|
Post by busman on Feb 20, 2024 12:56:30 GMT
The SL3 and Superloop logo bus stop tiles have been installed in Sidcup. Have the Sidcup Station stops on Hatherley Road been tiled or have they gone with Station Road instead? I’m really surprised that Hatherley Road was the planned stop because running via Hurst Road is faster at most times of the day vs. Faraday Avenue and Foots Cray Lane.
|
|
|
Post by busman on Feb 15, 2024 17:07:38 GMT
£6.3million of taxpayer money wasted on virtue signalling nonsense. Vote this guy out already. Here‘s an idea: LO1 LO2 LO3 LO4 LO5 LO6
No drama, does the job.
|
|
|
Post by busman on Feb 6, 2024 17:27:01 GMT
Whilst I do think Thamesmead needs a station, I'm not convinced the DLR is the right way to go. Probably in the minority but I'd rather the extra money was poured into an Overground extension for all the extra links that will come which would open many possibilities. Also, I don't think the 15 minute frequency should be a barrier - I'm a bit miffed why it's bad for Thamesmead but ok for many areas which may only see a 30 minute frequency or less on there respective line. Or go the whole hog and stick both options in - obviously it won't happen (mainly because this country likes doing everything on the cheap, not even confirming they will safeguard a route for any further extension from Thamesmead) but I'm not sure one or the other will have the desired impact they think. I personally think extending the Hammersmith and City line would’ve been the best option by far, but this country is too behind to ever make that a reality. Completely agree with both these comments. London Overground would open up far better links than the Beckton branch of the DLR. From Thamesmead, the DLR is easily accessible via the Elizabeth line to Custom House from Abbey Wood and the DLR from Woolwich. The issue with extending the LO is that it would be a victim of its own success. Direct links to Barking and North London would see people travelling into Thamesmead to make those unique journeys. Sadly a 15 minute frequency would see trains rammed before they reached Barking Riverside. I think it is short sighted not to build a road tunnel next to the DLR tunnel for buses and emergency vehicles. That would potentially open up north-south crossings to a variety of destinations whilst appeasing nimbys here who prefer a non-functional ferry crossing to a proper road link. As for the rapid bus gimmick nonsense, as I’ve said elsewhere on this forum it’s a waste of money and totally unnecessary. This talk has been going on since before the creation of the 472. All they need to do is extend the SL3 one stop to Woolwich. Job done. If Peabody stop land banking and actually build stuff quickly around here, routes like the 301 and 472 could have enhanced frequencies. It doesn’t require anything fancy and bus prioritisation is excellent between Thamesmead and Woolwich apart from some issues accessing the eastbound bus lane after the junction with Burrage Road. Hopefully they build the station at Thamesmead with future ability to accommodate the LO as well as a future extension.
|
|
|
Post by busman on Feb 1, 2024 10:47:33 GMT
Don’t like it one bit, for the reasons everyone else has stated. Given that this change is linked to the Silvertown tunnel opening, why not have one of the new Silvertown routes serve Tunnel Avenue in both directions? I wonder if it’s worth considering splitting the 188 into two services - half going via current route as 188, and resurrecting the 168 number for the half going via Tunnel Avenue? Unless there was data to support splitting the 188, it is fine as it is. In fact the new route to Tottenham Court Road is actually a handier terminus from this area than Russell Square. If there was no possibility of introducing a new route through the new tunnel (as TfL seemed to have forgotten about earlier plans which had more buses and more routes), I would look at diverting the 161 down the whole stretch of Tunnel Avenue from East Greenwich library all the way into North Greenwich station. At the southern end, buses can access Tunnel Avenue via Dunham Street as buses curtailed at East Greenwich currently do anyway. I think it is definitely an option. The 161 pretty much empties out at Woolwich and is almost like two routes, plus the 180 and 472 still provides links to the IKEA area and beyond. Most of the stops (2 out of 3) in Charlton where the 161 is the only link to and from IKEA are within easy reach of the 180, 472 or 486. The stop with the biggest inconvenience would be the Rainton Road stops. Passengers using the 161 between Rainton Road and stops before North Greenwich Station would have journeys broken - but - there would be a common interchange stop (Tunnel Avenue) in both directions with the 108, 188 and 422 on Blackwall Lane. For short hop journeys to the IKEA area, passengers can take a bus one stop to East Greenwich (Kemsing Road) and change for the 129. Obviously this is just a suggestion based on my observations as a local, but TfL will have data to quantify how many people would be negatively impacted by such a change vs. how many people would benefit from such a change. It at least gets people from Woolwich to Meantime brewery quicker than a 422 ;-)
|
|
|
Post by busman on Jan 31, 2024 20:49:48 GMT
Don’t like it one bit, for the reasons everyone else has stated. Given that this change is linked to the Silvertown tunnel opening, why not have one of the new Silvertown routes serve Tunnel Avenue in both directions?
