|
|
Post by danorak on Apr 19, 2022 12:17:45 GMT
Personally I think they should resurrect the GWT idea but merge it with the Dartford Fastrack, and have a bus rapid transit network from Lewisham/Greenwich all the way to Ebbsfleet, at least this will serve as an alternative to the CrossRail extension and better link Thamesmead, may involve axing a few routes. Unfortunately the route for the Greenwich Waterfront Transit in the Charlton area has been released for development. Some housing has already been built. The old music hall song springs to mind with your suggested joined up route - "If It Wasn't For The Houses In Between". Certainly the route through the retail park at Charlton is no longer available. However I wonder if there might be scope for a new alignment through the redevelopment around the Thames Barrier as it takes shape. There was talk of the diverted Plumstead - Thamesmead section of the 472 gaining some 'busway' features recently. Not sure there's much to gain from that really. |
|
|
|
Post by cl54 on Apr 19, 2022 16:39:15 GMT
Unfortunately the route for the Greenwich Waterfront Transit in the Charlton area has been released for development. Some housing has already been built. The old music hall song springs to mind with your suggested joined up route - "If It Wasn't For The Houses In Between". Certainly the route through the retail park at Charlton is no longer available. However I wonder if there might be scope for a new alignment through the redevelopment around the Thames Barrier as it takes shape. There was talk of the diverted Plumstead - Thamesmead section of the 472 gaining some 'busway' features recently. Not sure there's much to gain from that really. In the overall scope of your idea the possible new dual carriageway through the Thames Barrier area wouldn't make a lot of difference. |
|
|
|
Post by stuckonthe486 on Apr 19, 2022 21:05:05 GMT
Personally I think they should resurrect the GWT idea but merge it with the Dartford Fastrack, and have a bus rapid transit network from Lewisham/Greenwich all the way to Ebbsfleet, at least this will serve as an alternative to the CrossRail extension and better link Thamesmead, may involve axing a few routes. Unfortunately the route for the Greenwich Waterfront Transit in the Charlton area has been released for development. Some housing has already been built. The old music hall song springs to mind with your suggested joined up route - "If It Wasn't For The Houses In Between". It's not housing, it's the extension to the Greenwich Shopping Park - "if it wasn't for the Matalan and Frankie and Benny's in between". In any case, the Ramac industrial estate next door would have needed to have been CPO'd along with a whole line of properties and buildings (and a bridge built for the Angerstein rail line) before it reached the busway at Ikea (Sainsbury's as was) in Greenwich. Not as familiar with the route on the west side of the peninsula (maybe it never progressed beyond the City Hall crayon box), but that route's pretty much blocked now by development at Christchurch Way/Telcon Way. |
|
|
|
Post by stuckonthe486 on Apr 19, 2022 21:13:22 GMT
Unfortunately the route for the Greenwich Waterfront Transit in the Charlton area has been released for development. Some housing has already been built. The old music hall song springs to mind with your suggested joined up route - "If It Wasn't For The Houses In Between". Certainly the route through the retail park at Charlton is no longer available. However I wonder if there might be scope for a new alignment through the redevelopment around the Thames Barrier as it takes shape. There was talk of the diverted Plumstead - Thamesmead section of the 472 gaining some 'busway' features recently. Not sure there's much to gain from that really. There's an east-west route planned through the Charlton Riverside development area that'd essentially be an extension of Bugsby's Way (although not exactly so) that would be used for bus services according to Greenwich Council's pipedream masterplan. Hyde housing association recently won the first planning permission for a development there and a chunk of cash from that is allocated to the east-west route. |
|
|
|
Post by cl54 on Apr 20, 2022 5:25:04 GMT
Certainly the route through the retail park at Charlton is no longer available. However I wonder if there might be scope for a new alignment through the redevelopment around the Thames Barrier as it takes shape. There was talk of the diverted Plumstead - Thamesmead section of the 472 gaining some 'busway' features recently. Not sure there's much to gain from that really. There's an east-west route planned through the Charlton Riverside development area that'd essentially be an extension of Bugsby's Way (although not exactly so) that would be used for bus services according to Greenwich Council's pipedream masterplan. Hyde housing association recently won the first planning permission for a development there and a chunk of cash from that is allocated to the east-west route. Whilst it is proposed the existing parallel road now has decent bus lanes which help to make up for the one lane/crazy 2 way cycle lane past the retail parks. |
|
|
|
Post by stuckonthe486 on Apr 20, 2022 9:02:41 GMT
There's an east-west route planned through the Charlton Riverside development area that'd essentially be an extension of Bugsby's Way (although not exactly so) that would be used for bus services according to Greenwich Council's pipedream masterplan. Hyde housing association recently won the first planning permission for a development there and a chunk of cash from that is allocated to the east-west route. Whilst it is proposed the existing parallel road now has decent bus lanes which help to make up for the one lane/crazy 2 way cycle lane past the retail parks. The cycle lane that's so crazy a new bike shop has just opened by the flyover, you mean? Mad. Bugsby's Way only has a short stretch of bus lane heading westbound up to the pinch point by the junction with Lombard Wall. So buses will get badly hit by drivers heading to the retail parks, particularly around Christmas. |
|
|
|
Post by stuckonthe486 on Apr 20, 2022 10:19:15 GMT
As for Thamesmead...
