|
|
Post by l1group on Jun 24, 2015 20:48:55 GMT
R68 - The route just achieves being further than a residential-local area linker, but not enough to be a trunk route per se. There could be a bus to there, but R68 might not be the best choice. R70? Your 633 - I have no idea what the demographics of the schools along that route, but all except the 419/485(/283?/209?) get really busy when you cross Hammersmith Bridge. Your 637 - I actually see no need for that, H37 does need more buses anyway in any case as it gets quite busy at times. 190 is just a bugger because of its low-ish frequency at times. 391 - No, just no. That definitely isn't a route that should be extended too much. It gets easily screwed over already (A4, A205), and is of a decent length already. 190 on the other hand... 419 - Interesting, but I don't know. H22 - Yes. Maybe. Via A205, definitely. Via the 65/391, no. Although could it make it just across the river? Any extension over that small tad of A205 not served could and probably should reach both sides of the river. Kew Bridge may be a traffic pain at times, but it could be worse? I'd had suggested extending the R68 to Chiswick/Power Road (as there is plenty of space there!) or Brentford/Great West Quarter instead? The problem with using the R70 to link Richmond Hill area with Twickenham is the stand time taken at Homebase is all its gets apart from a two min layover break at Hampton. Any stand space at Richmond Hill would be premium and unlikely to support more than one bus at a time. If not the 391 extension then maybe the 190 , I couldn't really decide which of the two, but given the 391 is currently operated by FW bringing it closer to Fulwell was the reason I chose that one over the 190. 419 was again to improve cross borough links and to assist the 65 and provide new links for Ham residents without changing buses. It may need a frequency increase. 637 , serves several schools, links the large Chiswick schools with more of the borough of Hounslow ( ie Isleworth area ) and also Gumley school is a major headache for the H37 and 267 . As has been pointed out the 637 would have to change numbers. 633 , again just an assistance route for the 33 mainly and to provide direct link to Teddington a school with Richmond and Sheen areas of the borough which do not currently exist, as well as assisting school traffic along the Upper Richmond Road in general. R70 - just extend the stand time in Nurserylands. Or use another route that terminates at Richmond from the south (no, surely not 337?) 190 - just shove it to FW(!) 419 - it's what I'd call a 'local linker', one of those routes that are a spoke from a hub, rather than a more important route. Castlenau would kill it anyway. 209 instead (with 419 double-running Avondale Road)? 209 to Richmond would be fairly good. Relieves the 33 as well. "637" - I live in Chiswick, and there is literally ONE school. Chiswick (Academy), the rest use own-shuttle buses. Gumley - 267 can barely cope, and the H37 is eternally screwed without more buses and better frequency. 633 - I'd understand thus. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2015 10:01:29 GMT
The 65 needs a weekend frequency increase badly.
Make the 481 more useful by extending it to Ealing via 267/65 , double deck it & increase to every 15 mins.
Or, new route Ealing - Kingston via 65 to Richmond then via 33 to Teddington then 281 to Kingston.
|
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Jul 26, 2015 17:32:27 GMT
Looks like next year I'll have to use the 411 regularly : how reliable (or otherwise) is this service?
