|
Post by LK65EBO on Apr 8, 2020 16:37:41 GMT
Extend the 116 from Hounslow to Acton
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Apr 8, 2020 16:43:39 GMT
Do any routes terminate in Q? Iv wondered before if the 148 was awarded to either Q of WL would the stand change?
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Apr 8, 2020 16:53:38 GMT
Do any routes terminate in Q? Iv wondered before if the 148 was awarded to either Q of WL would the stand change? I wouldn't think so, it's no right turn at the lights so buses would still have to go via Orphous Street and there is the stop opposite the shopping centre to serve on the return journey.
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Apr 8, 2020 17:02:57 GMT
Extend the 116 from Hounslow to Acton What route do you propose it takes?
|
|
|
Post by beaver14uk on Apr 8, 2020 17:14:42 GMT
The 180 change has not been dropped. uote author=" route53" source="/post/562412/thread" timestamp="1586357252"]So hopefully the proposed 180 changes have been quietly dropped since there’s been nothing on that for a while, but if not I have a few ideas: - As a compromise if there had to be a link between Erith & North Greenwich then this should be called the 480, it would replace the 180 east of Plumstead and also the 161 between Woolwich and NG,, it would add extra capacity between Woolwich and East Greenwich aiding the 177 & 180 routes. - The 180 will be cut back to Plumstead and keep its Lewisham terminal. - 129 extended to Camberwell aiding the 177. - 161 cut back to Woolwich as a CrossRail feeder, perhaps even extended to Bromley.[/quote]
|
|
|
Post by route53 on Apr 8, 2020 17:18:18 GMT
The 480 is quite a good idea. Shortening the 161 (the 132 is now the NG to Eltham link) and creating the new Erith link. I thou would possibly look at the 129 being extended to Catford Garage and replacing the 199 and diverting the 47 via Pepys Estate. The 47 would maintain a TL to Canada water/Deptford link and the 129 a Greenwich link. With all that goes on at the 02 a new link to Lewisham Hospital and Catford may be popular. Alterbtaively divert the 199 to North Greenwich and send the 129 to Erith via the 161 and 180. The 480 idea is think is a fair compromise, it will give Erith an additional link to CrossRail at Abbey Wood, plus North Greenwich and everything around there. It would also keep the 180 on the busy Woolwich-Greenwich-Lewisham corridor which shouldn’t be broken. I’m on two minds about the 129, on the one hand I feel it could be extended to Catford and even further to Forest Hill and great new links between different parts of South London, on the other hand the 129 works perfectly as a local Greenwich town route, it’s similar to the 291 in Woolwich, in so much that it serves a localised purpose in linking Greenwich town with the Millennium Park and North Greenwich.
|
|
|
Post by route53 on Apr 8, 2020 17:20:49 GMT
The 180 change has not been dropped. uote author=" route53" source="/post/562412/thread" timestamp="1586357252"]So hopefully the proposed 180 changes have been quietly dropped since there’s been nothing on that for a while, but if not I have a few ideas: - As a compromise if there had to be a link between Erith & North Greenwich then this should be called the 480, it would replace the 180 east of Plumstead and also the 161 between Woolwich and NG,, it would add extra capacity between Woolwich and East Greenwich aiding the 177 & 180 routes. - The 180 will be cut back to Plumstead and keep its Lewisham terminal. - 129 extended to Camberwell aiding the 177. - 161 cut back to Woolwich as a CrossRail feeder, perhaps even extended to Bromley. [/quote] Shame because it’s a silly change, its twenty years too late for a Erith to NG link, especially with CrossRail at Abbey Wood soon, the majority of Erith residents won’t be tracing across two boroughs to the Jubilee line when CrossRail is on their doorsteps, though a hypothetical 480 would serve many purposes
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Apr 8, 2020 17:54:03 GMT
Do any routes terminate in Q? Iv wondered before if the 148 was awarded to either Q of WL would the stand change? The 484 was the last route to stand in Q - currently it stands in WL
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Apr 8, 2020 19:23:59 GMT
I don't like how routes are tampered to serve Crossrail? Why is the government assuming this will be our main way of transportation? What about the people who have now got to change buses because of the changes to their local routes? Very silly. Tfl need to think differently.
