|
Post by busman on Jan 12, 2022 13:31:34 GMT
Some ideas for the Greenwich area, in response to the 1/168 consultation and some of the Crossrail proposals: 168 - Unchanged. 188, 199 & 244 - Withdrawn. 1 - Extended from Surrey Quays Shopping Centre (no longer serving Canada Water) to North Greenwich via the 188. Converted to 24-hour service, and existing N1 to be renumbered. 42 - Withdrawn between Liverpool Street and Tower Bridge Road, and instead extended to Canada Water or Surrey Quays via route 188. 129 - Extended from Greenwich to Bellingham via the 199. Option to introduce 24-hour service and/or increase in frequency. 161 - Withdrawn between Woolwich and North Greenwich. 180 - Restructured as proposed to operate between North Greenwich and Erith. 469 - Rerouted between Woolwich and Queen Elizabeth Hospital via the 244. ? - New route from Canada Water to Abbey Wood, via the 199 to Greenwich, 177/180 to Woolwich and the 244 to Abbey Wood. Maintains capacity between Greenwich and Woolwich, and introduces DDs along most of the 244 routeing. Could be numbered 188, 199 or 244, or a new number such as 480. Changes to night routes - the N1 could be attached to the new route above, or alternatively be replaced by making the 177 24-hour and continuing from Peckham to Central London. Route N199 could be merged with the 47's night service. Sorry, I’m not a fan of most of these ideas. Especially losing connections between Abbey Wood and QE hospital. You’re withdrawing the 244 and sending the 469 via the ridiculous circuit of Woolwich Common and Shooters Hill before coming to a rest at QE. Fewer buses and longer journey times to and from the hospital with nothing much gained. Chopping the 199 in half will break a lot of direct journeys too. For passengers along Creek Road they will only have direct buses to Greenwich - the 1 and your new route which will run in parallel.
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Jan 12, 2022 13:48:48 GMT
That’s definitely one of the better ideas for route proposals I’ve seen suggested here. Only thing I think I’d add is an extension on to PD for the 199 if the route is transferred there. Nice. The 199 suggested diversion leaves Greenwich - Lewisham with one route instead of two. There is nowhere left in Woolwich to turn/stand a bus from the west. I think what @adh45258 suggested is the 199 be rerouted to Woolwich, albeit with a different route number, and then takes over the 244 route to Abbey Wood. Although I'm not sure the route though Broadwaters is suitable for double deckers and there's the loss of the link to QEH from Thamesmead.
|
|
|
Post by bus12451 on Jan 12, 2022 13:49:41 GMT
Some ideas for the Greenwich area, in response to the 1/168 consultation and some of the Crossrail proposals: 168 - Unchanged. 188, 199 & 244 - Withdrawn. 1 - Extended from Surrey Quays Shopping Centre (no longer serving Canada Water) to North Greenwich via the 188. Converted to 24-hour service, and existing N1 to be renumbered. 42 - Withdrawn between Liverpool Street and Tower Bridge Road, and instead extended to Canada Water or Surrey Quays via route 188. 129 - Extended from Greenwich to Bellingham via the 199. Option to introduce 24-hour service and/or increase in frequency. 161 - Withdrawn between Woolwich and North Greenwich. 180 - Restructured as proposed to operate between North Greenwich and Erith. 469 - Rerouted between Woolwich and Queen Elizabeth Hospital via the 244. ? - New route from Canada Water to Abbey Wood, via the 199 to Greenwich, 177/180 to Woolwich and the 244 to Abbey Wood. Maintains capacity between Greenwich and Woolwich, and introduces DDs along most of the 244 routeing. Could be numbered 188, 199 or 244, or a new number such as 480. Changes to night routes - the N1 could be attached to the new route above, or alternatively be replaced by making the 177 24-hour and continuing from Peckham to Central London. Route N199 could be merged with the 47's night service. Your proposed new route would run through various traffic hotspots between Deptford and Woolwich whilst also serving smaller roads at Pepys Estate and Thamesmead West. I'd imagine such a route would be very hard to operate reliably. Withdrawing the 244 and part of the 161 means Thamesmead and Woolwich Dockyard lose their connection to Queen Elizabeth Hospital. Never been in favour of the 180 reroute to NG. There is no benefit in sending it there over other routes. It breaks links to Lewisham from Charlton(Woolwich Road)/Abbey Wood/Belvedere and leaves the 177 as the only route between Greenwich and Woolwich via Charlton. The 180 has served Lewisham since its inception in 1951, it is a shame that TfL has decided to remove a well-established link. On the whole, I think most of these changes creates some sort of inconvenience, whether that's through broken links or higher frequency routes replaced by lower frequency routes, probably not worth the small PVR saving.
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Jan 12, 2022 14:24:27 GMT
That’s definitely one of the better ideas for route proposals I’ve seen suggested here. Only thing I think I’d add is an extension on to PD for the 199 if the route is transferred there. Nice. The 199 suggested diversion leaves Greenwich - Lewisham with one route instead of two. There is nowhere left in Woolwich to turn/stand a bus from the west. If the 129 was frequent enough, I don’t see that one service Greenwich to Lewisham is a major problem, especially with the reasonably parallel DLR. Extending the 199 to PD alleviates your other concern.
