|
Post by rmz19 on Dec 26, 2015 22:45:38 GMT
Personally, I think the 422's length is fine especially as there are plenty of places east of North Greenwich for it to make up time. The town centre to the garage in Bexleyheath only takes a few minutes at the most so the time saving would be extremely minimal. I do see quite a lot of 422s curtailed to East Wickham. The proposed swap with the B11 would take it back to the traditional 122 route pre 1988: the rerouting was made precisely to maintain the link into Woolwich from the West Heath area previously offered by the 122A. Would swapping with the 401 between Bedonwell Road and Bexleyheath achieve the effect desired by the OP? One obvious drawback of that is losing some links to Bexleyheath station. I did wonder whether there would be any merit to a service along Little Heath Road and Belmont Road (some kind of 'B17'). This could work, the time-saving may not be vast but it would be a start, however as you mentioned the link to and from Bexleyheath Station would be inconveniently lost. To be clear my issue with the 422 is not its length or running time, as a standalone route they're perfectly fine, it's when compared with sister route 486 I can't help but want differences to be evened out with little inconveniences caused. Perhaps I should just look at it from the perspective of a standalone route instead.
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Dec 26, 2015 22:58:29 GMT
I did wonder whether there would be any merit to a service along Little Heath Road and Belmont Road (some kind of 'B17'). There are a lot of good bus route friendly roads in that area : Swanton Road, Nurstead Road and Ightham Road are all wide roads that would be suitable for buses, as well as Little Heath Road and Belmont Road. Heversham Road has speed humps but they aren't particularly severe. How about a hypothetical B17 from Crayford Bridge via 492 to Barnehurst, then Barnehurst Road, Erith Road, Brook Street, Belmont Road, Little Heath Road, Cumberland Drive, Long Lane, Brampton Road, King Harold's Way, Bedonwell Road, Woolwich Road and New Road to Abbey Wood Station?
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Dec 26, 2015 23:45:20 GMT
I did wonder whether there would be any merit to a service along Little Heath Road and Belmont Road (some kind of 'B17'). There are a lot of good bus route friendly roads in that area : Swanton Road, Nurstead Road and Ightham Road are all wide roads that would be suitable for buses, as well as Little Heath Road and Belmont Road. Heversham Road has speed humps but they aren't particularly severe. How about a hypothetical B17 from Crayford Bridge via 492 to Barnehurst, then Barnehurst Road, Erith Road, Brook Street, Belmont Road, Little Heath Road, Cumberland Drive, Long Lane, Brampton Road, King Harold's Way, Bedonwell Road, Woolwich Road and New Road to Abbey Wood Station? Doing my usual routine of "look at the TfL bus map to see what roads are sketched in but without a bus route" routine I note that Latham Road and Bourne Road are shown but unserved. You could start your B17 at Bexleyheath town centre and run out via the B13 and then Latham Road *, Gravel Hill, Bourne Road then London Road in Crayford and then picking up your route. Would create a decent series of new links for people. * could turn off Latham Road and go via Midhurst Hill and Broomfield Road. There looks to be a decent amount of housing down there that is fairly remote from local buses. Slightly surprised that TfL haven't diverted the B12 down these roads - looks perfectly achieveable bar one or two narrow sections but nothing that isn't coped with elsewhere across London.
|
|
|
Post by routew15 on Dec 27, 2015 10:13:31 GMT
Maybe extend the 155 or 333 to London Bridge subject to stand space availability? I would rather extend the 270 at the other end to Hammersmith. Maybe reroute the 161 to Belmarsh via Broadwaters in place of the 380? That section could do with double deckers subject to any residential issues. I'd be more inclined to extend the B13 to Grove Park via WB Drive and then the 273 route. I agree that the A23 corridor deserves a limited stop service but I think an X159 to the west end would be better than an X59 to Waterloo I did consider route 155 & 333. However i dismissed the 333 because the 133 shares a lot of the same routing as it is, then the 155 I dismissed due to the high PVR and frequency. Stand space could be found by amending the 17. I think the 270 extension would be unnecessary as the 220 and 485 both continue onto Hammersmith from Wandsworth. I don't know if double deckers would fit around Whinchat Road et al. I did not choose the routing you mentioned as I know William Barefoot Drive can often have traffic delays that could effect service on the route. I going to the West End would be more helpful, however I could not identify stand space in central London and making changes to other routes would not of been sensible.
