Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2018 9:27:28 GMT
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! The daft thing about banning the left turn in Woolwich for the 161 (and 386 which was not mentioned) is that the shortest route to the new Crossrail station from the bus stops is to walk down Woolwich New Road and cross at the traffic lights which don't have pedestrian facilities. Should the routes turning right at these lights be diverted to reduce the risk of accidents? Another point, the first phase of major housing developments near Charlton station is moving closer. Hardly the time to be cutting services.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2018 9:38:11 GMT
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! The daft thing about banning the left turn in Woolwich for the 161 (and 386 which was not mentioned) is that the shortest route to the new Crossrail station from the bus stops is to walk down Woolwich New Road and cross at the traffic lights which don't have pedestrian facilities. Should the routes turning right at these lights be diverted to reduce the risk of accidents? Another point, the first phase of major housing developments near Charlton station is moving closer. Hardly the time to be cutting services. I don't understand why it couldn't just be run via Vincent Road and Burrage Road? You are absolutely correct. With new developments at both ends, Woolwich Arsenal Riverside and the next stage of Greenwich Square due to start soon, this is not the time to be cutting Greenwich to Woolwich bus links!
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Jan 28, 2018 11:16:08 GMT
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! Alternatively, the 180 could return west of Woolwich via its existing routeing, but terminate at Cutty Sark (with the 129 continuing to Lewisham). The 472 provides the same links to/from North Greenwich anyway (Charlton/Woolwich/Plumstead/Abbey Wood).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2018 11:20:06 GMT
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! Alternatively, the 180 could return west of Woolwich via its existing routeing, but terminate at Cutty Sark (with the 129 continuing to Lewisham). The 472 provides the same links to/from North Greenwich anyway (Charlton/Woolwich/Plumstead/Abbey Wood). That would involve TfL changing their proposals! They hate doing that! đź‘ą
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jan 28, 2018 12:54:30 GMT
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! Alternatively, the 180 could return west of Woolwich via its existing routeing, but terminate at Cutty Sark (with the 129 continuing to Lewisham). The 472 provides the same links to/from North Greenwich anyway (Charlton/Woolwich/Plumstead/Abbey Wood). Stand space is already a problem in Greenwich at Cutty Sark judging by a conservation in another thread - good idea though.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Jan 28, 2018 14:26:07 GMT
Alternatively, the 180 could return west of Woolwich via its existing routeing, but terminate at Cutty Sark (with the 129 continuing to Lewisham). The 472 provides the same links to/from North Greenwich anyway (Charlton/Woolwich/Plumstead/Abbey Wood). Stand space is already a problem in Greenwich at Cutty Sark judging by a conservation in another thread - good idea though. Stand space would not be an issue at all, as the 180 would simply use the existing 129 stand (which is extended to Lewisham in place).
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jan 28, 2018 15:04:49 GMT
Stand space is already a problem in Greenwich at Cutty Sark judging by a conservation in another thread - good idea though. Stand space would not be an issue at all, as the 180 would simply use the existing 129 stand (which is extended to Lewisham in place). You must of misread my post because as I said, according to a conservation in another thread, the Cutty Sark stand currently has problems with the 129 & 286 both standing there so replacing the 129 with the 180 at the stand would mean the same problem still continuing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2018 18:08:19 GMT
The daft thing about banning the left turn in Woolwich for the 161 (and 386 which was not mentioned) is that the shortest route to the new Crossrail station from the bus stops is to walk down Woolwich New Road and cross at the traffic lights which don't have pedestrian facilities. Should the routes turning right at these lights be diverted to reduce the risk of accidents? Another point, the first phase of major housing developments near Charlton station is moving closer. Hardly the time to be cutting services. I don't understand why it couldn't just be run via Vincent Road and Burrage Road? You are absolutely correct. With new developments at both ends, Woolwich Arsenal Riverside and the next stage of Greenwich Square due to start soon, this is not the time to be cutting Greenwich to Woolwich bus links! Running via Vincent Road would probably add to the running time by a significant amount and delay the routes towards Plumstead Common. Very confusing for 386 passengers too. Service and Not in service buses passing the stop. The traffic light phasing after Vincent Road only allows about 3 cars or a bus out on each change.
