|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Sept 1, 2023 18:32:58 GMT
R68 not serving Richmond will odd given its prefix. R68 was originally a "Harrier" midibus route, it replaced the southern end of the 267 in June 1991. The R70 was also a "Harrier" route, the 270 renumbered when it was converted to midibus in November 1990. Presumably they were given R prefixes rather than H as this was felt to be more appropriate. There was also a R69 at the time, a forerunner of the 419. So a small ‘R’ network based on Richmond. |
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Sept 1, 2023 18:37:54 GMT
The retail park is due to partially close at some point for redevelopment into housing with the only retail being a brand new M&S store being built at one end. Perhaps the OP where it was seen just got confused and jumped the gun on an upcoming consultation. If most of the retail park closes and is developed around M&S perhaps there won’t be space for a bus service to stand? The R68 stand should be fine, even while Kew Retail Park is redeveloped, as Bessant Drive has to stay open to allow access to the flats behind. It's the R70 stand that is the problem, the stand is part of the new development on the old Homebase site - I believe a bus stand is planned as part of the development, but for the next few years while construction is taking place, there will be no stand there. Correct, two different retail parks and two different bus stands. Shows the gradual decline of out of town retail parks and the current pressure to redevelop them for housing. Ensuring bus stand space is retained in the new developments will be an important planning consideration for local Councils and TfL. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Sept 1, 2023 18:51:53 GMT
The R68 stand should be fine, even while Kew Retail Park is redeveloped, as Bessant Drive has to stay open to allow access to the flats behind. It's the R70 stand that is the problem, the stand is part of the new development on the old Homebase site - I believe a bus stand is planned as part of the development, but for the next few years while construction is taking place, there will be no stand there. Correct, two different retail parks and two different bus stands. Shows the gradual decline of out of town retail parks and the current pressure to redevelop them for housing. Ensuring bus stand space is retained in the new developments will be an important planning consideration for local Councils and TfL. Not really, there aren’t many empty units at Kew. I think in this case it’s more because Richmond Council has designated it as a tall building site so it made the space very valuable. Richmond is hugely desirable to live in for an outer borough. |
|
|
|
Post by northlondon83 on Sept 2, 2023 6:23:27 GMT
bus-routes-in-london.fandom.com/wiki/London_Buses_Route_R70#cite_note-1I do not see the point of using this website as a reliable source of information, as shown in the above link where the writer claims that the R70 is getting extended and then claims he got his information here. Until I see something from a reliable source like tfl, I will not believe the changes are true. Sorry but you need a reliable source to prove that something is true, like a formal website like tfl. Otherwise anyone can make stuff up and claim that it is true.
|
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Sept 2, 2023 7:20:48 GMT
bus-routes-in-london.fandom.com/wiki/London_Buses_Route_R70#cite_note-1I do not see the point of using this website as a reliable source of information, as shown in the above link where the writer claims that the R70 is getting extended and then claims he got his information here. Until I see something from a reliable source like tfl, I will not believe the changes are true. Sorry but you need a reliable source to prove that something is true, like a formal website like tfl. Otherwise anyone can make stuff up and claim that it is true. Unless its going to be thrown into the Hounslow consultation I just can't see how it would go ahead so quickly without consultation. If it had been mentioned in the Richmond changes 4 or so years ago then maybe it could be pushed through but it just seems a rather dramatic change. Maybe if the R68 would be cutback to the Station like the H37 used to stand and the R70 extended to Kew R Park then maybe it could happen straight away but taking off the entire Twickenham to Richmond section seems unlikely. |
|
|
|
Post by redexpress on Sept 2, 2023 7:48:50 GMT
R68 was originally a "Harrier" midibus route, it replaced the southern end of the 267 in June 1991. The R70 was also a "Harrier" route, the 270 renumbered when it was converted to midibus in November 1990. Presumably they were given R prefixes rather than H as this was felt to be more appropriate. There was also a R69 at the time, a forerunner of the 419. So a small ‘R’ network based on Richmond. Also R61 and R62, which had started off as RH1 and RH2 to reflect the fact that they were funded by the local health authority. R61 served Richmond but R62 (predecessor to the 481) didn't. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2023 8:04:39 GMT
