|
|
Post by lundnah on Feb 27, 2023 21:42:14 GMT
TfL are consulting on removing route 344 from Southwark Bridge.
At present it crosses the bridge southbound only after a northbound diversion via London Bridge was introduced to facilitate construction of the upgraded station at Bank.
The proposal is to make this diversion permanent and also to reroute southbound buses over London Bridge. This is to enable cycle/pedestrian improvements on Fish Street Hill and Arthur Road which would no longer be suitable for bus traffic.
When Arthur Street was closed in 2015 the 344 bus route was diverted via London Bridge (northbound) and Southwark Bridge (southbound) to avoid the closed road. We are proposing to permanently route the 344 via London Bridge (northbound and southbound); this reflects the diversion northbound in place since 2015. The proposed route via London Bridge (northbound and southbound) would have an overall benefit to customers and maintain an accessible bus route to and from London Bridge, as well as allowing for the proposed improvements to Arthur Street for pedestrians and cyclists.
We have looked at whether we could continue to run the 344 over Southwark Bridge. We do not think this would be feasible due to the changes to the junction of Upper Thames Street and Arthur Street as part of the CS3 proposals.
Any changes to Arthur Street and the routing of the 344 bus following feedback to this consultation, could be made in Summer 2023.
|
|
|
|
Post by YX10FFN on Feb 27, 2023 22:01:10 GMT
TfL are consulting on removing route 344 from Southwark Bridge.
Looks like they've made their mind up already and this consultation process is entirely hollow. Waste of money. |
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Feb 27, 2023 22:11:53 GMT
Inevitable really, would no longer serve two stops on Southwark Bridge and serves four busier stops instead. Not really sustainable to serve such a major destination as London Bridge in one direction only.
I don’t know this was wasn’t done as part of the City bridge’s consultation.
I like the idea of a direct bus service from Southwark Street to the City. Plus a bit more capacity provided between Bishopsgate and London Bridge following the withdrawal of the 48.
|
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Feb 27, 2023 22:31:40 GMT
Inevitable really, would no longer serve two stops on Southwark Bridge and serves four busier stops instead. Not really sustainable to serve such a major destination as London Bridge in one direction only. I don’t know this was wasn’t done as part of the City bridge’s consultation. I like the idea of a direct bus service from Southwark Street to the City. Plus a bit more capacity provided between Bishopsgate and London Bridge following the withdrawal of the 48. Will also add a bit of capacity once the 133 is lost to Liverpool Street. |
|
|
|
Post by ilovelondonbuses on Feb 27, 2023 23:15:02 GMT
I’m in support of this move actually especially when route 133 is being rerouted from Liverpool Street to Holborn. Southwark Bridge nowadays doesn’t need a route over it in my view.
I have a feeling this will happen in conjunction with the route 133 change in Summer 2023 like the consultation states.
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Feb 28, 2023 0:09:31 GMT
I’m in support of this move actually especially when route 133 is being rerouted from Liverpool Street to Holborn. Southwark Bridge nowadays doesn’t need a route over it in my view. I have a feeling this will happen in conjunction with the route 133 change in Summer 2023 like the consultation states. I actually think they should return it to it's 90's state and curtail it to London Bridge (or City Hall if stand space is an issue) like it did under Limebourne & London General and leave the 133 as it is - obviously wishful thinking on the latter but the 133 to Liverpool Street is an important objective, arguably more important than the 344. |
|
|
|
Post by mkay315 on Feb 28, 2023 6:39:26 GMT
I’m in support of this move actually especially when route 133 is being rerouted from Liverpool Street to Holborn. Southwark Bridge nowadays doesn’t need a route over it in my view. I have a feeling this will happen in conjunction with the route 133 change in Summer 2023 like the consultation states. I actually think they should return it to it's 90's state and curtail it to London Bridge (or City Hall if stand space is an issue) like it did under Limebourne & London General and leave the 133 as it is - obviously wishful thinking on the latter but the 133 to Liverpool Street is an important objective, arguably more important than the 344. Two words = Hopper Fare. That's the strapline they will use to justify this move. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Feb 28, 2023 7:42:00 GMT
I’m in support of this move actually especially when route 133 is being rerouted from Liverpool Street to Holborn. Southwark Bridge nowadays doesn’t need a route over it in my view. I have a feeling this will happen in conjunction with the route 133 change in Summer 2023 like the consultation states. I actually think they should return it to it's 90's state and curtail it to London Bridge (or City Hall if stand space is an issue) like it did under Limebourne & London General and leave the 133 as it is - obviously wishful thinking on the latter but the 133 to Liverpool Street is an important objective, arguably more important than the 344. Or could the 344 run to Holborn instead of the 133? |
|
|
|
Post by cl54 on Feb 28, 2023 8:34:52 GMT
I actually think they should return it to it's 90's state and curtail it to London Bridge (or City Hall if stand space is an issue) like it did under Limebourne & London General and leave the 133 as it is - obviously wishful thinking on the latter but the 133 to Liverpool Street is an important objective, arguably more important than the 344. Two words = Hopper Fare. That's the strapline they will use to justify this move. Hopper fare doesn't work if there are no buses over the bridge. The are important places on the South Bank of the Thames that deserve a service. It was announced yesterday at the opening of the new entrance to Bank station in Cannon Street that work to re-open Arthur Street is in hand. The proposal leaves a large area without access to a bus. |
|
|
|
Post by cardinal on Feb 28, 2023 8:37:36 GMT
Khan wasting money again
Just do it i don’t think it matters too much
Keeps some officials in a job though doesnt it
|
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Feb 28, 2023 9:06:59 GMT
The consultation is nothing more than a box ticking exercise although a route could perhaps be extended from Elephant & Castle to Mansion House in part compensation? An extension of the 333 would almost recreate the old 95.
|
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Feb 28, 2023 10:16:26 GMT
Khan wasting money again Just do it i don’t think it matters too much Keeps some officials in a job though doesnt it The impact statements and consultation are a statutory requirement. It may be a waste of money in your view but TfL is obliged to do it. |
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Feb 28, 2023 12:52:30 GMT
Two words = Hopper Fare. That's the strapline they will use to justify this move. Hopper fare doesn't work if there are no buses over the bridge. The are important places on the South Bank of the Thames that deserve a service. It was announced yesterday at the opening of the new entrance to Bank station in Cannon Street that work to re-open Arthur Street is in hand. The proposal leaves a large area without access to a bus. Only two bus stops would no longer be served in the southbound direction so although it might look like a big area on a map at present the bus is mostly just running straight through it without stopping. I think the new links created will be popular. |
|
|
|
Post by cardinal on Feb 28, 2023 12:59:45 GMT
Khan wasting money again Just do it i don’t think it matters too much Keeps some officials in a job though doesnt it The impact statements and consultation are a statutory requirement. It may be a waste of money in your view but TfL is obliged to do it. Madness mate. Don’t understand that whatsoever. Yet a frequency cut , no consultation. I wonder why. |
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Feb 28, 2023 13:08:14 GMT
The impact statements and consultation are a statutory requirement. It may be a waste of money in your view but TfL is obliged to do it. Madness mate. Don’t understand that whatsoever. Yet a frequency cut , no consultation. I wonder why. Frequency reductions (and for that matter, increases) are decided upon after analysing statistics such as passenger numbers and overall capacity required, and are largely a business or operating decision. They do not impact on individual users in the same way that changing or withdrawing a route can do. |
|
