|
Post by VMH2537 on Nov 16, 2022 15:00:30 GMT
Agree, x239 is a completely illogical number for the proposed route. The number 239 doesn’t even hold any historical significance for routes in the area. My only conclusion is that TfL had or have plans to introduce a 239 somewhere along the line. Interesting that the route will be non-stop from Sun-in-the-sands to Leamouth completely skipping North Greenwich. TfL must have good data showing a healthy flow of journeys from Grove Park, Lee and Blackheath into the Canary Wharf area. Overall, this is a bit of a nothing consultation tbh. Disappointed that we don’t get links into useful destinations deep into E/NE London. For people local to North Greenwich we only get one new link - the 129 via LCY and Gallions Reach. No new links to any major destinations north of the river. A service and links are more critical to what users care about, A number is there just to define what a route is and the services they provide. Just because certain enthusiasts hate the number doesn't mean anyone else would. I never heard anyone complaining the 82 was remembered into the 13.
|
|
|
Post by lundnah on Nov 16, 2022 15:05:29 GMT
The supporting document explaining rationales, options, alternative routings and costings is really interesting...
...and should be read by anyone proposing to leave a "this is not what I would have done I would have done it like this" comment
I don't particularly like some of the choices made, but I can see why TfL made them.
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Nov 16, 2022 15:05:34 GMT
Not sure the X239 idea really works as an express route. It misses key interchanges at both Canning Town and North Greenwich, and generally I can't see there being enough demand for a limited stop route on this corridor. Many passengers commuting to Canary Wharf from around Blackheath and Grove Park will still prefer to travel to Lewisham then take the DLR. I also think a link through the tunnel to Canary Wharf should ideally continue through to the rest of the Isle of Dogs, providing a link from the area around Crossharbour direct to North Greenwich. This could perhaps replace the proposed D3 routeing, with the 100/D3 instead left unchanged. And to the south of the river, rather than introducing another North Greenwich to Blackheath route, it might make more sense to instead send the 108 through the Silvertown Tunnel to allow DDs to be introduced for extra capacity (also swapping with the D8 in the Bow area). If a Grove Park link is needed, the 335 could extend there from Kidbrooke? Also, with the 330 rerouted through the tunnel, I assume TFL intend on replacing the Pontoon Dock section, could perhaps extend the 323? The X239 could serve Canning Town if it ran via Silvertown Way then via East India Dock Road around to Leamouth but can be very congested in that area and probably worse once the tunnel opens. The 129 also misses Canning Town unless it did a double run along Silvertown Way but that would very unlikely happen.
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Nov 16, 2022 15:08:23 GMT
The supporting document explaining rationales, options, alternative routings and costings is really interesting...
...and should be read by anyone proposing to leave a "this is not what I would have done I would have done it like this" comment
I don't particularly like some of the choices made, but I can see why TfL made them.
You just know there will be weeks of alternative proposals now 🤪
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Nov 16, 2022 15:12:08 GMT
The supporting document explaining rationales, options, alternative routings and costings is really interesting...
...and should be read by anyone proposing to leave a "this is not what I would have done I would have done it like this" comment
I don't particularly like some of the choices made, but I can see why TfL made them.
Well said....
|
|
|
Post by VMH2537 on Nov 16, 2022 15:12:11 GMT
Agree, x239 is a completely illogical number for the proposed route. The number 239 doesn’t even hold any historical significance for routes in the area. My only conclusion is that TfL had or have plans to introduce a 239 somewhere along the line. Interesting that the route will be non-stop from Sun-in-the-sands to Leamouth completely skipping North Greenwich. TfL must have good data showing a healthy flow of journeys from Grove Park, Lee and Blackheath into the Canary Wharf area. Overall, this is a bit of a nothing consultation tbh. Disappointed that we don’t get links into useful destinations deep into E/NE London. For people local to North Greenwich we only get one new link - the 129 via LCY and Gallions Reach. No new links to any major destinations north of the river. Many of the existing modes provide wide connections north such as the Jubilee Line to Stratford with interchange opportunities. The 129 extensions will create unique links to the Beckton and City Airport. Whilst yes, I do also feel more unique links could've been created such as extending the 304 linking East Ham or even the N472 to Canary Wharf or Stratford.
|
|
|
Post by ThinLizzy on Nov 16, 2022 15:52:41 GMT
For me, the 129 proposal should be a separate route in its own right rather than just a extension that has just been plonked onto another route.
