|
|
Post by overgroundcommuter on Aug 13, 2013 1:36:49 GMT
Route 356 should be increased to 15 mins Mon-Sat shopping hours and 20 on Sunday shopping hours. It provides the only direct link to Forest Hill.
The current frequency of 20 mins Mon-Sat, 30 evenings and Sundays is woeful. The bus is busy during the morning and afternoon school run and will only get busier when the new retail park fully opens.
In addition to the 202 being double decked, it should also serve the bus stops between the new retail park and Sainsburys, it's the only route which doesn't serve it.
|
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Aug 13, 2013 9:03:00 GMT
Route 356 should be increased to 15 mins Mon-Sat shopping hours and 20 on Sunday shopping hours. It provides the only direct link to Forest Hill. The current frequency of 20 mins Mon-Sat, 30 evenings and Sundays is woeful. The bus is busy during the morning and afternoon school run and will only get busier when the new retail park fully opens. In addition to the 202 being double decked, it should also serve the bus stops between the new retail park and Sainsburys, it's the only route which doesn't serve it. I agree with this. 4 Buses an hour would be better than 3 IMO. I've seen the 356 Full many times |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2013 14:17:43 GMT
180
Extended from Lewisham via current 181 route (ie Hither Green) to Catford Bridge or TL if insufficient stand space there.
181
Completely revamped from a circuitous route to a useful east/west link.
As now Grove Park to Lower Sydenham then via 356 to Lordship Lane, P13 to Tulse Hill and 2/432 to Brixton Station. Also maintains service levels along Tulse Hill with 415 withdrawn.
199
Withdrawn Catford town centre to TL and rerouted via 202 route to Lower Sydenham, Sainsburys. This also restores a direct link between Lower Sydenham and Lewisham.
249
Withdrawn between Crystal Palace and Anerley, uses stand space freed by the 322 and 410
322
Extended from Crystal Palace via Anerley, Elmers End and current 356 route to Shirley Monks Orchard Road
336
Rerouted via Firhill Road instead of Brookhouse Road thus keeping a link from most of Southend Lane to Catford.
352
Sunday service introduced
354
Rerouted via Marlow Road as per 356 and extended from Penge via current 356 to Sydenham Hill. Sunday service introduced
356
Route withdrawn, replaced by 332 and 354
410
Extended from Crystal Palace via 227 route to Penge Crooked Billet, using stand space vacated by 354
415
Route withdrawn, replaced by 181 and 432
432
Extended from Brixton via current 415 route to Elephant & Castle. Withdrawn between Crystal Palace and Anerley using stand space freed up by 322 and 410. Anerley stand sold for redevelopment
|
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Aug 29, 2013 17:23:10 GMT
180 Extended from Lewisham via current 181 route (ie Hither Green) to Catford Bridge or TL if insufficient stand space there. 181 Completely revamped from a circuitous route to a useful east/west link. As now Grove Park to Lower Sydenham then via 356 to Lordship Lane, P13 to Tulse Hill and 2/432 to Brixton Station. Also maintains service levels along Tulse Hill with 415 withdrawn. 199 Withdrawn Catford town centre to TL and rerouted via 202 route to Lower Sydenham, Sainsburys. This also restores a direct link between Lower Sydenham and Lewisham. 249 Withdrawn between Crystal Palace and Anerley, uses stand space freed by the 322 and 410 322 Extended from Crystal Palace via Anerley, Elmers End and current 356 route to Shirley Monks Orchard Road 336 Rerouted via Firhill Road instead of Brookhouse Road thus keeping a link from most of Southend Lane to Catford. 352 Sunday service introduced 354 Rerouted via Marlow Road as per 356 and extended from Penge via current 356 to Sydenham Hill. Sunday service introduced 356 Route withdrawn, replaced by 332 and 354 410 Extended from Crystal Palace via 227 route to Penge Crooked Billet, using stand space vacated by 354 415 Route withdrawn, replaced by 181 and 432 432 Extended from Brixton via current 415 route to Elephant & Castle. Withdrawn between Crystal Palace and Anerley using stand space freed up by 322 and 410. Anerley stand sold for redevelopment The 180 is long enough no need for it to go to Hither Green especially because traffic builds up on Hither Green Lane early morning which can delay the bus for like 10 minutes. The 181 was introduced so it can perform the Hither Green section leaving the 180 to be the main trunk route. The 181 is a well used link from Bellingham to Lewisham. No need for it to go to Tulse Hill. The 199 does not need to go to Lower Sydenham when the 181 peforms this link by itself. Why replace it with the 199 and make that route suffer in Traffic via Perry Hill when it already has Greenwich to deal with. Very poor Idea to send the 181 to Tulse Hill. Withdrawing the 356 is a bad idea. The 356 is quite a well used link and I have seen it busy many of times replacing it with two different routes, will annoy a lot of people. I would extend the 356 via Lordship Lane, the P13 to Tulse Hill and 2/432 to Brixton Station. I really like the 354 Idea, I would however extend it via the current 356 routing in Penge to proceed past the 99p Stores and turn left at the lights. Then have the 354 & 356 timetabled to run 10 minutes inbetween each other . The 322 should remain how it is. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2013 20:00:07 GMT
There are quite a few passengers who use the 249 & 432 between anerley station and crystal palace including the stop in anerley stn road. I would keep your proposal but extend the 3 to Anerley station.
