|
Post by southlondonbus on Jul 5, 2022 19:57:22 GMT
Whilst some are not surprised about the 396 coming up I am the opposite and surprised it comes up so much! It serves a useful purpose linking to the hospital. To suggest people could walk to the 296 stop must be a joke especially if you are visiting the hospital for a medical reason.
At my local hospital they are recently increased the amount of bus routes serving the hospital so clearly these links are needed and used. Even in the central London consultation they are maintaining the link to Barts (The choice of routes if debatable but the point still stands buses need to serve hospitals).
Yet are removing direct hospital links for people living south of Brixton on Brixton Hill and at Clapham Park so whilst I agree in that hospital links are important, let’s not pretend the Central London consultation is breaking some whilst creating unnecessary ones at the same time Especially when anyone I dount south of river get referred to Barts. If it was felt there are too many buses up Brixton Hill (I disagree it's densely populated and bar the 45 and 59 all the routes have already picked up alot of passengers before Telford Ave) then maybe something like the 118 or 250 should have be cut to Streatham Hill OR the 45 extended to Shoreditch and the 35 been diverted to Peckham and the 345 run just S Kensington to Brixton to remove a route from Coldharbour Lane.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 5, 2022 21:15:59 GMT
Yet are removing direct hospital links for people living south of Brixton on Brixton Hill and at Clapham Park so whilst I agree in that hospital links are important, let’s not pretend the Central London consultation is breaking some whilst creating unnecessary ones at the same time Especially when anyone I dount south of river get referred to Barts. If it was felt there are too many buses up Brixton Hill (I disagree it's densely populated and bar the 45 and 59 all the routes have already picked up alot of passengers before Telford Ave) then maybe something like the 118 or 250 should have be cut to Streatham Hill OR the 45 extended to Shoreditch and the 35 been diverted to Peckham and the 345 run just S Kensington to Brixton to remove a route from Coldharbour Lane. You can't cut either route back from Brixton as your just breaking loads of journeys and neither is a Central London routes so shouldn't be lumped into a consultation about Central London routes (nor should the 45 either TBH) nor do I see the point of messing around with all three routes on Coldharbour Lane either. Coldharbour Lane doesn't need a route removing, no matter what they say, they are finding reasons merely to cover up it's all just to save money and nothing else. If they really must remove the 45, then simply divert the 40 to Clapham Park. That way, Dulwich still has two links to the hospital, the 176 covers the 40 as far as Elephant and we get to keep our hospital link - instead, we lose our only one whilst Dulwich will have three which makes little sense in that regard.
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Jul 5, 2022 21:23:14 GMT
Especially when anyone I dount south of river get referred to Barts. If it was felt there are too many buses up Brixton Hill (I disagree it's densely populated and bar the 45 and 59 all the routes have already picked up alot of passengers before Telford Ave) then maybe something like the 118 or 250 should have be cut to Streatham Hill OR the 45 extended to Shoreditch and the 35 been diverted to Peckham and the 345 run just S Kensington to Brixton to remove a route from Coldharbour Lane. You can't cut either route back from Brixton as your just breaking loads of journeys and neither is a Central London routes so shouldn't be lumped into a consultation about Central London routes (nor should the 45 either TBH) nor do I see the point of messing around with all three routes on Coldharbour Lane either. Coldharbour Lane doesn't need a route removing, no matter what they say, they are finding reasons merely to cover up it's all just to save money and nothing else. If they really must remove the 45, then simply divert the 40 to Clapham Park. That way, Dulwich still has two links to the hospital, the 176 covers the 40 as far as Elephant and we get to keep our hospital link - instead, we lose our only one whilst Dulwich will have three which makes little sense in that regard. This might not save a similar amount of money to what the 12/45 cut would generate but maybe cutting the 40 would be a sensible idea with perhaps an extension of the 148 to Dulwich Library through Lordship Lane, dropping the 45 to every 12 minutes & due to the high amount of opposition (6600+ signatures against the change!) keeping the 12 as is. The central section of the 40 could be left to the 63 which is clearly more popular than the 40 (which tends to carry very few passengers to Clerkenwell) and Thameslink I should think is more popular for journeys to Farringdon - at least for Dulwich - given that the 40/176/185 tend to empty out a lot of passengers at Denmark Hill.
|
|
|
Post by someone on Jul 6, 2022 17:21:37 GMT
Yes, but it's so short it could just serve as an extension of the R3.
