Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2018 12:27:12 GMT
I don't personally see how an X140 will speed up journey times. Try creating bus priority traffic lights and the need for an express 140 will vanish. Reducing the frequency wont help either. I was on the "N140" the other day and the bus was so full, the driver had to leave passengers behind. I disagree about the X140 not being quicker. The amount of time spent at loads of stops shouldn’t be underestimated, especially for a route as long as the 140. A comparable example is the X26 and 285 between Heathrow and Kingston (as the journey lengths are similar), and I’ve made this journey quite a few times. The X26 parallels the 285 for nearly all of the journey between Kingston and Heathrow except for a small deviation where the X26 follows the 481’s lone section just outside Kingston. When travelling between those two places I usually take the slower 285 as its a really enjoyable route but it takes around 1hr 40 minutes, so when I made that journey about three weeks ago I just couldn’t be bothered and just took the X26 instead (luckily I timed it right and only had to wait 3 minutes) and it only took around 45. That’s how much of a difference it made. We overtook 3 285’s on the way to Heathrow, so I personally disagree and think the X140 will be a massively improved/quicker journey. On another topic if the ‘N’140s are as busy as you say, I would definitely not like to be one of those people who are left behind and have to wait another half an hour for the next one, that’s a long while to wait especially when it’s at night and you just want to get home. Due to traffic flows, road junction layouts and bus lanes, X140s will get caught up behind "slow" 140s and generally won't appear to be THAT much quicker, especially at peak times. It will certainly be noticeably quicker between South Harrow & Yeading in peak. Talking about loading times, also remember that the X140 should have large loads boarding and alighting at each stop from the normal 140.
Are you local to the 140 route?
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Aug 20, 2018 16:43:03 GMT
Due to traffic flows, road junction layouts and bus lanes, X140s will get caught up behind "slow" 140s and generally won't appear to be THAT much quicker, especially at peak times. It will certainly be noticeably quicker between South Harrow & Yeading in peak. Talking about loading times, also remember that the X140 should have large loads boarding and alighting at each stop from the normal 140. So not dissimilar to what happens with the 607.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Aug 21, 2018 21:31:47 GMT
I’m curious about TfL not implementing the 112 plan. 40% support and 5% against on a total of over 1k responses (clearly some expressed lack of opinion or voided) Shows that they don’t listen to joe public but I wonder what exactly it was about the stakeholders that had them backtracking, especially since they stubbornly claim the 112 does and would continue to have worked reliably had the changes been implemented. I must say I’m surprised they didn’t push that one through actually, even if others aren’t. All leads to the question about what route would replace it, perhaps the E1 since they cancelled the frequency reduction? I’m disappointed that they don’t plan to increase the 95 to DD. Most of all I’m disappointed about the mess they’ll make of the Acton routes, especially this hash of a 306 idea. Bye bye 391 down the line I think TfL have done two things with the 112 proposal. I think they've concluded *in private* that there was too much risk of the extended service being very unreliable given it has to deal with Brent Cross and Staples Corner (subject to huge redevelopment for years), the A406, Hanger Lane, A406 through Acton and then the Great West Road. There are far too many traffic hotspots there to guarantee reliability on a long route. The 112 has been doing well for several years so I suspect TfL don't want to jeopardise the growth if they can avoid it. It will be hard enough coping with the fall out from the Brent Cross redevelopment. I also suspect they concluded that 5 bph south of Ealing Broadway was too much to start with. I'd not be shocked to see the new proposal scaled back to 3bph with a peak direction extra or two to cover work related demand from Ealing / South Ealing to Osterley. If TfL really wanted to show their "Outer London" credentials then there is scope for a very nice extension on from Osterley Tesco via Jersey Rd and Alderney Road. This is a large area without a convenient bus service. The route could reach Hounslow Town Centre via the 111 from Heston Road. I don't doubt there would be objections from Jersey Rd residents but that's par for the course. Having looked at the local run times I do think TfL could readily extend the 306 from Acton Vale to Acton (High St) old route 70 stand. I would need about 1 extra bus to cover this at 5 bph frequency and give a much better service level from Acton to Hammersmith. Given the 306 will have to be scheduled from scratch I am sure the cost of the short extension could be absorbed in a way to limit the extra resource cost to 1 bus. It's not as if TfL don't, for once, have the stand space in Acton - they do. It's also a shame that the local road network near Acton Main Line is so poor that routes like the 95, 260 and 487 are just too far away to give a safe, conveninent interchange link.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2018 7:48:40 GMT
