|
Post by route53 on Sept 12, 2019 16:00:07 GMT
Any idea on when the butchering of the 180 starts? Or has that been put on the back burner? The cutback and extension are still slated to happen, but no date is yet forthcoming. Let’s hope TfL are seriously reconsidering this change then
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Sept 12, 2019 16:22:07 GMT
Kind of hard to as the 472 cant reduce without the 180 diverted and the 129 to Lewisham is needed to remove buses standing in Greenwich Town Centre.
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Sept 12, 2019 17:10:31 GMT
Keep an eye on councilmeetings.lewisham.gov.uk/ieListMeetings.aspx?CommitteeId=374 - a question about the extension's been tabled for next week's meeting by Cllr Codd. The last update was at the June 2018 meeting where the reply was not promising: "The extension will currently not be going ahead at this moment - it requires the right level of demand to supply it which is new housing, and it also requires funding - all of which may take a further 5 years."
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Sept 12, 2019 17:11:49 GMT
The cutback and extension are still slated to happen, but no date is yet forthcoming. Let’s hope TfL are seriously reconsidering this change then Without the 180 change, pretty much the whole SE London Crossrail changes come crashing down. It’s all linked together : as well as what southlondonbus said, without the cut at the west end of the route, the 180 can’t receive the Erith Quarry extension as it would be too long.
|
|
|
Post by stuckonthe486 on Sept 15, 2019 14:01:32 GMT
Let’s hope TfL are seriously reconsidering this change then Without the 180 change, pretty much the whole SE London Crossrail changes come crashing down. It’s all linked together : as well as what southlondonbus said, without the cut at the west end of the route, the 180 can’t receive the Erith Quarry extension as it would be too long. I do wonder if politics will intervene and more money will be found to keep the 180 as it is and serve Erith Quarry another way. An election is coming up, another bus cut in SE London is not going to look very good. Or it'll get delayed until after May, of course.
|
|
|
Post by route53 on Sept 15, 2019 19:41:18 GMT
Without the 180 change, pretty much the whole SE London Crossrail changes come crashing down. It’s all linked together : as well as what southlondonbus said, without the cut at the west end of the route, the 180 can’t receive the Erith Quarry extension as it would be too long. I do wonder if politics will intervene and more money will be found to keep the 180 as it is and serve Erith Quarry another way. An election is coming up, another bus cut in SE London is not going to look very good. Or it'll get delayed until after May, of course. Possibly, the 180, much like the 53 is a very political route, it links the three busiest centres in inner SE London; Lewisham, Greenwich and Woolwich, not to mention the Outdoor shopping park at Charlton, and Abbey Wood/Thamesmead, and people rely on the route, personally I think the 472 should be extended to Erith Quarry, the 180’s changes will essentially duplicate the 472 in some sections.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Sept 15, 2019 20:19:12 GMT
I do wonder if politics will intervene and more money will be found to keep the 180 as it is and serve Erith Quarry another way. An election is coming up, another bus cut in SE London is not going to look very good. Or it'll get delayed until after May, of course. Possibly, the 180, much like the 53 is a very political route, it links the three busiest centres in inner SE London; Lewisham, Greenwich and Woolwich, not to mention the Outdoor shopping park at Charlton, and Abbey Wood/Thamesmead, and people rely on the route, personally I think the 472 should be extended to Erith Quarry, the 180’s changes will essentially duplicate the 472 in some sections. I personally wouldn't extend the 472 further than Abbey Wood especially given it will made more direct due to being the main Woolwich to Abbey Wood link - maybe letting the 469 run to the Quarry might be better instead?
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Sept 15, 2019 22:07:24 GMT
I do wonder if politics will intervene and more money will be found to keep the 180 as it is and serve Erith Quarry another way. An election is coming up, another bus cut in SE London is not going to look very good. Or it'll get delayed until after May, of course. Possibly, the 180, much like the 53 is a very political route, it links the three busiest centres in inner SE London; Lewisham, Greenwich and Woolwich, not to mention the Outdoor shopping park at Charlton, and Abbey Wood/Thamesmead, and people rely on the route, personally I think the 472 should be extended to Erith Quarry, the 180’s changes will essentially duplicate the 472 in some sections. i think all the focus on the 180 should be about the importance of retaining the existing links, and leave TfL to work out how to otherwise cover an Erith Quarry extension, which is peripheral to this main concern.
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Sept 16, 2019 8:51:47 GMT
Possibly, the 180, much like the 53 is a very political route, it links the three busiest centres in inner SE London; Lewisham, Greenwich and Woolwich, not to mention the Outdoor shopping park at Charlton, and Abbey Wood/Thamesmead, and people rely on the route, personally I think the 472 should be extended to Erith Quarry, the 180’s changes will essentially duplicate the 472 in some sections. I personally wouldn't extend the 472 further than Abbey Wood especially given it will made more direct due to being the main Woolwich to Abbey Wood link - maybe letting the 469 run to the Quarry might be better instead? I’d need to check the roads in the Quarry area (I live nearby so will wander down that way soon), but if the roads are how I believe they are, then you could reroute the 469 via Upper Belvedere as TfL propose, then instead of running via Picardy Road/Lower Road etc., continue it along Woolwich Road, then go via Brook Street, Carlton Road, Erith Quarry and Fraser Road to Erith, then possibly further via West Street and Lower Road to Belvedere Station to maintain links from that area to Woolwich. It’s a bit of a loop the loop route, especially with the Belvedere section, but that never harmed the 386, and it means the 180 can remain as it is.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Sept 16, 2019 9:58:10 GMT
But then on the other hand the 129 to Lewisham is a good change as it would provide a DD service to North Greenwich and IKEA. Whereas the some of the 180 links such as Woolwich and Plumstead are maintained by the 54/122/178 to Lewisham. The best option would be to not drop the 472 so much so that it doesn't need the 180 to NG and the 180 and 129 swap rouetings south of Greenwich. Ofcourse issue would be no routes can potentially terminate in Greenwich going forward.
