|
Post by routew15 on Nov 28, 2016 13:30:27 GMT
There are plans to remove the 931 bus service between Crystal Palace and Lewisham Shopping Centre. Consultation page
this would leave the 969 and 965 as the last two mobility bus services.
|
|
|
Route 931
Nov 28, 2016 16:10:00 GMT
via mobile
Post by ibus246 on Nov 28, 2016 16:10:00 GMT
There are plans to remove the 931 bus service between Crystal Palace and Lewisham Shopping Centre. Consultation page
this would leave the 969 and 965 as the last two mobility bus services. How strange - the route was only re-awarded a new contract? No doubt it will have a pool of regular users.
|
|
|
Post by stuckonthe486 on Nov 28, 2016 16:38:15 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2016 17:02:15 GMT
There are plans to remove the 931 bus service between Crystal Palace and Lewisham Shopping Centre. Consultation page
this would leave the 969 and 965 as the last two mobility bus services. Thanks for the post, seems that this one is a foregone conclusion if they've already brainwashed the users. I suppose if they are happy to transfer to DaR then no more need for the 931. Also noted and not too happy with the wording about there being six trips per 'week'. Although accurate, it makes the 931 sound like a weekday, or even daily, route. Compare that to 'every Friday on which it operates' and you see how useless they are trying to make the service seem as a justification for removing it. EDIT - my 'brainwash' comment was tongue-in-cheek but I do wonder just what these discussions entailed!!!
|
|
|
Post by abc on Nov 28, 2016 17:49:40 GMT
If the six users of the service agree with change, what's the point of the consultation?
|
|
|
Post by Unorm on Nov 28, 2016 17:59:26 GMT
How strange - the route was only re-awarded a new contract? No doubt it will have a pool of regular users. Indeed, it's contract renewal date is on 3 December with ex-201/407 E200s. It has a few users indeed but minimal to the rough amount mentioned in consultation. Yep, the bus stop is not only quiet but looks like a deserted estate with a foresty nature to it
My own opinion to it, a shame they want to withdraw it, but if they wanted to, why not before whilst it was being tendered? Although it's underused as mentioned, I believe it would've been useful if utilised, for example making it daily (at least in peaks) to relieve pressure off 122 between Lewisham and Crystal Palace for those who want those destinations only, or even make 931 daily by making it shorten 450 to Crystal Palace (to make it shorter to enhance reliability), and having 931 serve Lower Sydenham Sainsbury's and elsewhere to Lewisham. Oh well, that's my nearest mobility route gone if TfL go ahead with this....
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 28, 2016 21:28:29 GMT
There are plans to remove the 931 bus service between Crystal Palace and Lewisham Shopping Centre. Consultation page
this would leave the 969 and 965 as the last two mobility bus services. Well that is one to try to tick off before TfL kill it if only for the novelty value. I've only ever seen it once hurtling out of Crystal Palace bus stn as I stepped off a 202.
|
|
|
Post by routew15 on Nov 29, 2016 0:01:15 GMT
How strange - the route was only re-awarded a new contract? No doubt it will have a pool of regular users. Indeed, it's contract renewal date is on 3 December with ex-201/407 E200s. It has a few users indeed but minimal to the rough amount mentioned in consultation.
My own opinion to it, a shame they want to withdraw it, but if they wanted to, why not before whilst it was being tendered? I can't say for certain why the withdrawal was not introduced on tender but I have a strong feeling that Christmas shopping has something to do with it and removing the bus after this time maybe more apt then during the peak of shopping season.
|
|
|
Post by ibus246 on Nov 29, 2016 5:43:08 GMT
There are plans to remove the 931 bus service between Crystal Palace and Lewisham Shopping Centre. Consultation page
this would leave the 969 and 965 as the last two mobility bus services. Well that is one to try to tick off before TfL kill it if only for the novelty value. I've only ever seen it once hurtling out of Crystal Palace bus stn as I stepped off a 202. You won't regret it - I've travelled on the route many many times and I really like its uniqueness. Shame it's being withdrawn - oh sorry consulted for withdrawal.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2016 23:59:32 GMT
Well that is one to try to tick off before TfL kill it if only for the novelty value. I've only ever seen it once hurtling out of Crystal Palace bus stn as I stepped off a 202. You won't regret it - I've travelled on the route many many times and I really like its uniqueness. Shame it's being withdrawn - oh sorry consulted for withdrawal. I think the 356 could be extended to High Level Drive. It's deceptively a big estate.