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jul 26, 2015 20:20:23 GMT
Looks like next year I'll have to use the 411 regularly : how reliable (or otherwise) is this service? No personal experience but the TfL performance stats look decent enough to me. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2015 17:06:41 GMT
The problem with using the R70 to link Richmond Hill area with Twickenham is the stand time taken at Homebase is all its gets apart from a two min layover break at Hampton. Any stand space at Richmond Hill would be premium and unlikely to support more than one bus at a time. If not the 391 extension then maybe the 190 , I couldn't really decide which of the two, but given the 391 is currently operated by FW bringing it closer to Fulwell was the reason I chose that one over the 190. 419 was again to improve cross borough links and to assist the 65 and provide new links for Ham residents without changing buses. It may need a frequency increase. 637 , serves several schools, links the large Chiswick schools with more of the borough of Hounslow ( ie Isleworth area ) and also Gumley school is a major headache for the H37 and 267 . As has been pointed out the 637 would have to change numbers. 633 , again just an assistance route for the 33 mainly and to provide direct link to Teddington a school with Richmond and Sheen areas of the borough which do not currently exist, as well as assisting school traffic along the Upper Richmond Road in general. R70 - just extend the stand time in Nurserylands. Or use another route that terminates at Richmond from the south (no, surely not 337?) 190 - just shove it to FW(!) 419 - it's what I'd call a 'local linker', one of those routes that are a spoke from a hub, rather than a more important route. Castlenau would kill it anyway. 209 instead (with 419 double-running Avondale Road)? 209 to Richmond would be fairly good. Relieves the 33 as well. "637" - I live in Chiswick, and there is literally ONE school. Chiswick (Academy), the rest use own-shuttle buses. Gumley - 267 can barely cope, and the H37 is eternally screwed without more buses and better frequency. 633 - I'd understand thus. I think that the 209 could be molded together with the 419 to create a Richmond to Hammersmith super link. It always bugs me why the 209 is so short |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Sept 30, 2015 17:36:47 GMT
R70 - just extend the stand time in Nurserylands. Or use another route that terminates at Richmond from the south (no, surely not 337?) 190 - just shove it to FW(!) 419 - it's what I'd call a 'local linker', one of those routes that are a spoke from a hub, rather than a more important route. Castlenau would kill it anyway. 209 instead (with 419 double-running Avondale Road)? 209 to Richmond would be fairly good. Relieves the 33 as well. "637" - I live in Chiswick, and there is literally ONE school. Chiswick (Academy), the rest use own-shuttle buses. Gumley - 267 can barely cope, and the H37 is eternally screwed without more buses and better frequency. 633 - I'd understand thus. I think that the 209 could be molded together with the 419 to create a Richmond to Hammersmith super link. It always bugs me why the 209 is so short The 209 works as it is which is to link Mortlake and the bottom of Avondale Road which sees a lot of use by passengers with Hammersmith - why does Richmond need yet another route to Hammersmith when there is already the 33, 190, 391 & 419? Just because a route is short, doesn't mean it automatically needs an extension! |
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Sept 30, 2015 18:03:54 GMT
I think that the 209 could be molded together with the 419 to create a Richmond to Hammersmith super link. It always bugs me why the 209 is so short The 209 works as it is which is to link Mortlake and the bottom of Avondale Road which sees a lot of use by passengers with Hammersmith - why does Richmond need yet another route to Hammersmith when there is already the 33, 190, 391 & 419? Just because a route is short, doesn't mean it automatically needs an extension! You seem to defend the 209 quite alot lol, It indeed serves its purpose very well and is used alot regardless of its route length. However an idea I've always thought of is to reroute the 419 from Barnes Bridge Station to terminate at Roehampton via Mill Hill Road then alongside the 72, this would allow the 209 to be extended to Richmond. This idea hits two birds with one stone as the 72 will be provided with extra support by the 419 as well as the 209 providing a unique connection between Richmond and Mortlake. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Sept 30, 2015 19:07:16 GMT
The freq of the 209 woudk not be needed on any extension in my opinion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2015 20:36:43 GMT
Living on the 209 bus route I feel extending it to richmond via the 419 from Barnes bridge would be to high in frequency to richmond. I say double deck the 391.I do notice that the 209 is forever bunching.sometimes as much as 4 buses at one time going through Barnes
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Sept 30, 2015 21:36:47 GMT