First, a boring history lesson.
If the 1970s Fleet/Jubilee Line plan had gone ahead, we'd be having a very different conversation and SE London would be looking very different. Since that got binned, Thamesmead has been neglected for years in terms of infastructure, and in more general terms as its fortunes are split between two boroughs who'd rather the other one take it on. Nowadays I doubt such a big development would even be contemplated without hefty transport planning in advance - and so much of it was built when public transport was in decline, so the infrastructure isn't particularly bus-friendly. The place has had a complex for years - if it was a human being, it'd need serious psychiatric help. Peabody housing association has radical plans that are only now starting to emerge - but it'll take decades to undo that mess.
I'm baffled as to why TfL thinks a GOBLIN extension to Thamesmead (and Abbey Wood - or Erith, as some have mooted) would be such a poor idea. The general excuse is that with just four trains an hour, it'd be poor value for money - but then surely it shouldn't have been the Overground extended to Barking Riverside, but the Hammersmith & City line? The announcement of the Thamesmead DLR came in 2016, and seemed to be a sop to critics of the Silvertown Tunnel when Khan had confirmed his backing for that. As discussed already, it's hard to see how that would fit in with the existing DLR network without weakening the service to another mistake of the 70s/80s/90s - Beckton.
Worth remembering with the Thamesmead DLR is that this is solely driven by Peabody's plans to build more 11,500 new homes at Thamesmead Waterfront, the last remaining unbuilt part of the old MoD land - the rest of Thamesmead isn't really in contention in the great City Hall hive mind. Even though their homes will be less than 55 years old, they've effectively been abandoned.
So... how do you fix a problem like Thamesmead?
With apologies for using the phrase, this is a levelling-up issue, ultimately, so this should fall in the government's lap as well - and they control some of this through running National Rail.
Central, national and local government needs to treat Thamesmead like the major settlement it was planned to be, and will be once Peabody gets its way on the waterfront.
Firstly, I think you need to remove the perverse incentives for people to commute via North Greenwich - it is insane that the zonal system has turned North Greenwich (which has a booming population of its own now) into not just a railhead for Greenwich, Charlton and Blackheath, but places further afield such as Eltham and Thamesmead, and seemingly Erith if the 180 change goes through. City Hall cared enough to do it in Stratford/Canning Town, so it can do it here - rezone Woolwich/ Woolwich Arsenal, Plumstead and Abbey Wood to zones 3 and 4. Any DLR extension would also be in Zone 3, just like Beckton is. That'll lessen the incentive for people to schlep to North Greenwich and make Abbey Wood a more attractive option.
As for express buses, the reason given for scrapping the X53 in October 1999 was that the Jubilee Line extension had just opened. So I'd be surprised if one comes to Thamesmead now the Elizabeth Line is on its doorstep. It's nearly 30 years since the 177 Express last ran in an era of really poor rail services in the area - again, I just can't see it. (I guess the Old Kent Road thing would be an X21, but that's for another thread.)
