|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Apr 6, 2018 19:24:11 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. There still could be time for revised proposals, although I imagine any revision will probably be a case of telling people in the results "We are doing this instead" rather than consulting over the revision, much like the 135s change where following the consultation closure it was swapped to run via Spindrift Avenue.
|
|
|
Post by cl54 on Apr 6, 2018 19:33:46 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. A lot of people will continue to use North Greenwich as it is in Zone 2. Don't forget if you have a Travelcard all bus travel is free. Why pay for 2 more zones? I have been told that the operators were free to suggest alternatives to double decking the 244 and 469. It's not more buses to North Greenwich. It is intended to halve the service on the 472.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Apr 6, 2018 19:52:28 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. A lot of people will continue to use North Greenwich as it is in Zone 2. Don't forget if you have a Travelcard all bus travel is free. Why pay for 2 more zones? I have been told that the operators were free to suggest alternatives to double decking the 244 and 469. It's not more buses to North Greenwich. It is intended to halve the service on the 472. The 469 wasn't one of the three routes to be decked originally - do you mean the 291 instead?
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Apr 6, 2018 19:56:01 GMT
6-7 mins to every 8 is hardly halfing the service. Granted we know that people will continue to use North Greenwich but in TFLs eyes the public should be forced onto Crossrail like with the 199 sent into Canada Water leaving the 1 overloaded to Elephant.
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Apr 6, 2018 20:06:57 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? So the most contentious i.e. useless of the proposals gets first nibs, if this is true.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Apr 6, 2018 22:44:08 GMT
6-7 mins to every 8 is hardly halfing the service. Granted we know that people will continue to use North Greenwich but in TFLs eyes the public should be forced onto Crossrail like with the 199 sent into Canada Water leaving the 1 overloaded to Elephant. Same with the Central London changes which is basically forcing everyone to use already overcrowded tube services.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Apr 7, 2018 0:02:29 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? So the most contentious i.e. useless of the proposals gets first nibs, if this is true. I haven't heard if this change is happening in advance and we won't hear a dicky bird until the local council elections are out of the way in early May. I can sort of see why TfL would want to do the 129/180 change (barring any Erith end extension) earlier than the rest. The contracts are with the same operator and the 180 change is controversial. Getting it "out of the way" and weathering any political fall out before Crossrail opens may be to TfL's advantage. They can conveniently "fool" people in the short term that lots more buses are going to North Greenwich and then silently hack the 472's service come December 2018. This then leaves TfL to deal with whatever fall out there is in Abbey Wood and east thereof in terms of altering the 472's terminal, the new 301 and related faffing around with the 469, B11 etc. I suspect they'll just ignore any grumbles about overloading on the 244 and 291 and say "well we did offer to run double deckers but you didn't want them". As for the 161X campaign - yawn yawn yawn. Ain't happening. What is really tedious about these changes is that there is a basis for doing something reasonably sensible but the dreadful political interia and withholding of funds for transport improvements means that residents of both Greenwich and Bexley boroughs really get a dreadful deal. If only some money was actually forthcoming to TfL they might actually have been able to do something properly innovative that might actually have pleased both residents and politicians but no, it's the usual "no increase in resources" compromise.
|
|
|
Post by cl54 on Apr 7, 2018 4:47:46 GMT
Greenwich Council is still sitting on a large pot of TfL money for transport/street improvements.
