|
Post by DT 11 on Apr 12, 2019 11:14:20 GMT
I would say to extend it from Kidbrooke to Eltham Station to help the 132
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Apr 12, 2019 11:18:04 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 I doubt that is the case. The 108 is a busy route all day long
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Apr 12, 2019 11:28:35 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? Having the 132 re-routed which already suffers huge overcrowding isn’t a good idea, because the bus will already be full be it even reaches Kidbrooke Village.
|
|
|
Post by busman on Apr 12, 2019 12:55:55 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? Yeah, I thought exactly the same thing. The decision not to serve the retail parks in Charlton must be disappointing for those in Kidbrooke. The option via the A2 is a joke. That would be a ghost bus outside of peak times.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Apr 12, 2019 12:56:01 GMT
Does seem a bit pointless to introduce a whole new DD route for a relatively short link.
Routes 132 & 286 currently almost parallel each other between North Greenwich and Avery Hill, both going along Rochester Way. A better alternative could be to reroute one of these via Kidbrooke instead (as a through route rather than a loop, returning to line of route near Eltham Station). Though another option could be to simply extend the B16 to North Greenwich.
However, this does seem like a scenario where TFL could use the hopper fare excuse.
|
|
|
Post by RandomBusesGirl on Apr 12, 2019 15:31:08 GMT
Lucky, spoiled Kidbrookians… Yet B16 still can't be restored to serve the station 😂
Just don't go for Option #2 otherwise the X161 brigade will get triggered!
|
|
|
Post by busman on Apr 12, 2019 16:29:26 GMT
Lucky, spoiled Kidbrookians… Yet B16 still can't be restored to serve the station 😂 Just don't go for Option #2 otherwise the X161 brigade will get triggered! You’ve just sold option 2 to me. They should also call it the X335 just for good measure 😈
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Apr 12, 2019 20:12:42 GMT
Lucky, spoiled Kidbrookians… Yet B16 still can't be restored to serve the station 😂 Just don't go for Option #2 otherwise the X161 brigade will get triggered! You’ve just sold option 2 to me. They should also call it the X335 just for good measure 😈 Option 3 will no doubt include extending over the 45!
|
|
|
Post by stuckonthe486 on Apr 12, 2019 21:20:01 GMT
I smell NIMBYism from the car owners of Charlton about a new service down Charlton Church Lane (which, granted, is very narrow, but buses aren't the problem) which would have provided some relief for the 486.
I just really hope NIMBYism from residents of Westcombe Hill (many of whom don't appreciate it's been a bus route for over a century) doesn't wreck what will be even more badly-needed relief for the 108 - a second service down the A102 would be a mickey-take.
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Apr 12, 2019 21:41:30 GMT
I smell NIMBYism from the car owners of Charlton about a new service down Charlton Church Lane (which, granted, is very narrow, but buses aren't the problem) which would have provided some relief for the 486. I just really hope NIMBYism from residents of Westcombe Hill (many of whom don't appreciate it's been a bus route for over a century) doesn't wreck what will be even more badly-needed relief for the 108 - a second service down the A102 would be a mickey-take. I did wonder whether there was anything to be said for switching the 380 to run up Victoria Way rather than Charlton Church Lane to reduce the number of movements, but I suspect that would cause as many issues as it solved.
|
|
|
Post by stuckonthe486 on Apr 12, 2019 21:51:17 GMT
I smell NIMBYism from the car owners of Charlton about a new service down Charlton Church Lane (which, granted, is very narrow, but buses aren't the problem) which would have provided some relief for the 486. I just really hope NIMBYism from residents of Westcombe Hill (many of whom don't appreciate it's been a bus route for over a century) doesn't wreck what will be even more badly-needed relief for the 108 - a second service down the A102 would be a mickey-take. I did wonder whether there was anything to be said for switching the 380 to run up Victoria Way rather than Charlton Church Lane to reduce the number of movements, but I suspect that would cause as many issues as it solved. The odd 380 does occasionally stray up the southern end of Victoria Way if there's a sudden road closure, but there is a similar issue with the street being overwhelmed by parked cars (it's also very steep for a stretch at the junction with Elliscombe Road). You could probably run it via Tallis Grove and Bramhope Lane - this has happened on a past diversion. But plenty of people do use the 380 on Charlton Church Lane, so it wouldn't be popular. Unfortunately, this is under Greenwich Council, which consistently prefers cars to buses, and until that changes, it's always going to be a problem.
