Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The way we use buses is changing. While night bus passengers still use the night routes to get into or out of town, they've become part of a link of commuting to work.


Between Dulwich Library and Peckham, there are buses every 6 minutes (12 and 197 combined) which connect with Peckham Rye station which has the Overground which has changed commuting habits along with existing Thameslink, Southeastern and Southern trains.


It can work out faster if you time it right to get the 63 on Forest Hill Road, then get off at Peckham Rye and commute to Blackfriars, City Thameslink or Kings Cross St Pancras on Thameslink than stay on the bus.


I've also mentioned in the LTN thread that the time buses require to do the distance is longer since boroughs including Southwark have implemented 20mph speed limits, while this has made the roads safer for cyclists and pedestrians, it has made the time even longer.


If I lived on Barry Road, there's no chance I'd stay on the 12. If I was going to the Elephant, I'd change for the 63/363 at Peckham Rye which is faster than going via Camberwell and Walworth Road.

Penguin68 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The 176 goes to Leicester Sq I believe, which is

> central West End.

>

> Only in theory (and I thought it was meant to be

> Tottenham Court Road?). In my experience it very

> frequently terminates on the bridge before even

> turning into the Strand.


But its not Oxford Circus ...And on the occasion I've had to get the 176 to work as previously stated they often terminate it early.

I think our area is really badly served by Public transport compared to South west London.

I waited at Bricklayers Arms not realising that the 363 goes over the flyover. I was on another bus going up the OKR making the most of the free change of bus but got off the wrong stop. I also travel to Elephant sometimes where we have the luxury of three buses, or maybe more.


Occasionally used 185 to work but important to time it before the school run. Fascinating discussion!


I've only fallen asleep once on the night bus, many moon ago

Drxyster Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think if you check the 63 and 363 travel via

> Peckham along the Old Kent road, not the Walworth

> Road.



Isn't that why Bic Basher said the 63 was quicker than the 12 to get to the Elephant, or have I misunderstood?


Because the 12 goes via Camberwell and the Walworth Road?

Sue Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Drxyster Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I think if you check the 63 and 363 travel via

> > Peckham along the Old Kent road, not the

> Walworth

> > Road.

>

>

> Isn't that why Bic Basher said the 63 was quicker

> than the 12 to get to the Elephant, or have I

> misunderstood?

>

> Because the 12 goes via Camberwell and the

> Walworth Road?


I thought I made it clear that the 63/363 are faster than the 12? But clearly not for some.

Nigello Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The Walworth Road is a lot less clogged than it

> used to be, as is C Green. The real slog is LL

> these days between M and S and the rail station. I

> prefer to walk much of that stretch and pick it up

> at the station.


The 12 doesn't go down LL or past the station, does it? It goes down Barry Road.

There's an article on bbc London news about the mayors plan to "have a managed decline in bus services in Central London" by reducing routes that duplicate each other and redeployment the buses to the outer boroughs.


The report shows how difficult it is for some commuters to get on already packed buses.


Tje cynic in me wonders if the redeployed buses to the outer zone is also a way to justify extending the ULEZ as the outer boroughs will be better served by buses.🤔


Food for thought, and I suspect the removal of duplicated routes in central london will backfire as badly as a badly tuned polluting car when commuters start to return to the office on mass.

Don't underestimate the passengers' ability to make bus journeys poorer than they need to be. How many folk are so feared of heights that they congregate around the stairwell, or so claustrophobic they won't shift from the exit doors, or take up way too many spaces with their bags or arse around and act like it's their living room? Sounds trite, inconsequential but imagine how many people are making it that little bit less pleasant, perhaps making non-moronic passengers think twice about using the service, which then is seen to be less of use and then, poof, it's gone. Sure, the routes are in the hands of the route masters but they do take into account daily usage and I can't blame some people if they decide the bus is too much to be endured.

Cauliflowerear Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The number 12 is definitely a bus route to avoid in the early evening, since it passes throu Peckham, the ill mannered and feral kids from the area will have decorated the entire upstairs with

gnawed chicken bones, ketchup smeared chicken boxes and other such detritus. I think kids like that shouldn't have free travel at all, particularly when they all bundle on, cause a huge racket and mess, then get off en masse at the nextstop.


