|
Post by vjaska on Jun 3, 2014 17:32:54 GMT
Finally, the wait is over consultations.tfl.gov.uk/buses/bus-service-proposal-routes-130-312-spring-lane/consult_viewWhy We Are Consulting We have developed proposals for routes 130 and 312. When Spring Lane Bridge reopens to buses later this summer, we are proposing that route 130 is extended to serve Thornton Heath Clock Tower. At the same time routes 130 and 312 will revert to using Spring Lane as they did before closure to buses in 2010. We would like to hear your views. Route 130 Extension We are proposing to extend route 130 from Norwood Junction to Thornton Heath via Selhurst Road, Park Road, Whitehorse Lane, Thornton Heath High Street and Parchmore Road. This would create new links to and from Thornton Heath for Woodside and New Addington. Route 130 and 312 – Spring Lane In April 2010 Spring Lane Bridge in Woodside was closed to buses due to the introduction of a weight limit. As a consequence we diverted route 130 via Lower Addiscombe Road, Morland Road and Woodside Green. Route 312 was diverted via Morland Road and Woodside Green. Works to strengthen the bridge are now underway and will be complete during the summer 2014. As the buses have been on diversion for over three years we have looked at usage over the diverted routes. While some new links have been established, overall, more passengers will benefit from the restoration of the original alignment particularly as they will have faster journeys on route 130. Route 197 continues to serve Morland Road and Woodside Green, running every 12 minutes most times and every 20 minutes during the evenings and Sundays. We are therefore planning to return both routes 130 and 312 to their original routeings via Spring Lane.
|
|
|
Post by routew15 on Jun 3, 2014 18:15:06 GMT
It will be interesting to see precisely where the 130 terminates along Parchmore Road.
Id be quite surprised to see the 130 extension and diversion not go ahead.
(Hoping the W11 and W15 get a similar consultation on their routing once works on Palmerston road Bridge is completed)
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 3, 2014 18:53:36 GMT
It will be interesting to see precisely where the 130 terminates along Parchmore Road. Id be quite surprised to see the 130 extension and diversion not go ahead. (Hoping the W11 and W15 get a similar consultation on their routing once works on Palmerston road Bridge is completed) There's been a vacant stand at Thornton Heath Clock Tower for years since the 250 replaced the 159 along Green Lane & Parchmore Road.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jun 3, 2014 19:30:52 GMT
It will be interesting to see precisely where the 130 terminates along Parchmore Road. Id be quite surprised to see the 130 extension and diversion not go ahead. (Hoping the W11 and W15 get a similar consultation on their routing once works on Palmerston road Bridge is completed) I expect TfL will proceed with the 130. The money must be in the budget or else they would never have bothered to go to consultation. They'd simply have dropped the 130 extension proposal and consulted on putting the 130 and 312 back to the original routes. TfL had better consult on the W11 / W15 or else I'll be asking why not. I am worried though that I am going to lose the diverted W11 as TfL's preference will be to put everything back as it was. I fully expect the W15 to be removed from Blackhorse Road as that routing has required an extra bus and TfL will want to lose that cost. The problem though, as I've said before, is that I suspect the W15's diversion has proved popular as it links three rail services together with the Higham Hill area and Forest Rd although journey times are longer for those who want Higham Hill - Walthamstow Central (or beyond). Unfortunately TfL are not good at advertising consultations to the travelling public so response levels are low.
|
|
|
Post by paulsw2 on Jun 3, 2014 20:54:30 GMT
It will be interesting to see precisely where the 130 terminates along Parchmore Road. Id be quite surprised to see the 130 extension and diversion not go ahead. (Hoping the W11 and W15 get a similar consultation on their routing once works on Palmerston road Bridge is completed) There's been a vacant stand at Thornton Heath Clock Tower for years since the 250 replaced the 159 along Green Lane & Parchmore Road. There is also the "2 way roundabout" Beulah Crescent on the 450 just up the road from Parchmore road that used to be a curtailment point when the 450 was first introduced to run to Crystal Palace.
|
|
|
Post by Steve80 on Jun 4, 2014 4:02:19 GMT
I get the impression that some of the passengers along Morland road are still benefitting from the extra buses along the route.