I’m curious about TfL not implementing the 112 plan. 40% support and 5% against on a total of over 1k responses (clearly some expressed lack of opinion or voided) Shows that they don’t listen to joe public but I wonder what exactly it was about the stakeholders that had them backtracking, especially since they stubbornly claim the 112 does and would continue to have worked reliably had the changes been implemented. I must say I’m surprised they didn’t push that one through actually, even if others aren’t. All leads to the question about what route would replace it, perhaps the E1 since they cancelled the frequency reduction? I’m disappointed that they don’t plan to increase the 95 to DD. Most of all I’m disappointed about the mess they’ll make of the Acton routes, especially this hash of a 306 idea. Bye bye 391 down the line I think TfL have done two things with the 112 proposal. I think they've concluded *in private* that there was too much risk of the extended service being very unreliable given it has to deal with Brent Cross and Staples Corner (subject to huge redevelopment for years), the A406, Hanger Lane, A406 through Acton and then the Great West Road. There are far too many traffic hotspots there to guarantee reliability on a long route. The 112 has been doing well for several years so I suspect TfL don't want to jeopardise the growth if they can avoid it. It will be hard enough coping with the fall out from the Brent Cross redevelopment. I also suspect they concluded that 5 bph south of Ealing Broadway was too much to start with. I'd not be shocked to see the new proposal scaled back to 3bph with a peak direction extra or two to cover work related demand from Ealing / South Ealing to Osterley. If TfL really wanted to show their "Outer London" credentials then there is scope for a very nice extension on from Osterley Tesco via Jersey Rd and Alderney Road. This is a large area without a convenient bus service. The route could reach Hounslow Town Centre via the 111 from Heston Road. I don't doubt there would be objections from Jersey Rd residents but that's par for the course. Having looked at the local run times I do think TfL could readily extend the 306 from Acton Vale to Acton (High St) old route 70 stand. I would need about 1 extra bus to cover this at 5 bph frequency and give a much better service level from Acton to Hammersmith. Given the 306 will have to be scheduled from scratch I am sure the cost of the short extension could be absorbed in a way to limit the extra resource cost to 1 bus. It's not as if TfL don't, for once, have the stand space in Acton - they do. It's also a shame that the local road network near Acton Main Line is so poor that routes like the 95, 260 and 487 are just too far away to give a safe, conveninent interchange link. With the 112 it would just be nice, more palatable even, if TfL simply admitted they’d erred in selecting the 112 for the extension, instead of insisting it would have coped and blaming the shelving of it on stakeholders. So much for transparency. I think they tried to fiddle about with the H28 in the area [Osterley] but panned it due to the fierce opposition. How much of that were snobby residents as opposed to those patrons preferring the existing routeing, who knows? Agree re the 306. I’ve said more times than anyone cares to remember that utilising an existing bus stand is very good but pointless if it doesn’t serve a purpose. It would make so much more sense to use the one in the town centre to allow for interchange onto other routes. Interestingly it would seem likely that 207/607 curtailments would no longer be allowed at the Bromyard Avenue stand and have to turn at Acton. I doubt AML is really hugely important in the short-medium future. I think TfL have essentially come to the conclusion that the three routes serving it by then shall suffice and for once I agree. The peak will be the biggest challenge but would probably remain dead during the day. There are interesting developments going up along the A40 but I feel that people would actually prefer the Central line at North Acton to Crossrail especially given service frequency.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Aug 22, 2018 8:23:01 GMT