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Jan 12, 2022 14:25:55 GMT
The 199 suggested diversion leaves Greenwich - Lewisham with one route instead of two. There is nowhere left in Woolwich to turn/stand a bus from the west. I think what @adh45258 suggested is the 199 be rerouted to Woolwich, albeit with a different route number, and then takes over the 244 route to Abbey Wood. Although I'm not sure the route though Broadwaters is suitable for double deckers and there's the loss of the link to QEH from Thamesmead. The 244 route through Broadwaters would be fine for d/d, not so certain that the 380 route would be, but I say that with the caveat that I haven’t used the 380 for some while.
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Jan 12, 2022 14:38:31 GMT
I think what @adh45258 suggested is the 199 be rerouted to Woolwich, albeit with a different route number, and then takes over the 244 route to Abbey Wood. Although I'm not sure the route though Broadwaters is suitable for double deckers and there's the loss of the link to QEH from Thamesmead. The 244 route through Broadwaters would be fine for d/d, not so certain that the 380 route would be, but I say that with the caveat that I haven’t used the 380 for some while. It may be something that just effects the 380 but I remember hearing something about trees in Broadwaters preventing double deckers.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jan 12, 2022 15:01:03 GMT
The 199 suggested diversion leaves Greenwich - Lewisham with one route instead of two. There is nowhere left in Woolwich to turn/stand a bus from the west. I think what @adh45258 suggested is the 199 be rerouted to Woolwich, albeit with a different route number, and then takes over the 244 route to Abbey Wood. Although I'm not sure the route though Broadwaters is suitable for double deckers and there's the loss of the link to QEH from Thamesmead. Actually, cl54 response was towards my own idea and not ADH45258
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jan 12, 2022 15:05:21 GMT
That’s definitely one of the better ideas for route proposals I’ve seen suggested here. Only thing I think I’d add is an extension on to PD for the 199 if the route is transferred there. Nice. The 199 suggested diversion leaves Greenwich - Lewisham with one route instead of two. There is nowhere left in Woolwich to turn/stand a bus from the west. And removing the 180 from Greenwich leaves the 177 on it's own to supply the Greenwich to Woolwich link which isn't ideal either, looks like someone is going to lose either way. I'd rather keep the 199 as it is but it was to garner other people's thoughts on the matter.
|
|
|
Post by cl54 on Jan 12, 2022 17:00:56 GMT
The 199 suggested diversion leaves Greenwich - Lewisham with one route instead of two. There is nowhere left in Woolwich to turn/stand a bus from the west. If the 129 was frequent enough, I don’t see that one service Greenwich to Lewisham is a major problem, especially with the reasonably parallel DLR. Extending the 199 to PD alleviates your other concern. There isn't enough room on the PD forecourt for another route.
|
|
|
Post by cl54 on Jan 12, 2022 17:04:48 GMT
The 199 suggested diversion leaves Greenwich - Lewisham with one route instead of two. There is nowhere left in Woolwich to turn/stand a bus from the west. And removing the 180 from Greenwich leaves the 177 on it's own to supply the Greenwich to Woolwich link which isn't ideal either, looks like someone is going to lose either way. I'd rather keep the 199 as it is but it was to garner other people's thoughts on the matter. The justification for the diversion of the 180 diversion is that people can change to a 129 at IKEA to continue their journey
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Jan 12, 2022 17:06:44 GMT
If the 129 was frequent enough, I don’t see that one service Greenwich to Lewisham is a major problem, especially with the reasonably parallel DLR. Extending the 199 to PD alleviates your other concern. There isn't enough room on the PD forecourt for another route. Not necessarily to do with any of these changes but you bring up PD, I remember reading somewhere the 122 only runs to PD for operational convenience. Is this true?
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jan 12, 2022 17:09:31 GMT
And removing the 180 from Greenwich leaves the 177 on it's own to supply the Greenwich to Woolwich link which isn't ideal either, looks like someone is going to lose either way. I'd rather keep the 199 as it is but it was to garner other people's thoughts on the matter. The justification for the diversion of the 180 diversion is that people can change to a 129 at IKEA to continue their journey I understand that but the point I'm making is the 177 is then left as the only through route along that corridor and I honestly don't see it coping especially given it's already the main link west of Lewisham to west of Greenwich
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Jan 12, 2022 17:36:40 GMT
If the 129 was frequent enough, I don’t see that one service Greenwich to Lewisham is a major problem, especially with the reasonably parallel DLR. Extending the 199 to PD alleviates your other concern. There isn't enough room on the PD forecourt for another route. Almost as though you are trying to argue with me (yet again?) Over and out.
|
|
|
Post by cl54 on Jan 12, 2022 18:30:51 GMT
There isn't enough room on the PD forecourt for another route. Not necessarily to do with any of these changes but you bring up PD, I remember reading somewhere the 122 only runs to PD for operational convenience. Is this true? Whilst is does run from the PD there is nowhere to turn it in Woolwich.
|
|
|
Post by YX10FFN on Jan 12, 2022 18:45:50 GMT
Not necessarily to do with any of these changes but you bring up PD, I remember reading somewhere the 122 only runs to PD for operational convenience. Is this true? Whilst is does run from the PD there is nowhere to turn it in Woolwich. Interesting that even the tender specs have the curtailment arrangement to stand on Monk Street which means passengers are dumped off on Grand Depot Road, must be quite confusing especially as the bus would show "Woolwich" implying it will go into the town centre.
|
|