|
|
Post by vjaska on Sept 1, 2013 19:31:03 GMT
The 410 is a long enough route as it is TBH - the 227 copes between Crystal Palace & Penge. I can't see anyone from Surrey Canal going further than Elephant on the route - the Surrey Canal project involves another route, which is newly created, to start from Surrey Canal to Lewisham and with their being a need for a Lewisham to Elephant link & withdraw the 415 completely, create this new route using the vacant number from Elephant to Lewisham via Surrey Canal. The 432 can then take over the 415 between Brixton & Elephant & also extend it from Anerley to Elmers End via Birkbeck to give a far more direct link between Palace & Elmers End Or extend the new route to Brixton and the 432 to Elephant and then withdraw the 415. Bear in mind there's no spare stand space at Elephant and I've long thought that there should be a second Lewisham - Brixton route Now I do like that proposal but Brixton Road & Kennington Park Road doesn't need an extra route running along. |
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Sept 1, 2013 20:41:10 GMT
The 410 is a long enough route as it is TBH - the 227 copes between Crystal Palace & Penge. I can't see anyone from Surrey Canal going further than Elephant on the route - the Surrey Canal project involves another route, which is newly created, to start from Surrey Canal to Lewisham and with their being a need for a Lewisham to Elephant link & withdraw the 415 completely, create this new route using the vacant number from Elephant to Lewisham via Surrey Canal. The 432 can then take over the 415 between Brixton & Elephant & also extend it from Anerley to Elmers End via Birkbeck to give a far more direct link between Palace & Elmers End Or extend the new route to Brixton and the 432 to Elephant and then withdraw the 415. Bear in mind there's no spare stand space at Elephant and I've long thought that there should be a second Lewisham - Brixton route I liked vjaska's Idea in the past of route 445 Lewisam - New Cross - Peckham - Camberwell - Brixton - Clapham Common - Clapham Junction and cutting the 345 to Brixton, but I would cut it to Camberwell Green and reduce the Frequency to every 10 mins and extend it to Notting Hill Gate which would create new links from Clapham Junction to Notting Hill and re-route it via the 35 from Clapham Common - Clapham Junction. The Lewisham link would certainly take a quite bit of pressure of the P4, but not very much as the passenger numbers build up all across the route. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2013 20:46:38 GMT
Or extend the new route to Brixton and the 432 to Elephant and then withdraw the 415. Bear in mind there's no spare stand space at Elephant and I've long thought that there should be a second Lewisham - Brixton route I liked vjaska's Idea in the past of route 445 Lewisam - New Cross - Peckham - Camberwell - Brixton - Clapham Common - Clapham Junction and cutting the 345 to Brixton, but I would cut it to Camberwell Green and reduce the Frequency to every 10 mins and extend it to Notting Hill Gate which would create new links from Clapham Junction to Notting Hill and re-route it via the 35 from Clapham Common - Clapham Junction. The Lewisham link would certainly take a quite bit of pressure of the P4, but not very much as the passenger numbers build up all across the route. True though there's certainly through demand from Lewisham - a lot of people do the route end-to-end. |
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Sept 1, 2013 20:53:38 GMT
I liked vjaska's Idea in the past of route 445 Lewisam - New Cross - Peckham - Camberwell - Brixton - Clapham Common - Clapham Junction and cutting the 345 to Brixton, but I would cut it to Camberwell Green and reduce the Frequency to every 10 mins and extend it to Notting Hill Gate which would create new links from Clapham Junction to Notting Hill and re-route it via the 35 from Clapham Common - Clapham Junction. The Lewisham link would certainly take a quite bit of pressure of the P4, but not very much as the passenger numbers build up all across the route. True though there's certainly through demand from Lewisham - a lot of people do the route end-to-end. True, tbh the P4 could do with double deckers, but I really can't see it happening tbh. An alternative would be really good for Lewisham and at the same time the frequency of the 436 could be slighty reduced, but tbh all routes from Lewisham to New Cross are always overcrowded so reducing the 436 frequency would make no sense. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2013 23:01:06 GMT
I can't see anyone from Surrey Canal going further than Elephant on the route - the Surrey Canal project involves another route, which is newly created, to start from Surrey Canal to Lewisham and with their being a need for a Lewisham to Elephant link & withdraw the 415 completely, create this new route using the vacant number from Elephant to Lewisham via Surrey Canal. The Elephant & Castle requirement is for a high frequency double decker route (415 extension), while the one to Lewisham is for an every 20 minutes single decker route (new route which will also supplement the 225 between Lewisham and Trundleys Road). So although an Elephant & Castle link to Lewisham link sounds a good idea, if you combine them either one section will be badly underserved, or the other will be grossly overserved. But because of the low bridge on Sanford Street it would have to be a single decker route, and you would also need extra stand space at Elephant & Castle as it would add a new terminating service in addition to the 432 replacing the 415. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Sept 2, 2013 2:00:54 GMT
