|
Post by routew15 on Feb 22, 2016 17:01:22 GMT
TfL has launched a consultation today to make route alterations to the 178 in the Kidbrooke area 178 consultation pageThe routing for 178 would: • take an estimated 8 minutes longer for through passengers. • see the 178 serve Tudway Road and Moorhead Way again. • create a direct service to and from Lewisham, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Woolwich and other places on the route. Attachment Deleted-source: TfL consultation page Consultation closes Sunday 20 March 2016
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2016 17:35:17 GMT
TfL has launched a consultation today to make route alterations to the 178 in the Kidbrooke area 178 consultation pageThe routing for 178 would: • take an estimated 8 minutes longer for through passengers. • see the 178 serve Tudway Road and Moorhead Way again. • create a direct service to and from Lewisham, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Woolwich and other places on the route. View Attachment-source: TfL consultation page Consultation closes Sunday 20 March 2016Have to say I agree with these changes. The 178 is of no value to through passengers from most locations anyway. Lewisham - Woolwich is better achieved by other routes, as is Woolwich - Lee etc. The primary purpose of the 178 is to provide links for passengers in the Kidbrooke area and at the moment by running straight through the middle and avoiding the residential areas, it's probably out of reach for a fair few people.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Feb 22, 2016 18:58:22 GMT
TfL has launched a consultation today to make route alterations to the 178 in the Kidbrooke area 178 consultation pageThe routing for 178 would: • take an estimated 8 minutes longer for through passengers. • see the 178 serve Tudway Road and Moorhead Way again. • create a direct service to and from Lewisham, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Woolwich and other places on the route. View Attachment-source: TfL consultation page Consultation closes Sunday 20 March 2016Have to say I agree with these changes. The 178 is of no value to through passengers from most locations anyway. Lewisham - Woolwich is better achieved by other routes, as is Woolwich - Lee etc. The primary purpose of the 178 is to provide links for passengers in the Kidbrooke area and at the moment by running straight through the middle and avoiding the residential areas, it's probably out of reach for a fair few people. One of those consultations that makes perfect sense. However, 8 minutes is a bit optimistic given that Kidbrooke Park Road can be full of traffic at times.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Feb 22, 2016 19:08:54 GMT
One thing that is interesting with this proposal is what TfL say they will do with the results. Normally it is TfL who decide but, of course, they will contact local councils if they are directly affected or there are highway works. However this time it seems TfL *won't* decide immediately. They are going off to talk to Greenwich Council and other stakeholders. There will then be a summary published and all TfL say they will do is consider how the views received will inform TfL's plans as the area develops further. That's very different to how other consultations are pitched.
The fundamental question is why on earth Greenwich Council allowed Kidbrooke to be redeveloped without sensible access for bus services. It's ludicrous when it means an extra bus is needed and people effectively have to go round and round in circles to go precisely nowhere. "Build some link roads" is the answer.
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Feb 22, 2016 19:13:58 GMT
One thing that is interesting with this proposal is what TfL say they will do with the results. Normally it is TfL who decide but, of course, they will contact local councils if they are directly affected or there are highway works. However this time it seems TfL *won't* decide immediately. They are going off to talk to Greenwich Council and other stakeholders. There will then be a summary published and all TfL say they will do is consider how the views received will inform TfL's plans as the area develops further. That's very different to how other consultations are pitched. The fundamental question is why on earth Greenwich Council allowed Kidbrooke to be redeveloped without sensible access for bus services. It's ludicrous when it means an extra bus is needed and people effectively have to go round and round in circles to go precisely nowhere. "Build some link roads" is the answer. The appalling layout for buses at North Greenwich is another example of buses not being sufficiently considered by the borough's planners. Yet Greenwich councillors will present this as a triumph for them over TfL when the whole shambles is down to them in the first place. Longer term, there has to be a better answer when more routes serve Kidbrooke Village: the Moorehead Way turning circle is due to be built on in a few years anyway.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2016 19:42:11 GMT
Even though others like it, I don't like it, don't like the fact you need 2 double runs in the same area. One is alright, but 2, nah! I agree with snoggle about building link roads because it can be done if it used to be like that.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Feb 22, 2016 20:53:03 GMT
Even though others like it, I don't like it, don't like the fact you need 2 double runs in the same area. One is alright, but 2, nah! I agree with snoggle about building link roads because it can be done if it used to be like that. Without the double runs, there is hardly a case to serve the area TBH due to Greenwich severing the roads in two.
