way community. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2013 20:10:57 GMT
When I mean higher demand, I mean 57 for the 'community' of Clapham Park and new residents in the new flats built is going to be way more attractive to travel, because of the places it links, you cant just cut a route, just because you simply think it will cover a small section, passengers using the 57 from beyond Tooting may want to travel to the top of Streatham Hill, your proposal will make them change buses unnecessary.
255 wouldn't even be serving the majority of Clapham Park, actually just one bus stop in Atkins Road, so there would be no improvement for us at all. We would have to walk all the way up to New Park road bus stop, this would just anger people. Second of all, there is no need for the bus to go round in circles, when it can just cut through Sternhold av. Thirdly there is no straight left turn from Atkins road into Thornton Road, adding unnessary journey time. Omerley road is a resedential road, where I definetly dont think residents will feel happy about that. But yeah it should take the 249 stand space.
|
|
|
|
Post by Connor on Jul 1, 2013 20:39:03 GMT
When I mean higher demand, I mean 57 for the 'community' of Clapham Park and new residents in the new flats built is going to be way more attractive to travel, because of the places it links, you cant just cut a route, just because you simply think it will cover a small section, passengers using the 57 from beyond Tooting may want to travel to the top of Streatham Hill, your proposal will make them change buses unnecessary. 255 wouldn't even be serving the majority of Clapham Park, actually just one bus stop in Atkins Road, so there would be no improvement for us at all. We would have to walk all the way up to New Park road bus stop, this would just anger people. Second of all, there is no need for the bus to go round in circles, when it can just cut through Sternhold av. Thirdly there is no straight left turn from Atkins road into Thornton Road, adding unnessary journey time. Omerley road is a resedential road, where I definetly dont think residents will feel happy about that. But yeah it should take the 249 stand space. The 57 is an important route that serves important areas; Streatham, Tooting, Wimbledon, Kingston... without sounding rude, Clapham Park are insignificant compared with the rest of the route. That is reflected in passenger numbers. The Clapham Park would be better of being replaced by a shortish route like the 255. That would also create a link to Pollards Hill, if that's of any use to you.  As for snoots living in the backroads of Streatham Hill, they can get stuffed for all I care! |
|
|
|
Post by LX09FBJ on Jul 1, 2013 21:41:18 GMT
When I mean higher demand, I mean 57 for the 'community' of Clapham Park and new residents in the new flats built is going to be way more attractive to travel, because of the places it links, you cant just cut a route, just because you simply think it will cover a small section, passengers using the 57 from beyond Tooting may want to travel to the top of Streatham Hill, your proposal will make them change buses unnecessary. 255 wouldn't even be serving the majority of Clapham Park, actually just one bus stop in Atkins Road, so there would be no improvement for us at all. We would have to walk all the way up to New Park road bus stop, this would just anger people. Second of all, there is no need for the bus to go round in circles, when it can just cut through Sternhold av. Thirdly there is no straight left turn from Atkins road into Thornton Road, adding unnessary journey time. Omerley road is a resedential road, where I definetly dont think residents will feel happy about that. But yeah it should take the 249 stand space. The 57 is an important route that serves important areas; Streatham, Tooting, Wimbledon, Kingston... without sounding rude, Clapham Park are insignificant compared with the rest of the route. That is reflected in passenger numbers. The Clapham Park would be better of being replaced by a shortish route like the 255. That would also create a link to Pollards Hill, if that's of any use to you. As for snoots living in the backroads of Streatham Hill, they can get stuffed for all I care! The extension of the 152 to Kingston would crate useful links to Mitcham and Pollards Hill. Furthermore, extending it even further to Thornton Heath or even Croydon would give more local links. (despite the X26 taking less time to get to Croydon from Kingston) |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 1, 2013 22:13:00 GMT
The 57 is an important route that serves important areas; Streatham, Tooting, Wimbledon, Kingston... without sounding rude, Clapham Park are insignificant compared with the rest of the route. That is reflected in passenger numbers. The Clapham Park would be better of being replaced by a shortish route like the 255. That would also create a link to Pollards Hill, if that's of any use to you. As for snoots living in the backroads of Streatham Hill, they can get stuffed for all I care! The extension of the 152 to Kingston would crate useful links to Mitcham and Pollards Hill. Furthermore, extending it even further to Thornton Heath or even Croydon would give more local links. (despite the X26 taking less time to get to Croydon from Kingston) I wouldn't extend the 152 further than Thornton Heath TBH - on a side note, wonder if the Thornton Heath Clock Tower stand could be resurrected or even put a stand on Grange Road just before the zebra crossing (the 198 had a temporary stand there when Nursery Road was closed for roadworks around 6-7 years ago). |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 1, 2013 22:28:45 GMT
