|
Post by danorak on Nov 16, 2022 20:28:31 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."
Which is fair enough but still leaves the question of where you turn the X239 at Grove Park. I wonder whether the existing building in the bus station might go and that space used to create another bay. Who owns the empty bit of land behind? Maybe it could extend back a bit into that too. Otherwise there are no obvious locations and routes have foundered on less (I think the proposals as they stand are sorely lacking but I'll muse on that further later.) I can appreciate TfL's talk of not competing with other modes but it seems a bit much to miss out North Greenwich entirely, not simply because of the station, but because of the O2.
|
|
|
Post by rift on Nov 16, 2022 20:40:26 GMT
X239 really feels like a missed opportunity. No stops at North Greenwich or Canning Town, and linking Bromley to NG could’ve at least been done by having every other bus go there.
Reducing the 108 makes no sense at all, especially if an X239 won’t stop at North Greenwich, but at least it finally no longer has to do the long way to the station coming out the tunnel.
|
|
|
Post by Paul on Nov 16, 2022 22:07:12 GMT
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. On paper, Bromley North might have the space but in practice, it’s full. Terminating a new service in Bromley would probably require the currently unused Simpsons Road stand to be brought into use Certainly terminating a service at Grove Park from that direction is awkward and without expanding the current bus station, would probably result in a lengthy loop working. Perhaps extending along Downham Way to terminate in Downham would work?
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Nov 16, 2022 23:46:25 GMT
If the option is taken for the X239 to serve Orchard Place (for the City Island development), I could perhaps see this replace the D3, as there probably wouldn't be the demand for two routes between Canary Wharf and Leamouth.
If there is significant opposition to the consulted D3 changes (removing a service from the Wapping-Limehouse section), perhaps the D3 could return to operate between Bethnal Green and Crossharbour?
Also note the consulation mentions that all routes using the tunnels are expected to use electrics, suggesting the overdue 129 tender result will likely require new vehicles regardless of the operator. Unless perhaps there might just be an upgrade when the extension takes place, considering the PVR will increase significantly (with WH and DS wired up north of the river)? This could even involve a short term contract award until the tunnel opens, similar to the 266 prior to the Acton cut back?
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Nov 17, 2022 0:34:34 GMT
Bromley North may just be able to since the 320 moved out. On paper, Bromley North might have the space but in practice, it’s full. Terminating a new service in Bromley would probably require the currently unused Simpsons Road stand to be brought into use Certainly terminating a service at Grove Park from that direction is awkward and without expanding the current bus station, would probably result in a lengthy loop working. Perhaps extending along Downham Way to terminate in Downham would work? Thinking about it, you'd probably need some carriageway works to enable a left turn out of the bus stand at Grove Park. Given there's no obvious alternative from the north, perhaps the 181 or 136 may have to move out to stand in a nearby street. I'd hope TfL had an option in mind before releasing the consultation.
|
|
|
Post by ilovelondonbuses on Nov 17, 2022 0:35:42 GMT
I wonder how plausible it would be to delay the route 129 award and retender the route in Tranche 879 where route X239 is also due to be tendered. Route 129 could then continue on its existing contact with its current vehicles until 2025. The reason why I have suggested this is because when route 129 is extended to Beckton it will have a significant frequency and PVR increase thus operators having to buy a new batch of zero emission buses for the route will have cost their bids accordingly.
|
|
|
Post by stuckonthe486 on Nov 17, 2022 1:37:26 GMT
It's a bit of a mess, this, especially for something that's been promoted as a "public transport-focused crossing" for the past six years. From a south-of-the-river perspective, where to start? 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."
