|
Post by Melvin Williams on Jun 4, 2020 10:27:04 GMT
Well big changes are in order soon! With the Windmill Bridge set to close there’s even more changes for TfL to ponder over now in addition to the upcoming Croydon Consultation in around Septemberish, what’s your views and ideas? I’d love to know!
|
|
|
Post by Melvin Williams on Jun 4, 2020 10:28:06 GMT
Thee upcoming Consultation I’m referring to comes from the South Croydon Corridor concerning 166, 312, 455 and S4. I think a link was posted on a TfL consumer site?
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Jun 4, 2020 10:32:31 GMT
Well big changes are in order soon! With the Windmill Bridge set to close there’s even more changes for TfL to ponder over now in addition to the upcoming Croydon Consultation in around Septemberish, what’s your views and ideas? I’d love to know! Don't see how the Windmill Bridge issue will come into it ... it is only temporary and will involve rerouting the 289 + 1 school route 689?
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Jun 4, 2020 10:34:57 GMT
Thee upcoming Consultation I’m referring to comes from the South Croydon Corridor concerning 166, 312, 455 and S4. I think a link was posted on a TfL consumer site? That consultation you mention doesn't involve the S4 yet.
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Jun 4, 2020 10:35:58 GMT
Well big changes are in order soon! With the Windmill Bridge set to close there’s even more changes for TfL to ponder over now in addition to the upcoming Croydon Consultation in around Septemberish, what’s your views and ideas? I’d love to know! Don't see how the Windmill Bridge issue will come into it ... it is only temporary and will involve rerouting the 289 + 1 school route 689? 689 doesn't go over the bridge there.
|
|
|
Post by Melvin Williams on Jun 4, 2020 10:37:56 GMT
Well big changes are in order soon! With the Windmill Bridge set to close there’s even more changes for TfL to ponder over now in addition to the upcoming Croydon Consultation in around Septemberish, what’s your views and ideas? I’d love to know! Don't see how the Windmill Bridge issue will come into it ... it is only temporary and will involve rerouting the 289 + 1 school route 689? My thinking is more where they will Reroute the 289. Cherry Orchard Road is already overbussed as it is. If I was TfL I’d reroute 312 up to Shirley Park and Addiscombe Road. But I know not everyone will agree with that. Also 689 goes via Cherry Orchard Road already.
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Jun 4, 2020 10:39:03 GMT
|
|
|
Post by YY13VKP on Jun 4, 2020 10:47:01 GMT
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Jun 4, 2020 10:49:00 GMT
Don't see how the Windmill Bridge issue will come into it ... it is only temporary and will involve rerouting the 289 + 1 school route 689? My thinking is more where they will Reroute the 289. Cherry Orchard Road is already overbussed as it is. If I was TfL I’d reroute 312 up to Shirley Park and Addiscombe Road. But I know not everyone will agree with that. Also 689 goes via Cherry Orchard Road already. I can't see any other option for the 289 than via Cherry Orchard, unless it went via Clyde/Havelock Road and missed out more of its normal route. It would otherwise be five routes along Cherry Orchard Road though as well as the other diverted traffic.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Jun 4, 2020 22:19:21 GMT
Regarding the 166/312/455 proposals, wouldn't it be far simpler to instead divert the 312 along the 455 route between Croydon and Purley, then leave the 166 unchanged?
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Jun 4, 2020 22:32:51 GMT
Regarding the 166/312/455 proposals, wouldn't it be far simpler to instead divert the 312 along the 455 route between Croydon and Purley, then leave the 166 unchanged? No - you'd overbus Pampisford Road which doesn't need more than 7bph - it's largely quieter except for the school rush which is catered for by school services (405D and 663). Brighton Road can justify the combined frequency of 24bph between Croydon and Purley which will be present upon potential implementation of these proposals. There's also really good plans for more bus priority along there in addition to new homes which would no doubt further grow passenger demand.
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Jun 5, 2020 7:15:44 GMT
Regarding the 166/312/455 proposals, wouldn't it be far simpler to instead divert the 312 along the 455 route between Croydon and Purley, then leave the 166 unchanged? I think the 405 should be adequate for Pampisford Road, only gets busy at school times, and the 166 could remain unchanged.
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Jun 5, 2020 8:41:11 GMT
Regarding the 166/312/455 proposals, wouldn't it be far simpler to instead divert the 312 along the 455 route between Croydon and Purley, then leave the 166 unchanged? I think the 405 should be adequate for Pampisford Road, only gets busy at school times, and the 166 could remain unchanged. It would probably struggle with just one service. Hence why the 405 was diverted down there in the first place. The combined 166/405 frequency of 7bph is the right amount.
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Jun 5, 2020 8:57:46 GMT
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Jun 5, 2020 9:06:03 GMT
Don't see how the Windmill Bridge issue will come into it ... it is only temporary and will involve rerouting the 289 + 1 school route 689? My thinking is more where they will Reroute the 289. Cherry Orchard Road is already overbussed as it is. If I was TfL I’d reroute 312 up to Shirley Park and Addiscombe Road. But I know not everyone will agree with that. Also 689 goes via Cherry Orchard Road already. Why make changes to routes for what is weeks. According to the last network rail paper, they plan to build the new bridge next to the existing one, only then close the existing bridge to traffic, demolish the old bridge and slide the new one into it's correct position, then reopen bridge to traffic ... then 289 returns to original route. Suggesting wholesale changes to routes during this period is just complexing the issue. Thank you. Was unsure the route the 689 took, not a route I ever expect to use, hence the question mark, but given the x89 number thought a good possibility it followed 289
|
|