|
Post by Jack on Jan 25, 2016 12:33:42 GMT
We are proposing to extend the route via Red Post Hill, East Dulwich Grove, Dog Kennel Hill to East Dulwich Sainsbury’s. The extension would improve links to both East and North Dulwich and to Sainsbury’s. This proposed change would mean that Sunray Avenue would no longer be served by buses. Single deck buses would also be replaced with double deck buses along the whole of route 42. consultations.tfl.gov.uk/buses/bus-route-42
|
|
|
Post by ilovelondonbuses on Jan 25, 2016 12:43:45 GMT
FINALLY! Such great news. The tender result is imminent any day now.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 25, 2016 13:18:46 GMT
The devil is in the detail when you read the consultation. While Sunray Avenue loses buses and that may please the residents there there are also several other issues such as remodelling multiple traffic islands, reducing a disabled parking bay outside a church and adding yellow lines where cars currently park that will bring on the pains. I can see the proposal becoming mired in local complaints and the disabled parking bay thing is likely to draw the ire of local politicians. What I find suprising is that the P4 can seemingly get up and down Red Post Hill and past the traffic islands but shorter double decks won't be able to. Are double decks wider than a Dart / Pointer or E20D? Oh and there's the reliance on the local authority to make the necessary highway changes - this often takes forever. Still waiting for the 318 and 349 to be extended at Stamford Hill despite a TfL and a Hackney Council consultation!
It's a good idea but I think this one may prove difficult for TfL to implement.
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Jan 25, 2016 13:48:19 GMT
The devil is in the detail when you read the consultation. While Sunray Avenue loses buses and that may please the residents there there are also several other issues such as remodelling multiple traffic islands, reducing a disabled parking bay outside a church and adding yellow lines where cars currently park that will bring on the pains. I can see the proposal becoming mired in local complaints and the disabled parking bay thing is likely to draw the ire of local politicians. What I find suprising is that the P4 can seemingly get up and down Red Post Hill and past the traffic islands but shorter double decks won't be able to. Are double decks wider than a Dart / Pointer or E20D? Oh and there's the reliance on the local authority to make the necessary highway changes - this often takes forever. Still waiting for the 318 and 349 to be extended at Stamford Hill despite a TfL and a Hackney Council consultation! It's a good idea but I think this one may prove difficult for TfL to implement. Answering your question on width, nearly everything is built to 2.50 - 2.55m width (there is a few mm variation depending on how many bits stick out like advertising frames) so the double deckers won't be wider. However its possible the overhangs and throw vary which is only likely to be relevant on very tight turns. Looking at the map, almost seems to go around in a circle which suggests the route is a bodge to sort of cover all sort of things.
|
|
|
Post by ilovelondonbuses on Jan 25, 2016 13:50:33 GMT
The devil is in the detail when you read the consultation. While Sunray Avenue loses buses and that may please the residents there there are also several other issues such as remodelling multiple traffic islands, reducing a disabled parking bay outside a church and adding yellow lines where cars currently park that will bring on the pains. I can see the proposal becoming mired in local complaints and the disabled parking bay thing is likely to draw the ire of local politicians. What I find suprising is that the P4 can seemingly get up and down Red Post Hill and past the traffic islands but shorter double decks won't be able to. Are double decks wider than a Dart / Pointer or E20D? Oh and there's the reliance on the local authority to make the necessary highway changes - this often takes forever. Still waiting for the 318 and 349 to be extended at Stamford Hill despite a TfL and a Hackney Council consultation! It's a good idea but I think this one may prove difficult for TfL to implement. This is going to happen. It already has local support from politicians. In fact, the idea was lobbied by them to TfL.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 25, 2016 14:04:13 GMT
The devil is in the detail when you read the consultation. While Sunray Avenue loses buses and that may please the residents there there are also several other issues such as remodelling multiple traffic islands, reducing a disabled parking bay outside a church and adding yellow lines where cars currently park that will bring on the pains. I can see the proposal becoming mired in local complaints and the disabled parking bay thing is likely to draw the ire of local politicians. What I find suprising is that the P4 can seemingly get up and down Red Post Hill and past the traffic islands but shorter double decks won't be able to. Are double decks wider than a Dart / Pointer or E20D? Oh and there's the reliance on the local authority to make the necessary highway changes - this often takes forever. Still waiting for the 318 and 349 to be extended at Stamford Hill despite a TfL and a Hackney Council consultation! It's a good idea but I think this one may prove difficult for TfL to implement. This is going to happen. It already has local support from politicians. In fact, the idea was lobbied by them to TfL. It may well have been. Doesn't mean the public will support it! Look at the proposal to extend the 315 to Peabody Estate - politicians support it but the locals are completely up in arms about it and say the politicians are clueless and are not representing them. Not the first time that's happened nor will it be the last - I look forward to seeing what happens with the West Middlesex Hospital changes as I expect similar problems there. It also doesn't mean the politicians were aware of the local consequences in terms of highway changes. As I said I hope it happens but we should not be surprised if there is a local reaction to the details.