bus-routes-in-london.fandom.com/wiki/London_Buses_Route_R70#cite_note-1I do not see the point of using this website as a reliable source of information, as shown in the above link where the writer claims that the R70 is getting extended and then claims he got his information here. Until I see something from a reliable source like tfl, I will not believe the changes are true. Sorry but you need a reliable source to prove that something is true, like a formal website like tfl. Otherwise anyone can make stuff up and claim that it is true. It has been confirmed by various drivers at TF |
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Sept 2, 2023 8:25:42 GMT
bus-routes-in-london.fandom.com/wiki/London_Buses_Route_R70#cite_note-1I do not see the point of using this website as a reliable source of information, as shown in the above link where the writer claims that the R70 is getting extended and then claims he got his information here. Until I see something from a reliable source like tfl, I will not believe the changes are true. Sorry but you need a reliable source to prove that something is true, like a formal website like tfl. Otherwise anyone can make stuff up and claim that it is true. It has been confirmed by various drivers at TF But as we know drivers are usually the last people to know anything. Like most floor workers they hear something from someone who heard it from someone. Until there is TfL confirmation I don’t see how this can be taken as gospel. |
|
|
|
Post by Busboy105 on Sept 2, 2023 8:27:07 GMT
bus-routes-in-london.fandom.com/wiki/London_Buses_Route_R70#cite_note-1I do not see the point of using this website as a reliable source of information, as shown in the above link where the writer claims that the R70 is getting extended and then claims he got his information here. Until I see something from a reliable source like tfl, I will not believe the changes are true. Sorry but you need a reliable source to prove that something is true, like a formal website like tfl. Otherwise anyone can make stuff up and claim that it is true. Wouldn't TFL have released a statement by now? The 8th is 6 days away |
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Sept 2, 2023 8:29:07 GMT
bus-routes-in-london.fandom.com/wiki/London_Buses_Route_R70#cite_note-1I do not see the point of using this website as a reliable source of information, as shown in the above link where the writer claims that the R70 is getting extended and then claims he got his information here. Until I see something from a reliable source like tfl, I will not believe the changes are true. Sorry but you need a reliable source to prove that something is true, like a formal website like tfl. Otherwise anyone can make stuff up and claim that it is true. Wouldn't TFL have released a statement by now? The 8th is 6 days away Plus TfL have an obligation to consult on permanent changes like this one. They simply couldn’t do it as they have a requirement as a public body to consult with stakeholders and the public. |
|
|
|
Post by londonbuses on Sept 2, 2023 8:54:38 GMT
bus-routes-in-london.fandom.com/wiki/London_Buses_Route_R70#cite_note-1I do not see the point of using this website as a reliable source of information, as shown in the above link where the writer claims that the R70 is getting extended and then claims he got his information here. Until I see something from a reliable source like tfl, I will not believe the changes are true. Sorry but you need a reliable source to prove that something is true, like a formal website like tfl. Otherwise anyone can make stuff up and claim that it is true. Wouldn't TFL have released a statement by now? The 8th is 6 days away I think TfL are very behind in providing information to the public given the bus changes page hasn't been updated for nearly a month and just shows outdated info now. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Sept 2, 2023 9:08:34 GMT
Wouldn't TFL have released a statement by now? The 8th is 6 days away I think TfL are very behind in providing information to the public given the bus changes page hasn't been updated for nearly a month and just shows outdated info now. The next update will probably include the 1/168 which may have taken a bit of time to write all the info. |
|
|
|
Post by thekbq14 on Sept 2, 2023 10:48:13 GMT
R68 not serving Richmond will odd given its prefix. It will still be serving the borough just not the town centre itself |
|
|
|
Post by thekbq14 on Sept 2, 2023 11:14:09 GMT
As someone who works locally in the area, I'm not happy with these changes at all, especially like others have said the H22 has recently been withdrawn, and the buses along these corridors are all SD's and it does get very busy at peak hours, yes there is a parallel train service, but a lot of people use the stops in between and the trains have been unreliable of late due to strikes and engineering works etc.