I’m curious about TfL not implementing the 112 plan. 40% support and 5% against on a total of over 1k responses (clearly some expressed lack of opinion or voided) Shows that they don’t listen to joe public but I wonder what exactly it was about the stakeholders that had them backtracking, especially since they stubbornly claim the 112 does and would continue to have worked reliably had the changes been implemented. I must say I’m surprised they didn’t push that one through actually, even if others aren’t. All leads to the question about what route would replace it, perhaps the E1 since they cancelled the frequency reduction? I’m disappointed that they don’t plan to increase the 95 to DD. Most of all I’m disappointed about the mess they’ll make of the Acton routes, especially this hash of a 306 idea. Bye bye 391 down the line I think TfL have done two things with the 112 proposal. I think they've concluded *in private* that there was too much risk of the extended service being very unreliable given it has to deal with Brent Cross and Staples Corner (subject to huge redevelopment for years), the A406, Hanger Lane, A406 through Acton and then the Great West Road. There are far too many traffic hotspots there to guarantee reliability on a long route. The 112 has been doing well for several years so I suspect TfL don't want to jeopardise the growth if they can avoid it. It will be hard enough coping with the fall out from the Brent Cross redevelopment. I also suspect they concluded that 5 bph south of Ealing Broadway was too much to start with. I'd not be shocked to see the new proposal scaled back to 3bph with a peak direction extra or two to cover work related demand from Ealing / South Ealing to Osterley. If TfL really wanted to show their "Outer London" credentials then there is scope for a very nice extension on from Osterley Tesco via Jersey Rd and Alderney Road. This is a large area without a convenient bus service. The route could reach Hounslow Town Centre via the 111 from Heston Road. I don't doubt there would be objections from Jersey Rd residents but that's par for the course. Having looked at the local run times I do think TfL could readily extend the 306 from Acton Vale to Acton (High St) old route 70 stand. I would need about 1 extra bus to cover this at 5 bph frequency and give a much better service level from Acton to Hammersmith. Given the 306 will have to be scheduled from scratch I am sure the cost of the short extension could be absorbed in a way to limit the extra resource cost to 1 bus. It's not as if TfL don't, for once, have the stand space in Acton - they do. It's also a shame that the local road network near Acton Main Line is so poor that routes like the 95, 260 and 487 are just too far away to give a safe, conveninent interchange link. Or - with the 306, continue from Acton Vale via the 266 to North Acton. Then retain the 440 via West Acton and withdraw the 218 altogether.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2018 8:23:59 GMT
I think TfL have done two things with the 112 proposal. I think they've concluded *in private* that there was too much risk of the extended service being very unreliable given it has to deal with Brent Cross and Staples Corner (subject to huge redevelopment for years), the A406, Hanger Lane, A406 through Acton and then the Great West Road. There are far too many traffic hotspots there to guarantee reliability on a long route. The 112 has been doing well for several years so I suspect TfL don't want to jeopardise the growth if they can avoid it. It will be hard enough coping with the fall out from the Brent Cross redevelopment. I also suspect they concluded that 5 bph south of Ealing Broadway was too much to start with. I'd not be shocked to see the new proposal scaled back to 3bph with a peak direction extra or two to cover work related demand from Ealing / South Ealing to Osterley. If TfL really wanted to show their "Outer London" credentials then there is scope for a very nice extension on from Osterley Tesco via Jersey Rd and Alderney Road. This is a large area without a convenient bus service. The route could reach Hounslow Town Centre via the 111 from Heston Road. I don't doubt there would be objections from Jersey Rd residents but that's par for the course. Having looked at the local run times I do think TfL could readily extend the 306 from Acton Vale to Acton (High St) old route 70 stand. I would need about 1 extra bus to cover this at 5 bph frequency and give a much better service level from Acton to Hammersmith. Given the 306 will have to be scheduled from scratch I am sure the cost of the short extension could be absorbed in a way to limit the extra resource cost to 1 bus. It's not as if TfL don't, for once, have the stand space in Acton - they do. It's also a shame that the local road network near Acton Main Line is so poor that routes like the 95, 260 and 487 are just too far away to give a safe, conveninent interchange link. With the 112 it would just be nice, more palatable even, if TfL simply admitted they’d erred in selecting the 112 for the extension, instead of insisting it would have coped and blaming the shelving of it on stakeholders. So much for transparency. I think they tried to fiddle about with the H28 in the area [Osterley] but panned it due to the fierce opposition. How much of that were snobby residents as opposed to those patrons preferring the existing routeing, who knows? Agree re the 306. I’ve said more times than anyone cares to remember that utilising an existing bus stand is very good but pointless if it doesn’t serve a purpose. It