|
Post by rj131 on Apr 12, 2019 9:33:48 GMT
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Apr 12, 2019 10:13:34 GMT
For a split second I thought it said 355 in the thread title lol
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Apr 12, 2019 10:22:24 GMT
This is effectively funded by developer contributions so no TfL largesse here. Disappointing that the original proposal to run via the shops at Charlton has been dropped. This is a much needed and obviously missing local link. This is now simply a Kidbrooke - North Greenwich link so new residents can get to the tube, demonstrating its origins in developer funding. There's been grumbling from Westcombe Hill residents about traffic lately - they opposed Chariot - so I suspect this will end up on the A102.
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Apr 12, 2019 10:23:31 GMT
With the 129 being extended to Lewisham at some point and now a new bus link between Royal Standard and North Greenwich, I wonder if TFL are looking to withdraw the 108 between North Greenwich and Lewisham
|
|
|
Post by rj131 on Apr 12, 2019 10:24:31 GMT
This is effectively funded by developer contributions so no TfL largesse here. Disappointing that the original proposal to run via the shops at Charlton has been dropped. This is a much needed and obviously missing local link. This is now simply a Kidbrooke - North Greenwich link so new residents can get to the tube, demonstrating its origins in developer funding. There's been grumbling from Westcombe Hill residents about traffic lately - they opposed Chariot - so I suspect this will end up on the A102. The 335 will be a TfL route though right?
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Apr 12, 2019 10:27:32 GMT
Interesting. I fell across a different article about this yesterday from Feb when the proposed route was discussed by Greenwich Council. It's already been mentioned on this forum. I see that TfL have done their usual approach of the shortest possible and therefore fastest / lowest PVR option for the route. The previous stated preference for running via Charlton Stn and serving the shops between there and NOG has been downgraded. Overall a much needed and much demanded link and nice to see things get to the consultation stage. Quite how the public view the options and whether they want links to Charlton instead will be worth watching. Also good to see a reasonable service level with double deckers specified from the start - no repeat of the 132 nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Apr 12, 2019 10:27:57 GMT
I would think option 2 would be the most likely?
|
|
|
Post by lwldriver on Apr 12, 2019 10:28:47 GMT
Having only just seen this Route 335 proposal, the first thing that popped into my head was give the 335 to the new route in West London and give this new route the 278 number bringing it back to Kidbrooke, who else thought this?
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Apr 12, 2019 10:31:31 GMT
This is effectively funded by developer contributions so no TfL largesse here. Disappointing that the original proposal to run via the shops at Charlton has been dropped. This is a much needed and obviously missing local link. This is now simply a Kidbrooke - North Greenwich link so new residents can get to the tube, demonstrating its origins in developer funding. There's been grumbling from Westcombe Hill residents about traffic lately - they opposed Chariot - so I suspect this will end up on the A102. The 335 will be a TfL route though right? Yes, but it required section 106 funding from developments at Kidbrooke to start.
|
|
|
Post by lwldriver on Apr 12, 2019 10:32:51 GMT
Having only just seen this Route 335 proposal, the first thing that popped into my head was give the 335 to the new route in West London and give this new route the 278 number bringing it back to Kidbrooke, who else thought this? But then again would it not just be feasible to DD the B16 and send it from Kidbrooke to North Greenwich or extend the 202 along Eltham Road to Kidbrooke then along to North Greenwich or maybe even have the 132 serve the Kidbrooke loop from Rochester Way?
|
|
|
Post by rj131 on Apr 12, 2019 10:34:37 GMT
For a split second I thought the thread title said 355, hoping the consultation was to double deck it lol I saw 355 as well I know itβs as good as any, but why the number β335β of all to choose from? Would have thought 478 or 416 would have been more appropriate to go with the two similar ones.
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Apr 12, 2019 10:40:44 GMT
Having only just seen this Route 335 proposal, the first thing that popped into my head was give the 335 to the new route in West London and give this new route the 278 number bringing it back to Kidbrooke, who else thought this? But then again would it not just be feasible to DD the B16 and send it from Kidbrooke to North Greenwich or extend the 202 along Eltham Road to Kidbrooke then along to North Greenwich or maybe even have the 132 serve the Kidbrooke loop from Rochester Way? The 132 does struggle already at peak times, and I'm sure existing through passengers would be unhappy at being sent on a loop of Kidbrooke. That said, there is the germ of an idea there - a shorter more frequent 132 could head south at Thomas Tallis to the Kidbrooke Station interchange, then go along the A2/A102 from there. That section is very congested at the peak though.
|
|
|
Post by zebedee104 on Apr 12, 2019 10:41:19 GMT
And perhaps they want to avoid any similarity to other route numbers in the area as passengers donβt read properly.
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Apr 12, 2019 10:47:47 GMT
Doesn't the 335 operate from Slough to Chalfont Common?
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Apr 12, 2019 10:49:13 GMT
My interest in this is frankly the local link to the Charlton shops. If it doesn't happen with this route then it's clearly not going to happen at all. I can't see another feasible way of doing it that hasn't already been dismissed by TfL. Yes the Hopper fare, but this is an awkward connection that requires you to cross roads with shopping.
|
|