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Apr 13, 2019 0:35:32 GMT
I did wonder whether there was anything to be said for switching the 380 to run up Victoria Way rather than Charlton Church Lane to reduce the number of movements, but I suspect that would cause as many issues as it solved. The odd 380 does occasionally stray up the southern end of Victoria Way if there's a sudden road closure, but there is a similar issue with the street being overwhelmed by parked cars (it's also very steep for a stretch at the junction with Elliscombe Road). You could probably run it via Tallis Grove and Bramhope Lane - this has happened on a past diversion. But plenty of people do use the 380 on Charlton Church Lane, so it wouldn't be popular. Unfortunately, this is under Greenwich Council, which consistently prefers cars to buses, and until that changes, it's always going to be a problem. Probably just me being gloomy because this and the 53 have annoyed me, but I can't see beyond the A2/A102 option for this. The Kidbrooke passengers will want the fastest possible bus to the tube - they've no desire to go to the Standard - and the Westcombe Hill lot will object to it.
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Apr 13, 2019 9:29:32 GMT
The odd 380 does occasionally stray up the southern end of Victoria Way if there's a sudden road closure, but there is a similar issue with the street being overwhelmed by parked cars (it's also very steep for a stretch at the junction with Elliscombe Road). You could probably run it via Tallis Grove and Bramhope Lane - this has happened on a past diversion. But plenty of people do use the 380 on Charlton Church Lane, so it wouldn't be popular. Unfortunately, this is under Greenwich Council, which consistently prefers cars to buses, and until that changes, it's always going to be a problem. Probably just me being gloomy because this and the 53 have annoyed me, but I can't see beyond the A2/A102 option for this. The Kidbrooke passengers will want the fastest possible bus to the tube - they've no desire to go to the Standard - and the Westcombe Hill lot will object to it. When Greenwich is Pedestrianised the 286 is another option. Could divert it to North Greenwich and double deck the route. The 286 already serves Blackheath, Royal Standard so would be no need to send the 335 there. 335 could then just go via the A2/A102 like the 132.
|
|
|
Post by busboy17 on Apr 13, 2019 23:38:18 GMT
Probably just me being gloomy because this and the 53 have annoyed me, but I can't see beyond the A2/A102 option for this. The Kidbrooke passengers will want the fastest possible bus to the tube - they've no desire to go to the Standard - and the Westcombe Hill lot will object to it. When Greenwich is Pedestrianised the 286 is another option. Could divert it to North Greenwich and double deck the route. The 286 already serves Blackheath, Royal Standard so would be no need to send the 335 there. 335 could then just go via the A2/A102 like the 132. I think the 335 should do option 2 as it would relieve a packed 132
|
|
|
Post by stuckonthe486 on Apr 14, 2019 0:03:52 GMT
The odd 380 does occasionally stray up the southern end of Victoria Way if there's a sudden road closure, but there is a similar issue with the street being overwhelmed by parked cars (it's also very steep for a stretch at the junction with Elliscombe Road). You could probably run it via Tallis Grove and Bramhope Lane - this has happened on a past diversion. But plenty of people do use the 380 on Charlton Church Lane, so it wouldn't be popular. Unfortunately, this is under Greenwich Council, which consistently prefers cars to buses, and until that changes, it's always going to be a problem. Probably just me being gloomy because this and the 53 have annoyed me, but I can't see beyond the A2/A102 option for this. The Kidbrooke passengers will want the fastest possible bus to the tube - they've no desire to go to the Standard - and the Westcombe Hill lot will object to it. This is what worries me. Greenwich Council is basically run by the Eltham Labour Party. And it's also run by Berkeley Homes, if you were being cynical. (Berkeley's Kidbrooke Village development is the former Ferrier Estate, it is also redeveloping the Royal Arsenal in Woolwich (inc Crossrail station), Greenwich has a track record of rolling over for them.) Berkeley Homes's Kidbrooke Village development is in the Eltham constituency, a longstanding marginal. There are votes in pampering the people who have moved in to there (who could get Southeastern and change at Lewisham for Canary Wharf), and few votes in those in that belt one or two or so miles from North Greenwch (in a different, safer constituency), where the buses always turn up packed. The last time a new bus to North Greenwich was introduced (after Greenwich Council lobbying), the 132 ran down the A102; no use for the people who couldn't get on buses in east Greenwich/ Blackheath/ Charlton, but a magnet for people in a marginal constituency down the road who could suddenly get zone 2 journeys into town, even though they lived in zone 4 (or even beyond). Sadiq Khan made a big thing a couple of weeks ago of a TfL submission to the Williams rail review which showed how many people ignore crap National Rail services to take buses to North Greenwich across a wide swathe of south-east London. Yet here is TfL, proposing more the same and clogging up North Greenwich bus station even more. I hope this route does go ahead, via Westcombe Hill, because it could make a difference to the lives of a lot of people who suffer miserable commutes. (It could have Charlton Church Lane and done the same, but that could have been tackled another way.) But I do really fear it'll end up going down the A102, super-serving people who have bought into a development run by a firm which has friendly relations with the local council, and ignoring everyone else - then being announced as a Silvertown Tunnel route (Kidbrooke Village to Beckton, anyone?), and being used to justify a project a lot of people in that this part of the world are dreading.
|
|