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Jan 25, 2016 14:04:25 GMT
The devil is in the detail when you read the consultation. While Sunray Avenue loses buses and that may please the residents there there are also several other issues such as remodelling multiple traffic islands, reducing a disabled parking bay outside a church and adding yellow lines where cars currently park that will bring on the pains. I can see the proposal becoming mired in local complaints and the disabled parking bay thing is likely to draw the ire of local politicians. What I find suprising is that the P4 can seemingly get up and down Red Post Hill and past the traffic islands but shorter double decks won't be able to. Are double decks wider than a Dart / Pointer or E20D? Oh and there's the reliance on the local authority to make the necessary highway changes - this often takes forever. Still waiting for the 318 and 349 to be extended at Stamford Hill despite a TfL and a Hackney Council consultation! It's a good idea but I think this one may prove difficult for TfL to implement. When this topic came up once before, I'm sure the issue preventing the use of double deckers was trees on Red Post Hill which couldn't be easily trimmed for some reason. It may be that moving traffic islands enables double decks to avoid overhanging branches more easily, and that that is the difference to the P4.
|
|
|
Post by Nathan on Jan 25, 2016 14:24:01 GMT
Weh-hey! Maybe we'll get some LTs on the route if we're lucky! /sarcasm
|
|
|
Post by ThinLizzy on Jan 25, 2016 17:10:39 GMT
The devil is in the detail when you read the consultation. While Sunray Avenue loses buses and that may please the residents there there are also several other issues such as remodelling multiple traffic islands, reducing a disabled parking bay outside a church and adding yellow lines where cars currently park that will bring on the pains. I can see the proposal becoming mired in local complaints and the disabled parking bay thing is likely to draw the ire of local politicians. What I find suprising is that the P4 can seemingly get up and down Red Post Hill and past the traffic islands but shorter double decks won't be able to. Are double decks wider than a Dart / Pointer or E20D? Oh and there's the reliance on the local authority to make the necessary highway changes - this often takes forever. Still waiting for the 318 and 349 to be extended at Stamford Hill despite a TfL and a Hackney Council consultation! It's a good idea but I think this one may prove difficult for TfL to implement. I think DDs are a smidge wider than Dart SLFs/Enviro 200s- Darts/E200s are 2.4m wide and a couple of inches can make all the difference.
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Jan 25, 2016 17:13:14 GMT
Found the post I remember reading, a report of a route test from beaver14uk about 3 years ago now!
Sunray Avenue/Red Post Hill It was agreed that when cars are not parked along the nearside then there is the potential for a bus to hit a tree at several locations on these two streets. LB Southwark said that there is no likelihood of any of the larger boughs being removed from the trees as it is a conservation area and there are tree preservation orders. An alternative solution would be to install kerb build-outs at the bottom of each tree. This would necessitate removing parking spaces. This will be investigated further.
Conclusion Double deck buses are not currently suitable for operation on route 42 due to overhanging trees at Sunray Avenue and Red Post Hill
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jan 25, 2016 18:50:49 GMT
Found the post I remember reading, a report of a route test from beaver14uk about 3 years ago now! Sunray Avenue/Red Post Hill It was agreed that when cars are not parked along the nearside then there is the potential for a bus to hit a tree at several locations on these two streets. LB Southwark said that there is no likelihood of any of the larger boughs being removed from the trees as it is a conservation area and there are tree preservation orders. An alternative solution would be to install kerb build-outs at the bottom of each tree. This would necessitate removing parking spaces. This will be investigated further. Conclusion Double deck buses are not currently suitable for operation on route 42 due to overhanging trees at Sunray Avenue and Red Post Hill If my memory serves me correctly, new traffic islands were installed on Red Post Hill just before the time when the 42 stopped seeing deckers at all. Red Post Hill used to be ok for deckers before as I've been down there on a 37 on diversion before. Anyway, my only disappointment with the consultation is that Sunray Avenue is no longer served which could be detrimental to those who won't be using the extension. Surely, it could work like it is except that buses turn left from Sunray Avenue into Red Post Hill rather than right.
|
|
|
Post by overgroundcommuter on Jan 26, 2016 19:14:52 GMT
Considering the 42 will be DD, will the stop/stand at East Dulwich Sainsbury's need remodelling? You can fit one DD at the stand furthest away from the two bus stops, but I don't think it's suitable for the 42 and the P13.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Mar 21, 2016 1:25:10 GMT
A relevant Mayor's Answer re route 42 extension.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Mar 21, 2016 2:29:39 GMT
A relevant Mayor's Answer re route 42 extension. They could avoid that by continuing to run the 42 along Sunray Avenue towards East Dulwich. That way, all that changes is buses go beyond the Red Post Hill area and that Sunray Avenue only loses a bus service in one direction rather than both as per TfL's proposal.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Mar 21, 2016 19:33:17 GMT
A relevant Mayor's Answer re route 42 extension. They could avoid that by continuing to run the 42 along Sunray Avenue towards East Dulwich. That way, all that changes is buses go beyond the Red Post Hill area and that Sunray Avenue only loses a bus service in one direction rather than both as per TfL's proposal. But isn't it residents objections, and possibly trees as well, in Sunray Avenue that precludes double deckers?
|
|