|
Post by Connor on Jul 20, 2024 15:05:30 GMT
I've got a few ideas for huge and delusional changes in the SE London area but ones that I think are long over due to reduce duplication where not required and increase capacity where needed: ·Cut the 161 back to Woolwich and extend southwards to Orpington via the 61. Would support the 51 between Woolwich and Orpington. · 61 cut back between Chislehurst and Orpington, rerouted at Orpington, Perry Hall Road to terminate at Sidcup High Street via St Mary Cray, Crittalls Corner, A20 and Queen Marys Hospital. Routing between Locksbottom and Orpington swapped with the 358 to make that route more reliable. ·The 291 is cut back at Woolwich and extended to North Greenwich via the current 161 route. ·53 rerouted at Woolwich via more direct route to Plumstead Bus Garage via A206/ Plumstead Road. ·The 99 to replace the 53 between Woolwich- Plumstead Common and Plumstead Station ·422 rerouted to serve Kings Highway (served for the first time), Plumstead Common, Griffin Road then normal LOR at Plumstead Station instead of Plumstead High Street. ·301 split into two routes at Thamesmead; The western section is merged with the 178 to create a Lewisham to Thamesmead route The eastern section is extended from Bexleyheath to Sidcup Station via the 492 to create a Thamesmead to Sidcup route. Frequency decrease on this section due to the SL3 and 229. ·492 is extended from Bexleyheath to Woolwich via Welling, Shooters Hill, Shrewsbury Lane, then via the current 244 to Woolwich. Also rerouted via the Crayford Road and Dartford Road, as well as running fast between Dartford - Bluewater as the 96 used to do. Supports the 96 between Woolwich and Bluewater. Would recieve a singificant frequency increase. ·428 to be rerouted between Crayford- Dartford- Bluewater via the current 492 (Shepherds Lane, Chastillian Road, stopping at all stops ong Stone/London Road/Greenhithe) ·244 is rerouted at Woolwich to QE Hospital via the current 291 route. At Abbey Wood, it merges with the B11 to create one route from QE Hospital to Bexleyheath. The B11 is no more. ·472 rerouted at Harrow Manorway roundabout to run fast via the A206 (stopping at Belvedere) then terminating at Erith. ·160 is cut back to Horn Park, Alnwick Road (current B15 terminus) and routeing swapped at Edgebury to run via the current 162 route ·162 swapped with the more direct 160 routing at Edgebury and converted to double deckers ·B15 is rerouted at Yorkshire Grey Roundabout to terminate at Catford Bridge. At the other end, the route is rerouted at Welling to run via Welling Station, Wickham Street (served for the first time), Lodge Hill (trees trimmed), Brampton Road, Knee Hill in one direction and New Road in the other to terminate at the old 244/472 stand at Abbey Wood Station. Route is double decked. Lots of new links from Catford Bridge to Abbey Wood and a new orbital route for SE London. ·126 extended to Bexleyheath Shopping Centre via Eltham Station, Rochester Way then the current B15. Hail and Ride section converted to fixed stops and route double decked. ·B16 and 335 merged into one route running from North Greenwich to Bexleyheath Bus Garage. At Kidbrooke Station, route is diverted to run fast via the A2 and Blackwall Tunnel South Approach to North Greenwich, only stopping at Boord Street. Route is double decked. Provides much needed relief to the 132. ·323 extended from Canning Town to Kidbrooke, Moorehead Way via the Silvertown Tunnel and then the current 335. ·69 extended to North Greenwich via the Silvertown Tunnel. Routing swapped with the 158 in Stratford/Maryland to be more direct and serve Stratford Station properly in both directions. Not local to these changes but a lot of these personally seem to cause more problems than solve such as merging routes together that on the face of it are wholly inappropriate to be merged into or the odd extension that might be a bit too long. I can see the merit in cutting the 61 back from Chislehurst though I think the 161 replacing it will have similar problems matching the frequency to that section of the 61 which is quieter than the rest of the route. If the 61 was cut back, I think it should be diverted to Ramsden Estate with the 353 diverted to Chislehurst over the current 61 with the 353’s 20 minute frequency being a better fit personally for that section and providing a link from Ramsden Estate to Bromley The 291 is an inappropriate replacement for the 161 as its main purpose is to provide the Woodlands Estate with a link into Woolwich rather than to link to North Greenwich. Woolwich gives you the DLR, Elizabeth line & National Rail services which would be far more appealing I’d imagine than trotting further on to Normal Greenwich The 301 was a successful change as mentioned by many on here so I don’t think any changes should be made to it. Two Thamesmead to Sidcup routes already exist so when there was only one not long ago so this change seems to add duplication (albeit in part not fully). The 229 & SL3 should keep their current frequencies - 229 is a busy route throughout whilst the SL3 has been a success according to others on here so don’t see the need or want to give them frequency decreases. I’d make no changes to the 428 or 492 outside of exploring a frequency increase to the 492 up to every 20 minutes. In any case, I don’t agree with swapping the 160 & 162 but you will need to swap the BYD Enviro 400’s off the 160 as they wouldn’t be able to serve the 162 section due to the length of them. I also don’t agree with swapping the 160 & B15 to Catford and I really don’t see anyone from Abbey Wood & other places over that way going to Catford when they not only have the Elizabeth line & National Rail on their doorstep, much quicker rides to the DLR & Jubilee Line already exist for them. The 335 should be left unaltered - again it’s another route that was well received by locals and in any case, I don’t think the B16 is a suitable candidate to merge into it. I support deckers for the current B16 though. The 69 already has enough on its plate without extending it further. There are more achievable options to go through the tunnel to South East London. The point in the 161 being extended from Chislehurst to Orpington is provide new links, mainly Eltham to Orpington, two large towns with no direct bus. As with the 301, they are both routes of two halves, very few people travel from end to end due to the indirect nature of the routing. Restructuring the routes to make them more useful and creating useful links in the process is not a bad thing (in my opinion). There is nothing inappropriate about sending the 291 to North Greenwich over the 161. it's a similar frequency, double decker route, and the 291 is one of the shortest routes in London, so much like the 129 when extended from Cutty Sark to Lewisham, I'm sure giving the route more purpose (a link from North Greenwich/Charlton to Plumstead Common/Woodlands Estate) would not be seen as a bad thing. And people go to North Greenwich for more than just catching the Jubilee line , there are plenty of shops, cinema, concerts, riverboat services/cable car etc. My proposal would not prevent existing users from using the Elizabeth line/DLR/NR services. Regular users of the 96 are well aware of the capacity issues, at both ends of the route, at pretty much all times of the day so a route providing backup would alleviate this, similar to the 250 and the 109. The 428 and 492 are both pretty underused in