Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2015 21:09:58 GMT
Good Evening,
I stumbled upon this thread on your message board (now locked) tangytango.proboards.com/thread/8571/315-serve-peabody-estate
I should confess I am a resident of the Birkbeck Triangle and as such am trying to seek you opinions on this route as the tender is out and the public consultation soon to start.
The route has been proposed as an extension along Robson Road, Park Hall Road (currently has a Lambeth no-bus provision), left onto Croxted Road, left on TPR (south Circular), right up Birkbeck Hill, left into Thurlow Hill, then Peabody Hill, possibly round the Upper Peabody estate (with a terminus, toilet and break block) and then back down Thurlow hill, right into the end of Lovelace and left onto TPR and back the same way.
Once Thurlow Hill becomes Peabody Hill it is private land and as such does not get gritted or maintained by Lambeth as Birkbeck Hill/Place and Thurlow Hill
The test run performed by Go-Ahead last November was using a single deck 8.8m bus
I would be interested in your thoughts either publicly or privately.
Thankyou
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 4, 2015 0:07:24 GMT
Good Evening,
I stumbled upon this thread on your message board (now locked) tangytango.proboards.com/thread/8571/315-serve-peabody-estate
I should confess I am a resident of the Birkbeck Triangle and as such am trying to seek you opinions on this route as the tender is out and the public consultation soon to start.
The route has been proposed as an extension along Robson Road, Park Hall Road (currently has a Lambeth no-bus provision), left onto Croxted Road, left on TPR (south Circular), right up Birkbeck Hill, left into Thurlow Hill, then Peabody Hill, possibly round the Upper Peabody estate (with a terminus, toilet and break block) and then back down Thurlow hill, right into the end of Lovelace and left onto TPR and back the same way.
Once Thurlow Hill becomes Peabody Hill it is private land and as such does not get gritted or maintained by Lambeth as Birkbeck Hill/Place and Thurlow Hill
The test run performed by Go-Ahead last November was using a single deck 8.8m bus
I would be interested in your thoughts either publicly or privately.
Thankyou
Thanks for this. Interesting routing though I'm surprised that it wouldn't go via Rosendale Road to reach Thurlow Park Road to avoid the no bus provision section of Park Hall Road?
|
|
|
Post by 6HP502C on Jun 4, 2015 1:00:06 GMT
It's pleasing to see the estate finally getting a bus service. I live not too far away but had never been to the estate, so I took the opportunity to have a look around when I had a hire car. It seems that a lot of residents have cars which is unsurprising given the seclusion of the estate. However, I feel that quite a bit of parking might have to be lost in order to get a bus around the loop safely - something that might cause a bit of consternation?
I don't know very much about the 315. It seems a bit of an elusive route to me. There might be a social cost associated with taking the bus away from West Norwood Station, even if it is only a 5 minute walk from Robson Road. Not quite sure what percentage of users on the route travel to the station, but I imagine quite a few, given it doesn't really serve any others until it gets to Balham. Maybe it's more of a daytime shopper type route.
The 201 has grown in size recently and would struggle round the estate. The P13 wouldn't be particularly useful either. I'd almost rather see the 322 diverted away from Norwood Road and sent down Rosendale Road instead, serving the estate then continuing via Thurlow Park Road then line of route. However the time penalty of the double run for through passengers is probably enough to put a spanner in the works, plus potential vehicle conflicts on Thurlow Hill. Pity really, as the amenity rich 322 route would provide better links to stations, supermarkets and town centres. The 415 terminates in the perfect place for an extension to the estate - but alas, the vehicles are too long for the estate and can't use Thurlow Park Road because of the low bridge. The 42 could have provided a link via Herne Hill - but quite a way to the nearest supermarket.
