|
|
Post by ThinLizzy on Jul 29, 2024 11:27:55 GMT
Totally agree, really looks like someone has had the crayons out at TfL. Feels like a lot of these changes could have been replaced with two new routes, perhaps as follows Route 1- Mile End > Bow Church> SHL > Bromley-by-Bow Tesco Route 2- Royal Wharf > Canning Town Station > West Ham > Twelvetrees Park |
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Jul 29, 2024 12:31:43 GMT
Totally agree, really looks like someone has had the crayons out at TfL. Feels like a lot of these changes could have been replaced with two new routes, perhaps as follows Route 1- Mile End > Bow Church> SHL > Bromley-by-Bow Tesco Route 2- Royal Wharf > Canning Town Station > West Ham > Twelvetrees Park If the road infrastructure is built, I think a link from the development (near WH garage) north to Stratford would be the most useful, also linking south to Canning Town - and maybe onwards to Silvertown (replacing the 330 - which could divert through the tunnel to North Greenwich or beyond instead). And could maybe also consider diverting the 488 to terminate at Twelvetrees, rather than Leven Road? I agree though that the 205 is a poor choice of route to include. The 323 will already link to Mile End - if links are really needed west of Mile End, maybe a short extension of the 323 might be better? |
|
|
|
Post by ThinLizzy on Jul 29, 2024 12:41:49 GMT
Totally agree, really looks like someone has had the crayons out at TfL. Feels like a lot of these changes could have been replaced with two new routes, perhaps as follows Route 1- Mile End > Bow Church> SHL > Bromley-by-Bow Tesco Route 2- Royal Wharf > Canning Town Station > West Ham > Twelvetrees Park If the road infrastructure is built, I think a link from the development (near WH garage) north to Stratford would be the most useful, also linking south to Canning Town - and maybe onwards to Silvertown (replacing the 330 - which could divert through the tunnel to North Greenwich or beyond instead). And could maybe also consider diverting the 488 to terminate at Twelvetrees, rather than Leven Road? I agree though that the 205 is a poor choice of route to include. The 323 will already link to Mile End - if links are really needed west of Mile End, maybe a short extension of the 323 might be better? Maybe a better idea would be to send the 241 back up to Canning Town, Barking Road with the "Route 2" running from Canning Town to Custom House, then via the 241. The route could also double run in to City Airport. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 29, 2024 14:35:36 GMT
The double run via Canning Town Station would be tedious for the 300! The 115 takes long enough. Has mondraker275 points out there are two new bridges on Manor Road which are close to the bus stops and West Ham station. The 323 would probably be more useful if it could somehow be rerouted in the area. Instead of constantly lobbing bits onto existing routes TfL really should start looking at creating genuinely useful new services.
Why would the double run be tedious if the route is being extended from Canning Town? Who would it inconvenience? The bridges are useless for people who will live at the Bromley by Bow gasworks which the development paper makes a point of mentioning are not close to any bus routes that the 300 would bring close to the network. The 323 and 276 are both mentioned as being unsuitable to extend as you'd be leaving a hole elsewhere which effectively only leaves the 300. It's all well and good saying you need new routes, but who is paying for it? The development paper mentions that any new route would cost a lot of money in comparison to a 300 (or 488) extension and the link road for a new bus route might not even be built. The 300 is by far the best alternative to send there. There are a very few missing links in East London, but the vast majority of people in the development will just want to get to Canning Town which the 300 will provide for them. I'm a bit confused by TfL mentioning the 323 as unsuitable by creating a network hole (totally understand the 276 being unsuitable, the proposed pedestrian bridge at West Ham Station would link to the 276 on Manor Road from the development in any case). It's not a long route & I imagine it's not too prone to heavy traffic (max running time is only 25 minutes) nor am I sure why links have to be broken on the current 323 to facilitate a double run via the new development. A double run via the unserved section of Twelvetrees Crescent into the development probably wouldn't even put it to 45 minutes max running time in total and wouldn't break any existing links as Prologis Park stops would still be served so wonder why TfL think it's so unsuitable? |
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Jul 29, 2024 16:49:56 GMT
The double run via Canning Town Station would be tedious for the 300! The 115 takes long enough. Has mondraker275 points out there are two new bridges on Manor Road which are close to the bus stops and West Ham station. The 323 would probably be more useful if it could somehow be rerouted in the area.