|
|
|
Post by busman on Jan 22, 2024 14:46:44 GMT
Smart proposal in terms of how the N18 and N518 timetables will be coordinated over the common section. I’m not sure about the routing to Ruislip though. What TfL seem to be saying is that the 487/398 corridor has strong enough night bus demand for such a service. It’s been decades since I lived in that neck of the woods. Perhaps someone local like COBO can comment on 487 and 398 loadings in the very late evenings. I would have thought something mirroring a night tube routing to Ruislip would be better used: from Sudbury Town route 92 to Whitton Avenue, right turn into Whitton Avenue West, 487 LOR to South Harrow, 398 LOR to Ruislip. A slight tweak to the proposed LOR, but overall this helps to fill a huge gap in the night bus and tube network.
|
|
|
Post by busman on Jan 20, 2024 19:11:51 GMT
A very defeatist attitude. I don't doubt it would be very disruptive but at the end of it would come the potential for a vastly improved town centre with not just better transport links but also more homes and a better retail offer. In fact it isn't just potential, it would be a nesscity to make the project something resembling economically viable, using the profits from commercial development on air rights. I think you only have to look at how disruptive Thameslink & the Elizabeth Line were to places like Tottenham Court Road or London Bridge with many retail outlets and such having to close but the end result being vastly improved destinations. 'tis true, just wish we got something better at TCR than 'Outernet'. I might be in the minority, but I’ve grown to love Outernet. It’s a great *free of charge* chill out space where you can rest, chat and eat. The massive visual shows keep the little ones entertained and there always seems to be free cultural events often with snacks and drinks. In the pouring rain it really comes into its own! Spaces like this can help Oxford street compete with the likes of Westfield. And whilst my raving days are long, long behind me, I also noticed that it hosts one or two night club rooms which is presumably beneficial for the night economy.
|
|
|
Post by busman on Jan 20, 2024 11:13:52 GMT
Which bright sparks thought it would be fine to close the Abbey Wood branch of the Lizzie Line and the Woolwich branch of the DLR on the same weekend? Seriously, some joined up thinking would be nice for a change.
|
|
|
Post by busman on Jan 20, 2024 9:45:01 GMT
Given that the Jubilee line goes from North Greenwich to Canary Wharf, I don’t see a case for having the SL4 stop at both North Greenwich and Canary Wharf. If it stops at North Greenwich, it may as well terminate there. It looks like TfL has seen demand for Blackheath and beyond to Canary Wharf and is catering for that. The SL4 idea was conceived before SuperLoop (x239!), so I wouldn’t be surprised to see a modification to make it limited stop throughout ahead of launch. Making the SL4 limited stop throughout may provide enough time to add an extra stop at North Greenwich and/or an extension at the southern end to connect with the SL3/5. The Silvertown tunnel looks like it’s progressing very well. Crazy to think it will be open next year, the time has flown by. I agree it seems pointless, for another reason too. Route 129 will also be extended from North Greenwich through Silverlink Tunnel. The 129 and SL4 will go in different directions north of the river: haveyoursay.tfl.gov.uk/19786/widgets/56145/documents/33785I would like to see the SL4 become limited stop throughout, skip North Greenwich and get extended south to Bromley if space can be created (can another route be squeezed in at Bromley North?). All stops services between North Greenwich and Lee are catered for via interchange with the 108 and 202. Canary Wharf is also a major destination in its own right for employment, leisure and interchange with the Lizzie line. At X239 frequencies, the SL4 will run every 8 minutes. That indicates heavy demand. TfL will have data from passengers travelling from the Grove Park and Lee area into Canary Wharf via rail into London Bridge then Jubilee Line. There will be data on journeys from that area using the 108 and Jubilee Line too. It will be interesting to see if the SL4 retains an 8 minute frequency. I think of it as a similar scenario with the old London Bridge bound 507 skipping Aldwych via the Kingsway underpass. Skipping that section saved 3-5 minutes on the journey time to Holborn. I reckon chopping out North Greenwich saves between 5-20 minutes of SL4 journey time depending on the time of day and the route taken in and out of North Greenwich Station.
