|
|
Post by routew15 on Oct 5, 2015 11:46:06 GMT
The third Silvertown Tunnel Consultation has launched. And once again the consultation is not just about cars and lorries. More light has been shed on, more than just the bus links that will be made, the existing and new routes that could make the links. Existing routes extended (via Silvertown Tunnel):• 129 - Greenwich, Cutty Sark via North Greenwich to Beckton• 309 - Bethnal Green, Chest Hospital via Canning Town to North GreenwichAttachment Deleted Source: TfL (Full un-rotated version)New routes introduced (via Silvertown Tunnel):• Grove Park via Charlton and East India to Canary Wharf• Eltham via Kidbrooke, North Greenwich, London City Airport to Beckton• 104A via Upton Park, Beckton, Royal Docks to North GreenwichIt very interesting to see TfL putting 104A, after abolishing suffixes, and not 304 which is an available number. Some of the links are good. I think the route from Eltham to Beckton should serve Gallions Reach Shopping Park instead due to the demand I've observed from passengers going from the 474 to the GRSP routes. I also think there should be another route that serves the Blackwall Tunnel alongside the 108. |
|
|
|
Post by routew15 on Oct 5, 2015 12:00:35 GMT
Also the ever elusive Bus priority measures will be developed closer to the opening of the Silvertown Tunnel (not the Blackwall Tunnel). There's no indication of what these measures will be, whether that's Bus Lanes, Bus Gates, Busways, Virtual bus lanes, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul on Oct 5, 2015 12:45:51 GMT
Might look closer later on but my immediate reaction is to the Grove Park proposal. Terminating a service from that direction is a little awkward not to mention the fact that there probably isn't space at the Bus Station stand. I would have thought an extension 10 minutes down the road to Bromley would be very beneficial
|
|
|
|
Post by routew15 on Oct 5, 2015 13:50:36 GMT
Might look closer later on but my immediate reaction is to the Grove Park proposal. Terminating a service from that direction is a little awkward not to mention the fact that there probably isn't space at the Bus Station stand. I would have thought an extension 10 minutes down the road to Bromley would be very beneficial I agree, to Bromley would make more sense. I think the curve off to Charlton should be scrapped and the route should be made more direct in order to achieve a faster service to Bromley. The Charlton part could be supplemented by an extension of the 330 (which I'm slightly surprised has avoided mentioning). I do wonder if Oyster Data has been used to determine where links could be made or if they are just trying to patch up other problems in the network with new and existing routes? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2015 14:26:54 GMT
Might look closer later on but my immediate reaction is to the Grove Park proposal. Terminating a service from that direction is a little awkward not to mention the fact that there probably isn't space at the Bus Station stand. I would have thought an extension 10 minutes down the road to Bromley would be very beneficial I agree, to Bromley would make more sense. I think the curve off to Charlton should be scrapped and the route should be made more direct in order to achieve a faster service to Bromley. The Charlton part could be supplemented by an extension of the 330 (which I'm slightly surprised has avoided mentioning). I do wonder if Oyster Data has been used to determine where links could be made or if they are just trying to patch up other problems in the network with new and existing routes? The 330 looks like a good option. The Charlton part seems a little off-route when fast cross river links should be encouraged. With an extension of another route to deal with the Charlton section, I'd propose extending the Canary Wharf - Grove Park route even further than Bromley to Beckenham. It seems it may benefit more. I ditto Paul's comment regarding Grove Park being a strange terminus? I'm surprised more routes weren't extended to major south-east centres like Bexleyheath, Woolwich, etc, bar the proposed Eltham route. I think Bexleyheath - Beckton could be a better (if longer) route, though I fear a heavy duplication of the 132. Maybe, a 132A. I know there is probably a better number. I know with other cross tunnels planned Beckton to Thamesmead would probably happen and I suppose that would cover Erith, Belvedere, Woolwich etc. I think maybe some a short route like Woolwich - North Woolwich duplicating the ferry would work? Anyway, it seems very early days but the only proposal I really like is the 309. I'd be benefiting from 2 cross river bus route, Grove Park and Eltham ones so it's interesting to see how they develop |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Oct 5, 2015 14:35:28 GMT
Might look closer later on but my immediate reaction is to the Grove Park proposal. Terminating a service from that direction is a little awkward not to mention the fact that there probably isn't space at the Bus Station stand. I would have thought an extension 10 minutes down the road to Bromley would be very beneficial I agree, to Bromley would make more sense. I think the curve off to Charlton should be scrapped and the route should be made more direct in order to achieve a faster service to Bromley. The Charlton part could be supplemented by an extension of the 330 (which I'm slightly surprised has avoided mentioning). I do wonder if Oyster Data has been used to determine where links could be made or if they are just trying to patch up other problems in the network with new and existing routes? It looks to me that the "new" SE London routes are designed specifically to relieve known trouble spots. Another fast service, like the 132, to Eltham from the Greenwich Peninsula. There is also the diversion to relieve Charlton because of chronic overloading problems in that area (e.g. the short 472s in the AM peak plus nightmares on the 108). I suspect TfL don't really want to trigger too much speculation about routes through this tunnel. They refuse to answer the question as to why they simply can't / won't run extra routes through the Blackwall Tunnel *now*. Yes there are risks from traffic congestion etc but it's demonstrably clear that there is very considerable demand for cross river travel as evidenced by the 108. If they wanted to they could extend the 488 or 309 through the Blackwall without undue issue if they resourced them properly. |
|
|
|
Post by LX09FBJ on Oct 5, 2015 15:00:43 GMT
The proposals do look good, especially the 129 as it give the route much more of a purpose.
Ad mentioned above, the 104A proposal does sound interesting if it goes ahead with its suffix but I do think that 304 will likely be the number used.