Instead of constantly lobbing bits onto existing routes TfL really should start looking at creating genuinely useful new services.
Why would the double run be tedious if the route is being extended from Canning Town? Who would it inconvenience? The bridges are useless for people who will live at the Bromley by Bow gasworks which the development paper makes a point of mentioning are not close to any bus routes that the 300 would bring close to the network. The 323 and 276 are both mentioned as being unsuitable to extend as you'd be leaving a hole elsewhere which effectively only leaves the 300. It's all well and good saying you need new routes, but who is paying for it? The development paper mentions that any new route would cost a lot of money in comparison to a 300 (or 488) extension and the link road for a new bus route might not even be built. The 300 is by far the best alternative to send there. There are a very few missing links in East London, but the vast majority of people in the development will just want to get to Canning Town which the 300 will provide for them. But I never mentioned Bromley By Bow gasworks! I was simply referring to the area close to Manor Road / West Ham Garage which is only a short walk with the two new bridges. Why would passengers want to get to Canning Town when they have access to the DLR and Jubilee Line at West Ham with Star Lane station also close and those at the Gas Work end have a station at Bromley By Bow.
As for who's paying? I can same the same for the extended routes. I am still baffled to why TfL think the 323 is unsuitable and can't perform double runs to serve parts of the development. The 323 does serve a purpose for local workers on Cody Road but not huge numbers so a diversion shouldn't cause major issues.
|
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Jul 29, 2024 17:20:18 GMT
Why would the double run be tedious if the route is being extended from Canning Town? Who would it inconvenience? The bridges are useless for people who will live at the Bromley by Bow gasworks which the development paper makes a point of mentioning are not close to any bus routes that the 300 would bring close to the network. The 323 and 276 are both mentioned as being unsuitable to extend as you'd be leaving a hole elsewhere which effectively only leaves the 300. It's all well and good saying you need new routes, but who is paying for it? The development paper mentions that any new route would cost a lot of money in comparison to a 300 (or 488) extension and the link road for a new bus route might not even be built. The 300 is by far the best alternative to send there. There are a very few missing links in East London, but the vast majority of people in the development will just want to get to Canning Town which the 300 will provide for them. But I never mentioned Bromley By Bow gasworks! I was simply referring to the area close to Manor Road / West Ham Garage which is only a short walk with the two new bridges. Why would passengers want to get to Canning Town when they have access to the DLR and Jubilee Line at West Ham with Star Lane station also close and those at the Gas Work end have a station at Bromley By Bow.
As for who's paying? I can same the same for the extended routes. I am still baffled to why TfL think the 323 is unsuitable and can't perform double runs to serve parts of the development. The 323 does serve a purpose for local workers on Cody Road but not huge numbers so a diversion shouldn't cause major issues.
Who's paying? Without checking back I seem to remember Section 106 Developer Funding being mentioned, this would support routes to/through new developments until the new areas became populated. |
|
|
|
Post by mondraker275 on Jul 29, 2024 17:27:59 GMT
But I never mentioned Bromley By Bow gasworks! I was simply referring to the area close to Manor Road / West Ham Garage which is only a short walk with the two new bridges. Why would passengers want to get to Canning Town when they have access to the DLR and Jubilee Line at West Ham with Star Lane station also close and those at the Gas Work end have a station at Bromley By Bow.
As for who's paying? I can same the same for the extended routes. I am still baffled to why TfL think the 323 is unsuitable and can't perform double runs to serve parts of the development. The 323 does serve a purpose for local workers on Cody Road but not huge numbers so a diversion shouldn't cause major issues.
