|
Post by vjaska on Sept 16, 2019 14:19:20 GMT
I do wonder if politics will intervene and more money will be found to keep the 180 as it is and serve Erith Quarry another way. An election is coming up, another bus cut in SE London is not going to look very good. Or it'll get delayed until after May, of course. It wouldn’t surprise me to see the decision pushed back to summer 2020. I believe the Abbey Wood stand for the 472 is still to be resolved, so until that’s in place nothing will happen anymore. When the 180 change was first announced I was very much against it. However I now support it, as it would improve links in my area to the O2 and the retail parks in Charlton. Capacity between Plumstead Station and North Greenwich will be covered by the 180/472. However I would like to see TfL address the following gaps: 1. Plumstead to Greenwich Town Centre - 177 will be the only direct link. Possible solution would be for an increase to the daytime frequency or the introduction of additional peak journeys between Plumstead Bus Garage and Greenwich Cutty Sark. 2. Charlton to North Greenwich - peak hour extras removed from the 472 without replacement. There’s no easy fix here. The cheapest way would be to maintain the extras between Charlton and North Greenwich. Does anyone else find it strange that the shorts are numbered 472 rather than 486? Given that they follow the 486 line of route into Charlton Station.... 3. Belvedere Industrial Estate - large employers such as Lidl are based in the area that will no longer be served by the 180. I would suggest diverting the B11 there instead of terminating it at Thamesmead North. At least maintain a link between all parts of the business park and Abbey Wood Station. I don't think increasing the 177's PVR does much to help the situation - the 177 in itself is a long route and runs into various pockets of congestion along the way but additional peak journeys might do the job however - shame there isn't a Canada Water to Plumstead route or something along the lines which could assist the 177. Isn't the 180 merely cutting through the bottom part of the industrial estate rather than re-routed away?
|
|
|
Post by Ice Prxnce on Sept 16, 2019 14:53:47 GMT
I would say the 54 was the quickest Lewisham to Woolwich route. The 180 can hit heavy traffic. Also Lewisham may have the 108 to NG but it's restricted to SD operation and more and more amenities are opening around NG like IKEA and shops now in the 02 so demand is only going to grow. With the 335 from Royal Standard, the 129 from Lewisham and the D8 taking over part of the old routing, the 108 could possibly slightly reduce or atleast have more running time to counteract delays through Blackwall Tunnel. I would agree : though there isn’t a lot in it between the 54 and 122. The 180 is a little longer even before traffic is considered. Not going to quote ‘route53’, but I wonder if it’s possible to create a stand round the back of Waitrose off Creek Road for the 286? The back of Waitrose is a dead end and leads into an underground car park for Waitrose trucks. Thames Street might not have available space for a bus stand due to all the parked car spots, plus that, Horseferry Place and Norway Street are the only possible roads which can be used for 286 to get back round on Creek Road.
|
|
|
Post by busman on Sept 16, 2019 15:37:59 GMT
It wouldn’t surprise me to see the decision pushed back to summer 2020. I believe the Abbey Wood stand for the 472 is still to be resolved, so until that’s in place nothing will happen anymore. When the 180 change was first announced I was very much against it. However I now support it, as it would improve links in my area to the O2 and the retail parks in Charlton. Capacity between Plumstead Station and North Greenwich will be covered by the 180/472. However I would like to see TfL address the following gaps: 1. Plumstead to Greenwich Town Centre - 177 will be the only direct link. Possible solution would be for an increase to the daytime frequency or the introduction of additional peak journeys between Plumstead Bus Garage and Greenwich Cutty Sark. 2. Charlton to North Greenwich - peak hour extras removed from the 472 without replacement. There’s no easy fix here. The cheapest way would be to maintain the extras between Charlton and North Greenwich. Does anyone else find it strange that the shorts are numbered 472 rather than 486? Given that they follow the 486 line of route into Charlton Station.... 3. Belvedere Industrial Estate - large employers such as Lidl are based in the area that will no longer be served by the 180. I would suggest diverting the B11 there instead of terminating it at Thamesmead North. At least maintain a link between all parts of the business park and Abbey Wood Station. I don't think increasing the 177's PVR does much to help the situation - the 177 in itself is a long route and runs into various pockets of congestion along the way but additional peak journeys might do the job however - shame there isn't a Canada Water to Plumstead route or something along the lines which could assist the 177. Isn't the 180 merely cutting through the bottom part of the industrial estate rather than re-routed away? It will leave some parts a further 10 minutes walk away from a bus stop. A new set of stops on the southern part of Mulberry Way might solve the issue though. Buses could run via Crabtree Manorway North, Fishers Way and Mulberry Way, but I’m guessing TfL want to keep running costs to a minimum.
