|
Post by vjaska on Jul 2, 2018 22:12:23 GMT
Having had some time to read them, I can't see much good coming from these bar a more direct 440 but at the cost of losing the link to Chiswick Park Station which is a big no no in my book. The 224 cut back is terrible and qouting the hopper fare is adding insult to injury as not only do people have to cross a busy road but multiple 83's & 483 changeover at the stops by the station making it harder to actually board your bus - great advert for travel that is. Then we come to the 27 - I had to laugh when I saw the bit about less filled buses - seriously, what are they expecting when the 27 is close to terminus, rammed full buses? Especially considering it's terminus is a business park and not somewhere like Brixton Station where you expect rammed buses a lot of the time. That just tells me that they've not got a decent reason for cutting it back at all. If they're terminating it at the old 267 stop, I suspect what will actually happen is some journeys will terminate at Hammersmith Town Hall like Arriva did with the 133 when it was run from N - when it was terminating at St. Leonards Church, they'd terminate on Streatham High Road rather than Mitcham Lane and even when it was finally extended to Streatham Station, they did something similar terminating some on Streatham High Road opposite the Tesco as opposed to next to it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2018 22:21:25 GMT
Having had some time to read them, I can't see much good coming from these bar a more direct 440 but at the cost of losing the link to Chiswick Park Station which is a big no no in my book. The 224 cut back is terrible and qouting the hopper fare is adding insult to injury as not only do people have to cross a busy road but multiple 83's & 483 changeover at the stops by the station making it harder to actually board your bus - great advert for travel that is. Then we come to the 27 - I had to laugh when I saw the bit about less filled buses - seriously, what are they expecting when the 27 is close to terminus, rammed full buses? Especially considering it's terminus is a business park and not somewhere like Brixton Station where you expect rammed buses a lot of the time. That just tells me that they've not got a decent reason for cutting it back at all. If they're terminating it at the old 267 stop, I suspect what will actually happen is some journeys will terminate at Hammersmith Town Hall like Arriva did with the 133 when it was run from N - when it was terminating at St. Leonards Church, they'd terminate on Streatham High Road rather than Mitcham Lane and even when it was finally extended to Streatham Station, they did something similar terminating some on Streatham High Road opposite the Tesco as opposed to next to it. I think we’re seeing TfL actually trying to make bus travel unappealing, another move at forcing people onto trains. I bet they’re not even fussed about more people cycling and walking despite the revenue loss, patronage is down anyway according to them. I genuinely think TfL have a vision of ‘all seats full’ on buses which obviously has its catastrophic downsides. Hammersmith TOWN HALL on the blinds then?
|
|
|
Post by M1199 on Jul 3, 2018 0:41:43 GMT
The 224 is a weird one, TfL don't seem to know what they want to do with it at the moment. Having been re-routed from Willesden Junction, proposed re-routing in West Twyford, frequency decrease and now this. When I used the route frequently, which admittedly was a decade ago now, there was always a decent load who's journeys would cross Alperton Station.
I just don't buy the fact, that TfL think its acceptable to cut a direct link cause you can use a hopper fare! As others have said, Ealing Road can be pretty lethal, I almost came a cropper there once! Some tw@t thought he'd be clever and try and undertake (using the bus stop) a load of stationary cars waiting for the lights at under the bridge to change, how I never ended up on his bonnet I'll never know! I dare say, if this goes ahead and Metroline never of lost the route to RATP, it would of terminated at Alperton Garage.
