|
|
Post by danorak on Nov 6, 2018 14:27:47 GMT
Given that the supporting information for the Central London consultation shows Croydon as having an 8% increase in capacity utilisation - one of only three boroughs showing green I think - you might expect it to be one of the beneficiaries of any outer London largesse.
That said, I wonder if that is down to the New Addington scheme a couple of years ago. Either way, it will get thrown back at TfL if the scissors are coming out.
|
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Nov 6, 2018 14:33:12 GMT
Well the 130/466 they can bill as restoring a link from New Addington to Croydon despite it was them who took it away when Tramlink opened. The 130 and 466 should not have remained between Addington and Shirley Park as it way over busses that section anyways.
|
|
|
|
Post by sid on Nov 6, 2018 15:13:01 GMT
Well the 130/466 they can bill as restoring a link from New Addington to Croydon despite it was them who took it away when Tramlink opened. The 130 and 466 should not have remained between Addington and Shirley Park as it way over busses that section anyways. It is quite remarkable that there are 11bph over that section which is way in excess of demand. The rumour I heard was basically that the 466 won't be retendered and the 130 will be rerouted to Caterham with the 312 extended from Norwood Junction to Thornton Heath. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Nov 6, 2018 15:23:58 GMT
Given that the supporting information for the Central London consultation shows Croydon as having an 8% increase in capacity utilisation - one of only three boroughs showing green I think - you might expect it to be one of the beneficiaries of any outer London largesse. That said, I wonder if that is down to the New Addington scheme a couple of years ago. Either way, it will get thrown back at TfL if the scissors are coming out. I'm rather surprised to read about an 8% increase, I'm in Croydon quite regularly and I can't help but notice the decline in bus usage and I'll have to admit that even the recent reduction on the 468 hasn't been quite the disaster I'd anticipation. I've seen full up buses leaving people behind during peak hours and at busy times on Sundays when 4bph really isn't enough but the x10min headway on Saturdays seems more than adequate for demand which is a far cry from years ago when a far more intensive service often struggled to cope with demand. I was also dubious about the 264 reduction but that also seems to be coping comfortably, I suspect many former users have switched to Tramlink which seems to be as busy as ever. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Nov 6, 2018 21:39:58 GMT
Especially in Croydon where they are quite vocal about cuts such as opposing the 312/412 proposal which I thought was quite a good change as it created a Purley to Norwood Junction link, add some extra cacapcity between Croydon and NJ as the section would be DD (thou with 4bph down from 5 but still and overall increase) and allowed the X26 to drop off at West Croydon Bus Station.
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 6, 2018 23:43:24 GMT
Looks like my cynicism about TfL not publishing future consultations was misplaced. In the new Customer Services report that Snowman linked to there is this list of future consultations. The G1, 386 and Croydon routes consultations are brand new. The 470 and 404/434 change has been published on the list before. The Croydon proposal is either going to be ominous or else some extra resources going into the area.  |
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Nov 6, 2018 23:54:41 GMT
Looks like my cynicism about TfL not publishing future consultations was misplaced. In the new Customer Services report that Snowman linked to there is this list of future consultations. The G1, 386 and Croydon routes consultations are brand new. The 470 and 404/434 change has been published on the list before. The Croydon proposal is either going to be ominous or else some extra resources going into the area. My money's going on ominous... I'm guessing the 386 proposal is because they've realised it can no longer turn left out of Woolwich New Road. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 7, 2018 0:27:30 GMT
Especially in Croydon where they are quite vocal about cuts such as opposing the 312/412 proposal which I thought was quite a good change as it created a Purley to Norwood Junction link, add some extra cacapcity between Croydon and NJ as the section would be DD (thou with 4bph down from 5 but still and overall increase) and allowed the X26 to drop off at West Croydon Bus Station. That was actually a sensible idea, certainly not a cut in my eyes but a simple merging of two routes together that would provide extra links that currently take longer to do. |
|
|
|
