|
|
Post by snoggle on Dec 13, 2016 14:18:48 GMT
And today we get the Barking Riverside paper added! content.tfl.gov.uk/bus-services-in-barking-riverside.pdfOne of the maps has some interesting indicative services through the Silvertown Tunnel but they're not the focus of the paper. There is more info on the longer term proposed for route EL4 together with a frequency build up over the years for each service and maps of the eventual network at Barking Riverside as the area develops. |
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Jan 15, 2017 17:52:21 GMT
We shouldn't be far off the equivalent paper for the Bermondsey/Rotherhithe area. A written answer to the local Southwark Council assembly in late November said it was due by the end of last year (according to the reporting on their Twitter feed).
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jan 15, 2017 19:08:01 GMT
We shouldn't be far off the equivalent paper for the Bermondsey/Rotherhithe area. A written answer to the local Southwark Council assembly in late November said it was due by the end of last year (according to the reporting on their Twitter feed). This is one I'm looking forward to seeing as I'm hoping the 415 is contained in it. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 16, 2017 18:09:29 GMT
We shouldn't be far off the equivalent paper for the Bermondsey/Rotherhithe area. A written answer to the local Southwark Council assembly in late November said it was due by the end of last year (according to the reporting on their Twitter feed). Caroline Pidgeon is now on the case! |
|
|
|
Post by LBOTG on Feb 23, 2017 16:44:43 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Feb 23, 2017 16:58:52 GMT
Da da! a new bus network development paper covering Canada Water / Greenwich corridor. content.tfl.gov.uk/southeast-riverside-area-review.pdfEDITJust had a quick skim - looks like there's a realisation that there's nowhere near enough capacity now and certainly not for the future. However the axe is being taken to the 188 and 381 with huge cuts to these routes and no access to Zone 1. Instead there are new routes A, B and C which partially replace links into Zone 1. There seem to be a number of broken links compared to existing services (Hopper ticket to the rescue). The emphasis seems very strongly on feeding Canada Water for tube / overground but that station is at capacity in the peaks. Seems odd given there is not enormous scope to expand either of the rail services. There is a lot of emphasis in these plans on serving New Bermondsey and rather less on the Canada Water / Rotherhithe developments. Slightly surprised by this to be honest and, of course, New Bermondsey appears to be stuck in the middle of ongoing rows between Lewisham Council and Millwall FC. |
|
|
|
Post by Nathan on Feb 23, 2017 17:02:10 GMT
The only idea that actually makes sense to me is the 415 extension and the 199 re-routing. |
|
|
|
Post by gloriouswater on Feb 23, 2017 17:25:09 GMT
(a few thoughts just on skimming through) That loss of capacity between Canada Water and Waterloo worries me. Firstly, the 381 is cut but I don't usually see that section very busy (have seen buses rammed full on it once though.) New route B doesn't serve Canada Water directly and at Waterloo only jumps in and out north of the station. The already very busy 188 is cut back to E&C (grr) leaving the 1 to bear the brunt. That route itself is practically full already (judging by my observations and having to miss buses at 10pm) so I doubt an extra 2.5bph will do much to help - especially as the 188 is currently 8bph. No doubt some people who can afford it will go on the JLE instead - from my experience that is very busy already. Personally I'd keep the 188 at least to Waterloo and have it take over the 381's old stand. EDIT: No direct access from the Rotherhithe loop to London Bridge it seems. I see fun times brewing where people have to cross the roundabout by the Rotherhithe Tunnel to get on buses, or interchange at good old Canada Water. Oh dear. I also don't see why route A needs to serve the C10's section of the Rotherhithe loop - it's prone to bad parking and I've never seen a busy bus down there, whilst I have on the 381's section which is shorter. I imagine people interchanging with the Jubilee line or ELL branches from routes B and 415 would create new crowds on the LO - the section around Surrey Quays and Canada Water is already practically full in the peaks. Considering the line past New Bermondsey would only have 4tph unless they increase it, that area looks problematic. However I can't see an easy solution to this problem - Canada Water bus station is already quite busy not to mention the traffic prone Surrey Quays one-way system they'd have to navigate. The 188 cut to E&C - grr. I'd rather have it extended to Euston but in this day and age that would run into problems. A cut to Waterloo as I mentioned earlier would be a better option in my eyes. Also this new route C looks quite short in my eyes - if the 188 is too long in TfL's eyes perhaps they could keep its western section and instead swap the eastern section with route C? As for "too long" routes - route A gave me a good laugh with the proposal to extend it to Grove Park in the future, given its long winded routing through the side roads and across the very busy New Cross Road. One wonders how overcrowded a single decker would get on that section if it was unfortunate enough to be the bus in front of a 136.  