|
Post by paulsw2 on Feb 4, 2019 2:16:09 GMT
I definetly think another Elephant to Surrey Quays route would be appreciated. It could allow the 1 to drop to maybe every 12 mins as Elephant to Holborn is fairly well bussed and it would reduce the number of buses around Aldwych and Holborn. How about extending the 415 via Dunton Road to Sourthwark Park road then onwards to Surrey Quays pretty cheap extension extra 3 buses on the PVR
|
|
|
Post by redexpress on Feb 4, 2019 6:28:02 GMT
One of the problems the 1 has suffered is being along along Southwark Park Road. Untill 1999 there was the 199 every 15 mins as far at Elephant to provide assistance. Similar to how the 343 struggled for years. As you say, Southwark Park Road has often suffered a poor service. This corner of SE London was neglected by LT and successors, but at least the Jubilee Line has brought some alleviation. I felt back in the 1970s that a flat fare circular service was needed from Waterloo out via the 188 to Surrey Docks (Quays) then back via the 1 to Waterloo, with both way running via the loop, similar to the S1 Stratford/ East Ham circular. I've said it before, but the lack of a suitable garage within easy reach made such a proposition unlikely to succeed, NX, PM, Q, WL et al being just too far away in practice. The Jubilee Line helped, but also led to a worsening of the bus service along Southwark Park Road. The reasoning behind the 199 being cut back to Canada Water was that most people would switch to the Jub and that the 1 would be sufficient to cover demand for Southwark Park Road. This proved to be a miscalculation; in the early days Blue Triangle had to be drafted in to provide emergency peak extras over the route.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Feb 4, 2019 9:00:37 GMT
It's a shame the 199 couldn't have been restored to the section really even if it had a double run via Canada Water to maintain a link to the tube .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2019 9:08:08 GMT
Wasn't that the same rationale behind the congestion charge though? Some/most people will still pay regardless as it would be cheaper than buying a permitted vehicle/less stressful than public transport, same as the congestion charge. Nothing will change, although I hope it does.
At a combined £21.50 per day it is likely to have an effect. From October 2021 the ULEZ extends to the North and South Circular boundary. The 2021 extension to the Circulars boundary I think will have the greater effect personally.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Feb 4, 2019 12:50:12 GMT
Surveys being done on the 188. I think a conclusion could be to cut it to Elephant reducing buses through Aldwych and maybe even vacating Russell Square for either the 59 or 68.
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Feb 4, 2019 13:04:25 GMT
Surveys being done on the 188. I think a conclusion could be to cut it to Elephant reducing buses through Aldwych and maybe even vacating Russell Square for either the 59 or 68. I know for the New Bermondsey Network Development paper a cut of the 188 to E&C was proposed in return for two new routes, of which one would go to Aldwych. However I'd really not want the 188 of all routes to get cut back, it's an important link into Central London from Cutty Sark and is far easier than the rail alternatives.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Feb 4, 2019 13:10:59 GMT
I would imagine now the proposed changes in the New Bermondsey Paper would only go ahead if a saving is made elsewhere.
I agree that the 188 is a route I would rather stay in central London to maintain the link to Greenwich.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Feb 4, 2019 14:37:10 GMT
Surveys being done on the 188. I think a conclusion could be to cut it to Elephant reducing buses through Aldwych and maybe even vacating Russell Square for either the 59 or 68. There isn’t any space at Elephant for the 188 given the 45 & 171 will be terminating there - the 388 will give space presumably to the 45 but the 171 is less certain. Presumably, the survey is probably for a frequency decrease or something similar.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2019 15:52:19 GMT
Surveys being done on the 188. I think a conclusion could be to cut it to Elephant reducing buses through Aldwych and maybe even vacating Russell Square for either the 59 or 68. There isn’t any space at Elephant for the 188 given the 45 & 171 will be terminating there - the 388 will give space presumably to the 45 but the 171 is less certain. Presumably, the survey is probably for a frequency decrease or something similar. A new stand could be created at the Elephant? I know one possible location could be on Newington Butts where there is a very long bus lane.
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Feb 4, 2019 19:18:48 GMT
Maybe we could even extend the 1 to TB and discontinue the 199 and pull the 320 back to Bromley North. Fantasy I know. The 1 to TB was a hugely unreliable route even fifty years ago, when it ran from Waterloo, with a partially overlapping service from Marylebone to Surrey Docks. I had cause to use it for a period of time, and if it hadn't been for my staff free travel I'd have been even more fed up with it than I was. Even offpeak, I'd doubt more than 50% of the scheduled service ever got through to TB, and I never, over a span of several years, saw two no. 1s in Bromley in the space of a few minutes. They were rare beasts indeed! Too true, and the 1 wasn't much better at the Marylebone end either.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Feb 5, 2019 21:03:36 GMT
Does anybody have any experience of the second incarnation of the 1 (1987-91). Was it reliable, were many actually seen in Bromley. I know from the timetable it had a journey time of 93 mins! and ran every 15 mins.
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Feb 5, 2019 21:43:38 GMT
Does anybody have any experience of the second incarnation of the 1 (1987-91). Was it reliable, were many actually seen in Bromley. I know from the timetable it had a journey time of 93 mins! and ran every 15 mins. I'll have to pass on that one, as I moved from SE London in 1988 and never even visited it again until around 1991: too busy working 70 hour weeks!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2019 22:02:49 GMT
Does anybody have any experience of the second incarnation of the 1 (1987-91). Was it reliable, were many actually seen in Bromley. I know from the timetable it had a journey time of 93 mins! and ran every 15 mins. It was mainly operated by TB.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Feb 5, 2019 22:18:04 GMT
I'm guessing TB looked after the Bromley Common to T Square journeys with NX doing the shorts to Surrey Quays. May have been one of the reasons for the split in 91 that different divisions in the run up to privatisations. It would not have been considered efficient to send buses from TB or TL to Surrey Quays for the shorts.
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Feb 6, 2019 11:37:09 GMT
It should be remembered that from April the ULEZ will mean older cars and vans will have to pay a significant extra pollution.charge inside the congestion zone. At the same time minicabs will lose their exemption from the congestion charge. This is bound to reduce the volume of traffic. The road closures needed for the Holborn station upgrade will reduce the road space in the area and rule out additional stands there. I don't think there will be any great change to the number of vehicles in the congestion charge zone as a result of the ULEZ. Most vehicles entering the zone during controlled hours I suspect are already compliant.
As for PHVs having to pay the congestion charge, this I don't think will make a huge difference. This is because the charge is per day, and not per journey. Once a PHV has paid the CC for the day, there is every incentive to stay in the zone, gain more journeys and 'make the most of having paid it'. You may even find an increase in the number of PHVs for this reason.
Let's wait and see, but I don't think these changes will make much difference to the number of vehicles in the congestion charge zone, but I would be delighted to be proved wrong.
Pretty sure there will be PHV levy to cover ... so after many pickups ... They will probably end up making more money.
|
|