|
Post by Ice Prxnce on Dec 4, 2013 22:46:50 GMT
Good news if true. Relieves the pressure on the 343 in North Peckham and the Aylesbury Estate towards Elephant and Peckham while giving new connections to other parts of SE London. It'll also release capacity at Peckham Bus Station, which could be used to terminate another route. Maybe the 129 if the Convoys Wharf was to ever be completed, it could be extended there as planned.
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Dec 5, 2013 2:51:37 GMT
Good news if true. Relieves the pressure on the 343 in North Peckham and the Aylesbury Estate towards Elephant and Peckham while giving new connections to other parts of SE London. It'll also release capacity at Peckham Bus Station, which could be used to terminate another route. Maybe the 129 if the Convoys Wharf was to ever be completed, it could be extended there as planned. That 129 extension to Peckham was cancelled by TfL over a year ago.
|
|
|
Post by Ice Prxnce on Dec 5, 2013 7:15:20 GMT
Maybe the 129 if the Convoys Wharf was to ever be completed, it could be extended there as planned. That 129 extension to Peckham was cancelled by TfL over a year ago. My bad, I thought the extension was cancelled because Convoys Wharf wasn't finished.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Dec 5, 2013 11:37:47 GMT
That 129 extension to Peckham was cancelled by TfL over a year ago. My bad, I thought the extension was cancelled because Convoys Wharf wasn't finished. Isn't it the case that Convoys Wharf hasn't been started? The council and developer have been arguing over the design / scale of the development plus the housing market has been such that there was no point in starting building. I believe the developer is required to provide a funding contribution for bus service improvements when the developer is occupied. Obviously we have no idea how TfL might decide to use any such funding contribution.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Dec 5, 2013 11:39:44 GMT
Interesting "tweet" from Val Shawcross earlier who said that she was off to meet TfL to hear about their latest plans for the 343 bus route. I wonder if the conspiracy theorists on the group are therefore right about the 136 idea.
|
|
|
Route 136
Dec 5, 2013 11:58:41 GMT
via mobile
Post by M1104 on Dec 5, 2013 11:58:41 GMT
My bad, I thought the extension was cancelled because Convoys Wharf wasn't finished. Isn't it the case that Convoys Wharf hasn't been started? The council and developer have been arguing over the design / scale of the development plus the housing market has been such that there was no point in starting building. I believe the developer is required to provide a funding contribution for bus service improvements when the developer is occupied. Obviously we have no idea how TfL might decide to use any such funding contribution. TfL's decision to cancellation it was mentioned in the LOTS magazine.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Dec 5, 2013 14:59:09 GMT
Isn't it the case that Convoys Wharf hasn't been started? The council and developer have been arguing over the design / scale of the development plus the housing market has been such that there was no point in starting building. I believe the developer is required to provide a funding contribution for bus service improvements when the developer is occupied. Obviously we have no idea how TfL might decide to use any such funding contribution. TfL's decision to cancellation it was mentioned in the LOTS magazine. Sure and I was not disagreeing with your statement. Sorry if I was not clear. I was more making the point that at some point in the future some bus change will arise when / if Convoys Wharf makes it from a drawing to bricks and mortar and the developer coughs up some readies. Whether the 129 change comes back to life or something else is done is a decision for the future.
|
|
|
Route 136
Dec 5, 2013 16:30:54 GMT
via mobile
Post by M1104 on Dec 5, 2013 16:30:54 GMT
TfL's decision to cancellation it was mentioned in the LOTS magazine. Sure and I was not disagreeing with your statement. Sorry if I was not clear. I was more making the point that at some point in the future some bus change will arise when / if Convoys Wharf makes it from a drawing to bricks and mortar and the developer coughs up some readies. Whether the 129 change comes back to life or something else is done is a decision for the future. Oh ok, I misread you. Yes I suppose they could reinstate the proposal....wouldn't completely run it out. I had thought, for example, the 255 extension was going to be cancelled after so long a hold, but that is now going through for sure.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Dec 5, 2013 19:23:13 GMT
Oh ok, I misread you. Yes I suppose they could reinstate the proposal....wouldn't completely run it out. I had thought, for example, the 255 extension was going to be cancelled after so long a hold, but that is now going through for sure. I think the 255 has such a political profile that it would be very difficult for TfL to adandon the change. Whether that's right or wrong is debatable but that's how it pans out sometimes. Convoys Wharf is, for the present, too nebulous in terms of bus route changes. Whenever things do proceed I suspect TfL will start again to see what travel patterns are like. The other factor to bear in mind is the development around Surrey Canal Road and the proposed station *plus* the developer contribution for two new bus routes in that area. If TfL were in a position to pool the funding from the two developments you might get some interesting changes in that corner of London. We already know TfL's outline thinking about the Surrey Canal Road plans but the unexpected factor is that patronage is "going through the roof" on the new Overground link so that might cause a bit of a rethink about how you serve a new station and where the patronage will come from and how passengers already using the train might want to travel to / via a new station at Surrey Canal Road. If we look at our dear friend the 343, we can see all too well what happens when you pull in a lot of new housing development - you end up with a big demand problem and fed up bus users and grumpy politicians. If I was TfL I would really want to avoid a repeat of the 343's problems at both Convoys Wharf and at Surrey Canal Road. All interesting stuff.