Who's paying? Without checking back I seem to remember Section 106 Developer Funding being mentioned, this would support routes to/through new developments until the new areas became populated. Yes, but likely to be limited and it looks like some of it has gone on this mysterious bus stand at West Ham that clearly TfL must have advised on so surely something will be sent there as that part of the development will be completed soon. |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Jul 29, 2024 17:31:42 GMT
Why would the double run be tedious if the route is being extended from Canning Town? Who would it inconvenience? The bridges are useless for people who will live at the Bromley by Bow gasworks which the development paper makes a point of mentioning are not close to any bus routes that the 300 would bring close to the network. The 323 and 276 are both mentioned as being unsuitable to extend as you'd be leaving a hole elsewhere which effectively only leaves the 300. It's all well and good saying you need new routes, but who is paying for it? The development paper mentions that any new route would cost a lot of money in comparison to a 300 (or 488) extension and the link road for a new bus route might not even be built. The 300 is by far the best alternative to send there. There are a very few missing links in East London, but the vast majority of people in the development will just want to get to Canning Town which the 300 will provide for them. But I never mentioned Bromley By Bow gasworks! I was simply referring to the area close to Manor Road / West Ham Garage which is only a short walk with the two new bridges. Why would passengers want to get to Canning Town when they have access to the DLR and Jubilee Line at West Ham with Star Lane station also close and those at the Gas Work end have a station at Bromley By Bow.
As for who's paying? I can same the same for the extended routes. I am still baffled to why TfL think the 323 is unsuitable and can't perform double runs to serve parts of the development. The 323 does serve a purpose for local workers on Cody Road but not huge numbers so a diversion shouldn't cause major issues.
So how do you propose to serve the Gasworks, as is in the development paper if you don't extend the 300? The 323 would inconvenience some people, the 300 would inconvenience nobody. So surely the 300 is the obvious answer here? TfL have clearly stated a new route costs far more than any extension so the 300 being extended is the obvious choice. |
|
|
|
Post by matthieu1221 on Jul 29, 2024 23:18:46 GMT
I think, even separate to all this, a split of the 205 into 2 overlapping sections should be in order at some point (timetabled/operated by a single operator like the good old 'overlaps' rather than the post-2003 ones!). The route is long which makes it incredibly prone to bunching despite decent bus lane provision along pretty much all of the route, yet breaking it into two non-overlapping routes would break a lot of through journeys. Two overlapping sections would preserve pretty much all of the through journeys barring the longest (unlikely to have many passengers doing Bow Church to Paddington imo).
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 30, 2024 0:28:29 GMT
But I never mentioned Bromley By Bow gasworks! I was simply referring to the area close to Manor Road / West Ham Garage which is only a short walk with the two new bridges. Why would passengers want to get to Canning Town when they have access to the DLR and Jubilee Line at West Ham with Star Lane station also close and those at the Gas Work end have a station at Bromley By Bow.
As for who's paying? I can same the same for the extended routes. I am still baffled to why TfL think the 323 is unsuitable and can't perform double runs to serve parts of the development. The 323 does serve a purpose for local workers on Cody Road but not huge numbers so a diversion shouldn't cause major issues.