As for the route being proposed, new capacity from Rotherhithe to Lewisham is always welcome especially aiding the 47 and 225. I wonder where they plan to stand buses at the Rotherhithe end though? I have mixed feelings about this - some of the ideas here seem pretty sensible, while some look borderline suicidal to me. All in the name of cost cutting I guess. One final dig at TfL - the A appears to either have been drawn in one direction, or skips the Lewisham Centre and goes the wrong way up the Surrey Quays one-way system northbound.  |
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Feb 23, 2017 17:53:35 GMT
Da da! a new bus network development paper covering Canada Water / Greenwich corridor. content.tfl.gov.uk/southeast-riverside-area-review.pdfEDITJust had a quick skim - looks like there's a realisation that there's nowhere near enough capacity now and certainly not for the future. However the axe is being taken to the 188 and 381 with huge cuts to these routes and no access to Zone 1. Instead there are new routes A, B and C which partially replace links into Zone 1. There seem to be a number of broken links compared to existing services (Hopper ticket to the rescue). The emphasis seems very strongly on feeding Canada Water for tube / overground but that station is at capacity in the peaks. Seems odd given there is not enormous scope to expand either of the rail services. There is a lot of emphasis in these plans on serving New Bermondsey and rather less on the Canada Water / Rotherhithe developments. Slightly surprised by this to be honest and, of course, New Bermondsey appears to be stuck in the middle of ongoing rows between Lewisham Council and Millwall FC. This looks like classic need to serve new developments, but we are cash constrained so for every new bit, need to cut same amount elsewhere so costs remain same ( or ideally less) At a quick glance it is what areas have benefited from Overground improvements in recent years (and to some extent Jubilee line extension 17 years ago), assume these are now overbussed and therefore ripe for thinning. Then can justify moving some resources to new bits, particularly New Bermondsey which lacks a station. I don't know levels of usage in that part of town so can't comment on that, or in detail route by route, but the overall aim is obvious to me. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Feb 23, 2017 18:06:59 GMT
Da da! a new bus network development paper covering Canada Water / Greenwich corridor. content.tfl.gov.uk/southeast-riverside-area-review.pdfEDITJust had a quick skim - looks like there's a realisation that there's nowhere near enough capacity now and certainly not for the future. However the axe is being taken to the 188 and 381 with huge cuts to these routes and no access to Zone 1. Instead there are new routes A, B and C which partially replace links into Zone 1. There seem to be a number of broken links compared to existing services (Hopper ticket to the rescue). The emphasis seems very strongly on feeding Canada Water for tube / overground but that station is at capacity in the peaks. Seems odd given there is not enormous scope to expand either of the rail services. There is a lot of emphasis in these plans on serving New Bermondsey and rather less on the Canada Water / Rotherhithe developments. Slightly surprised by this to be honest and, of course, New Bermondsey appears to be stuck in the middle of ongoing rows between Lewisham Council and Millwall FC. This looks like classic need to serve new developments, but we are cash constrained so for every new bit, need to cut same amount elsewhere so costs remain same ( or ideally less) At a quick glance it is what areas have benefited from Overground improvements in recent years (and to some extent Jubilee line extension 17 years ago), assume these are now overbussed and therefore ripe for thinning. Then can justify moving some resources to new bits, particularly New Bermondsey which lacks a station. I don't know levels of usage in that part of town so can't comment on that, or in detail route by route, but the overall aim is obvious to me. I broadly agree with your diagnosis but I'd add two comments. 1. There should be a new LO station at New Bermondsey. Provision has been made at Surrey Canal Road and the developer and Lewisham Council were committed to funding it. The downside is that the SLL service is utterly packed in the peaks so it's questionable whether anyone could board! I think TfL want to bump the service up to 6 tph if they can find the paths and stock but that's likely to trigger a further tsunami of demand in South London. 