|
Post by snoggle on Jan 3, 2018 20:52:34 GMT
This blogger is also utterly against the diversion of the 469 via Upper Belvedere, as are Bexley Council - in the Council's case, because of the loss of a direct link from Abbey Road to Queen Elizabeth Hospital. They also don't want a second route down Picardy Road. From what I can gather he is against any bus route that does not take the most direct route between a and b. I suspect he uses a car rather a lot given his apparent distaste for buses. As for Bexley Council - well they aren't exactly pro-bus and aren't interested in making them work better so I'd not be minded to pay much attention to them. Clearly TfL have to take a different stance to me.
|
|
|
Post by beaver14uk on Jan 3, 2018 21:05:20 GMT
Bexley were OK at one time, Bromley are very anti bus. uote author=" snoggle" source="/post/410301/thread" timestamp="1515012754"] This blogger is also utterly against the diversion of the 469 via Upper Belvedere, as are Bexley Council - in the Council's case, because of the loss of a direct link from Abbey Road to Queen Elizabeth Hospital. They also don't want a second route down Picardy Road. From what I can gather he is against any bus route that does not take the most direct route between a and b. I suspect he uses a car rather a lot given his apparent distaste for buses. As for Bexley Council - well they aren't exactly pro-bus and aren't interested in making them work better so I'd not be minded to pay much attention to them. Clearly TfL have to take a different stance to me. [/quote]
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Jan 3, 2018 22:26:22 GMT
This blogger is also utterly against the diversion of the 469 via Upper Belvedere, as are Bexley Council - in the Council's case, because of the loss of a direct link from Abbey Road to Queen Elizabeth Hospital. They also don't want a second route down Picardy Road. I’m not surprised because if Picardy Road gets double the amount of buses per hour that’s more buses getting stuck. They clearly don’t want to do anything with it otherwise it wouldn’t be like that at all. I think the 469 should remain as it is. I think there should still be a link to Upper Belvedere from Abbey Wood, and the 469 is the cheapest way to do it. Perhaps it would be better to send it via the 99 to Erith. West Street/bottom end of Lower Road will have the 180 to complement the 229. Snoggle - you've got it in one. He also has an irrational hatred for the 229, too 😒
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Jan 4, 2018 5:26:02 GMT
I’m not surprised because if Picardy Road gets double the amount of buses per hour that’s more buses getting stuck. They clearly don’t want to do anything with it otherwise it wouldn’t be like that at all. I think the 469 should remain as it is. I think there should still be a link to Upper Belvedere from Abbey Wood, and the 469 is the cheapest way to do it. Perhaps it would be better to send it via the 99 to Erith. West Street/bottom end of Lower Road will have the 180 to complement the 229. Snoggle - you've got it in one. He also has an irrational hatred for the 229, too 😒 I like that idea. To be honest there has been little thinking gone into this. The proposed 180 is too indirect so sending via the 229 via Abbey Road will help the 229, only other suggestion I would propose is to send the 177 via McLeod Road and 180 via Ensham Drive allowing both routes to serve Abbey Wood Station. 428 could replace the 180 with an extension via the proposed 180 via West Street and Church Manorway then via current 180 route from Belvedere, Industrial Estate to Abbey Wood.
|
|
|
Post by lazy_eye_metaphor on Jan 4, 2018 9:17:14 GMT
If the 180 ran via Eynsham Drive it wouldn't be able to serve Abbey Wood station for the same reason as the 177 currently doesn't, unless it did a loop around the Harrow Manor Way/Knee Hill roundabout.
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Jan 4, 2018 9:43:06 GMT
If the 180 ran via Eynsham Drive it wouldn't be able to serve Abbey Wood station for the same reason as the 177 currently doesn't, unless it did a loop around the Harrow Manor Way/Knee Hill roundabout. You haven't read my post properly
|
|
|
Post by lazy_eye_metaphor on Jan 4, 2018 10:11:14 GMT
If the 180 ran via Eynsham Drive it wouldn't be able to serve Abbey Wood station for the same reason as the 177 currently doesn't, unless it did a loop around the Harrow Manor Way/Knee Hill roundabout. You haven't read my post properly Ah yes my bad. Now that I have read it properly (or at least I hope I have!), I don't think residents of Yarnton Way (myself included) would be too thrilled at losing their bus service to Woolwich. Maybe an alternative would be leave the proposed 180 as is but only to/from Erith town centre, and extend the 428 to run to Abbey Wood via the Quarry and Upper Belvedere.
|
|
|
Post by busman on Jan 4, 2018 10:51:40 GMT
I say keep the 469 as it is and use the extra PVR to increase peak and daytime frequencies.