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Sept 16, 2019 16:11:56 GMT
I would say the 54 was the quickest Lewisham to Woolwich route. The 180 can hit heavy traffic. Also Lewisham may have the 108 to NG but it's restricted to SD operation and more and more amenities are opening around NG like IKEA and shops now in the 02 so demand is only going to grow. With the 335 from Royal Standard, the 129 from Lewisham and the D8 taking over part of the old routing, the 108 could possibly slightly reduce or atleast have more running time to counteract delays through Blackwall Tunnel. I would agree : though there isn’t a lot in it between the 54 and 122. The 180 is a little longer even before traffic is considered. Not going to quote ‘route53’, but I wonder if it’s possible to create a stand round the back of Waitrose off Creek Road for the 286? Not sure what the current status is of plans to pedestrianise Greenwich town centre but last time they tried, I think they suggested looping the 286 along Norman Road. I wondered if it would be possible to use the forecourt of Greenwich station. Alternatively, you might be able to do something at the junction of South St and High Road where the junction is quite wide, although I suspect the buses may be too long.
|
|
|
Post by beaver14uk on Sept 16, 2019 16:20:05 GMT
If it happens there are other roads in Greenwich that might be modified. quote author=" danorak" source="/post/526248/thread" timestamp="1568650316"] I would agree : though there isn’t a lot in it between the 54 and 122. The 180 is a little longer even before traffic is considered. Not going to quote ‘route53’, but I wonder if it’s possible to create a stand round the back of Waitrose off Creek Road for the 286? Not sure what the current status is of plans to pedestrianise Greenwich town centre but last time they tried, I think they suggested looping the 286 along Norman Road. I wondered if it would be possible to use the forecourt of Greenwich station. Alternatively, you might be able to do something at the junction of South St and High Road where the junction is quite wide, although I suspect the buses may be too long.[/quote]
|
|
|
Post by beaver14uk on Sept 16, 2019 16:25:30 GMT
i think the 472 has already long been agreed quote author=" busman" source="/post/526187/thread" timestamp="1568632349"] I do wonder if politics will intervene and more money will be found to keep the 180 as it is and serve Erith Quarry another way. An election is coming up, another bus cut in SE London is not going to look very good. Or it'll get delayed until after May, of course. It wouldn’t surprise me to see the decision pushed back to summer 2020. I believe the Abbey Wood stand for the 472 is still to be resolved, so until that’s in place nothing will happen anymore. When the 180 change was first announced I was very much against it. However I now support it, as it would improve links in my area to the O2 and the retail parks in Charlton. Capacity between Plumstead Station and North Greenwich will be covered by the 180/472. However I would like to see TfL address the following gaps: 1. Plumstead to Greenwich Town Centre - 177 will be the only direct link. Possible solution would be for an increase to the daytime frequency or the introduction of additional peak journeys between Plumstead Bus Garage and Greenwich Cutty Sark. 2. Charlton to North Greenwich - peak hour extras removed from the 472 without replacement. There’s no easy fix here. The cheapest way would be to maintain the extras between Charlton and North Greenwich. Does anyone else find it strange that the shorts are numbered 472 rather than 486? Given that they follow the 486 line of route into Charlton Station.... 3. Belvedere Industrial Estate - large employers such as Lidl are based in the area that will no longer be served by the 180. I would suggest diverting the B11 there instead of terminating it at Thamesmead North. At least maintain a link between all parts of the business park and Abbey Wood Station. [/quote]
|
|
|
Post by busman on Sept 16, 2019 17:48:44 GMT