comparison from my observations but I'm happy to be corrected on this as I'm not a regular user of those routes. The 160 buses would need to be changed for shorter buses but this shouldn't be too difficult, the 162 is a route that would be a good candidate for double deckers given the areas it serves. I don't think there are any low bridges or trees preventing this. You may not see a need for price traveling from Abbey Wood to Catford, that's not to say demand for an orbital route from one part of SE London would not be needed. People may have friends and family spread across SE London and mentioning the Elizabeth line/DLR/NR services as alternatives is irrelevant as they all head into Central London. For example, Welling to Abbey Wood are three miles apart and a 10 mins drive away from eachother. The equivalent journey on bus is at least 3 times that and is not very direct. Again North Greenwich users would most likely disagree with you. The extra capacity was definitely useful at first; that doesn't change that this route is one of the quietest routes that leave North Greenwich and the capacity it provides can be better utilised. Providing relief for the 132 should be a priority, given the growth in usage that route has had. I won't disagree with you about the 69, it's an already long and busy route , having said that, I still think an extension to North Greenwich would be doable, although it may need tweaking at the northern end.
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Jul 20, 2024 15:33:48 GMT
I've got a few ideas for huge and delusional changes in the SE London area but ones that I think are long over due to reduce duplication where not required and increase capacity where needed: ·Cut the 161 back to Woolwich and extend southwards to Orpington via the 61. Would support the 51 between Woolwich and Orpington. · 61 cut back between Chislehurst and Orpington, rerouted at Orpington, Perry Hall Road to terminate at Sidcup High Street via St Mary Cray, Crittalls Corner, A20 and Queen Marys Hospital. Routing between Locksbottom and Orpington swapped with the 358 to make that route more reliable. ·The 291 is cut back at Woolwich and extended to North Greenwich via the current 161 route. ·53 rerouted at Woolwich via more direct route to Plumstead Bus Garage via A206/ Plumstead Road. ·The 99 to replace the 53 between Woolwich- Plumstead Common and Plumstead Station ·422 rerouted to serve Kings Highway (served for the first time), Plumstead Common, Griffin Road then normal LOR at Plumstead Station instead of Plumstead High Street. ·301 split into two routes at Thamesmead; The western section is merged with the 178 to create a Lewisham to Thamesmead route The eastern section is extended from Bexleyheath to Sidcup Station via the 492 to create a Thamesmead to Sidcup route. Frequency decrease on this section due to the SL3 and 229. ·492 is extended from Bexleyheath to Woolwich via Welling, Shooters Hill, Shrewsbury Lane, then via the current 244 to Woolwich. Also rerouted via the Crayford Road and Dartford Road, as well as running fast between Dartford - Bluewater as the 96 used to do. Supports the 96 between Woolwich and Bluewater. Would recieve a singificant frequency increase. ·428 to be rerouted between Crayford- Dartford- Bluewater via the current 492 (Shepherds Lane, Chastillian Road, stopping at all stops ong Stone/London Road/Greenhithe) ·244 is rerouted at Woolwich to QE Hospital via the current 291 route. At Abbey Wood, it merges with the B11 to create one route from QE Hospital to Bexleyheath. The B11 is no more. ·472 rerouted at Harrow Manorway roundabout to run fast via the A206 (stopping at Belvedere) then terminating at Erith. ·160 is cut back to Horn Park, Alnwick Road (current B15 terminus) and routeing swapped at Edgebury to run via the current 162 route ·162 swapped with the more direct 160 routing at Edgebury and converted to double deckers ·B15 is rerouted at Yorkshire Grey Roundabout to terminate at Catford Bridge. At the other end, the route is rerouted at Welling to run via Welling Station, Wickham Street (served for the first time), Lodge Hill (trees trimmed), Brampton Road, Knee Hill in one direction and New Road in the other to terminate at the old 244/472 stand at Abbey Wood Station. Route is double decked. Lots of new links from Catford Bridge to Abbey Wood and a new orbital route for SE London. ·126 extended to Bexleyheath Shopping Centre via Eltham Station, Rochester Way then the current B15. Hail and Ride section converted to fixed stops and route double decked. ·B16 and 335 merged into one route running from North Greenwich to Bexleyheath Bus Garage. At Kidbrooke Station, route is diverted to run fast via the A2 and Blackwall Tunnel South Approach to North Greenwich, only stopping at Boord Street. Route is double decked. Provides much needed relief to the 132. ·323 extended from Canning Town to Kidbrooke, Moorehead Way via the Silvertown Tunnel and then the current 335. ·69 extended to North Greenwich via the Silvertown Tunnel. Routing swapped with the 158 in Stratford/Maryland to be more direct and serve Stratford Station properly in both directions. I agree about extending the 161 to Orpington and I have suggested it before. Whilst the frequency might be a bit excessive on the Chislehurst to Orpington section but I would expect an Orpington to Eltham link to attract more usage. I think the 61 and 161 only terminate at Chislehurst because there is stand space there. I'm not sure about the 61 going to Sidcup though, I'd be inclined to send it to Ramsden replacing the 353 and giving a direct link to Bromley. I agree about the 291 but I think the 53 to Plumstead Common is fine as it is. I agree about the 178 to Thamesmead, certainly needs a direct link to Lewisham. To add to my earlier comments, I don't think there's much scope for increasing the 492 service and I don't think anymore buses to Bluewater are needed. I can see some logic in merging the 244 and B11 but both routes operate at different frequencies. I'm not sure there's much to be gained out of merging the 335 and B16 although the 132 does need some assistance to North Greenwich. The 126 to Bexleyheath, I don't think Elsa Road is suitable for double deckers. I agree about the 69 and 323.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 20, 2024 15:44:49 GMT
Not local to these changes but a lot of these personally seem to cause more problems than solve such as merging routes together that on the face of it are wholly inappropriate to be merged into or the odd extension that might be a bit too long. I can see the merit in cutting the 61 back from Chislehurst though I think the 161 replacing it will have similar problems matching the frequency to that section of the 61 which is quieter than the rest of the route. If the 61 was cut back, I think it should be diverted to Ramsden Estate with the 353 diverted to Chislehurst over the current 61 with the 353’s 20 minute frequency being a better fit personally for that section and providing a link from Ramsden Estate to Bromley The 291 is an inappropriate replacement for the 161 as its main purpose is to provide the Woodlands Estate with a link into Woolwich rather than to link to North Greenwich. Woolwich gives you the DLR, Elizabeth line & National Rail services which would be far more appealing I’d imagine than trotting further on to Normal Greenwich The 301 was a successful change as mentioned by many on here so I don’t think any changes