So back to the 315. Can I presume the detour via Croxted Road (as opposed to straight down Rosendale Road) is in response to demand for a link to West Dulwich Station? One plus is that it's a rather short route, so there wouldn't be a great risk of regular curtailments at West Norwood due to problems elsewhere on the route.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 4, 2015 1:12:08 GMT
It's pleasing to see the estate finally getting a bus service. I live not too far away but had never been to the estate, so I took the opportunity to have a look around when I had a hire car. It seems that a lot of residents have cars which is unsurprising given the seclusion of the estate. However, I feel that quite a bit of parking might have to be lost in order to get a bus around the loop safely - something that might cause a bit of consternation? I don't know very much about the 315. It seems a bit of an elusive route to me. There might be a social cost associated with taking the bus away from West Norwood Station, even if it is only a 5 minute walk from Robson Road. Not quite sure what percentage of users on the route travel to the station, but I imagine quite a few, given it doesn't really serve any others until it gets to Balham. Maybe it's more of a daytime shopper type route. The 201 has grown in size recently and would struggle round the estate. The P13 wouldn't be particularly useful either. I'd almost rather see the 322 diverted away from Norwood Road and sent down Rosendale Road instead, serving the estate then continuing via Thurlow Park Road then line of route. However the time penalty of the double run for through passengers is probably enough to put a spanner in the works, plus potential vehicle conflicts on Thurlow Hill. Pity really, as the amenity rich 322 route would provide better links to stations, supermarkets and town centres. The 415 terminates in the perfect place for an extension to the estate - but alas, the vehicles are too long for the estate and can't use Thurlow Park Road because of the low bridge. The 42 could have provided a link via Herne Hill - but quite a way to the nearest supermarket. So back to the 315. Can I presume the detour via Croxted Road (as opposed to straight down Rosendale Road) is in response to demand for a link to West Dulwich Station? One plus is that it's a rather short route, so there wouldn't be a great risk of regular curtailments at West Norwood due to problems elsewhere on the route. Most 315 passengers get on and off along the shopping area on Norwood Road - the section from Robson Road to West Norwood Station is generally quite lightly used from my own observations.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2015 7:38:54 GMT
Hello and Thank you for your replies, More background info....
As yet we haven't been able to discuss details with TfL, the residents are promised a meeting and there will apparently be drop in sessions during the consultation period. A public meeting a few months arranged by the Labour Councillors descended into chaos as they had no answers and the Peabody estate manager seemed to be unpopular with the residents.
Our information has been gained via a number of Freedom of Information requests!
Whilst there are undoubtedly some disabled and elderly residents on the Upper estate who have transport needs, the overwhelming majority of Peabody residents on that Upper estate do not want this type of bus service, they were hoping for more of a community bus that would be able to take from the door to hospital, supermarket (streatham, dog kennel hill), school, doctors. Unfortunately the proposed route total missed the school (Rosendale), the doctors surgery (Brockwell Park Surgery) and doesn't provide great interchanges to buses to any of these.
Yes the removal of parking on both the estate and the triangle will pose an issue as both are use extensively by school run parents (Rosemead), commuters (Tulse Hill), allotment holders (Birkbeck Hill and Rosendale) and those nearby residents in CPZ controlled roads.
We do have our fair share of large juggernauts visiting due to the Industrial Unit on Birkbeck Hill and Network Rail's access to the railway line North of Tulse Hill station but this does block the triangle for large periods of time and has caused damaged to parked vehicles in the past and of course any delivery drivers just block the road these days due to lack of parking.
The triangle is very active with Freshview and Streetplay events; for example Birkbeck Place has a road closure this Saturday and Thurlow Hill one Sunday of every month. The triangle is approximately 30-40% social housing (L&Q) and overwhelmingly against the bus route, current petition for the Upper Peabody Estate is at over 50% objection.
Thank you for your time and responses
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jun 4, 2015 8:39:27 GMT
Thanks for sharing the details of the proposed routeing. I am not very familiar with the area so am relying on Google Street view plus how the local bus network works.
I am not surprised TfL have retained a route that maintains a link to the shops in West Norwood as that must be a major objective. I think the decision to reach Croxted Road via Park Hall Road is to provide a local link to route 3 thus tying together two main local corridors for people who are willing to change buses. The link to West Dulwich station will also be a factor. As for reaching the Peabody Estate then I don't think TfL have any real options about the roads to be used. The roads are relatively tight and with parked cars hence the (largely) one way route.
I'd be interested in the stopping arrangements - fixed stops or hail and ride? If Hail and Ride then what will happen fairly quickly is that people will congregate in regular places where the bus is most likely to be able to stop. Hard to know quite where that will be but whoever lives close by might end up being upset (if they don't want people standing near their property!). If TfL opt for fixed stops then I dare say people will respond as they see fit to the proposed stop locations.