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 29, 2013 20:07:18 GMT
There are quite a few passengers who use the 249 & 432 between anerley station and crystal palace including the stop in anerley stn road. I would keep your proposal but extend the 3 to Anerley station. Don't see the point of that - 249 & 432 should both remain along that section with the 432 extended to Elmers End via Birkbeck. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2013 23:13:03 GMT
I work in this area and something needs to be done with the stand arrangements for the 176 & the rubbish service between anerley and elmers end direct , the lack of a night service to Norwood junction, and the lack of Sunday services across large areas of Penge, Anerley & Beckenham.
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 30, 2013 0:13:51 GMT
I work in this area and something needs to be done with the stand arrangements for the 176 & the rubbish service between anerley and elmers end direct , the lack of a night service to Norwood junction, and the lack of Sunday services across large areas of Penge, Anerley & Beckenham. Agree with the Sunday service issue - the 352 & 354 should really gain one each. Agree also about a lack of night route to Norwood Junction - an extended N2 to Sutton would cover the old N75 from Anerley (Robin Hood) to West Croydon & part of the old N213 from West Croydon to Sutton. What's wrong with the stand arrangement for the 176? My 432 proposal would cover the need for a decent, direct link between, not only Anerley & Elmers End, but Crystal Palace & Elmers End - the 358 takes the long way around to Elmers End. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve80 on Aug 30, 2013 1:57:58 GMT
There are quite a few passengers who use the 249 & 432 between anerley station and crystal palace including the stop in anerley stn road. I would keep your proposal but extend the 3 to Anerley station. Don't see the point of that - 249 & 432 should both remain along that section with the 432 extended to Elmers End via Birkbeck. The amount of passengers on the N3 in both directions along anerley road makes me think that the 3 would be useful in being extended to anerley station. Personally I would like to see another route or as most say the 432 extended to elmers end. The amount of passengers that board the 157 in crystal palace including the station suggests to me that it would be a useful extension. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2013 10:57:03 GMT
180 Extended from Lewisham via current 181 route (ie Hither Green) to Catford Bridge or TL if insufficient stand space there. 181 Completely revamped from a circuitous route to a useful east/west link. As now Grove Park to Lower Sydenham then via 356 to Lordship Lane, P13 to Tulse Hill and 2/432 to Brixton Station. Also maintains service levels along Tulse Hill with 415 withdrawn. 199 Withdrawn Catford town centre to TL and rerouted via 202 route to Lower Sydenham, Sainsburys. This also restores a direct link between Lower Sydenham and Lewisham. 249 Withdrawn between Crystal Palace and Anerley, uses stand space freed by the 322 and 410 322 Extended from Crystal Palace via Anerley, Elmers End and current 356 route to Shirley Monks Orchard Road 336 Rerouted via Firhill Road instead of Brookhouse Road thus keeping a link from most of Southend Lane to Catford. 352 Sunday service introduced 354 Rerouted via Marlow Road as per 356 and extended from Penge via current 356 to Sydenham Hill. Sunday service introduced 356 Route withdrawn, replaced by 332 and 354 410 Extended from Crystal Palace via 227 route to Penge Crooked Billet, using stand space vacated by 354 415 Route withdrawn, replaced by 181 and 432 432 Extended from Brixton via current 415 route to Elephant & Castle. Withdrawn between Crystal Palace and Anerley using stand space freed up by 322 and 410. Anerley stand sold for redevelopment The 180 is long enough no need for it to go to Hither Green especially because traffic builds up on Hither Green Lane early morning which can delay the bus for like 10 minutes. The 181 was introduced so it can perform the Hither Green section leaving the 180 to be the main trunk route. The 181 is a well used link from Bellingham to Lewisham. No need for it to go to Tulse Hill. The 199 does not need to go to Lower Sydenham when the 181 peforms this link by itself. Why replace it with the 199 and make that route suffer in Traffic via Perry Hill when it already has Greenwich to deal with. Very poor Idea to send the 181 to Tulse Hill. Withdrawing the 356 is a bad idea. The 356 is quite a well used link and I have seen it busy many of times replacing it with two different routes, will annoy a lot of people. I would extend the 356 via Lordship Lane, the P13 to Tulse Hill and 2/432 to Brixton Station. I really like the 354 Idea, I would however extend it via the current 356 routing in Penge to proceed past the 99p Stores and turn