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Nov 16, 2022 16:01:33 GMT
For me, the 129 proposal should be a separate route in its own right rather than just a extension that has just been plonked onto another route. It’s a joke especially in Beckton as it runs on the withdrawn 300 section which according to TfL was over bussed and then duplicates the 262 all the way to Gallions Reach and doesn’t even reach the retail park. Looks like the future is just lump bits onto the end of random routes. The X239 feels like it’s about 10 years too late.
|
|
|
Post by ThinLizzy on Nov 16, 2022 16:48:40 GMT
For me, the 129 proposal should be a separate route in its own right rather than just a extension that has just been plonked onto another route. It’s a joke especially in Beckton as it runs on the withdrawn 300 section which according to TfL was over bussed and then duplicates the 262 all the way to Gallions Reach and doesn’t even reach the retail park. Looks like the future is just lump bits onto the end of random routes. The X239 feels like it’s about 10 years too late. Not wishing to be one of those who come s up with a "million" alternatives. However, the 101 would have been perfect for "Great Eastern Quay" especially as it would link the area to Cyprus, Beckton and East Ham. With a bit of thought, TfL could have come up with something that would have really worked well for both areas.
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Nov 16, 2022 17:18:43 GMT
It’s a joke especially in Beckton as it runs on the withdrawn 300 section which according to TfL was over bussed and then duplicates the 262 all the way to Gallions Reach and doesn’t even reach the retail park. Looks like the future is just lump bits onto the end of random routes. The X239 feels like it’s about 10 years too late. Not wishing to be one of those who come s up with a "million" alternatives. However, the 101 would have been perfect for "Great Eastern Quay" especially as it would link the area to Cyprus, Beckton and East Ham. With a bit of thought, TfL could have come up with something that would have really worked well for both areas. Certainly would have gave the 101 a bit of purpose and would have taken pressure off Beckton bus station. I do wonder what the obsession with East Ham and Beckton is with TfL. A lot of the new housing in Newham is not exactly social and it’s expensive rented accommodation and those living there probably prefer trains and Uber.
|
|
|
Post by tbmlondon on Nov 16, 2022 19:21:56 GMT
Is there enough stand space at Grove Park bus station for the 136, 181 and X239?
|
|
|
Post by lonmark on Nov 16, 2022 19:30:02 GMT
Is there enough stand space at Grove Park bus station for the 136, 181 and X239? oh yeah, that good question, from what I see which only has 4 bus stands, and that's it.
|
|
|
Post by lundnah on Nov 16, 2022 19:35:16 GMT
Is there enough stand space at Grove Park bus station for the 136, 181 and X239? oh yeah, that good question, from what I see which only has 4 bus stands, and that's it. Like I said, do read the planning document.
"Delivering the recommended opening bus network will require a number of other infrastructure interventions. These include provision of bus stands at the ends of routes; driver toilets; bus priority, bus stops and the necessary infrastructure to electrify the fleet. Of particular note will be finding a bus stand in Grove Park."
|
|
|
Post by northlondon83 on Nov 16, 2022 19:41:59 GMT
I hope the X239 receives a better number in practice, it’s awfully clunky as it is now. What about X48 or X10 or X82? Why not X1? It doesn't have to correspond with the 1, after all the 26 and X26 have nothing in common. The X26 used to be the 726 iirc
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Nov 16, 2022 19:49:08 GMT
oh yeah, that good question, from what I see which only has 4 bus stands, and that's it. Like I said, do read the planning document. "Delivering the recommended opening bus network will require a number of other infrastructure interventions. These include provision of bus stands at the ends of routes; driver toilets; bus priority, bus stops and the necessary infrastructure to electrify the fleet. Of particular note will be finding a bus stand in Grove Park."
Bromley North may just be able to since the 320 moved out.
|
|