|
Post by overgroundcommuter on Apr 14, 2014 22:27:51 GMT
After the recent improvements to Route P13, it appears TfL are also looking at increasing the frequency of Route 176, which already operates every 8 minutes.
In a reply to a local resident of Forest Hill as posted to SE23.com, TfL's MD of surface transport replies.
|
|
|
Post by Nathan on Apr 14, 2014 22:49:11 GMT
After the recent improvements to Route P13, it appears TfL are also looking at increasing the frequency of Route 176, which already operates every 8 minutes. In a reply to a local resident of Forest Hill as posted to SE23.com, TfL's MD of surface transport replies. I'm just wondering where extra buses would actually come from. But I guess that depends on how much the frequency would increase, given this proposal goes though.
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Apr 14, 2014 23:02:39 GMT
After the recent improvements to Route P13, it appears TfL are also looking at increasing the frequency of Route 176, which already operates every 8 minutes. In a reply to a local resident of Forest Hill as posted to SE23.com, TfL's MD of surface transport replies. I'm just wondering where extra buses would actually come from. But I guess that depends on how much the frequency would increase, given this proposal goes though. If the increase is any time within the next few months when the deckers can indirectly come off the 38.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Apr 14, 2014 23:10:59 GMT
Not being funny but TfL have already identified that the 109 is overcrowded but yet seem disinterested in attempting to solve it yet it look likes the 176 will be getting measures put in place despite never being identified in any reports. Good for 176 users though, I won't rain on their parade if they get the required measures to help with overcrowding.
|
|
|
Route 176
Apr 14, 2014 23:11:56 GMT
via mobile
Post by vjaska on Apr 14, 2014 23:11:56 GMT
I'm just wondering where extra buses would actually come from. But I guess that depends on how much the frequency would increase, given this proposal goes though. If the increase is any time within the next few months when the deckers can indirectly come off the 38. I wonder if they'll just put a few DLA's back into service and allocate them to the 432 releasing VLA's to the 176.
|
|
|
Post by 6HP502C on Apr 14, 2014 23:12:38 GMT
After the recent improvements to Route P13, it appears TfL are also looking at increasing the frequency of Route 176, which already operates every 8 minutes. Every 8 minutes maybe, but there are times when I can't get on one in the morning in East Dulwich! The route has the benefit of passing several stations with links into Central London (Penge East, Penge West, Sydenham, Forest Hill, East Dulwich and Denmark Hill) but it is still very popular with commuters.
|
|
|
Post by overgroundcommuter on Apr 15, 2014 0:15:52 GMT
Not being funny but TfL have already identified that the 109 is overcrowded but yet seem disinterested in attempting to solve it yet it look likes the 176 will be getting measures put in place despite never being identified in any reports. Good for 176 users though, I won't rain on their parade if they get the required measures to help with overcrowding. Route 176 is one of 9 SE London routes, the tenth being the 38 recognised as being overcrowded according to a London Assembly transport committee report published last November, which also includes the 185, which both serve the East Dulwich/Forest Hill corridor.
|
|
|
Route 176
Apr 15, 2014 1:53:15 GMT
via mobile
Post by vjaska on Apr 15, 2014 1:53:15 GMT
Not being funny but TfL have already identified that the 109 is overcrowded but yet seem disinterested in attempting to solve it yet it look likes the 176 will be getting measures put in place despite never being identified in any reports. Good for 176 users though, I won't rain on their parade if they get the required measures to help with overcrowding. Route 176 is one of 9 SE London routes, the tenth being the 38 recognised as being overcrowded according to a London Assembly transport committee report published last November, which also includes the 185, which both serve the East Dulwich/Forest Hill corridor. Just read the report - interesting & some surprising list of routes such as the 336. The 109 was mentioned as suffering from overcrowding in a report last year and is either the 3rd or 4th busiest route out of all South, South West & South East London routes (think it's the 12 & 53 that are the busiest with possibly one other route).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2014 6:11:12 GMT
The common theme with routes like the 176 is they run through areas of low income who opt for bus travel to Central London rather than expensive overground rail. Particularly prevalent in SE London with no tubes. Even by Sydenham the 176's in peak hours are almost standing room only. They also need to sort out a new southern stand because the Penge one still has no toilet facilities nearby and the stand is on a busy main road, accessed via residential roads (the buses run dead) which have frequent problems with bad parking. Only option really is for a short extension to Elmers End or Anerley Station, but that will require a over increase as we'll !