Ultimately, if we're not going to give Thamesmead the rail links it deserves, we need to start again with some core principles. I reckon it needs - in priority order:
a) rezoning of the rail
b) fast and extremely frequent services to Abbey Wood and Woolwich (remember the even-more neglected West Thamesmead is right next to the money in the Royal Arsenal estate) - every five minutes at a absolute minimum - with services terminating at those two places so they don't get caught up in delays elsewhere
c) a hefty trunk route to Bexleyheath via Abbey Wood (every seven or eight minutes) - have express journeys if need be
d) a frequent 24-hour service to North Greenwich and Canary Wharf once Silvertown Tunnel opens - maybe even a N551-style route at night (lots of people in low-paid, precarious cleaning work come from Thamesmead)
e) strong services to Erith, Crayford, Dartford and Bluewater (every 10 minutes) - have express journeys if need be
f) a service connecting Thamesmead with Eltham and the south of Greenwich borough, opening up access to employment there
g) a service linking Thamesmead with QEH via Griffin Road, Plumstead Common and Nightingale Vale, creating a new corridor and a better link to the hospital avoiding the Woolwich scrums
A lot of this could be built out of the existing bodge-job network (including keeping the 180 as it is, while the 472 does the North Greenwich job already) but in truth, you need to start again and build some core principles.
Rant over.
|
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Apr 20, 2022 10:24:59 GMT
As for Thamesmead... First, a boring history lesson.If the 1970s Fleet/Jubilee Line plan had gone ahead, we'd be having a very different conversation and SE London would be looking very different. Since that got binned, Thamesmead has been neglected for years in terms of infastructure, and in more general terms as its fortunes are split between two boroughs who'd rather the other one take it on. Nowadays I doubt such a big development would even be contemplated without hefty transport planning in advance - and so much of it was built when public transport was in decline, so the infrastructure isn't particularly bus-friendly. The place has had a complex for years - if it was a human being, it'd need serious psychiatric help. Peabody housing association has radical plans that are only now starting to emerge - but it'll take decades to undo that mess. I'm baffled as to why TfL thinks a GOBLIN extension to Thamesmead (and Abbey Wood - or Erith, as some have mooted) would be such a poor idea. The general excuse is that with just four trains an hour, it'd be poor value for money - but then surely it shouldn't have been the Overground extended to Barking Riverside, but the Hammersmith & City line? The announcement of the Thamesmead DLR came in 2016, and seemed to be a sop to critics of the Silvertown Tunnel when Khan had confirmed his backing for that. As discussed already, it's hard to see how that would fit in with the existing DLR network without weakening the service to another mistake of the 70s/80s/90s - Beckton. Worth remembering with the Thamesmead DLR is that this is solely driven by Peabody's plans to build more 11,500 new homes at Thamesmead Waterfront, the last remaining unbuilt part of the old MoD land - the rest of Thamesmead isn't really in contention in the great City Hall hive mind. Even though their homes will be less than 55 years old, they've effectively been abandoned. So... how do you fix a problem like Thamesmead?With apologies for using the phrase, this is a levelling-up issue, ultimately, so this should fall in the government's lap as well - and they control some of this through running National Rail. Central, national and local government needs to treat Thamesmead like the major settlement it was planned to be, and will be once Peabody gets its way on the waterfront. Firstly, I think you need to remove the perverse incentives for people to commute via North Greenwich - it is insane that the zonal system has turned North Greenwich (which has a booming population of its own now) into not just a railhead for Greenwich, Charlton and Blackheath, but places further afield such as Eltham and Thamesmead, and seemingly Erith if the 180 change goes through. City Hall cared enough to do it in Stratford/Canning Town, so it can do it here - rezone Woolwich/ Woolwich Arsenal, Plumstead and Abbey Wood to zones 3 and 4. Any DLR extension would also be in Zone 3, just like Beckton is. That'll lessen the incentive for people to schlep to North Greenwich and make Abbey Wood a more attractive option. As for express buses, the reason given for scrapping the X53 in October 1999 was that the Jubilee Line extension had just opened. So I'd be surprised if one comes to Thamesmead now the Elizabeth Line is on its doorstep. It's nearly 30 years since