|
Post by busman on Jul 19, 2019 15:35:29 GMT
|
|
|
Post by dennistas on Jul 19, 2019 15:38:23 GMT
For once and just seen this but heard for these before, I am gonna have to support all changes! I strongly feel and this is my opinion that the 96 can cope as the only TFL route at Bluewater.
When you wait at the bus stop at Bluewater tbh 96 is the only route that gets full.
|
|
|
Post by busman on Jul 19, 2019 15:53:45 GMT
For once and just seen this but heard for these before, I am gonna have to support all changes! I strongly feel and this is my opinion that the 96 can cope as the only TFL route at Bluewater. When you wait at the bus stop at Bluewater tbh 96 is the only route that gets full. I frequently use the 96 from Bluewater late at night coming home from Arriva Kent territory and even at 10-11pm the 96 has a queue! It will cope, but will become even cosier during shopping hours. I’m glad the 492 will still run to Dartford. I’m still not sure about the usefulness of the 428. Why not just merge with the 469? I’m guessing frequency disparity is stopping that from happening.
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Jul 19, 2019 15:59:29 GMT
I don't know the area very well but from my limited experiences I do agree with TfL that the 96 alone is sufficient to meet Dartford-Bluewater demand, there's no need for three London bus routes alongside several non London buses
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jul 19, 2019 16:15:32 GMT
Loadings to and from Bluewater have dropped seemingly on all routes, such is the onset of online shopping, but ideally I think the 428 should stay as it is and instead the 492 be withdrawn between Dartford and Bluewater.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2019 16:27:42 GMT
I'll submit a response as I'm a local resident. So my thoughts...
96. Fine as it is. A night service would be nice as lots of shift workers in area.
428. So the obvious problem is the indirect link now with Darenth Valley Hospital. But even there not many use it. The loss of the link to Dartford Schools may be a bigger issue. I think at least some school trips could remain to/from Dartford. I also think an extension to Belvedere or even Abbey Wood would be of benefit.
492. Pleased this still will reach Dartford and will make it more reliable for North Cray and Crayford areas where it is sole bus route. Ironically it competes with Arriva's own route 480/490 between Dartford and Greenhithe. However currently the 480 does not serve Bluewater from Dartford. So London Road between East Hill and Waterstone Park loses its Bluewater link. This would need to be replaced by Arriva commercially i would have thought. Possibly a reroute of the 477. Or my preference would be an extension of the 414 during Mon-Sat except eves, with the 490 doing the Bluewater double run evenings and Sundays.
|
|
|
Post by busman on Jul 19, 2019 16:32:25 GMT
Loadings to and from Bluewater have dropped seemingly on all routes, such is the onset of online shopping, but ideally I think the 428 should stay as it is and instead the 492 be withdrawn between Dartford and Bluewater. The 492 is proposed to be withdrawn between Dartford and Bluewater.
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Jul 19, 2019 16:32:38 GMT
Looking at the map, the proposed interchange towards Dartford/Bluewater for 428 passengers at Crayford is pretty poor. I wonder if it could turn at the roundabout outside the retail park instead - a same stop interchange, or at least one that doesn't require roads to be crossed, should be standard practice when TfL do this sort of scheme.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jul 19, 2019 16:40:18 GMT
Loadings to and from Bluewater have dropped seemingly on all routes, such is the onset of online shopping, but ideally I think the 428 should stay as it is and instead the 492 be withdrawn between Dartford and Bluewater. The 492 is proposed to be withdrawn between Dartford and Bluewater. Oh right, I thought it was only the 428 being withdrawn between Crayford and Bluewater. I obviously agree with withdrawing the Dartford to Bluewater section of the 492 which is outside the TfL area anyway, should make the route a bit more reliable as well. As you mentioned evenings can be busy at Bluewater and the 96 can be unreliable if there are problems at the Dartford Crossing so I'd rather leave the 428 as it is, maybe reduce the daytime frequency if necessary?