In deed. Bring Bach the birch. Put them in the army. Their parents are no doubt drug dealers and/or in prison. When I was young nobody ever did anything wrong. Perhaps we need to build a wall around Dulwich.

Spartacus Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> There's an article on bbc London news about the

> mayors plan to "have a managed decline in bus

> services in Central London"


Have you got a link by any chance? I can't see anything on there now and Google isn't throwing up any results with the quoted text. I'm probably missing it

speakwithmaria Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> try searching the words

>

> tfl managed decline



Thank you - found it. It's that Khan is advocating a "managed decline", it's that if he doesn't get the money he wants, he will have to implement a managed decline plan. The phrase has been used a number of times by TfL/London over the past couple of years when explaining how bad things will go if they don't get the funding.


https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/tfl-funding-bus-cuts-sadiq-khan-government-elizabeth-line-b1001116.html?amp

Billy, it's not about the funding from central government but a managed decline in the number of buses in inner London so that he can provide more buses to outer London.


The general managed decline you mentioned is about the whole of TfL and is a different strategy to get funding. This seems to be more about deployment of resources and potentially a carrot to encourage outer London car users to support an expanded ULEZ but the BBC london clip shows how so many are reliant on buses and reducing their service is going to impact them badly.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I thoroughly recommend Jay from JK Electrical Contractors who is an NICEIC registered. NICEIC is the UK's leading certification body for the electrical contracting industry and conducts regular audits and assessments on all its members. It is the specialist trade body which certifies professional electricians.  Jay completed the installation of a 19 way consumer unit for us and works to the highest standards and our entire electrical installation is now fully compliant with 18th Edition of the electrical wiring regulations. Before installing the new CU he traced and corrected faults that had developed over the last 25 years -some of which were my DIY bodges that were non-compliant.  We now have an installation that is 100% safe and  reliable . His contact details are :- 0208 150 6450 info@jkec.net Here is what he installed for us.
    • I fully support this petition, however it will need to be shared far & wide to be effective. Also there is always a huge amount of interest / objection during the festival, but not so much when they start consulting for the next one, usually around January. It's crucial that everyone that has been impacted makes their voice heard then.  A couple of points which may be good to include in the wording (if it is still possible to amend?) - The total tickets sold are way more than 3000. The licence allows a capacity of up to 9,999, but this may include staff & performers etc. The published attendance for 2024 was:  Friday – 8,999 / Saturday – 9,512 / Sunday – 9,422 So that's c.28,000 people trampling & littering our park over three days - people who have no need or desire to take any care or consideration of our park.  - Gala claim for 2024 that "62% of all ticket holders were from Southeast London and 18% of these were from hyper-local postcode areas SE15 and SE22." So a bit of maths shows that means that around 89% of attendees were not what most people would term 'local'... - Gala have ambitions / plans to extend the number of event days to 6, over two weekends. They applied for a licence for this in 2024, but then withdrew it. Instead they added a "free" event, billed as a community day, to the existing 3 day festival, thereby increasing the event days to 4.  This would appear to be an attempt to set a precedent for increasing the number of event days, and it's inevitable that they will attempt to secure the 6 days they desire for 2026, to increase their profits further. Two weekends in a row of noise, disturbance & disruption would be unacceptable, plus an extra c.18,000 trampling & littering the park... - The site size has been increased. The claim is that it is to compensate for lost storage space due to recent flood alleviation works, but the area has increased by more than the area lost, and appears to have been used for attendee activity rather than site storage. Gala have often stated that the festival can only be located in the park because the footprint has been designed specifically for that area, and yet this year the footprint had been amended & extended without any apparent issues. Surely this proves that it could be relocated?  Apologies, I just can't help going into rant mode on this issue, but hopefully some of the above may be helpful in increasing the argument presented by the petition?
    • The contact email for the Major Works Team: majorworks@southwark.gov.uk
    • Best to just get in touch with the council. You need to see what works were approved and the scope.  It's probably advisable to get an independent legal survey (not a standard RICS) and look at current condition, what they said they'd fix, if they did what they said and what the problems are with what they did. Was it just your flat and the other flat mentioned? Asking in case there's any other leaseholder/ tenant involved  
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...