|
Post by snoggle on Nov 12, 2015 11:40:40 GMT
The most important thing here is a direct connection from Dulwich Hospital to KCH. It's a 5 min walk from the hospital to the 40, 176, 185, P13 (and 37 which serves the hospital) stop on Goose Green, although patients can take a short walk along Melbourne Grove to the East Dulwich Station stop for the 40, 176, 185 and 484 to KCH. I can't remember the route number, but there was also a Sainsbury's circular in the 90s which started from Sainsburys and went to Denmark Hill, Sunray Avenue, North Dulwich Stn, East Dulwich Grove, Goose Green and back to Sainsburys. Good point about Dulwich Hospital especially as a lot of King's patients use Dulwich Hospital as well. The S13 was the circular route that ran from Sainsbury's as I remember it in my old 1995 Brixton bus guide I had years ago. Or P15? P15 timetable
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 12, 2015 12:37:53 GMT
Good point about Dulwich Hospital especially as a lot of King's patients use Dulwich Hospital as well. The S13 was the circular route that ran from Sainsbury's as I remember it in my old 1995 Brixton bus guide I had years ago. Or P15? P15 timetableThe P15 was the S13 but renumbered - the S13 came first lol. The P15 was eventually extended to West Norwood before it was withdrawn without replacement.
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Nov 28, 2015 22:49:25 GMT
At long last, it appears the 42 will finally be extended to East Dulwich Sainsburys via East Dulwich Grove....from October 2016! www.dulwichsociety.com/So, not long to wait for this bus then. Just one Christmas and summer in fact!
|
|
|
Post by westhamgeezer on Nov 30, 2015 8:31:30 GMT
At long last, it appears the 42 will finally be extended to East Dulwich Sainsburys via East Dulwich Grove....from October 2016! www.dulwichsociety.com/ Presumably as part of the route retendering scope. Interesting this is stated as a "done deal" when you'd expect it to be subject to consultation. Most proposed changes are "done deals" consultation just a box ticking exercise unless a significant fuss is kicked up. New addington a perfect example.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Nov 30, 2015 12:06:49 GMT
Presumably as part of the route retendering scope. Interesting this is stated as a "done deal" when you'd expect it to be subject to consultation. Most proposed changes are "done deals" consultation just a box ticking exercise unless a significant fuss is kicked up. New addington a perfect example. The Finchley Road scheme suggests these things are not always done deals!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2015 18:24:02 GMT
Most proposed changes are "done deals" consultation just a box ticking exercise unless a significant fuss is kicked up. New addington a perfect example. The Finchley Road scheme suggests these things are not always done deals! Finchley Road would of happened if it wasn't for the massive protest, yes I know most extensions do bring a sense of upheavel but this one was just on another scale and also at the wrong time during the election period too.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Nov 30, 2015 18:32:03 GMT
The Finchley Road scheme suggests these things are not always done deals! Finchley Road would of happened if it wasn't for the massive protest, yes I know most extensions do bring a sense of upheavel but this one was just on another scale and also at the wrong time during the election period too. Exactly my point, somebody did listen!
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 30, 2015 19:19:46 GMT
The Finchley Road scheme suggests these things are not always done deals! Finchley Road would of happened if it wasn't for the massive protest, yes I know most extensions do bring a sense of upheavel but this one was just on another scale and also at the wrong time during the election period too. Actually it simply became politically toxic and affecting two, possibly three, marginal constituencies that the Conservatives needed to win / retain. In that context it was a no brainer for a Tory Mayor to wade in and kill the issue stone dead. Yes there was a lot of public concern but that hasn't stopped TfL in the past if they believe the financial case is overwhelming. New Addington shows that. I admit that I was surprised that TfL did not tweak certain aspects of that scheme given there are /were some key concerns from locals. It takes a very great deal of effort, usually channelled via politicians, for the public to get their voice heard in TfL consultations or where there is a real problem with a route / area. We can see this with the 136/343 North Peckham problem and also the campaign over years to get extra buses added to the C10. I'm pretty convinced, but can't prove, that those issues only get fixed because London Assembly members, who are on the Transport Committee, actually took up the cudgels and used their contacts with TfL to press the issue home.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Nov 30, 2015 19:40:35 GMT
Finchley Road would of happened if it wasn't for the massive protest, yes I know most extensions do bring a sense of upheavel but this one was just on another scale and also at the wrong time during the election period too. Actually it simply became politically toxic and affecting two, possibly three, marginal constituencies that the Conservatives needed to win / retain. In that context it was a no brainer for a Tory Mayor to wade in and kill the issue stone dead. Yes there was a lot of public concern but that hasn't stopped TfL in the past if they believe the financial case is overwhelming. New Addington shows that. I admit that I was surprised that TfL did not tweak certain aspects of that scheme given there are /were some key concerns from locals. It takes a very great deal of effort, usually channelled via politicians, for the public to get their voice heard in TfL consultations or where there is a real problem with a route / area. We can see this with the 136/343 North Peckham problem and also the campaign over years to get extra buses added to the C10. I'm pretty convinced, but can't prove, that those issues only get fixed because London Assembly members, who are on the Transport Committee, actually took up the cudgels and used their contacts with TfL to press the issue home. Did the tory mayor really wade in and kill it stone dead? I didn't think he had any direct involvement in such matters?