|
|
|
Post by routew15 on Dec 27, 2015 10:41:33 GMT
You too, hope you had a great Christmas I would support any extension for the 129. At the moment it serves its purpose well, but an extension to Brixton would create new links to and from NG. Although I would prefer if it runs as far as Peckham only, the 345 doesn't appear to need assistance between Peckham and Brixton so the 129 maybe superfluous along the overlap and Coldharbour Lane especially. I still support this idea though. I would leave the 161 as it is, the effort of introducing the 471 and tweaking the 161 just to serve Petts Wood seems unnecessary imo. I can see that no major links will be broken, however there doesn't seem to be that much demand between Woolwich and Petts Wood to carry out such major modifications so the 161 should probably be left alone. The 471 could still be introduced as an assistance to the 472, allowing the 472's frequency to be reduced and relieve overcrowding. Another alternative would be for the 422 and 486 to swap routes between NG and Charlton, this would introduce an additional route towards Woolwich/Plumstead from the Peninsula, enhance the 422's reliability and help relieve overcrowding on the 486. Extending the 196 further would lengthen the route considerably and its reliability would suffer. I can see the idea behind this extension but it is not the most direct route due to its nature and the connections it provides, which it does well. Also the corridor between London Bridge - E&C corridor would be overbussed so the latter is an appropriate terminus. I could see your proposed 278 being a useful route, it would make use of the popular Clapham Junction - Peckham route via unserved roads and would be a good alternative to the 37. I also have a new route idea using the 278 number but it's a completely different type of route The 380's reliability seems to be fine as far as I'm aware, I acknowledge it's quite a long route but its length is not reflected in its running time as most of the route traverses along smaller roads. In fact, funnily enough the 386 shares similar journey time with the 380 (max 62 & 66 mins respectively) therefore if anything, extending the 386 to Belmarsh would add more minutes to the route and have a higher running time than the 380 currently does. I agree with you regarding the 422 and B11 ideas, the 422 could do with a reduction of running time as turns can occur often on the route. Diverting the 422 via Long Lane and having the B11 replacing it via Hythe Avenue would be a good start, it would also be a welcoming addition to my idea of swapping the 422 and 486 routes between NG and Charlton. These ideas would shave off some minutes off the route and result in enhanced reliability. My Christmas was very relaxing. Hope yours was good to. 129- I agree the 345 does not need assistance along that section of the route, therefore a more appropriate routing was suggested via the 37, which I support. 161- With the 161 idea, the curtailment to Woolwich is separate to the extension to Petts Wood. I dont agree that it's a major modification. The only lost links are East of Charlton to Queen Elizabeth Hospital and to Eltham. I don't see why the 422 and 486 would need to swap routing. The introduction of the 471 would be sufficient to replace the the 161. 196- Most of the 1-mile extension is covered by bus lanes so I'm not convinced that reliability would suffer that greatly. With the 344 serving London Bridge (Northbound) it improves the link. 380- i can see you mean here and I agree.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2015 10:47:38 GMT
I personally would leave the 161 as it is North Greenwich to Chislehurst. The only change I would consider is upgrading route 161 to a 24 hour service via Queen Elizabeth Hospital. Cutting the 161 back to Woolwich would only leave the 132 between North Greenwich and Eltham. Route 132 gets full load leaving North Greenwich during peak hours. Route 161 carries a fair load of passengers between North Greenwich Station and Woolwich most of the time.
I like the idea of a new bus link between Woolwich and Bromley. I thought about extending route 126 to Woolwich with new double deckers direct via Acadeny Road. Would this be achievable?
|
|
|
Post by routew15 on Dec 27, 2015 11:01:52 GMT
I personally would leave the 161 as it is North Greenwich to Chislehurst. The only change I would consider is upgrading route 161 to a 24 hour service via Queen Elizabeth Hospital. Really? Why? I don't think the 161 is a major help to the 132 between Eltham and NG, the 161 is far more indirect. The 132 could have its frequency adjusted, every 12 mins is quite poor.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2015 14:36:06 GMT
With major redevelopment in and around the Greenwich Peninsula I would leave all routes including the 161 to serve to North Greenwich Station. I agree that route 132 needs an increase in frequencies.