It could have funded a bus only left turn lane at the bottom of Woolwich New Road for the 161 (and terminating 386). This could have been configured to change the traffic lights only when a bus is present,
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Apr 7, 2018 6:51:40 GMT
So the most contentious i.e. useless of the proposals gets first nibs, if this is true. I haven't heard if this change is happening in advance and we won't hear a Richardy bird until the local council elections are out of the way in early May. I can sort of see why TfL would want to do the 129/180 change (barring any Erith end extension) earlier than the rest. The contracts are with the same operator and the 180 change is controversial. Getting it "out of the way" and weathering any political fall out before Crossrail opens may be to TfL's advantage. They can conveniently "fool" people in the short term that lots more buses are going to North Greenwich and then silently hack the 472's service come December 2018. This then leaves TfL to deal with whatever fall out there is in Abbey Wood and east thereof in terms of altering the 472's terminal, the new 301 and related faffing around with the 469, B11 etc. I suspect they'll just ignore any grumbles about overloading on the 244 and 291 and say "well we did offer to run double deckers but you didn't want them". As for the 161X campaign - yawn yawn yawn. Ain't happening. What is really tedious about these changes is that there is a basis for doing something reasonably sensible but the dreadful political interia and withholding of funds for transport improvements means that residents of both Greenwich and Bexley boroughs really get a dreadful deal. If only some money was actually forthcoming to TfL they might actually have been able to do something properly innovative that might actually have pleased both residents and politicians but no, it's the usual "no increase in resources" compromise. Realistically will all go quiet this side of local elections There is a Programmes and Investment committee on 16th May (agenda a week before) should indicate thinking Only 4 consultations are open (and none are bus route related) so looks like a state of planning paralysis happening There will be the fortnightly bus changes document on Monday evening (comments normally in Upcoming changes thread)
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Apr 7, 2018 7:27:30 GMT
From Woolwich, it makes more sense to have 161, 422 and 472 to North Greenwich, with both the 177 & 180 to Cutty Sark - rather than 4 routes to NG and only one to CS.
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Apr 7, 2018 10:07:50 GMT
So the most contentious i.e. useless of the proposals gets first nibs, if this is true. I haven't heard if this change is happening in advance and we won't hear a Richardy bird until the local council elections are out of the way in early May. I can sort of see why TfL would want to do the 129/180 change (barring any Erith end extension) earlier than the rest. The contracts are with the same operator and the 180 change is controversial. Getting it "out of the way" and weathering any political fall out before Crossrail opens may be to TfL's advantage. They can conveniently "fool" people in the short term that lots more buses are going to North Greenwich and then silently hack the 472's service come December 2018. This then leaves TfL to deal with whatever fall out there is in Abbey Wood and east thereof in terms of altering the 472's terminal, the new 301 and related faffing around with the 469, B11 etc. I suspect they'll just ignore any grumbles about overloading on the 244 and 291 and say "well we did offer to run double deckers but you didn't want them". As for the 161X campaign - yawn yawn yawn. Ain't happening. What is really tedious about these changes is that there is a basis for doing something reasonably sensible but the dreadful political interia and withholding of funds for transport improvements means that residents of both Greenwich and Bexley boroughs really get a dreadful deal. If only some money was actually forthcoming to TfL they might actually have been able to do something properly innovative that might actually have pleased both residents and politicians but no, it's the usual "no increase in resources" compromise. Somewhat astonishingly, here in the local area, the 301 is beginning to prove to be controversial. Mainly around the Knee Hill/New Road issue. Wouldn’t now surprise me if the 301 is stillborn.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Apr 7, 2018 18:53:35 GMT
I haven't heard if this change is happening in advance and we won't hear a Richardy bird until the local council elections are out of the way in early May. I can sort of see why TfL would want to do the 129/180 change (barring any Erith end extension) earlier than the rest. The contracts are with the same operator and the 180 change is controversial. Getting it "out of the way" and weathering any political fall out before Crossrail opens may be to TfL's advantage. They can conveniently "fool" people in the short term that lots more buses are going to North Greenwich and then silently hack the 472's service come December 2018. This then leaves TfL to deal with whatever fall out there is in Abbey Wood and east thereof in terms of altering the 472's terminal, the new 301 and related faffing around with the 469, B11 etc. I suspect they'll just ignore any grumbles about overloading on the 244 and 291 and say "well we did offer to run double deckers but you didn't want them". As for the 161X campaign - yawn yawn yawn. Ain't happening. What is really tedious about these changes is that there is a basis for doing something reasonably sensible but the dreadful political interia and withholding of funds for transport improvements means that residents of both Greenwich and Bexley boroughs really get a dreadful deal. If only some money was actually forthcoming to TfL they might actually have been able to do something properly innovative that might actually have pleased both residents and politicians but no, it's the usual "no increase in resources" compromise. Somewhat astonishingly, here in the local area, the 301 is beginning to prove to be controversial. Mainly around the Knee Hill/New Road issue. Wouldn’t now surprise me if the 301 is stillborn. Most of the 301 routeing - especially if modified from the original proposals due to permission to use certain roads - will duplicate the B11. It would make more sense to simplify the B11 slightly to be a bit more direct, with longer buses if possible or an enhanced frequency. The 301 route only really makes sense when combined with the 472 proposals (to remove the confusing loop around Thamesmead).
