New Superloop off to a poor start: Will it aid regeneration as TfL claim?
The new Superloop route SL11 between Abbey Wood and North Greenwich commenced today and it’s off to a dodgy start as many New Routemasters which were set to operate the route are in too poor a condition to run.
The New Routemasters are only supposed to be a stop gap for electric vehicles but having been in storage for months are unable to be put in service. So a back-up was needed at short notice, and unbranded 15-16 year old vehicles have been mostly put on.
Then one broke down at Abbey Wood within hours of it starting causing issues with other buses being unable to stop/start their routes beside Abbey Wood station on Wilton Road.
Those cock-ups – short term though they are – sum up a route which has seen some very odd decisions made if you look behind the PR of TfL and the Mayor dutifully copied by many media outlets.
Firstly, I’ll point out that the idea of a limited stop bus between Abbey Wood and North Greenwich is a good one. The issue is implementation of the new route. Two main issues have arisen; firstly cutting a popular and busy existing route which happened at no prior Superloop route introduction and second, the choice of stops on the SL11 route which manages to avoid a town centre for a little used retail park and ignores thousands of new homes.
Regeneration
In recent days TfL and the Mayor have attempted to portray the route as aiding in Thamesmead regeneration. If so, why does it sail past thousands of new homes in both south and west Thamesmead? That includes 850 homes in south Thamesmead at Southmere Village phase one and two and 2,000 in west Thamesmead at Lombard Square.
If they mean assisting north Thamesmead housing then no, as it’s many, many years off from seeing a single new home built. There’s is absolutely zero plans for any new homes rising here in the entirely duration of this SL11 bus tender period. For homes to rise they’d need to be an area masterplan, then outline planning approval before detailed approval at each plot. This is a long, long process. A whole round of consultation at each stage. The very initial earlier stages of drawing up a masterplan hasn’t even commenced.
The SL11 is not going to move the dial on that.
Now let’s look at south Thamesmead. In 12 years Peabody have produced an area masterplan, outline approval for the wider site but so only completed one plot of seven. And that’s nearer an £18 billion new railway line in the Elizabeth line compared to north Thamesmead. A rather better enhancement than provided by the SL11.
The second phase of seven at south Thamesmead is now starting to see the first homes reach completion though the new Superloop sails past all these homes while the 472 it replaces did stop. To add insult to injury, the 229 route which also serves them also sees a frequency cut from today.
Are TfL aiding regeneration or hampering it with these changes?
If we go back to north Thamesmead, despite no new homes there is Thamesmead town centre. Even there TfL have messed up. Instead of the bus stopping beside most shops and amenities it stops further away at a nearby retail park stop. The retail park is half empty. There’s little reason to do this. The stop closest to shops did see the busy 472 stop. It’s not on a constricted part of the road or stop at or over capacity. It’s on a lightly used dual carriageway.
None of this would be such an issue if TfL hadn’t cut the 472 entirely except for the early hours of the morning. This is the now 11th Superloop route. None of the previous ten routes introduced saw an existing route removed. None of the future Superloop routes see it. When, for example, SL3 begun (a route TfL didn’t even want to go to Thamesmead at first) it didn’t see the 269 fully cut between Bexleyheath and Bromley. SL3 complimented and ran in addition to the 269.
All other Superloop routes have enhanced existing routes, except now in areas such as Thamesmead and Plumstead. Areas with thousands of new homes under construction.
Service reduction
You could even say that the SL11 isn’t even really a new route but a rebrand of the 472 that simply stops at fewer stops and results in a substantial reduction in buses at those stops avoided.
Again, I don’t want to suggest the new route is bad in and of itself. Faster journeys will benefit many. But axing the 472 in turn reduces buses per hour in many areas of major growth by a sizeable amount.
In addition, decisions of where to the new route calls just doesn’t correspond to major new areas of housing now rising. When TfL ran the consultation they featured maps that were years out of date. How much effort did they put into looking at new homes in Thamesmead, Plumstead, Woolwich, Charlton and Greenwich as each town sees the new route sail by major developments while in places still stopping at low density housing in quiet areas.
Ultimately the route for a new express bus is welcome but axing the 472 alongside is an extremely poor decision that hurts many growth areas. TfL and the Mayor’s claims about assisting Thamesmead are particularly egregious and flat out wrong. Claims of assisting regeneration don’t stack up when seeing how many new build blocks en-route see a bus service reduction.
