|
Post by twobellstogo on Jul 8, 2017 20:34:22 GMT
Wouldn't call that overkill at all for just 1 bus service. The whole point of extending the 180 to Erith is to create a new link. I would leave the 469 as it is at Erith Town Centre. To put my point into context, I think we're all pretty much agreed that the key route is going to be the 301, which will run with single deckers every 15 minutes. By contrast, the 180 extension will use double deckers on a ten minute frequency through an industrial estate. If we look at similar estates in the area, Nathan Way is coming down to a x15 frequency using single deckers. Fishers Way, which has a food distribution centre of the kind cited in the technical note, is losing its service altogether. That's why it feels like overkill to me. Yes, the 180 will create new links, but most of those (Erith, Abbey Wood, Plumstead, Woolwich) would also be created by sending the 469 that way. I'd rather use the resource elsewhere, perhaps even on the aforementioned 301. As for Erith Quarry, are residents likely to look towards Abbey Wood and Woolwich? Or south towards Bexleyheath? And realistically, won't they start a Crossrail journey by walking to Erith station and connecting at Abbey Wood? The Jubilee Line was different as you had to go out of your way to get there - Crossrail is connected in to existing rail services to a much greater extent. I see 180 more as improving the lot of people along the east end of Lower Road and West Street. Erith Quarry seems to me to be somewhere to plonk the 180 to avoid terminating it in Erith. Which is why I think the 469 could be more imaginatively used : if 180 is extended to Erith, which in itself is good, the 469 really is too much extra, IMO. My personal preference for the Quarry is a westward extension of the 428, as I know someone will ask!
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Jul 8, 2017 20:37:40 GMT
I'm with you as regards 180, TL 1, but in my opinion we really don't need the 469 plying similar roads east of Belvedere as well : I feel something much more imaginative could be done with the 469 to link a few more local areas to Abbey Wood without TfL having to spend any more. My favourite would be to send it further along Woolwich Road from Upper Belvedere, then along the top end of Brook Street, Carlton Road, Park Crescent to stand at Erith Hospital - there's a nice set of roads there to swing round and head back the other way, and we all know how the powers that be like links to medical facilities 😉 I thought a little more could be done with the 469 myself. Sending it via Upper Belvedere links the area directly to Abbey Wood. Not too happy it will retain the current frequency of every 15 minutes. Still will have overcrowding issues, going to get worse. Absolutely : it's where it goes once it's got to Upper Belvedere from Abbey Wood where I think the imagination should have been used with the 469.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 8, 2017 23:10:48 GMT
I thought a little more could be done with the 469 myself. Sending it via Upper Belvedere links the area directly to Abbey Wood. Not too happy it will retain the current frequency of every 15 minutes. Still will have overcrowding issues, going to get worse. Absolutely : it's where it goes once it's got to Upper Belvedere from Abbey Wood where I think the imagination should have been used with the 469. Indeed, I thought the same which is why I was perplexed by the 469 changes. It's smacks of having it be like that for the sake of it after Upper Belvedere rather than having it for an actual useful purpose
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Jul 9, 2017 6:34:24 GMT
Wouldn't call that overkill at all for just 1 bus service. The whole point of extending the 180 to Erith is to create a new link. I would leave the 469 as it is at Erith Town Centre. To put my point into context, I think we're all pretty much agreed that the key route is going to be the 301, which will run with single deckers every 15 minutes. By contrast, the 180 extension will use double deckers on a ten minute frequency through an industrial estate. If we look at similar estates in the area, Nathan Way is coming down to a x15 frequency using single deckers. Fishers Way, which has a food distribution centre of the kind cited in the technical note, is losing its service altogether. That's why it feels like overkill to me. Yes, the 180 will create new links, but most of those (Erith, Abbey Wood, Plumstead, Woolwich) would also be created by sending the 469 that way. I'd rather use the resource elsewhere, perhaps even on the aforementioned 301. As for Erith Quarry, are residents likely to look towards Abbey Wood and Woolwich? Or south towards Bexleyheath? And realistically, won't they start a Crossrail journey by walking to Erith station and connecting at Abbey Wood? The Jubilee Line was different as you had to go out of your way to get there - Crossrail is connected in to existing rail services to a much greater extent. The 301 will run every 12 minutes not every 15. The 301 might be the key route but doesn't mean other services won't be used. The route does parallel the 472 partly so between Woolwich & Abbey Wood will have support which is probably why single deckers have been specified. I do agree it should be double decked, but we shall see how it goes. I expect Abbey Wood to Bexleyheath to be slightly busier. In regards to the 180 have to say something again. If we can now critize a bus service for having a 10 Minute frequency for a small extension then I could take this further comparing it to quiet roads where more than 1 high frequency route serves it. The 180 already partly goes there anyway so I wouldn't send the 469 there at all as it would involve removing the route from Abbey Wood altogether.