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Mar 2, 2016 8:40:44 GMT
And bang on cue, the council's weekly comic leads with a story on 'campaigners win bus fight', going on to say how they were backed by a local MP & the council.
|
|
|
Post by routew15 on Mar 30, 2017 17:49:17 GMT
snoggle noticed your tweet re: 178 consultation. I had emailed consultation team on 12 February and received this is the response 17 February:
|
|
|
Post by busman on Mar 30, 2017 20:08:31 GMT
I wonder why the delay. Loving the tridents cruising about on the 178 in the meantime 🙂
|
|
|
Post by routew15 on Mar 30, 2017 20:41:42 GMT
I wonder why the delay. Loving the tridents cruising about on the 178 in the meantime 🙂 I'd imagine these changes are quite low on the list of importance there had been quite a few high profile consultation releases in the past year which can distract from a more 'technical' consultation like this one, as it involves a lot of conversation with the developers and local authority which can be long winded. With that said, I do not think this should impair TfL in making a outcome/decision on the direction they would like to take with the 178 changes. It can't be bad for them to express publicly what they wish for the developers and local council to support, it's not like they're dealing with Brexit negotiations
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Mar 30, 2017 21:41:35 GMT
I wonder why the delay. Loving the tridents cruising about on the 178 in the meantime 🙂 I'd imagine these changes are quite low on the list of importance there had been quite a few high profile consultation releases in the past year which can distract from a more 'technical' consultation like this one, as it involves a lot of conversation with the developers and local authority which can be long winded. With that said, I do not think this should impair TfL in making a outcome/decision on the direction they would like to take with the 178 changes. It can't be bad for them to express publicly what they wish for the developers and local council to support, it's not like they're dealing with Brexit negotiations This consultation was rather different in that TfL were more "open" (ahem) than usual to gathering ideas from a range of people / organisations. They set out a proposal but there was no sense in which it was "firm" and that probably reflected the lack of certainty over the design of the development and pace of change. Furthermore I think people are pretty fed up with the frankly ridiculous set up on the 178 and B16 as they currently are. The B16 stops short of the station, pedestrian access to the station has been, shall we say, "variable" because of the development works and the developer seems to have had no idea at all about catering for effective bus services. I am not surprised that this one was run and run *but* why don't TfL just post a bleepin' update on the page explaining where things are at and give an indicative date for a response. I'm not asking for the crown jewels - it is just basic good practice if you are going to publish this stuff for the public to read. No one is going to hold anyone to tentative dates but saying nowt is unacceptable. Ditto on the 271 - I expect that's tied up in local Highgate "politics" which can't be a shock to anyone who's familiar with the area. Again just tell people what's going on. The same applies to the 224 rerouting at Park Royal - I know now that local borough politics has ensnared that change - and the W11 change. Why not say why it has been postponed and for how long? That would, at least, inform the poor sods who use the service. All of this is just common sense stuff - why can't TfL see it and do something about it?
