|
|
Post by busman on Jul 21, 2021 8:12:34 GMT
Townley Road is hardly far away. No however it reduces the attractiveness of the service and current ease of transfer between routes by now having to walk from one side of Broadway to the other. Small snips and cuts like this reduce overall attractiveness of buses to potential punters and propagates the attitude of buses being the transport of final resort. As someone with young family members currently unfamiliar with using those routes and the layout of Bexleyheath town centre, it does make through travel less attractive. For us, this rules out the 269 as an option. We already plan to use a car in the morning due to no direct connections from our house to Sidcup. As a lone passenger, I would have no issues with that transfer, but that walk through the Broadway to catch a connecting bus will be unattractive to some. However, TfL obviously have the data and see that not many passengers currently switch buses at Trinity Place and there is no projected or suppressed growth in demand. We just have to roll with these changes. |
|
|
|
Post by someone on Jul 22, 2021 16:19:55 GMT
Is that what you're suggesting?
I think he meant just the 27
No, I really was suggesting the 17. |
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Jul 22, 2021 16:26:59 GMT
Is that what you're suggesting?
I think he meant just the 27
No, I really was suggesting the 17. Why? Is there any reason for it?
|
|
|
|
Post by someone on Jul 22, 2021 17:15:54 GMT
No, I really was suggesting the 17. Why? Is there any reason for it?
No, it was just a weird thought I considered. |
|
|
|
Post by someone on Jul 22, 2021 17:25:36 GMT
Won’t solve anything at Bexleyheath other than make unnecessary extensions to Crayford. I tell you what would make sense though converting Bexleyheath Library to a Bus Stand for Routes 269 & B13. Crayford only has space to stand two buses. The 99 was extended to Bexleyheath because Erith to Bexleyheath section on Route 469 needed double deckers. The amount of times that section has changed routes and it works best on Route 99, from Forest Road / Slade Green Station to Woolwich is the busiest section of the 99 as it goes directly to Woolwich. 422 is one of the worst candidates for any extension. 492 between Crayford & Bexleyheath has little demand so no point extending Route 301 there. There was a Charlton Riverside development document a few years ago which suggested to extend Route 301 there. 428 needs no extension the 229 can cope between Erith & Northumberland Heath it meets up with Route 89 and has plenty of school buses at the busiest times. I'd say that it would be a better idea to repurpose Bexleyheath Library as a stand for routes 301 and B13 instead, with there being a 269 stop serving Bexleyheath Library called Albion Road. The 301 would be extended via Broadway, Albion Road and the Library loop road, and the B13 would have a rather more complicated extension/diversion via Latham Road and Broadway, before joining the extended 301.
|
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Jul 22, 2021 19:05:49 GMT
Won’t solve anything at Bexleyheath other than make unnecessary extensions to Crayford. I tell you what would make sense though converting Bexleyheath Library to a Bus Stand for Routes 269 & B13. Crayford only has space to stand two buses. The 99 was extended to Bexleyheath because Erith to Bexleyheath section on Route 469 needed double deckers. The amount of times that section has changed routes and it works best on Route 99, from Forest Road / Slade Green Station to Woolwich is the busiest section of the 99 as it goes directly to Woolwich. 422 is one of the worst candidates for any extension. 492 between Crayford & Bexleyheath has little demand so no point extending Route 301 there. There was a Charlton Riverside development document a few years ago which suggested to extend Route 301 there. 428 needs no extension the 229 can cope between Erith & Northumberland Heath it meets up with Route 89 and has plenty of school buses at the busiest times. I'd say that it would be a better idea to repurpose Bexleyheath Library as a stand for routes 301 and B13 instead, with there being a 269 stop serving Bexleyheath Library called Albion Road. The 301 would be extended via Broadway, Albion Road and the Library loop road, and the B13 would have a rather more complicated extension/diversion via Latham Road and Broadway, before joining the extended 301.
