|
Post by capitalomnibus on Mar 3, 2022 10:42:53 GMT
Silly short-termist viewpoint. The capital has been provided to significantly improve connectivity and public transport links across the Thames in an area traditionally under invested in (Woolwich Ferry replacement instead of a permanent crossing, Jubilee Line to Thamesmead etc) and these cowboys want to decline the opportunity at a time when the funds for such a project will probably not be available again for a couple decades. Electric car prices are projected to be on par with petrol or diesel equivalents by 2027 (when Silvertown will probably actually open!). Notwithstanding that new petrol and diesel car sales will be banned next decade. The problem isn’t the volume of traffic, its the emissions. Newham has one of the highest areas of deprivation in London. It’s embarrassing (but not surprising) that a Labour council wants to deny its residents better public transport links and connections to employment opportunities. Also will open up cross river opportunities between businesses and customers (think plumbers, builders, florists, food delivery and other SME business models where the service is provided in the home/doorstep). Get the long term infrastructure in place, stop playing games with the future of our city. Emissions can and will be legislated for. The trouble is, they have been infiltrated by the eco-mentalist terrorist Extinction Rebellidiots.
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Mar 3, 2022 10:44:09 GMT
Silly short-termist viewpoint. The capital has been provided to significantly improve connectivity and public transport links across the Thames in an area traditionally under invested in (Woolwich Ferry replacement instead of a permanent crossing, Jubilee Line to Thamesmead etc) and these cowboys want to decline the opportunity at a time when the funds for such a project will probably not be available again for a couple decades. Electric car prices are projected to be on par with petrol or diesel equivalents by 2027 (when Silvertown will probably actually open!). Notwithstanding that new petrol and diesel car sales will be banned next decade. The problem isn’t the volume of traffic, its the emissions. Newham has one of the highest areas of deprivation in London. It’s embarrassing (but not surprising) that a Labour council wants to deny its residents better public transport links and connections to employment opportunities. Also will open up cross river opportunities between businesses and customers (think plumbers, builders, florists, food delivery and other SME business models where the service is provided in the home/doorstep). Get the long term infrastructure in place, stop playing games with the future of our city. Emissions can and will be legislated for. I don’t disagree with the idea of additional crossings in the East but this is entirely the wrong location. It just adds additional pressure to the run-up from Bow. It won’t relieve traffic on that section and I think Newham is right to oppose the tunnel, a bit late, but right to oppose it. An entirely different location should have been chosen for the tunnel which actually would help redistribute the traffic out rather than slowing it down with additional traffic junctions. Infrastructure projects like tunnels should actually improve conditions on all approaches and this just doesn’t seem like it will. It would decrease traffic on the run up from Bow, as those coming from the east or A13 would go via the new tunnel instead of Blackwall.
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Mar 3, 2022 10:49:53 GMT
I don’t disagree with the idea of additional crossings in the East but this is entirely the wrong location. It just adds additional pressure to the run-up from Bow. It won’t relieve traffic on that section and I think Newham is right to oppose the tunnel, a bit late, but right to oppose it. An entirely different location should have been chosen for the tunnel which actually would help redistribute the traffic out rather than slowing it down with additional traffic junctions. Infrastructure projects like tunnels should actually improve conditions on all approaches and this just doesn’t seem like it will. It would decrease traffic on the run up from Bow, as those coming from the east or A13 would go via the new tunnel instead of Blackwall. Would say from observations most come from the west and A12 in the evening peaks. Even with the new tunnel there will be worse gridlock as soon as anything goes wrong in the Blackwall Tunnel.
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Mar 3, 2022 10:55:26 GMT
I assume there will be some major changes to the local approach roads near the tunnel. The Lower Lea Crossing and Roundabout would need work I assume?