Out of interest, does anyone know why the re-routing at West Twyford never took place? I've never seen anything saying its been cancelled or postponed. I've seen they erected new Bus Stops along Twyford Abbey Road and they took the stop and shelter away from Iveagh Avenue, replacing it with a dolly, only for the stop to return a few months later!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2018 7:50:01 GMT
Would also reiterate an earlier point I made earlier with my prediction of the 27 cut, that with the tender coming out in mid October, could this be a shoe-in for Tower Transit to snatch the route? Of course there is no reason why RATP can’t still operate it with a short dead-run, but food for thought perhaps? It would swallow the 31 loss maybe? If RATP keep the route the last stop would surely be Hammersmith Town Hall to assist with dead runs, subs etc? Hounslow council have never liked bus change overs at Stamford Brook Garage so they’ll be happy. Absolutely pointless bringing the N27 back to life unless it went to Richmond which would be very useful. But more expensive so that’s out of the question. Just have to face up to facts that this is just one of many more cuts to come. In many ways, it’s not as bad as I feared. The 27 would probably lose about 5 buses, and the 440 would gain about 5 with the extension and frequency increase.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2018 10:17:16 GMT
Maybe standing the 27 in the bus station will alleviate residents objections I'll to buses standing at night in Hammersmith Grove? It is a bit ironic tfl talk about too much capacity at night along King Street when it's their wasteful standardisation that has created it. Example 64, 250 and N109 anybody Presumably not enough space in the bus station during the daytime? The use of the N prefix at night seems a bit silly, not a major issue but just highlights TfL's inconsistency, ie 65 has no N prefix even though it is extended to Chessington. Indeed and it also highlights further financial wastage which makes a mockery of their “we need to save money” blessings. New blinds, new tiles, and I assume a new bus stand with flag. I’m sure there are few people needing to go to Morrison’s late at night as well, so by their logic they should cut it to Camden as well *rolls eyes*
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 3, 2018 10:32:09 GMT
Presumably not enough space in the bus station during the daytime? The use of the N prefix at night seems a bit silly, not a major issue but just highlights TfL's inconsistency, ie 65 has no N prefix even though it is extended to Chessington. Indeed and it also highlights further financial wastage which makes a mockery of their “we need to save money” blessings. New blinds, new tiles, and I assume a new bus stand with flag. I’m sure there are few people needing to go to Morrison’s late at night as well, so by their logic they should cut it to Camden as well *rolls eyes* Your not suggesting to have it as a 24 hour route despite it terminating in two different places? If there was a recipe for confusion, that's it and I've long thought the 65 situation should of been changed to a N65 and be done with it as anomalies like that cause confusion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2018 10:45:04 GMT
Indeed and it also highlights further financial wastage which makes a mockery of their “we need to save money” blessings. New blinds, new tiles, and I assume a new bus stand with flag. I’m sure there are few people needing to go to Morrison’s late at night as well, so by their logic they should cut it to Camden as well *rolls eyes* Your not suggesting to have it as a 24 hour route despite it terminating in two different places? If there was a recipe for confusion, that's it and I've long thought the 65 situation should of been changed to a N65 and be done with it as anomalies like that cause confusion. Erm, no, I never even implied that. In fact I’ve already posted that the night bus may as well go to the town hall as well as the day one as I doubt you’d need an extra bus to do what is a five-minute round run... their argument of not many people needing to travel on that section at night is pathetic. I’m clearly mocking TfL’s logic in that and the fact that now money is needed to change the tiles and blinds. Of course if they go ahead with the two different day and night sections they may as well fund the change in physical differences on the buses and stops but what a tragic waste of money considering a 3/4 mile long difference 😂
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jul 3, 2018 11:06:54 GMT
I think we’re seeing TfL actually trying to make bus travel unappealing, another move at forcing people onto trains. I bet they’re not even fussed about more people cycling and walking despite the revenue loss, patronage is down anyway according to them. I genuinely think TfL have a vision of ‘all seats full’ on buses which obviously has its catastrophic downsides. "We are only doing what the Mayor's Transport Strategy (MTS) and funding require". The modern TfL version of "we were only obeying orders". As the MTS requires more walking and cycling then of course TfL are happy to see more of it - they have to keep the boss happy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2018 11:08:43 GMT
I think we’re seeing TfL actually trying to make bus travel unappealing, another move at forcing people onto trains. I bet they’re not even fussed about more people cycling and walking despite the revenue loss, patronage is down anyway according to them. I genuinely think TfL have a vision of ‘all seats full’ on buses which obviously has its catastrophic downsides. "We are only doing what the Mayor's Transport Strategy (MTS) and funding require". The modern TfL version of "we were only obeying orders". As the MTS requires more walking and cycling then of course TfL are happy to see more of it - they have to keep the boss happy. You’re almost making me have a modicum of sympathy for the sock puppets!