should be made to it. Two Thamesmead to Sidcup routes already exist so when there was only one not long ago so this change seems to add duplication (albeit in part not fully). The 229 & SL3 should keep their current frequencies - 229 is a busy route throughout whilst the SL3 has been a success according to others on here so don’t see the need or want to give them frequency decreases. I’d make no changes to the 428 or 492 outside of exploring a frequency increase to the 492 up to every 20 minutes. In any case, I don’t agree with swapping the 160 & 162 but you will need to swap the BYD Enviro 400’s off the 160 as they wouldn’t be able to serve the 162 section due to the length of them. I also don’t agree with swapping the 160 & B15 to Catford and I really don’t see anyone from Abbey Wood & other places over that way going to Catford when they not only have the Elizabeth line & National Rail on their doorstep, much quicker rides to the DLR & Jubilee Line already exist for them. The 335 should be left unaltered - again it’s another route that was well received by locals and in any case, I don’t think the B16 is a suitable candidate to merge into it. I support deckers for the current B16 though. The 69 already has enough on its plate without extending it further. There are more achievable options to go through the tunnel to South East London. The point in the 161 being extended from Chislehurst to Orpington is provide new links, mainly Eltham to Orpington, two large towns with no direct bus. As with the 301, they are both routes of two halves, very few people travel from end to end due to the indirect nature of the routing. Restructuring the routes to make them more useful and creating useful links in the process is not a bad thing (in my opinion). There is nothing inappropriate about sending the 291 to North Greenwich over the 161. it's a similar frequency, double decker route, and the 291 is one of the shortest routes in London, so much like the 129 when extended from Cutty Sark to Lewisham, I'm sure giving the route more purpose (a link from North Greenwich/Charlton to Plumstead Common/Woodlands Estate) would not be seen as a bad thing. And people go to North Greenwich for more than just catching the Jubilee line , there are plenty of shops, cinema, concerts, riverboat services/cable car etc. My proposal would not prevent existing users from using the Elizabeth line/DLR/NR services. Regular users of the 96 are well aware of the capacity issues, at both ends of the route, at pretty much all times of the day so a route providing backup would alleviate this, similar to the 250 and the 109. The 428 and 492 are both pretty underused in comparison from my observations but I'm happy to be corrected on this as I'm not a regular user of those routes. The 160 buses would need to be changed for shorter buses but this shouldn't be too difficult, the 162 is a route that would be a good candidate for double deckers given the areas it serves. I don't think there are any low bridges or trees preventing this. You may not see a need for price traveling from Abbey Wood to Catford, that's not to say demand for an orbital route from one part of SE London would not be needed. People may have friends and family spread across SE London and mentioning the Elizabeth line/DLR/NR services as alternatives is irrelevant as they all head into Central London. For example, Welling to Abbey Wood are three miles apart and a 10 mins drive away from eachother. The equivalent journey on bus is at least 3 times that and is not very direct. Again North Greenwich users would most likely disagree with you. The extra capacity was definitely useful at first; that doesn't change that this route is one of the quietest routes that leave North Greenwich and the capacity it provides can be better utilised. Providing relief for the 132 should be a priority, given the growth in usage that route has had. I won't disagree with you about the 69, it's an already long and busy route , having said that, I still think an extension to North Greenwich would be doable, although it may need tweaking at the northern end. Thanks for your response I get the new links regarding the 161 and it’s not a bad suggestion at all but that section is pretty quiet from what I’ve been told and my own personal experiences and the 161 may not generate much demand to Eltham particularly when Orpington is nearby and provides similar shopping facilities including a station with with a wider range of services. The 301 has widely welcomed by locals on here so the way I look at it is why fix something that isn’t broke? The argument about lack of end to end journeys applies to most routes (I can think of several in my own area) yet it’s not a good enough reason IMO to alter them. Not every route needs to be direct either. The 291 may share double deckers and the same frequency with the 161 but it’s inappropriate because they have entirely different purposes for existing and this is very important in understanding when drawing up proposals. The 291 exists to provide a reliable and quick link from the Woodlands Estate & Woolwich with the link extremely popular hence the frequency and deckers. I’ve not said that people solely go to North Greenwich for the Jubilee but it’s a big factor alongside the O2 Arena - the 180, 422 & 472 all link Woolwich with North Greenwich in any event and I don’t see why Woodlands must link North Greenwich in particular compared to other places. It should also be noted that routes like the 291 are common outside London, linking a town centre with a frequent link to a residential area and we really should preserve the ones we have rather than trying to turn them into something they weren’t and are not meant to be I believe there were capacity issues on the 96 though the 428 has been decked since then - I don’t know if that’s solved the issues or not. A few times I’ve been in Bluewater in recent years, the 492 has left with good loads despite the frequency with the 428 less busy but could be because of the times I’ve been there. I did propose to increase the current 492 to every 20 minutes which is better than nothing. Price has nothing to with my reservations over an Abbey Wood to Catford link but actual demand & I believe there is next to no demand for such a link and anyone in Catford may want a link going west of Forest Hill instead for example like the proposed Superloop route between Streatham and Eltham. Yes, people have people close to them who live in different parts but you can’t link everywhere to everywhere. I’ve family in Old Coulsdon but I don’t think I should have a link from Brixton to Old Coulsdon because there is next to no demand for one - a better link to Lewisham, Wandsworth or a new link to Catford would be far more useful to more people for example. Welling to Abbey Wood is a different discussion and maybe could be married into your earlier idea with the 161 - say a Thamesmead to Orpington Superloop route via Abbey Wood, Welling, Shooters Hill and then along the 161 route with the 161 remaining as is and the Superloop route continuing to Orpington? From what I’ve heard of the 335, loads are heavy during the peaks but I don’t feel a merged route would be the best way to relieve the 132 which I agree needs assistance given how ridiculously busy it is. For me, increasing the 132’s frequency from every 10 to every 6-7 minutes might be a better step to explore with the 335 providing assistance as a short and reliable route.
