|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Aug 28, 2021 13:09:02 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 28, 2021 13:15:51 GMT
So as usual, these people throw accusations around without any evidence and the MP has already brought it hook, line & sinker. And just to add, the frequency isn’t based on their end of the route - have they forgot that the 165 & 287 come from much busier end of the route in Romford & Barking respectively |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Aug 28, 2021 13:21:55 GMT
An independent assessment is needed. |
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Aug 28, 2021 13:36:21 GMT
So as usual, these people throw accusations around without any evidence and the MP has already brought it hook, line & sinker. And just to add, the frequency isn’t based on their end of the route - have they forgot that the 165 & 287 come from much busier end of the route in Romford & Barking respectively Completely agree. And then you have surrounding residents who will be disadvantaged by the 287 cutback likely. |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Aug 28, 2021 13:55:14 GMT
So as usual, these people throw accusations around without any evidence and the MP has already brought it hook, line & sinker. And just to add, the frequency isn’t based on their end of the route - have they forgot that the 165 & 287 come from much busier end of the route in Romford & Barking respectively Completely agree. And then you have surrounding residents who will be disadvantaged by the 287 cutback likely. But presumably if it was your house you would expect something done about it? Independent inspection would seem the way to go. |
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Aug 28, 2021 14:08:10 GMT
Completely agree. And then you have surrounding residents who will be disadvantaged by the 287 cutback likely. But presumably if it was your house you would expect something done about it? Independent inspection would seem the way to go. It's not always the bus that's the problem though, I'd encourage if TFL were to look into this to look at the road for example and to see if anything like speed bumps is affecting the vibrations and cracks in the walls or an uneven terrain.
I'd also add that one of the roads they suggested removing the 287 off of was Upminster Road North, a main road that probably has all sorts going down it such as larger vehicles (given the road is within a reasonable proximity to the M25 I'd assume some of them would be trucks) which I'm sure would make just as much noise if not more noise than a bus?
If this were to be proceeded with, there would be no suitable turning point available after Rainham Interchange/Tesco. This would mean Upminster Road South, which has not been named in the article as a road residents wanted the 287 removed from would lose the 287 as well, even if they encouraged it staying.
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 28, 2021 14:47:12 GMT
According to posts elsewhere, these are the same residents who moaned when the 165 & 287 were cutback temporarily due to works a while back. A double decker wouldn’t cause that type of damage not to mention the 165 is already a single decker route and the 287 has been double decker for many decades yet here they are only moaning now
|
|
