|
Post by COBO on Sept 29, 2019 15:16:20 GMT
83: extended from Alperton to Ealing Hospital via route 483. To maintain links lost by route 483. 114: night service extended to Uxbridge via route U1. To link Ruislip and Uxbridge at night. 297: withdrawn between Alperton and Ealing Broadway. Diverted to Greenford Broadway via Bridgewater Road, Whitton Avenue East, Greenford Road, Westway Cross, Greenford Roundabout and route 92 to Greenford Broadway. Extended from Willesden Bus Garage to Willesden Junction via route 226 to Jubliee Clock and route 266 to Willesden Junction. To link Greenford with Neasden and Harlesden. 482: Extended from Southall to Harrow via Lady Margaret Road, Kensington Road, Western Avenue, Target Roundabout, route 120 to Northolt, Mandeville Road, Petts Hill, Whitton Avenue West, Greenford Road and route H17 to Harrow. To act as relief for routes 120 and H17. To also link Harrow with Southall and Heathrow Terminal 5. 483. Withdrawn between Alperton and Ealing Hospital. Diverted to Ealing Broadway via route 297 to Ealing Broadway. To maintain links lost by route 297. E1: extended from Greenford Broadway to Harrow via Greenford Road, Whitton Avenue West, Petts Hill, Northolt Road and route 395 to Harrow. To link Greenford with Harrow and South Harrow. H14: extended from Northwick Park Hospital to Westway Cross via Watford Road, Sudbury Court Drive, Greenford Road, Route 92 to Greenford Station, Uneeda Drive, Greenford Road and Green Park Way. To link Greenford with Northwick Park Hospital. N11: Withdrawn between Hammersmith and Ealing Broadway. N97: extended to Ruislip via route N11 to Ealing Broadway, route 297 to Alperton, route 487 to South Harrow, route 398 to North View, Eastcote, Elm Avenue, Park Way, Ruislip Manor, Pembroke Road and route 114 to Ruislip. To provide Eastcote, Ruislip and Rayners Lane with a night service.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2019 15:40:00 GMT
I have several new ideas, with the extension of the 129 and the proposed changes in Greenwich here’s what I would do To routes 129, 180, 177 & 286 129: Extend it beyond Lewisham to Sydenham, this will aide the overcrowded 75, the most direct route between Lewisham & Sydenham as the 122 is slightly more circuitous, this would link Sydenham with the Docklands, I think this would more direct and quicker than a hypothetical 202 extension. 180: Be kept as it is 177: Rerouted at Greenwich to Waterloo via Creek Road, Deptford, Surrey Quays, Canada Water, Elephant & Castle then Waterloo 286: Extended to Peckham via the 177, Double Decked. That is exactly what SE London needs at the moment! Isn't there an issue at Queen Mary's with DDs?
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Sept 29, 2019 17:22:59 GMT
I have several new ideas, with the extension of the 129 and the proposed changes in Greenwich here’s what I would do To routes 129, 180, 177 & 286 129: Extend it beyond Lewisham to Sydenham, this will aide the overcrowded 75, the most direct route between Lewisham & Sydenham as the 122 is slightly more circuitous, this would link Sydenham with the Docklands, I think this would more direct and quicker than a hypothetical 202 extension. 180: Be kept as it is 177: Rerouted at Greenwich to Waterloo via Creek Road, Deptford, Surrey Quays, Canada Water, Elephant & Castle then Waterloo 286: Extended to Peckham via the 177, Double Decked. I agree the 286 needs double deckers. From my last venture into Greenwich on the 188, I saw a packed 286 leaving lots of people behind. This was on a Sunday. It seems ridiculous the route has had a frequency cut to 3bph on a Sunday, and is leaving people behind at present.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Sept 29, 2019 17:56:32 GMT
I agree the 286 needs double deckers. From my last venture into Greenwich on the 188, I saw a packed 286 leaving lots of people behind. This was on a Sunday. It seems ridiculous the route has had a frequency cut to 3bph on a Sunday, and is leaving people behind at present. Even more bizarre when it increased its patronage last year against the prevailing trend.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Sept 29, 2019 18:35:56 GMT
I have several new ideas, with the extension of the 129 and the proposed changes in Greenwich here’s what I would do To routes 129, 180, 177 & 286 129: Extend it beyond Lewisham to Sydenham, this will aide the overcrowded 75, the most direct route between Lewisham & Sydenham as the 122 is slightly more circuitous, this would link Sydenham with the Docklands, I think this would more direct and quicker than a hypothetical 202 extension. 180: Be kept as it is 177: Rerouted at Greenwich to Waterloo via Creek Road, Deptford, Surrey Quays, Canada Water, Elephant & Castle then Waterloo 286: Extended to Peckham via the 177, Double Decked. That is exactly what SE London needs at the moment! Does South London really need a longer 177 than currently - that extension hits even traffic at Elephant & is much longer so would make the 177 even less reliable.