|
|
|
Post by bk10mfe on Jul 20, 2024 22:37:49 GMT
Not local to these changes but a lot of these personally seem to cause more problems than solve such as merging routes together that on the face of it are wholly inappropriate to be merged into or the odd extension that might be a bit too long. I can see the merit in cutting the 61 back from Chislehurst though I think the 161 replacing it will have similar problems matching the frequency to that section of the 61 which is quieter than the rest of the route. If the 61 was cut back, I think it should be diverted to Ramsden Estate with the 353 diverted to Chislehurst over the current 61 with the 353’s 20 minute frequency being a better fit personally for that section and providing a link from Ramsden Estate to Bromley The 291 is an inappropriate replacement for the 161 as its main purpose is to provide the Woodlands Estate with a link into Woolwich rather than to link to North Greenwich. Woolwich gives you the DLR, Elizabeth line & National Rail services which would be far more appealing I’d imagine than trotting further on to Normal Greenwich The 301 was a successful change as mentioned by many on here so I don’t think any changes should be made to it. Two Thamesmead to Sidcup routes already exist so when there was only one not long ago so this change seems to add duplication (albeit in part not fully). The 229 & SL3 should keep their current frequencies - 229 is a busy route throughout whilst the SL3 has been a success according to others on here so don’t see the need or want to give them frequency decreases. I’d make no changes to the 428 or 492 outside of exploring a frequency increase to the 492 up to every 20 minutes. In any case, I don’t agree with swapping the 160 & 162 but you will need to swap the BYD Enviro 400’s off the 160 as they wouldn’t be able to serve the 162 section due to the length of them. I also don’t agree with swapping the 160 & B15 to Catford and I really don’t see anyone from Abbey Wood & other places over that way going to Catford when they not only have the Elizabeth line & National Rail on their doorstep, much quicker rides to the DLR & Jubilee Line already exist for them. The 335 should be left unaltered - again it’s another route that was well received by locals and in any case, I don’t think the B16 is a suitable candidate to merge into it. I support deckers for the current B16 though. The 69 already has enough on its plate without extending it further. There are more achievable options to go through the tunnel to South East London. The point in the 161 being extended from Chislehurst to Orpington is provide new links, mainly Eltham to Orpington, two large towns with no direct bus. As with the 301, they are both routes of two halves, very few people travel from end to end due to the indirect nature of the routing. Restructuring the routes to make them more useful and creating useful links in the process is not a bad thing (in my opinion). There is nothing inappropriate about sending the 291 to North Greenwich over the 161. it's a similar frequency, double decker route, and the 291 is one of the shortest routes in London, so much like the 129 when extended from Cutty Sark to Lewisham, I'm sure giving the route more purpose (a link from North Greenwich/Charlton to Plumstead Common/Woodlands Estate) would not be seen as a bad thing. And people go to North Greenwich for more than just catching the Jubilee line , there are plenty of shops, cinema, concerts, riverboat services/cable car etc. My proposal would not prevent existing users from using the Elizabeth line/DLR/NR services. Regular users of the 96 are well aware of the capacity issues, at both ends of the route, at pretty much all times of the day so a route providing backup would alleviate this, similar to the 250 and the 109. The 428 and 492 are both pretty underused in comparison from my observations but I'm happy to be corrected on this as I'm not a regular user of those routes. The 160 buses would need to be changed for shorter buses but this shouldn't be too difficult, the 162 is a route that would be a good candidate for double deckers given the areas it serves. I don't think there are any low bridges or trees preventing this. You may not see a need for price traveling from Abbey Wood to Catford, that's not to say demand for an orbital route from one part of SE London would not be needed. People may have friends and family spread across SE London and mentioning the Elizabeth line/DLR/NR services as alternatives is irrelevant as they all head into Central London. For example, Welling to Abbey Wood are three miles apart and a 10 mins drive away from eachother. The equivalent journey on bus is at least 3 times that and is not very direct. Again North Greenwich users would most likely disagree with you. The extra capacity was definitely useful at first; that doesn't change that this route is one of the quietest routes that leave North Greenwich and the capacity it provides can be better utilised. Providing relief for the 132 should be a priority, given the growth in usage that route has had. I won't disagree with you about the 69, it's an already long and busy route , having said that, I still think an extension to North Greenwich would be doable, although it may need tweaking at the northern end. I have some additional suggestions you may be interested in reading regarding the proposals you have made. 1. The Orpington-Eltham link would definitely be useful, as would providing more assistance to the 132. Could a new route (361) be introduced to run between Orpington & North Greenwich via the 61,161 & 132? As part of a larger scale plan, an interesting idea could be to have the 61 diverted to Ramsden Estate, then maybe revise the 353 into a Croydon-Orpington route. The 353 would run its current routing between Orpington & Addington interchange, then would takeover the 466 to Croydon, its frequency is much more suitable for the Croydon-Addington section than the 466’s is. I would additionally have the 433 now perform a double run to serve the rest of Forestdale, which the 353 isn’t particularly useful at as Forestdale residents want to go to Croydon. Excluding stand space issues, could these proposals potentially work? 2. Regarding the 69, I think that’s likely too long to extend to North Greenwich & another North Greenwich-Stratford link isn’t really needed. I feel like diverting the 330 could work though, it’s a lot shorter & could easily manage an extension further south than North Greenwich. Either the 309 or 323 could extend to Pontoon Dock or alternatively you could reverse the 241/474 changes if you wanted to go all out.
