|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Dec 16, 2018 22:30:08 GMT
Though the 476 would provide some similar links to Tottenham, Newington Green and Angel. So what? I am quoting what TfL have said in their report where the value was on ensuring east to west links which the 341 provides through West Green, St Anns and Green Lanes. They did not consider the 476 as an option so there's little point in speculating about something that was not considered. Some of these west-east links do make sense. Though if reliability/length were to be an issue still with an extended 341, another option could be to swap the routeing slightly of the 341/476: One route from Waterloo to Northumberland Park, via the 341 to Newington Green then the 476 to NP. One route Kings Cross to Meridian Water, via the 476 to Angel then the 341. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Dec 17, 2018 0:53:55 GMT
So what? I am quoting what TfL have said in their report where the value was on ensuring east to west links which the 341 provides through West Green, St Anns and Green Lanes. They did not consider the 476 as an option so there's little point in speculating about something that was not considered. Some of these west-east links do make sense. Though if reliability/length were to be an issue still with an extended 341, another option could be to swap the routeing slightly of the 341/476: One route from Waterloo to Northumberland Park, via the 341 to Newington Green then the 476 to NP. One route Kings Cross to Meridian Water, via the 476 to Angel then the 341. Why tinker with what currently works though? As redexpress mentions, the 341 is due to be tinkered with in the Central London cuts so it may be feasible to apply the 2015 proposed extension should it ever come to light again. |
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Dec 24, 2018 3:51:03 GMT
With the 341 reliability issue, the 341 could instead be cut back slightly to Northumberland Park Station, with the 476 then extended to Meridian Water via Angel Road. In theory yes but TfL like the option of extending the 341 because it gives useful cross Tottenham links that the 476 would not provide. There are also established travel patterns on the 341. Let's face it - there are masses of buses on the main N-S corridor so interchange is easy and wait times minimal if you want to travel south of Tottenham Garage. TfL are keen to provide a mix of service access from a range of directions to / from Meridian Water for both the new residents but also people elsewhere who will travel in to the area to work. There is still a decent amount of industry in the area. There's also the added extra of providing a 24 hour link to Meridian Water by extending the 341. There's likely provisions for a night service; given full resident occupancy at Meridian Water is at 10,000, I'm likely swayed to think it's mandatory so the 341 is the easiest & cheapest option for serving the area at night. |
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Jul 11, 2019 5:44:43 GMT
Some snippets from page 174 of the Programmes and Investment papers Part 9.8 bus use has fallen, comparable to 2010 levels Part 9.9 to meet objectives bus use needs to grow 40% Part 9.10 now realise needs of bus users need to be considered when planning cycling and walking schemes Part 9.14 (d) .... providing orbital links content.tfl.gov.uk/pic-20190717-public-pack.pdfIf snoggle wasn’t away from forum whilst ill, I’m sure he would comment on Walthamstow changes case study page 187 Review of the Elephant and Castle scheme, page 192, shows bus journey times planned to increase by 23% (over 300 seconds, or 5 minutes) due to scheme. Can’t think of appropriate words to comment on the bus dis benefits |
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Jul 11, 2019 12:35:18 GMT
Some snippets from page 174 of the Programmes and Investment papers Part 9.8 bus use has fallen, comparable to 2010 levels Part 9.9 to meet objectives bus use needs to grow 40% Part 9.10 now realise needs of bus users need to be considered when planning cycling and walking schemes Part 9.14 (d) .... providing orbital links content.tfl.gov.uk/pic-20190717-public-pack.pdfIf snoggle wasn’t away from forum whilst ill, I’m sure he would comment on Walthamstow changes case study page 187 Review of the Elephant and Castle scheme, page 192, shows bus journey times planned to increase by 23% (over 300 seconds, or 5 minutes) due to scheme. Can’t think of appropriate words to comment on the bus dis benefits If only TfL had thought of considering buses a little earlier when planning new walking/cycling/urban realm schemes. I'm all for these schemes but buses really should not be forgotten as they are a part of the solution to congestion/pollution just as bicycles are. I would love to think this realisation that the fall in bus usage should be addressed will go on to be the peripeteia of TfL policy meaning they stop cutting bus services thus driving more people away from the network. Wishful thinking... |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jul 11, 2019 19:19:24 GMT