As for the snow issue on the Peabody Estate then I assume TfL will arrange something as they would be severely criticised for running a route with zero snow clearance. I'm not saying there wouldn't be disruption during snow and ice - there may well be. Some parts of London are very ice / snow prone and sometimes smaller local routes may be disrupted as gritting on local estate roads may not be the immediate priority.
One thing that might happen is the service being curtailed or delayed due to poorly parked vehicles. In Chingford there is a local route, the 379, which goes round a loop of local side streets to give access to this area which is away from main roads - just like the Peabody Estate. There are regular instances of the route being diverted or curtailed due to badly parked vehicles. One question to TfL might be how this would be handled in this case and where buses would go if there were problems. One other issue is deliveries and refuse collection on the roads up to the Peabody Estate - I assume the roads get temporarily blocked if a delivery van can't park to the side or while a refuse truck is doing its rounds. The bus service will likely get delayed in the same circumstances. The rest of the proposed route is on wider roads so there's not likely to be the same issue there.
It is worth saying that TfL and the bus companies have a lot of experience of getting small buses round smaller local roads. I imagine there may be concerns about vehicle damage etc but that already exists in the context of vans and lorries needing to reach properties in the area.
You have not said whether you support or oppose the proposed route extension. In general terms I support improvements to the bus network and serving the more "out of the way" places. If I lived at the Peabody Estate I'd certainly welcome a bus service rather than a hike up from the South Circular.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2015 9:23:52 GMT
Hello Fixed stop, currently we are aware of one by the community centre at the peak of the hill where Thurlow Hill becomes Peabody Hill and possibly one on the other side of the estate which seems to conflict with plans to build a new playground. However I have heard of a proposal that the bus may terminate by the community centre in order to appease the Peabody residents concerned about a loss of parking and make the main opponents the Birkbeck Triangle residents.
As per the login name, birkbeckra (residents association) we have 99% objection to this, 1 person on the fence, 1 person would use the route but also has a car. Having attended the public meeting (150+ attendees) to represent the RA I was concerned to be faced with residents who I assumed would support the bus, but no the majority of residents of the Peabody Upper estate don't want it.
Thanks again
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jun 4, 2015 15:12:44 GMT
Hello Fixed stop, currently we are aware of one by the community centre at the peak of the hill where Thurlow Hill becomes Peabody Hill and possibly one on the other side of the estate which seems to conflict with plans to build a new playground. However I have heard of a proposal that the bus may terminate by the community centre in order to appease the Peabody residents concerned about a loss of parking and make the main opponents the Birkbeck Triangle residents. As per the login name, birkbeckra (residents association) we have 99% objection to this, 1 person on the fence, 1 person would use the route but also has a car. Having attended the public meeting (150+ attendees) to represent the RA I was concerned to be faced with residents who I assumed would support the bus, but no the majority of residents of the Peabody Upper estate don't want it. Thanks again Oh well it's interesting that you represent the opposition to the bus. I did wonder why you'd posted on here - looking for extra arguments to put forward to support your "no buses please" argument?? I've seen elsewhere people and local politicians apparently supporting the extension. I assume you and all the residents will be saying the bus isn't required in your consultation response? Makes me wonder why your local politicians are apparently lobbying TfL for a bus service that the residents say they do not want or need. I wonder who is not talking / listening in the debate given the apparent divergence of views. Perhaps I need to write to TfL and ask them to stop wasting time and money on an unwanted extension to the 315 and they can divert the money to my bit of the world where we do need better bus services and they'd be welcomed? Now how much will it cost to extend the 397 to Walthamstow Central?
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Jun 4, 2015 21:26:28 GMT
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jun 4, 2015 22:24:46 GMT
The tendering stuff is pretty much what I expected. I had forgotten the 315 is up for retender so there will be competitive prices for the proposed extension. I suspect TfL probably ask for options a few times when there are plans or ideas for possible increments to a base service specification for any given route. The arguments against the bus seem to boil down to "think of the children", "buses bring evil child molesting creeps into the area" and "oh no, nowhere to park". As I half guessed earlier there is obviously a double campaign going on here - for and against. I note someone had the temerity of putting forward an argument for the bus and were rounded on and in one case accused of being a councillor in disguise. Looking in from the outside it's impossible to tell objectively where the balance of the argument actually is. I think at this point I'll bow out of this debate because we don't need a local argument transferring here. It can stay in Tulse Hill.
|
|
|
Post by jay38a on Jun 5, 2015 6:05:02 GMT
The exact same arguments came about when the 162 was diverted round the Edgebury Estate in New Eltham and Chislehurst. It was said the residents association don't want the bus however that turned out to be one road who was more interested in their house prices going down and all had cars, while the rest of the estate wanted it. Now fast forward 14 years and those people who were moaning now use the bus........