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Jul 21, 2024 5:05:28 GMT
The point in the 161 being extended from Chislehurst to Orpington is provide new links, mainly Eltham to Orpington, two large towns with no direct bus. As with the 301, they are both routes of two halves, very few people travel from end to end due to the indirect nature of the routing. Restructuring the routes to make them more useful and creating useful links in the process is not a bad thing (in my opinion). There is nothing inappropriate about sending the 291 to North Greenwich over the 161. it's a similar frequency, double decker route, and the 291 is one of the shortest routes in London, so much like the 129 when extended from Cutty Sark to Lewisham, I'm sure giving the route more purpose (a link from North Greenwich/Charlton to Plumstead Common/Woodlands Estate) would not be seen as a bad thing. And people go to North Greenwich for more than just catching the Jubilee line , there are plenty of shops, cinema, concerts, riverboat services/cable car etc. My proposal would not prevent existing users from using the Elizabeth line/DLR/NR services. Regular users of the 96 are well aware of the capacity issues, at both ends of the route, at pretty much all times of the day so a route providing backup would alleviate this, similar to the 250 and the 109. The 428 and 492 are both pretty underused in comparison from my observations but I'm happy to be corrected on this as I'm not a regular user of those routes. The 160 buses would need to be changed for shorter buses but this shouldn't be too difficult, the 162 is a route that would be a good candidate for double deckers given the areas it serves. I don't think there are any low bridges or trees preventing this. You may not see a need for price traveling from Abbey Wood to Catford, that's not to say demand for an orbital route from one part of SE London would not be needed. People may have friends and family spread across SE London and mentioning the Elizabeth line/DLR/NR services as alternatives is irrelevant as they all head into Central London. For example, Welling to Abbey Wood are three miles apart and a 10 mins drive away from eachother. The equivalent journey on bus is at least 3 times that and is not very direct. Again North Greenwich users would most likely disagree with you. The extra capacity was definitely useful at first; that doesn't change that this route is one of the quietest routes that leave North Greenwich and the capacity it provides can be better utilised. Providing relief for the 132 should be a priority, given the growth in usage that route has had. I won't disagree with you about the 69, it's an already long and busy route , having said that, I still think an extension to North Greenwich would be doable, although it may need tweaking at the northern end. I have some additional suggestions you may be interested in reading regarding the proposals you have made. 1. The Orpington-Eltham link would definitely be useful, as would providing more assistance to the 132. Could a new route (361) be introduced to run between Orpington & North Greenwich via the 61,161 & 132? As part of a larger scale plan, an interesting idea could be to have the 61 diverted to Ramsden Estate, then maybe revise the 353 into a Croydon-Orpington route. The 353 would run its current routing between Orpington & Addington interchange, then would takeover the 466 to Croydon, its frequency is much more suitable for the Croydon-Addington section than the 466’s is. I would additionally have the 433 now perform a double run to serve the rest of Forestdale, which the 353 isn’t particularly useful at as Forestdale residents want to go to Croydon. Excluding stand space issues, could these proposals potentially work? 2. Regarding the 69, I think that’s likely too long to extend to North Greenwich & another North Greenwich-Stratford link isn’t really needed. I feel like diverting the 330 could work though, it’s a lot shorter & could easily manage an extension further south than North Greenwich. Either the 309 or 323 could extend to Pontoon Dock or alternatively you could reverse the 241/474 changes if you wanted to go all out. Orpington to Eltham has been a missing link ever since the 61 was withdrawn from Eltham in the 1980's and I certainly agree with your suggestion for the 353,433 and 466. I would also advocate returning the 54 to Croydon, it could go via the 289 route to Ashburton Park then via the 312 route to Croydon, the 289 could be rerouted to Norwood Junction, the 433 extended to Old Lodge Lane and the 312 withdrawn. The 54 could possibly be curtailed at Lewisham with something else taking over the Woolwich section.