left at the lights. Then have the 354 & 356 timetabled to run 10 minutes inbetween each other . The 322 should remain how it is. Why is there no need for the 181 to go to Tulse Hill? At the moment the only link west from Lower Sydenham is the infrequent 356 which only goes to Forest Hill/Sydenham Hill anyway. The 181 is a ridiculously cicuitous route, nobody going from Lower Sydenham to Lewisham wants to go via Hither Green, which also misses out the hopital. How can withdrawing the 356 be a bad idea when it is replaced by more frequent and more useful routes? Why should the 322 remain as it is? Isn't a Crystal Palace, Anerley, Elmers End, Shirley link useful? You just seem to disagree with things for the sake of it. Oh well at least you liked the 354 idea |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2013 10:59:24 GMT
There are quite a few passengers who use the 249 & 432 between anerley station and crystal palace including the stop in anerley stn road. I would keep your proposal but extend the 3 to Anerley station. Not many, in all honesty the 157 and 358 are quite adequate and under my idea there would be the addition of the 322 to Elmers End and Shirley |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Aug 31, 2013 11:26:50 GMT
The 180 is long enough no need for it to go to Hither Green especially because traffic builds up on Hither Green Lane early morning which can delay the bus for like 10 minutes. The 181 was introduced so it can perform the Hither Green section leaving the 180 to be the main trunk route. The 181 is a well used link from Bellingham to Lewisham. No need for it to go to Tulse Hill. The 199 does not need to go to Lower Sydenham when the 181 peforms this link by itself. Why replace it with the 199 and make that route suffer in Traffic via Perry Hill when it already has Greenwich to deal with. Very poor Idea to send the 181 to Tulse Hill. Withdrawing the 356 is a bad idea. The 356 is quite a well used link and I have seen it busy many of times replacing it with two different routes, will annoy a lot of people. I would extend the 356 via Lordship Lane, the P13 to Tulse Hill and 2/432 to Brixton Station. I really like the 354 Idea, I would however extend it via the current 356 routing in Penge to proceed past the 99p Stores and turn left at the lights. Then have the 354 & 356 timetabled to run 10 minutes inbetween each other . The 322 should remain how it is. Why is there no need for the 181 to go to Tulse Hill? At the moment the only link west from Lower Sydenham is the infrequent 356 which only goes to Forest Hill/Sydenham Hill anyway. The 181 is a ridiculously cicuitous route, nobody going from Lower Sydenham to Lewisham wants to go via Hither Green, which also misses out the hopital. How can withdrawing the 356 be a bad idea when it is replaced by more frequent and more useful routes? Why should the 322 remain as it is? Isn't a Crystal Palace, Anerley, Elmers End, Shirley link useful? You just seem to disagree with things for the sake of it. Oh well at least you liked the 354 idea You might get better responses if you set out the objectives you had for making the changes, identified the deficiences you perceive with existing services and said how you would preserve popular links on services you were changing. An overview of the benefits from your scheme would also be helpful. You touched on some of that in your proposal list but just saying "the 181 is circuitous" is not a reason to hack it to bits. The 253/4 are "circuitous" if you look at the route taken between the termini but they're immensely busy services *because* of the circuit they take. Sometimes people are happy to have a direct bus that takes a little longer to get somewhere than being forced to change between high frequency routes. I don't know the routes you're referring to very well but a route like the 181 always looks well loaded when I see it in Lewisham. Now it might carry fresh air after 10 stops but somehow I doubt it. I agree with filling in the gap between Anerley and Elmers End via the obvious direct route but selecting the "best" route to do it is not easy despite a plethora of terminating services at Crystal Palace and Anerley. The recent TfL appearance in front of the Transport Committee (see separate thread) showed how TfL plan for flows and then decide which route(s) should serve them. Passengers and enthusiasts tend to start with existing routes and then fiddle about with them. This is why many public proposals are expensive because they take high frequency, high PVR routes and then extend them which instantly gives a big cost (e.g. extending route 22 to Roehampton which is apparently a public suggestion to TfL but is completely unaffordable). They may also increase the risk of unreliable operation or break established travel patterns. I believe TfL said (haven't gone back and checked) that "round the houses" routes are often very effective despite looking "illogical" on paper. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2013 11:49:28 GMT