The devils are in the detail and the planning document really is worth a read. And bearing in mind the total cost of the Silvertown Tunnel project is about £2 billion (to be paid by the tolls), then you'd have expected the relatively small cost of implementing the bus network in the early years to have been included in that. And that would include finding extra stand space and making consequential tweaks to other routes. It doesn't appear to be the case here, although I'm willing to be corrected if someone here knows better. The modelling baffles me. It doesn't seem to include the effect of fares and the way they are currently charged. It feels somewhat as if it's been set up to provide as little inconveience/cost to TfL as possible. Which could be understandable in a time of austerity, but looks downright odd if you're a mayor who's been banging on for six years about a "public transport-focused tunnel" that's effectively off the books. If I was in charge and lumbered with that tunnel, the first thing I would do would extend the 472 to Canary Wharf, and run it 24/7. You can bang on as much as you like about Abbey Wood Crossrail being a game changer, but if you live in the north of Thamesmead and use the 472 to get to a poorly-paid role in the City or Canary Wharf, then it's going to be a big leap in costs to use Zone 4 Abbey Wood rather than Zone 2 North Greenwich. Yet because the modelling does not appear to take fares into account, it rules out anything east of Charlton. As for the rest of it, the sudden leap in frequency of the 129 doesn't make sense when we've just had a cutback on that corridor south of the river with the rerouting of the 180. And the future 129 looks like a very irksome route if you wanted to make a longer than average journey (that's an interesting line in the document too). The X239 looks like an attempt to relieve pressure at Lewisham station and the DLR interchange - give the Blackheath bankers a fast bus to Canary Wharf. If that's the logic, you might as well run it onto Bromley (more bankers) and deal with some of those huge queues for the 126/261 outside Grove Park each evening. But it's odd that there isn't a service from, say, Blackheath Royal Standard to Canary Wharf. For all the energy Greenwich Council put into campaigning for the tunnel a decade ago, their only new bus serves just two stops in that borough, on Shooters Hill Road. Then there's the missing 335 - ruled out, in the main, because the original plan was to run it via Charlton. That's one strange box-ticking exercise. The phantom Kidbrooke-Wanstead Park 335 doesn't seem a bad bus in my book, especially if it went via Westcombe Hill. All in all, it's a wasted opportunity. One extra point... North Greenwich is a fine traffic objective, but the bus station isn't fit for purpose (particularly on event nights) and plans for a replacement don't look much better. A bus that went straight to Canary Wharf from south of the river would work very well - same tube links, plus DLR and Crossrail, and would save a shedload of time.
|
|
|
Post by busman on Nov 17, 2022 6:54:57 GMT
X239 really feels like a missed opportunity. No stops at North Greenwich or Canning Town, and linking Bromley to NG could’ve at least been done by having every other bus go there. Reducing the 108 makes no sense at all, especially if an X239 won’t stop at North Greenwich, but at least it finally no longer has to do the long way to the station coming out the tunnel. This is why I think TfL must have substantial data to show significant current or pent up demand from the Shooters Hill/Blackheath/Lee/Grove Park areas to and from Canary Wharf. Having an express route would provide rapid access to jobs in the area and access to the Lizzie Line. I think the x239 will be a winner. Also the weird number seems to suggest that a 239 is in the planning.
|
|
|
Post by Green Kitten on Nov 17, 2022 7:12:15 GMT
I see the 239 number is finally getting use after Hammersmith Bridge killed the Roehampton to Acton Vale plans. (I’m confused about why people are complaining about the number. It’s a new route, let it be what it wants to be. It’s not a 11/507 situation).
X routes from South London into CW really do seem like a good idea.
Always thought the tunnel would be a little bit east of where it actually happens to be…
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Nov 17, 2022 7:16:59 GMT
On paper, Bromley North might have the space but in practice, it’s full. Terminating a new service in Bromley would probably require the currently unused Simpsons Road stand to be brought into use Certainly terminating a service at Grove Park from that direction is awkward and without expanding the current bus station, would probably result in a lengthy loop working. Perhaps extending along Downham Way to terminate in Downham would work? Thinking about it, you'd probably need some carriageway works to enable a left turn out of the bus stand at Grove Park. Given there's no obvious alternative from the north, perhaps the 181 or 136 may have to move out to stand in a nearby street. I'd hope TfL had an option in mind before releasing the consultation. The 181 could possibly be extended to the cemetery where the 284 terminates? www.fromthemurkydepths.co.uk/2022/11/16/tfl-launch-consultation-on-silvertown-tunnel-bus-routes/
|
|
|
Post by northlondon83 on Nov 17, 2022 9:09:51 GMT
X239 really feels like a missed opportunity. No stops at North Greenwich or Canning Town, and linking Bromley to NG could’ve at least been done by having every other bus go there. Reducing the 108 makes no sense at all, especially if an X239 won’t stop at North Greenwich, but at least it finally no longer has to do the long way to the station coming out the tunnel. Perhaps extend the 335 from Kidbrooke to Bromley, remvoing the double run on Moorehead Way, then extend via A20 to Horn Park, South Circular to Lee, and 261 to Bromley North
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Nov 17, 2022 9:44:20 GMT