|
|
|
Post by bk10mfe on Jul 21, 2024 8:44:35 GMT
I have some additional suggestions you may be interested in reading regarding the proposals you have made. 1. The Orpington-Eltham link would definitely be useful, as would providing more assistance to the 132. Could a new route (361) be introduced to run between Orpington & North Greenwich via the 61,161 & 132? As part of a larger scale plan, an interesting idea could be to have the 61 diverted to Ramsden Estate, then maybe revise the 353 into a Croydon-Orpington route. The 353 would run its current routing between Orpington & Addington interchange, then would takeover the 466 to Croydon, its frequency is much more suitable for the Croydon-Addington section than the 466’s is. I would additionally have the 433 now perform a double run to serve the rest of Forestdale, which the 353 isn’t particularly useful at as Forestdale residents want to go to Croydon. Excluding stand space issues, could these proposals potentially work? 2. Regarding the 69, I think that’s likely too long to extend to North Greenwich & another North Greenwich-Stratford link isn’t really needed. I feel like diverting the 330 could work though, it’s a lot shorter & could easily manage an extension further south than North Greenwich. Either the 309 or 323 could extend to Pontoon Dock or alternatively you could reverse the 241/474 changes if you wanted to go all out. Orpington to Eltham has been a missing link ever since the 61 was withdrawn from Eltham in the 1980's and I certainly agree with your suggestion for the 353,433 and 466. I would also advocate returning the 54 to Croydon, it could go via the 289 route to Ashburton Park then via the 312 route to Croydon, the 289 could be rerouted to Norwood Junction, the 433 extended to Old Lodge Lane and the 312 withdrawn. The 54 could possibly be curtailed at Lewisham with something else taking over the Woolwich section. I don’t think the 54 needs to return to Croydon, the trams & the 75 already provide the same links that the 54 would have between Croydon & Lewisham. & replacing the Lewisham-Woolwich section is quite tricky as everything else is either already too long or single deck. I think the 466 would be good to takeover the 312 to Norwood Junction, enabling deckers to run along almost all of the 312 route. I think the 439 could divert at Purley to Purley Old Lodge, with the 434 being put back onto its old routing. The 439 may then be useful for an extension northbound.
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Jul 21, 2024 9:08:33 GMT
Orpington to Eltham has been a missing link ever since the 61 was withdrawn from Eltham in the 1980's and I certainly agree with your suggestion for the 353,433 and 466. I would also advocate returning the 54 to Croydon, it could go via the 289 route to Ashburton Park then via the 312 route to Croydon, the 289 could be rerouted to Norwood Junction, the 433 extended to Old Lodge Lane and the 312 withdrawn. The 54 could possibly be curtailed at Lewisham with something else taking over the Woolwich section. I don’t think the 54 needs to return to Croydon, the trams & the 75 already provide the same links that the 54 would have between Croydon & Lewisham. & replacing the Lewisham-Woolwich section is quite tricky as everything else is either already too long or single deck. I think the 466 would be good to takeover the 312 to Norwood Junction, enabling deckers to run along almost all of the 312 route. I think the 439 could divert at Purley to Purley Old Lodge, with the 434 being put back onto its old routing. The 439 may then be useful for an extension northbound. Tram connections at Elmers End are poor and people who aren't near tramstops deserve a link to Croydon as with the 353. I think Old Lodge Lane users would want to retain the link to Croydon town centre.
|
|
|
Post by bk10mfe on Jul 21, 2024 9:34:07 GMT
I don’t think the 54 needs to return to Croydon, the trams & the 75 already provide the same links that the 54 would have between Croydon & Lewisham. & replacing the Lewisham-Woolwich section is quite tricky as everything else is either already too long or single deck. I think the 466 would be good to takeover the 312 to Norwood Junction, enabling deckers to run along almost all of the 312 route. I think the 439 could divert at Purley to Purley Old Lodge, with the 434 being put back onto its old routing. The 439 may then be useful for an extension northbound. Tram connections at Elmers End are poor and people who aren't near tramstops deserve a link to Croydon as with the 353. I think Old Lodge Lane users would want to retain the link to Croydon town centre. There are also tram connections at Beckenham Junction & other places near Elmers End e.g Birkbeck. If trams weren’t the same price as the bus & weren’t faster I would agree the 54 would be good to return back to Croydon. Maybe it could be worth swapping around the 289/312 termini which then maybe could allow the 312 being extended into Beckenham? & I think rerouting the 358 to serve Elmers End Station/Elmers End Road would be more useful than simply having it duplicate the 194.
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Jul 21, 2024 9:39:51 GMT
Tram connections at Elmers End are poor and people who aren't near tramstops deserve a link to Croydon as with the 353. I think Old Lodge Lane users would want to retain the link to Croydon town centre. There are also tram connections at Beckenham Junction & other places near Elmers End e.g Birkbeck. If trams weren’t the same price as the bus & weren’t faster I would agree the 54 would be good to return back to Croydon. Maybe it could be worth swapping around the 289/312 termini which then maybe could allow the 312 being extended into Beckenham? & I think rerouting the 358 to serve Elmers End Station/Elmers End Road would be more useful than simply having it duplicate the 194. Beckenham Junction is a walk and busy roads to cross but I agree about rerouting the 358 via Elmers End Road.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jul 21, 2024 10:05:32 GMT
Tram connections at Elmers End are poor and people who aren't near tramstops deserve a link to Croydon as with the 353. I think Old Lodge Lane users would want to retain the link to Croydon town centre. There are also tram connections at Beckenham Junction & other places near Elmers End e.g Birkbeck. If trams weren’t the same price as the bus & weren’t faster I would agree the 54 would be good to return back to Croydon. Maybe it could be worth swapping around the 289/312 termini which then maybe could allow the 312 being extended into Beckenham? & I think rerouting the 358 to serve Elmers End Station/Elmers End Road would be more useful than simply having it duplicate the 194. Back in 2000 it was more controversial as I don't think bus passes were valid on the Tram and when alot more people paid cash fares it did involve getting to the tram platform and having to use a ticket machine to buy another tickets by which time the tram could have pulled away. Also then more people probably use to travel to Croydon from further away and so having to chnage to get from Bellingham to Croydon seemed longer then before.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 21, 2024 11:54:03 GMT
Tram connections at Elmers End are poor and people who aren't near tramstops deserve a link to Croydon as with the 353. I think Old Lodge Lane users would want to retain the link to Croydon town centre. There are also tram connections at Beckenham Junction & other places near Elmers End e.g Birkbeck. If trams weren’t the same price as the bus & weren’t faster I would agree the 54 would be good to return back to Croydon. Maybe it could be worth swapping around the 289/312 termini which then maybe could allow the 312 being extended into Beckenham? & I think rerouting the 358 to serve Elmers End Station/Elmers End Road would be more useful than simply having it duplicate the 194. Far too many changes at this point IMO when the network in the area isn’t broken. The 54 would be too long to Croydon and Croydon is already struggling for stand space as was debated in this thread the other day. The 289 & 358 are fine as they are - 358 might be a long route but it copes well and it only follows the 194 between Penge & Eden Park. In a reply to a previous post, the 353 can only return to Croydon if it’s frequency increased particularly as the 353 has declined both before and especially after it’s frequency decreased and I fail to see an every 20 minutes being more attractive especially over the 466’s current section. This would also break links south of Croydon. The 434 & 439 changes have only been implemented and should be left to settle in properly (the 434 hasn’t even been routed as per the consultation yet due to works). There is nowhere north of Purley Way for the 439 to go - it’s far too infrequent and is woefully inadequate as a 9.7m ingle decker to provide most links north of Purley Way. Old Lodge Lane would require a bus to Croydon rather than to Purley Way which the 312 does
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Jul 21, 2024 14:09:04 GMT
Without quoting all the above, there's a very noticeable churn of passengers on the 54 at Lewisham Market towards Woolwich. It's not uncommon to be held from boarding there while existing passengers empty out. Maybe a Lewisham - Croydon & Bromley/Catford - Woolwich/Plumstead split might work. Either way, Croydon is not what it was shopping-wise.
