Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2015 19:24:30 GMT
The 309 surely would need larger buses to cope with increased loadings? I wonder if the 323 would have been a better choice? Also the 104A number could have just been a internal thing not changed on the publication? just a thought.
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Oct 5, 2015 19:37:08 GMT
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. I was very careful to make sure I said "if resourced properly" so as to hopefully  pre-empt the posts about how shoddy an existing service is, never mind extending it.   |
|
|
|
Post by routew15 on Oct 5, 2015 19:54:13 GMT
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. I was very careful to make sure I said "if resourced properly" so as to hopefully pre-empt the posts about how shoddy an existing service is, never mind extending it. Ahhh I see, it's as though you're psychic  . I still think it's quite a brave choice, 16-18 buses at least (it's what the 108 should have, in my opinion). Although the connections provided are really good. I'd love to catch a bus from Homerton High Street to South London. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Oct 5, 2015 21:34:33 GMT
The proposals do look good, especially the 129 as it give the route much more of a purpose. Is this seriously being mentioned again - regardless of whether the 129 gets extended or not, it already has a very good purpose. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Oct 5, 2015 21:36:29 GMT
The 309 surely would need larger buses to cope with increased loadings? I wonder if the 323 would have been a better choice? Also the 104A number could have just been a internal thing not changed on the publication? just a thought. The 323 seems like a good candidate for an extension - it doesn't seem to load heavy (happy to be corrected) and is quick end to end running mostly via back roads and a private area. Just get rid of its Enviro 200's lol. |
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Oct 6, 2015 2:35:10 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 feel it is a waste just doing a tunnel at Silvertown, it is too close to Blackwall tunnel. It would have made sense to do a crossing near the existing Woolwich ferry. There should be a minimum of three crossings between Blackwall tunnel and Dartford crossings. |
|
|
|
Post by joefrombow on Oct 6, 2015 4:42:49 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 feel it is a waste just doing a tunnel at Silvertown, it is too close to Blackwall tunnel. It would have made sense to do a crossing near the existing Woolwich ferry. There should be a minimum of three crossings between Blackwall tunnel and Dartford crossings. I agree totally they should start with the bridge they started building at Beckton could easily be done in two years the infrastructure is already there makes perfect sense to me ! And get rid of the ferry that's on its way out ! As for the the 'eco brigade' who don't want more crossings the more congested the areas get as they already are the more pollution we will have the more traffic is moving the less polluted these areas will be . |
|
|
|
Post by routew15 on Oct 6, 2015 7:43:32 GMT
I feel it is a waste just doing a tunnel at Silvertown, it is too close to Blackwall tunnel. It would have made sense to do a crossing near the existing Woolwich ferry. There should be a minimum of three crossings between Blackwall tunnel and Dartford crossings. I agree totally they should start with the bridge they started building at Beckton could easily be done in two years the infrastructure is already there makes perfect sense to me ! And get rid of the ferry that's on its way out ! As for the the 'eco brigade' who don't want more crossings the more congested the areas get as they already are the more pollution we will have the more traffic is moving the less polluted these areas will be . Personally, I wouldn't call what they have in Beckton "a start", it's barely even a springboard, it looks more like a 10 metre diving board or (from my last observations) a small car park. Two years! No way, especially if you include all the planning and consultation that you have to go through. This is not a scheme that TfL can just bulldoze through, there will be serious question from those who live in the Gallions Areas as to why there weren't consulted. If I remember correctly they were not to happy with the Thames Gateway Bridge, but have not been as vocal about the possibility of its revival. Also the Thames Gateway Bridge was going to take 5 years to build, whilst this new Gallions Reach bridge will be more condensed, than its planned predecessor, the time scale still seems relevant. In my opinion, none of these road crossings will reduce congestion in surrounding areas, but will instead reduce congestion at the existing crossings along the river, whilst creating easier connections for cars and buses across the river. (On a separate note to what you have mentioned) I think the charges that will be placed on the crossing will most probably indefinite, because the crossings (once they've paid for themselves) will start to pay for other infrastructure like C ycling, the West London Bridges (first bridge that comes to mind is Hammersmith) and some of the Road modernisation schemes. |
