|
Post by vjaska on Mar 31, 2017 7:53:46 GMT
The problem with the 271 plan is that TfL have proposed to CHANGE something in Highgate. One simply does not CHANGE anything in Highgate. Any CHANGE is automatically assumed to be a bad thing. Within a couple of weeks of the consultation going up, every other property in Highgate Village was proudly displaying a laminated "NO TO NORTH ROAD BUS DEPOT" poster. Because, obviously, a couple of extra bus stands on a road constitutes a Bus Depot. You'd have thought they'd be glad to be shot of the 271's ridiculously unsuitable terminus, but nothing is quite that simple in Highgate! to be honest if Highgate residents do not wish have there buses altered and If TfL is funding these changes can the money be diverted to the a bus priority scheme elsewhere? I agree though I thought the 271 being taken out of its current would be an excellent thing as it allows for some 'public realm improvements to be made. You could put a tiny little piazza right where the stand used to be. But I guess they do not need that in Highgate Oh god those dreaded three words (public realm improvements) - all it needs is for the stand to move to the nearside and be done with it. If people in Highgate don't like it, move elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Mar 31, 2017 13:32:35 GMT
The problem with the 271 plan is that TfL have proposed to CHANGE something in Highgate. One simply does not CHANGE anything in Highgate. Any CHANGE is automatically assumed to be a bad thing. Within a couple of weeks of the consultation going up, every other property in Highgate Village was proudly displaying a laminated "NO TO NORTH ROAD BUS DEPOT" poster. Because, obviously, a couple of extra bus stands on a road constitutes a Bus Depot. You'd have thought they'd be glad to be shot of the 271's ridiculously unsuitable terminus, but nothing is quite that simple in Highgate! Ha ha ha - can't say I am surprised having had dealings with fencing issues near Highgate Tube station when I was at LU. What a bl**dy palaver that was. Threats to call the Mayor, the Prime Minister, the BBC, the Ham & High etc etc just because the work wasn't done in line with some self important person's expectations. Ridiculous. Oh well another consultation doomed to sit in the "never to be concluded" pile. Anyway I like the old stand for the 271 so to TfL's proposal. Big up the Highgate Resistance.
|
|
|
Post by routew15 on Jun 28, 2017 11:56:15 GMT
Update There is now an update to the 178 consultation The 178 will not serve Moorhead way as planned but will loop to serve Cambert Way, Ryan Close, Tudway Road, Kidbrooke Park Road in both directions. -image source TfL consultation pageGood to see the link Road maybe return seemed quite ridiculous that this was removed in the first place. "Engagement report" / Consultation page / Response to issues raised
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Jun 28, 2017 13:31:20 GMT
Update There is now an update to the 178 consultation The 178 will not serve Moorhead way as planned but will loop to serve Cambert Way, Ryan Close, Tudway Road, Kidbrooke Park Road in both directions. -image source TfL consultation pageGood to see the link Road maybe return seemed quite ridiculous that this was removed in the first place. "Engagement report" / Consultation page / Response to issues raisedAn interesting solution. I did get a bit peeved reading the sanctimonious comments from the local council & councillors when the issue was down to them not considering the impact of changes to the road layout in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by stuckonthe486 on Jun 29, 2017 11:15:16 GMT
Update There is now an update to the 178 consultation The 178 will not serve Moorhead way as planned but will loop to serve Cambert Way, Ryan Close, Tudway Road, Kidbrooke Park Road in both directions. -image source TfL consultation pageGood to see the link Road maybe return seemed quite ridiculous that this was removed in the first place. "Engagement report" / Consultation page / Response to issues raisedAn interesting solution. I did get a bit peeved reading the sanctimonious comments from the local council & councillors when the issue was down to them not considering the impact of changes to the road layout in the first place. It's classic Greenwich Council, unfortunately - dripping with passive aggression and sanctimony. They've flat-out lied to residents about this in the past too, and they'll give themselves credit when Berkeley Homes finally fixes the road layout.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 29, 2017 12:47:12 GMT
Update There is now an update to the 178 consultation The 178 will not serve Moorhead way as planned but will loop to serve Cambert Way, Ryan Close, Tudway Road, Kidbrooke Park Road in both directions. -image source TfL consultation pageGood to see the link Road maybe return seemed quite ridiculous that this was removed in the first place. "Engagement report" / Consultation page / Response to issues raisedAn interesting solution. I did get a bit peeved reading the sanctimonious comments from the local council & councillors when the issue was down to them not considering the impact of changes to the road layout in the first place. Outsiders view from someone who has used the 178 just twice before - would it not make more sense to run via the full length of Weigall Road, Moorhead Way, Weigall Road, Kidbrooke Park Road, Cambert Way, Ryan Close & Tudway Road towards Woolwich and via Cambert Way, Ryan Close, Tudway Road, Kidbrooke Park Road, Weigall Road, Moorhead Way & the rest of Weigall Road to serve a large part of the area or is missing the junction with Eltham Road too important to lose?