would make so much more sense to use the one in the town centre to allow for interchange onto other routes. Interestingly it would seem likely that 207/607 curtailments would no longer be allowed at the Bromyard Avenue stand and have to turn at Acton. I doubt AML is really hugely important in the short-medium future. I think TfL have essentially come to the conclusion that the three routes serving it by then shall suffice and for once I agree. The peak will be the biggest challenge but would probably remain dead during the day. There are interesting developments going up along the A40 but I feel that people would actually prefer the Central line at North Acton to Crossrail especially given service frequency. Sky have shuttle buses running between Osterley Stn and Sky HQ and I think to Ealing Bdy. The University of West London also supply shuttle buses linking their campus on the 65 route just south of Ealing. So there is a potential demand for short trips to/from the tube stations between Osterley and South Ealing to the various HQ’s and university sites. Demand obviously higher MF. There are also the staff buses linking Bedfont Lakes to T4, Hatton Cross, Feltham and Stanies. All privately funded, not public services. I’m just wondering whether it is wise use of public money for TfL to try to tap into the formers demand, already being catered for. How many Oyster card holders working for Sky would switch to a TfL. Public service to get to/from Ealing and Osterley ? My hunch is not many.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2018 9:38:12 GMT
With the 112 it would just be nice, more palatable even, if TfL simply admitted they’d erred in selecting the 112 for the extension, instead of insisting it would have coped and blaming the shelving of it on stakeholders. So much for transparency. I think they tried to fiddle about with the H28 in the area [Osterley] but panned it due to the fierce opposition. How much of that were snobby residents as opposed to those patrons preferring the existing routeing, who knows? Agree re the 306. I’ve said more times than anyone cares to remember that utilising an existing bus stand is very good but pointless if it doesn’t serve a purpose. It would make so much more sense to use the one in the town centre to allow for interchange onto other routes. Interestingly it would seem likely that 207/607 curtailments would no longer be allowed at the Bromyard Avenue stand and have to turn at Acton. I doubt AML is really hugely important in the short-medium future. I think TfL have essentially come to the conclusion that the three routes serving it by then shall suffice and for once I agree. The peak will be the biggest challenge but would probably remain dead during the day. There are interesting developments going up along the A40 but I feel that people would actually prefer the Central line at North Acton to Crossrail especially given service frequency. Sky have shuttle buses running between Osterley Stn and Sky HQ and I think to Ealing Bdy. The University of West London also supply shuttle buses linking their campus on the 65 route just south of Ealing. So there is a potential demand for short trips to/from the tube stations between Osterley and South Ealing to the various HQ’s and university sites. Demand obviously higher MF. There are also the staff buses linking Bedfont Lakes to T4, Hatton Cross, Feltham and Stanies. All privately funded, not public services. I’m just wondering whether it is wise use of public money for TfL to try to tap into the formers demand, already being catered for. How many Oyster card holders working for Sky would switch to a TfL. Public service to get to/from Ealing and Osterley ? My hunch is not many. If these private services didn’t exist then either the 65 would be broken to bits or a relief route would’ve been supplied ages ago. As such your point is really neither here nor there because the 65 struggles DESPITE those free, private services. I’m sure TfL don’t expect or even care that the users of private transport would ever consider switching to paid public transport. Though if they can run buses reliably enough some staff might switch over maybe occasionally if frequency becomes a factor (ie running late for work). Realistically they are never going to compete with private buses unless the perks for workers change (ie paying a premium for the transport or having them scrapped altogether). Where my missus works at GSK they provide the buses to and from Northfields because there isn’t enough car parking for all those working there so they ration it out. This appears to be a compromise solution, and I’d be surprised if Sky and other large institutions in this area have their buses for similar reasons. It’s a testament really to the need of a comprehensive network of buses in this area (the H91, E8 and to a lesser extent the E2 are also very busy in this area) and many of these people come out directly from the offices and pack out public transport... the private minibuses are well used but at the same time other staff find a better option going public. Essentially everyone wins.