So how do you propose to serve the Gasworks, as is in the development paper if you don't extend the 300? The 323 would inconvenience some people, the 300 would inconvenience nobody. So surely the 300 is the obvious answer here? TfL have clearly stated a new route costs far more than any extension so the 300 being extended is the obvious choice. The 323 doesn't have to inconvenience anyone though - as I said to yourself in a earlier reply, the 323 currently has a max running time of only 25 minutes. A double run into the development via the unused bit of Twelvetrees Crescent should incur no more than an extra 20 minutes tops and that's being rather generous as it's probably much less than that plus, it could do so without missing any section of the current routing. |
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Jul 30, 2024 1:06:05 GMT
I think, even separate to all this, a split of the 205 into 2 overlapping sections should be in order at some point (timetabled/operated by a single operator like the good old 'overlaps' rather than the post-2003 ones!). The route is long which makes it incredibly prone to bunching despite decent bus lane provision along pretty much all of the route, yet breaking it into two non-overlapping routes would break a lot of through journeys. Two overlapping sections would preserve pretty much all of the through journeys barring the longest (unlikely to have many passengers doing Bow Church to Paddington imo). I agree it would be worth looking at splitting the 205, but some other routes like the 27, 30, 135 and 214 already significantly parallel the 205, so may not need a long overlap depending on the exact revised routes. I've thought of some different ideas of how a restructure could work - but in any case I think the eastern end (keeping the 205 number) should terminate at Euston to maintain some of the 205's more unique links, and with a possible short extension beyond Bow Church. Either through to the new redevelopments around Bromley by Bow as has been proposed, or could follow the N205 via Stratford City. Option 1: 18 Marble Arch - Sudbury 305 Kings Cross - Paddington - Harrow Road - Old Oak Common - Park Royal (30 maintains Baker Street - Angel link) Option 2: 36 Paddington - New Cross Gate 305 Queens Park - Paddington - Moorgate - Liverpool Street 214 St Barts - Kings Cross - Highgate (274 covers Camden to Angel link) 46 Kings Cross - Hampstead - Paddington Or if you wanted to reduce the Euston Road corridor, could consider simply rerouteing the 27 to Kings Cross, to replace the western end of the 205. The 88 and 274 would cover some links to Camden Town. |
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Jul 30, 2024 10:23:53 GMT
I think, even separate to all this, a split of the 205 into 2 overlapping sections should be in order at some point (timetabled/operated by a single operator like the good old 'overlaps' rather than the post-2003 ones!). The route is long which makes it incredibly prone to bunching despite decent bus lane provision along pretty much all of the route, yet breaking it into two non-overlapping routes would break a lot of through journeys. Two overlapping sections would preserve pretty much all of the through journeys barring the longest (unlikely to have many passengers doing Bow Church to Paddington imo). I agree it would be worth looking at splitting the 205, but some other routes like the 27, 30, 135 and 214 already significantly parallel the 205, so may not need a long overlap depending on the exact revised routes. I've thought of some different ideas of how a restructure could work - but in any case I think the eastern end (keeping the 205 number) should terminate at Euston to maintain some of the 205's more unique links, and with a possible short extension beyond Bow Church. Either through to the new redevelopments around Bromley by Bow as has been proposed, or could follow the N205 via Stratford City. Option 1: 18 Marble Arch - Sudbury 305 Kings Cross - Paddington - Harrow Road - Old Oak Common - Park Royal (30 maintains Baker Street - Angel link) Option 2: 36 Paddington - New Cross Gate 305 Queens Park - Paddington - Moorgate - Liverpool Street 214 St Barts - Kings Cross - Highgate (274 covers Camden to Angel link) 46 Kings Cross - Hampstead - Paddington Or if you wanted to reduce the Euston Road corridor, could consider simply rerouteing the 27 to Kings Cross, to replace the western end of the 205. The 88 and 274 would cover some links to Camden Town. Probably something to take to the ideas thread but the 36/205/305 leads me to some other thoughts. For one thing, you could take a broader look at the 25/205/425 corridor, certainly as far as Stratford. With the 36 shortened to Paddington, it could be returned to Lewisham to replace the 436. I'd then have a Peckham to Fulham Broadway route linking up these bits of the 436 and 211 cross-Battersea, with the 11 returning to Hammersmith (I might swap its routeing between Sloane Sq and Fulham). I suspect this would improve usage and provide a convenient route across inner South London. |