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Apr 8, 2020 19:26:55 GMT
I don't like how routes are tampered to serve Crossrail? Why is the government assuming this will be our main way of transportation? What about the people who have now got to change buses because of the changes to their local routes? Very silly. Tfl need to think differently. What do you think TfL should do differently?
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Apr 8, 2020 19:35:58 GMT
I don't like how routes are tampered to serve Crossrail? Why is the government assuming this will be our main way of transportation? What about the people who have now got to change buses because of the changes to their local routes? Very silly. Tfl need to think differently. What do you think TfL should do differently? Well Crossrail is a big project. But changes being made are not at all needed yet. How do TFL know how crossrail would be used? We don't know how Crossrail is going to run physically, we don't have Stats and sh*t but how do we really know? These changes should've been made after crossrail has not part or semi, but fully released with data to back it up. We can't tamper every route to serve a Crossrail station. Because we may be connecting local communities, but people will still take the bus. I'll give an example - the 25. Ever since the cut to City Thameslink, massive PVR decrease and 425 extension, the route had significantly dropped in usage. I thought the aim was try to get people on public transport? Not direct people away. It's disappointing.
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Apr 8, 2020 19:45:13 GMT
What do you think TfL should do differently? Well Crossrail is a big project. But changes being made are not at all needed yet. How do TFL know how crossrail would be used? We don't know how Crossrail is going to run physically, we don't have Stats and sh*t but how do we really know? These changes should've been made after crossrail has not part or semi, but fully released with data to back it up. We can't tamper every route to serve a Crossrail station. Because we may be connecting local communities, but people will still take the bus. I'll give an example - the 25. Ever since the cut to City Thameslink, massive PVR decrease and 425 extension, the route had significantly dropped in usage. I thought the aim was try to get people on public transport? Not direct people away. It's disappointing. Well the 25 should have been kept at least as far as Tottenham Court Road until Crossrail opens. It shouldn't have been cut back just so to provide buses for the 452 but it was inevitable that it would be cut when Crossrail eventually opens.
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Apr 8, 2020 20:17:12 GMT
Well Crossrail is a big project. But changes being made are not at all needed yet. How do TFL know how crossrail would be used? We don't know how Crossrail is going to run physically, we don't have Stats and sh*t but how do we really know? These changes should've been made after crossrail has not part or semi, but fully released with data to back it up. We can't tamper every route to serve a Crossrail station. Because we may be connecting local communities, but people will still take the bus. I'll give an example - the 25. Ever since the cut to City Thameslink, massive PVR decrease and 425 extension, the route had significantly dropped in usage. I thought the aim was try to get people on public transport? Not direct people away. It's disappointing. Well the 25 should have been kept at least as far as Tottenham Court Road until Crossrail opens. It shouldn't have been cut back just so to provide buses for the 452 but it was inevitable that it would be cut when Crossrail eventually opens. It would not have been inevitable - TFL could use their stats to mark up what an appropriate cutting would be. Tfl could've run the 25 as far as Holborn with the N25 running to Oxford Circus.
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Apr 8, 2020 20:19:10 GMT
Well the 25 should have been kept at least as far as Tottenham Court Road until Crossrail opens. It shouldn't have been cut back just so to provide buses for the 452 but it was inevitable that it would be cut when Crossrail eventually opens. It would not have been inevitable - TFL could use their stats to mark up what an appropriate cutting would be. Tfl could've run the 25 as far as Holborn with the N25 running to Oxford Circus. Yes Holborn Station would have been better.
|
|
|
Post by route53 on Apr 8, 2020 21:03:17 GMT
I don't like how routes are tampered to serve Crossrail? Why is the government assuming this will be our main way of transportation? What about the people who have now got to change buses because of the changes to their local routes? Very silly. Tfl need to think differently. I can’t help but agree with you. A similar situation has happened with the 53, which was needlessly cut back to Waterloo pretty much, CrossRail will only effect Woolwich and Plumstead but because of this TfL decided to cut the the 53 meaning Charlton & Blackheath loose their West End link, not everyone will use CrossRail
|
|