|
|
|
Post by routew15 on Dec 2, 2016 0:44:35 GMT
You won't regret it - I've travelled on the route many many times and I really like its uniqueness. Shame it's being withdrawn - oh sorry consulted for withdrawal. I think the 356 could be extended to High Level Drive. It's deceptively a big estate. A 356 extension sounds quite convoluted especially with the U shape the route makes in Sydenham. Why not extend the 315 ( via Gipsy Road, Dulwich Wood Park, Kingswood Drive)? The route is: Low frequency, uses short buses, low mileage, has good local links. A decent extension plus it avoids the bus ban on Park Hill Road.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Dec 2, 2016 5:14:15 GMT
I think the 356 could be extended to High Level Drive. It's deceptively a big estate. A 356 extension sounds quite convoluted especially with the U shape the route makes in Sydenham. Why not extend the 315 ( via Gipsy Road, Dulwich Wood Park, Kingswood Drive)? The route is: Low frequency, uses short buses, low mileage, has good local links. A decent extension plus it avoids the bus ban on Park Hill Road. I had a similar idea to this: Divert the 315 in West Norwood via the 322's routing to Gipsy Hill, then Dulwich Wood Park, then via the 450 to Crystal Palace Divert the 322 in West Norwood via West Norwood Station, Gipsy Road & then extend it to Lower Sydenham via the current 450 routing except for the Kingswood Drive section which would be run by the 315. Convert to dual door 10.8m/10.9m single deckers. Withdraw the 450 between Lower Sydenham & College Road & extend to Loughborough Junction via Dulwich Wood Park, South Croxted Road, Park Hall Road (with restriction removed), Rosendale Road, Herne Hill & Milkwood Road.
|
|
|
Post by routew15 on Dec 2, 2016 10:30:15 GMT
A 356 extension sounds quite convoluted especially with the U shape the route makes in Sydenham. Why not extend the 315 ( via Gipsy Road, Dulwich Wood Park, Kingswood Drive)? The route is: Low frequency, uses short buses, low mileage, has good local links. A decent extension plus it avoids the bus ban on Park Hill Road. I had a similar idea to this: Divert the 315 in West Norwood via the 322's routing to Gipsy Hill, then Dulwich Wood Park, then via the 450 to Crystal Palace Divert the 322 in West Norwood via West Norwood Station, Gipsy Road & then extend it to Lower Sydenham via the current 450 routing except for the Kingswood Drive section which would be run by the 315. Convert to dual door 10.8m/10.9m single deckers. Withdraw the 450 between Lower Sydenham & College Road & extend to Loughborough Junction via Dulwich Wood Park, South Croxted Road, Park Hall Road (with restriction removed), Rosendale Road, Herne Hill & Milkwood Road. That's quite a bit of shuffling going on there. Not sure I understand the diversion of the 322 in West Norwood is this so the route can take longer dual door SDs? Would that not make the 450 longer than it currently is?
|
|
|
Post by Unorm on Dec 2, 2016 10:47:10 GMT
I had a similar idea to this: Divert the 315 in West Norwood via the 322's routing to Gipsy Hill, then Dulwich Wood Park, then via the 450 to Crystal Palace Divert the 322 in West Norwood via West Norwood Station, Gipsy Road & then extend it to Lower Sydenham via the current 450 routing except for the Kingswood Drive section which would be run by the 315. Convert to dual door 10.8m/10.9m single deckers. Withdraw the 450 between Lower Sydenham & College Road & extend to Loughborough Junction via Dulwich Wood Park, South Croxted Road, Park Hall Road (with restriction removed), Rosendale Road, Herne Hill & Milkwood Road. I remember the last time I commented on your idea and my thoughts have changed since the last time, I wouldn't mind 315 but both are doing a bit on the bad side despite both being controlled from SW Then again having 450 as an alternative to either is brilliant minus the potential chaos that could happen lol. That's quite a bit of shuffling going on there. Not sure I understand the diversion of the 322 in West Norwood is this so the route can take longer dual door SDs? Would that not make the 450 longer than it currently is? Despite SW throwing the 10.7m DPs on the full routing, St Gothard's Road isn't a good idea for a full allocation of typically long vehicles if two were to bypass each other, and the unserved part of Gipsy Road has only seen diversions (417/432) so having a daily service through there isn't a bad idea and would relieve a bit of pressure, and making it direct via Gipsy Road saves some total end-to-end time instead of making lots of turns from left to right. And indeed, 450 would be longer (physically, but in terms of traffic those roads are traffic-less) and more chaotic resulting in a single decker scenario of 436
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Dec 2, 2016 11:30:20 GMT
|
|