Council
It should be noted again that Greenwich Council supported these changes with the authority offering no comment against cutting the 472, service reductions nor offering any constructive criticism or suggestions in the consultation. Only one single councillor (Cllr Jo Van Den Broek – Labour Charlton) made any comment about the route.
She mentioned that the SL11 would not call at an area with 1,000 new homes either now completing or proposed. The 472 cut will therefore place pressure on remaining routes. A secondary school in the area also sees a net reduction in buses.
To the east in Bexley borough, both the ruling Tory council and Labour opposition did raise issues with the proposal and in particular the 472 cut resulting in a substantial net reduction in bus provision at some stops.
But Greenwich’s leadership? Nothing. It all contradicts with claims of supporting new housing – much as seen with TfL as well as the government when retaining previous cuts on rail services on the Woolwich line which the 472 mirrors in large part.
And this all leads to a deeper question. Why do TfL, Greenwich Council and the Mayor have such poor understanding of much of south east London and in particular Thamesmead?
By all means let’s have a limited stop route to benefit new homes but don’t fully cut a busy route at its expense and second, make sure the limited stop route actually stops beside thousands of new homes. By doing neither it’s ensured a worse bus service for many and places far more pressure on remaining routes.
As one of the capital’s major growth areas Thamesmead and other towns along the route deserve a lot better.
Proposed buses failed MOTs I heard. A bit of an embarrassment if correct. Certainly wasn’t supposed to see clapped out 16 year old buses on it. Some sound very rough.
I did see some holding out there hands by the new homes on Woolwich Church Street as the new bus went by. That does seem a very odd place to skip. Build big new housing blocks then immediately cut buses outside by a third! Remaining routes then far busier and slower.
Very fast run from Charlton to Woolwich station this afternoon avoiding the slow run around the town centre.
Plenty of alternative buses on this section.
Yep some places gain. I do! But Saturday afternoon on one section isn’t the best time to judge an entire route. A weekday peak time when thousands of new homes are occupied in a year or two will be the test. Trinity Walk is only now starting to see people move in. The former Maryon Grove estate is only now starting to see reserved matters submitted. Thousands of residents there lose out. If living near Charlton station then it isn’t an issue unlike for those moving/living in the section east.
What would be better for both the former and latter group was not cutting the 472 to begin with alongside the SL11 introduction.
This does remind me I forgot to finish the post about the latest submissions for new homes at Maryon Grove. Will have to get cracking on that.
Yep that spot is a fine example. It’s hardly aiding regeneration to reduce bus provision beside high density new housing. More people on remaining routes slow them down, so for every winner there’s some who lose out.
Retaining the 472 in an altered form (even reducing its service level and changing route in places so as not to duplicate the SL11) would ensure there’s not see such a steep drop off in provision at sites such as those new homes.
The rerouting in Woolwich is a funny one. On paper it makes sense but in the Charlton-bound direction it ensured getting held up in traffic, due to TfL and Greenwich action/inaction themselves. Bus stands block one of the two lanes near the Waterfront and Greenwich Council allow cars to park all along the road blocking a lane. This causes long tail backs in peak times so how much is gained through that change of route I’m a bit dubious about. Funny though that an express route proclaimed by TfL and Greenwich is held up by, err, TfL and Greenwich. Oh and then the extra traffic around the ferry also slows it down. Traffic caused by Silvertown tunnel tolls supported by TfL and Greenwich. Then the permanent removal of a bus lane brought about by cycle lane work. Another change supported by TfL and Greenwich. Both claim they want to improve buses but then do a string of things that make them worse! Total lack of joined up thinking.
I still think there was a case for the SL11 ru run alongside route 472 with route 472 possibly being extended to Greenwich Town Centre and Lewisham via old 180 route. Which peoole campaigned to keep when route 180 was re-routed to North Greenwich Station.
It may have made sense ti delay the introduction of route SL11 until the cycle lane works had been completed in Charlton.
I cannot help but think that the SL11 would have been more successful express route between Abbey Wood/Thamesmead to North Greenwich Station would have been.more successful if introduced before the Elizabeth Line Stations opened at Abbey Wood and Woolwich.
That said the SL11 will speed up journeys for people travelling to North Greenwich.