Its definitely for the best that the routes were diverted back along Spring Lane despite the established links as mention by TFL.
I do wonder if its really necessary for the 130 to divert back to Spring Lane. And if they do extend the 130 to Thornton Heath then I would really hope that tfl would look at the traffic signals at the Selhurst Road/Tennison Road junction where the Crystal Palace Football Stadium is and put some filter signals in.
And speaking of Tennison Road, the bridge there is also to be closed for works sometime this month. The traffic was very bad along South Norwood High Street when it was closed earlier this year. This time, the road will be closed for about 9 months
|
|
|
Post by ilovelondonbuses on Jun 4, 2014 7:38:24 GMT
This is great news to hear. Finally, the 130 extension is happening. Thornton Heath needs this. It would easier for me just to walk 10 minutes to get this route from Thornton Heath to Norwood Junction than having go all the way into Central Croydon to get the low frequency route 75 or route 410 which go on longer routes to Norwood Junction. This better happen. I'm hoping they will start the extension for September just in time for the new academic year. Also thinking Metrobus are very supportive of this extension as it makes it easier for light running from Thornton Heath which just under a mile away from C.
On Route 312, exciting times ahead for the route. It is finally getting its purpose back by getting its old route (post 2005-06) back. Also, with electric buses due to come onto the route. Definitely, a route I will ride for its diversion back its original route in the summer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2014 8:01:31 GMT
This is great news to hear. Finally, the 130 extension is happening. Thornton Heath needs this. It would easier for me just to walk 10 minutes to get this route from Thornton Heath to Norwood Junction than having go all the way into Central Croydon to get the low frequency route 75 or route 410 which go on longer routes to Norwood Junction. This better happen. I'm hoping they will start the extension for September just in time for the new academic year. Also thinking Metrobus are very supportive of this extension as it makes it easier for light running from Thornton Heath which just under a mile away from C. On Route 312, exciting times ahead for the route. It is finally getting its purpose back by getting its old route (post 2005-06) back. Also, with electric buses due to come onto the route. Definitely, a route I will ride for its diversion back its original route in the summer. Don't know by what standard the 75 and 410 are "low frequency" - the 75 runs on a 13-min headway and the 410 on an 8-min headway!
|
|
|
Post by ilovelondonbuses on Jun 4, 2014 9:11:02 GMT
This is great news to hear. Finally, the 130 extension is happening. Thornton Heath needs this. It would easier for me just to walk 10 minutes to get this route from Thornton Heath to Norwood Junction than having go all the way into Central Croydon to get the low frequency route 75 or route 410 which go on longer routes to Norwood Junction. This better happen. I'm hoping they will start the extension for September just in time for the new academic year. Also thinking Metrobus are very supportive of this extension as it makes it easier for light running from Thornton Heath which just under a mile away from C. On Route 312, exciting times ahead for the route. It is finally getting its purpose back by getting its old route (post 2005-06) back. Also, with electric buses due to come onto the route. Definitely, a route I will ride for its diversion back its original route in the summer. Don't know by what standard the 75 and 410 are "low frequency" - the 75 runs on a 13-min headway and the 410 on an 8-min headway! I did not say 410 was low frequency but did say route 75 is in comparison to my local route (route 109) I'm used a bus coming every few mins. Don't judge me .
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jun 4, 2014 13:10:49 GMT
Sure;y it's a no brainer that the 130 and 312 should return to the original route via Spring Lane?