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2015 14:42:48 GMT
Thank you for all comments it is much appreciated. I was quite clear on my original post so as not to mislead anyone. Merely seeking opinion of those with greater knowledge of bus routing, driving, TfL consultations and issues/challenges therein.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jun 6, 2015 15:44:17 GMT
The exact same arguments came about when the 162 was diverted round the Edgebury Estate in New Eltham and Chislehurst. It was said the residents association don't want the bus however that turned out to be one road who was more interested in their house prices going down and all had cars, while the rest of the estate wanted it. Now fast forward 14 years and those people who were moaning now use the bus........ There were the same sort of arguments about Shirley Oaks Village but buses have been going through there for about 15 years now without any problems. If anything I would have thought the bus service would put house prices up?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2015 12:56:13 GMT
The exact same arguments came about when the 162 was diverted round the Edgebury Estate in New Eltham and Chislehurst. It was said the residents association don't want the bus however that turned out to be one road who was more interested in their house prices going down and all had cars, while the rest of the estate wanted it. Now fast forward 14 years and those people who were moaning now use the bus........ There were the same sort of arguments about Shirley Oaks Village but buses have been going through there for about 15 years now without any problems. If anything I would have thought the bus service would put house prices up? Yes there was but the whole thing cropped up due to the whole tramlink issue in Croydon when they were doing changes to all the buses etc. 54 and 353 obviously being cut so tfl. made a new route named 494 from Shirley Monks Orchard to West Croydon pretty much following 367 to Shirley Library then to the 356 stand now, and the bus was rarely busy as other routes were on that corridor which were faster for people in Shirley and more frequent 119, 198, 194 and 367 etc. and followed 289,312 and Tram on that corridor so was really a pointless route as the people form Shirley Road, Shirley Oaks didn't use it as they used their cars and were close to frequent routes anyways. So they discontinued it and replaced it with the 367 we know today and there was complaints as it was more frequent and the people from the Glade would have a slower, less frequent route but in the end it was done without putting an extra buses however this has made the 367 less direct but still having that link and now no complaints, I really don't understand why residents complain as most buses going to these estates are not frequent 367 being every 20mins at peak and is quite slow and the engines are quiet and people won't be poking through to look at your windows. But anyways funnily enough that bit on the 367 is frequently used and probably one of the most busiest part of the route either that or The Glade bit.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jun 9, 2015 19:05:26 GMT
There were the same sort of arguments about Shirley Oaks Village but buses have been going through there for about 15 years now without any problems. If anything I would have thought the bus service would put house prices up? Yes there was but the whole thing cropped up due to the whole tramlink issue in Croydon when they were doing changes to all the buses etc. 54 and 353 obviously being cut so tfl. made a new route named 494 from Shirley Monks Orchard to West Croydon pretty much following 367 to Shirley Library then to the 356 stand now, and the bus was rarely busy as other routes were on that corridor which were faster for people in Shirley and more frequent 119, 198, 194 and 367 etc. and followed 289,312 and Tram on that corridor so was really a pointless route as the people form Shirley Road, Shirley Oaks didn't use it as they used their cars and were close to frequent routes anyways. So they discontinued it and replaced it with the 367 we know today and there was complaints as it was more frequent and the people from the Glade would have a slower, less frequent route but in the end it was done without putting an extra buses however this has made the 367 less direct but still having that link and now no complaints, I really don't understand why residents complain as most buses going to these estates are not frequent 367 being every 20mins at peak and is quite slow and the engines are quiet and people won't be poking through to look at your windows. But anyways funnily enough that bit on the 367 is frequently used and probably one of the most busiest part of the route either that or The Glade bit. The 367 is rather circuitous since it replaced the 494 but there is now a direct link from The Glade area to the shops at Addiscombe. A bus service along The Glade was long overdue, some people had a very long walk to their nearest stop
|
|