|
Post by greenboy on Aug 6, 2024 7:31:10 GMT
386: how dare you mess with the 386! Kept as it is, thank you very much! The extension from Cutty Sark to Blackheath Village was a disaster for the rest of the route. Very few passengers use it. It should go with the resource used to increase the frequency on the remainder of the route. The running of the route is not helped by the appalling state of the vehicles. Even the later ex route 100 buses are now in poor condition. (BTW I use the route most days.) I agree that the Cutty Sark to Blackheath Village section should be withdrawn or replaced by another route as was suggested.
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Aug 6, 2024 7:44:42 GMT
386: how dare you mess with the 386! Kept as it is, thank you very much! The extension from Cutty Sark to Blackheath Village was a disaster for the rest of the route. Very few passengers use it. It should go with the resource used to increase the frequency on the remainder of the route. The running of the route is not helped by the appalling state of the vehicles. Even the later ex route 100 buses are now in poor condition. (BTW I use the route most days.) I suspect the 386 continues to Blackheath now primarily because of the long term aspiration to remove all Greenwich terminators as a result of the proposed pedestrianisation of part of Greenwich town centre. Cutting the 386 back would potentially store up problems for later. There’s going to be enough of an issue finding something to do with the 286 in the event of this.
|
|
|
Post by ian on Aug 6, 2024 8:19:40 GMT
Proposals to withdraw routes 288 288 related canges: 79: Extension from Edgware Station to Broadfields Estate. This will replace the northern half of the 288 and also retain Broadfields Estates link to Queensbury Station and provide Broadfields with a more frequent service with new connections. 292: Withdrawn between Colindale Superstores and Edgware and extended to Queensbury Morrisons via the 288. Currently, there are 2 other frequent routes (32 and 142) which both run from Edgware to Colindale Superstores which will mean that link is not lost and 292 passengers from areas further north than Edgware can just change for those routes at Edgware Bus Station 125: Not exactly a change the has to come into play however a small extension from Colindale Station to Colindale Superstores would be nice. The 288 is more frequent than the 79 as it runs every 10 minutes as opposed to the 79 which is every 12 minutes. I'm not local to the routes but I'd can't imagine Broadfields Estate residents being happy losing their usual route for a route coming all the way from Alperton, a congestion magnet of a place and passing through Wembley, another prone to horrible congestion which could result in reduced reliability. When I used to use the 292 on Saturdays when I was ticking off every VLP, the first stop opposite the ASDA saw quite a bit of usage for both the 292 & 303. That and the fact the 288 section between Edgware & Queensbury would be reduced in half from every 10 to every 20 minutes under your proposal doesn't make much sense to change the current situation. Just for info, the recent Western Barnet (i.e. Edgware/Colindale) Network Development Papers that were released via FOI had the 292 diverted away from Colindale Asda in any case, coming from Edgware via Burnt Oak but then along Stag Lane and Mollison Way to Queensbury Circle (terminating).