Morland Rd and Woodside Grn have been ridiculously overbussed during the diversion.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 4, 2014 14:28:43 GMT
Sure;y it's a no brainer that the 130 and 312 should return to the original route via Spring Lane? Morland Rd and Woodside Grn have been ridiculously overbussed during the diversion. The 197 is extremely busy during school times & the peaks - when I was at Croydon College between 2005-2008, I used to wait specifically for the 312 as you could not get on the 197 at Norwood Junction so there is some merit to having a second bus service along that stretch.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 4, 2014 14:35:50 GMT
As I've not given my thoughts on the proposal in this topic, here it is:
I'm in favour of the extension as it provides a good link between Thornton Heath & Norwood Junction/Woodside/Shirley/Addington & New Addington but not via the routing that's been proposed. Personally, I'd of preferred it to run via South Norwood Hill & Whitehorse Lane rather than via Park Road as part of Park Road is closed on match days and the surrounding roads get extremely busy. High Street in Norwood Junction is another traffic filled road even at the best of times and the lights further up with Park Road are quite bothersome in reference to the signal phases. So while my preferred routing misses out on the high street, it could still serve the station by diverting off Portland Road via the 197 & 312 to serve the back of it. The High Street is about a five minute walk from this point.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jun 4, 2014 17:09:40 GMT
As I've not given my thoughts on the proposal in this topic, here it is: I'm in favour of the extension as it provides a good link between Thornton Heath & Norwood Junction/Woodside/Shirley/Addington & New Addington but not via the routing that's been proposed. Personally, I'd of preferred it to run via South Norwood Hill & Whitehorse Lane rather than via Park Road as part of Park Road is closed on match days and the surrounding roads get extremely busy. High Street in Norwood Junction is another traffic filled road even at the best of times and the lights further up with Park Road are quite bothersome in reference to the signal phases. So while my preferred routing misses out on the high street, it could still serve the station by diverting off Portland Road via the 197 & 312 to serve the back of it. The High Street is about a five minute walk from this point. I'm not overly familiar with the area but it's a shame that there isn't the cash to extend the 130 through to Thornton Heath Pond. That would give a nice range of connections to various north - south routes plus the 289. It would cost an extra bus to run on through but it would create coherent links in an area where you need to change buses once or twice just to go down the road. It must be dreadful earlies, evenings and on Sundays trying to get from Norwood Junction to Thornton Heath.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 4, 2014 17:34:33 GMT
As I've not given my thoughts on the proposal in this topic, here it is: I'm in favour of the extension as it provides a good link between Thornton Heath & Norwood Junction/Woodside/Shirley/Addington & New Addington but not via the routing that's been proposed. Personally, I'd of preferred it to run via South Norwood Hill & Whitehorse Lane rather than via Park Road as part of Park Road is closed on match days and the surrounding roads get extremely busy. High Street in Norwood Junction is another traffic filled road even at the best of times and the lights further up with Park Road are quite bothersome in reference to the signal phases. So while my preferred routing misses out on the high street, it could still serve the station by diverting off Portland Road via the 197 & 312 to serve the back of it. The High Street is about a five minute walk from this point. I'm not overly familiar with the area but it's a shame that there isn't the cash to extend the 130 through to Thornton Heath Pond. That would give a nice range of connections to various north - south routes plus the 289. It would cost an extra bus to run on through but it would create coherent links in an area where you need to change buses once or twice just to go down the road. It must be dreadful earlies, evenings and on Sundays trying to get from Norwood Junction to Thornton Heath. Indeed, your suggestion about extending through to Thornton Heath Pond has been suggested by myself & others in the past, would also help the 250 along Brigstock Road in the peaks.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jun 4, 2014 17:55:39 GMT
I'm not overly familiar with the area but it's a shame that there isn't the cash to extend the 130 through to Thornton Heath Pond. That would give a nice range of connections to various north - south routes plus the 289. It would cost an extra bus to run on through but it would create coherent links in an area where you need to change buses once or twice just to go down the road. It must be dreadful earlies, evenings and on Sundays trying to get from Norwood Junction to Thornton Heath. Indeed, your suggestion about extending through to Thornton Heath Pond has been suggested by myself & others in the past, would also help the 250 along Brigstock Road in the peaks. I have submitted a response to the consultation asking for it run to the Pond with liberal mentions of "better orbital links" and "aligns with the comments from the London Assembly Transport Committee" - well one has to try!!
|
|