|
|
Post by LD71YLO (BE37054) on Aug 31, 2023 18:54:57 GMT
My two-pence worth on the R68/R70: I don't think it's that bad a set of changes. Route R68 is currently very long and unreliable, cutting the Kew Retail Park section off would be enough though. Route R70 is a much shorter route, especially considering it doesn't serve Teddington, but not standing at Nurserylands and using a one bus stand at Kew (being a 6bph route) might be unwise. The Kew section of the R68 does see a lot of traffic so do hope that the reliability of the route isn't going to deteriorate. Maybe the Fir Road stand could be used at Nurserylands? I understand that would involve a complicated rerouting but I do think that it could be worthwhile. Responding to gwiwer 's post, I do think that the Richmond-Twickenham corridor is where these changes could really fall apart though. In the past 3 years that corridor has lost the H22, plus cuts to the number of trains which use the line that parallels the bus routes. Without increasing capacity on at least one of the 3 routes serving that corridor, I doubt that it could cope. I don't think that the R70 is the right one to deck, I would go for the 33 in that case. Could the 490 take 12m SDs; I would think it could? Regarding cardinal 's post, the broken Strawberry Vale to Richmond link could present an issue. Again, I think that removing the R68 from Richmond isn't a good idea, but to merge it with the 190 would be even worse. Care to expand on your thoughts on why you would prefer route 33 to be decked than route R70? I'm just interested to hear them. I would personally prefer route R70 to be decked due to Richmond Station bus stop being a huge passenger catchment area for passengers heading into Twickenham, Fulwell, Hampton etc. In contrast, Route 33 misses out Richmond Station. Richmond Station passengers have already lost route H22 and now they are due to lose route R68. Another point is when (/if) Hammersmith Bridge reopens again in the coming years, single deck buses will only be permitted to cross the bridge. All in all, I think route R70 is the right candidate to convert to a double deck operation. I'm just not sure whether deckers would be well used on the outer sections of route R70, and I also fear it would end up going to 5bph. However, route R70 would certainly be cheaper to deck than route 33, and will be retendered earlier. Mentioning retendering, I'm surprised TfL aren't waiting until then to implement these changes considering they come up together in about 9 months time. |
|
|
|
Post by commanderturtle on Aug 31, 2023 18:56:05 GMT
This could make the pending tender result for routes R68/70 be an interesting one. If route R68 is being withdrawn from Richmond and Kew Retail Park on a permanent basis then route R70 will most definitely need double decks for sure. I agree, one needs to be decked, but imo the R70 wouldn't be the best choice. I don't think it's overcrowded at the Nurserylands end, and the Kew end is already getting a frequency increase as the R70 is 6bph compared to the R68's 4bph (on a good day). The 33 would be my one of choice as it would also be the sole Teddington-Richmond link, is busy at the Sheen end and it would be the only route to have a same stop interchange with the R68 going towards Strawberry Vale and Teddington Lock. The 490 would be a good shout if removed from Pools on the Park; but the R68 would then need to be retained to serve Pools on the Park, thereby rendering the entire discussion moot. Surely the only issue is low hanging trees at Pools on the Park? I'm sure those could be cut if necessary. Alternatively, it can be questioned whether or not Pools on the Park even needs a bus link - it's not that far of a walk to Richmond town centre, and I don't believe the stop there is very heavily used. |
|
|
|
Post by londonbuses on Aug 31, 2023 18:58:38 GMT
In my opinion I think the 490 is the route which should be decked, but this would need its Pools on the Park stand to be switched to another route.
|
|
|
|
Post by northlondon83 on Aug 31, 2023 19:00:08 GMT
In my opinion I think the 490 is the route which should be decked, but this would need its Pools on the Park stand to be switched to another route. Perhaps the 493 could go there instead |
|
|
|
Post by ilovelondonbuses on Aug 31, 2023 19:00:13 GMT
Care to expand on your thoughts on why you would prefer route 33 to be decked than route R70? I'm just interested to hear them. I would personally prefer route R70 to be decked due to Richmond Station bus stop being a huge passenger catchment area for passengers heading into Twickenham, Fulwell, Hampton etc. In contrast, Route 33 misses out Richmond Station. Richmond Station passengers have already lost route H22 and now they are due to lose route R68. Another point is when (/if) Hammersmith Bridge reopens again in the coming years, single deck buses will only be permitted to cross the bridge. All in all, I think route R70 is the right candidate to convert to a double deck operation. I'm just not sure whether deckers would be well used on the outer sections of route R70, and I also fear it would end up going to 5bph. However, route R70 would certainly be cheaper to deck than route 33, and will be retendered earlier. Mentioning retendering, I'm surprised TfL aren't waiting until then to implement these changes considering they come up together in about 9 months time. I'm also surprised these changes to routes R68/70 haven't been consulted on in a official consultation exercise before implemented. Very odd. |
|
|
|
Post by LD71YLO (BE37054) on Aug 31, 2023 19:03:37 GMT
In my opinion I think the 490 is the route which should be decked, but this would need its Pools on the Park stand to be switched to another route. Perhaps the 493 could go there instead If a route did go there, it should be from Twickenham as the greatest passenger flow is from there. Also cutting the 490 back to the Bus Station would break the link to the Station, which, as ilovelondonbuses said, would be very detrimental. |