The 301 really needs to stand at Geddes Place. |
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Jul 22, 2021 19:46:30 GMT
The 301 really needs to stand at Geddes Place. Such a shame the 132 can’t appear to be evicted from its current terminal slot to run on to Bexleyheath Garage, the 301 could then take that terminal point. |
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Jul 22, 2021 21:29:34 GMT
The 301 really needs to stand at Geddes Place. Such a shame the 132 can’t appear to be evicted from its current terminal slot to run on to Bexleyheath Garage, the 301 could then take that terminal point. Have heard that is happening when the 132 gets Electrics. The 99 needs it more always two on that stand, plus on Sundays there is overlapping stand time for a some buses by 5 minutes and it is a 1 bus stand. I would say then move the 301 to Geddes Place. |
|
|
|
Post by dashing0ne on Jul 23, 2021 6:11:32 GMT
Such a shame the 132 can’t appear to be evicted from its current terminal slot to run on to Bexleyheath Garage, the 301 could then take that terminal point. Have heard that is happening when the 132 gets Electrics. The 99 needs it more always two on that stand, plus on Sundays there is overlapping stand time for a some buses by 5 minutes and it is a 1 bus stand. I would say then move the 301 to Geddes Place. And the low PVR 301 could use it as well, that's when the 132 leaves from the stand. |
|
|
|
Post by busboy17 on Jul 23, 2021 6:39:10 GMT
Have heard that is happening when the 132 gets Electrics. The 99 needs it more always two on that stand, plus on Sundays there is overlapping stand time for a some buses by 5 minutes and it is a 1 bus stand. I would say then move the 301 to Geddes Place. And the low PVR 301 could use it as well, that's when the 132 leaves from the stand. Why can’t the 486 or 132 be extended to the garage apart from mileage I can’t think of a problem the 422 used to stand there and bx should still have the space for a route to stand at the garage |
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Jul 23, 2021 7:10:10 GMT
Have heard that is happening when the 132 gets Electrics. The 99 needs it more always two on that stand, plus on Sundays there is overlapping stand time for a some buses by 5 minutes and it is a 1 bus stand. I would say then move the 301 to Geddes Place. And the low PVR 301 could use it as well, that's when the 132 leaves from the stand. The 99 needs it more for the reasons I mentioned above comes from Maplace Road West so needs it more, when running on Headway and not timed it’s possible to run early, we are instructed to follow headway on high frequency routes... the 301 can easily alight at Maplace Road West / Bexleyheath Clock Tower turn right use the roundabout to turn around then stand at the old 99 stand... Then Arnsberg Way stand could be vacated. Personally I would have the 301 alight at the shopping centre then use the middle stand the 401 currently uses and the 401 alight at Maplace Road West / Bexleyheath Clock Tower turn right use the roundabout then stand at the current 99 one bus stand. 99 use the current 132 stand where two buses can fit. Would be perfect. The current 99 stand was more for the 469 when it ran to Bexleyheath and that is low frequency. |
|
|
|
Post by beaver14uk on Jul 24, 2021 11:49:02 GMT
Could alight at 96 stop or is that what you meant then spin round at Highland Rd. I have a meeting next week about Geddes Place which I have called to try and address these issues. Does't help you can't turn right onto the 99 stand from Arnsberg Way. quote author=" DT 11" source="/post/645379/thread" timestamp="1627024210"] And the low PVR 301 could use it as well, that's when the 132 leaves from the stand. The 99 needs it more for the reasons I mentioned above comes from Maplace Road West so needs it more, when running on Headway and not timed it’s possible to run early, we are instructed to follow headway on high frequency routes... the 301 can easily alight at Maplace Road West / Bexleyheath Clock Tower turn right use the roundabout to turn around then stand at the old 99 stand... Then Arnsberg Way stand could be vacated. Personally I would have the 301 alight at the shopping centre then use the middle stand the 401 currently uses and the 401 alight at Maplace Road West / Bexleyheath Clock Tower turn right use the roundabout then stand at the current 99 one bus stand. 99 use the current 132 stand where two buses can fit. Would be perfect. The current 99 stand was more for the 469 when it ran to Bexleyheath and that is low frequency. [/quote] |