|
|
|
Post by John tuthill on Apr 15, 2014 8:41:18 GMT
Not being funny but TfL have already identified that the 109 is overcrowded but yet seem disinterested in attempting to solve it yet it look likes the 176 will be getting measures put in place despite never being identified in any reports. Good for 176 users though, I won't rain on their parade if they get the required measures to help with overcrowding. When you consider that the 109 when it replaced tram routes 6 & 8 had a PVR of 88(!)what is it now? Has as been said the their are no parallel O/G or U/G so its a bus or nothing, not only the 109 along the A23
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Apr 15, 2014 8:58:55 GMT
The common theme with routes like the 176 is they run through areas of low income who opt for bus travel to Central London rather than expensive overground rail. Particularly prevalent in SE London with no tubes. Even by Sydenham the 176's in peak hours are almost standing room only. They also need to sort out a new southern stand because the Penge one still has no toilet facilities nearby and the stand is on a busy main road, accessed via residential roads (the buses run dead) which have frequent problems with bad parking. Only option really is for a short extension to Elmers End or Anerley Station, but that will require a over increase as we'll ! Or possibly Beckenham : but the same applies, and I'm not sure there's any room in the area to terminate such a frequent service.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Apr 15, 2014 9:08:10 GMT
Not being funny but TfL have already identified that the 109 is overcrowded but yet seem disinterested in attempting to solve it yet it look likes the 176 will be getting measures put in place despite never being identified in any reports. Good for 176 users though, I won't rain on their parade if they get the required measures to help with overcrowding. Route 176 is one of 9 SE London routes, the tenth being the 38 recognised as being overcrowded according to a London Assembly transport committee report published last November, which also includes the 185, which both serve the East Dulwich/Forest Hill corridor. I'm afraid you need to take that report with a pinch of salt. That's because the busy-ness of routes was identified by the public not through any sort of objective assessment criteria. That's why certain small infrequent routes ended up in the list - groups and organisations wrote in about their personal bugbears! I am sure the 336 is busy and people do have to stand but it will not be on a par with something like the 109 or 176. I'm hardly shocked to hear that the 176 or 185 are busy / overcrowded. They have been for years and that's just based on observations at the Central London end of things!
|
|
|
Post by overgroundcommuter on Apr 15, 2014 9:36:08 GMT
Route 176 is one of 9 SE London routes, the tenth being the 38 recognised as being overcrowded according to a London Assembly transport committee report published last November, which also includes the 185, which both serve the East Dulwich/Forest Hill corridor. I'm hardly shocked to hear that the 176 or 185 are busy / overcrowded. They have been for years and that's just based on observations at the Central London end of things! I'd argue and say the 185 has even loads throughout the route, all day, every day unlike the 176 where it's busier during the peaks, weekends and school holidays and is quieter between Forest Hill and Penge. As mentioned above, the route suffers from what I'll call 53 syndrome. Covered by rail for most of the route in the suburban areas, but has low income pockets along the route who can't afford to use the rail routes, yet affluent East Dulwich is the pinch point.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2014 9:54:12 GMT
Bromley council are not going to help out with the 176 issue. They do not care a jot about anything in Penge , it is almost literally the dumping ground for the entire borough, has labour councillors in a Tory dominated council chamber so very little gets done. If the 176 turned instead at Crooked Billet, the 354 would have to move. Perhaps the 354 could stand in Croydon Road instead of the 176 ?
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Apr 15, 2014 9:54:16 GMT
If the increase is any time within the next few months when the deckers can indirectly come off the 38. I wonder if they'll just put a few DLA's back into service and allocate them to the 432 releasing VLA's to the 176. That could be done though I suspect it would be a temporary measure. If the 38's conversion doesn't free up enough post euro3 spec'd buses then the 159's conversion could.
|
|