|
|
|
Post by routew15 on Oct 6, 2015 8:24:10 GMT
The 309 surely would need larger buses to cope with increased loadings? I wonder if the 323 would have been a better choice? Also the 104A number could have just been a internal thing not changed on the publication? just a thought. The 323 seems like a good candidate for an extension - it doesn't seem to load heavy (happy to be corrected) and is quick end to end running mostly via back roads and a private area. Just get rid of its Enviro 200's lol. Im 50:50 with extending the 323. The lift in the frequency (which would be needed to at least 12 mins M-S) could help encourage more passengers on the Bromley-by-Bow to Mile End section. I've been lucky enough  to of seen the 323 pick from Mile End. On both occasions I saw it, Loadings were decent, but there is potential in this route. My concern is with the arrangement that is place with the Prologis Park (the private land that the 323 travels through), I'd hope they be ok with a 12 mins frequency on the route? (I know the U4 has every 8 mins over in Hayes so hopefully the 323 could one reach the same) |
|
|
|
Post by routew15 on Oct 6, 2015 8:36:52 GMT
The 309 surely would need larger buses to cope with increased loadings? The solution to this problem shall be interesting. You can't go longer cause of the tight roads of Tower Hamlets. You can't lift the frequency to high cause it will cause bunching if not timed correctly. I think the lack of directness of the route will not make it as attractive as a 323 extension. But if the 309 follows the routing of the squigglely orange line (on the map from the Consultation page) then there could be hope for longer buses . |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Oct 6, 2015 8:38:40 GMT
I feel it is a waste just doing a tunnel at Silvertown, it is too close to Blackwall tunnel. It would have made sense to do a crossing near the existing Woolwich ferry. There should be a minimum of three crossings between Blackwall tunnel and Dartford crossings. I agree totally they should start with the bridge they started building at Beckton could easily be done in two years the infrastructure is already there makes perfect sense to me ! And get rid of the ferry that's on its way out ! As for the the 'eco brigade' who don't want more crossings the more congested the areas get as they already are the more pollution we will have the more traffic is moving the less polluted these areas will be. Have you looked at past consultations on new river crossings and seen the vast increases in traffic volumes that would be created from the construction of new bridges and tunnels? The traffic impact maps showed congestion, at peak times, spreading into areas like Dagenham and Romford that you won't necessarily expect. I also think people are forgetting the extremely difficult politics in SE London, Bexley in particular, if a new bridge was to be constructed. You may well have something that looks like a road network on the north side of the river but you don't to the South. You have very narrow residential roads, a protected woodland and other problems that are pretty insoluble given the local politics. The one reason why Silvertown has been chosen is that the southern portal would be in the London Borough of Greenwich who, for some reason, seem more amenable to vast new roads than most boroughs. The northern portal sort of links to some existing Docklands distributor roads that eventually reach the North Circular so there's presumably a view that that's adequate. I understand why people are keen to see new crossings but let's not kid ourselves that there's no traffic impact from the provision of new infrastructure or that the new tunnel won't be jammed solid in a few years time, just like the Blackwall Tunnel is. |
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Oct 6, 2015 8:51:48 GMT