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Jul 24, 2021 12:03:33 GMT
My proposals around Barnet: 84: Withdrawn between Potters Bar Bus Garage and New Barnet. However, buses will be retimed to be in correlation with the 234 in order to facilitate any long distance journeys from Barnet to St Albans (? PVR) 234: Withdrawn between Muswell Hill & Highgate Wood but diverted to Wood Green Station from Muswell Hill via Alexandra Palace. Extended from The Spires to Potters Bar Station via the 84 to Darkes Lane and directly via Darkes Lane to Potters Bar Station. Frequency dropped to every 15 minutes however. Would establish links between Muswell Hill, Friern Barnet, Coppetts, Whetstone with Potters Bar & Hadley Green. Would be more popular than the current 84, the 234 would be very direct up to Potters Bar, the kind of journey you'd do in a car and New Barnet and Potters Bar are arguably linked by train. However, Hadley Green would lose their direct link to New Barnet. However this could be done by taking a 234/399 into Barnet and a bus down to New Barnet. In terms of Wood Green links, the 144 currently does the link fair enough but the link is popular and I'd imagine links from Friern Barnet/Coppetts to Wood Green for the Shopping City and tube station would be popular as well as there finally being an Alexandra Palace to Muswell Hill link. (+1 PVR) 251: Extended down to Palmers Green, Lodge Drive as mentioned before in the thread (+2 TVR)
288: Extended from Queensbury Morrisons to Harrow via the 79 to Kingsbury and down Preston Hill, Draycott Avenue & Woodcock Hill. Would introduce a service along Draycott Avenue and Woodcock Hill.
299: Withdrawn between Southgate and Cockfosters. Extended from Muswell Hill to Royal Free Hospital via the previously proposed 268 extension through East Finchley, Highgate Village, Kenwood House, Hampstead & Hampstead High Street with the 268 kept as is. Would also establish better west links to Southgate from that neck of North London and for people wishing to access Oakwood or Cockfosters the Picadilly is available from Bounds Green and those needing to access the proposed 384 can change in Southgate (+7 TVR if upped to every 12 minutes or +3 TVR if kept at every 15 minutes)
303: Increased to every 12 minutes due to demand in the evening.
340: Extended from Edgware to New Barnet Station via Route 292 to Stirling Corner & 107 to New Barnet. New links from Barnet to Stanmore Broadway, Wealdstone, Harrow Weald, Harrow and Canons Park. (+8 TVR). Would have a cycle time of 174 minutes (Harrow - Barnet and Barnet - Harrow) and with stand time it would be 192 minutes in total.
384: Withdrawn between Barnet Quinta Drive and Edgware and revised on it's old routing between Cockfosters and Barnet Quinta Drive with perhaps amendements to some roads if underused?. Extended from Cockfosters via old route 299 to Southgate establishing a Southgate to New Barnet/East Barnet/High Barnet/Barnet Hospital link (though rather indirect) and would allow residents to continue as they were pre changes. Frequency reinstated back to every 15 minutes. (-1 PVR) Would be expensive, but just a little review of options that could be considered and if my 263 idea was thrown in here with the diversion to Dalston, it could probably remain cost neutral in the 263s respect as the route is overtimed and could do with a reduction in running time. |
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Jul 24, 2021 12:34:54 GMT
Could alight at 96 stop or is that what you meant then spin round at Highland Rd. I have a meeting next week about Geddes Place which I have called to try and address these issues. Does't help you can't turn right onto the 99 stand from Arnsberg Way. quote author=" DT 11" source="/post/645379/thread" timestamp="1627024210"] And the low PVR 301 could use it as well, that's when the 132 leaves from the stand. The 99 needs it more for the reasons I mentioned above comes from Maplace Road West so needs it more, when running on Headway and not timed it’s possible to run early, we are instructed to follow headway on high frequency routes... the 301 can easily alight at Maplace Road West / Bexleyheath Clock Tower turn right use the roundabout to turn around then stand at the old 99 stand... Then Arnsberg Way stand could be vacated. Personally I would have the 301 alight at the shopping centre then use the middle stand the 401 currently uses and the 401 alight at Maplace Road West / Bexleyheath Clock Tower turn right use the roundabout then stand at the current 99 one bus stand. 