i think the 472 has already long been agreed quote author=" busman" source="/post/526187/thread" timestamp="1568632349"] I do wonder if politics will intervene and more money will be found to keep the 180 as it is and serve Erith Quarry another way. An election is coming up, another bus cut in SE London is not going to look very good. Or it'll get delayed until after May, of course. It wouldn’t surprise me to see the decision pushed back to summer 2020. I believe the Abbey Wood stand for the 472 is still to be resolved, so until that’s in place nothing will happen anymore. When the 180 change was first announced I was very much against it. However I now support it, as it would improve links in my area to the O2 and the retail parks in Charlton. Capacity between Plumstead Station and North Greenwich will be covered by the 180/472. However I would like to see TfL address the following gaps: 1. Plumstead to Greenwich Town Centre - 177 will be the only direct link. Possible solution would be for an increase to the daytime frequency or the introduction of additional peak journeys between Plumstead Bus Garage and Greenwich Cutty Sark. 2. Charlton to North Greenwich - peak hour extras removed from the 472 without replacement. There’s no easy fix here. The cheapest way would be to maintain the extras between Charlton and North Greenwich. Does anyone else find it strange that the shorts are numbered 472 rather than 486? Given that they follow the 486 line of route into Charlton Station.... 3. Belvedere Industrial Estate - large employers such as Lidl are based in the area that will no longer be served by the 180. I would suggest diverting the B11 there instead of terminating it at Thamesmead North. At least maintain a link between all parts of the business park and Abbey Wood Station. [/quote] Where will it stand?
|
|
|
Post by beaver14uk on Sept 16, 2019 20:00:24 GMT
Gayton Road was always the plan. uote author=" busman" source="/post/526264/thread" timestamp="1568656124"] i think the 472 has already long been agreed quote author=" busman" source="/post/526187/thread" timestamp="1568632349"]It wouldn’t surprise me to see the decision pushed back to summer 2020. I believe the Abbey Wood stand for the 472 is still to be resolved, so until that’s in place nothing will happen anymore. When the 180 change was first announced I was very much against it. However I now support it, as it would improve links in my area to the O2 and the retail parks in Charlton. Capacity between Plumstead Station and North Greenwich will be covered by the 180/472. However I would like to see TfL address the following gaps: 1. Plumstead to Greenwich Town Centre - 177 will be the only direct link. Possible solution would be for an increase to the daytime frequency or the introduction of additional peak journeys between Plumstead Bus Garage and Greenwich Cutty Sark. 2. Charlton to North Greenwich - peak hour extras removed from the 472 without replacement. There’s no easy fix here. The cheapest way would be to maintain the extras between Charlton and North Greenwich. Does anyone else find it strange that the shorts are numbered 472 rather than 486? Given that they follow the 486 line of route into Charlton Station.... 3. Belvedere Industrial Estate - large employers such as Lidl are based in the area that will no longer be served by the 180. I would suggest diverting the B11 there instead of terminating it at Thamesmead North. At least maintain a link between all parts of the business park and Abbey Wood Station. [/quote] Where will it stand?[/quote]
|
|
|
Post by stuckonthe486 on Sept 16, 2019 23:54:53 GMT
I would agree : though there isn’t a lot in it between the 54 and 122. The 180 is a little longer even before traffic is considered. Not going to quote ‘route53’, but I wonder if it’s possible to create a stand round the back of Waitrose off Creek Road for the 286? Not sure what the current status is of plans to pedestrianise Greenwich town centre but last time they tried, I think they suggested looping the 286 along Norman Road. I wondered if it would be possible to use the forecourt of Greenwich station. Alternatively, you might be able to do something at the junction of South St and High Road where the junction is quite wide, although I suspect the buses may be too long. There was a consultation in January, it's gone quiet since then. 853london.com/2019/01/10/greenwich-could-lose-its-one-way-system-under-radical-plans/
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Sept 17, 2019 19:51:00 GMT