|
|
|
Post by route53 on Sept 29, 2019 20:15:09 GMT
I have several new ideas, with the extension of the 129 and the proposed changes in Greenwich here’s what I would do To routes 129, 180, 177 & 286 129: Extend it beyond Lewisham to Sydenham, this will aide the overcrowded 75, the most direct route between Lewisham & Sydenham as the 122 is slightly more circuitous, this would link Sydenham with the Docklands, I think this would more direct and quicker than a hypothetical 202 extension. 180: Be kept as it is 177: Rerouted at Greenwich to Waterloo via Creek Road, Deptford, Surrey Quays, Canada Water, Elephant & Castle then Waterloo 286: Extended to Peckham via the 177, Double Decked. That is exactly what SE London needs at the moment! Isn't there an issue at Queen Mary's with DDs? I think there may be, but I would still say that the 286 needs to be DD, it’s a rather unique route that links central Greenwich with Bexley & Sidcup and usage has grown over the last ten years or so, even in 1990s and 2000s it was always a busy route, and it’s even busier now, over the last year or so I have seen more and more DD 286’s, the route also needs to have a 24 hour service on weekends, Greenwich is a bit of a hot spot on the Weekends and it’s close to New Cross which is even more of a night spot.
|
|
|
Post by route53 on Sept 29, 2019 20:20:59 GMT
That is exactly what SE London needs at the moment! Does South London really need a longer 177 than currently - that extension hits even traffic at Elephant & is much longer so would make the 177 even less reliable. Then maybe have it run as far as Canada Water, either there has to be better links across South East London, and of the proposed ideas for Greenwich town centre are anything to go by then buses won’t be able to stand by the Cutty Sark for much longer,
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2019 20:32:55 GMT
That is exactly what SE London needs at the moment! Isn't there an issue at Queen Mary's with DDs? I think there may be, but I would still say that the 286 needs to be DD, it’s a rather unique route that links central Greenwich with Bexley & Sidcup and usage has grown over the last ten years or so, even in 1990s and 2000s it was always a busy route, and it’s even busier now, over the last year or so I have seen more and more DD 286’s, the route also needs to have a 24 hour service on weekends, Greenwich is a bit of a hot spot on the Weekends and it’s close to New Cross which is even more of a night spot. Have you ever been on late evening 286? I've driven them and you'd be lucky to get more than 10 passengers on a late evening. Certainly no demand for a night service.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Sept 29, 2019 20:58:03 GMT
Does South London really need a longer 177 than currently - that extension hits even traffic at Elephant & is much longer so would make the 177 even less reliable. Then maybe have it run as far as Canada Water, either there has to be better links across South East London, and of the proposed ideas for Greenwich town centre are anything to go by then buses won’t be able to stand by the Cutty Sark for much longer, Just to explain, I've no issue with the proposal being here given it's in the fantasy section and to me, it's a fantasy idea personally (no offence intended) but I was bemused by the comment @sen13 that it's what South East London needed Canada Water to Woolwich should be doable and I agree that the 286 will have to move out if these pedestrian plans go ahead but there are alternatives as to where it could stand, Greenwich Station being one.
|
|
|
Post by route53 on Sept 30, 2019 0:32:02 GMT
I think there may be, but I would still say that the 286 needs to be DD, it’s a rather unique route that links central Greenwich with Bexley & Sidcup and usage has grown over the last ten years or so, even in 1990s and 2000s it was always a busy route, and it’s even busier now, over the last year or so I have seen more and more DD 286’s, the route also needs to have a 24 hour service on weekends, Greenwich is a bit of a hot spot on the Weekends and it’s close to New Cross which is even more of a night spot. Have you ever been on late evening 286? I've driven them and you'd be lucky to get more than 10 passengers on a late evening. Certainly no demand for a night service. Im sure there could be some demand on a weekend, plenty of University of Greenwich students live in the Avery Hill campus, and the 286 is there only way into Greenwich if the Uni Bus isn’t running, so demand could be found, but this is a fantasy thread :-)
|
|
|
Post by route53 on Sept 30, 2019 0:38:38 GMT
Then maybe have it run as far as Canada Water, either there has to be better links across South East London, and of the proposed ideas for Greenwich town centre are anything to go by then buses won’t be able to stand by the Cutty Sark for much longer, Just to explain, I've no issue with the proposal being here given it's in the fantasy section and to me, it's a fantasy idea personally (no offence intended) but I was bemused by the comment @sen13 that it's what South East London needed Canada Water to Woolwich should be doable and I agree that the 286 will have to move out if these pedestrian plans go ahead but there are alternatives as to where it could stand, Greenwich Station being one. No worries ;-) in fact I would say that a Waterloo to Thamesmead via Surrey Quays might be a bit excessive even for fantasy, plus the 53 covers the E&C to Woolwich demand well enough via a much quicker route. A 177 Canada Water to Thamesmead could work I think, the Rotherhithe area is rapidly changing, with new bars and a possible new Shopping Centre at Surrey Quays sometime in the 2020s (the current one is up for demolition) and there are currently no direct links between Rotherhithe/Surrey Quays to anywhere east of Greenwich, perhaps the 129 should have been extended to SQ? The 286 is one of those routes that has untapped potential, a Peckham-Greenwich-Blackheath-Eltham-Sidcup route would be a perfect route of SE London (with out lack of tube lines and all)