|
|
|
Post by busman on Jan 19, 2024 15:28:32 GMT
They could look at extending an existing route from North Greenwich through the tunnel and just run a regular all stop routes from say Kidbrooke to Canary Whalf. I'm not sure there is going to be huge bus demand from South london across to CW and neither do I really think the extra capacity between Grove Park and Blackheath is needed over the 202/261. I haven't heard anything that either route is particularly struggling. I think there has been a calling for a direct bus from Grove Park/Bromley to North Greenwich for some time. Most frustrating thing about the SL4 is that it won't call at North Greenwich, one thinks the business case for Canary Wharf will be weakened if there is interchange to the Jubilee line from there. Another member has quoted Leon Daniels saying he sees some of the Superloop routes being downgraded to regular routes over time. This is my wish for the SL4; it's basically a normal route with just a non-stop tunnel section pretty much. Given that the Jubilee line goes from North Greenwich to Canary Wharf, I don’t see a case for having the SL4 stop at both North Greenwich and Canary Wharf. If it stops at North Greenwich, it may as well terminate there. It looks like TfL has seen demand for Blackheath and beyond to Canary Wharf and is catering for that. The SL4 idea was conceived before SuperLoop (x239!), so I wouldn’t be surprised to see a modification to make it limited stop throughout ahead of launch. Making the SL4 limited stop throughout may provide enough time to add an extra stop at North Greenwich and/or an extension at the southern end to connect with the SL3/5. The Silvertown tunnel looks like it’s progressing very well. Crazy to think it will be open next year, the time has flown by.
|
|
|
Post by busman on Jan 17, 2024 11:47:12 GMT
The 301 was devised to be a fast link from Bexleyheath to Thamesmead via the Elizabeth Line, that was the reason the route was created. But now a faster link is necessary the SL3 which is super express. Can I see why people would want a pacific fast link from Sidcup, then non stop to Bexleyheath orfrom Bexleyheath to Abbey Wood only stopping at the station, no bus stop is common with the 301. I too can see more bus stops being added. There is a common stop on the SL3 with the B11 and 301 at Abbey Wood station. Also there are additional common stops with the B11 in Bexleyheath. If I’m travelling from Abbey Wood to Sidcup and beyond, I don’t want the bus stopping every other stop. It defeats the purpose. The 301 is already very fast and direct. It is also very reliable - DT are to be applauded, they’ve done a solid job on the 301. My main concern about the SL3 and SL5 is that they will be over-bussed in the evenings. I’m surprised to see late evening services on some of these SuperLoop routes. It made sense in West London where demand had been built up by the 607 and the 140 was being chopped in two. Even the 607 for many years had limited operating times after it was first introduced. On the SL3 corridor, evening loadings on the 229 and 269 aren’t exactly bursting at the seams. I would have thought a more sensible approach would have been to run services until around 8pm each evening and review a later evening service based on acquired demand. I think there will be a lot of SL3 and SL5 buses running around at night carrying fresh air. Still, don’t want to seem like a negative Nelly, the SL3 will be a fantastic addition for my area. I was in central London earlier this week hopping about on New Routemasters and I’m excited at the prospect of seeing them in my area for the first time in regular service. I completely agree with the sentiments around the “X” prefix being more appropriate vs the non-intuitive “SL”. In saying that, the best thing that can be done to make these routes a success is to get rid of 20mph speed limits on large open roads and to improve bus prioritisation measures.