|
|
|
Post by beaver14uk on Jul 19, 2019 17:27:57 GMT
That is exactly what I have suggested Looking at the map, the proposed interchange towards Dartford/Bluewater for 428 passengers at Crayford is pretty poor. I wonder if it could turn at the roundabout outside the retail park instead - a same stop interchange, or at least one that doesn't require roads to be crossed, should be standard practice when TfL do this sort of scheme.
|
|
|
Post by laurier on Jul 19, 2019 18:00:06 GMT
Living in Welling And being retired I do use the 96 to travel to Bluewater on occasions, usually around mid morning. The 96 can get very busy with shoppers travelling to Bluewater and I have been on ones which are virtually full, particularly on the lower deck. I have seen wheelchair passengers unable to board at Crayford because the wheelchair space is already occupied. I am sure disabled or elderly people travelling from the Erith areato hospital appointments at Darenth Valley will appreciate having to change at Crayford and face the possibility of not being able to get on a 96. I must confess that when returning from Bluewater there seem to be less people on board than when travelling to Bluewater. certainly there is a lot of pressure on lower deck space during school holidays and also with mothers with young children in buggies. One other point that whilst the 96 is supposed to have hybrid buses , all the comfortable Volvo hybrids have now gone and most of Plumsteads Scanias are on the 96 each day and I am sure passengers appreciate being jolted about on seats not much better than a wooden plank of the 30 or 40 minute journey to Bluewater or Darenth Valley (particularly if they are going to outpatients about a back problem if they do withdraw the 428 after Crayford, and are presumably double decking the Erich/Crayford section because of demand then there are going to a be quite a few people waiting at Crayford for a 96. As I recall, this possibility was raised some time ago, and I believe the local new shopper paper organised a petition which attracted a large number of signatures, and the proposal was opposed by Bexley (and Dartford ?) councils
Laurie
|
|
|
Post by busman on Jul 19, 2019 18:18:49 GMT
The 492 is proposed to be withdrawn between Dartford and Bluewater. Oh right, I thought it was only the 428 being withdrawn between Crayford and Bluewater. I obviously agree with withdrawing the Dartford to Bluewater section of the 492 which is outside the TfL area anyway, should make the route a bit more reliable as well. As you mentioned evenings can be busy at Bluewater and the 96 can be unreliable if there are problems at the Dartford Crossing so I'd rather leave the 428 as it is, maybe reduce the daytime frequency if necessary? I was happy to see the 492 at least retained to Dartford. The one unknown for me is how many people rely on the 428 for a direct link to work or for leisure/healthcare. The 428 cutback might well push people into cars. I think that possibility should be looked at and quantified. TfL are assuming that all 428 passengers will catch the 96. Introducing a change of bus with no convenient interchange and potentially longer end to end journey times will make car travel more attractive.
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Jul 19, 2019 20:25:35 GMT
As someone who has done the 428 & 492 many times. I do support these changes except I don’t agree with cutting the 428 to Crayford because its busier than the 492. The 492 pretty much carries fresh air between Sidcup & Crayford and can cope with Single Deckers.
Before the 96 was re-routed to Darent Valley Hospital the 428 between Dartford & Bluewater was busy, now it is very empty all the time between Dartford & Bluewater.
Overall I think the 492 should be cut to Crayford and converted to Single deck operation and the 428 to Dartford and diverted to serve Station Road, Chastillian Road, Princes Road & Shepherds Lane as there are many people who use the 428 from Erith to Dartford and the residents of Chastillian Road have been asking for a more frequent service.
In addition the 96 should be 24 Hour as result of these changes.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jul 19, 2019 20:32:00 GMT
What section of the 492 really needs DDs at school times. Iv always thought it was the Dartford to Crayford section via Princess Road. So if the 428 with its 3 DDs an hour took on that section then the 492 could convert to SD and run just from Crayford to Sidcup.
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Jul 19, 2019 20:35:53 GMT
What section of the 492 really needs DDs at school times. Iv always thought it was the Dartford to Crayford section via Princess Road. So if the 428 with its 3 DDs an hour took on that section then the 492 could convert to SD and run just from Crayford to Sidcup. The majority of the schools get on the 492 between Stone Crossing & Dartford these students are from Dartford Grammar School. When this is withdrawn there will be no requirement for Double Deckers on the 492.
|
|