|
|
|
Post by cl54 on Aug 6, 2024 10:56:56 GMT
The extension from Cutty Sark to Blackheath Village was a disaster for the rest of the route. Very few passengers use it. It should go with the resource used to increase the frequency on the remainder of the route. The running of the route is not helped by the appalling state of the vehicles. Even the later ex route 100 buses are now in poor condition. (BTW I use the route most days.) I suspect the 386 continues to Blackheath now primarily because of the long term aspiration to remove all Greenwich terminators as a result of the proposed pedestrianisation of part of Greenwich town centre. Cutting the 386 back would potentially store up problems for later. There’s going to be enough of an issue finding something to do with the 286 in the event of this. I believe they were looking to use Norman Road as an alternative. There is no point running the 386 all the way to Blackheath Village because of the the pedestrianisation of the Cutty Sark area.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Aug 6, 2024 11:39:44 GMT
I suspect the 386 continues to Blackheath now primarily because of the long term aspiration to remove all Greenwich terminators as a result of the proposed pedestrianisation of part of Greenwich town centre. Cutting the 386 back would potentially store up problems for later. There’s going to be enough of an issue finding something to do with the 286 in the event of this. I believe they were looking to use Norman Road as an alternative. There is no point running the 386 all the way to Blackheath Village because of the the pedestrianisation of the Cutty Sark area. I think the link between Greenwich and Blackheath Village should be kept, but the 386 may not be the best route to cover this. Might be better used if covering further links beyond this section? Currently the 386's indirect routeing means that any passengers boarding at Blackheath Village are unlikely to travel much further than Cutty Sark. I previously suggested a route covering Cutty Sark to Blackheath Village, then continuing to Eltham via Kidbrooke. This would also introduce a local link between Blackheath and Kidbrooke, which currently can only be done by train. Either as a new route, or perhaps an extension of the B16? Alternatively, when the Silvertown Tunnel opens (and therefore relieves congestion through the Blackwall tunnel), could consider introducing a more local route through Blackwall. This could run from Blackheath Village to Crossharbour, via Cutty Sark, North Greenwich, Poplar and Canary Wharf? Or could simply look at making the 386 more direct - though would likely require terminating at Cutty Sark. Could run from Cutty Sark to Blackheath Village, then direct to Blackheath Royal Standard, and back to the current line of route to Woolwich? The 286 could then divert to replace the section via Vanbrugh Hill and Westcombe Park Road, if the longer SDs can fit? And regarding the potential stand space issues at Cutty Sark, if necessary could a route perhaps extend to Deptford Bridge to terminate? The 453 had a PVR cut at some point, so might be some space there.
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Aug 6, 2024 12:13:07 GMT
I previously suggested a route covering Cutty Sark to Blackheath Village, then continuing to Eltham via Kidbrooke. This would also introduce a local link between Blackheath and Kidbrooke, which currently can only be done by train. Either as a new route, or perhaps an extension of the B16? . I can’t see that working - Kidbrooke to Eltham on the train is 3 minutes - a bus would take unacceptably longer.
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Aug 6, 2024 12:30:25 GMT
I believe they were looking to use Norman Road as an alternative. There is no point running the 386 all the way to Blackheath Village because of the the pedestrianisation of the Cutty Sark area. I think the link between Greenwich and Blackheath Village should be kept, but the 386 may not be the best route to cover this. Might be better used if covering further links beyond this section? Currently the 386's indirect routeing means that any passengers boarding at Blackheath Village are unlikely to travel much further than Cutty Sark. I previously suggested a route covering Cutty Sark to Blackheath Village, then continuing to Eltham via Kidbrooke. This would also introduce a local link between Blackheath and Kidbrooke, which currently can only be done by train. Either as a new route, or perhaps an extension of the B16? Alternatively, when the Silvertown Tunnel opens (and therefore relieves congestion through the Blackwall tunnel), could consider introducing a more local route through Blackwall. This could run from Blackheath Village to Crossharbour, via Cutty Sark, North Greenwich, Poplar and Canary Wharf? Or could simply look at making the 386 more direct - though would likely require terminating at Cutty Sark. Could run from Cutty Sark to Blackheath Village, then direct to Blackheath Royal Standard, and back to the current line of route to Woolwich? The 286 could then divert to replace the section via Vanbrugh Hill and Westcombe Park Road, if the longer SDs can fit? And regarding the potential stand space issues at Cutty Sark, if necessary could a route perhaps extend to Deptford Bridge to terminate? The 453 had a PVR cut at some point, so might be some space there. Deptford Bridge stand is set up for buses from the other direction, it would be very awkward to turn right from the stand. I thought your suggestion of an Eltham, Kidbrooke, Blackheath, Greenwich link was good whether it's the B16 or a new route.