There is a lot of scope for new routes through the Silvertown Tunnel and the current plans are feeble. Equally, when talking about the 335, it does not provide the originally planned link from Blackheath and Kidbrooke to Sainsburys etc in Bugsbys Way. This should be priority.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jul 21, 2024 14:29:29 GMT
The point in the 161 being extended from Chislehurst to Orpington is provide new links, mainly Eltham to Orpington, two large towns with no direct bus. As with the 301, they are both routes of two halves, very few people travel from end to end due to the indirect nature of the routing. Restructuring the routes to make them more useful and creating useful links in the process is not a bad thing (in my opinion). There is nothing inappropriate about sending the 291 to North Greenwich over the 161. it's a similar frequency, double decker route, and the 291 is one of the shortest routes in London, so much like the 129 when extended from Cutty Sark to Lewisham, I'm sure giving the route more purpose (a link from North Greenwich/Charlton to Plumstead Common/Woodlands Estate) would not be seen as a bad thing. And people go to North Greenwich for more than just catching the Jubilee line , there are plenty of shops, cinema, concerts, riverboat services/cable car etc. My proposal would not prevent existing users from using the Elizabeth line/DLR/NR services. Regular users of the 96 are well aware of the capacity issues, at both ends of the route, at pretty much all times of the day so a route providing backup would alleviate this, similar to the 250 and the 109. The 428 and 492 are both pretty underused in comparison from my observations but I'm happy to be corrected on this as I'm not a regular user of those routes. The 160 buses would need to be changed for shorter buses but this shouldn't be too difficult, the 162 is a route that would be a good candidate for double deckers given the areas it serves. I don't think there are any low bridges or trees preventing this. You may not see a need for price traveling from Abbey Wood to Catford, that's not to say demand for an orbital route from one part of SE London would not be needed. People may have friends and family spread across SE London and mentioning the Elizabeth line/DLR/NR services as alternatives is irrelevant as they all head into Central London. For example, Welling to Abbey Wood are three miles apart and a 10 mins drive away from eachother. The equivalent journey on bus is at least 3 times that and is not very direct. Again North Greenwich users would most likely disagree with you. The extra capacity was definitely useful at first; that doesn't change that this route is one of the quietest routes that leave North Greenwich and the capacity it provides can be better utilised. Providing relief for the 132 should be a priority, given the growth in usage that route has had. I won't disagree with you about the 69, it's an already long and busy route , having said that, I still think an extension to North Greenwich would be doable, although it may need tweaking at the northern end. Thanks for your response I get the new links regarding the 161 and it’s not a bad suggestion at all but that section is pretty quiet from what I’ve been told and my own personal experiences and the 161 may not generate much demand to Eltham particularly when Orpington is nearby and provides similar shopping facilities including a station with with a wider range of services. The 301 has widely welcomed by locals on here so the way I look at it is why fix something that isn’t broke? The argument about lack of end to end journeys applies to most routes (I can think of several in my own area) yet it’s not a good enough reason IMO to alter them. Not every route needs to be direct either. The 291 may share double deckers and the same frequency with the 161 but it’s inappropriate because they have entirely different purposes for existing and this is very important in understanding when drawing up proposals. The 291 exists to provide a reliable and quick link from the Woodlands Estate & Woolwich with the link extremely popular hence the frequency and deckers. I’ve not said that people solely go to North Greenwich for the Jubilee but it’s a big factor alongside the O2 Arena - the 180, 422 & 472 all link Woolwich with North Greenwich in any event and I don’t see why Woodlands must link North Greenwich in particular compared to other places. It should also be noted that routes like the 291 are common outside London, linking a town centre with a frequent link to a residential area and we really should preserve the ones we have rather than trying to turn them into something they weren’t and are not meant to be I believe there were capacity issues on the 96 though the 428 has been decked since then - I don’t know if that’s solved the issues or not. A few times I’ve been in Bluewater in recent years, the 492 has left with good loads despite the frequency with the 428 less busy but could be because of the times I’ve been there. I did propose to increase the current 492 to every 20 minutes which is better than nothing. Price has nothing to with my reservations over an Abbey Wood to Catford link but actual demand & I believe there is next to no demand for such a link and anyone in Catford may want a link going west of Forest Hill instead for example like the proposed Superloop route between Streatham and Eltham. Yes, people have people close to them who live in different parts but you can’t link everywhere to everywhere. I’ve family in Old Coulsdon but I don’t think I should have a link from Brixton to Old Coulsdon because there is next to no demand for one - a better link to Lewisham, Wandsworth or a new link to Catford would be far more useful to more people for example. Welling to Abbey Wood is a different discussion and maybe could be married into your earlier idea with the 161 - say a Thamesmead to Orpington Superloop route via Abbey Wood, Welling, Shooters Hill and then along the 161 route with the 161 remaining as is and the Superloop route continuing to Orpington? From what I’ve heard of the 335, loads are heavy during the peaks but I don’t feel a merged route would be the best way to relieve the 132 which I agree needs assistance given how ridiculously busy it is. For me, increasing the 132’s frequency from every 10 to every 6-7 minutes might be a better step to explore with the 335 providing assistance as a short and reliable route. The 132 is a route crying out for some shorts in the peaks (say an extra 4 buses from Eltham High Street) but unfortunately TFL don't really entertain such idea. As for the 96 it's very much a route which has alot to do. Its the main Woolwich to Bexleyheath route (and possibly the Welling route aswell thou the 51 would help there) but also the main BX to Crayford and Dartford route aswell as healthy loads to Bluewater. Taking it to every 6 mins like the 86 has been in the past would definitely help it.