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Sept 30, 2019 6:21:13 GMT
Just to explain, I've no issue with the proposal being here given it's in the fantasy section and to me, it's a fantasy idea personally (no offence intended) but I was bemused by the comment @sen13 that it's what South East London needed Canada Water to Woolwich should be doable and I agree that the 286 will have to move out if these pedestrian plans go ahead but there are alternatives as to where it could stand, Greenwich Station being one. No worries ;-) in fact I would say that a Waterloo to Thamesmead via Surrey Quays might be a bit excessive even for fantasy, plus the 53 covers the E&C to Woolwich demand well enough via a much quicker route. A 177 Canada Water to Thamesmead could work I think, the Rotherhithe area is rapidly changing, with new bars and a possible new Shopping Centre at Surrey Quays sometime in the 2020s (the current one is up for demolition) and there are currently no direct links between Rotherhithe/Surrey Quays to anywhere east of Greenwich, perhaps the 129 should have been extended to SQ? The 286 is one of those routes that has untapped potential, a Peckham-Greenwich-Blackheath-Eltham-Sidcup route would be a perfect route of SE London (with out lack of tube lines and all) What will happen to the Surrey Quays Shopping Centre? I really hope it isn't rebuilt, or if it is that buses no longer serve it because it really pees me off having to waste ages serving the shopping centre when often only a few people get on.
|
|
|
Post by route53 on Sept 30, 2019 10:25:58 GMT
No worries ;-) in fact I would say that a Waterloo to Thamesmead via Surrey Quays might be a bit excessive even for fantasy, plus the 53 covers the E&C to Woolwich demand well enough via a much quicker route. A 177 Canada Water to Thamesmead could work I think, the Rotherhithe area is rapidly changing, with new bars and a possible new Shopping Centre at Surrey Quays sometime in the 2020s (the current one is up for demolition) and there are currently no direct links between Rotherhithe/Surrey Quays to anywhere east of Greenwich, perhaps the 129 should have been extended to SQ? The 286 is one of those routes that has untapped potential, a Peckham-Greenwich-Blackheath-Eltham-Sidcup route would be a perfect route of SE London (with out lack of tube lines and all) What will happen to the Surrey Quays Shopping Centre? I really hope it isn't rebuilt, or if it is that buses no longer serve it because it really pees me off having to waste ages serving the shopping centre when often only a few people get on. I think it will be rebuilt, to be much bigger, I don’t think it’ll be a Westfield’s though, I hope with the demolition they fix the roads around that area, so buses can traverse around there quicker.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Sept 30, 2019 10:30:12 GMT
No worries ;-) in fact I would say that a Waterloo to Thamesmead via Surrey Quays might be a bit excessive even for fantasy, plus the 53 covers the E&C to Woolwich demand well enough via a much quicker route. A 177 Canada Water to Thamesmead could work I think, the Rotherhithe area is rapidly changing, with new bars and a possible new Shopping Centre at Surrey Quays sometime in the 2020s (the current one is up for demolition) and there are currently no direct links between Rotherhithe/Surrey Quays to anywhere east of Greenwich, perhaps the 129 should have been extended to SQ? The 286 is one of those routes that has untapped potential, a Peckham-Greenwich-Blackheath-Eltham-Sidcup route would be a perfect route of SE London (with out lack of tube lines and all) What will happen to the Surrey Quays Shopping Centre? I really hope it isn't rebuilt, or if it is that buses no longer serve it because it really pees me off having to waste ages serving the shopping centre when often only a few people get on. It would be a backwards step if buses stopped serving the shopping centre thus making it less accessible to less able passengers.
|
|
|
Post by Ice Prxnce on Sept 30, 2019 11:16:27 GMT
What will happen to the Surrey Quays Shopping Centre? I really hope it isn't rebuilt, or if it is that buses no longer serve it because it really pees me off having to waste ages serving the shopping centre when often only a few people get on. I think it will be rebuilt, to be much bigger, I don’t think it’ll be a Westfield’s though, I hope with the demolition they fix the roads around that area, so buses can traverse around there quicker. I don’t think it will be much bigger as new (unaffordable of course) housing will be taking more priority. As for buses serving Surrey Quays Shopping Centre, that will no longer happen once Deal Porters Way (bus only entrance) becomes inaccessible due to the two-way amendment of Lower Road and also CS4 next year. P12 would also have to move stand. Southwark Council have the consultation on their site: consultations.southwark.gov.uk/planning-and-regeneration/lower-road/Proposed new routings: consultations.southwark.gov.uk/planning-and-regeneration/lower-road/user_uploads/overview-plan.pdf
|
|