|
|
|
Post by busman on Mar 3, 2022 12:13:19 GMT
I agree. East / SE London is in dire need of a new crossing but they literally couldn’t have picked a worse spot than this. This needs to be a few miles downriver In its current form needs to be opposed tooth and nail. Typical sadiq khan, can’t get things right. Tunnels in the wrong spot, LTNs / cycle stuff while trundling around in a 4-5 diesel car entourage, knife crime etc etc. The woolwich ferry doesn’t work most of the time (they should just say when it runs rather than when it doesn’t as that’s most days!) Mercifully Greenwich council heard the widespread opposition and cancelled the LTN schemes for east Greenwich (this would have seen maze hill and Vanbrugh hill closed to through traffic). West Greenwich LTNs also under review as all that has happened is that traffic has been displaced to different streets (or east Greenwich) and main roads are choc-a-bloc I actually support this crossing even if it is an useless place and I would support two more crossings. It is ridiculous we can spend money on all stupid things in this country and the most basic of needs, especially at that side of East London is not done. There is NO sensible crossing in both directions between Tower Bridge and Dartford Crossing. My reason for saying that, it discriminates against large vehicles and creates additional wasted mileage and more emissions, these brain dead people cannot see this. Blackwall is practically a one direction tunnel, Rotherhithe is a joke, Woolwich ferry is a part time not fit for purpose laughing stock. Completely agree. I’m still fuming that locals showed overwhelming support for a permanent crossing in Thamesmead or Belvedere and the MoL ignored us and chose to give us new ferries which are slower (take ages to dock) and less reliable than the ones they replaced. People who think that scrapping Silvertown will mean another crossing will be built between Blackwall Tunnel and Dartford are deluding themselves. If this is stopped, forget about any large scale capital expenditure at a better location. That would not sit well with the “levelling up” mandate and the fiscal state of the country.
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Mar 3, 2022 21:09:30 GMT
Surprised the 335 hasn’t been mentioned, would be the ideal bus to go to Canary Wharf. I suspect the Eltham to Beckton route mentioned in the plans is now likely to be a modified 335 if the tunnel comes to pass.
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Sept 30, 2022 19:07:51 GMT
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Oct 21, 2022 8:00:12 GMT
|
|
|
Post by VMH2537 on Oct 21, 2022 9:36:39 GMT
Don't they know the 132 already links North Greenwich from Eltham?
|
|
|
Post by ronnie on Oct 21, 2022 9:55:47 GMT
Don't they know the 132 already links North Greenwich from Eltham? As does the 161 but the long way around The X239 sounds nice (although not sure why 239, would have been better off as an X132/X261). TBH it won’t be that fast in the morning peaks as it will be on diversion half the time through 108/335 LOR!!!
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Oct 21, 2022 11:19:43 GMT
Don't they know the 132 already links North Greenwich from Eltham? As does the 161 but the long way around The X239 sounds nice (although not sure why 239, would have been better off as an X132/X261). TBH it won’t be that fast in the morning peaks as it will be on diversion half the time through 108/335 LOR!!! I see very little point in an express route that will have next to no bus priority for most of its route. And the A102 south of the tunnel will be more congested in the PM peak than it is now.
|
|
|
Post by lonmark on Oct 21, 2022 12:07:27 GMT
Don't they know the 132 already links North Greenwich from Eltham? As does the 161 but the long way around The X239 sounds nice (although not sure why 239, would have been better off as an X132/X261). TBH it won’t be that fast in the morning peaks as it will be on diversion half the time through 108/335 LOR!!! 239 is free to use for that new route. No need for 'X'
|
|
|
Post by VMH2537 on Oct 21, 2022 12:23:26 GMT
As does the 161 but the long way around The X239 sounds nice (although not sure why 239, would have been better off as an X132/X261). TBH it won’t be that fast in the morning peaks as it will be on diversion half the time through 108/335 LOR!!! 239 is free to use for that new route. No need for 'X' I think it would be much simpler for a user to distinguish what is a express service or a stopping service. Wouldn't want users hopping on a express route finding themselves there stop is not alighted
|
|
|
Post by JUNIOR26 on Oct 21, 2022 13:02:17 GMT
Make a note on your calendars, as from 16 November TFL will consult on proposals to route 129, and new route X239.
|
|
|
Post by ilovelondonbuses on Oct 21, 2022 13:23:34 GMT
Make a note on your calendars, as from 16 November TFL will consult on proposals to routes 108 and 129, and new route X239. Interesting. Maybe this could be one of the reason for the delay in tender results for routes 108 and 129. It has been suggested that the buses that past through the Slivertown tunnel will have to be zero emission vehicles. Makes me wonder if route 108 will have a double deck conversion however there is an bridge issue at the Stratford International end of the route.
|
|