The freq of the 209 woudk not be needed on any extension in my opinion. is the right answer. You can't extend the route at that frequency because it'll be overkill. It's short and high frequency because it replaced the western arm of the 9 over a short distance and it's not great shock that there is concentrated demand from the immediate Barnes / Mortlake hinterland across to Hammersmith for three intensive tube services compared to the overburdened and comparatively low frequency National Rail services at Barnes and Mortlake. There must be a point, if it hasn't already been reached, that you simply cannot put more single deck buses across Hammersmith Bridge without the entire traffic flow being buses. Tweak the 419 *if* it needs it but I can't see the point of more buses on the 72 or 209. The 283 doesn't run far to the south and does the 33 need more buses west of Barnes?? If you really needed double decker capacity in Barnes and Mortlake then the short term solution is to run a service from those places across to Putney Bridge for the tube even though it's not as frequent as at Hammersmith. Of course there is no daytime bus that provides this link (N22 does it at night). |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Sept 30, 2015 22:40:33 GMT
R70 - just extend the stand time in Nurserylands. Or use another route that terminates at Richmond from the south (no, surely not 337?) 190 - just shove it to FW(!) 419 - it's what I'd call a 'local linker', one of those routes that are a spoke from a hub, rather than a more important route. Castlenau would kill it anyway. 209 instead (with 419 double-running Avondale Road)? 209 to Richmond would be fairly good. Relieves the 33 as well. "637" - I live in Chiswick, and there is literally ONE school. Chiswick (Academy), the rest use own-shuttle buses. Gumley - 267 can barely cope, and the H37 is eternally screwed without more buses and better frequency. 633 - I'd understand thus. I think that the 209 could be molded together with the 419 to create a Richmond to Hammersmith super link. It always bugs me why the 209 is so short Didn't the 209 go to Kensington originally? Maybe an extension to Shepherds Bush via Blythe Road although it would probably only require alternate journeys? |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Oct 1, 2015 0:22:56 GMT
The 209 works as it is which is to link Mortlake and the bottom of Avondale Road which sees a lot of use by passengers with Hammersmith - why does Richmond need yet another route to Hammersmith when there is already the 33, 190, 391 & 419? Just because a route is short, doesn't mean it automatically needs an extension! You seem to defend the 209 quite alot lol, It indeed serves its purpose very well and is used alot regardless of its route length. However an idea I've always thought of is to reroute the 419 from Barnes Bridge Station to terminate at Roehampton via Mill Hill Road then alongside the 72, this would allow the 209 to be extended to Richmond. This idea hits two birds with one stone as the 72 will be provided with extra support by the 419 as well as the 209 providing a unique connection between Richmond and Mortlake. Lol, the only reason I defend it so much is people seem to to think that because it's short, it's the ideal candidate to extend. Most of the time that's probably true but you do get exceptions and the 209 is one such exception. Demand on this route is very high and that even carries onto outside peak hours as well. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2015 6:19:11 GMT
The 209's predecessor was the 9A which did indeed run every other bus to Kensington Queens Gate. When I used to use it the demand was always at its peak between Hammersmith and Mortlake.
The current service in Barnes and Mortlake are well suited to travel needs I think, but I would love to see the double deck 9 one day be restored to Mortlake.
The short lived double deck 609 Express between Mortlake and Bank never proved popular. Shame, because it was a great idea.
|
|
|
|
Post by routew15 on Oct 1, 2015 6:54:59 GMT
I think that the 209 could be molded together with the 419 to create a Richmond to Hammersmith super link. It always bugs me why the 209 is so short Didn't the 209 go to Kensington originally? Maybe an extension to Shepherds Bush via Blythe Road although it would probably only require alternate journeys? Extending the 209 via Blythe Road is not needed. When I've cycled on the back roads of Brook Green it's been largely quite with most people walking from Shepherds Bush Road, having such a high frequency route could be very unwelcomed by many. A route that could, however serve these roads with its a decent/ relatively unintrusive frequency is the 485. Reduce the length of the bus to anything between 8.8-9.9m and send it behind the Brook Green/ Blythe Road to Shepherds Bush and that solves that problem with not to many journeys effected and matching potential demand in the local area. It would turn the 485 into a '424 type of route' around Hammersmith. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Oct 1, 2015 6:58:39 GMT
The 209's predecessor was the 9A which did indeed run every other bus to Kensington Queens Gate. When I used to use it the demand was always at its peak between Hammersmith and Mortlake. The current service in Barnes and Mortlake are well suited to travel needs I think, but I would love to see the double deck 9 one day be restored to Mortlake. The short lived double deck 609 Express between Mortlake and Bank never proved popular. Shame, because it was a great idea. Yes it must be the 9A that I am thinking of. If the weight restriction is ever removed on Hammersmith Bridge I would expect the 9 to return to Mortlake. Running alternate buses to Kensington could probably be justified now rather than make everyone change at Hammersmith with other journeys going to Shepherds Bush via Blythe Road and and numbered 239? Yes the 609 was a great innovation, I've wondered about extending the 22 to Mortlake which should take some pressure off the 209? |
|