I agree totally they should start with the bridge they started building at Beckton could easily be done in two years the infrastructure is already there makes perfect sense to me ! And get rid of the ferry that's on its way out ! As for the the 'eco brigade' who don't want more crossings the more congested the areas get as they already are the more pollution we will have the more traffic is moving the less polluted these areas will be. Have you looked at past consultations on new river crossings and seen the vast increases in traffic volumes that would be created from the construction of new bridges and tunnels? The traffic impact maps showed congestion, at peak times, spreading into areas like Dagenham and Romford that you won't necessarily expect. I also think people are forgetting the extremely difficult politics in SE London, Bexley in particular, if a new bridge was to be constructed. You may well have something that looks like a road network on the north side of the river but you don't to the South. You have very narrow residential roads, a protected woodland and other problems that are pretty insoluble given the local politics. The one reason why Silvertown has been chosen is that the southern portal would be in the London Borough of Greenwich who, for some reason, seem more amenable to vast new roads than most boroughs. The northern portal sort of links to some existing Docklands distributor roads that eventually reach the North Circular so there's presumably a view that that's adequate. I understand why people are keen to see new crossings but let's not kid ourselves that there's no traffic impact from the provision of new infrastructure or that the new tunnel won't be jammed solid in a few years time, just like the Blackwall Tunnel is. As a Bexley resident, I get reminded of the local politics all the time General view here is the Beckton-Thamesmead crossing is not wanted. Building roads across Bostall Woods and Oxleas Wood is a no-go. No good looking at the marshes beyond Slade Green either : that's protected too. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Oct 6, 2015 22:18:09 GMT
I'll give my thoughts now having read it more thoroughly:
The Grove Park to Canary Wharf sounds like a good link but like 'paul', I think there would be more potential if extended to Bromley rather than it terminate at Grove Park. It would be a winner with commuters who work in the big buildings at Canary Wharf who don't have great access to the Undergound or DLR. In fact, all of the links sound really good except for the extension of the 309. As already rightly pointed out, the 309 uses small vehicles due to tight turns along it's route and the route would get swallowed up by the large crowds that gather at North Greenwich. Instead, I think the 323 or 330 are far better candidates - both have short end to end times, the 323 has a sizeable section where it can easily pick up time and rarely encounters heavy traffic whilst the 330 has suitable buses to handle the crowds of North Greenwich.
As for a bridge in Belvedere, another option would be to build a bus only bridge instead which wouldn't necessitate any widening or building of roads south of the river. The cost probably wouldn't justify it's existence though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Unorm on Oct 6, 2015 22:31:01 GMT
I like the new routes ideas from South London into Beckton/Canary Wharf, and making more use of the short 129. But I don't think extending route 309 and making a 104A is a good choice, as you have other Stratford services like 241 which can be extended to North Greenwich instead of making a 104A (or whatever it turns out to be). 309 as mentioned being a busy route I'd leave it alone, I'd extend route 330 to North Greenwich. Otherwise 309 can become overkill specifically in the peaks where it would likely have lots of gaps, my opinion though. Would be interesting to see how it turns out. If 104A happens (in another number or not), it'd be a bit interesting to see it's use between Canning Town and Stratford given the different routes you have on the section it would serve (like 69, 241, 473, etc). So I was thinking on making the ever-running 541 permanent as residents are used to it by now, then extend 241 to North Greenwich instead of '104A'. Of course this is just my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Unorm on Oct 6, 2015 22:33:21 GMT
I'll give my thoughts now having read it more thoroughly: As for a bridge in Belvedere, another option would be to build a bus only bridge instead which wouldn't necessitate any widening or building of roads south of the river. The cost probably wouldn't justify it's existence though. How about introducing the abandoned Greenwich Waterfront Transit whil we're at it?  |
|
pre-empt the posts about how shoddy an existing service is, never mind extending it. 
. I still think it's quite a brave choice, 16-18 buses at least (it's what the 108 should have, in my opinion). Although the connections provided are really good. I'd love to catch a bus from Homerton High Street to South London. 
to of seen the 323 pick from Mile End. On both occasions I saw it, Loadings were decent, but there is potential in this route. My concern is with the arrangement that is place with the Prologis Park (the private land that the 323 travels through), I'd hope they be ok with a 12 mins frequency on the route? (I know the U4 has every 8 mins over in Hayes so hopefully the 323 could one reach the same) 