Judging by the routes to be extended, it should be suitable for double deckers.
I would add a further service between Canning Town and Woolwich and possibly onwards to Welling and Bexleyheath.
I would also like to see a road link between the Belvedere/Thamesmead and Barking Reach/Dagenham areas, which will open up even more new links between the north and south of east London.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Oct 5, 2015 15:18:01 GMT
It's good to see the 129 gaining an extension, however personally I would've extended the 129 to Forest Gate via Manor Road - West Ham Lane - Stratford - Romford Road - Woodgrange Road. This would provide an alternative to the 108 between Stratford and North Greenwich, and provide Forest Gate with a connection to NG and Greenwich.
The 472 or 486 (or both) also seem like ideal candidates to gain an extension to Canary Wharf, opening up several new links towards the south east. Although I anticipate both routes being immensely busy as a result, especially considering the 472's already high frequency.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2015 16:09:57 GMT
The 309 is an odd choice of route to extend, given the massive overcrowding it can suffer and the fact that it's restricted to small single deckers.
|
|
|
|
Post by LX09FBJ on Oct 5, 2015 16:23:56 GMT
Also the ever elusive Bus priority measures will be developed closer to the opening of the Silvertown Tunnel (not the Blackwall Tunnel). There's no indication of what these measures will be, whether that's Bus Lanes, Bus Gates, Busways, Virtual bus lanes, etc. Forgive me for asking, but what are "virtual bus lanes"  |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Oct 5, 2015 17:58:48 GMT
The proposals do look good, especially the 129 as it give the route much more of a purpose. Ad mentioned above, the 104A proposal does sound interesting if it goes ahead with its suffix but I do think that 304 will likely be the number used. Judging by the routes to be extended, it should be suitable for double deckers. I would add a further service between Canning Town and Woolwich and possibly onwards to Welling and Bexleyheath. I would also like to see a road link between the Belvedere/Thamesmead and Barking Reach/Dagenham areas, which will open up even more new links between the north and south of east London. I think TfL's approach is to only suggest links which are not really duplicating existing or new rail links. This is why there is little emphasis on Thamesmead or Woolwich because Crossrail will provide an extremely quick link in 3 years time, well before any road tunnel. Although not stated I rather imagine TfL will not be running any of the extended or new routes at very high frequencies either. This is why you won't see the 472 being extended given it runs x5-6 mins in the peak - way too expensive to extend. There is one rather massive aspect missing from the indicative bus proposals and that's how on earth the transport system copes when thousands and thousands of new flats open on the Greenwich Peninsula plus IKEA, new shops, hotels and offices. That's a few years away but when you consider the peak time transport network is at crisis point now what on earth happens with thousands of more journeys to cater for? TfL are clearly trying to consult on one just issue at a time and that makes sense but the future transport network in the area and across the Thames will have to look vastly different from today's in order to stand a chance of coping with the demand. |
|
|
|
Post by routew15 on Oct 5, 2015 18:36:00 GMT
Also the ever elusive Bus priority measures will be developed closer to the opening of the Silvertown Tunnel (not the Blackwall Tunnel). There's no indication of what these measures will be, whether that's Bus Lanes, Bus Gates, Busways, Virtual bus lanes, etc. Forgive me for asking, but what are "virtual bus lanes" It when general traffic is held back from a junction by traffic lights and bus are allowed to by-pass advance ahead to the junction. The only examples i can think of are in Hackney, eastbound before Dalston Cross (if it's even still called that) and on Amhurst Road before westbound before Pembury Circus. If I'm honest I thought these were known as 'Bus Gates'. |
|
|
|
Post by routew15 on Oct 5, 2015 18:40:08 GMT
I agree, to Bromley would make more sense. I think the curve off to Charlton should be scrapped and the route should be made more direct in order to achieve a faster service to Bromley. The Charlton part could be supplemented by an extension of the 330 (which I'm slightly surprised has avoided mentioning). I do wonder if Oyster Data has been used to determine where links could be made or if they are just trying to patch up other problems in the network with new and existing routes? It looks to me that the "new" SE London routes are designed specifically to relieve known trouble spots. Another fast service, like the 132, to Eltham from the Greenwich Peninsula. There is also the diversion to relieve Charlton because of chronic overloading problems in that area (e.g. the short 472s in the AM peak plus nightmares on the 108). I suspect TfL don't really want to trigger too much speculation about routes through this tunnel. They refuse to answer the question as to why they simply can't / won't run extra routes through the Blackwall Tunnel *now*. Yes there are risks from traffic congestion etc but it's demonstrably clear that there is very considerable demand for cross river travel as evidenced by the 108. If they wanted to they could extend the 488 or 309 through the Blackwall without undue issue if they resourced them properly. 488! The same route that can just about run between Dalston and Bromley- By- Bow Tesco. Every time I see that route it's curtailed somewhere or the other. I definitely agree another route needs to serve the Blackwall tunnel I think a new single decker route could easily serve maybe Mile End to Charlton (possibly Lewisham or Woolwich) via the Blackwall Tunnel. |
|
|
|
Post by VPL630 on Oct 5, 2015 18:44:24 GMT
I'm sorry, TFL must forget there own rules, a 104A! We can't be having suffixed routes any more, The general public find it hard enough to cope with just numbers as it is at the moment, let alone throwing letters in the mix
|
|
|
|
Post by RT3062 on Oct 5, 2015 19:01:12 GMT
I'm sorry, TFL must forget there own rules, a 104A! We can't be having suffixed routes any more, The general public find it hard enough to cope with just numbers as it is at the moment, let alone throwing letters in the mix how did passengers ever cope with B C D F W suffixes. from my driving experience if its red and turns up when they expect it it must be going where they want. the 25 going was always good for some confusion |
|
