|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Dec 6, 2020 7:22:57 GMT
It would be replaced by the diversion of route 321, but yes it is a fairly new route. The 335 has been a success according to locals on here so can't see why you would withdraw it - it's purpose is to link North Greenwich with the Kidbrooke Estate from what I can see. The P13 is already lengthy enough and has to deal with the South Circular's heavy traffic so making it longer isn't wise personally. I probably should have suggested extending route 335 to Foots Cray rather than diverting route 321 to North Greenwich via Kidbrooke. I omitted to spell out that no route 335 links would be lost. Maybe extend a short route from Lewisham to New Cross to replace route 321, such as route 284, and leave route P13 alone like you advise.
|
|
|
Post by route53 on Dec 6, 2020 10:01:32 GMT
You have reminded me about the 286 at QM thanks. R Nice to be of use 😂 Why aren’t you in favour of the 480? Isn’t it a better compromise, it gets people to a zone two station so they can get a zone 2 fare and keeps things status quo west of Charlton
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Dec 6, 2020 10:36:12 GMT
Why aren’t you in favour of the 480? Isn’t it a better compromise, it gets people to a zone two station so they can get a zone 2 fare and keeps things status quo west of Charlton Very simple : because I’d rather the changes TfL propose for the 129/180 proceed as planned. A second service from NG to Lewisham is very much needed, and if the 129 does that, which I very much favour, then I’m afraid the 180 has to go on that section. Deep down, I don’t think you’re that bothered about a link from NG to Erith, you’re more bothered about keeping the 180 as it is, and that is personal prejudice I’m afraid.
|
|
|
Post by bus12451 on Dec 6, 2020 10:48:33 GMT
Why aren’t you in favour of the 480? Isn’t it a better compromise, it gets people to a zone two station so they can get a zone 2 fare and keeps things status quo west of Charlton Very simple : because I’d rather the changes TfL propose for the 129/180 proceed as planned. A second service from NG to Lewisham is very much needed, and if the 129 does that, which I very much favour, then I’m afraid the 180 has to go on that section. Deep down, I don’t think you’re that bothered about a link from NG to Erith, you’re more bothered about keeping the 180 as it is, and that is personal prejudice I’m afraid. Not quite, the only reason for the 129's extension to Lewisham is to replace that section of the 180, not to improve the link between NG and Lewisham. The 129 will also see a slightly reduced frequency when the changes go ahead.
|
|
|
Post by route53 on Dec 6, 2020 11:15:33 GMT
Why aren’t you in favour of the 480? Isn’t it a better compromise, it gets people to a zone two station so they can get a zone 2 fare and keeps things status quo west of Charlton Very simple : because I’d rather the changes TfL propose for the 129/180 proceed as planned. A second service from NG to Lewisham is very much needed, and if the 129 does that, which I very much favour, then I’m afraid the 180 has to go on that section. Deep down, I don’t think you’re that bothered about a link from NG to Erith, you’re more bothered about keeping the 180 as it is, and that is personal prejudice I’m afraid. Yes you are correct, I’m not bothered about a link that is twenty years too late, especially since CrossRail at Abbey Wood is much closer to Erith than a tube station one borough over, which, I’ve made that clear from the beginning so no secret bias is being exposed so there isn’t anything deep down about it,, but I am trying to come up with a fair compromise, many locals are rightfully concerned with the 180 changes, a lengthy trunk route such as the 180 needs a better overlap for such changes to occur, I also see that a link from Erith to NG could be useful for other reasons aside from the tube, NG is growing and it’s becoming an entertainment hub, so a hypothetical 480 would be useful.. As for another link from NG to Lewisham, the 108 will be quicker, especially now that half of East Greenwich is a two way cycle lane and You can be often held in traffic from Greenwich Town Centre all the way down to the Woolwich Flyover, the 108 will ironically be the short cut route in the scenario as it goes via Blackheath and only hits traffic at the Woolwich Flyover
|
|
|
Post by route53 on Dec 6, 2020 11:17:07 GMT
Very simple : because I’d rather the changes TfL propose for the 129/180 proceed as planned. A second service from NG to Lewisham is very much needed, and if the 129 does that, which I very much favour, then I’m afraid the 180 has to go on that section. Deep down, I don’t think you’re that bothered about a link from NG to Erith, you’re more bothered about keeping the 180 as it is, and that is personal prejudice I’m afraid. Not quite, the only reason for the 129's extension to Lewisham is to replace that section of the 180, not to improve the link between NG and Lewisham. The 129 will also see a slightly reduced frequency when the changes go ahead. The 177 in the Charlton to East Greenwich section won’t see and increase either, at a time when we’re trying to get people out their cars and onto public transport reducing buses isn’t the best way to go, the 472 will also see a decrease as I understand, so basically the 177 will be completely overloaded
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Dec 6, 2020 11:39:40 GMT
Why aren’t you in favour of the 480? Isn’t it a better compromise, it gets people to a zone two station so they can get a zone 2 fare and keeps things status quo west of Charlton Very simple : because I’d rather the changes TfL propose for the 129/180 proceed as planned. A second service from NG to Lewisham is very much needed, and if the 129 does that, which I very much favour, then I’m afraid the 180 has to go on that section. Deep down, I don’t think you’re that bothered about a link from NG to Erith, you’re more bothered about keeping the 180 as it is, and that is personal prejudice I’m afraid. I’d agree with you if it wasn’t for the fact the 177 would be left as the sole route on the Greenwich to Woolwich section - that would be my only criticism against the idea. The 180 would become more reliable as a result of the change so maybe the 177 could be split with an overlap between Greenwich & Woolwich to keep two routes running on that section?
