|
Post by twobellstogo on Nov 22, 2021 14:40:34 GMT
But what makes those areas special that they can maintain certain links whilst other area get cuts and told to use hopper fares. Also if the Hampstead mob vow to save the 168 tfl can always run this consultation again and say the 168 is saved...it's now extended to Canada Water. Can’t see that as likely - the number ‘1’ has an awful lot of numerical prestige attached to it. The number 168 is a relative newcomer, certainly none of the prestige attached to ‘168’ as there was/is to ‘13’, from the change to this route back in the recent-ish past. As for the changes - they’re ok I guess. A little worried about the unique bit of the current 1 suffering through its newly extended routing, but otherwise none of this is a massive surprise. As has been said above, it gives the 1 a bit more of a high profile. I’m quite fond of the dear old 1, my sentimental side says that this is a good thing!
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Nov 22, 2021 14:51:44 GMT
Also if the Hampstead mob vow to save the 168 tfl can always run this consultation again and say the 168 is saved...it's now extended to Canada Water. Can’t see that as likely - the number ‘1’ has an awful lot of numerical prestige attached to it. The number 168 is a relative newcomer, certainly none of the prestige attached to ‘168’ as there was/is to ‘13’, from the change to this route back in the recent-ish past. As for the changes - they’re ok I guess. A little worried about the unique bit of the current 1 suffering through its newly extended routing, but otherwise none of this is a massive surprise. As has been said above, it gives the 1 a bit more of a high profile. I’m quite fond of the dear old 1, my sentimental side says that this is a good thing! The sentimental in me thou would have loved to have seen the 1 extended at the southern to reach Greenwich or Lewisham again.
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Nov 22, 2021 15:10:12 GMT
Can’t see that as likely - the number ‘1’ has an awful lot of numerical prestige attached to it. The number 168 is a relative newcomer, certainly none of the prestige attached to ‘168’ as there was/is to ‘13’, from the change to this route back in the recent-ish past. As for the changes - they’re ok I guess. A little worried about the unique bit of the current 1 suffering through its newly extended routing, but otherwise none of this is a massive surprise. As has been said above, it gives the 1 a bit more of a high profile. I’m quite fond of the dear old 1, my sentimental side says that this is a good thing! The sentimental in me thou would have loved to have seen the 1 extended at the southern to reach Greenwich or Lewisham again. Don’t you dare say that : I’ll get all upset and sentimental 😂😉
|
|
|
Post by Nathan on Nov 22, 2021 15:18:20 GMT
The 1 is prone to congestion but currently gets away with it due to its relatively short routing - when you combine that with a substantial chunk of the 168, it has the ability to cause problems. Yes around Bricklayers Arms good point. Would also make the route 10 miles long. In addition the 172 could have also been considered as a replacement for the 168. 172 doesn’t hit many traffic hotspots either. Hmm...I think the 1 being extended is an easier win than the 172. The 1 has a slightly higher PVR and frequency already. I do wonder it the route will be over-bussed east of Bricklayers Arms with its proposed frequency though.
|
|
|
Post by overgroundcommuter on Nov 22, 2021 15:23:42 GMT
Yes around Bricklayers Arms good point. Would also make the route 10 miles long. In addition the 172 could have also been considered as a replacement for the 168. 172 doesn’t hit many traffic hotspots either. Hmm...I think the 1 being extended is an easier win than the 172. The 1 has a slightly higher PVR and frequency already. I do wonder it the route will be over-bussed east of Bricklayers Arms with its proposed frequency though. It'll be seen as a win, win situation for those who use the 1 for local journeys in that part of London where capacity hasn't exactly been great if you add the 188 which is busy east of Bricklayers Arms with passengers also using it to get to Greenwich and the O2.
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Nov 22, 2021 15:25:59 GMT
As everyone else has said, not a huge shock really: I think this is something most of us have suggested one way or another over the years. I look at it more as being a shortish diversion/extension of the 168 beyond Old Kent Road to Canada Water. The one aspect of it that I'm slightly surprised by is the involvement of the 188. When I was thinking of this change many years ago, it seemed the obvious thing to do but given how the route is pretty much at its limits, I thought it may have been the 172 to TCR and the 188 trimmed to Aldwych.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 22, 2021 15:27:55 GMT
Hmm...I think the 1 being extended is an easier win than the 172. The 1 has a slightly higher PVR and frequency already. I do wonder it the route will be over-bussed east of Bricklayers Arms with its proposed frequency though. It'll be seen as a win, win situation for those who use the 1 for local journeys in that part of London where capacity hasn't exactly been great if you add the 188 which is busy east of Bricklayers Arms with passengers also using it to get to Greenwich and the O2. It will only be a win for those 1 users if the route's reliability actually holds up - if it does, good for them but I have my doubts.
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Nov 22, 2021 15:29:45 GMT
Quick extra thought - will the 1 gain the LTs from the 168? Is there a restriction around Bermondsey/Surrey Quays as otherwise it would have seemed an obvious candidate before this.
|
|
|
Post by overgroundcommuter on Nov 22, 2021 15:30:18 GMT
It'll be seen as a win, win situation for those who use the 1 for local journeys in that part of London where capacity hasn't exactly been great if you add the 188 which is busy east of Bricklayers Arms with passengers also using it to get to Greenwich and the O2. It will only be a win for those 1 users if the route's reliability actually holds up - if it does, good for them but I have my doubts. They'll still have the 188 as back up, especially if they're going to Canada Water. It's not ideal, but we have to be realistic about the cuts that TfL has to make.
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Nov 22, 2021 15:38:22 GMT
Would the 1 then become LT operated or are there infrastructure issues preventing that? Would be interesting to know that the Old Kent Road bus stand would then be freed up for another possible route to terminate there.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 22, 2021 15:40:11 GMT
It will only be a win for those 1 users if the route's reliability actually holds up - if it does, good for them but I have my doubts. They'll still have the 188 as back up, especially if they're going to Canada Water. It's not ideal, but we have to be realistic about the cuts that TfL has to make. Yes although the 188 is hardly a route I'd hang my hat on and isn't helpful to anyone living on Southwark Park Road regardless of ideal or not
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Nov 22, 2021 15:41:14 GMT
It'll be seen as a win, win situation for those who use the 1 for local journeys in that part of London where capacity hasn't exactly been great if you add the 188 which is busy east of Bricklayers Arms with passengers also using it to get to Greenwich and the O2. It will only be a win for those 1 users if the route's reliability actually holds up - if it does, good for them but I have my doubts. If I'm interpreting it correctly, the freehold section of the 1 will increase to every 7-8 minutes to mirror the 168. In effect, it's the 1 being withdrawn and replaced by tweaks to the 168/188.
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Nov 22, 2021 16:23:04 GMT
Lots of similar predictions from many contributors here. Yeah, it will be sad to see 168 go (if the changes go ahead of course), luckily I got to drive the route a few times. Drove the 168 years ago, was a nice route to drive, some annoying bottlenecks and certain sections just keep going at a pace.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Nov 22, 2021 16:25:53 GMT
I wonder if the 1 could take LTs. Not sure if the section via South Bermondsey could.
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Nov 22, 2021 16:29:06 GMT
I actually genuinely want to know if someone on this forum is a council member of TFL administration because this isn’t the first time people have predicted stuff and it’s come true Not really, they have said they were going to possibly change the routing to stakeholders, so many have been aware of this for months. However it was unsure on what exactly they would have been looking to achieve. I am glad they never went for the crackpot method someone thought up here of extending the 188 over the entire 168 route.
|
|