When I mean higher demand, I mean 57 for the 'community' of Clapham Park and new residents in the new flats built is going to be way more attractive to travel, because of the places it links, you cant just cut a route, just because you simply think it will cover a small section, passengers using the 57 from beyond Tooting may want to travel to the top of Streatham Hill, your proposal will make them change buses unnecessary. 255 wouldn't even be serving the majority of Clapham Park, actually just one bus stop in Atkins Road, so there would be no improvement for us at all. We would have to walk all the way up to New Park road bus stop, this would just anger people. Second of all, there is no need for the bus to go round in circles, when it can just cut through Sternhold av. Thirdly there is no straight left turn from Atkins road into Thornton Road, adding unnessary journey time. Omerley road is a resedential road, where I definetly dont think residents will feel happy about that. But yeah it should take the 249 stand space. The 57 doesn't serve the majority of Clapham Park though either, it serves the exact same stops as my 255 proposal and you have to walk up to New Park Road with the 57 now so surely people are angered by the 57 then? Cutting through Sternhold Avenue still leaves us with the 57 which is something I want re-routed away from Clapham Park regardless of whether my idea of extending it to Brixton is good or bad. At least this way, Pollards Hill suddenly gets a new link that could potentially be good, as not since the old 60 routing has Pollards Hill had any link further north than Streatham Hill. I've never mentioned anything about turning left from Atkins Road into Thornton Road, it turns left from Atkins Road into Kings Avenue before meeting Thornton Road at the left hand bend. Also, Atkins Road continues to the roundabout at Weir Road, Clarence Avenue & Thornton Road so technically a left hand turn is possible. As for local residents not being happy about buses down their roads, this will sound very harsh but tough. Residents in certain areas love complaining when it comes to these issues - be it residents in Hackbridge & Carshalton moaning about noisy bus brakes resulting in V reg Tridents being banned from the 157 or VLA's being banned from the 319 due to residents in Wandsworth. |
|
|
|
Post by Connor on Jul 1, 2013 23:20:17 GMT
The 57 is an important route that serves important areas; Streatham, Tooting, Wimbledon, Kingston... without sounding rude, Clapham Park are insignificant compared with the rest of the route. That is reflected in passenger numbers. The Clapham Park would be better of being replaced by a shortish route like the 255. That would also create a link to Pollards Hill, if that's of any use to you. As for snoots living in the backroads of Streatham Hill, they can get stuffed for all I care! The extension of the 152 to Kingston would crate useful links to Mitcham and Pollards Hill. Furthermore, extending it even further to Thornton Heath or even Croydon would give more local links. (despite the X26 taking less time to get to Croydon from Kingston) That's a great idea. Lot's of new links, more importantly, it means I don't have to take a 60 to Pollards Hill and wait there for a 152!  (Pollards Hill isn't a very nice place) Also, I see no reason why it hasn't been double decked, it's always busy when I use it. Another route that could also be extended to Thornton Heath would be the 270. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 1, 2013 23:41:39 GMT
The extension of the 152 to Kingston would crate useful links to Mitcham and Pollards Hill. Furthermore, extending it even further to Thornton Heath or even Croydon would give more local links. (despite the X26 taking less time to get to Croydon from Kingston) That's a great idea. Lot's of new links, more importantly, it means I don't have to take a 60 to Pollards Hill and wait there for a 152! (Pollards Hill isn't a very nice place) Also, I see no reason why it hasn't been double decked, it's always busy when I use it. Another route that could also be extended to Thornton Heath would be the 270. I agree with decking the 152 - I remember using the route on a V reg Trident and it was well used. It was a few years back mind but surely demand hasn't changed that much since then. |
|
|
|
Post by John tuthill on Jul 2, 2013 10:15:14 GMT
That's a great idea. Lot's of new links, more importantly, it means I don't have to take a 60 to Pollards Hill and wait there for a 152! (Pollards Hill isn't a very nice place) Also, I see no reason why it hasn't been double decked, it's always busy when I use it. Another route that could also be extended to Thornton Heath would be the 270. I agree with decking the 152 - I remember using the route on a V reg Trident and it was well used. It was a few years back mind but surely demand hasn't changed that much since then. The 152 has been D/D on more than one occasion recently, seen them at the New Malden bus stand. Can only presume it was a stand in for a defunct S/D |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2013 11:38:25 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. All that's need are a few extra's on the 2 or 432 between Norwood Garage and Brixton at peak/school times to solve that problem. |
|
As for snoots living in the backroads of Streatham Hill, they can get stuffed for all I care!
(Pollards Hill isn't a very nice place) Also, I see no reason why it hasn't been double decked, it's always busy when I use it. 