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Aug 22, 2018 17:45:14 GMT
I don’t think that removing the 427 from Acton is good idea. I was Ealing both the 207 and 607 were bursting. If TfL are removing the 427 between Southall and Acton then I think a new route should take over the Southall to Acton section.
|
|
|
Post by met120 on Aug 22, 2018 19:38:06 GMT
I don’t think that removing the 427 from Acton is good idea. I was Ealing both the 207 and 607 were bursting. If TfL are removing the 427 between Southall and Acton then I think a new route should take over the Southall to Acton section. I don’t think it’s a good idea either but hey it’s TFL. They clearly think passengers are gonna abandon buses for Crossrail. The enhanced services on GWR/ TFL have not made any difference particularly in the peak.
|
|
|
Post by Hassaan on Aug 22, 2018 23:10:00 GMT
I don’t think that removing the 427 from Acton is good idea. I was Ealing both the 207 and 607 were bursting. If TfL are removing the 427 between Southall and Acton then I think a new route should take over the Southall to Acton section. I don’t think it’s a good idea either but hey it’s TFL. They clearly think passengers are gonna abandon buses for Crossrail. The enhanced services on GWR/ TFL have not made any difference particularly in the peak. On the other hand, for a lot of people it will be far more useful to finally have a direct bus from Southall Station and South Road to The Broadway, and I'm looking forward to it Rail services have indeed been enhanced since 2016, but there are higher frequencies to come.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Aug 23, 2018 7:08:39 GMT
I don’t think that removing the 427 from Acton is good idea. I was Ealing both the 207 and 607 were bursting. If TfL are removing the 427 between Southall and Acton then I think a new route should take over the Southall to Acton section. I don’t think it’s a good idea either but hey it’s TFL. They clearly think passengers are gonna abandon buses for Crossrail. The enhanced services on GWR/ TFL have not made any difference particularly in the peak. None of the Crossrail bus changes should be made with the assumption of passengers switching to the Elizabeth Line, as rail services are already available in most cases. These changes should simply be to improve connections to/from stations on the Elizabeth Line.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Aug 23, 2018 7:30:06 GMT
I don’t think it’s a good idea either but hey it’s TFL. They clearly think passengers are gonna abandon buses for Crossrail. The enhanced services on GWR/ TFL have not made any difference particularly in the peak. None of the Crossrail bus changes should be made with the assumption of passengers switching to the Elizabeth Line, as rail services are already available in most cases. These changes should simply be to improve connections to/from stations on the Elizabeth Line. That's not very realistic, for instance it's probably not unreasonable to assume that people who currently take a 207/427/607 to Ealing Broadway for the Central Line into Central London will instead walk to Southall, Hanwell or West Ealing and go direct on Crossrail. In a regulated environment there is always going to be an element of coercing people onto rail based services, obviously in a deregulated environment the operator decides whether they want to run in competition with the rail link.
|
|
|
Post by rj131 on Aug 23, 2018 7:33:36 GMT
I don’t think it’s a good idea either but hey it’s TFL. They clearly think passengers are gonna abandon buses for Crossrail. The enhanced services on GWR/ TFL have not made any difference particularly in the peak. None of the Crossrail bus changes should be made with the assumption of passengers switching to the Elizabeth Line, as rail services are already available in most cases. These changes should simply be to improve connections to/from stations on the Elizabeth Line. But there also is an element of TfL trying to force people onto Crossrail (as wrong as it is) rather than the bus as it’s more money in their pocket for them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2018 9:23:06 GMT
I don’t think that removing the 427 from Acton is good idea. I was Ealing both the 207 and 607 were bursting. If TfL are removing the 427 between Southall and Acton then I think a new route should take over the Southall to Acton section. I think what’s done the 427 in was the fact that it’s eastern terminus at Acton wasn’t useful enough. For example, if you look at the evening peak towards Hayes and Uxbridge, by the time the 207/607 get to Acton they are often rammed to bursting. I even spotted a 207 and 607 one behind the other at Ealing Common on a late evening last week and they were all seats full. Now although one can’t discount disruption and large headways, the fact is that they are often very busy late at night. TfL extended the late evening operation of the 607 years ago and you can see the need for it. Sadly, as far as the 427 goes, you can bet your house that these buses are packed by the time they’ve left Shepherds Bush Market. That’s a few stops into the journey. By the time they reach Acton the demand for buses is far less (that’s not to say not busy however). The stops at Acton, Ealing Broadway, Christchurch, West Ealing Broadway and Ealing Hospital see lots of people all see loads that the 427 does a nice job of mopping up but TfL also know that those who have boarded in the east also alight at