If the option is taken for the X239 to serve Orchard Place (for the City Island development), I could perhaps see this replace the D3, as there probably wouldn't be the demand for two routes between Canary Wharf and Leamouth. If there is significant opposition to the consulted D3 changes (removing a service from the Wapping-Limehouse section), perhaps the D3 could return to operate between Bethnal Green and Crossharbour? Also note the consulation mentions that all routes using the tunnels are expected to use electrics, suggesting the overdue 129 tender result will likely require new vehicles regardless of the operator. Unless perhaps there might just be an upgrade when the extension takes place, considering the PVR will increase significantly (with WH and DS wired up north of the river)? This could even involve a short term contract award until the tunnel opens, similar to the 266 prior to the Acton cut back? What will be interesting is who bids for the 129 as I am not convinced the tunnel will be ready by 2025! I assume tenders won’t be submitted until the tunnel is closer to opening? It’s not a issue if say GAL retains the route as they can keep running the route from the south and possibly move the route to DS once the tunnel opens but say Stagecoach wins the route would they have a garage in the south that could run the route if the plan was for WH to run the route once the tunnel opens.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Nov 17, 2022 10:55:50 GMT
If the option is taken for the X239 to serve Orchard Place (for the City Island development), I could perhaps see this replace the D3, as there probably wouldn't be the demand for two routes between Canary Wharf and Leamouth. If there is significant opposition to the consulted D3 changes (removing a service from the Wapping-Limehouse section), perhaps the D3 could return to operate between Bethnal Green and Crossharbour? Also note the consulation mentions that all routes using the tunnels are expected to use electrics, suggesting the overdue 129 tender result will likely require new vehicles regardless of the operator. Unless perhaps there might just be an upgrade when the extension takes place, considering the PVR will increase significantly (with WH and DS wired up north of the river)? This could even involve a short term contract award until the tunnel opens, similar to the 266 prior to the Acton cut back? What will be interesting is who bids for the 129 as I am not convinced the tunnel will be ready by 2025! I assume tenders won’t be submitted until the tunnel is closer to opening? It’s not a issue if say GAL retains the route as they can keep running the route from the south and possibly move the route to DS once the tunnel opens but say Stagecoach wins the route would they have a garage in the south that could run the route if the plan was for WH to run the route once the tunnel opens. The 129 could easily run from TL since the Lewisham extension
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Nov 17, 2022 14:10:01 GMT
If the option is taken for the X239 to serve Orchard Place (for the City Island development), I could perhaps see this replace the D3, as there probably wouldn't be the demand for two routes between Canary Wharf and Leamouth. If there is significant opposition to the consulted D3 changes (removing a service from the Wapping-Limehouse section), perhaps the D3 could return to operate between Bethnal Green and Crossharbour? Also note the consulation mentions that all routes using the tunnels are expected to use electrics, suggesting the overdue 129 tender result will likely require new vehicles regardless of the operator. Unless perhaps there might just be an upgrade when the extension takes place, considering the PVR will increase significantly (with WH and DS wired up north of the river)? This could even involve a short term contract award until the tunnel opens, similar to the 266 prior to the Acton cut back? What will be interesting is who bids for the 129 as I am not convinced the tunnel will be ready by 2025! I assume tenders won’t be submitted until the tunnel is closer to opening? It’s not a issue if say GAL retains the route as they can keep running the route from the south and possibly move the route to DS once the tunnel opens but say Stagecoach wins the route would they have a garage in the south that could run the route if the plan was for WH to run the route once the tunnel opens. TL runs many routes in Lewisham so wouldn't be a huge issue, chances are Stagecoach would have bid for the 129 even if it wasn't being extended north of the river. Arriva as well could probably make it work out of DT and then move it up north once the tunnel opens too.
|
|
|
Post by ronnie on Nov 18, 2022 17:44:21 GMT
Having thought about this - seems quite underwhelming and disappointing which is typical of most things in the mayor’s tenure. Overpromise, under deliver, only the Lycra louts are happy
From 37.5bph to 15bph - emerging market politicians skim less than this guy
Regarding the changes: - 108: minor change, nothing worth writing home about. In case people havnt picked up this will drop in frequency to every 12 min (from current 10) which I think does a massive disservice to the royal standard / westCombe park corridor (and beyond) given the disruptions this route typically suffers. Morning commute just got messier - 129: running this every 8 min is going to be a monumental challenge given the very empty cycle lane which has killed off. I expect severe bunching on this. Wasn’t this cut back from 10 min to 12 min a few weeks back? Don’t think demand has increased in the interim and at best an every 10ml min frequency seems justified (which I believe will happen sooner rather than later as part of a sneaky cutback). Very imaginative route to get it to, where else, beckton. At least it’s not going to East Ham - X239: another missed opportunity. I overall love the concept and have some sympathies as to the route (more below) but goes by the wrong route. At the south it should terminate at Bromley south (where the 126 stands currently). I struggle to see how it will work reliably in the morning peaks at every 8 min without severe bunching - has anyone stood at Blackheath to see the traffic? It’s normally bumper to bumper the entire time. Not to forget the 132 is on diversion through 335 LOR half the time in the morning so inevitably this will meet the same fate. The lack of interchange at North Greenwich is very disappointing (selfishly I would have jumped on to this) - my guess is that tfl didn’t want to cannibalise riders from the 108/335 onto this as else people in that corridor will skip at 12 min 108 / 12-15 min 335 to crowd onto a 8-min X239!
So no new links frankly. At least an extended 304/241/330 to North Greenwich / Charlton / Eltham would have created some new popular links but hey who cares. I am also fully sure that frequencies will be watered down stealthily to every 10 min at the onset!
|
|