|
|
|
Post by lazy_eye_metaphor on Jul 9, 2017 8:18:54 GMT
To put my point into context, I think we're all pretty much agreed that the key route is going to be the 301, which will run with single deckers every 15 minutes. By contrast, the 180 extension will use double deckers on a ten minute frequency through an industrial estate. If we look at similar estates in the area, Nathan Way is coming down to a x15 frequency using single deckers. Fishers Way, which has a food distribution centre of the kind cited in the technical note, is losing its service altogether. That's why it feels like overkill to me. Yes, the 180 will create new links, but most of those (Erith, Abbey Wood, Plumstead, Woolwich) would also be created by sending the 469 that way. I'd rather use the resource elsewhere, perhaps even on the aforementioned 301. As for Erith Quarry, are residents likely to look towards Abbey Wood and Woolwich? Or south towards Bexleyheath? And realistically, won't they start a Crossrail journey by walking to Erith station and connecting at Abbey Wood? The Jubilee Line was different as you had to go out of your way to get there - Crossrail is connected in to existing rail services to a much greater extent. I see 180 more as improving the lot of people along the east end of Lower Road and West Street. Erith Quarry seems to me to be somewhere to plonk the 180 to avoid terminating it in Erith. Which is why I think the 469 could be more imaginatively used : if 180 is extended to Erith, which in itself is good, the 469 really is too much extra, IMO. My personal preference for the Quarry is a westward extension of the 428, as I know someone will ask! Very much agree with your latter idea.
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Jul 9, 2017 16:21:37 GMT
To put my point into context, I think we're all pretty much agreed that the key route is going to be the 301, which will run with single deckers every 15 minutes. By contrast, the 180 extension will use double deckers on a ten minute frequency through an industrial estate. If we look at similar estates in the area, Nathan Way is coming down to a x15 frequency using single deckers. Fishers Way, which has a food distribution centre of the kind cited in the technical note, is losing its service altogether. That's why it feels like overkill to me. Yes, the 180 will create new links, but most of those (Erith, Abbey Wood, Plumstead, Woolwich) would also be created by sending the 469 that way. I'd rather use the resource elsewhere, perhaps even on the aforementioned 301. As for Erith Quarry, are residents likely to look towards Abbey Wood and Woolwich? Or south towards Bexleyheath? And realistically, won't they start a Crossrail journey by walking to Erith station and connecting at Abbey Wood? The Jubilee Line was different as you had to go out of your way to get there - Crossrail is connected in to existing rail services to a much greater extent. The 301 will run every 12 minutes not every 15. The 301 might be the key route but doesn't mean other services won't be used. The route does parallel the 472 partly so between Woolwich & Abbey Wood will have support which is probably why single deckers have been specified. I do agree it should be double decked, but we shall see how it goes. I expect Abbey Wood to Bexleyheath to be slightly busier. In regards to the 180 have to say something again. If we can now critize a bus service for having a 10 Minute frequency for a small extension then I could take this further comparing it to quiet roads where more than 1 high frequency route serves it. The 180 already partly goes there anyway so I wouldn't send the 469 there at all as it would involve removing the route from Abbey Wood altogether. I won't labour the point beyond this post as it's not something I feel strongly about - you are of course right about the frequency on the 301. But I don't quite understand your point about removing the route from Abbey Wood. Both the 180 and 469 will continue to serve Abbey Wood, with or without the tweak I've proposed. I'd also add that the technical note concludes that existing capacity between Erith and Belvedere is more than sufficient. And yes, I think we can criticise - or more constructively, comment on - extensions where capacity appears to be in excess of demand if there's an alternative that could be considered, or where there seems to be over provision more generally.
|
|
|
Post by overgroundcommuter on Jul 9, 2017 16:34:56 GMT
I don't know much about the area, but can talk from a Lewisham perspective.
The 129 will give much needed relief to the 108 to North Greenwich which is already largely an uncomfortable bus ride to the O2. I'd be more likely to get the 129 there once it launches considering it'll still be a short route.
Losing the 180 will mean there will no longer be a direct route to Abbey Wood, but the hopper fare allows to go via the 54/122 to Woolwich. I sympathise with those passengers who live along the Lewisham/Greenwich corridor who'll see a double decker replaced with a single decker which only goes to North Greenwich instead of Charlton, Woolwich, Abbey Wood and Thamesmead. However there is also a regular DLR rail service serving the corridor as well.
As mentioned, the 177 will be rammed. This route will require a frequency increase after the changes.
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Jul 9, 2017 16:51:21 GMT
I sympathise with those passengers who live along the Lewisham/Greenwich corridor who'll see a double decker replaced with a single decker which only goes to North Greenwich instead of Charlton, Woolwich, Abbey Wood and Thamesmead. However there is also a regular DLR rail service serving the corridor as well. Are you talking about the 129 here? It's been double deck for a little while now.
|
|
|
Post by Connor on Jul 9, 2017 16:51:33 GMT
I don't know much about the area, but can talk from a Lewisham perspective. The 129 will give much needed relief to the 108 to North Greenwich which is already largely an uncomfortable bus ride to the O2. I'd be more likely to get the 129 there once it launches considering it'll still be a short route. Losing the 180 will mean there will no longer be a direct route to Abbey Wood, but the hopper fare allows to go via the 54/122 to Woolwich. I sympathise with those passengers who live along the Lewisham/Greenwich corridor who'll see a double decker replaced with a single decker which only goes to North Greenwich instead of Charlton, Woolwich, Abbey Wood and Thamesmead. However there is also a regular DLR rail service serving the corridor as well. As mentioned, the 177 will be rammed. This route will require a frequency increase after the changes. The 129 is a double decker route, not single decker..