Some snippets from page 174 of the Programmes and Investment papers Part 9.8 bus use has fallen, comparable to 2010 levels Part 9.9 to meet objectives bus use needs to grow 40% Part 9.10 now realise needs of bus users need to be considered when planning cycling and walking schemes Part 9.14 (d) .... providing orbital links content.tfl.gov.uk/pic-20190717-public-pack.pdfIf snoggle wasn’t away from forum whilst ill, I’m sure he would comment on Walthamstow changes case study page 187 Review of the Elephant and Castle scheme, page 192, shows bus journey times planned to increase by 23% (over 300 seconds, or 5 minutes) due to scheme. Can’t think of appropriate words to comment on the bus dis benefits "Now realise that needs of bus users need to be considered when planning cycling and walking schemes"  What is this? - Emperor's new clothes day or something. I can't believe someone had the bare faced gall to write such a lot of incriminating b*ll*cks for what TfL have done in the past. It beggars believe. You have to wonder what "logic" (hah!) was used to determine the shape and scope of the recent Central London changes. No way are they designed to encourage bus usage growth of 40%. I will have a look at the referenced page re Walthamstow in due time. (Wanders off muttering like an old git)   |
|
|
|
Post by foxhat on Jul 11, 2019 19:43:29 GMT
Some snippets from page 174 of the Programmes and Investment papers Part 9.8 bus use has fallen, comparable to 2010 levels Part 9.9 to meet objectives bus use needs to grow 40% Part 9.10 now realise needs of bus users need to be considered when planning cycling and walking schemes Part 9.14 (d) .... providing orbital links content.tfl.gov.uk/pic-20190717-public-pack.pdfIf snoggle wasn’t away from forum whilst ill, I’m sure he would comment on Walthamstow changes case study page 187 Review of the Elephant and Castle scheme, page 192, shows bus journey times planned to increase by 23% (over 300 seconds, or 5 minutes) due to scheme. Can’t think of appropriate words to comment on the bus dis benefits I keep seeing the phrase "bus priority" yet nowhere does anything elaborate as to what this actually means. There have been two so called "bus priority" measures introduced in my local area in the past year. This has involved the widening of pavements making the road narrower, and the introduction of traffic islands slowing down all traffic. I'm still waiting to see the priority ... |
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Jul 11, 2019 19:49:29 GMT
Some snippets from page 174 of the Programmes and Investment papers Part 9.8 bus use has fallen, comparable to 2010 levels Part 9.9 to meet objectives bus use needs to grow 40% Part 9.10 now realise needs of bus users need to be considered when planning cycling and walking schemes Part 9.14 (d) .... providing orbital links content.tfl.gov.uk/pic-20190717-public-pack.pdfIf snoggle wasn’t away from forum whilst ill, I’m sure he would comment on Walthamstow changes case study page 187 Review of the Elephant and Castle scheme, page 192, shows bus journey times planned to increase by 23% (over 300 seconds, or 5 minutes) due to scheme. Can’t think of appropriate words to comment on the bus dis benefits I keep seeing the phrase "bus priority" yet nowhere does anything elaborate as to what this actually means. There have been two so called "bus priority" measures introduced in my local area in the past year. This has involved the widening of pavements making the road narrower, and the introduction of traffic islands slowing down all traffic. I'm still waiting to see the priority ... Sadly we have a lack of bus priority measures in London, which are really needed. Bus lanes are good for buses to avoid congestion but there aren't enough, many bus lanes have been lost as a result of walking/cycling schemes. A good bus priority measure which we don't see nearly enough of is traffic lights which hold back cars and allow buses to pull out of lane as well as overtake cars. These exist on Walworth Road, Putney Bridge, and Shepherd's Bush Green but sadly to my knowledge nowhere else has this great idea |
|
|
|
Post by busman on Jul 15, 2019 12:37:06 GMT
Some snippets from page 174 of the Programmes and Investment papers Part 9.8 bus use has fallen, comparable to 2010 levels Part 9.9 to meet objectives bus use needs to grow 40% Part 9.10 now realise needs of bus users need to be considered when planning cycling and walking schemes Part 9.14 (d) .... providing orbital links content.tfl.gov.uk/pic-20190717-public-pack.pdfIf snoggle wasn’t away from forum whilst ill, I’m sure he would comment on Walthamstow changes case study page 187 Review of the Elephant and Castle scheme, page 192, shows bus journey times planned to increase by 23% (over 300 seconds, or 5 minutes) due to scheme. Can’t think of appropriate words to comment on the bus dis benefits My thoughts on what I gleaned from that chunky document: Page 8:“The Silvertown Tunnel would enable the extension of route 108 and the introduction of new routes, which would enable an estimated 20 buses per hour in each direction, building up to 37.5 buses per hour in each direction.”An extension of route 108? Has anyone else heard more on this? I’m assuming an extension north of the river or perhaps they mean rerouting via the Silvertown tunnel to enable the 108 to be decked? On reflection, 20 bph does seem more realistic starting figure than 37.5bph. When TfL initially rowed back on 37.5bph I was miffed, but more because TfL had reneged on a promise.m. I wonder if the 20bph is inclusive of the 108? For me that would make sense as it points to an additional 2-3 routes crossing the river, which is a substantial improvement. “A number of benefits would be targeted at local residents, for example concession bus routes, free bus routes for a period of time and lower paid workers discount on the user charge for the tunnel.”Ok, we’re now in the land of the magic money tree. I’m surprised this is still being pushed by TfL. Bus fares are already heavily subsidised and London has one of the best (possibly THE best) value tickets in the country. Free bus routes sounds like madness to me. Also the lower paid workers discount...