these key stops so in essence I think they are hoping to rely on healthy turnovers of passengers post 427 cut. Couple that with their hope that some passengers will be tempted onto Crossrail and I can somewhat understand the method behind their madness (though I personally disagree with it). They don’t want ‘assisting’ routes if they can avoid it, you can argue that they are assisting routes like the 65 but it’s easier to do that if a route crosslinks rather than parallels a railway line. All things said, I would think that the 207/607 would actually benefit more from assistance from the east. If something could assist as far as Ealing that normally terminates at White City / Shepherds Bush that would be handy. Though it’s difficult to see what could be done to any route there considering they are long enough already and then there is the consequential reliability issue. It’s also food for thought for TfL... people preferring to use packed buses to the central line when travelling from Shepherd’s Bush to Ealing. That has to be of concern when they are campaigning for Crossrail usage.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Aug 23, 2018 11:48:31 GMT
I don’t think that removing the 427 from Acton is good idea. I was Ealing both the 207 and 607 were bursting. If TfL are removing the 427 between Southall and Acton then I think a new route should take over the Southall to Acton section. I think what’s done the 427 in was the fact that it’s eastern terminus at Acton wasn’t useful enough. For example, if you look at the evening peak towards Hayes and Uxbridge, by the time the 207/607 get to Acton they are often rammed to bursting. I even spotted a 207 and 607 one behind the other at Ealing Common on a late evening last week and they were all seats full. Now although one can’t discount disruption and large headways, the fact is that they are often very busy late at night. TfL extended the late evening operation of the 607 years ago and you can see the need for it. Sadly, as far as the 427 goes, you can bet your house that these buses are packed by the time they’ve left Shepherds Bush Market. That’s a few stops into the journey. By the time they reach Acton the demand for buses is far less (that’s not to say not busy however). The stops at Acton, Ealing Broadway, Christchurch, West Ealing Broadway and Ealing Hospital see lots of people all see loads that the 427 does a nice job of mopping up but TfL also know that those who have boarded in the east also alight at these key stops so in essence I think they are hoping to rely on healthy turnovers of passengers post 427 cut. Couple that with their hope that some passengers will be tempted onto Crossrail and I can somewhat understand the method behind their madness (though I personally disagree with it). They don’t want ‘assisting’ routes if they can avoid it, you can argue that they are assisting routes like the 65 but it’s easier to do that if a route crosslinks rather than parallels a railway line. All things said, I would think that the 207/607 would actually benefit more from assistance from the east. If something could assist as far as Ealing that normally terminates at White City / Shepherds Bush that would be handy. Though it’s difficult to see what could be done to any route there considering they are long enough already and then there is the consequential reliability issue. It’s also food for thought for TfL... people preferring to use packed buses to the central line when travelling from Shepherd’s Bush to Ealing. That has to be of concern when they are campaigning for Crossrail usage. I was going to post something similar but you clearly know the routes in more detail than I. I agree TfL are pinning their hopes on a reasonable proportion of local trips transferring to Crossrail - most likely Ealing to West Ealing / Hanwell / Southall. Where it gets more difficult is somewhere like Acton where Crossrail is to the north of the Uxbridge Road corridor and most tube stations are scattered to the north or south. Acton is unusual for London in that its 7 stations are nowhere near the High St area. There are also so many stations that serving them by bus is a complex matter or in some cases impossible without a fair walk to bus stops (Acton Central). This then places rather greater pressure on local buses because the trains are not much use to anyone. Even with 4 tph Acton Main Line is too far to the north to be considered a viable option for trips westward that a bus can easily cover. I am not wholly convinced that traffic between Hayes and Acton will fall sufficiently for the 427 to be rendered unnecessary. I agree that TfL must be hoping that the 207 will take up the passengers that may now use the 427. My greater concern, though, is the 607 will simply be put under ever greater strain than it already is as people pile on to that and then change to a stopping bus further on to reach their specific stop. If that happens I am not sure anything is better than now. I can certainly see why some people will use the diverted 427 to Southall to "rail head" - let's be honest it is a new convenient link. The only issue is Southall's notorious traffic and whether it'll be faster than walking from the Broadway at busy times. Will there be more use of Crossrail in W London than now? - yes because service levels will be vastly better in many cases. Will Crossrail supplant most E-W bus journeys on the Uxbridge Rd corridor? - no. It'll take some but probably not as many as TfL think.
|
|