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Jul 9, 2017 16:53:08 GMT
I don't know much about the area, but can talk from a Lewisham perspective. The 129 will give much needed relief to the 108 to North Greenwich which is already largely an uncomfortable bus ride to the O2. I'd be more likely to get the 129 there once it launches considering it'll still be a short route. Losing the 180 will mean there will no longer be a direct route to Abbey Wood, but the hopper fare allows to go via the 54/122 to Woolwich. I sympathise with those passengers who live along the Lewisham/Greenwich corridor who'll see a double decker replaced with a single decker which only goes to North Greenwich instead of Charlton, Woolwich, Abbey Wood and Thamesmead. However there is also a regular DLR rail service serving the corridor as well. As mentioned, the 177 will be rammed. This route will require a frequency increase after the changes. The 129 is a double decker route, not single decker.. Beat you lol What do you think of the SE London changes, Connor? 😊
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Jul 9, 2017 18:12:38 GMT
The 301 will run every 12 minutes not every 15. The 301 might be the key route but doesn't mean other services won't be used. The route does parallel the 472 partly so between Woolwich & Abbey Wood will have support which is probably why single deckers have been specified. I do agree it should be double decked, but we shall see how it goes. I expect Abbey Wood to Bexleyheath to be slightly busier. In regards to the 180 have to say something again. If we can now critize a bus service for having a 10 Minute frequency for a small extension then I could take this further comparing it to quiet roads where more than 1 high frequency route serves it. The 180 already partly goes there anyway so I wouldn't send the 469 there at all as it would involve removing the route from Abbey Wood altogether. I won't labour the point beyond this post as it's not something I feel strongly about - you are of course right about the frequency on the 301. But I don't quite understand your point about removing the route from Abbey Wood. Both the 180 and 469 will continue to serve Abbey Wood, with or without the tweak I've proposed. I'd also add that the technical note concludes that existing capacity between Erith and Belvedere is more than sufficient. And yes, I think we can criticise - or more constructively, comment on - extensions where capacity appears to be in excess of demand if there's an alternative that could be considered, or where there seems to be over provision more generally. Well you suggested re-routing the 469 via the 180. Which would involve removing it from Abbey Wood altogether. At Enysham Drive it would be going straight ahead rather than right following the 229. I wouldn't extend the 428 or 469 to Erith Quarry for the reliabilty of these routes, simply because of Erith Fish Roundabout where there is always delays, holds up the 99 & 229, coming into Erith on a B12 is already bad enough as 428s entering and leaving Erith.
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Jul 9, 2017 18:55:33 GMT
My submission to TfL is in! Have supported much of it : have not at all supported the 161 change (favouring danorak's route suggestion), have suggested a frequency bolster for 177 and have suggested the 469 should do the Brook Street/Carlton Road route rather than Picardy Road, Lower Road etc. Don't feel strongly enough about 180 to the Quarry, as I support the rest of the Erith extension. Would be lovely for the 180 to support the 229 down to Bexleyheath, but that would be like whistling into the wind lol - so that didn't make the cut in my reply to TfL!
I bet nothing will change though 😉
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jul 9, 2017 19:06:27 GMT
I hope concerns and any good suggestions are taken into account. When the Tramlink consultation was out LT did listen to concerns about the 166/412 and they came back with the 466, the fact that 4bph on the 353 was not enough and they created a proper feeder route for it (T31) and the 130 was saved into Croydon abliet at a reduced frequency.
I can't recall if any changes were made to the 1999 Woolwich changes from what they initially proposed and what ended up happening. Does anybody remember that consultation?
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Jul 10, 2017 6:06:35 GMT
I hope concerns and any good suggestions are taken into account. When the Tramlink consultation was out LT did listen to concerns about the 166/412 and they came back with the 466, the fact that 4bph on the 353 was not enough and they created a proper feeder route for it (T31) and the 130 was saved into Croydon abliet at a reduced frequency. I can't recall if any changes were made to the 1999 Woolwich changes from what they initially proposed and what ended up happening. Does anybody remember that consultation? I go back to before Bexleybus, so yeah 😃 I don't recall that anything changed much, if at all, from original proposals in 1999.
|
|
|
Post by lonmark on Jul 10, 2017 10:48:06 GMT
Why it have to be bexley and greenwich borough area can access to crossrail station but not Bromley borough Are? Pretty poor access by bus service apart from route 161.
How about new route 311 start from Bromley Common the crown via 261 to Grove Park then via 160 to Eltham green then via 122 to Woolwich crossrail station?
How about that?
|
|