|
Post by busman on Jul 13, 2017 7:30:11 GMT
Is demand really that high on that section - I mean it's useful but does it really require a high frequency route rather than just simply extending the 54 along it and cutting the 53 back to Woolwich? It's very busy, vjaska. Replacing the 53 with the 54 would make (especially) peak crowding from Woolwich to Plumstead Common unbearable - even now it's very easy for longer distance 51 customers to be crowded out of travelling by people going just a few stops. Exactly and that's why the 291 will be getting deckers. There are concerns about how deckers will get around some of the Woodlands loop. It doesn't seem right that residents will lose the ability to park on their street due to necessary parking measures. Interesting that the consultation doesn't mention what parking restrictions will have to be imposed, so it suggests there may be further consultation in future. In my response I have suggested diverting the 291 so it exits Woodlands onto Swingate Lane then continues to Thamesmead Town Centre via Swingate Lane, Wickham Lane, Macleod Road and Abbey Wood Station. Relief for the 180 (and passengers left behind on MacLeod Road) and creating new local links between parts of Plumstead and Abbey Wood/Thamesmead. This will also help shift journeys away from Woolwich which is mayhem at all times of the day. Yes TfL budgets, additional PVR blah blah blah, but TfL seemed to find extra resources for other parts of London 🙃
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jul 13, 2017 7:36:39 GMT
Is demand really that high on that section - I mean it's useful but does it really require a high frequency route rather than just simply extending the 54 along it and cutting the 53 back to Woolwich? It's very busy, vjaska. Replacing the 53 with the 54 would make (especially) peak crowding from Woolwich to Plumstead Common unbearable - even now it's very easy for longer distance 51 customers to be crowded out of travelling by people going just a few stops. I've seen evening peak buses on the 53 arrive at Woolwich Arsenal and almost empty out and then fill up again. It would perhaps seem preferable though for a more local service to cover this section allowing the 53 to go direct to PD?
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jul 13, 2017 7:45:15 GMT
Did TfL factor in increased demand at Abbey Wood & Woolwich caused by Thameslink services into North London and Luton Airport? It will still be a pig to get to Eltham and Welling from Abbey Wood. The 469 doesn't even get a turn-up and ride frequency. The 469 changes leave the 229 to fend for itself along Abbey Road and the extra passengers that will travel from Belvedere to Abbey Wood. I was surprised the 53 survived. Problem with axing it is that Plumstead Common would lose much needed capacity and a new high frequency route would need to replace it or 2-3 separate routes combined. I responded, but will write to my local MP and our City Hall representative as TfL won't listen to us plebs. The questionnaire is deliberately narrow and designed to control the response and stifle discussion of alternatives. Abbey Road also loses a link to Woolwich, shouldn't the 469 be left as it is and the 428 extended via the 99 route from Erith and the B11 to Abbey Wood, this gives The Quarry a direct link to Abbey Wood. I'm also surprised that the 53 has escaped unscathed!
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Jul 13, 2017 8:03:09 GMT
Did TfL factor in increased demand at Abbey Wood & Woolwich caused by Thameslink services into North London and Luton Airport? It will still be a pig to get to Eltham and Welling from Abbey Wood. The 469 doesn't even get a turn-up and ride frequency. The 469 changes leave the 229 to fend for itself along Abbey Road and the extra passengers that will travel from Belvedere to Abbey Wood. I was surprised the 53 survived. Problem with axing it is that Plumstead Common would lose much needed capacity and a new high frequency route would need to replace it or 2-3 separate routes combined. I responded, but will write to my local MP and our City Hall representative as TfL won't listen to us plebs. The questionnaire is deliberately narrow and designed to control the response and stifle discussion of alternatives. Abbey Road also loses a link to Woolwich, shouldn't the 469 be left as it is and the 428 extended via the 99 route from Erith and the B11 to Abbey Wood, this gives The Quarry a direct link to Abbey Wood. I'm also surprised that the 53 has escaped unscathed! What these people are likely to do is use the 229 to Abbey Wood and catch the 472.
|
|
|
Post by busman on Jul 13, 2017 8:11:37 GMT
The 53 should be kept as is at the SE London end. I think any tinkering should be at the Whitehall end. Perhaps an X53 between Woolwich and Whitehall and a 53 between Plumstead and Elephant or Lambeth North would be a fair restructure. I'm sure TfL are watching the 140 experiment with great interest, with other trunk routes like the 53 in mind.