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Dec 6, 2020 11:40:52 GMT
I was under the impression that the 129 had to extend out of Greenwich due to loosing its stand space. Hence why another Woolwich route cant extend to Greenwich Town centre to.maintain capacity lost by the 180 withdrawal.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Dec 6, 2020 13:16:14 GMT
I was under the impression that the 129 had to extend out of Greenwich due to loosing its stand space. Hence why another Woolwich route cant extend to Greenwich Town centre to.maintain capacity lost by the 180 withdrawal. You don’t need to stand in Greenwich Town Centre - there is an empty stand near Greenwich Station on Greenwich Church Street and buses could turn around via the 453’s stand.
|
|
|
Post by bus12451 on Dec 6, 2020 13:25:14 GMT
I was under the impression that the 129 had to extend out of Greenwich due to loosing its stand space. Hence why another Woolwich route cant extend to Greenwich Town centre to.maintain capacity lost by the 180 withdrawal. You don’t need to stand in Greenwich Town Centre - there is an empty stand near Greenwich Station on Greenwich Church Street and buses could turn around via the 453’s stand. I assume your talking about the stand on Greenwich High Road?
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Dec 6, 2020 13:27:20 GMT
You don’t need to stand in Greenwich Town Centre - there is an empty stand near Greenwich Station on Greenwich Church Street and buses could turn around via the 453’s stand. I assume your talking about the stand on Greenwich High Road? Whoops got mixed up there, thanks for the correction - yeah it’s that stand.
|
|
|
Post by route53 on Dec 6, 2020 14:00:19 GMT
Very simple : because I’d rather the changes TfL propose for the 129/180 proceed as planned. A second service from NG to Lewisham is very much needed, and if the 129 does that, which I very much favour, then I’m afraid the 180 has to go on that section. Deep down, I don’t think you’re that bothered about a link from NG to Erith, you’re more bothered about keeping the 180 as it is, and that is personal prejudice I’m afraid. I’d agree with you if it wasn’t for the fact the 177 would be left as the sole route on the Greenwich to Woolwich section - that would be my only criticism against the idea. The 180 would become more reliable as a result of the change so maybe the 177 could be split with an overlap between Greenwich & Woolwich to keep two routes running on that section? That could work, the 177 from Peckham to Woolwich and a “177A” Greenwich to Thamesmead, if you didn’t want it to terminate at Greenwich it could be extended to Lewisham to maintain a direct link between Thamesmead/Abbey Wood to Lewisham ;-)
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Dec 6, 2020 14:49:24 GMT
I’d agree with you if it wasn’t for the fact the 177 would be left as the sole route on the Greenwich to Woolwich section - that would be my only criticism against the idea. The 180 would become more reliable as a result of the change so maybe the 177 could be split with an overlap between Greenwich & Woolwich to keep two routes running on that section? That could work, the 177 from Peckham to Woolwich and a “177A” Greenwich to Thamesmead, if you didn’t want it to terminate at Greenwich it could be extended to Lewisham to maintain a direct link between Thamesmead/Abbey Wood to Lewisham ;-) You read my mind regarding the split lol - I’d have the Greenwich one terminating on Greenwich High Road and turning around using the 453’s Deptford Bridge stand which has a section where no 453 stands.
|
|
|
Post by bertrell on Dec 6, 2020 15:12:07 GMT
It would be replaced by the diversion of route 321, but yes it is a fairly new route. The 335 has been a success according to locals on here so can't see why you would withdraw it - it's purpose is to link North Greenwich with the Kidbrooke Estate from what I can see. The P13 is already lengthy enough and has to deal with the South Circular's heavy traffic so making it longer isn't wise personally. One for you sir, NG Station will bus station will be totally rebuilt and quadrupled in size. Works to start next yr I was told...
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Dec 6, 2020 15:37:28 GMT
It would be replaced by the diversion of route 321, but yes it is a fairly new route. The 335 has been a success according to locals on here so can't see why you would withdraw it - it's purpose is to link North Greenwich with the Kidbrooke Estate from what I can see. Your thoughts here I think are correct. If the 335 ever gets extended I think it most likely that it will be through any future Silvertown Tunnel into East London.
|
|