|
|
Post by TB123 on Jan 15, 2021 13:09:41 GMT
Those links wouldn't be lost thou if the 358 still terminated at PRU. I would do Crystal Palace to PRU (SD) and extend the R9 to Bromley via route 358, making it DD. You'd overbus Locksbottom to Bromley though. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jan 15, 2021 14:00:08 GMT
Those links wouldn't be lost thou if the 358 still terminated at PRU. If your coming from Shortlands or the area around the Chinese Garage, you would suddenly lose your direct link to the hospital. The route doesn't need splitting because despite its length, it doesn't hit as much congestion as you might expect of such a route. There is also the question of stand space at the hospital. |
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Jan 15, 2021 14:03:00 GMT
Those links wouldn't be lost thou if the 358 still terminated at PRU. If your coming from Shortlands or the area around the Chinese Garage, you would suddenly lose your direct link to the hospital. The route doesn't need splitting because despite its length, it doesn't hit as much congestion as you might expect of such a route. There is also the question of stand space at the hospital. I think some forumites confuse distance and time : it’s the latter that is critical when thinking of routes that may need splitting or shortening. |
|
|
|
Post by LD71YLO (BE37054) on Jan 15, 2021 14:05:28 GMT
I would do Crystal Palace to PRU (SD) and extend the R9 to Bromley via route 358, making it DD. You'd overbus Locksbottom to Bromley though. Okay, terminate both at PRU. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jan 15, 2021 14:12:15 GMT
That would break the Bromley to Farnborough link. The only realistic change for the 358 would be if it swapped with the 261.
|
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Jan 15, 2021 14:13:40 GMT
If your coming from Shortlands or the area around the Chinese Garage, you would suddenly lose your direct link to the hospital. The route doesn't need splitting because despite its length, it doesn't hit as much congestion as you might expect of such a route. There is also the question of stand space at the hospital. I think some forumites confuse distance and time : it’s the latter that is critical when thinking of routes that may need splitting or shortening. Hence why a route like the 246 with a round trip of 28 miles operates reliably, only having a 2 hour cycle time whilst some routes that are only 11/12 miles round trip operate with a cycle time sometimes 50% longer. |
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Mar 9, 2021 12:25:02 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Mar 9, 2021 16:39:48 GMT
Ironic that the 228 is proposed to be increased from 3 to 5 bph having been cut from 5 to 3 bph not long ago! |
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Mar 9, 2021 20:19:20 GMT
An older version has previously been published by the OPDC. |
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Mar 9, 2021 20:24:33 GMT
Ironic that the 228 is proposed to be increased from 3 to 5 bph having been cut from 5 to 3 bph not long ago! But the developers will pay for the cost of the frequency increase back to 5bph, so TfL will have saved money from its core budget. To be honest the western part of the 228 was a bit premature in being introduced before a lot of new residential development is built out and the x12min frequency was wasteful. The route does however serve an isolated residential area on Old Oak Common Lane and increases penetration of bus services around the White City Estate. Otherwise it duplicates the 260 and is not particularly useful or well used, hence the frequency reduction to 3bph. The original intention was that it would link Westfield Shopping Centre to White City Estate and East Acton but not many locals actually shop there, preferring Shepherds Bush Market or the W12 Centre instead and in those respects the 95 and 283 have better located bus stops in the town centre. |
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Mar 9, 2021 20:32:12 GMT
An older version has previously been published by the OPDC. Have you got a link to that? |
|
|
|
Post by ian on Mar 10, 2021 9:47:03 GMT
Is my reading of that correct that the 302 will no longer be extended to OOC as part of the new plans? (Is that to do with changed infrastructure?)
|
|
|
|
Post by VMH2537 on Mar 10, 2021 11:40:00 GMT
Is my reading of that correct that the 302 will no longer be extended to OOC as part of the new plans? (Is that to do with changed infrastructure?) It was done by a transport study groupe, not TFL. Though im sure TFL must have looked at the 302 but dropped it at the end. |
|
|
|
Post by VMH2537 on Mar 10, 2021 11:41:23 GMT
Does anyone have any idea when the Meridian Water development papers will be published?
|
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Mar 10, 2021 12:21:05 GMT
Is my reading of that correct that the 302 will no longer be extended to OOC as part of the new plans? (Is that to do with changed infrastructure?) It was done by a transport study groupe, not TFL. Though im sure TFL must have looked at the 302 but dropped it at the end. The report linked was done by TfL surface transport |
|