I can't see anyone from Surrey Canal going further than Elephant on the route - the Surrey Canal project involves another route, which is newly created, to start from Surrey Canal to Lewisham and with their being a need for a Lewisham to Elephant link & withdraw the 415 completely, create this new route using the vacant number from Elephant to Lewisham via Surrey Canal. The Elephant & Castle requirement is for a high frequency double decker route (415 extension), while the one to Lewisham is for an every 20 minutes single decker route (new route which will also supplement the 225 between Lewisham and Trundleys Road). So although an Elephant & Castle link to Lewisham link sounds a good idea, if you combine them either one section will be badly underserved, or the other will be grossly overserved. But because of the low bridge on Sanford Street it would have to be a single decker route, and you would also need extra stand space at Elephant & Castle as it would add a new terminating service in addition to the 432 replacing the 415. You could easily send one route up to Borough to solve the stand space issue whilst the link could be re-routed away by sending it down to New Cross Road from Surrey Canal and then onto Lewisham. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2013 8:57:08 GMT
I can't see anyone from Surrey Canal going further than Elephant on the route - the Surrey Canal project involves another route, which is newly created, to start from Surrey Canal to Lewisham and with their being a need for a Lewisham to Elephant link & withdraw the 415 completely, create this new route using the vacant number from Elephant to Lewisham via Surrey Canal. The Elephant & Castle requirement is for a high frequency double decker route (415 extension), while the one to Lewisham is for an every 20 minutes single decker route (new route which will also supplement the 225 between Lewisham and Trundleys Road). So although an Elephant & Castle link to Lewisham link sounds a good idea, if you combine them either one section will be badly underserved, or the other will be grossly overserved. But because of the low bridge on Sanford Street it would have to be a single decker route, and you would also need extra stand space at Elephant & Castle as it would add a new terminating service in addition to the 432 replacing the 415. I hadn't considered the low bridge, that is a good point. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2013 9:40:41 GMT
Frankly I wonder about your sanity. If you don't like ideas for changing routes then don't read them, simple Look at all this and then I get blamed for "Attitude problems". But anyway, I've got to say, extending 180 and 199 is definitely not a good idea. (1) 180 is long as it is and I don't think it needs an extension. (2) 199 shouldn't be extended to Lower Sydenham either because I don't know about others, but I myself don't see anyone wanting a link between somewhere like Greenwich to Lower Sydenham when you've got two routes to get there from Lewisham & Catford ie. 181 and 202. I personally don't think any changes should be made at LS but if 432 was extended there, that would be good seeing as its a short route and it can help out the 450 aswell. And 181 from Lewisham to Tulse Hill, I think you suggested, would definitely be unreliable because it's already had an extension to Grove Park and withdrawing it from there to somewhere else would cost loads and will need a higher PVR and if the route isn't used well for that extension, it would be a very huge loss for Metrobus (the company). Lastly, have you ever been to Lewisham because I really think you should check out the 181, its always overcrowded and its definitely not pointless as it is a link for lots of people between Lewisham, Sandhurst Road and Catford. I don't know whether you are being deliberately obtuse here or what but I'll try and explain things just one more time. Firstly, of course I have been to Lewisham and on quite a regualr basis. I am therefore well aware of how the 181 gets overcrowded which is why I suggested replacing the Hither Green Green/Catford bit with the 180. Replacing over crowded single deckers with double deckers, does that make sense to you? If you were saying the 21 or 436 were long as it is I'd probably agree, but the 180 goes from Lewisham to Belvedere, an extension of less than 20mins to Catford via Hither Green is hardly going to destroy the route is it? You say the 199 shouldn't go to Lower Sydenham because you reckon nobody wants to go from there to Greenwich, really??? Anyway people certainly do want to go from Lower Sydenham to Lewisham Hospital and Lewisham town centre without going via Hither Green, therefore the 199 will provide a useful new link.........yes? You reckon the 181 will become unreliable if extended to Brixton via Tulse Hill.........why exactly? Do you really not think people might want to go to places like West Dulwich, Tulse Hill and Brixton from Lower Sydenham? Easy journies by car but a nightmare by bus. So your considered opinion is that no route should change in Lower Sydenham apart from extending the 432 there? What purpose would that serve? The 202 and 450 are sufficient between there and Crystal Palace although the 202 should be upgraded to double deckers |