The R9 is more frequent, has slightly longer operational hours and uses higher capacity buses than the R3 through. As the R9 would not exist, being merged into the R3, the R3 could have a capacity upgrade by using the former R9 buses.
|
|
|
Post by Paul on Jul 6, 2022 18:53:22 GMT
The R9 is more frequent, has slightly longer operational hours and uses higher capacity buses than the R3 through. As the R9 would not exist, being merged into the R3, the R3 could have a capacity upgrade by using the former R9 buses. I’m pretty sure the R3 uses shorter buses than the R9 for a reason. I admire your determination to stick to your guns on this issue but I’m afraid you’re in the wrong here - the R9 works just fine as it is and far from getting rid of it, it’s model should be used for other links in the Orpington area such as Orpington to Chelsfield Village
|
|
|
Post by rugbyref on Jul 9, 2022 8:30:48 GMT
The R9. Why can't the just extend it to Green Street Green via Chelsfield Lane, Warren Lane and the R1? Also, maybe there could be a possible northern extension to Perry Hall Road? So many reasons, not least because there is no anti- clockwise service. You would have to add furniture the whole length. Warren Road is unsuitable for hgv/buses between Chelsield and Chelsfield Station.
|
|
|
Post by bus000009 on Aug 25, 2022 9:37:57 GMT
357 is a bad route
|
|
|
Post by bus000009 on Aug 25, 2022 9:38:13 GMT
357 is a bad route
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Aug 25, 2022 9:39:40 GMT
I think most of us are already getting fed up of this spam of nonsense posts.
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Aug 25, 2022 10:35:22 GMT
I appreciate you are a new member but it really feels like you are spamming the forum.
|
|
frank
Conductor
Posts: 64
|
Post by frank on Aug 25, 2022 20:38:28 GMT
Especially when anyone I dount south of river get referred to Barts. If it was felt there are too many buses up Brixton Hill (I disagree it's densely populated and bar the 45 and 59 all the routes have already picked up alot of passengers before Telford Ave) then maybe something like the 118 or 250 should have be cut to Streatham Hill OR the 45 extended to Shoreditch and the 35 been diverted to Peckham and the 345 run just S Kensington to Brixton to remove a route from Coldharbour Lane. You can't cut either route back from Brixton as your just breaking loads of journeys and neither is a Central London routes so shouldn't be lumped into a consultation about Central London routes (nor should the 45 either TBH) nor do I see the point of messing around with all three routes on Coldharbour Lane either. Coldharbour Lane doesn't need a route removing, no matter what they say, they are finding reasons merely to cover up it's all just to save money and nothing else. If they really must remove the 45, then simply divert the 40 to Clapham Park. That way, Dulwich still has two links to the hospital, the 176 covers the 40 as far as Elephant and we get to keep our hospital link - instead, we lose our only one whilst Dulwich will have three which makes little sense in that regard. Diverting the 40 to Clapham Park would be somewhat ironic! With the northern leg diverted to Clerkenwell to replace a large aspect of the old 45 routing, a diversion of the 40 to take on the southern leg of the 45s routing would be the ultimate justification that the 45 shouldn't have been so severely chopped in the first place!!
|
|
|
Post by CircleLineofLife on Aug 25, 2022 20:56:23 GMT
All arguments that buses that follow rail should be culled are ridiculous. There's a reason they happen to exist along rail corridors. Prime example for me is the 25. Pre-2019 (roughly) followed the Central Line from Oxford Circus to Stratford, the District/H&C from Aldgate to Bow Road and TFL Rail from Stratford to Ilford. According to this logic, the 25 would have carried fresh air given it went on multiple rail corridors along its entire route and there were clearly faster methods to get between termini, yet the route saw and continues to see even in current form, very heavy usage. If people want to go by that theory about routes paralleling one another then we may as well cut the 86 to Ilford or divert it elsewhere as that route follows the Elizabeth Line between Romford and Stratford. And no of course I wouldn't want to cut that route back or divert it. Even in it's British rail days (Elizabeth Line Eastern side) the 86 has been a saving grace when disruptions has occurred on that route. That was part of the justification forthe proposed cut of the 427 though. And it doesn't even follow the Elizabeth line smh.
|
|
|
Post by northlondon83 on Sept 12, 2022 16:34:12 GMT
The U5 is quite useless, provides longer indirect alternative route than other buses.