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Dec 27, 2015 19:29:21 GMT
I personally would leave the 161 as it is North Greenwich to Chislehurst. The only change I would consider is upgrading route 161 to a 24 hour service via Queen Elizabeth Hospital. Really? Why? I don't think the 161 is a major help to the 132 between Eltham and NG, the 161 is far more indirect. The 132 could have its frequency adjusted, every 12 mins is quite poor. The 161 is not all that indirect only takes 5-8 mins longer than the 132 between Eltham - North Greenwich. Also a good link when the 472 is running like crap. In addition North Greenwich is a busy bus station. Everything cannot help the 132. At the time the 132 was extended to North Greenwich TFL did not know it would become extremely busy and suffer from overcrowding. Sooner or later I think the 132 will be "24 Hour" Daily. The 132 has been every 12 Minutes even when it ran to Eltham Station, quite stupid to say the current frequency is poor, baring in mind it is getting a frequency increase. Personally I would double deck the 286 and divert it to North Greenwich via Blackheath Royal Standard instead of the A2 like the 132 does, to replace the 286 extension of the B16 to Greenwich, Cutty Sark
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Dec 27, 2015 19:48:40 GMT
Really? Why? I don't think the 161 is a major help to the 132 between Eltham and NG, the 161 is far more indirect. The 132 could have its frequency adjusted, every 12 mins is quite poor. The 161 is not all that indirect only takes 5-8 mins longer than the 132 between Eltham - North Greenwich. Also a good link when the 472 is running like crap. In addition North Greenwich is a busy bus station. Everything cannot help the 132. At the time the 132 was extended to North Greenwich TFL did not know it would become extremely busy and suffer from overcrowding. Sooner or later I think the 132 will be "24 Hour" Daily. The 132 has been every 12 Minutes even when it ran to Eltham Station, quite stupid to say the current frequency is poor, baring in mind it is getting a frequency increase. Personally I would double deck the 286 and divert it to North Greenwich via Blackheath Royal Standard instead of the A2 like the 132 does, to replace the 286 extension of the B16 to Greenwich, Cutty Sark Surely the problem with the 132 is that demand is very unbalanced? It is grossly overloaded between Eltham and North Greenwich largely because it is relatively quick. However it seems to be pretty dead east of Eltham. It's the sort of area where people are more likely to drive than use buses. Dumping more and more buses on the 132 just exacerbates the over capacity at the Bexleyheath end. Worse because the route is run from Bexleyheath then buses are more likely to be turned at the western end than elsewhere. Pumping more buses onto the route section between Bexley and Bexleyheath seems pretty pointless to me - never seen a busy bus on that section. I'm not overly familiar with the 286 but when I see it it is often very well loaded at Westcombe Park heading into Greenwich suggesting there is a strong demand on that section. My guess, and happy to be corrected by the locals, is that Eltham to Greenwich is the really busy bit of the 286 and that's where you shouldn't be breaking links.
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Dec 27, 2015 20:20:40 GMT
The 161 is not all that indirect only takes 5-8 mins longer than the 132 between Eltham - North Greenwich. Also a good link when the 472 is running like crap. In addition North Greenwich is a busy bus station. Everything cannot help the 132. At the time the 132 was extended to North Greenwich TFL did not know it would become extremely busy and suffer from overcrowding. Sooner or later I think the 132 will be "24 Hour" Daily. The 132 has been every 12 Minutes even when it ran to Eltham Station, quite stupid to say the current frequency is poor, baring in mind it is getting a frequency increase. Personally I would double deck the 286 and divert it to North Greenwich via Blackheath Royal Standard instead of the A2 like the 132 does, to replace the 286 extension of the B16 to Greenwich, Cutty Sark Surely the problem with the 132 is that demand is very unbalanced? It is grossly overloaded between Eltham and North Greenwich largely because it is relatively quick. However it seems to be pretty dead east of Eltham. It's the sort of area where people are more likely to drive than use buses. Dumping more and more buses on the 132 just exacerbates the over capacity at the Bexleyheath end. Worse because the route is run from Bexleyheath then buses are more likely to be turned at the western end than elsewhere. Pumping more buses onto the route section between Bexley and Bexleyheath seems pretty pointless to me - never seen a busy bus on that section. I'm not overly familiar with the 286 but when I see it it is often very well loaded at Westcombe Park heading into Greenwich suggesting there is a strong demand on that section. My guess, and happy to be corrected by the locals, is that Eltham to Greenwich is the really busy bit of the 286 and that's where you shouldn't be breaking links. I fully agree regarding the 132. Would certainly be overbussed in that section. Hence why I suggested diverting the 286 to North Greenwich. The whole 286 route is pretty much busy and should be double decked anyway. It is a bit like the 343 situation here really. Busiest section is too overcrowded hence the 286 idea, only thing is the direct link to Greenwich will be lost.
