|
|
Post by vjaska on Feb 23, 2017 18:35:08 GMT
Hello New Bermondsey - welcome to your new direct link to Brixton lol I like the 415 extension but the some of the rest is way too destructive especially for links to Guys & St. Thomas Hospital as danorak mentioned. |
|
|
|
Post by 700101 on Feb 23, 2017 18:48:00 GMT
Good to see bus development ideas for my local area –
199 slight re-routing is a good idea
The loss of capacity of buses to/from Waterloo is a bit worrying, a good idea would be as mentioned above is to have the 188 terminate at Waterloo using the current 381 stand, also the 381 could be extended from Peckham
Increased frequency on the 47 would be welcomed if route 381 is cut back to Canada Water
Route A – this seems like a good route which would help relieve slight pressure of the 47 & 225, also if an extension to Grove Park would go ahead maybe running via Hither Green then via Verdant Lane would be welcomed which in turn would help both the 181 & 225 or extending the 181 to cover route A
Route B – direct link from New Bermondsey to Central London would be good plus extra buses along Old Kent Road is welcomed but would this be needed now with the Bakerloo Line extension due to run along Old Kent Road which will relieve pressure along this busy corridor and with plans to extend the 415 to this area
Route C - starts from Greenwich, wouldn’t this make sense to extended the 129 over the proposed route C as this was mentioned to be extended to Peckham via the new Bermondsey area a while ago if my memory is correct.
415 extension is an excellent idea, carrying passengers to/from the proposed Old Kent Road station around Tesco would be great
|
|
|
|
Post by routew15 on Feb 23, 2017 18:55:19 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. have to disagree with that the South London Line has spare peak time capacity and would not be unfit for New Bermondsey passengers to board the trains. If TfL rail can pack on the passengers then so can the SLL |
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Feb 23, 2017 19:27:02 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? Have to agree there. Via 181, then Hither Green Lane, Verdant Lane, Northover to Grove Park. It would actually relieve a lot of pressure from both the 181 & 284. Alternatively extend the 225 to Grove Park and the new service terminates at Hither Green. Only issue with Grove Park only stand space for 4 buses. |
|
|
|
Post by jay38a on Feb 23, 2017 20:26:51 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. Would be very handy link, certainly possible to get a bus down full length of Hither Green Lane as yours turely has done while running light to and from MB on a 181 or 284. With the issue of Stand at Grove Park, could extend it to Grove Park Cemetery directly via Chinbrook and Marvels Lane. |
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Feb 23, 2017 21:15:07 GMT
Interesting set of proposals. Think the loss of 188 north of Aldwych with no replacemeant is a symptom of the thinning of the zone 1 network - as often mentioned here. Think it's a pity we will lose the 188 from E&C to Russell Square. Waterloo seems a better new terminal choice. Gerard's route C/129 idea is excellent IMO. I'm also going to stick my neck out and say the 381 withdrawal is quite reasonable in conjunction with the other changes. Yeah, go on, chuck tomatoes at me  |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Feb 23, 2017 21:30:22 GMT
Interesting set of proposals. Think the loss of 188 north of Aldwych with no replacemeant is a symptom of the thinning of the zone 1 network - as often mentioned here. Think it's a pity we will lose the 188 from E&C to Russell Square. Waterloo seems a better new terminal choice. Gerard's route C/129 idea is excellent IMO. I'm also going to stick my neck out and say the 381 withdrawal is quite reasonable in conjunction with the other changes. Yeah, go on, chuck tomatoes at me To be fair I don't think that the 188 change is unreasonable, the Waterloo-Holborn corridor is a bit over bussed. |
|
|
|
Post by gloriouswater on Feb 23, 2017 21:35:17 GMT
I'm also going to stick my neck out and say the 381 withdrawal is quite reasonable in conjunction with the other changes. Yeah, go on, chuck tomatoes at me I'm actually going to (partially) agree with you here. I live on the route and never use the section west of the Rotherhithe loop. I only have two concerns with it. - Passengers for Canada Water (JLE interchange) from Peckham face a much longer journey time as they have to navigate the Rotherhithe loop fully before reaching the station, or get off at Surrey Quays. I'd keep its existing routing and just cut it to the Rotherhithe Tunnel, using the roundabout to turn around. May be a bit traffic prone but the bus would be going around it anyway. - I'm not sure the loss of direct links west of the loop would be appreciated by people living on it. The C10 might get a little busy there. People of course have the option of a hop on to new route C to London Bridge but it requires crossing a rather busy, complicated roundabout. Maybe I'd extend route C a bit further west as well. I'll also stick my head out and offer a few thoughts on how I'd fix the slight mess of the 188 curtailment, and a few other things. - As mentioned earlier run the 188 to Waterloo. If that route is still too long for TfL, the traffic prone Trafalgar Road section could be curtailed leaving it running between Greenwich and Waterloo. In my experience most trips are between these sections, unless someone knows better. This also helps with the Waterloo capacity issue I mentioned. - Instead of terminating new route B at Aldwych, I'd extend it north to Euston (remember when the 188 used to go there?  ) and from New Bermondsey run it to Canada Water, traffic and low bridges permitting. Although honestly despite using the Old Kent Road I don't think it'd get that bad during the peaks. Stand space at Canada Water would be provided by my earlier idea of terminating the 381 in Rotherhithe instead. - Run route C maybe a little further west such as to Blackfriars, to use the 388's stand vacated when that moves to E&C? And as mentioned by another poster, extend it to North Greenwich over the 129. (maybe Blackfriars - North Greenwich seems a little too long now so keep it at LBG) - An idea I'd like to see in real life but not mentioned in the paper is to have a direct route to the Rotherhithe area from Woolwich. I'd have that aid the 472 to North Greenwich which I often see full on that section. From there, run via the 188 to Greenwich, then possibly via the 177 to Deptford Bridge, turn right and follow the 47 to Canada Water. I'd then have it hook around South Bermondsey (where bridges are high enough for DDs) and terminate in New Bermondsey. This could aid the capacity problem mentioned before between New Bermondsey and Canada Water as well. Now all this may be just a little too far fetched, but to me my ideas seem logical enough. |
