Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2017 8:40:24 GMT
That flyover, has you deceived into thinking you've gained time, then you land on the Old Kent Rd in bumper to bumper mad cap traffic.
But I agree with the choice of routes
|
|
|
Post by routew15 on Nov 14, 2017 23:08:34 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jan 6, 2018 19:53:06 GMT
I'm sure I read somewhere that the 363 rerouting was starting today? The 363 tiles have been removed from the two stops alongside the flyover but the 363's that I saw were not using the flyover.
I don't know if it's been mentioned but it would be impossible for any bus using the flyover to safety serve the East Street stop.
I think this is actually quite a good idea but the implementation seems to be turning into a dogs dinner!
|
|
|
Post by Whitherminter on Jan 7, 2018 0:38:33 GMT
I'm sure I read somewhere that the 363 rerouting was starting today? The 363 tiles have been removed from the two stops alongside the flyover but the 363's that I saw were not using the flyover. I don't know if it's been mentioned but it would be impossible for any bus using the flyover to safety serve the East Street stop. I think this is actually quite a good idea but the implementation seems to be turning into a dogs dinner! I received an email two days ago saying the 363 would use the flyover with the 53 still to serve it later in the year. I haven't seen the 363 yet but I honestly wouldn't complain if most routes used the flyover during the PM peak.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jan 7, 2018 1:20:54 GMT
I'm sure I read somewhere that the 363 rerouting was starting today? The 363 tiles have been removed from the two stops alongside the flyover but the 363's that I saw were not using the flyover. I don't know if it's been mentioned but it would be impossible for any bus using the flyover to safety serve the East Street stop. I think this is actually quite a good idea but the implementation seems to be turning into a dogs dinner! I received an email two days ago saying the 363 would use the flyover with the 53 still to serve it later in the year. I haven't seen the 363 yet but I honestly wouldn't complain if most routes used the flyover during the PM peak. Except that would mean anyone wanting that stop that the flyover misses would have a far limited choice than anyone wanting any other stop along Old & New Kent Roads. As someone else said, you hardly going save significant time during the busiest times as you simply plonked back into the traffic upon reaching Old Kent Road - most of the worst traffic at Bricklayers Arms is using the lanes towards Tower Bridge Road. It's a lot different to Bow Church where the flyover allows you to escape the horrible traffic at the Bow Roundabout but yet it's decided that the 25 must serve the roundabout there and be stuck in traffic that can add time on to an already long journey.
|
|
|
Post by Whitherminter on Jan 7, 2018 2:06:39 GMT
I received an email two days ago saying the 363 would use the flyover with the 53 still to serve it later in the year. I haven't seen the 363 yet but I honestly wouldn't complain if most routes used the flyover during the PM peak. Except that would mean anyone wanting that stop that the flyover misses would have a far limited choice than anyone wanting any other stop along Old & New Kent Roads. As someone else said, you hardly going save significant time during the busiest times as you simply plonked back into the traffic upon reaching Old Kent Road - most of the worst traffic at Bricklayers Arms is using the lanes towards Tower Bridge Road. It's a lot different to Bow Church where the flyover allows you to escape the horrible traffic at the Bow Roundabout but yet it's decided that the 25 must serve the roundabout there and be stuck in traffic that can add time on to an already long journey. Though I do think that it'll benefit more people than people that'll be disadvantaged. True it wont be saving that much time, but during the busy hours any time saving is valuable! Mind you, I do think the 53 and 363 were the best choices. Allowing those from central London to still have access to those stops. Regarding the Bow flyover and the 25, I honestly barely see anybody using the bus stops it wasn't going to serve. When I do, they usually get on the 108! I was actually shocked to see TfL give in to the respondents so easily!