I totally disagree with Sadiq Khan Labour Mayor of London, TFL and Greenwich Labour Councillors backing the withdrawal of route 472 completely. There is still a neec for route 472 to serve nrw developments in Abbey Wood, Thamesmead, Woolwich and Charlton as well as large developments on the Greenwich Peninsula. Axing the 472 is the latest of a list of bus cuts in South East London with frequency cuts to routes 51 178 229 291 386 to name just a few. So i say to politicians hands off our bus services.We need mote buses not less if your serious about reducing air pollution and traffic congestion and encouraging people to walk cycle and use public transport more. You cannot have it all ways.
The dockyard end of Woolwich has lost the waterfront leisure centre moved closer to the arsenal, and now we have lost one of 3 busses to north Greenwich, again arsenal having benefiting from this.
I get we are the scruffy bit of Woolwich and I assume councillors don’t live here but it would be nice to see something from the council this end.
Absolutely Tom. No other areas of London has seen a bus route completely axed when a Superloop route been introduced. The superloop route is normally introduced inaddition to the existing bus routes not eplacing ithem. There is no excuse from TFL and Greenwich Council to support these cuts to bus services in our Botough..Most bus journeys are made for local.jourbeys rather longer journeys.
So I agree the SL11 and 472 should have both continued to operate..As thete is demand for both bus routes. As demand continues to grow from new Developments. But as Tom.say the councilors do not live in the areas that have lost their access to the 472.
Well the SL11 is replacing the 472 bus route and to make journeys lot more quicker and easier. And with more Superloop bus routes to be added in other areas around London.
Absolutely Tom. No other areas of London has seen a bus route completely axed when a Superloop route been introduced. The superloop route is normally introduced inaddition to the existing bus routes not eplacing ithem. There is no excuse from TFL and Greenwich Council to support these cuts to bus services in our Botough..Most bus journeys are made for local.jourbeys rather longer journeys.
So I agree the SL11 and 472 should have both continued to operate..As thete is demand for both bus routes. As demand continues to grow from new Developments. But as Tom.say the councilors do not live in the areas that have lost their access to the 472.
When the decision to axe tbe 472 was made
Did anyone consider the needs of the elderly disabled and other vulnerable people who relied on the 472.
The answer to that is clearly no. So although i want tbe SL11 to be a success tbe 472 bus route needs to be restored.
Do you think that TfL should have kept the 472 instead of replacing it with the SL11. I mean the 472 route would still be used as a normal bus route and the SL11 as an express bus service in Southeast London.
Yes the 472 should have been kept as a local bus service. Witb the SL11 providing an express service to North Greenwich.
I liked tbe suggeztion route 472 coukd have been extended to Greenwich Town Centre and Lewisham. Now we need a new bus route introduced providinga direct bus service between Abbey Wood and Lewisham via Thamesmead, Woolwich, Lower Charlton and Greenwich Town Centre..
In a document I made several years agao, as a hobby, I made a new proposed Bus Route called the 480 (named after the 180 and now the 472) which originally proposed to run via the 99 routing to Woolwich then followed the 472 routing to North Greenwich.
Now, the route could run from Erith Town Centre / Riverside to North Greenwich (via the 229 routing to Thamesmead) then either via the 301 route to Woolwich or via Belmarsh Prision before going down to Lewisham via the old 180 routing to Lewisham.
Would it be too long though? If so, where would the ideal route start?
I found it hilarious that there was an express bus service similar to the SL11 called the X472/X72 during the late 1980s to around 1994 but it only ran to Woolwich, based on the Ian Armstrong website.
BRING BACK THE 472 BUS SERVICE!! That’s what I want to say. Why would TfL want to get rid of the 472 and replace it with the SL11.
Absolutely 100% bring back the 472 bus route. All the SL11 buses i have seen during the day this week have been empty. Might be slightly better used in the peak hours. Bit the rest of the time they run empty. Must be costing TFL a fortune in lost revenue compared to the 472..
Absolutely 100% bring back the 472 bus route. All the SL11 buses i have seen during the day this week have been empty. Might be slightly better used in the peak hours. Bit the rest of the time they run empty. Must be costing TFL a fortune in lost revenue compared to the 472..
Absolutely 100% bring back the 472 bus route. All the SL11 buses i have seen during the day this week have been empty. Might be slightly better used in the peak hours. But the rest of the time they run empty. Must be costing TFL a fortune in lost revenue compared to the 472..