|
|
|
Post by busman on Sept 16, 2019 11:12:29 GMT
Without the 180 change, pretty much the whole SE London Crossrail changes come crashing down. It’s all linked together : as well as what southlondonbus said, without the cut at the west end of the route, the 180 can’t receive the Erith Quarry extension as it would be too long. I do wonder if politics will intervene and more money will be found to keep the 180 as it is and serve Erith Quarry another way. An election is coming up, another bus cut in SE London is not going to look very good. Or it'll get delayed until after May, of course. It wouldn’t surprise me to see the decision pushed back to summer 2020. I believe the Abbey Wood stand for the 472 is still to be resolved, so until that’s in place nothing will happen anymore. When the 180 change was first announced I was very much against it. However I now support it, as it would improve links in my area to the O2 and the retail parks in Charlton. Capacity between Plumstead Station and North Greenwich will be covered by the 180/472. However I would like to see TfL address the following gaps: 1. Plumstead to Greenwich Town Centre - 177 will be the only direct link. Possible solution would be for an increase to the daytime frequency or the introduction of additional peak journeys between Plumstead Bus Garage and Greenwich Cutty Sark. 2. Charlton to North Greenwich - peak hour extras removed from the 472 without replacement. There’s no easy fix here. The cheapest way would be to maintain the extras between Charlton and North Greenwich. Does anyone else find it strange that the shorts are numbered 472 rather than 486? Given that they follow the 486 line of route into Charlton Station.... 3. Belvedere Industrial Estate - large employers such as Lidl are based in the area that will no longer be served by the 180. I would suggest diverting the B11 there instead of terminating it at Thamesmead North. At least maintain a link between all parts of the business park and Abbey Wood Station.
|
|
|
Post by route53 on Sept 16, 2019 11:14:44 GMT
But then on the other hand the 129 to Lewisham is a good change as it would provide a DD service to North Greenwich and IKEA. Whereas the some of the 180 links such as Woolwich and Plumstead are maintained by the 54/122/178 to Lewisham. The best option would be to not drop the 472 so much so that it doesn't need the 180 to NG and the 180 and 129 swap rouetings south of Greenwich. Ofcourse issue would be no routes can potentially terminate in Greenwich going forward. You can still extend the 129 away from Greenwich but to somewhere that isn’t connected to NG yet, Lewisham has the 108, and the 54/122/178 routes are rather circuitous between Woolwich and Lewisham, personally I would extend the 129 to Camberwell, it could even run via Lewisham if need be. The thing that has to be done is to not have routes terminating at City Sark, that does cause a congestion, so I don’t know where this would leave the 286
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Sept 16, 2019 11:55:14 GMT
I would say the 54 was the quickest Lewisham to Woolwich route. The 180 can hit heavy traffic. Also Lewisham may have the 108 to NG but it's restricted to SD operation and more and more amenities are opening around NG like IKEA and shops now in the 02 so demand is only going to grow. With the 335 from Royal Standard, the 129 from Lewisham and the D8 taking over part of the old routing, the 108 could possibly slightly reduce or atleast have more running time to counteract delays through Blackwall Tunnel.
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Sept 16, 2019 12:47:18 GMT
I would say the 54 was the quickest Lewisham to Woolwich route. The 180 can hit heavy traffic. Also Lewisham may have the 108 to NG but it's restricted to SD operation and more and more amenities are opening around NG like IKEA and shops now in the 02 so demand is only going to grow. With the 335 from Royal Standard, the 129 from Lewisham and the D8 taking over part of the old routing, the 108 could possibly slightly reduce or atleast have more running time to counteract delays through Blackwall Tunnel. I would agree : though there isn’t a lot in it between the 54 and 122. The 180 is a little longer even before traffic is considered. Not going to quote ‘route53’, but I wonder if it’s possible to create a stand round the back of Waitrose off Creek Road for the 286?
|
|
|
Post by stuckonthe486 on Sept 16, 2019 14:10:13 GMT
I would say the 54 was the quickest Lewisham to Woolwich route. The 180 can hit heavy traffic. Also Lewisham may have the 108 to NG but it's restricted to SD operation and more and more amenities are opening around NG like IKEA and shops now in the 02 so demand is only going to grow. With the 335 from Royal Standard, the 129 from Lewisham and the D8 taking over part of the old routing, the 108 could possibly slightly reduce or atleast have more running time to counteract delays through Blackwall Tunnel. I would agree : though there isn’t a lot in it between the 54 and 122. The 180 is a little longer even before traffic is considered. Not going to quote ‘route53’, but I wonder if it’s possible to create a stand round the back of Waitrose off Creek Road for the 286? Don't think there's the space there. Convoys Wharf could be an option once that's up and running, though that'd mean TfL forking out for an extra bus or two - and realising you can't do big pedestrian schemes without paying to reinforce bus services.
|
|