The one bus that does seem to carry fresh air between Woolwich and Plumstead is the 122. As extending the 122 isn't really feasible, I think it could be looped back to Woolwich and not missed very much. Deckers on the 301 could easily take on the extra load on that part of the route.
The problem in this area is that many local journeys are easier by car. The fight is against taxis and getting people to leave their cars at home. Greenwich council isn't very progressive in its handling of public transport and doesn't seem to grasp the small detail or demand very much. Ideal fodder for TfL in their current predicament.
|
|
|
Post by busman on Jul 13, 2017 8:43:59 GMT
Abbey Road also loses a link to Woolwich, shouldn't the 469 be left as it is and the 428 extended via the 99 route from Erith and the B11 to Abbey Wood, this gives The Quarry a direct link to Abbey Wood. I'm also surprised that the 53 has escaped unscathed! What these people are likely to do is use the 229 to Abbey Wood and catch the 472. Many of "these people" like me, will jump in their car or get a cab instead. That's the problem with the current mode of thinking around buses. The hopper fare sounds good, but has caused a shift in how services are planned. Making journeys longer and introducing changes of bus makes it less attractive to those with other options. At this rate, buses will become the choice of travel for those who can't afford an alternative.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jul 13, 2017 8:58:31 GMT
The 53 should be kept as is at the SE London end. I think any tinkering should be at the Whitehall end. Perhaps an X53 between Woolwich and Whitehall and a 53 between Plumstead and Elephant or Lambeth North would be a fair restructure. I'm sure TfL are watching the 140 experiment with great interest, with other trunk routes like the 53 in mind. The one bus that does seem to carry fresh air between Woolwich and Plumstead is the 122. As extending the 122 isn't really feasible, I think it could be looped back to Woolwich and not missed very much. Deckers on the 301 could easily take on the extra load on that part of the route. The problem in this area is that many local journeys are easier by car. The fight is against taxis and getting people to leave their cars at home. Greenwich council isn't very progressive in its handling of public transport and doesn't seem to grasp the small detail or demand very much. Ideal fodder for TfL in their current predicament. I don't see the X53 returning, the JLE killed it off and Crossrail is surely the final nail in that particular coffin? I think the route is about right as it is from Whitehall to Woolwich although a frequency reduction might be in the offing and a more local route might be better on the Plumstead Common section? The 122 could be cut back to Woolwich although most buses would still go back to PD for a driver change so probably not much to be gained?
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Jul 13, 2017 10:16:58 GMT
Abbey Road also loses a link to Woolwich Yes, that was one of the first things I noticed when I saw the map. It's quite a long drag from Abbey Wood to Belvedere and I recall quite a few people waiting at stops on that road, at different times of day using both 229 and 469. I get the idea of the 469 going via Upper Belvedere to get people to Abbey Wood quickly but was still surprised to see the service on Abbey Road. What about keeping the 180 as it is (at both ends) and sending the 244 via Abbey Road and either the industrial area or to Erith? I don't know enough about the 244 to say how reliable this would be - I've only ever used it on the odd off-peak journey from Thamesmead West to Woolwich. I am not sure how in practice the journey times would be from Abbey Road/Belvedere to Woolwich.....as a guess, going via Thamesmead wouldn't be toooo different to going via Sewell Road and Plumstead High Street, but I'd need to sit down on the laptop and look at maps/times properly to gauge it. I see there is suggestion of running the 301 from Bexleyheath to Abbey Wood only - again I can get the idea behind it (making it more suitable and robust with SD vehicles) but what could make up for the bit round Bentham Road? That would have the 244 going up there on its own......again, Bentham Road is a substantial bit of road and it does get busy round there. Would there be scope for the 177 or 229 to divert (and break a link round Crossway) or even do an N1 type loop finishing back at Boiler House to serve all the main roads in Thamesmead? The latter I can see as a pain due to a decent bus stand and facilities for the drivers....... : 0
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Jul 13, 2017 10:31:41 GMT
Apologies for double post - long way away from home and without laptop this isn't the most straightforward way...... have suggested the 469 should do the Brook Street/Carlton Road route Well......again thinking of the 244 (and only thinking of this after I posted a minute ago), would this work? Keeping the 180/469 as they are, and sending the 244 via your route into Erith? Seems to cover gaps and keep other bits simple.....