|
|
|
Post by cl54 on Aug 6, 2024 18:15:03 GMT
I believe they were looking to use Norman Road as an alternative. There is no point running the 386 all the way to Blackheath Village because of the the pedestrianisation of the Cutty Sark area. I think the link between Greenwich and Blackheath Village should be kept, but the 386 may not be the best route to cover this. Might be better used if covering further links beyond this section? Currently the 386's indirect routeing means that any passengers boarding at Blackheath Village are unlikely to travel much further than Cutty Sark. I previously suggested a route covering Cutty Sark to Blackheath Village, then continuing to Eltham via Kidbrooke. This would also introduce a local link between Blackheath and Kidbrooke, which currently can only be done by train. Either as a new route, or perhaps an extension of the B16? Alternatively, when the Silvertown Tunnel opens (and therefore relieves congestion through the Blackwall tunnel), could consider introducing a more local route through Blackwall. This could run from Blackheath Village to Crossharbour, via Cutty Sark, North Greenwich, Poplar and Canary Wharf? Or could simply look at making the 386 more direct - though would likely require terminating at Cutty Sark. Could run from Cutty Sark to Blackheath Village, then direct to Blackheath Royal Standard, and back to the current line of route to Woolwich? The 286 could then divert to replace the section via Vanbrugh Hill and Westcombe Park Road, if the longer SDs can fit? And regarding the potential stand space issues at Cutty Sark, if necessary could a route perhaps extend to Deptford Bridge to terminate? The 453 had a PVR cut at some point, so might be some space there. Existing routes like the 54 and 108 already provide links to places you suggest plus hopper fare interchanges. My observations suggest a minibus would be enough if there is demand for the service. A lot of Kidbrooke people do their shopping in Greenwich (Iceland in particular). The 386 provides the link.
|
|
|
Post by LVF_Admin on Aug 6, 2024 20:17:09 GMT
I previously suggested a route covering Cutty Sark to Blackheath Village, then continuing to Eltham via Kidbrooke. This would also introduce a local link between Blackheath and Kidbrooke, which currently can only be done by train. Either as a new route, or perhaps an extension of the B16? . I can’t see that working - Kidbrooke to Eltham on the train is 3 minutes - a bus would take unacceptably longer. Kidbrooke Park Road to Eltham already exists albeit 1 way on the 132
|
|
|
Post by YX18KVJ (DLE30221) on Aug 6, 2024 20:50:25 GMT
110: Withdrawn between Manor Circus and Hammersmith and rerouted to Castelnau replacing route 419.The route would loop towards Castelnau, alighting at the Northbound Lonsdale Road stop.Frequency restored to 4bph. 419: Withdrawn, and replaced by route 110 533: Extended from Castelnau to Roehampton replacing route 419 391: Reintroduced between Hammersmith and Richmond, and extended to Twickenham Green via routes 490/R70 to support the Richmond-Twickenham corridor.To run x15 minutes H22: Withdrawn between Twickenham and West Middlesex Hospital.The route can stand at Twickenham Albany (The temporary R68 bus stand) 267: Frequency increased to every 10 mins (or x8 if every 10 mins is not enough for the loss of the H22)
|
|
|
Post by ronnie on Aug 6, 2024 21:05:12 GMT
I believe they were looking to use Norman Road as an alternative. There is no point running the 386 all the way to Blackheath Village because of the the pedestrianisation of the Cutty Sark area. I think the link between Greenwich and Blackheath Village should be kept, but the 386 may not be the best route to cover this. Might be better used if covering further links beyond this section? Currently the 386's indirect routeing means that any passengers boarding at Blackheath Village are unlikely to travel much further than Cutty Sark. I previously suggested a route covering Cutty Sark to Blackheath Village, then continuing to Eltham via Kidbrooke. This would also introduce a local link between Blackheath and Kidbrooke, which currently can only be done by train. Either as a new route, or perhaps an extension of the B16? Alternatively, when the Silvertown Tunnel opens (and therefore relieves congestion through the Blackwall tunnel), could consider introducing a more local route through Blackwall. This could run from Blackheath Village to Crossharbour, via Cutty Sark, North Greenwich, Poplar and Canary Wharf? Or could simply look at making the 386 more direct - though would likely require terminating at Cutty Sark. Could run from Cutty Sark to Blackheath Village, then