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Apr 7, 2018 20:20:02 GMT
Somewhat astonishingly, here in the local area, the 301 is beginning to prove to be controversial. Mainly around the Knee Hill/New Road issue. Wouldn’t now surprise me if the 301 is stillborn. Most of the 301 routeing - especially if modified from the original proposals due to permission to use certain roads - will duplicate the B11. It would make more sense to simplify the B11 slightly to be a bit more direct, with longer buses if possible or an enhanced frequency. The 301 route only really makes sense when combined with the 472 proposals (to remove the confusing loop around Thamesmead). Main reason 301 is proposed is to provide a fast link to Crossrail from Bexleyheath. Can’t really do anything with the B11 because Lodge Hill still needs to be served, nonetheless if 301 fails to happen, it will be the B11 that carries the can. Lodge Hill also precludes anything bigger than the current SEs on the B11. Have also said elsewhere that Bexley Council are utterly against the 469 proposals and even the people of Upper Belvedere (the whole reason for the diversion) are generally in my experience very ‘meh’ about any 469 diversion.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Apr 7, 2018 21:35:15 GMT
I wonder if the reason why 'high capacity single deckers' were specified on the consultation as being less controversial then sending DDs down some of the new roads served.
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Apr 7, 2018 22:03:04 GMT
I haven't heard if this change is happening in advance and we won't hear a Richardy bird until the local council elections are out of the way in early May. I can sort of see why TfL would want to do the 129/180 change (barring any Erith end extension) earlier than the rest. The contracts are with the same operator and the 180 change is controversial. Getting it "out of the way" and weathering any political fall out before Crossrail opens may be to TfL's advantage. They can conveniently "fool" people in the short term that lots more buses are going to North Greenwich and then silently hack the 472's service come December 2018. This then leaves TfL to deal with whatever fall out there is in Abbey Wood and east thereof in terms of altering the 472's terminal, the new 301 and related faffing around with the 469, B11 etc. I suspect they'll just ignore any grumbles about overloading on the 244 and 291 and say "well we did offer to run double deckers but you didn't want them". As for the 161X campaign - yawn yawn yawn. Ain't happening. What is really tedious about these changes is that there is a basis for doing something reasonably sensible but the dreadful political interia and withholding of funds for transport improvements means that residents of both Greenwich and Bexley boroughs really get a dreadful deal. If only some money was actually forthcoming to TfL they might actually have been able to do something properly innovative that might actually have pleased both residents and politicians but no, it's the usual "no increase in resources" compromise. Somewhat astonishingly, here in the local area, the 301 is beginning to prove to be controversial. Mainly around the Knee Hill/New Road issue. Wouldn’t now surprise me if the 301 is stillborn. As I've said upthread, the whole Knee Hill thing is astonishing. This is a north-south route that 99% of people regard as a Good Thing. It'll speed up the Thamesmead - Bexleyheath journey massively and provide the essential connection to Crossrail from an area that is renowned for being poorly served by rail. So why obstacles are being put in the way rather than sorting a solution to any that are genuine, baffles me. If a route with such a clear need and purpose is stillborn then I give up. I can't wait to see the consultation report.
|
|