|
|
|
Post by northlondon83 on Aug 31, 2023 19:05:53 GMT
Personally I'd still run the R68 as far as Richmond, but perhaps could be diverted to Pools on the Park, with the 490 being cut back to Richmond bus station and decked
|
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Aug 31, 2023 19:20:55 GMT
That does seem an odd thing to plan, that really isn’t going to down to well locally. Strawberry Vale gets a stub of a route. Maybe the R70 could be given double decks. Having said that Fearnely Crescent could be an issue. Given what they did to the 110 why don’t they extend the 190 via the R68 and just withdraw it altogether ? Actually, I believe (?) the R70 used to have very occasional double decker workings until about 2005, so decking the route should be a possibility. The R70 can be operated by double deckers, it’s just that residents in some big houses on Nightingale Road and Acacia Road didn’t want double deck buses going down their street. |
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Aug 31, 2023 19:23:06 GMT
Personally I'd still run the R68 as far as Richmond, but perhaps could be diverted to Pools on the Park, with the 490 being cut back to Richmond bus station and decked There is no room at Richmond Bus Station for anything else to terminate there. You would also miss out the important stops outside Richmond Station, which would put more pressure on the remaining single deck routes. |
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Aug 31, 2023 19:29:45 GMT
I'm just not sure whether deckers would be well used on the outer sections of route R70, and I also fear it would end up going to 5bph. However, route R70 would certainly be cheaper to deck than route 33, and will be retendered earlier. Mentioning retendering, I'm surprised TfL aren't waiting until then to implement these changes considering they come up together in about 9 months time. I'm also surprised these changes to routes R68/70 haven't been consulted on in a official consultation exercise before implemented. Very odd. Presumably a temporary change during the construction works for the residential development on the Homebase site, so doesn’t need any consultation from TfL’s point of view. I think the provision of a bus stand was safeguarded in the proposed development given how tight things are for stand space in Richmond. |
|
|
|
Post by commanderturtle on Aug 31, 2023 19:34:55 GMT
I'm also surprised these changes to routes R68/70 haven't been consulted on in a official consultation exercise before implemented. Very odd. Presumably a temporary change during the construction works for the residential development on the Homebase site, so doesn’t need any consultation from TfL’s point of view. I think the provision of a bus stand was safeguarded in the proposed development given how tight things are for stand space in Richmond. Yeah, I imagine they simply didn't have anywhere else to put the R68 while the R70 moved to Kew Retail Park, so had to cut it back to Twickenham. The only other stand I can really think of is the old stand in Dee Road, but I don't think that's even there anymore? |
|
|
|
Post by cardinal on Aug 31, 2023 19:40:32 GMT
Dee Road stand has gone I believe.
I think a reroute of the R70 would be on the cards if that went DD. The Nurserylands is much more congested with parked cars than it was in LU Metrobus days.
490 should have been DD upon last contract renewal.
33 could use DD and that is up for tender soon. I don’t think Hammersmith Bridge is on the verge of reopening anytime soon. When it does the DD version could go along the N33 route giving the 220 a much needed helping hand between Hammersmith and Putney.
|
|
|
|
Post by londonbuses on Aug 31, 2023 19:43:26 GMT
Yeah, I imagine they simply didn't have anywhere else to put the R68 while the R70 moved to Kew Retail Park, so had to cut it back to Twickenham. The only other stand I can really think of is the old stand in Dee Road, but I don't think that's even there anymore? Yeah, the Dee Road stand doesn't exist anymore. The only option would have been for the R70 to use the H37's stand on Lower Mortlake Road, although it would be likely be very difficult to fit 2 high frequency routes on that stand. The only other alternative would be for the R70 to run over the level crossing to the Queen's Road (Marshgate Primary School) stand, but that would probably not be feasible. |
|
|
|
Post by abellion on Aug 31, 2023 19:47:44 GMT
In my opinion I think the 490 is the route which should be decked, but this would need its Pools on the Park stand to be switched to another route. Perhaps the 493 could go there instead As long as it doesn’t shove the 493 into any traffic jams or hotspots, I’m not too familiar with the 490 terminal |
|
|
|
Post by commanderturtle on Aug 31, 2023 19:50:34 GMT
Yeah, I imagine they simply didn't have anywhere else to put the R68 while the R70 moved to Kew Retail Park, so had to cut it back to Twickenham. The only other stand I can really think of is the old stand in Dee Road, but I don't think that's even there anymore? Yeah, the Dee Road stand doesn't exist anymore. The only option would have been for the R70 to use the H37's stand on Lower Mortlake Road, although it would be likely be very difficult to fit 2 high frequency routes on that stand. The only other alternative would be for the R70 to run over the level crossing to the Queen's Road (Marshgate Primary School) stand, but that would probably not be feasible. Unfortunately, I think the volatility of North Sheen station's level crossing all but kills the idea of the R70 standing at Queen's Road. I think Kew Gardens Station is the next closest bus stand, but I'd imagine TfL would be hesitant to extend the R70 there for whatever reason. |
|
