|
|
Post by vjaska on Oct 6, 2015 23:28:25 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. You could just extend the 241 when it returns to Canning Town meaning the 541 can be banished to the history books. The 147 also springs to mind in a possible candidate for extension once it returns to Canning Town - would like to hear @dan thoughts on those seeing as they are his local routes  |
|
|
|
Post by stuckonthe486 on Oct 31, 2015 16:01:52 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. I think TfL's selection of routes is about politics. A lot of politicians in the south of Greenwich borough (it's effectively controlled by Eltham-based politicians) want a DLR link to Eltham through the tunnel. This isn't going to happen in a million years, so I suspect TfL is encouraging Greenwich to continue backing the Silvertown Tunnel by promising routes which, frankly, should be in place anyway (like a Kidbrooke Village-North Geenwich link). The next mayor can scrap the Silvertown scheme in May and look at something more sensible - hopefully that's what will happen. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Oct 31, 2015 21:42:38 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. I think TfL's selection of routes is about politics. A lot of politicians in the south of Greenwich borough (it's effectively controlled by Eltham-based politicians) want a DLR link to Eltham through the tunnel. This isn't going to happen in a million years, so I suspect TfL is encouraging Greenwich to continue backing the Silvertown Tunnel by promising routes which, frankly, should be in place anyway (like a Kidbrooke Village-North Geenwich link). The next mayor can scrap the Silvertown scheme in May and look at something more sensible - hopefully that's what will happen. I don't see what else can be done - what do you have in mind. |
|
|
|
Post by stuckonthe486 on Nov 9, 2015 11:57:08 GMT
Well, not building another tunnel feeding into a point where traffic is already regularly congested would be a start.
Obviously Blackwall's a problem. But it's one problem in among a whole basket of problems. Greenwich and Lewisham town centres are regularly clogged up. So's the A2. And that's just south of the Thames. Encourage more traffic to use the A102, and it's got to end up somewhere. Your best possible scenario from Silvertown is that the queue is displaced to another location (Lower Lea Crossing, perhaps) with exacerbated southbound jams through Kidbrooke. The scheme's proponents bleat on about "doing nothing is not an option", but encouraging more traffic to use that single point of failure - the A102 - is pretty much doing a bare minimum rather than having a proper study of all the options. Which hasn't happened here, mainly because Silvertown is proposed to pacify the politicians in Bexley who helped the current mayor get elected. If Silvertown is a solution, why aren't we tunnelling our way out of every single traffic jam in London?
Remember the justifications for the tunnel keep changing too - at one point it was about economic regeneration, which is obvious hogwash.
So what else to do? There's no single, satisfying big bang. You're looking at a messy combination of expanding the congestion charge while massively expanding orbital public transport links, while looking at infrastructure beyond London (the mooted M2-M25 version of the Lower Thames Crossing would take pressure off Dartford and Blackwall, though would horrify environmentalists) too. And Thamesmead needs connecting to the rest of London. Badly.
This isn't like introducing a new bus route. Spend £1bn on road tunnel, and you can't fill it in if you get it wrong. All the signs so far are that TfL is getting this horribly wrong for the sake of making a big political gesture.