£1.50 for unlimited rides in an hour already sounds very reasonable to me. As a local resident, I’ll also be very interested in the concessions I’ll be offered 🤔 No-one is complaining that buses are unaffordable. The issue is with falling speeds, frequencies and rampant traffic delays. It seems that TfL are prescribing the wrong medicine for the problem. My hope is that by the virtue of Silvertown being pretty much parallel to Blackwall, the new traffic generated will be minimal vs the extra road capacity and guaranteed peak time tailbacks will be a thing of the past. If that happens, bus speeds and reliability through the crossings will be attractive. Page 163“One of these schemes includes making changes to the Madeley Road junction on the A406, with the intention of achieving a seven minute reduction in journey times for Route 112.”The Madeley Road diversion lives! I drove down there yesterday and it certainly shaves a huge chunk of the journey time into Ealing Broadway. By prioritising these changes, it seems TfL definitely have bigger plans for the 112. North Finchley or Osterley? |
|
|
|
Post by foxhat on Jul 15, 2019 13:11:08 GMT
Some snippets from page 174 of the Programmes and Investment papers Part 9.8 bus use has fallen, comparable to 2010 levels Part 9.9 to meet objectives bus use needs to grow 40% Part 9.10 now realise needs of bus users need to be considered when planning cycling and walking schemes Part 9.14 (d) .... providing orbital links content.tfl.gov.uk/pic-20190717-public-pack.pdfIf snoggle wasn’t away from forum whilst ill, I’m sure he would comment on Walthamstow changes case study page 187 Review of the Elephant and Castle scheme, page 192, shows bus journey times planned to increase by 23% (over 300 seconds, or 5 minutes) due to scheme. Can’t think of appropriate words to comment on the bus dis benefits My thoughts on what I gleaned from that chunky document: Page 8:“The Silvertown Tunnel would enable the extension of route 108 and the introduction of new routes, which would enable an estimated 20 buses per hour in each direction, building up to 37.5 buses per hour in each direction.”An extension of route 108? Has anyone else heard more on this? I’m assuming an extension north of the river or perhaps they mean rerouting via the Silvertown tunnel to enable the 108 to be decked? On reflection, 20 bph does seem more realistic starting figure than 37.5bph. When TfL initially rowed back on 37.5bph I was miffed, but more because TfL had reneged on a promise.m. I wonder if the 20bph is inclusive of the 108? For me that would make sense as it points to an additional 2-3 routes crossing the river, which is a substantial improvement. “A number of benefits would be targeted at local residents, for example concession bus routes, free bus routes for a period of time and lower paid workers discount on the user charge for the tunnel.”Ok, we’re now in the land of the magic money tree. I’m surprised this is still being pushed by TfL. Bus fares are already heavily subsidised and London has one of the best (possibly THE best) value tickets in the country. Free bus routes sounds like madness to me. Also the lower paid workers discount...£1.50 for unlimited rides in an hour already sounds very reasonable to me. As a local resident, I’ll also be very interested in the concessions I’ll be offered 🤔 No-one is complaining that buses are unaffordable. The issue is with falling speeds, frequencies and rampant traffic delays. It seems that TfL are prescribing the wrong medicine for the problem. My hope is that by the virtue of Silvertown being pretty much parallel to Blackwall, the new traffic generated will be minimal vs the extra road capacity and guaranteed peak time tailbacks will be a thing of the past. If that happens, bus speeds and reliability through the crossings will be attractive. Page 163“One of these schemes includes making changes to the Madeley Road junction on the A406, with the intention of achieving a seven minute reduction in journey times for Route 112.”The Madeley Road diversion lives! I drove down there yesterday and it certainly shaves a huge chunk of the journey time into Ealing Broadway. By prioritising these changes, it seems TfL definitely have bigger plans for the 112. North Finchley or Osterley?112 to Osterley was ruled out some while back now with the E10 being the favoured option. 112 to North Finchley has been mentioned several times in TfL publications so one can only presume the official line of this is a case of when, not if. The issue with Madeley Road, as has been mentioned before on the consultations thread was that the diversion would not be able to take deckers due to the low trees. |
