|
|
Post by DT 11 on Sept 2, 2013 11:08:17 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 I agree with vjaksa regarding more South East to South West Links but modifying the 181 is not the way forward as that is an important link. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2013 11:14:18 GMT
Exactly, and if areas are full of traffic it is often because public transport links are poor or non existant I agree with vjaksa regarding more South East to South West Links but modifying the 181 is not the way forward as that is an important link. Well I look forward to you coming up with a better idea |
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Sept 2, 2013 11:16:41 GMT
I agree with vjaksa regarding more South East to South West Links but modifying the 181 is not the way forward as that is an important link. Well I look forward to you coming up with a better idea Lol, create a new route. Leave well established important links alone otherwise. People don't like change unless it is something new. That's my idea. |
|
|
|
Post by I-Azusio-I on Sept 2, 2013 11:18:18 GMT
Well I look forward to you coming up with a better idea Lol, create a new route. Leave well established important links alone otherwise. People don't like change unless it is something new. That's my idea. That's a better idea. I also recommended that as a new route from Lewisham to Tulse Hill to make his idea better. |
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Sept 2, 2013 11:30:47 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 That is not true actually, places are traffic clogged because there are too many vehicles on the road on a daily basis regardless of the amount of Public Transport links. |
|
|
|
Post by Connor on Sept 2, 2013 12:01:32 GMT
Well I look forward to you coming up with a better idea Lol, create a new route. Leave well established important links alone otherwise. People don't like change unless it is something new. That's my idea. I'd like to find out more about this route. i.e. What areas would it serve?/what would it be operated with?.... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2013 13:03:23 GMT
Nothing to do with Lower Sydenham, but a route I have suggested here before, would create a link between Tulse Hill and Lewisham.
From Streatham Station it would follow the High Road, Streatham Hill, and Christchurch Road to Tulse Hill. Then Norwood Road to Herne Hill, before heading to East Dulwich via Half Moon Lane. Keep following along East Dulwich Road all the way along to Nunhead. From Evelina Road turn into Gellatly Road to Brockley station, turn south down Brockley Road to Wickham Road to get to Lewisham Way, then turn south and follow it into Lewisham.
The purpose of this was in response to the poor east-west links through Streatham and to provide a trunk equivalent of the 57 into south east London. Lewisham is both a major local centre, like Kingston, and would providing a lot of connections deeper into south east London on other routes and by rail, as well as for the DLR. It also provides a better service between Streatham and Tulse Hill which is served by two separate low frequency routes that use local streets between them. There is also no significant overlap with other routes. The only major stretch being with the 37 between Herne Hill and East Dulwich, but that is only with one other route and offers new links along it at both ends. The low Bridge on Thurlow Park was why it would use Norwood Road even though it is well served.
At the time I came up with it I was travelling into south London semi-regularly, but to get between Lewisham and Streatham I was having to use the 417 and change at Crystal Palace for the 122 to then change to another route to where ever I was going.
Despite the SW-SE postcode boundary separating Streatham from West Norwood, the links into south east London are awful with just the windy and infrequent P13 to New Cross. Otherwise the only other services are just to Herne Hill or Crystal Palace, which is almost a border town with buses both east (Orpington, Blackheath, Plumstead) and west (Clapham, Morden, the West End) yet the only one crossing between them is the 450. It is not even as though there are alternative by train, other than changing at Herne Hill for the Victoria to Orpington via Bromley line anywhere else in south eat London means having to go via London Bridge.
|
|
|
|
Post by RM5chris on Sept 3, 2013 16:52:54 GMT
MOD MSG - Can we just calm down a little please - this thread is being watched.
We welcome debate however things can sometimes get heated when it covers routes/vehicles that you may know well and/or use regularly. I would ask you to think about what you post - if things start to get out of hand then edits will be made.
BACK TO TOPIC
|
|
|
|
Post by overgroundcommuter on Sept 3, 2013 17:58:34 GMT
Going back to the earlier suggestion of axing the 356 with diverting it using the 181 towards Tulse Hill, it doesn't take into consideration the useful connection in Upper Sydenham which connects that area to Forest Hill as it has no other direct bus. Until they had the 352 then the 356, those who couldn't walk to FH were expected to get the 363 to Lordship Lane, then cross a busy main road for the routes into FH or get the 202 to Kirkdale then change for the 122, 197 or 176.
Single decker routes such as the 356 and the P13 are not designed to be ridden along the whole route, but offer useful connections to largely residential areas without trunk routes as is the case with the 356 between Upper Sydenham and Forest Hill, FH to Lower Sydenham, Penge to Elmers End Tesco and so on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2013 21:03:48 GMT
I did clearly state that the Sydenham Hill bit of the 356 would be replaced by an extension of the 354.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2013 22:42:29 GMT
Going back to the earlier suggestion of axing the 356 with diverting it using the 181 towards Tulse Hill, it doesn't take into consideration the useful connection in Upper Sydenham which connects that area to Forest Hill as it has no other direct bus. Until they had the 352 then the 356, those who couldn't walk to FH were expected to get the 363 to Lordship Lane, then cross a busy main road for the routes into FH or get the 202 to Kirkdale then change for the 122, 197 or 176. Single decker routes such as the 356 and the P13 are not designed to be ridden along the whole route, but offer useful connections to largely residential areas without trunk routes as is the case with the 356 between Upper Sydenham and Forest Hill, FH to Lower Sydenham, Penge to Elmers End Tesco and so on. I agree - not all links need to be provided by trunk routes serving various destinations. I think there's a lot of value to smaller routes providing local "round the corner" links and I'd suggest the 181 is a route fitting into this role. In fact, as was suggested further up this thread in relation to the Surrey Canal Road route, combining these two types of route can either end up with major destinations under bussed or local links overbussed. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2013 23:13:25 GMT
But we have already established that the 181 suffers overcrowding at the Lewisham end so surely double deckers are the better option?
|
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Sept 4, 2013 6:30:35 GMT
But we have already established that the 181 suffers overcrowding at the Lewisham end so surely double deckers are the better option? That is not the point plus the solution to everything is not double deckers as they cost more to run. The 181 cannot take double deckers past Lower Sydenham. A very valid point has been made that "Not all links need to be provided by trunk routes". The overcrowding on the 181 in Lewishan is not a major issue and does not require double deckers at all, but a simple timetable change between the 181 & 225. Retiming the 225s to arrive before the 181, this will allow all the people who want Hither Green Lane the 225 would also be better off running every 12 minutes to match the 181 frequency. The passengers who use the 181/225 the majority get off at Hither Green lane and by the time the 181 bus arrives at Sandhurst Road the bus carries a fair load of people up to Bellingham. Route 284 suffers more overcrowding than the 181 it to cannot take double deckers. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2013 6:48:20 GMT
The Lewisham to Catford via Hither Green section of the 181 accomodate double deckers. A timetable change is not going to solve overcrowding, more capacity is needed.
Who wants to go from the Hither Green area to Bellingham via Lower Sydenham? It would be far quicker to change at Catford to a 136 208 or 320.
|
|
|
|
Post by I-Azusio-I on Sept 4, 2013 11:31:30 GMT
The Lewisham to Catford via Hither Green section of the 181 accomodate double deckers. A timetable change is not going to solve overcrowding, more capacity is needed. Who wants to go from the Hither Green area to Bellingham via Lower Sydenham? It would be far quicker to change at Catford to a 136 208 or 320. There are people who go to school from Hither Green to Lower Sydenham or Bellingham who take the 181 and people who go to Lower Sydenham Sainsbury's. |
|