|
|
|
Post by I-Azusio-I on Sept 2, 2013 10:11:15 GMT
Look at all this and then I get blamed for "Attitude problems". But anyway, I've got to say, extending 180 and 199 is definitely not a good idea. (1) 180 is long as it is and I don't think it needs an extension. (2) 199 shouldn't be extended to Lower Sydenham either because I don't know about others, but I myself don't see anyone wanting a link between somewhere like Greenwich to Lower Sydenham when you've got two routes to get there from Lewisham & Catford ie. 181 and 202. I personally don't think any changes should be made at LS but if 432 was extended there, that would be good seeing as its a short route and it can help out the 450 aswell. And 181 from Lewisham to Tulse Hill, I think you suggested, would definitely be unreliable because it's already had an extension to Grove Park and withdrawing it from there to somewhere else would cost loads and will need a higher PVR and if the route isn't used well for that extension, it would be a very huge loss for Metrobus (the company). Lastly, have you ever been to Lewisham because I really think you should check out the 181, its always overcrowded and its definitely not pointless as it is a link for lots of people between Lewisham, Sandhurst Road and Catford. I don't know whether you are being deliberately obtuse here or what but I'll try and explain things just one more time. Firstly, of course I have been to Lewisham and on quite a regualr basis. I am therefore well aware of how the 181 gets overcrowded which is why I suggested replacing the Hither Green Green/Catford bit with the 180. Replacing over crowded single deckers with double deckers, does that make sense to you? If you were saying the 21 or 436 were long as it is I'd probably agree, but the 180 goes from Lewisham to Belvedere, an extension of less than 20mins to Catford via Hither Green is hardly going to destroy the route is it? You say the 199 shouldn't go to Lower Sydenham because you reckon nobody wants to go from there to Greenwich, really??? Anyway people certainly do want to go from Lower Sydenham to Lewisham Hospital and Lewisham town centre without going via Hither Green, therefore the 199 will provide a useful new link.........yes? You reckon the 181 will become unreliable if extended to Brixton via Tulse Hill.........why exactly? Do you really not think people might want to go to places like West Dulwich, Tulse Hill and Brixton from Lower Sydenham? Easy journies by car but a nightmare by bus. So your considered opinion is that no route should change in Lower Sydenham apart from extending the 432 there? What purpose would that serve? The 202 and 450 are sufficient between there and Crystal Palace although the 202 should be upgraded to double deckers Either way, your plan still doesn't make sense and still will not work. Why extend the 181 to Tulse Hill and take it away from where it is needed ie. Downham and Grove Park. If you want a link between Lewisham and Tulse Hill, then a new route should be made or maybe just take the P4 and change at Herne Hill or Brixton. 180 does not need an extension because its already long as it is hence why 225 was extended to Hither Green to help out the 181, so why should 180 go there? Also, why should 199 go to Lower Sydenham, I think the route may be short, but its fine as it is and it doesn't need to go through anymore traffic other than Greenwich and Deptford. You think you can just make all these routes go to all these places for free, it involves a lot of process and costing so I think it's best if you think again about your idea because that definitely will ruin transport links in Lewisham and Catford. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2013 10:16:32 GMT
I don't know whether you are being deliberately obtuse here or what but I'll try and explain things just one more time. Firstly, of course I have been to Lewisham and on quite a regualr basis. I am therefore well aware of how the 181 gets overcrowded which is why I suggested replacing the Hither Green Green/Catford bit with the 180. Replacing over crowded single deckers with double deckers, does that make sense to you? If you were saying the 21 or 436 were long as it is I'd probably agree, but the 180 goes from Lewisham to Belvedere, an extension of less than 20mins to Catford via Hither Green is hardly going to destroy the route is it? You say the 199 shouldn't go to Lower Sydenham because you reckon nobody wants to go from there to Greenwich, really??? Anyway people certainly do want to go from Lower Sydenham to Lewisham Hospital and Lewisham town centre without going via Hither