2. Yes TfL are cash constrained and there will always be a trade off. *However* the developers in all these areas should be being tapped for S106 (or equivalent) monies to cover the costs of additional bus capacity. Obviously that doesn't last forever but if demand is as high as TFL suggest then the routes should be a positive addition to the network and easing capacity constraints on some existing corridors should bring new users and revenue. I'm not saying the routes will be "profitable", more that they should not be a drain on the budget once established and as occupancy levels increase in the new developments (assuming they're all built). Therefore TfL are not as constrained as they might like to claim - assuming the local authorities agree with the proposed services and will release the cash!! |
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Feb 23, 2017 18:14:44 GMT
This looks like classic need to serve new developments, but we are cash constrained so for every new bit, need to cut same amount elsewhere so costs remain same ( or ideally less) At a quick glance it is what areas have benefited from Overground improvements in recent years (and to some extent Jubilee line extension 17 years ago), assume these are now overbussed and therefore ripe for thinning. Then can justify moving some resources to new bits, particularly New Bermondsey which lacks a station. I don't know levels of usage in that part of town so can't comment on that, or in detail route by route, but the overall aim is obvious to me. I broadly agree with your diagnosis but I'd add two comments. 1. There should be a new LO station at New Bermondsey. Provision has been made at Surrey Canal Road and the developer and Lewisham Council were committed to funding it. The downside is that the SLL service is utterly packed in the peaks so it's questionable whether anyone could board! I think TfL want to bump the service up to 6 tph if they can find the paths and stock but that's likely to trigger a further tsunami of demand in South London. 2. Yes TfL are cash constrained and there will always be a trade off. *However* the developers in all these areas should be being tapped for S106 (or equivalent) monies to cover the costs of additional bus capacity. Obviously that doesn't last forever but if demand is as high as TFL suggest then the routes should be a positive addition to the network and easing capacity constraints on some existing corridors should bring new users and revenue. I'm not saying the routes will be "profitable", more that they should not be a drain on the budget once established and as occupancy levels increase in the new developments (assuming they're all built). Therefore TfL are not as constrained as they might like to claim - assuming the local authorities agree with the proposed services and will release the cash!! Yes, I agree, at end of my first paragraph should have included a qualifier, only increase service if someone else pays (e.g. S106 contribution from developer), otherwise must not cost more. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Feb 23, 2017 18:16:19 GMT
I just had a quick flick through it, if the 188 is curtailed at Elephant& Castle then an extension from there to Vauxhall via the 196 route might be useful?
Presumably if the A route is ever extended to Grove Park it wouldn't be as per the 136 but possibly via Hither Green?
|
|
|
|
Post by gloriouswater on Feb 23, 2017 18:21:48 GMT
Presumably if the A route is ever extended to Grove Park it wouldn't be as per the 136 but possibly via Hither Green? Hmm, if it went direct via Hither Green and Northover without serving Catford that would be a handy new link and I imagine pretty well used. I wonder if it's better to terminate the A at Hither Green and instead extend the 225 that way. The 225 is slightly shorter and wouldn't have to face the problem of that junction by NX garage. |
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Feb 23, 2017 18:31:18 GMT
On a very quick read, this seems to dismember the network around Rotherhithe and I suspect is not what the people pushing for it were hoping to see. Links to Guys and St Thomas' Hospital seem to be damaged which I expect will not go down well. Route 'A' seems a bit too similar to the 225, the new style 381 looks a bit like the old P5 and route 'C' should really be numbered 70!
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Feb 23, 2017 18:33:00 GMT
I just had a quick flick through it, if the 188 is curtailed at Elephant& Castle then an extension from there to Vauxhall via the 196 route might be useful? Presumably if the A route is ever extended to Grove Park it wouldn't be as per the 136 but possibly via Hither Green? The only thing I will say is having two bus routes along Kennington Lane is a bit much TBH so either the 196 stays or the 188 extends to Vauxhall or even better, to Battersea Park & the 436 to Clapham Junction. |
|
As for the route being proposed, new capacity from Rotherhithe to Lewisham is always welcome especially aiding the 47 and 225. I wonder where they plan to stand buses at the Rotherhithe end though?