Post by ilovelondonbuses on Nov 7, 2018 0:30:21 GMT
Looks like my cynicism about TfL not publishing future consultations was misplaced. In the new Customer Services report that Snowman linked to there is this list of future consultations. The G1, 386 and Croydon routes consultations are brand new. The 470 and 404/434 change has been published on the list before. The Croydon proposal is either going to be ominous or else some extra resources going into the area. I'll wait with anticipation about what TfL have planned for Croydon. It better be good news like service enhancements if they want to keep their mantra about the resources going into outer London. I think the 130/466 merger will go ahead with the 312 being extended to Thornton Heath. |
|
|
|
Post by busman on Nov 7, 2018 2:38:16 GMT
Looks like my cynicism about TfL not publishing future consultations was misplaced. In the new Customer Services report that Snowman linked to there is this list of future consultations. The G1, 386 and Croydon routes consultations are brand new. The 470 and 404/434 change has been published on the list before. The Croydon proposal is either going to be ominous or else some extra resources going into the area. My money's going on ominous... I'm guessing the 386 proposal is because they've realised it can no longer turn left out of Woolwich New Road. I suspect they would just alter the Woolwich-bound route so it matches the 51 between Plumstead Common Road and its terminus. That would be the most logical suggestion to me. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 7, 2018 3:44:04 GMT
Looks like my cynicism about TfL not publishing future consultations was misplaced. In the new Customer Services report that Snowman linked to there is this list of future consultations. The G1, 386 and Croydon routes consultations are brand new. The 470 and 404/434 change has been published on the list before. The Croydon proposal is either going to be ominous or else some extra resources going into the area. The G1 one will be interesting - my guess would be either a re-routing at St. George's Hospital or re-routed from Church Lane and sent up Rectory Lane instead. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2018 8:01:33 GMT
My money's going on ominous... I'm guessing the 386 proposal is because they've realised it can no longer turn left out of Woolwich New Road. I suspect they would just alter the Woolwich-bound route so it matches the 51 between Plumstead Common Road and its terminus. That would be the most logical suggestion to me. Or just miss out the first two stops so it uses the Monk Street stand as per the 178. Wouldn't reroute it towards Woolwich befuase then it would miss out Sandy Hill Road which has no other bus service. |
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Nov 7, 2018 8:44:17 GMT
I suspect they would just alter the Woolwich-bound route so it matches the 51 between Plumstead Common Road and its terminus. That would be the most logical suggestion to me. Or just miss out the first two stops so it uses the Monk Street stand as per the 178. Wouldn't reroute it towards Woolwich befuase then it would miss out Sandy Hill Road which has no other bus service. I don't know how important serving Sandy Hill Road is - there's only one stop which is at the Woolwich end anyway. I sense from cl54's posts that losing the Hare Street bit would not be popular. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2018 10:54:41 GMT
Or just miss out the first two stops so it uses the Monk Street stand as per the 178. Wouldn't reroute it towards Woolwich befuase then it would miss out Sandy Hill Road which has no other bus service. I don't know how important serving Sandy Hill Road is - there's only one stop which is at the Woolwich end anyway. I sense from cl54's posts that losing the Hare Street bit would not be popular. Noone ever gets on at the first stop and it's not exactly a long walk from Hare Street to the new first stop in Calderwood Street |
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Nov 7, 2018 11:23:32 GMT
I don't know how important serving Sandy Hill Road is - there's only one stop which is at the Woolwich end anyway. I sense from cl54's posts that losing the Hare Street bit would not be popular. Noone ever gets on at the first stop and it's not exactly a long walk from Hare Street to the new first stop in Calderwood Street I'm trying to remember the consultation back in 2009(?) that led to the current arrangements - I think the original proposal was a combination of the two, running over the 51 route to Woolwich Arsenal then the current 96 to terminate at Monk Street. cl54's comments on the 386 suggest this was not a popular plan. Of course, they might surprise us and be doing something more interesting, like running it into the Arsenal site but I doubt it. |
|