direct to Blackheath Royal Standard, and back to the current line of route to Woolwich? The 286 could then divert to replace the section via Vanbrugh Hill and Westcombe Park Road, if the longer SDs can fit? And regarding the potential stand space issues at Cutty Sark, if necessary could a route perhaps extend to Deptford Bridge to terminate? The 453 had a PVR cut at some point, so might be some space there. I would like a route coming from the Eltham (or kidbrooke) side, up Kidbrooke park road, use the A2 and then the 89 LOR to Blackheath village; then use current 386 LOR to get to cutty sark It’s an annoying missing link that Kidbrooke - Blackheath village aren’t linked unless you are changing buses
|
|
|
Post by SN17MOA on Aug 6, 2024 21:30:35 GMT
110: Withdrawn between Manor Circus and Hammersmith and rerouted to Castelnau replacing route 419.The route would loop towards Castelnau, alighting at the Northbound Lonsdale Road stop.Frequency restored to 4bph. 419: Withdrawn, and replaced by route 110 533: Extended from Castelnau to Roehampton replacing route 419 391: Reintroduced between Hammersmith and Richmond, and extended to Twickenham Green via routes 490/R70 to support the Richmond-Twickenham corridor.To run x15 minutes H22: Withdrawn between Twickenham and West Middlesex Hospital.The route can stand at Twickenham Albany (The temporary R68 bus stand) 267: Frequency increased to every 10 mins (or x8 if every 10 mins is not enough for the loss of the H22) Here's my opinion on this: 110: I like the idea of splitting the route into 2 as the route is too long and unreliable in its current form. However, I would prefer a much more perfect split with the 110 running between Hounslow, Bus Station and Manor Circus via its current routing. The route could run every 20 minutes. 419: I would only withdraw this route when/if Hammersmith Bridge reopens. 391: Yep, to the Hammersmith to Richmond section via the current 110 routing. Absolutely not to the extension. The busy corridor extends to Sixth Cross Road, which is further west than Twickenham Green. This proposal only solves part of the problem. As I mentioned quite recently, the way to solve the corridor and the overcrowding of the R70 & especially the 490 is to reintroduce the H22 in its pre-2021 form. Then none of those routes need to be decked, they just simply need support. H22: Absolutely agree with the withdrawal of that sector. The route runs light now from my experience. However, it should not end at Twickenham. Like I said above, extend it to Richmond, Manor Circus or alternatively, Pools on the Park. 533: I like this idea. 267: I will be fine with this idea.
|
|
|
Post by bk10mfe on Aug 6, 2024 22:13:52 GMT
110: Withdrawn between Manor Circus and Hammersmith and rerouted to Castelnau replacing route 419.The route would loop towards Castelnau, alighting at the Northbound Lonsdale Road stop.Frequency restored to 4bph. 419: Withdrawn, and replaced by route 110 533: Extended from Castelnau to Roehampton replacing route 419 391: Reintroduced between Hammersmith and Richmond, and extended to Twickenham Green via routes 490/R70 to support the Richmond-Twickenham corridor.To run x15 minutes H22: Withdrawn between Twickenham and West Middlesex Hospital.The route can stand at Twickenham Albany (The temporary R68 bus stand) 267: Frequency increased to every 10 mins (or x8 if every 10 mins is not enough for the loss of the H22) Here's my opinion on this: 110: I like the idea of splitting the route into 2 as the route is too long and unreliable in its current form. However, I would prefer a much more perfect split with the 110 running between Hounslow, Bus Station and Manor Circus via its current routing. The route could run every 20 minutes. 419: I would only withdraw this route when/if Hammersmith Bridge reopens. 391: Yep, to the Hammersmith to Richmond section via the current 110 routing. Absolutely not to the extension. The busy corridor extends to Sixth Cross Road, which is further west than Twickenham Green. This proposal only solves part of the problem. As I mentioned quite recently, the way to solve the corridor and the overcrowding of the R70 & especially the 490 is to reintroduce the H22 in its pre-2021 form. Then none of those routes need to be decked, they just simply need support. H22: Absolutely agree with the withdrawal of that sector. The route runs light now from my experience. However, it should not end at Twickenham. Like I said above, extend it to Richmond, Manor Circus or alternatively, Pools on the Park. 533: I like this idea. 267: I will be fine with this idea. H22 can stand on Dee Road. 267 & 281 would both benefit from increased frequencies.