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jan 7, 2018 2:38:11 GMT
Except that would mean anyone wanting that stop that the flyover misses would have a far limited choice than anyone wanting any other stop along Old & New Kent Roads. As someone else said, you hardly going save significant time during the busiest times as you simply plonked back into the traffic upon reaching Old Kent Road - most of the worst traffic at Bricklayers Arms is using the lanes towards Tower Bridge Road. It's a lot different to Bow Church where the flyover allows you to escape the horrible traffic at the Bow Roundabout but yet it's decided that the 25 must serve the roundabout there and be stuck in traffic that can add time on to an already long journey. Though I do think that it'll benefit more people than people that'll be disadvantaged. True it wont be saving that much time, but during the busy hours any time saving is valuable! Mind you, I do think the 53 and 363 were the best choices. Allowing those from central London to still have access to those stops. Regarding the Bow flyover and the 25, I honestly barely see anybody using the bus stops it wasn't going to serve. When I do, they usually get on the 108! I was actually shocked to see TfL give in to the respondents so easily! I agree with you on the choice of the 53 due to it's length but I'd have to disagree with the 363 personally Indeed, that stop at the Bow Roundabout is very sparsely used so I can't fathom why they just couldn't continue allowing the 25 to use the flyover. It will be even worse if that terrible idea of demolishing the Bow Flyover goes ahead
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jan 7, 2018 7:45:03 GMT
I'm sure I read somewhere that the 363 rerouting was starting today? The 363 tiles have been removed from the two stops alongside the flyover but the 363's that I saw were not using the flyover. I don't know if it's been mentioned but it would be impossible for any bus using the flyover to safety serve the East Street stop. I think this is actually quite a good idea but the implementation seems to be turning into a dogs dinner! I received an email two days ago saying the 363 would use the flyover with the 53 still to serve it later in the year. I haven't seen the 363 yet but I honestly wouldn't complain if most routes used the flyover during the PM peak. It seems nobody has told drivers on the 363 about it! I agree these two routes are a good choice as no links are lost to the two (or three?) stops in question and the only links lost from the stops are beyond Deptford Bridge and Honor Oak. It should certainly shave at least a minute or two off journey times.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jan 7, 2018 13:27:34 GMT
Though I do think that it'll benefit more people than people that'll be disadvantaged. True it wont be saving that much time, but during the busy hours any time saving is valuable! Mind you, I do think the 53 and 363 were the best choices. Allowing those from central London to still have access to those stops. Regarding the Bow flyover and the 25, I honestly barely see anybody using the bus stops it wasn't going to serve. When I do, they usually get on the 108! I was actually shocked to see TfL give in to the respondents so easily! I agree with you on the choice of the 53 due to it's length but I'd have to disagree with the 363 personally Generally I disagree with rerouting any route across the flyover. However if needs be then the 53 is the most logical choice based on its relatively long running time. The 363 is a bizarre choice, surely its counterpart the 63 is more justified as it contends with more traffic in Central London? Though the 172 and 453 should've been selected with the 53 as they traverse the entire OKR which is generally a slog, while the rest of the routes alongside either terminate within the vicinity or diverge elsewhere. Having said that, I would just scrap the idea completely.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jan 7, 2018 13:42:18 GMT
I agree with you on the choice of the 53 due to it's length but I'd have to disagree with the 363 personally Generally I disagree with rerouting any route across the flyover. However if needs be then the 53 is the most logical choice based on its relatively long running time. The 363 is a bizarre choice, surely its counterpart the 63 is more justified as it contends with more traffic in Central London? Though the 172 and 453 should've been selected with the 53 as they traverse the entire OKR which is generally a slog, while the rest of the routes alongside either terminate within the vicinity or diverge elsewhere. Having said that, I would just scrap the idea completely. But then the Bricklayers Arms stops lose the link from the section of the 63 between Kings Cross and E&C. The 53 and 363 are logical choices.
|
|
|
Post by RandomBusesGirl on Jan 7, 2018 13:56:42 GMT
I also agree about 25's restoration to serve the flyover. It really made a difference, and seriously, the walk to the a stop served was nothing. Still got 425 and D8mpty It could be made that 25 only serves the stop at night between 22:00-6:00 or something, otherwise uses the shortcut. And I seriously worry about the sanity of the people proposing to demolish the flyover. The place is gridlocked as it is, why would you want to make it even worse is beyond me!!!
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 7, 2018 14:44:05 GMT
I also agree about 25's restoration to serve the flyover. It really made a difference, and seriously, the walk to the a stop served was nothing. Still got 425 and D8mpty It could be made that 25 only serves the stop at night between 22:00-6:00 or something, otherwise uses the shortcut. And I seriously worry about the sanity of the people proposing to demolish the flyover. The place is gridlocked as it is, why would you want to make it even worse is beyond me!!! Because you can release land by changing the road network layout which can have posh flats built on it. All about money!
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jan 7, 2018 14:51:49 GMT
I also agree about 25's restoration to serve the flyover. It really made a difference, and seriously, the walk to the a stop served was nothing. Still got 425 and D8mpty It could be made that 25 only serves the stop at night between 22:00-6:00 or something, otherwise uses the shortcut. And I seriously worry about the sanity of the people proposing to demolish the flyover. The place is gridlocked as it is, why would you want to make it even worse is beyond me!!! Because you can release land by changing the road network layout which can have posh flats built on it. All about money! Posh flats in Bow? I think it has more to do with environment issues such as air quality.
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Jan 7, 2018 14:55:13 GMT
Because you can release land by changing the road network layout which can have posh flats built on it. All about money! Posh flats in Bow? I think it has more to do with environment issues such as air quality. I don't see how removing the Bow Flyover will improve air quality, it will probably make it worse
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jan 7, 2018 14:57:40 GMT
Posh flats in Bow? I think it has more to do with environment issues such as air quality. I don't see how removing the Bow Flyover will improve air quality, it will probably make it worse Well that's another debate altogether.
|
|