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Feb 23, 2017 21:41:12 GMT
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. Would be very handy link, certainly possible to get a bus down full length of Hither Green Lane as yours turely has done while running light to and from MB on a 181 or 284. With the issue of Stand at Grove Park, could extend it to Grove Park Cemetery directly via Chinbrook and Marvels Lane. Think I need to rain slightly on this parade before we get too carried away. While I agree a Lewisham - Hither Green - Verdant Lane - Grove Park service is desirable, and I would certainly support this as an extension of the 225, there isn't actually anything in this document that makes this proposal. All is says is 'There is potential to extend (route A) to Grove Park in a future phase'. So even if this was the idea, for starters, it is one phase further away than the rest of any scheme. I think there's a fair bit of fine tuning needed before these ideas are turned into a workable scheme. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Feb 23, 2017 23:08:44 GMT
I would expect one of the B or C routes to use the number 82 soon to be Vacant. The B would be quite fitting as there was an 82 route from Surrey Docks through the Rotherhithe Tunnel.
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Feb 23, 2017 23:32:39 GMT
Interesting set of proposals. Think the loss of 188 north of Aldwych with no replacemeant is a symptom of the thinning of the zone 1 network - as often mentioned here. Think it's a pity we will lose the 188 from E&C to Russell Square. Waterloo seems a better new terminal choice. Gerard's route C/129 idea is excellent IMO. I'm also going to stick my neck out and say the 381 withdrawal is quite reasonable in conjunction with the other changes. Yeah, go on, chuck tomatoes at me What about the broken links to Guys & St Thomas Hospital? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2017 0:12:39 GMT
Maybe a new electric bus red arrow route covering rush hours Waterloo - Kings Cross or Euston could replace the 188
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Feb 24, 2017 9:26:57 GMT
Having had more time to read it, I'll give a few more thoughts: 1 - Increasing its PVR makes perfect sense as it's a busy route from Waterloo to Canada Water so no brainer on that one 188 - I agree with the principle but not the way they've done it - gloriouswater had a better idea where rather than terminate the 188 at Elephant & Castle and run Route C from London Bridge to Greenwich, let the 188 have one end and Route C the other end so instead, it would end up something like this - 188 as proposed and then Route C from Aldwych/Russell Square to Greenwich. That way, any broken links are minimal and the 188 still gets the reliability boost it needs. 199 - don't see much issue here - a small deviation via Convoys Wharf is hardly going to kill it but will it be used though 381: disagree with this one. Breaking links to two major hospitals such as Guys & St Thomas Hospital is a big no no in my mind especially when the Canada Water & Rotherhithe Peninsula areas has no access to the third hospital in that group (Kings College) so I seriously don't understand the logic behind that. I'd personally leave the 381 as it is. 415 - agree with this extension but just a shame it doesn't continue to Canada Water - never mind. I'm unsure why TfL are worried about reliability - even with the extension, I can't see it becoming less unreliable and this extension also relieves pressure on the Old Kent Road Tesco stand. Route A - seems to duplicate the 225 a lot bar a few sections so I'm unsure how good this idea is. The muted extension to Grove Park is interesting but then you could argue to extend the 225 instead. Route B - not a bad idea but nothing spectacular. This one is a bit like Ronseal - it does exactly what it says on the tin by providing a link to Central London as well as giving Marshalsea Road a bus route. Route C - already mentioned with the 188. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Feb 24, 2017 14:14:12 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. Maybe curtail the 196 at Vauxhall? I'd certainly agree with the 188 to Battersea Park Stn and the 436 to Clapham Junction improving east/west links. I can't see much of a case for saving the 381 though to be honest, a change of bus or the JLE for Guys and Tommys. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Feb 24, 2017 14:59:36 GMT
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. Maybe curtail the 196 at Vauxhall? I'd certainly agree with the 188 to Battersea Park Stn and the 436 to Clapham Junction improving east/west links. I can't see much of a case for saving the 381 though to be honest, a change of bus or the JLE for Guys and Tommys. The problem with curtailing at Vauxhall is lack of space both now & even more so with the upcoming works which will reduce stand space further. It's a shame there isn't room on the Albert Embankment what with all the coaches parking there. In regards to the 381, the problem with that is anyone who is elderly, disabled or unable to walk much probably won't want to change bus or will unlikely use the Tube - personally, hospital provision is very important and whilst certainly not every route can serve one, I'd like to see current ones remain doing so. If it didn't serve two major hospitals, I'd be more sympathetic though effectively cutting the route in half still seems overkill especially given there is some demand along the section being removed. |
|
) and from New Bermondsey run it to Canada Water, traffic and low bridges permitting. Although honestly despite using the Old Kent Road I don't think it'd get that bad during the peaks. Stand space at Canada Water would be provided by my earlier idea of terminating the 381 in Rotherhithe instead.