99 use the current 132 stand where two buses can fit. Would be perfect. The current 99 stand was more for the 469 when it ran to Bexleyheath and that is low frequency. [/quote] Yes I meant the 96 stop, Then use the roundabout on Highland Road like what the 301 does from Arnsberg Way. However I have seen 401s does this when returning to the stand because of 99s double parking and cannot turn right onto the bus stand. Left from the 96 stop is also possible I have done it before but certainly wouldn’t advise it. Personally I think it would be more suitable for the 401 to use the current 99 as it is low frequency. |
|
|
|
Post by LD71YLO (BE37054) on Jul 25, 2021 9:04:20 GMT
My proposals around Barnet: 84: Withdrawn between Potters Bar Bus Garage and New Barnet. However, buses will be retimed to be in correlation with the 234 in order to facilitate any long distance journeys from Barnet to St Albans (? PVR) 234: Withdrawn between Muswell Hill & Highgate Wood but diverted to Wood Green Station from Muswell Hill via Alexandra Palace. Extended from The Spires to Potters Bar Station via the 84 to Darkes Lane and directly via Darkes Lane to Potters Bar Station. Frequency dropped to every 15 minutes however. Would establish links between Muswell Hill, Friern Barnet, Coppetts, Whetstone with Potters Bar & Hadley Green. Would be more popular than the current 84, the 234 would be very direct up to Potters Bar, the kind of journey you'd do in a car and New Barnet and Potters Bar are arguably linked by train. However, Hadley Green would lose their direct link to New Barnet. However this could be done by taking a 234/399 into Barnet and a bus down to New Barnet. In terms of Wood Green links, the 144 currently does the link fair enough but the link is popular and I'd imagine links from Friern Barnet/Coppetts to Wood Green for the Shopping City and tube station would be popular as well as there finally being an Alexandra Palace to Muswell Hill link. (+1 PVR) 251: Extended down to Palmers Green, Lodge Drive as mentioned before in the thread (+2 TVR)
288: Extended from Queensbury Morrisons to Harrow via the 79 to Kingsbury and down Preston Hill, Draycott Avenue & Woodcock Hill. Would introduce a service along Draycott Avenue and Woodcock Hill.
299: Withdrawn between Southgate and Cockfosters. Extended from Muswell Hill to Royal Free Hospital via the previously proposed 268 extension through East Finchley, Highgate Village, Kenwood House, Hampstead & Hampstead High Street with the 268 kept as is. Would also establish better west links to Southgate from that neck of North London and for people wishing to access Oakwood or Cockfosters the Picadilly is available from Bounds Green and those needing to access the proposed 384 can change in Southgate (+7 TVR if upped to every 12 minutes or +3 TVR if kept at every 15 minutes)
303: Increased to every 12 minutes due to demand in the evening.
340: Extended from Edgware to New Barnet Station via Route 292 to Stirling Corner & 107 to New Barnet. New links from Barnet to Stanmore Broadway, Wealdstone, Harrow Weald, Harrow and Canons Park. (+8 TVR). Would have a cycle time of 174 minutes (Harrow - Barnet and Barnet - Harrow) and with stand time it would be 192 minutes in total.
384: Withdrawn between Barnet Quinta Drive and Edgware and revised on it's old routing between Cockfosters and Barnet Quinta Drive with perhaps amendements to some roads if underused?. Extended from Cockfosters via old route 299 to Southgate establishing a Southgate to New Barnet/East Barnet/High Barnet/Barnet Hospital link (though rather indirect) and would allow residents to continue as they were pre changes. Frequency reinstated back to every 15 minutes. (-1 PVR) Would be expensive, but just a little review of options that could be considered and if my 263 idea was thrown in here with the diversion to Dalston, it could probably remain cost neutral in the 263s respect as the route is overtimed and could do with a reduction in running time. Good set of ideas but is there sufficient stand space in Southgate for the 299 and 384? |
|