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Jan 28, 2018 18:21:06 GMT
I don't understand why it couldn't just be run via Vincent Road and Burrage Road? You are absolutely correct. With new developments at both ends, Woolwich Arsenal Riverside and the next stage of Greenwich Square due to start soon, this is not the time to be cutting Greenwich to Woolwich bus links! Running via Vincent Road would probably add to the running time by a significant amount and delay the routes towards Plumstead Common. Very confusing for 386 passengers too. Service and Not in service buses passing the stop. The traffic light phasing after Vincent Road only allows about 3 cars or a bus out on each change. I don't think it would add very much, and it would be taking passengers to where they want to go, as well as retaining common stops for westbound services. If they need to claw running time back, send the 161 via Bugsby's Way (avoiding the congestion at the A102 junction) and leave that section to the revised 180.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2018 18:25:34 GMT
Running via Vincent Road would probably add to the running time by a significant amount and delay the routes towards Plumstead Common. Very confusing for 386 passengers too. Service and Not in service buses passing the stop. The traffic light phasing after Vincent Road only allows about 3 cars or a bus out on each change. I don't think it would add very much, and it would be taking passengers to where they want to go, as well as retaining common stops for westbound services. If they need to claw running time back, send the 161 via Bugsby's Way (avoiding the congestion at the A102 junction) and leave that section to the revised 180. Couldn't put it better myself! It is surely more important to take people where they want to go, especially bringing people closer to the new Crossrail station, than it is to save 2 or 3 minutes of journey time! I'm not losing hope it will be rerouted to Cutty Sark though!
|
|
|
Post by lazy_eye_metaphor on Apr 6, 2018 11:07:28 GMT
I remember reading a post suggesting that the 129/180 changes may be introduced in advance of the rest of the scheme. Anyone heard anything further on that?
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Apr 6, 2018 16:37:16 GMT
I remember reading a post suggesting that the 129/180 changes may be introduced in advance of the rest of the scheme. Anyone heard anything further on that? There’s still a lot to do at Erith Quarry before any 180 gets to terminate there! Haven’t heard of any results aside from the likely cancellation of double decks on the 244 and 291.
|
|
|
Post by busman on Apr 6, 2018 16:45:03 GMT
This isn’t turning out to be much of a consultation even by TfL standards. I emailed the consultation team a month ago asking for a date on the TfL initial response and didn’t hear anything back. It’s clear that there isn’t enough time to consider any revised options so it’s going to be a case of take it or leave it on the proposals. It would be helpful if members posted to this thread what they **know** to be happening with the SE London changes. Another member has good info that the 291 wouldn’t be converted to double deck. Also as per lazy_eye_metaphor’s post the 129/180 switch. To be honest the changes in SE London are pretty underwhelming all in all. The 129/180 change is probably the most interesting of the bunch. We will actually see a decrease in buses between Plumstead and Cutty Sark as a result of these “improvements”.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Apr 6, 2018 17:33:21 GMT
This isn’t turning out to be much of a consultation even by TfL standards. I emailed the consultation team a month ago asking for a date on the TfL initial response and didn’t hear anything back. It’s clear that there isn’t enough time to consider any revised options so it’s going to be a case of take it or leave it on the proposals. It would be helpful if members posted to this thread what they **know** to be happening with the SE London changes. Another member has good info that the 291 wouldn’t be converted to double deck. Also as per lazy_eye_metaphor’s post the 129/180 switch. To be honest the changes in SE London are pretty underwhelming all in all. The 129/180 change is probably the most interesting of the bunch. We will actually see a decrease in buses between Plumstead and Cutty Sark as a result of these “improvements”. The 129 extension to Lewisham may be useful, but the 180 changes around Greenwich will put pressure on the 177 instead. Greenwich (Cutty Sark) to Woolwich is an important link and should have two routes between them. I think the 180 should simply be cut back fron Lewisham to Cutty Sark, using the existing 129 stand if possible. The 180 going to North Greenwich instead doesn't really serve much purpose as the 472 already provides (or will provide) most links towards Plumstead and Abbey Wood. And there are already at least 3 routes between North Greenwich and Woolwich - which should provide adequate capacity already.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Apr 6, 2018 19:20:36 GMT
Especially when supposedly people in Woolwich/Thamesmead are going to be using Crossrail from WA and Abbey Wood. More buses to North Greenwich seems an odd choice.
|
|