|
|
|
Post by routew15 on Mar 30, 2017 22:34:39 GMT
I'd imagine these changes are quite low on the list of importance there had been quite a few high profile consultation releases in the past year which can distract from a more 'technical' consultation like this one, as it involves a lot of conversation with the developers and local authority which can be long winded. With that said, I do not think this should impair TfL in making a outcome/decision on the direction they would like to take with the 178 changes. It can't be bad for them to express publicly what they wish for the developers and local council to support, it's not like they're dealing with Brexit negotiations This consultation was rather different in that TfL were more "open" (ahem) than usual to gathering ideas from a range of people / organisations. They set out a proposal but there was no sense in which it was "firm" and that probably reflected the lack of certainty over the design of the development and pace of change. Furthermore I think people are pretty fed up with the frankly ridiculous set up on the 178 and B16 as they currently are. The B16 stops short of the station, pedestrian access to the station has been, shall we say, "variable" because of the development works and the developer seems to have had no idea at all about catering for effective bus services. I am not surprised that this one was run and run *but* why don't TfL just post a bleepin' update on the page explaining where things are at and give an indicative date for a response. I'm not asking for the crown jewels - it is just basic good practice if you are going to publish this stuff for the public to read. No one is going to hold anyone to tentative dates but saying nowt is unacceptable. Ditto on the 271 - I expect that's tied up in local Highgate "politics" which can't be a shock to anyone who's familiar with the area. Again just tell people what's going on. The same applies to the 224 rerouting at Park Royal - I know now that local borough politics has ensnared that change - and the W11 change. Why not say why it has been postponed and for how long? That would, at least, inform the poor sods who use the service. All of this is just common sense stuff - why can't TfL see it and do something about it? Wait the 271 changes have not happened ? I thought they went ahead and the results were never posted. The idea of tabloid photos of parents blocking the width restriction must have been a really scare for the surface transportation team. In all seriousness the extended journey is what i think gave this one the first blow then higher cost of new route timings most probably killed it the second time it was considered.
|
|
|
Post by redexpress on Mar 31, 2017 0:20:12 GMT
Ditto on the 271 - I expect that's tied up in local Highgate "politics" which can't be a shock to anyone who's familiar with the area. Again just tell people what's going on. The same applies to the 224 rerouting at Park Royal - I know now that local borough politics has ensnared that change - and the W11 change. Why not say why it has been postponed and for how long? That would, at least, inform the poor sods who use the service. All of this is just common sense stuff - why can't TfL see it and do something about it? Wait the 271 changes have not happened ? I thought they went ahead and the results were never posted. The idea of tabloid photos of parents blocking the width restriction must have been a really scare for the surface transportation team. In all seriousness the extended journey is what i think gave this one the first blow then higher cost of new route timings most probably killed it the second time it was considered. The problem with the 271 plan is that TfL have proposed to CHANGE something in Highgate. One simply does not CHANGE anything in Highgate. Any CHANGE is automatically assumed to be a bad thing. Within a couple of weeks of the consultation going up, every other property in Highgate Village was proudly displaying a laminated "NO TO NORTH ROAD BUS DEPOT" poster. Because, obviously, a couple of extra bus stands on a road constitutes a Bus Depot. You'd have thought they'd be glad to be shot of the 271's ridiculously unsuitable terminus, but nothing is quite that simple in Highgate!
|
|
|
Post by routew15 on Mar 31, 2017 7:47:23 GMT
Wait the 271 changes have not happened ? I thought they went ahead and the results were never posted. The idea of tabloid photos of parents blocking the width restriction must have been a really scare for the surface transportation team. In all seriousness the extended journey is what i think gave this one the first blow then higher cost of new route timings most probably killed it the second time it was considered. The problem with the 271 plan is that TfL have proposed to CHANGE something in Highgate. One simply does not CHANGE anything in Highgate. Any CHANGE is automatically assumed to be a bad thing. Within a couple of weeks of the consultation going up, every other property in Highgate Village was proudly displaying a laminated "NO TO NORTH ROAD BUS DEPOT" poster. Because, obviously, a couple of extra bus stands on a road constitutes a Bus Depot. You'd have thought they'd be glad to be shot of the 271's ridiculously unsuitable terminus, but nothing is quite that simple in Highgate! to be honest if Highgate residents do not wish have there buses altered and If TfL is funding these changes can the money be diverted to the a bus priority scheme elsewhere? I agree though I thought the 271 being taken out of its current would be an excellent thing as it allows for some 'public realm improvements to be made. You could put a tiny little piazza right where the stand used to be. But I guess they do not need that in Highgate
|
|