Green, therefore the 199 will provide a useful new link.........yes? You reckon the 181 will become unreliable if extended to Brixton via Tulse Hill.........why exactly? Do you really not think people might want to go to places like West Dulwich, Tulse Hill and Brixton from Lower Sydenham? Easy journies by car but a nightmare by bus. So your considered opinion is that no route should change in Lower Sydenham apart from extending the 432 there? What purpose would that serve? The 202 and 450 are sufficient between there and Crystal Palace although the 202 should be upgraded to double deckers Either way, your plan still doesn't make sense and still will not work. Why extend the 181 to Tulse Hill and take it away from where it is needed ie. Downham and Grove Park. If you want a link between Lewisham and Tulse Hill, then a new route should be made or maybe just take the P4 and change at Herne Hill or Brixton. 180 does not need an extension because its already long as it is hence why 225 was extended to Hither Green to help out the 181, so why should 180 go there? Also, why should 199 go to Lower Sydenham, I think the route may be short, but its fine as it is and it doesn't need to go through anymore traffic other than Greenwich and Deptford. You think you can just make all these routes go to all these places for free, it involves a lot of process and costing so I think it's best if you think again about your idea because that definitely will ruin transport links in Lewisham and Catford. For goodness sake..............the 181 would still go to Downham and Grove Park!!!! You obviously can't be bothered to read things properly so further discussion is pointless. |
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Sept 2, 2013 10:18:01 GMT
Look at all this and then I get blamed for "Attitude problems". But anyway, I've got to say, extending 180 and 199 is definitely not a good idea. (1) 180 is long as it is and I don't think it needs an extension. (2) 199 shouldn't be extended to Lower Sydenham either because I don't know about others, but I myself don't see anyone wanting a link between somewhere like Greenwich to Lower Sydenham when you've got two routes to get there from Lewisham & Catford ie. 181 and 202. I personally don't think any changes should be made at LS but if 432 was extended there, that would be good seeing as its a short route and it can help out the 450 aswell. And 181 from Lewisham to Tulse Hill, I think you suggested, would definitely be unreliable because it's already had an extension to Grove Park and withdrawing it from there to somewhere else would cost loads and will need a higher PVR and if the route isn't used well for that extension, it would be a very huge loss for Metrobus (the company). Lastly, have you ever been to Lewisham because I really think you should check out the 181, its always overcrowded and its definitely not pointless as it is a link for lots of people between Lewisham, Sandhurst Road and Catford. I don't know whether you are being deliberately obtuse here or what but I'll try and explain things just one more time. Firstly, of course I have been to Lewisham and on quite a regualr basis. I am therefore well aware of how the 181 gets overcrowded which is why I suggested replacing the Hither Green Green/Catford bit with the 180. Replacing over crowded single deckers with double deckers, does that make sense to you? If you were saying the 21 or 436 were long as it is I'd probably agree, but the 180 goes from Lewisham to Belvedere, an extension of less than 20mins to Catford via Hither Green is hardly going to destroy the route is it? You say the 199 shouldn't go to Lower Sydenham because you reckon nobody wants to go from there to Greenwich, really??? Anyway people certainly do want to go from Lower Sydenham to Lewisham Hospital and Lewisham town centre without going via Hither Green, therefore the 199 will provide a useful new link.........yes? You reckon the 181 will become unreliable if extended to Brixton via Tulse Hill.........why exactly? Do you really not think people might want to go to places like West Dulwich, Tulse Hill and Brixton from Lower Sydenham? Easy journies by car but a nightmare by bus. So your considered opinion is that no route should change in Lower Sydenham apart from extending the 432 there? What purpose would that serve? The 202 and 450 are sufficient between there and Crystal Palace although the 202 should be upgraded to double deckers If you are a regular user of the 181 then you would know how much it is an important link. It has already been stated the 180 suffers from Traffic on Greenwich High Road, plus to add Hither Green only has space to stand 2 buses and the 225 is prefect for that point, The 199 I have already stated should not go to Lower Sydenham due to the many traffic hot spots, it would cost more to run due to traffic on Perry Hill. If people want Lewisham Hosptial from Lower Sydenham then they are just going to Have to Interchange or walk part way who cares. Why add a route the 199 to the scene to deal with traffic on Catford Hill daily. The 181 would actually be worse than Catford Hill if it Went to Tulse Hill there is always traffic on Dulwich Common that delays the P4 & P13. "Do you really not think people might want to go to places like West Dulwich, Tulse Hill and Brixton from Lower Sydenham? Easy journies by car but a nightmare by bus." Lol Who cares they can get a 202 to Crystal Palace and 432 to Tulse Hill, that's what I would do an tbh. |