|
|
|
Post by busman on Aug 7, 2024 7:39:52 GMT
I suspect the 386 continues to Blackheath now primarily because of the long term aspiration to remove all Greenwich terminators as a result of the proposed pedestrianisation of part of Greenwich town centre. Cutting the 386 back would potentially store up problems for later. There’s going to be enough of an issue finding something to do with the 286 in the event of this. I believe they were looking to use Norman Road as an alternative. There is no point running the 386 all the way to Blackheath Village because of the the pedestrianisation of the Cutty Sark area. I don’t think the pedestrianisation of Greenwich town centre (removal of the gyratory so traffic runs 2 ways along Nelson Road) makes the 386 to Blackheath pointless. I’m not a regular user or observer of the 386 - you might have seen from my previous posts that the route is definitely not one of my favourites - but it does provide a really useful around the corner link between Blackheath and Greenwich. If you live on Blackheath Hill, it’s not easy to walk up it with shopping, buggies, wheelchairs etc. I personally wouldn’t cut back the 386. The 286 terminus is a a problem that will need solving if and when Greenwich council go ahead with pedestrianisation. The 286 link into Greenwich is unique and vital. A few years ago, Greenwich council was not prepared to fund extra buses to extend the 286 beyond Greenwich to a new terminus and instead favoured a reduction in frequency. If the money situation is unchanged, I would like to see a terminus accommodated at Greenwich Station forecourt. With some minor pavement works and repositioning of a parking space, a stand for one bus should be possible along with an overflow space opposite on Greenwich High Road. This might need 1 extra bus to maintain the frequency and driver facilities could potentially be provided at Greenwich Station.
|
|
|
Post by LD71YLO (BE37054) on Aug 7, 2024 7:47:59 GMT
Here's my opinion on this: 110: I like the idea of splitting the route into 2 as the route is too long and unreliable in its current form. However, I would prefer a much more perfect split with the 110 running between Hounslow, Bus Station and Manor Circus via its current routing. The route could run every 20 minutes. 419: I would only withdraw this route when/if Hammersmith Bridge reopens. 391: Yep, to the Hammersmith to Richmond section via the current 110 routing. Absolutely not to the extension. The busy corridor extends to Sixth Cross Road, which is further west than Twickenham Green. This proposal only solves part of the problem. As I mentioned quite recently, the way to solve the corridor and the overcrowding of the R70 & especially the 490 is to reintroduce the H22 in its pre-2021 form. Then none of those routes need to be decked, they just simply need support. H22: Absolutely agree with the withdrawal of that sector. The route runs light now from my experience. However, it should not end at Twickenham. Like I said above, extend it to Richmond, Manor Circus or alternatively, Pools on the Park. 533: I like this idea. 267: I will be fine with this idea. H22 can stand on Dee Road. 267 & 281 would both benefit from increased frequencies. The Dee Road stand was got rid of quite some time ago when the 371 moved to Sainsbury's, 2011 iirc. There were resident complaints on Dee Road about having the 371 stand there so I don't think it can ever be used again. Pools on the Park with the 490 moved to a new stand at Richmond Station would be most logical.
|
|