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Dec 27, 2015 20:21:11 GMT
The 161 is not all that indirect only takes 5-8 mins longer than the 132 between Eltham - North Greenwich. Also a good link when the 472 is running like crap. In addition North Greenwich is a busy bus station. Everything cannot help the 132. At the time the 132 was extended to North Greenwich TFL did not know it would become extremely busy and suffer from overcrowding. Sooner or later I think the 132 will be "24 Hour" Daily. The 132 has been every 12 Minutes even when it ran to Eltham Station, quite stupid to say the current frequency is poor, baring in mind it is getting a frequency increase. Personally I would double deck the 286 and divert it to North Greenwich via Blackheath Royal Standard instead of the A2 like the 132 does, to replace the 286 extension of the B16 to Greenwich, Cutty Sark Surely the problem with the 132 is that demand is very unbalanced? It is grossly overloaded between Eltham and North Greenwich largely because it is relatively quick. However it seems to be pretty dead east of Eltham. It's the sort of area where people are more likely to drive than use buses. Dumping more and more buses on the 132 just exacerbates the over capacity at the Bexleyheath end. Worse because the route is run from Bexleyheath then buses are more likely to be turned at the western end than elsewhere. Pumping more buses onto the route section between Bexley and Bexleyheath seems pretty pointless to me - never seen a busy bus on that section. I'm not overly familiar with the 286 but when I see it it is often very well loaded at Westcombe Park heading into Greenwich suggesting there is a strong demand on that section. My guess, and happy to be corrected by the locals, is that Eltham to Greenwich is the really busy bit of the 286 and that's where you shouldn't be breaking links. I agree about the 132: there is a mismatch across Eltham. The Eltham - Bexleyheath section ran quite happily with single decks for some time and probably still could. The question for me is where you'd split it. As for the 286, the Greenwich - Eltham section is always busy, and certainly more so than the 132 off peak. It also has to cope with a lot of school traffic, even at the Sidcup end. I wouldn't extend the B16 to replace the Greenwich section, not least because Kidbrooke Village residents would prefer the link to North Greenwich tube.
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Dec 27, 2015 20:28:28 GMT
Surely the problem with the 132 is that demand is very unbalanced? It is grossly overloaded between Eltham and North Greenwich largely because it is relatively quick. However it seems to be pretty dead east of Eltham. It's the sort of area where people are more likely to drive than use buses. Dumping more and more buses on the 132 just exacerbates the over capacity at the Bexleyheath end. Worse because the route is run from Bexleyheath then buses are more likely to be turned at the western end than elsewhere. Pumping more buses onto the route section between Bexley and Bexleyheath seems pretty pointless to me - never seen a busy bus on that section. I'm not overly familiar with the 286 but when I see it it is often very well loaded at Westcombe Park heading into Greenwich suggesting there is a strong demand on that section. My guess, and happy to be corrected by the locals, is that Eltham to Greenwich is the really busy bit of the 286 and that's where you shouldn't be breaking links. I agree about the 132: there is a mismatch across Eltham. The Eltham - Bexleyheath section ran quite happily with single decks for some time and probably still could. The question for me is where you'd split it. As for the 286, the Greenwich - Eltham section is always busy, and certainly more so than the 132 off peak. It also has to cope with a lot of school traffic, even at the Sidcup end. I wouldn't extend the B16 to replace the Greenwich section, not least because Kidbrooke Village residents would prefer the link to North Greenwich tube. I don't think it is nessasary to split the route, what I think needs to be done is another route covering North Greenwich - Eltham assisting the 132 leaving it as every 12 minutes. As said above there will be too many buses between Eltham & Bexleyheath where not needed.
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Dec 27, 2015 20:31:18 GMT
I am literally making this up as I go along... might work, might not!
132 Withdrawn Eltham Station to North Greenwich. Converted to single deck. 286 Converted to double deck. Revised to serve Kidbrooke Park Road in both directions now that the right turn from Rochester Way is permitted. 161 Rerouted between Well Hall Roundabout and East Greenwich via 132 to Dover Patrol, Kidbrooke Park Road, right into Shooters Hill Road (currently you can't get a bus to North Greenwich from here, but you can get one back!) then 132. 126 Converted to double deck. Diverted/extended at Eltham Church via 161 to Woolwich.
You'd need to add something to cover the lost bit of the 161 to provide the link from Woolwich Road to North Greenwich.
|
|
|
Post by routew15 on Dec 27, 2015 20:34:32 GMT
The 161 is not all that indirect only takes 5-8 mins longer than the 132 between Eltham - North Greenwich. Also a good link when the 472 is running like crap. ok fair points. I Just Remember when I used to travel through Woolwich a lot of passengers getting on and off at Woolwich with a mere handful continuting on the bus through Woolwich. I would be foolish to disagree with that. Yes it is getting a frequency increase but until that is implemented the current frequency is still poor. Out of all the terminating buses at NG the only route to run x12 is the 132, every other route (even the 108) runs more frequent. So if you look at it like that, I wouldn't exactly say the 132 has the best frequency.
|
|