the 177 Express last ran in an era of really poor rail services in the area - again, I just can't see it. Ultimately, if we're not going to give Thamesmead the rail links it deserves, I reckon it needs - in priority order: a) rezoning of the rail b) fast and extremely frequent services to Abbey Wood and Woolwich (remember the even-more neglected West Thamesmead is right next to the money in the Royal Arsenal estate) - every five minutes at a absolute minimum c) a hefty trunk route to Bexleyheath via Abbey Wood (every seven or eight minutes) - have express journeys if need be d) a frequent 24-hour service to North Greenwich and Canary Wharf once Silvertown Tunnel opens - maybe even a N551-style route at night (lots of people in low-paid, precarious cleaning work come from Thamesmead) e) strong services to Erith, Crayford, Dartford and Bluewater (every 10 minutes) - have express journeys if need be f) a service connecting Thamesmead with Eltham and the south of Greenwich borough, opening up access to employment there g) a service linking Thamesmead with QEH via Griffin Road, Plumstead Common and Nightingale Vale, creating a new corridor and a better link to the hospital avoiding the Woolwich scrums A lot of this could be built out of the existing network (including keeping the 180 as it is), which is a bit of a bodge job, but in truth, you need to start again and build some core principles. Rant over. Well said. |
|
|
|
Post by stuckonthe486 on Apr 20, 2022 10:29:32 GMT
Thank you. I've made a couple of minor tweaks to the post for clarity, by the way. There's also lots you can do with bikes and walking, especially in the west of Thamesmead, so the whole thing needs looking at in the round. But buses are the strongest player here, and there's a good opportunity to unleash Thamesmead's potential (sorry, another government slogan) if you weaken the dependence on cars that's held it back for so long. |
|
|
|
Post by buspete on Apr 20, 2022 11:09:04 GMT
If the original Fleet Line went to Thamesmead as intended, it would've been a game changer for the area. I would say that Crossrail to Abbey Wood was the trade off, although not perfect?
IF DLR arrived at Woolwich Arsenal from a Easterly direction instead of from the West, it would be an ideal candidate to extend to Plumstead, Belmarsh Prison, Gallons Reach and onto several stops around Thmesmead. Especially that Crossrail is expected to take passengers away from DLR at Woolwich.
|
|
|
|
Post by route53 on Apr 20, 2022 11:25:39 GMT
As for Thamesmead... First, a boring history lesson.If the 1970s Fleet/Jubilee Line plan had gone ahead, we'd be having a very different conversation and SE London would be looking very different. Since that got binned, Thamesmead has been neglected for years in terms of infastructure, and in more general terms as its fortunes are split between two boroughs who'd rather the other one take it on. Nowadays I doubt such a big development would even be contemplated without hefty transport planning in advance - and so much of it was built when public transport was in decline, so the infrastructure isn't particularly bus-friendly. The place has had a complex for years - if it was a human being, it'd need serious psychiatric help. Peabody housing association has radical plans that are only now starting to emerge - but it'll take decades to undo that mess. I'm baffled as to why TfL thinks a GOBLIN extension to Thamesmead (and Abbey Wood - or Erith, as some have mooted) would be such a poor idea. The general excuse is that with just four trains an hour, it'd be poor value for money - but then surely it shouldn't have been the Overground extended to Barking Riverside, but the Hammersmith & City line? The announcement of the Thamesmead DLR came in 2016, and seemed to be a sop to critics of the Silvertown Tunnel when Khan had confirmed his backing for that. As discussed already, it's hard to see how that would fit in with the existing DLR network without weakening the service to another mistake of the 70s/80s/90s - Beckton. Worth remembering with the Thamesmead DLR is that this is solely driven by Peabody's plans to build more 11,500 new homes at Thamesmead Waterfront, the last remaining unbuilt part of the old MoD land - the rest of Thamesmead isn't really in contention in the great City Hall hive mind. Even though their homes will be less than 55 years old, they've effectively been abandoned. So... how do you fix a problem like Thamesmead?With apologies for using the phrase, this is a levelling-up issue, ultimately, so this should fall in the government's lap as well - and they control some of this through running National Rail. Central, national and local government needs to treat Thamesmead like the major settlement it was planned to be, and will be once Peabody gets its way on the waterfront. Firstly, I think you need to remove