Swapping the 177 and 180 via MacLeod Road/Eynsham Drive will break links into Thamesmead Town Centre through Eynsham Drive so I can understand why TfL didn’t do that. Besides, the 469 already links Eynsham Drive with Abbey Wood Station.
I think the new 180 will be very popular with Erith and Abbey Wood passengers looking to save money by travelling into North Greenwich tube station which is in Zone 2. Shame it’s being chopped at the Lewisham end, but the extension to Erith will benefit many passengers.
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Jan 4, 2018 23:11:06 GMT
I say keep the 469 as it is and use the extra PVR to increase peak and daytime frequencies. Swapping the 177 and 180 via MacLeod Road/Eynsham Drive will break links into Thamesmead Town Centre through Eynsham Drive so I can understand why TfL didn’t do that. Besides, the 469 already links Eynsham Drive with Abbey Wood Station. I think the new 180 will be very popular with Erith and Abbey Wood passengers looking to save money by travelling into North Greenwich tube station which is in Zone 2. Shame it’s being chopped at the Lewisham end, but the extension to Erith will benefit many passengers. If you don’t favour a rerouted 469 in any way, how would you link Upper Belvedere to Abbey Wood, bearing in mind that doing something like extending the 428 is way too expensive in the current TfL climate? Or would you have no direct link?
|
|
|
Post by stuckonthe486 on Jan 23, 2018 17:58:58 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2018 18:12:56 GMT
If anything, they should be fighting to send the 161 down Trafalgar Road to Greenwich as the 177 will be hammered or sending the 180 down Blackwall Lane so there is a quicker and easier interchange with the 129, especially since the eastbound stop outside the future Ikea store is currently closed and will be for a long while yet! X161 seems a pointless waste of money as the 161 will stop a 2 minute walk away from the new Crossrail Station!
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 23, 2018 19:23:42 GMT
Completely ridiculous - it will never happen. There are far more obvious candidates for a "bus campaign" that might actually garner some support - e.g. a fast Lee / Horn Park / Kidbrooke to North Greenwich service although that might be outside their constituency. Is Mottingham really underserved? Don't people just take the train for their commute and change at Lewisham if they want the Isle of Dogs?
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Jan 23, 2018 20:24:10 GMT
Completely ridiculous - it will never happen. There are far more obvious candidates for a "bus campaign" that might actually garner some support - e.g. a fast Lee / Horn Park / Kidbrooke to North Greenwich service although that might be outside their constituency. Is Mottingham really underserved? Don't people just take the train for their commute and change at Lewisham if they want the Isle of Dogs? There is precedent for an express 161 between Eltham and Woolwich - this section was non-stop during peak hours during the 1940s! More seriously, hopefully TfL will adopt the revised routeing in Woolwich that I suggested in my consultation response that would at least bring the 161 closer to the Crossrail station. (I won't be holding my breath!)
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Jan 23, 2018 20:48:18 GMT
I can't quite remember the express 161s, although I do (just) remember the trams, but I did catch an express bus every other Saturday from Eltham Church to Charlton Athletic's football ground at the Valley for a couple of seasons in the late 1950s. My memory is that there were three such routes, numbered A,B and C, and the one from Eltham had travelled along the 161 route before Eltham. I'm also fairly certain it was operated by RTs from Sidcup i.e. just like the 161. Surry, haven't got to grips with the format yet. The above is my response to danorak, obviously.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2018 20:51:20 GMT
Completely ridiculous - it will never happen. There are far more obvious candidates for a "bus campaign" that might actually garner some support - e.g. a fast Lee / Horn Park / Kidbrooke to North Greenwich service although that might be outside their constituency. Is Mottingham really underserved? Don't people just take the train for their commute and change at Lewisham if they want the Isle of Dogs? There is precedent for an express 161 between Eltham and Woolwich - this section was non-stop during peak hours during the 1940s! More seriously, hopefully TfL will adopt the revised routeing in Woolwich that I suggested in my consultation response that would at least bring the 161 closer to the Crossrail station. (I won't be holding my breath!) I'm just hoping they realise that halving the Greenwich-Woolwich frequency is going to murder the 177, and they reroute the 161 to Cutty Sark!
|
|