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Jun 29, 2017 15:53:49 GMT
Weigall Road is a bit odd. It has had services before - the 151 ran that way until the 291 started in the early 80s but residents were never happy about it (I suspect there was a bit of resentment about the Ferrier Estate appearing on their doorstep.) The B16 could run that way but I think there are doubts about 178s being able to turn left out of Eltham Road.
I wondered whether a service might be able to access Kidbrooke Village via Eltham Green Road. It's a bit tight but buses run on tighter roads than that. In the end, Greenwich Council and Berkeley Homes really need to review the next stage of the development - if it isn't already too late - to find a sensible route through. It may require the odd bus only road here and there.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jun 29, 2017 23:06:28 GMT
Weigall Road is a bit odd. It has had services before - the 151 ran that way until the 291 started in the early 80s but residents were never happy about it (I suspect there was a bit of resentment about the Ferrier Estate appearing on their doorstep.) The B16 could run that way but I think there are doubts about 178s being able to turn left out of Eltham Road. I wondered whether a service might be able to access Kidbrooke Village via Eltham Green Road. It's a bit tight but buses run on tighter roads than that. In the end, Greenwich Council and Berkeley Homes really need to review the next stage of the development - if it isn't already too late - to find a sensible route through. It may require the odd bus only road here and there. The redevelopment strikes me as an utter monumental mess in terms of how to NOT serve somewhere efficiently by public transport. How on earth you get in this sort of mess is beyond me given all the oversight that TfL has on these matters and the advice that it gives. Still, as someone else noted, this is Greenwich Council who appear to be near the top of the "useless councils" list for London.
|
|
|
Post by stuckonthe486 on Jul 1, 2017 12:11:17 GMT
Weigall Road is a bit odd. It has had services before - the 151 ran that way until the 291 started in the early 80s but residents were never happy about it (I suspect there was a bit of resentment about the Ferrier Estate appearing on their doorstep.) The B16 could run that way but I think there are doubts about 178s being able to turn left out of Eltham Road. I wondered whether a service might be able to access Kidbrooke Village via Eltham Green Road. It's a bit tight but buses run on tighter roads than that. In the end, Greenwich Council and Berkeley Homes really need to review the next stage of the development - if it isn't already too late - to find a sensible route through. It may require the odd bus only road here and there. I see what you're trying to achieve there, but the new roads are narrow - the original road, Meadowside, which predates the Ferrier, is even narrower. You could reach the station via the most northerly link road, Boyd Way, but then you'd probably have to switch whatever served Tudway Road to Eltham Green Road and then have the aggravation with taking way car parking spaces and bus stops on EGR. A bus-only road would be a fine idea - unfortunately, they don't do fine ideas at Woolwich Town Hall, only what Berkeley Homes tells them to do.
|
|