|
|
|
Post by busman on Jan 16, 2024 22:30:16 GMT
Update 16 January 2024 Today we have published the results of this consultation. We received 863 responses to the consultation and would like to thank everyone that took part. Following careful consideration of the feedback we received from members of the public and other stakeholders, we have decided to implement the original proposals as follows: Route W12 – will be restructured to operate between Coppermill Lane and Woodford Bridge via Church Hill Road as proposed Route W13 – will be extended to Leyton, Asda as proposed Route W14 – will be restructured to operate between Loughton Station and Whipps Cross Interchange as proposed Route 549 – will be withdrawn and replaced with the extended route W14 as proposed It is expected that the restructuring of routes W12, W13 and W14 and withdrawal of route 549 will take place in September 2024. Details of the feedback we received, our response to the issues raised, and more information about next steps can be found in the consultation report. haveyoursay.tfl.gov.uk/25100/widgets/70986/documents/53532Well what do you know, bus services reduced in parts of outer London and in contrast to the improvements in Superloop and 346/347 consultation, these changes are not due to happen until after the mayoral election. Very cynical.
|
|
|
Post by busman on Jan 12, 2024 13:30:21 GMT
The Daily Fail is an absolute joke: “The exact model of the bus involved in today's fire is not yet known - but MailOnline understands it was a hybrid. Hybrid buses, which run on diesel and electricity, are said to produce 40 per cent less carbon dioxide emissions than regular buses. The first one in London was introduced in 2007 on the 141 route between Palmers Green and London Bridge when Ken Livingstone was Mayor.” By inference, let’s pin this one on a Labour mayor shall we? 🤣🤣🤣 Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems the two buses are not of the same model or batch. I’m not sure which is more worrying. A specific type of bus spontaneously catching fire (solved by rectifying the defect across the fleet or withdrawal of type) or different types of bus catching fire? What is the likelihood of this happening twice in such a short space of time across unrelated vehicles? Just glad no-one was hurt in either incident. It’s just occurred to me that rear fire exits don’t exist on buses anymore…or at least they are not as prominent as they used to be - I grew up in MCW Metrobus land. I guess with the engine at the rear, everyone will be running towards the front of the bus anyway.
|
|
|
Post by busman on Jan 12, 2024 11:35:08 GMT
View Attachmentlook what the cat dragged in....a Volvo/MCV BZL for Go-Ahead London, fleet number seems to be MVB1. Either this is a demo bus or this is the "unannounced" order for the 262, 321, 333 etc If an Enviro MMC and a Gemini Eclipse had a baby it would look like this. That’s a really good looking bus…the black around the destination display and rear looks great. *Edit - looking again this looks like the child of an Enviro 400 MMC and a Scania OmniCity. The grandparents were Gemini Eclipses and an original Enviro 400. This is the nicest looking bus I‘ve seen in a long while.
|
|
|
Post by busman on Jan 11, 2024 15:17:38 GMT
One of Susan Hall‘s policies is to get rid of 20mph speed limits on red routes and other major roads. Will be interesting to read her manifesto when it comes out. Khan and Hall are both awful, but I might just have to hold my nose and vote to reverse some of the stupidity that Khan has imposed on us. I don't think she will do it - don't get me wrong I absolutely detest her yet agree with removing 20mph limits from major roads, but she is likely all talk just like her promise to scrap the ULEZ extension but yet is ok with ULEZ covering Inner London. She is another politcian who wants pit people against people - in this case Inner vs Outer just like the government pits north vs south ULEZ for inner London was always on the agenda for Khan (and his predecessor I think) and he had a mandate to implement it up to the North Circular boundary. The bit that Khan did not have a mandate for was extension beyond the North Circular - which is the bit that Hall is planning to reverse and the one that hits Londoners and our neighbours the worst. I don’t think the proposal to get rid of ULEZ beyond the NCR is fanciful. It’s very feasible if she gets into City Hall.
|
|