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 30, 2015 20:33:57 GMT
Actually it simply became politically toxic and affecting two, possibly three, marginal constituencies that the Conservatives needed to win / retain. In that context it was a no brainer for a Tory Mayor to wade in and kill the issue stone dead. Yes there was a lot of public concern but that hasn't stopped TfL in the past if they believe the financial case is overwhelming. New Addington shows that. I admit that I was surprised that TfL did not tweak certain aspects of that scheme given there are /were some key concerns from locals. It takes a very great deal of effort, usually channelled via politicians, for the public to get their voice heard in TfL consultations or where there is a real problem with a route / area. We can see this with the 136/343 North Peckham problem and also the campaign over years to get extra buses added to the C10. I'm pretty convinced, but can't prove, that those issues only get fixed because London Assembly members, who are on the Transport Committee, actually took up the cudgels and used their contacts with TfL to press the issue home. Did the tory mayor really wade in and kill it stone dead? I didn't think he had any direct involvement in such matters? He was quoted in the Press as having done so. www.times-series.co.uk/news/12900179.Boris_Johnson_steps_in_to_save_number_13_bus/www.times-series.co.uk/news/12902949.City_Hall_defends_Boris_Johnson_s_intervention_on_the_number_13_bus/As the chair of TfL he can direct matters as he sees fit. He is in ultimate charge. And just to be clear I expect the same thing would have happened if there had been a Labour mayor as they would not have wanted an election campaign marred by the same sort of issues. Therefore I am NOT making party political point before I'm accused of so doing.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Nov 30, 2015 20:59:26 GMT
If he did then fair enough but Leon Daniels seemed to suggest it was purely a TfL matter, perhaps he can do the same for the 436?
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 30, 2015 21:55:58 GMT
If he did then fair enough but Leon Daniels seemed to suggest it was purely a TfL matter, perhaps he can do the same for the 436? Well Leon is hardly going to give Andrew Dismore, one of the most vociferous [1] critics of the Mayor, extra ammunition to throw at the Mayor. No one goes out of their way to openly criticise the most senior person in an organisation and certainly not when they're at Leon's level unless they have a death wish / desire to visit the Job Centre. Far easier to say it was a TfL decision even if it's clear that the Mayor did intervene and City Hall did not deny the intervention (as stated in the second press link). It's a bit messy but the whole episode was anyway so no surprises that people are trying to "damp things down". [1] Mr Dismore regularly shouts at the Mayor and has a tedious tactic of requoting pages and pages of previous responses to Mayor's Questions and then asking the question all over again if he's not satisfied with the previous answer. To say this is childish and immature is perhaps an understatement. He clearly thinks he's being a bit clever but I wonder if anyone is impressed by the tactic. I'm certainly not.
|
|
|
Post by ilovelondonbuses on Dec 11, 2015 14:08:26 GMT
According to SE1, 42 is going to be extended to East Dulwich's Sainsburys with double deckers subject to a consultation. I'm guessing this will tie into imminent it's tender result.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Dec 11, 2015 14:17:00 GMT
According to SE1, 42 is going to be extended to East Dulwich's Sainsburys with double deckers subject to a consultation. I'm guessing this will tie into imminent it's tender result. That would seem to suggest that it will no longer run via Sunray Avenue - I'd of thought the current loop would be retained but with buses turning left instead of right out of Sunray Avenue so residents coming from Camberwell and beyond would keep their usual arrangement.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Dec 11, 2015 16:31:00 GMT
According to SE1, 42 is going to be extended to East Dulwich's Sainsburys with double deckers subject to a consultation. I'm guessing this will tie into imminent it's tender result. Also interesting to note that all the councillors, regardless of party, on Southwark Council have condemned the service on the 42. That's quite an achievement for TfL and Go Ahead but doesn't help the passengers. www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/8555I suspect TfL will be under great pressure, once the tender result is announced, to get single deckers off the route as fast as possible regardless of the extension proposal. If Go Ahead retain it then they will be under pressure to effect changes quickly even if some sort of interim arrangement is needed at Sunray Avenue to avoid the trees.
|
|