There are quite a few passengers who use the 249 & 432 between anerley station and crystal palace including the stop in anerley stn road. I would keep your proposal but extend the 3 to Anerley station. Not many, in all honesty the 157 and 358 are quite adequate and under my idea there would be the addition of the 322 to Elmers End and Shirley[/quote Sorry have to disagree. There are sufficient passengers boarding the 249 and 432 at anerley station and the town hall stop alone to justify those services. The dense housing situated off Anerley Road , all of it social housing, means higher demand for buses. Then you have the large estate behind the anerley station stand that no bus route actually penetrates, so they all walk to the bus stand at anerley. The 176 drivers have no toilet facilities in Penge and the stand is on a main road . Local councillors have been lobbying TfL for a long time to alter it. |
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Aug 31, 2013 11:53:34 GMT
The 180 is long enough no need for it to go to Hither Green especially because traffic builds up on Hither Green Lane early morning which can delay the bus for like 10 minutes. The 181 was introduced so it can perform the Hither Green section leaving the 180 to be the main trunk route. The 181 is a well used link from Bellingham to Lewisham. No need for it to go to Tulse Hill. The 199 does not need to go to Lower Sydenham when the 181 peforms this link by itself. Why replace it with the 199 and make that route suffer in Traffic via Perry Hill when it already has Greenwich to deal with. Very poor Idea to send the 181 to Tulse Hill. Withdrawing the 356 is a bad idea. The 356 is quite a well used link and I have seen it busy many of times replacing it with two different routes, will annoy a lot of people. I would extend the 356 via Lordship Lane, the P13 to Tulse Hill and 2/432 to Brixton Station. I really like the 354 Idea, I would however extend it via the current 356 routing in Penge to proceed past the 99p Stores and turn left at the lights. Then have the 354 & 356 timetabled to run 10 minutes inbetween each other . The 322 should remain how it is. Why is there no need for the 181 to go to Tulse Hill? At the moment the only link west from Lower Sydenham is the infrequent 356 which only goes to Forest Hill/Sydenham Hill anyway. The 181 is a ridiculously cicuitous route, nobody going from Lower Sydenham to Lewisham wants to go via Hither Green, which also misses out the hopital. How can withdrawing the 356 be a bad idea when it is replaced by more frequent and more useful routes? Why should the 322 remain as it is? Isn't a Crystal Palace, Anerley, Elmers End, Shirley link useful? You just seem to disagree with things for the sake of it. Oh well at least you liked the 354 idea Don't take this the wrong way but your 181 idea is appalling. Who cares whether the passengers want to go via Hither Green to Lewisham or not. The link to Lewisham from Lower Sydenham is there. They have a choice either stay on it or get off in Catford and wait for a 47 or 54 etc on Bromley Road. Your 356 idea is also appalling. I use the 356 quite a bit and quite a lot of people use it from Forest Hill to Penge and is well used Between Shirley & Penge. The reason I don't think much of your ideas is because your suggesting to replace other routes with others and the routes like 181 & 356 are well used like. Plus to add the 181 is one of my local routes out of the 124, 160 & 284. Do you really think I like such a ridiculous idea to get rid of the 181 from Lower Sydenham - Lewisham. The Lewisham - Sandhurst Road section is the busiest most popular section. If that link is lost then the 284 will become even busier. The 181 does not need to be diverted to Tulse Hill it may be slightly circular, but it is a well used service and Most IMPORTANTLY serves A PURPOSE and I'm very sure the People of Hither Green would not want to loose their Link in favour of ridiculous diversion idea to Tulse Hill. Plus to add there a quite a lot of Routes that are slightly circular that serve a purpose. The 300 comes to mind. Plus you sending the 199 to replace it is also ridiculous. Your asking for an unreliable service, which would probably cost more to run than the 181. The 322 is fine. The 432 is a better route to extend to Elmers End. |
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Aug 31, 2013 12:15:27 GMT
I work in this area and something needs to be done with the stand arrangements for the 176 & the rubbish service between anerley and elmers end direct , the lack of a night service to Norwood junction, and the lack of Sunday services across large areas of Penge, Anerley & Beckenham. Possibly send the 176 the short distance to Beckenham Junction? Have a feeling though that there's no space to terminate anything else anywhere in Beckenham... |
|