|
|
|
Post by MKAY315 on Jul 30, 2024 10:50:29 GMT
I'm in two minds with how I feel regarding the 488. The A12 when Blackwall Tunnel is down can be chaotic. Heck even the has been stuck on there a few times. Not to mention when going into Homerton Hospital traffic can be nasty over there but at the same time it could work. |
|
|
|
Post by greg on Jul 30, 2024 13:49:52 GMT
I think, even separate to all this, a split of the 205 into 2 overlapping sections should be in order at some point (timetabled/operated by a single operator like the good old 'overlaps' rather than the post-2003 ones!). The route is long which makes it incredibly prone to bunching despite decent bus lane provision along pretty much all of the route, yet breaking it into two non-overlapping routes would break a lot of through journeys. Two overlapping sections would preserve pretty much all of the through journeys barring the longest (unlikely to have many passengers doing Bow Church to Paddington imo). I agree it would be worth looking at splitting the 205, but some other routes like the 27, 30, 135 and 214 already significantly parallel the 205, so may not need a long overlap depending on the exact revised routes. I've thought of some different ideas of how a restructure could work - but in any case I think the eastern end (keeping the 205 number) should terminate at Euston to maintain some of the 205's more unique links, and with a possible short extension beyond Bow Church. Either through to the new redevelopments around Bromley by Bow as has been proposed, or could follow the N205 via Stratford City. Option 1: 18 Marble Arch - Sudbury 305 Kings Cross - Paddington - Harrow Road - Old Oak Common - Park Royal (30 maintains Baker Street - Angel link) Option 2: 36 Paddington - New Cross Gate 305 Queens Park - Paddington - Moorgate - Liverpool Street 214 St Barts - Kings Cross - Highgate (274 covers Camden to Angel link) 46 Kings Cross - Hampstead - Paddington Or if you wanted to reduce the Euston Road corridor, could consider simply rerouteing the 27 to Kings Cross, to replace the western end of the 205. The 88 and 274 would cover some links to Camden Town. I think a 205 from Paddington to Whitechapel should be suitable. As for the eastern end, is there scope in extending a route? It’s not my neck of woods but if you were to extend the 241 to Shoreditch per say? Extended from Stratford City Bus Station via the N205? Another one I can think of for the 241 is extending it to Old Street Station instead of Shoreditch but running via London Wall, Eldon Street and Moorgate |
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Jul 30, 2024 13:55:55 GMT
I agree it would be worth looking at splitting the 205, but some other routes like the 27, 30, 135 and 214 already significantly parallel the 205, so may not need a long overlap depending on the exact revised routes. I've thought of some different ideas of how a restructure could work - but in any case I think the eastern end (keeping the 205 number) should terminate at Euston to maintain some of the 205's more unique links, and with a possible short extension beyond Bow Church. Either through to the new redevelopments around Bromley by Bow as has been proposed, or could follow the N205 via Stratford City. Option 1: 18 Marble Arch - Sudbury 305 Kings Cross - Paddington - Harrow Road - Old Oak Common - Park Royal (30 maintains Baker Street - Angel link) Option 2: 36 Paddington - New Cross Gate 305 Queens Park - Paddington - Moorgate - Liverpool Street 214 St Barts - Kings Cross - Highgate (274 covers Camden to Angel link) 46 Kings Cross - Hampstead - Paddington Or if you wanted to reduce the Euston Road corridor, could consider simply rerouteing the 27 to Kings Cross, to replace the western end of the 205. The 88 and 274 would cover some links to Camden Town. I think a 205 from Paddington to Whitechapel should be suitable. As for the eastern end, is there scope in extending a route? It’s not my neck of woods but if you were to extend the 241 to Shoreditch per say? Extended from Stratford City Bus Station via the N205? Another one I can think of for the 241 is extending it to Old Street Station instead of Shoreditch but running via London Wall, Eldon Street and Moorgate Agreed Paddington to Whitechapel. Having been a regular traveller on the 205 I think it is often forgotten how many long distance passengers the route takes, much more so than most other routes. To make the route useful the long distance links must be maintained. |
|