|
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Feb 10, 2022 8:42:08 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Feb 10, 2022 9:13:37 GMT
I would say it is disapointing that the bus lane would be shared with HGV's, what is the point of doing that. |
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Feb 10, 2022 9:17:04 GMT
So we get yet another 2 bus routes from Beckton towards Custom House and Silvertown! How many more routes do we need? The 309 is limited is a odd choice of routes as it’s a very much local around the houses route. Would have thought maybe a route to Stratford to offer a alternative to the 108? |
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Feb 10, 2022 9:39:22 GMT
I would say it is disapointing that the bus lane would be shared with HGV's, what is the point of doing that. The whole tunnel is disappointing. |
|
|
|
Post by joefrombow on Feb 10, 2022 9:45:17 GMT
I would say it is disapointing that the bus lane would be shared with HGV's, what is the point of doing that. Good idea in my opinion frees up some of the existing traffic in the normal lanes and helps keep traffic flowing should be more shared lanes in London I know there was one on the A3 few years back but yeah whether we like it or not HGVs keep the country running especially for a city deliveries are vital . |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Feb 10, 2022 10:20:38 GMT
So we get yet another 2 bus routes from Beckton towards Custom House and Silvertown! How many more routes do we need? The 309 is limited is a odd choice of routes as it’s a very much local around the houses route. Would have thought maybe a route to Stratford to offer a alternative to the 108? Obviously you know better than myself but I do like the 129 idea however despite that, I do find it odd that two routes are going to Beckton. Also agree that the 309 is an odd choice - maybe the 129 should only go as far as Canning Town and let the 104 or even 304 be the Beckton route |
|
|
|
Post by busman on Feb 10, 2022 11:00:14 GMT
I would say it is disapointing that the bus lane would be shared with HGV's, what is the point of doing that. The whole tunnel is disappointing. Yep. Should have been built in Thamesmead or Belvedere. |
|
|
|
Post by busman on Feb 10, 2022 11:51:31 GMT
Meh. No real through links created to useful destinations. Beckton doesn’t have anything we can’t find in Charlton or Greenwich. Would have been nice if TfL had extended the 69 to North Greenwich or even to terminate closer to IKEA instead. That would have been genuinely useful. Instead we get TfL looking at how they can split the 20 buses bph across the most number of routes, so they inevitably need to include a low frequency local route like the 309. This will be of little interest to many of us south of the river. Surely the D7 would be a better candidate? I don’t see the logic in extending a single deck route given that the main advantage for the new tunnel is that deckers can run through it. Better to have 2-3 high frequency routes serving multiple hubs than piddly just-about-crossing-the-river extensions IMHO. I guess these scaled back plans are a sign of the times. At least the infrastructure is in place to facilitate better cross river connections at a future point in time. |
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Feb 10, 2022 14:15:18 GMT
So we get yet another 2 bus routes from Beckton towards Custom House and Silvertown! How many more routes do we need? The 309 is limited is a odd choice of routes as it’s a very much local around the houses route. Would have thought maybe a route to Stratford to offer a alternative to the 108? Obviously you know better than myself but I do like the 129 idea however despite that, I do find it odd that two routes are going to Beckton. Also agree that the 309 is an odd choice - maybe the 129 should only go as far as Canning Town and let the 104 or even 304 be the Beckton route The best option is one route from the north terminating somewhere in Greenwich and one from the south terminating at Canning Town. I think the 241 still has potential to head south of the river after traversing/double running in the new Pontoon Dock estate once it's built and then onto (into) the Silvertown Tunnel. Stratford City would be an obvious lure for passengers. The 129 is a clear choice to extend out of North Greenwich as it's the shortest route terminating there. However, I'd also like to see the 180 extended north of the river to maybe Canning Town, to give Crossrail's Abbey Wood branch an alternative bus service if and when there's a bit of wobbly on the Elizabeth line. Alternative bus service to the DLR at Woolwich as well. |
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Feb 10, 2022 14:23:22 GMT
Obviously you know better than myself but I do like the 129 idea however despite that, I do find it odd that two routes are going to Beckton. Also agree that the 309 is an odd choice - maybe the 129 should only go as far as Canning Town and let the 104 or even 304 be the Beckton route The best option is one route from the north terminating somewhere in Greenwich and one from the south terminating at Canning Town. I think the 241 still has potential to head south of the river after traversing/double running in the new Pontoon Dock estate once it's built and then onto (into) the Silvertown Tunnel. Stratford City would be an obvious lure for passengers. The 129 is a clear choice to extend out of North Greenwich as it's the shortest route terminating there. However, I'd also like to see the 180 extended north of the river to maybe Canning Town, to give Crossrail's Abbey Wood branch an alternative bus service if and when there's a bit of wobbly on the Elizabeth line. Alternative bus service to the DLR at Woolwich as well. Really like the 241 idea! The route is so short so this would give it a proper purpose and really do think Stratford should be linked to the tunnel as a alternative to the Blackwall Tunnel and the 108. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2022 15:43:28 GMT
Beckton is gonna be so packed. I swear!! |
|