|
|
|
Post by routew15 on Jul 15, 2019 16:56:32 GMT
Some snippets from page 174 of the Programmes and Investment papers Part 9.8 bus use has fallen, comparable to 2010 levels Part 9.9 to meet objectives bus use needs to grow 40% Part 9.10 now realise needs of bus users need to be considered when planning cycling and walking schemes Part 9.14 (d) .... providing orbital links content.tfl.gov.uk/pic-20190717-public-pack.pdfIf snoggle wasn’t away from forum whilst ill, I’m sure he would comment on Walthamstow changes case study page 187 Review of the Elephant and Castle scheme, page 192, shows bus journey times planned to increase by 23% (over 300 seconds, or 5 minutes) due to scheme. Can’t think of appropriate words to comment on the bus dis benefits My thoughts on what I gleaned from that chunky document: Page 8:“The Silvertown Tunnel would enable the extension of route 108 and the introduction of new routes, which would enable an estimated 20 buses per hour in each direction, building up to 37.5 buses per hour in each direction.”An extension of route 108? Has anyone else heard more on this? I’m assuming an extension north of the river or perhaps they mean rerouting via the Silvertown tunnel to enable the 108 to be decked? On reflection, 20 bph does seem more realistic starting figure than 37.5bph. When TfL initially rowed back on 37.5bph I was miffed, but more because TfL had reneged on a promise.m. I wonder if the 20bph is inclusive of the 108? For me that would make sense as it points to an additional 2-3 routes crossing the river, which is a substantial improvement. “A number of benefits would be targeted at local residents, for example concession bus routes, free bus routes for a period of time and lower paid workers discount on the user charge for the tunnel.”Ok, we’re now in the land of the magic money tree. I’m surprised this is still being pushed by TfL. Bus fares are already heavily subsidised and London has one of the best (possibly THE best) value tickets in the country. Free bus routes sounds like madness to me. Also the lower paid workers discount...£1.50 for unlimited rides in an hour already sounds very reasonable to me. As a local resident, I’ll also be very interested in the concessions I’ll be offered 🤔 No-one is complaining that buses are unaffordable. The issue is with falling speeds, frequencies and rampant traffic delays. It seems that TfL are prescribing the wrong medicine for the problem. My hope is that by the virtue of Silvertown being pretty much parallel to Blackwall, the new traffic generated will be minimal vs the extra road capacity and guaranteed peak time tailbacks will be a thing of the past. If that happens, bus speeds and reliability through the crossings will be attractive. Page 163“One of these schemes includes making changes to the Madeley Road junction on the A406, with the intention of achieving a seven minute reduction in journey times for Route 112.”The Madeley Road diversion lives! I drove down there yesterday and it certainly shaves a huge chunk of the journey time into Ealing Broadway. By prioritising these changes, it seems TfL definitely have bigger plans for the 112. North Finchley or Osterley? I personally believe the 108 will be diverted via Manor Road to/from Stratford to serve Silvertown Tunnel with 276 diverted through the Devons Road area to Leamouth. I had listed this in the predictions thread |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Sept 1, 2019 23:10:00 GMT
Thanks to ThinLizzy posting the link on another thread, it's brought my attention to a few changes I missed the first time around. The 101 and 262 are both proposed to eventually be curtailed short at Beckton leaving just the 366 and 474 heading towards Gallions Reach of which only the 366 will go through the Shopping Park. Certainly an interesting read content.tfl.gov.uk/responding-to-the-transformation-of-the-royal-docks.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by ThinLizzy on Sept 2, 2019 6:54:54 GMT
Thanks to ThinLizzy posting the link on another thread, it's brought my attention to a few changes I missed the first time around. The 101 and 262 are both proposed to eventually be curtailed short at Beckton leaving just the 366 and 474 heading towards Gallions Reach of which only the 366 will go through the Shopping Park. Certainly an interesting read content.tfl.gov.uk/responding-to-the-transformation-of-the-royal-docks.pdf which would be an absolute pain for me getting the early 101 to Beckton DLR depot. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Sept 2, 2019 8:07:10 GMT
Maybe the 101 could re extend to North Woolwich from Beckton and the 330 be diverted via North Woolwich the other way to replace the 474.
|
|
|
|
Post by ThinLizzy on Sept 2, 2019 8:22:37 GMT
Maybe the 101 could re extend to North Woolwich from Beckton and the 330 be diverted via North Woolwich the other way to replace the 474. I think the plan might be to extend the 101 to the new ABP Business Park by Beckton Park DLR. I'm surprised the plan doesnt include extending the 330 up to the new Business Park via London City Airport, as the new terminus at Pontoon Dock wont be that useful |
|