Guess the biggest issue here though is the lack of stand space in Richmond especially with the redevelopment of the Homebase, as this was one of the reason for the 493 and H22 being moved out with the R70 being the last one at that stand as the 371 stands by the Sainsbury's and then the H37 on the main road itself however there's no space on that side for another route. Whilst the Bus Station, is full but even then is short of the train station which is a major stop. Then you got the Pools-on-the-Park stop which is limited to SD's and again the one route, and Dee Road stand space is not there no more, I have seen people suggest Church Road as potential stand space on this forum before but that has a weak bridge etc.
Also traffic by Kew Retail Park is not ideal at all as it's on the South Circular and the R68 is a route that can suffer with reliability so not surprising it is being cut but would've preferred it to at least be somewhere in Richmond at least, and another route like R70 or 371 can replace the Kew section, as traffic on these routes are less, especially the 371 which is a route that has been earmarked for an extension before and it serving mainly back streets even though it comes from another direction in Ham compared to Twickenham but through traffic on that section imo is not that high.
With regards to DD's, I think the 33 and 490 are the ones that should be imo. 33 is a route that we all know would be DD'd if it wasn't for Hammersmith Bridge but with that out of service there's nothing stopping it, and is a very bus route even though it doesn't stop at the station, between Barnes - Richmond, Richmond - Teddington corridors especially if it's the first one and has a higher PVR/frequency because of it that can easily be adjusted. Plus the through traffic on the route is good. Whilst 490 with it serving Heathrow is a route that can get busy at more abnormal times, and similar to the R68 and R70 if first can get busy. Just that the stand will need to be switched. With the R68 and R70 even though these routes can get busy, I feel like outside of peak times the Hampton sections if converted will be used less used compared to the other two. Especially with the R68 serving Teddington just like the 33 which imo tends to be more busier on that section whilst R70 has more of a case especially being the direct link to Hampton Hill/Fulwell to Richmond, but past the section into Nurseylands it has got the 111 to cover it.
|
|
|
|
Post by ilovelondonbuses on Sept 2, 2023 11:29:30 GMT
As someone who works locally in the area, I'm not happy with these changes at all, especially like others have said the H22 has recently been withdrawn, and the buses along these corridors are all SD's and it does get very busy at peak hours, yes there is a parallel train service, but a lot of people use the stops in between and the trains have been unreliable of late due to strikes and engineering works etc. Guess the biggest issue here though is the lack of stand space in Richmond especially with the redevelopment of the Homebase, as this was one of the reason for the 493 and H22 being moved out with the R70 being the last one at that stand as the 371 stands by the Sainsbury's and then the H37 on the main road itself however there's no space on that side for another route. Whilst the Bus Station, is full but even then is short of the train station which is a major stop. Then you got the Pools-on-the-Park stop which is limited to SD's and again the one route, and Dee Road stand space is not there no more, I have seen people suggest Church Road as potential stand space on this forum before but that has a weak bridge etc. Also traffic by Kew Retail Park is not ideal at all as it's on the South Circular and the R68 is a route that can suffer with reliability so not surprising it is being cut but would've preferred it to at least be somewhere in Richmond at least, and another route like R70 or 371 can replace the Kew section, as traffic on these routes are less, especially the 371 which is a route that has been earmarked for an extension before and it serving mainly back streets even though it comes from another direction in Ham compared to Twickenham but through traffic on that section imo is not that high. With regards to DD's, I think the 33 and 490 are the ones that should be imo. 33 is a route that we all know would be DD'd if it wasn't for Hammersmith Bridge but with that out of service there's nothing stopping it, and is a very bus route even though it doesn't stop at the station, between Barnes - Richmond, Richmond - Teddington corridors especially if it's the first one and has a higher PVR/frequency because of it that can easily be adjusted. Plus the through traffic on the route is good. Whilst 490 with it serving Heathrow is a route that can get busy at more abnormal times, and similar to the R68 and R70 if first can get busy. Just that the stand will need to be switched. With the R68 and R70 even though these routes can get busy, I feel like outside of peak times the Hampton sections if converted will be used less used compared to the other two. Especially with the R68 serving Teddington just like the 33 which imo tends to be more busier on that section whilst R70 has more of a case especially being the direct link to Hampton Hill/Fulwell to Richmond, but past the section into Nurseylands it has got the 111 to cover it. According to the OP, route R70 is being extended to Kew Retail Park when route R68 is curtailed to Twickenham. |
|