the perverse incentives for people to commute via North Greenwich - it is insane that the zonal system has turned North Greenwich (which has a booming population of its own now) into not just a railhead for Greenwich, Charlton and Blackheath, but places further afield such as Eltham and Thamesmead, and seemingly Erith if the 180 change goes through. City Hall cared enough to do it in Stratford/Canning Town, so it can do it here - rezone Woolwich/ Woolwich Arsenal, Plumstead and Abbey Wood to zones 3 and 4. Any DLR extension would also be in Zone 3, just like Beckton is. That'll lessen the incentive for people to schlep to North Greenwich and make Abbey Wood a more attractive option. As for express buses, the reason given for scrapping the X53 in October 1999 was that the Jubilee Line extension had just opened. So I'd be surprised if one comes to Thamesmead now the Elizabeth Line is on its doorstep. It's nearly 30 years since the 177 Express last ran in an era of really poor rail services in the area - again, I just can't see it. (I guess the Old Kent Road thing would be an X21, but that's for another thread.) Ultimately, if we're not going to give Thamesmead the rail links it deserves, we need to start again with some core principles. I reckon it needs - in priority order: a) rezoning of the rail b) fast and extremely frequent services to Abbey Wood and Woolwich (remember the even-more neglected West Thamesmead is right next to the money in the Royal Arsenal estate) - every five minutes at a absolute minimum - with services terminating at those two places so they don't get caught up in delays elsewhere c) a hefty trunk route to Bexleyheath via Abbey Wood (every seven or eight minutes) - have express journeys if need be d) a frequent 24-hour service to North Greenwich and Canary Wharf once Silvertown Tunnel opens - maybe even a N551-style route at night (lots of people in low-paid, precarious cleaning work come from Thamesmead) e) strong services to Erith, Crayford, Dartford and Bluewater (every 10 minutes) - have express journeys if need be f) a service connecting Thamesmead with Eltham and the south of Greenwich borough, opening up access to employment there g) a service linking Thamesmead with QEH via Griffin Road, Plumstead Common and Nightingale Vale, creating a new corridor and a better link to the hospital avoiding the Woolwich scrums A lot of this could be built out of the existing bodge-job network (including keeping the 180 as it is, while the 472 does the North Greenwich job already) but in truth, you need to start again and build some core principles. Rant over. Excellent post. It really is a shame that the Fleet line never happened in its original form, it would have changed SE London as a whole. I agree about rezoning stations to zone 3, but to be honest in really struggle to see people from Erith & Belvedere trekking it on a 180 through heavy traffic to North Greenwich just to board a packed Jubilee line, when CrossRail will do what the Jubilee line will do in over half the time, the 180 changes is a novelty that will soon wear off just for time saving alone, it’ll appeal to those want Charlton retail park. Thamesmead’s solution is basically all bus based, and if they’re going to regenerate Thamesmead into a Kidbrooke Village type of area then naturally there will be new bus changes, it is a pity in how the made the Woolwich branch of the DLR approach Woolwich from an easterly direction since a westerly one would have solved the Thamesmead issue. As for the H&C extension to Thamesmead, wasn’t this suggested but shot down due to it involving demolition and major rebuilding? It’s just dawned on me on how close Barking is to Thamesmead and Abbey Wood! Because of no river crossings in this part of the Thames both districts may as well be as far away as Croydon is to Uxbridge, maybe they should install a ferry that’s similar to The Woolwich ferry |
|
|
|
Post by route53 on Apr 20, 2022 11:31:40 GMT
I’ve often thought of rerouting the 161 to Thamesmead to crest a north-south Greenwich borough link between there and Eltham but not sure if the demand is there for such a change to occur other than it would be a used link
|
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Apr 20, 2022 12:03:05 GMT