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jul 13, 2017 10:41:14 GMT
The 53 should be kept as is at the SE London end. I think any tinkering should be at the Whitehall end. Perhaps an X53 between Woolwich and Whitehall and a 53 between Plumstead and Elephant or Lambeth North would be a fair restructure. I'm sure TfL are watching the 140 experiment with great interest, with other trunk routes like the 53 in mind. It's difficult to justify the existence of an X53. There isn't much of a case for it as opposed to the X140 for instance, which can be logically justified although I personally oppose it. The latter is a possible consequence of the ridiculous idea of withdrawing the 140 from Heathrow Airport. Also the X140 would be situated within an ideal environment that is relatively absent of congestion and dense traffic that an X53 would have to frequently contend with. Additionally, the possibilities are very limited regarding where an X53 can go beyond Plumstead that can be justified, especially when factoring in Crossrail. Furthermore, the 53 has scope for modification to improve journey times at its eastern end and I would say that it would be logical to restructure the 53 to connect to and from Plumstead directly along the A206, leaving the Plumstead Common section to a shorter or local route and certainly leaving the 53 untouched at its western end to sensibly retain its Central London connection.
|
|
|
Post by lonmark on Jul 13, 2017 10:57:27 GMT
I get on bus 472 bus at about 11ish, not really busy routes between north greenwich and Woolwich. It just overbuseses in the section. Route 180 can do exentend to north greenwich but route 161 go to greenwich instead but however there is 286 go to Eltham same as 161.
|
|
|
Post by redexpress on Jul 13, 2017 11:33:43 GMT
The 53 should be kept as is at the SE London end. I think any tinkering should be at the Whitehall end. Perhaps an X53 between Woolwich and Whitehall and a 53 between Plumstead and Elephant or Lambeth North would be a fair restructure. I'm sure TfL are watching the 140 experiment with great interest, with other trunk routes like the 53 in mind. There's zero chance of an X53 happening. TfL are desperate to push as many people onto Crossrail as possible - they're not going to introduce a £1.50 express bus route into central London from Woolwich! The same goes for any radial route that competes with rail services. If we do get more express routes they are likely to be orbital routes like the X26 and X140, i.e. long orbital routes that can't easily be covered by rail.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jul 13, 2017 14:07:05 GMT
Abbey Road also loses a link to Woolwich Yes, that was one of the first things I noticed when I saw the map. It's quite a long drag from Abbey Wood to Belvedere and I recall quite a few people waiting at stops on that road, at different times of day using both 229 and 469. I get the idea of the 469 going via Upper Belvedere to get people to Abbey Wood quickly but was still surprised to see the service on Abbey Road. What about keeping the 180 as it is (at both ends) and sending the 244 via Abbey Road and either the industrial area or to Erith? I don't know enough about the 244 to say how reliable this would be - I've only ever used it on the odd off-peak journey from Thamesmead West to Woolwich. I am not sure how in practice the journey times would be from Abbey Road/Belvedere to Woolwich.....as a guess, going via Thamesmead wouldn't be toooo different to going via Sewell Road and Plumstead High Street, but I'd need to sit down on the laptop and look at maps/times properly to gauge it. I see there is suggestion of running the 301 from Bexleyheath to Abbey Wood only - again I can get the idea behind it (making it more suitable and robust with SD vehicles) but what could make up for the bit round Bentham Road? That would have the 244 going up there on its own......again, Bentham Road is a substantial bit of road and it does get busy round there. Would there be scope for the 177 or 229 to divert (and break a link round Crossway) or even do an N1 type loop finishing back at Boiler House to serve all the main roads in Thamesmead? The latter I can see as a pain due to a decent bus stand and facilities for the drivers....... : 0 There are no end of permutations here all of which have their pros and cons, I'd be inclined to reroute the B11 to the Industrial Estate, leave the 469 as it is and extend the 428 (with double deckers) from Erith via the 99 route to Knee Hill and then to Abbey Wood and Thamesmead. Gives 'The Quarry' a direct link to Abbey Wood and also a link from Thamesmead to Dartford, DVH and Bluewater.