|
|
|
Route 136
Dec 5, 2013 20:41:53 GMT
via mobile
Post by M1104 on Dec 5, 2013 20:41:53 GMT
Oh ok, I misread you. Yes I suppose they could reinstate the proposal....wouldn't completely run it out. I had thought, for example, the 255 extension was going to be cancelled after so long a hold, but that is now going through for sure. I think the 255 has such a political profile that it would be very difficult for TfL to adandon the change. Whether that's right or wrong is debatable but that's how it pans out sometimes. Convoys Wharf is, for the present, too nebulous in terms of bus route changes. Whenever things do proceed I suspect TfL will start again to see what travel patterns are like. The other factor to bear in mind is the development around Surrey Canal Road and the proposed station *plus* the developer contribution for two new bus routes in that area. If TfL were in a position to pool the funding from the two developments you might get some interesting changes in that corner of London. We already know TfL's outline thinking about the Surrey Canal Road plans but the unexpected factor is that patronage is "going through the roof" on the new Overground link so that might cause a bit of a rethink about how you serve a new station and where the patronage will come from and how passengers already using the train might want to travel to via a new station at Surrey Canal Road. If we look at our dear friend the 343, we can see all too well what happens when you pull in a lot of new housing development - you end up with a big demand problem and fed up bus users and grumpy politicians. If I was TfL I would really want to avoid a repeat of the 343's problems at both Convoys Wharf and at Surrey Canal Road. All interesting stuff. I had thought the new housing development in the Peckham area actually meant less people, seeing as large number of flats have been replaced by mainly houses with a lot of side roads. Phipps Bridge for example doesn't have as many households as it did before all the tower blocks (save one) were demolished. Both areas nevertheless still having a very large residential population.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Dec 6, 2013 16:18:30 GMT
I think if there is a plan to extend the 136 to Elephant its a great one especially if it goes via the 343 routeing. That way the peak freq on the 343 could be slightly reduced as i think the rest of the route is less used (daytime Peckham to New Cross is very quiet at times) and would restore a link from Lewisham to Elephant and would prob reliev the busy 21 as most people from lewisham to get to Elephant prob take the 21 to Bricklayers Arms and change there and all routes up the Old Kent Road are very heavy in the peaks.
As for buses hopefully a few Tridents would move into TL to cover the increase.
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Dec 6, 2013 17:22:23 GMT
I think if there is a plan to extend the 136 to Elephant its a great one especially if it goes via the 343 routeing. That way the peak freq on the 343 could be slightly reduced as i think the rest of the route is less used (daytime Peckham to New Cross is very quiet at times) and would restore a link from Lewisham to Elephant and would prob reliev the busy 21 as most people from lewisham to get to Elephant prob take the 21 to Bricklayers Arms and change there and all routes up the Old Kent Road are very heavy in the peaks. As for buses hopefully a few Tridents would move into TL to cover the increase. With most routes nowadays being standardised (no short workings) reducing the 343's peak frequency because it's not so busy from Peckham to New Cross will create problems between Peckham and Elephant, the busiest part of the route. It would also defeat the objectivity of having extra buses in that area.
|
|
|
Post by ilovelondonbuses on Dec 6, 2013 19:19:53 GMT
I'm guessing 136's PVR would need an increase of 4 buses to maintain its current frequency if this extension happens. Route 343 needs help. It is way too over crowded.
|
|
|
Post by moz on Dec 17, 2013 15:48:25 GMT
I'm surprised they haven't looked at extending the 17 down to Peckham instead of the 136 up to Elephant. Both routes run at roughly the same frequencies but the 17 would also offer better links into the City. The 343 could be cut back to Elephant and remove what is a traffic bottleneck through Borough and London Bridge, maybe with a small frequency reduction, as the 17 would cover this anyway. It would also remove the current light run loop on the 17 to Borough Station which must be costing an extra bus or two on the PVR, so why not have them providing service? By my reckoning (so probably wrong) the 17 extension and associated 343 cut could be done far cheaper than extending the 136. If the 343 were to be retained through to City Hall then an alternative routing for the 17 could be from Borough along Great Dover Street, Old Kent Road, Albany Road then back onto the 343 route to Peckham. *hides*
Moz
|
|
|
Post by Ice Prxnce on Dec 17, 2013 16:43:00 GMT
I'm surprised they haven't looked at extending the 17 down to Peckham instead of the 136 up to Elephant. Both routes run at roughly the same frequencies but the 17 would also offer better links into the City. The 343 could be cut back to Elephant and remove what is a traffic bottleneck through Borough and London Bridge, maybe with a small frequency reduction, as the 17 would cover this anyway. It would also remove the current light run loop on the 17 to Borough Station which must be costing an extra bus or two on the PVR, so why not have them providing service? By my reckoning (so probably wrong) the 17 extension and associated 343 cut could be done far cheaper than extending the 136. If the 343 were to be retained through to City Hall then an alternative routing for the 17 could be from Borough along Great Dover Street, Old Kent Road, Albany Road then back onto the 343 route to Peckham. *hides* Moz Wouldn't Peckham to Archway be a bit far? Cutting the 343 to Elephant Castle would not solve the problem. Another route is meant to be extended to Peckham to work alongside the 343 and relieve overcrowding on the 343. Some people from North Peckham may use the 343 to work around the City area or London Bridge so if you cut back the 343, the 17 would now face the overcrowding. IMO, I think maybe the 521 should be extended to Peckham via running alongside 343 (from Peckham to London Bridge) as it's buses have more capacity. I don't know if the route is always overcrowded as I'm not familiar with it. Peckham already have links to Waterloo and London Bridge and so do Elephant & Castle so maybe the 343 and 521 running together would maybe ease overcrowding. *That's if 12m buses can go round route 343's roads and East Street area.
|
|