|
Post by sid on Apr 3, 2016 5:54:49 GMT
Out of curiosity, why? Can the 122 not cope? I wouldn't have thought Forest Hill attracts more rail commuters given all trains that stop there also stop at Honor Oak Park which looks to be within walking distance of Brockley Rise. That's what I was thinking. The 122/185 does a good enough job as far as I know. Tie that with the Overground and Southern services and there's no real need for the extension. I wonder how many 172 extension proposals this forum has seen.... My idea was to extend the 172 over the current 176/194 route to Penge and onto Anerley Stn and curtail it at Aldwych. The 176 would be rerouted via Lower Sydenham opening various new links. On the subject of peak hour extensions to Forest Hill the 12 is another case, the 197 really does struggle in the peaks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2016 6:46:55 GMT
Brockley Rise to Forest Hill and or Honor Oak are unfortunately not quiet walking distances for most people who generally board the bus for one or two stops. The Brockley Rise terminus seems to stop in the middle of nowhere ( apart for the people living there) Passengers get off the 172 at Brockley then the board the 122 to continue there journeys. The 185 does not serve Brockley.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Apr 3, 2016 8:34:46 GMT
Brockley Rise to Forest Hill and or Honor Oak are unfortunately not quiet walking distances for most people who generally board the bus for one or two stops. The Brockley Rise terminus seems to stop in the middle of nowhere ( apart for the people living there) Passengers get off the 172 at Brockley then the board the 122 to continue there journeys. The 185 does not serve Brockley. Very true, I think Brockley Rise is just a convenient place to terminate buses rather than serving any passenger needs.
|
|
|
Post by moz on Apr 3, 2016 23:04:36 GMT
If the 172 were to head southward then I'd keep it heading southward. From Brockley Rise via Cranston Road, Woolstone Road and Perry Rise to Lower Sydenham. I'd also be tempted to swap northern ends with the 1.
Moz
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Apr 3, 2016 23:24:09 GMT
If the 172 were to head southward then I'd keep it heading southward. From Brockley Rise via Cranston Road, Woolstone Road and Perry Rise to Lower Sydenham. I'd also be tempted to swap northern ends with the 1. Moz Great minds think alike though my own proposal, which I wrote up a few months ago in this thread, was via Houston Road & Perry Hill rather than via Woolstone Road & Perry Rise.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Apr 5, 2016 15:39:12 GMT
A couple of others in Croydon;
312 from South Croydon Garage to Purley, very busy at peak times.
403 West Croydon to Thornton Heath Garage (or High Street) via Purley Way. The 119 and 130B did this years ago and the demand is still there now.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Apr 5, 2016 20:37:39 GMT
I'd make the 249 just peaks only between Balham and clapham Common as the 155 copes ok outside and the 249 is too indirect to clapham common to be useful versus the 50 (Streatham) and 417 (Crystal Palace).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2016 20:49:04 GMT
I'd make the 249 just peaks only between Balham and clapham Common as the 155 copes ok outside and the 249 is too indirect to clapham common to be useful versus the 50 (Streatham) and 417 (Crystal Palace). No it won't work I understand what you mean as the traffic in Balham is awful due to CS however though what about the people wanting to go to Anerley and Upper Norwood which itself doesn't have good transport links also Tooting Bec Common which I imagine you'll make people catch the 319 to Streatham and putting more pressure on the route, at the the end of the day there'll be too much broken links.
|
|