I'd also go along with running the 301 only from Bexleyheath to Abbey Wood and Thamesmead for the direct link to Bexleyheath which should reduce the pressure on the 229. Could just to a one way loop around Thamesmead with all stand time taken at the Bexleyheath end. Then extend the double deck 178 from Woolwich over the proposed 301 route to Abbey Wood which gives Thamesmead a (apparently?) much needed link with Lewisham. Withdraw the single deck 380 between Woolwich and Belmarsh and replace it with a new route (471?) from North Greenwich replacing the 161 to Woolwich and the 380 to Belmarsh, the 161 could then terminate at PD.
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Jul 13, 2017 16:11:49 GMT
There are no end of permutations here all of which have their pros and cons, I'd be inclined to reroute the B11 to the Industrial Estate, leave the 469 as it is and extend the 428 (with double deckers) from Erith via the 99 route to Knee Hill and then to Abbey Wood and Thamesmead. Gives 'The Quarry' a direct link to Abbey Wood and also a link from Thamesmead to Dartford, DVH and Bluewater. Yes.....that is an excellent plan. I know the 428 had been discussed earlier in the thread but looking at it like that, with the amount of useful links from it, and a 4bph DD route catering quite nicely for a planned 5bph SD route really sells it too. I like the idea of not bothering with the 301 and using other routes making up for it.....the 178, running as you say via Bentham Road still gives the faster link into Woolwich, the only thing being the 178 is a 3bph route.....still, the idea of extending something else instead of using the 301 is something I would agree with. Mind you - without the 301 we could get to keep the B11 along Bentham Road, so between the 178, 244 and B11 I reckon a decent level of coverage could be maintained, meaning the 3bph 178 isn't as much of an issue. Funny you mention one way loops - I had toyed with this idea on the 401, again using all the stand at one (Bexleyheath) end. I know we have some experienced members when it comes to the BX routes so a good place to ask the question. I did note the plan about sending B11 up towards the estate - but just toying about not using the 301.....I need to get back home and get the crayons (well, print screen, crtl+v and Microsoft Paint) out to have a decent look/think. Certain between the members a master plan can be worked out!
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Jul 13, 2017 21:26:36 GMT
The 53 should be kept as is at the SE London end. I think any tinkering should be at the Whitehall end. Perhaps an X53 between Woolwich and Whitehall and a 53 between Plumstead and Elephant or Lambeth North would be a fair restructure. I'm sure TfL are watching the 140 experiment with great interest, with other trunk routes like the 53 in mind. The one bus that does seem to carry fresh air between Woolwich and Plumstead is the 122. As extending the 122 isn't really feasible, I think it could be looped back to Woolwich and not missed very much. Deckers on the 301 could easily take on the extra load on that part of the route. The problem in this area is that many local journeys are easier by car. The fight is against taxis and getting people to leave their cars at home. Greenwich council isn't very progressive in its handling of public transport and doesn't seem to grasp the small detail or demand very much. Ideal fodder for TfL in their current predicament. I think the 122 goes to PD largely for operational convenience. If the 122 was ever taken by another operator, I suspect it would fall back to Woolwich.
|
|