|
|
|
Post by I-Azusio-I on Sept 2, 2013 10:23:16 GMT
Either way, your plan still doesn't make sense and still will not work. Why extend the 181 to Tulse Hill and take it away from where it is needed ie. Downham and Grove Park. If you want a link between Lewisham and Tulse Hill, then a new route should be made or maybe just take the P4 and change at Herne Hill or Brixton. 180 does not need an extension because its already long as it is hence why 225 was extended to Hither Green to help out the 181, so why should 180 go there? Also, why should 199 go to Lower Sydenham, I think the route may be short, but its fine as it is and it doesn't need to go through anymore traffic other than Greenwich and Deptford. You think you can just make all these routes go to all these places for free, it involves a lot of process and costing so I think it's best if you think again about your idea because that definitely will ruin transport links in Lewisham and Catford. For goodness sake..............the 181 would still go to Downham and Grove Park!!!! You obviously can't be bothered to read things properly so further discussion is pointless. I am reading things properly but your plan is awful and pointless. Youv'e just stated "181 can still go to Downham, Grove Park" so your telling me that your 181 will go to: Lewisham, Hither Green, Catford, Lower Sydenham, Downham, Grove Park, *Back round again*, Lower Sydenham then Tulse Hill. Your plans are not making any sense. Don't think TFL will be considering that. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2013 10:58:05 GMT
I don't know whether you are being deliberately obtuse here or what but I'll try and explain things just one more time. Firstly, of course I have been to Lewisham and on quite a regualr basis. I am therefore well aware of how the 181 gets overcrowded which is why I suggested replacing the Hither Green Green/Catford bit with the 180. Replacing over crowded single deckers with double deckers, does that make sense to you? If you were saying the 21 or 436 were long as it is I'd probably agree, but the 180 goes from Lewisham to Belvedere, an extension of less than 20mins to Catford via Hither Green is hardly going to destroy the route is it? You say the 199 shouldn't go to Lower Sydenham because you reckon nobody wants to go from there to Greenwich, really??? Anyway people certainly do want to go from Lower Sydenham to Lewisham Hospital and Lewisham town centre without going via Hither Green, therefore the 199 will provide a useful new link.........yes? You reckon the 181 will become unreliable if extended to Brixton via Tulse Hill.........why exactly? Do you really not think people might want to go to places like West Dulwich, Tulse Hill and Brixton from Lower Sydenham? Easy journies by car but a nightmare by bus. So your considered opinion is that no route should change in Lower Sydenham apart from extending the 432 there? What purpose would that serve? The 202 and 450 are sufficient between there and Crystal Palace although the 202 should be upgraded to double deckers If you are a regular user of the 181 then you would know how much it is an important link. It has already been stated the 180 suffers from Traffic on Greenwich High Road, plus to add Hither Green only has space to stand 2 buses and the 225 is prefect for that point, The 199 I have already stated should not go to Lower Sydenham due to the many traffic hot spots, it would cost more to run due to traffic on Perry Hill. If people want Lewisham Hosptial from Lower Sydenham then they are just going to Have to Interchange or walk part way who cares. Why add a route the 199 to the scene to deal with traffic on Catford Hill daily. The 181 would actually be worse than Catford Hill if it Went to Tulse Hill there is always traffic on Dulwich Common that delays the P4 & P13. "Do you really not think people might want to go to places like West Dulwich, Tulse Hill and Brixton from Lower Sydenham? Easy journies by car but a nightmare by bus." Lol Who cares they can get a 202 to Crystal Palace and 432 to Tulse Hill, that's what I would do an tbh. And why would extra stand space be needed at Hither Green? |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Sept 2, 2013 10:59:23 GMT
To be fair to 'antman', we do need a few more east to west links in South London though whether the 181 is the right route to modify to this thinking, I don't know.
'Metrobus' - Dulwich Common isn't always traffic filled but can be at certain times.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2013 11:02:16 GMT
To be fair to 'antman', we do need a few more east to west links in South London though whether the 181 is the right route to modify to this thinking, I don't know. 'Metrobus' - Dulwich Common isn't always traffic filled but can be at certain times. Exactly, and if areas are full of traffic it is often because public transport links are poor or non existant |
|