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Jul 21, 2024 15:25:26 GMT
Without quoting all the above, there's a very noticeable churn of passengers on the 54 at Lewisham Market towards Woolwich. It's not uncommon to be held from boarding there while existing passengers empty out. Maybe a Lewisham - Croydon & Bromley/Catford - Woolwich/Plumstead split might work. Either way, Croydon is not what it was shopping-wise. There is a lot of scope for new routes through the Silvertown Tunnel and the current plans are feeble. Equally, when talking about the 335, it does not provide the originally planned link from Blackheath and Kidbrooke to Sainsburys etc in Bugsbys Way. This should be priority. That's what I was thinking about the 54, the obvious thing would be Lewisham to Croydon and Woolwich to Catford Garage but it would be rather wasteful and TfL were intent on reducing buses along Rushey Green not increasing them. So instead Woolwich to Bromley replacing the 320 and curtailing the 208 at Catford although additional stand space would be needed in Bromley. At the Orpington end the 208 could be extended to Ramsden Estate replacing the 353 and giving a direct link to Bromley and Catford.
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Jul 21, 2024 15:30:58 GMT
Thanks for your response I get the new links regarding the 161 and it’s not a bad suggestion at all but that section is pretty quiet from what I’ve been told and my own personal experiences and the 161 may not generate much demand to Eltham particularly when Orpington is nearby and provides similar shopping facilities including a station with with a wider range of services. The 301 has widely welcomed by locals on here so the way I look at it is why fix something that isn’t broke? The argument about lack of end to end journeys applies to most routes (I can think of several in my own area) yet it’s not a good enough reason IMO to alter them. Not every route needs to be direct either. The 291 may share double deckers and the same frequency with the 161 but it’s inappropriate because they have entirely different purposes for existing and this is very important in understanding when drawing up proposals. The 291 exists to provide a reliable and quick link from the Woodlands Estate & Woolwich with the link extremely popular hence the frequency and deckers. I’ve not said that people solely go to North Greenwich for the Jubilee but it’s a big factor alongside the O2 Arena - the 180, 422 & 472 all link Woolwich with North Greenwich in any event and I don’t see why Woodlands must link North Greenwich in particular compared to other places. It should also be noted that routes like the 291 are common outside London, linking a town centre with a frequent link to a residential area and we really should preserve the ones we have rather than trying to turn them into something they weren’t and are not meant to be I believe there were capacity issues on the 96 though the 428 has been decked since then - I don’t know if that’s solved the issues or not. A few times I’ve been in Bluewater in recent years, the 492 has left with good loads despite the frequency with the 428 less busy but could be because of the times I’ve been there. I did propose to increase the current 492 to every 20 minutes which is better than nothing. Price has nothing to with my reservations over an Abbey Wood to Catford link but actual demand & I believe there is next to no demand for such a link and anyone in Catford may want a link going west of Forest Hill instead for example like the proposed Superloop route between Streatham and Eltham. Yes, people have people close to them who live in different parts but you can’t link everywhere to everywhere. I’ve family in Old Coulsdon but I don’t think I should have a link from Brixton to Old Coulsdon because there is next to no demand for one - a better link to Lewisham, Wandsworth or a new link to Catford would be far more useful to more people for example. Welling to Abbey Wood is a different discussion and maybe could be married into your earlier idea with the 161 - say a Thamesmead to Orpington Superloop route via Abbey Wood, Welling, Shooters Hill and then along the 161 route with the 161 remaining as is and the Superloop route continuing to Orpington? From what I’ve heard of the 335, loads are heavy during the peaks but I don’t feel a merged route would be the best way to relieve the 132 which I agree needs assistance given how ridiculously busy it is. For me, increasing the 132’s frequency from every 10 to every 6-7 minutes might be a better step to explore with the 335 providing assistance as a short and reliable route. The 132 is a route crying out for some shorts in the peaks (say an extra 4 buses from Eltham High Street) but unfortunately TFL don't really entertain such idea. As for the 96 it's very much a route which has alot to do. Its the main Woolwich to Bexleyheath route (and possibly the Welling route aswell thou the 51 would help there) but also the main BX to Crayford and Dartford route aswell as healthy loads to Bluewater. Taking it to every 6 mins like the 86 has been in the past would definitely help it. Yes the obvious solution on the 132 would be additional buses between North Greenwich and Eltham giving a x5 minute service at least at peak times. The SE'e buses redundant from the ex Red Arrow routes would be ideal and could operate from MG if it's being electrified. Isn't the current service on the 96 generally adequate?
|
|