Excellent post. It’s just dawned on me on how close Barking is to Thamesmead and Abbey Wood! Because of no river crossings in this part of the Thames both districts may as well be as far away as Croydon is to Uxbridge, maybe they should install a ferry that’s similar to The Woolwich ferry I think Thames Clippers are planning on introducing a pier at Barking Riverside and extending services from Woolwich. Perhaps a pier could also be added at Thamesmead, with passengers able to use the boats as a shuttle? More generally, there is definitely a lot more potential in river-based public transport, especially towards the east where there are fewer river crossings. Definitely a much cheaper option, at least in the short term, and could instantly provide new links across the river, other than having to introduce some additional piers. However, for river travel to be a success, the main concern is that fares need to come down. For example, the pedestrian bridge between Rotherhithe and Canary Wharf has now been cancelled - but there is a ferry shuttle service in place at the same location. However, the cost to use it means that many passengers would opt for the more complicated and slower route of taking a bus to Canada Water then one stop on the tube. Thames Clippers did also recently trial a service going further out of London as far as Gravesend. This could potentially work as a permanent route, but only if more stops are added - such as at Grays, Greenhithe, Erith, Thamesmead and Barking Riverside. And away from ferries, it's definitely a missed opportunity not to build a road tunnel under the river further east, rather than alongside the Blackwall Tunnel at Silvertown. This could link the North Circular and A13 through to Eastern Way near Abbey Wood and Thamesmead - and could potentially take pressure off all of the Blackwall Tunnel, Woolwich Ferry and Dartford Crossing. |
|
|
|
Post by stuckonthe486 on Apr 20, 2022 12:30:10 GMT
Excellent post. It’s just dawned on me on how close Barking is to Thamesmead and Abbey Wood! Because of no river crossings in this part of the Thames both districts may as well be as far away as Croydon is to Uxbridge, maybe they should install a ferry that’s similar to The Woolwich ferry I think Thames Clippers are planning on introducing a pier at Barking Riverside and extending services from Woolwich. Perhaps a pier could also be added at Thamesmead, with passengers able to use the boats as a shuttle? More generally, there is definitely a lot more potential in river-based public transport, especially towards the east where there are fewer river crossings. Definitely a much cheaper option, at least in the short term, and could instantly provide new links across the river, other than having to introduce some additional piers. However, for river travel to be a success, the main concern is that fares need to come down. For example, the pedestrian bridge between Rotherhithe and Canary Wharf has now been cancelled - but there is a ferry shuttle service in place at the same location. However, the cost to use it means that many passengers would opt for the more complicated and slower route of taking a bus to Canada Water then one stop on the tube. Thames Clippers did also recently trial a service going further out of London as far as Gravesend. This could potentially work as a permanent route, but only if more stops are added - such as at Grays, Greenhithe, Erith, Thamesmead and Barking Riverside. You can see Thamesmead from the platforms at Barking Riverside. It's insane. Anyway, here's Thames Clippers at Barking Riverside, from the horse's mouth: www.thamesclippers.com/plan-your-journey/find-your-pier/barking-riverside-pierHistorically, the trouble with the riverboats is that each pier had a very small catchment area - but that's changing with so many riverside developments. The Thames Barrier is also an issue, but if that's closed at least there would be a, um, boat replacement train in the form of the Elizabeth Line from Woolwich or Canary Wharf - if we had a Hamburg-style integrated system, which we don't. The other big problem is that boats are expensive to run. They get subsidy to help kickstart developments (think City Hall have have helped fund boats to Woolwich, it's certainly subsidising the Barking ones), but not the day-to-day subsidy that buses get because of the cost. Twelve years ago, the right-leaning think tank Policy Exchange recommended fully integrating the boats into the TfL system in this report: policyexchange.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/at-a-rate-of-knots-improving-public-transport-on-the-river-thames-web-jan-10.pdf It seemed a bit niche then, but a decade on, I think that idea's time has come. Nobody wants to spend the money, though. |
|
|
|
Post by stuckonthe486 on Apr 20, 2022 12:34:57 GMT
I’ve often thought of rerouting the 161 to Thamesmead to crest a north-south Greenwich borough link between there and Eltham but not sure if the demand is there for such a change to occur other than it would be a used link I've often wondered about that too. More from a Woolwich perspective than anything else - you can get a bus to Lewisham from most parts of that borough, and the same applies to Bexleyheath, but Woolwich's sole link with the south of Greenwich borough is the wiggly 161 via the hospital. There's potential to fix a couple of holes if anyone cared enough about those places to spend the money. |
|