For example: Uxbridge - West Drayton is faster on the 222 West Drayton - Hayes Town is faster on the 350 and GWR There exists the 350 linking both West Drayton and Hayes to Stockley Park Uxbridge - Hillingdon Hospital is faster on multiple routes Doesn't directly serve Brunel University unlike other routes from Uxbridge Uxbridge - Hayes is faster on the U4
The U5 could be withdrawn with minor tweaks to other bus routes in the area, like rerouting the U4 between Uxbridge and Hillingdon Hospital via the U5 route (still retaining the U1 and the U7 on Kingston Lane, the latter of which could be decked and given a frequency increase), One of the U1 or U3 could be rerouted via the U5's routing round Colham Green, again one or both routes could be decked, either then leaving the U5 as a West Drayton-Hayes route or introducing the 698 as a day route but via the U5's routing between Hayes and West Drayton, or swapping the 140 and X140 termini in Harrow and then extending the 140 to West Drayton via the U5
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Sept 13, 2022 9:07:51 GMT
The U5 is quite useless, provides longer indirect alternative route than other buses. For example: Uxbridge - West Drayton is faster on the 222 West Drayton - Hayes Town is faster on the 350 and GWR There exists the 350 linking both West Drayton and Hayes to Stockley Park Uxbridge - Hillingdon Hospital is faster on multiple routes Doesn't directly serve Brunel University unlike other routes from Uxbridge Uxbridge - Hayes is faster on the U4 The U5 could be withdrawn with minor tweaks to other bus routes in the area, like rerouting the U4 between Uxbridge and Hillingdon Hospital via the U5 route (still retaining the U1 and the U7 on Kingston Lane, the latter of which could be decked and given a frequency increase), One of the U1 or U3 could be rerouted via the U5's routing round Colham Green, again one or both routes could be decked, either then leaving the U5 as a West Drayton-Hayes route or introducing the 698 as a day route but via the U5's routing between Hayes and West Drayton, or swapping the 140 and X140 termini in Harrow and then extending the 140 to West Drayton via the U5 Caveat that I’m not remotely local, but I was in Uxbridge one afternoon last month and the U5 appeared very popular indeed. Are you a regular U5 user?
|
|
|
Post by northlondon83 on Sept 13, 2022 11:38:22 GMT
The U5 is quite useless, provides longer indirect alternative route than other buses. For example: Uxbridge - West Drayton is faster on the 222 West Drayton - Hayes Town is faster on the 350 and GWR There exists the 350 linking both West Drayton and Hayes to Stockley Park Uxbridge - Hillingdon Hospital is faster on multiple routes Doesn't directly serve Brunel University unlike other routes from Uxbridge Uxbridge - Hayes is faster on the U4 The U5 could be withdrawn with minor tweaks to other bus routes in the area, like rerouting the U4 between Uxbridge and Hillingdon Hospital via the U5 route (still retaining the U1 and the U7 on Kingston Lane, the latter of which could be decked and given a frequency increase), One of the U1 or U3 could be rerouted via the U5's routing round Colham Green, again one or both routes could be decked, either then leaving the U5 as a West Drayton-Hayes route or introducing the 698 as a day route but via the U5's routing between Hayes and West Drayton, or swapping the 140 and X140 termini in Harrow and then extending the 140 to West Drayton via the U5 Caveat that I’m not remotely local, but I was in Uxbridge one afternoon last month and the U5 appeared very popular indeed. Are you a regular U5 user? I live in the local area and whilst I don't usually take buses I prefer quicker alternatives like the U4 and the 222
|
|