But then on the other hand the 129 to Lewisham is a good change as it would provide a DD service to North Greenwich and IKEA. Whereas the some of the 180 links such as Woolwich and Plumstead are maintained by the 54/122/178 to Lewisham. The best option would be to not drop the 472 so much so that it doesn't need the 180 to NG and the 180 and 129 swap rouetings south of Greenwich. Ofcourse issue would be no routes can potentially terminate in Greenwich going forward. Well given there are already plenty of North Greenwich-Woolwich buses with the 161, 422, and 472, I feel something should be done to support the 177 post 180 cut. With the 180 and 355, NG-IKEA may become overbused. One solution could be to cut the 472 back to Charlton then extend it towards Greenwich to support the 177, although there’s the issue of where buses could terminate given the issue of buses being unable to terminate at Greenwich in future. The 161 is the least used of the routes serving NG, and I know many have suggested cutting it back to Woolwich, it could be used to support the 177, but issues of length, and again where to turn the route are problematic. Conclusion: Tampering with the existing bus network won’t help. A better solution may be a Woolwich-Canada Water route which would create new links, and help relieve bus routes such as the 177, and 188.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2019 19:55:50 GMT
A better solution may be a Woolwich-Canada Water route which would create new links, and help relieve bus routes such as the 177, and 188. An extension of Route 1?
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Sept 17, 2019 19:58:38 GMT
A better solution may be a Woolwich-Canada Water route which would create new links, and help relieve bus routes such as the 177, and 188. An extension of Route 1? Would the 1 really manage to cope with such a lengthy extension? I don’t think so. The City Hall stand is vacant so could be used if you wanted to take this new route a little further west, but that’s something I don’t want to do, as I feel my proposed route is already paralleling the 188 for quite a way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2019 20:07:23 GMT
I can see the benefits of the changes to the Route 180. It creates a non existent link between Abbey Wood/McLeod Road and Plumstead High Street (ignoring the indirect 422) to North Greenwich. In my experience of driving the route, the route is not very well used west of the Cuttt Sark (most passengers who get on in Lewisham generally get off along Lewisham Road and Greenwich South Street so could use the 199 or newly extended 129). The bit between Charlton Retail Park and the Cutty Sark can be very busy at times.
A major advantage of the change in my opinion is it will have a positive effect on the route's reliability. Traffic on Woolwich Road and Trafalgar Road kills the route's reliability and it can be inconvenient for passengers particularly along Yarnton Way when large numbers of buses get curtailed at Abbey Wood. To be fair the route in its current form is too long and passes too many traffic hotspots to run reliably.
The 177 will suffer on weekends between Charlton and Cutty Sark particularly so possibly extra short journeys on weekends running between Woolwich and Cutty Sark could be a solution.
It seems to be taken as fact that there will be no bus stands at the Cutty Sark after the works. When I read the consultation, it said that details such as bus stands had not been decided on yet. I'm sure there could be ways of buses turning around alternatively. Norman Road springs to mind.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2019 20:09:03 GMT
Would the 1 really manage to cope with such a lengthy extension? I don’t think so. The City Hall stand is vacant so could be used if you wanted to take this new route a little further west, but that’s something I don’t want to do, as I feel my proposed route is already paralleling the 188 for quite a way. Chop it back to the Elephant or Waterloo and put the 171 back to Holborn or TCR?
|
|
|
Post by route53 on Sept 17, 2019 21:07:34 GMT
My point about the 180 change is that will there really be a demand for NG from Abbey Wood/Belvedere once CrossRail opens?
CrossRail will be much quicker to Canary Wharf and the West End, if this had been proposed twenty years ago when NG first opened and there was no DLR at Woolwich, and CrossRail was still years off then I would agree with it.
The 180 is honestly a godsend along the Woolwich-Greenwich corridor, as it can get busy and the 177 & 180 do well to manage the overcrowding.
One suggestion could be that extend the 129 to Lewisham and still keep the 180 as far as Greenwich Cutty Sark but re-route it to Deptford or even Surrey Quays
|
|