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Jul 3, 2018 11:52:23 GMT
The 224 is a weird one, TfL don't seem to know what they want to do with it at the moment. Having been re-routed from Willesden Junction, proposed re-routing in West Twyford, frequency decrease and now this. When I used the route frequently, which admittedly was a decade ago now, there was always a decent load who's journeys would cross Alperton Station. I just don't buy the fact, that TfL think its acceptable to cut a direct link cause you can use a hopper fare! As others have said, Ealing Road can be pretty lethal, I almost came a cropper there once! Some tw@t thought he'd be clever and try and undertake (using the bus stop) a load of stationary cars waiting for the lights at under the bridge to change, how I never ended up on his bonnet I'll never know! I dare say, if this goes ahead and Metroline never of lost the route to RATP, it would of terminated at Alperton Garage. Out of interest, does anyone know why the re-routing at West Twyford never took place? I've never seen anything saying its been cancelled or postponed. I've seen they erected new Bus Stops along Twyford Abbey Road and they took the stop and shelter away from Iveagh Avenue, replacing it with a dolly, only for the stop to return a few months later! NIMBYs prevented the rerouting from going ahead 😡
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jul 3, 2018 11:56:35 GMT
Your not suggesting to have it as a 24 hour route despite it terminating in two different places? If there was a recipe for confusion, that's it and I've long thought the 65 situation should of been changed to a N65 and be done with it as anomalies like that cause confusion. Erm, no, I never even implied that. In fact I’ve already posted that the night bus may as well go to the town hall as well as the day one as I doubt you’d need an extra bus to do what is a five-minute round run... their argument of not many people needing to travel on that section at night is pathetic. I’m clearly mocking TfL’s logic in that and the fact that now money is needed to change the tiles and blinds. Of course if they go ahead with the two different day and night sections they may as well fund the change in physical differences on the buses and stops but what a tragic waste of money considering a 3/4 mile long difference 😂 It's obviously better for drivers to stand at the bus station at night, I don't suppose most people will even notice the N prefix anyway so it's all rather pointless.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2018 11:59:42 GMT
“Our analysis of the demand for bus services between Turnham Green (on Chiswick High Road) and Chiswick Business Park shows that a maximum of around 16 buses per hour are required. We currently provide 30 buses per hour. Removing route 27 (which accounts for eight buses per hour) would take the total number of buses provided per hour down to 22, more than enough to serve the demand along this corridor. Similarly, between Hammersmith and Turnham Green 10 buses per hour are required to serve existing demand at most. We currently provide 22 buses per hour. Removing route 27’s eight buses per hour from this total would take the total number of buses provided per hour down to 14, more than enough to serve the demand along this corridor”
“Under the proposals route 27 buses would no longer travel westbound from Hammersmith Grove. Instead they would terminate at Hammersmith Grove before turning around and travelling eastbound. This would affect around 1,200 passengers a day who currently use route 27 to travel between Gunnersbury / Chiswick Business Park / Chiswick High Road and stops east of Hammersmith bus station. These passengers would still be able to complete this journey by bus with a single change at Hammersmith bus station onto route 190, 237, 267, 391 or H91. The Hopper fare means this is free of charge.”
This is the clearest indication they’ve used the 237 in their Chiswick High Road corridor ‘buses per hour’ data. Inappropriate and misleading since they claim the 237 goes to Hammersmith! 😡
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2018 12:18:11 GMT
With the 27 now out of Chiswick, a contender for an LT conversion perhaps?
|
|
|
Post by John tuthill on Jul 3, 2018 12:20:04 GMT
“Our analysis of the demand for bus services between Turnham Green (on Chiswick High Road) and Chiswick Business Park shows that a maximum of around 16 buses per hour are required. We currently provide 30 buses per hour. Removing route 27 (which accounts for eight buses per hour) would take the total number of buses provided per hour down to 22, more than enough to serve the demand along this corridor. Similarly, between Hammersmith and Turnham Green 10 buses per hour are required to serve existing demand at most. We currently provide 22 buses per hour. Removing route 27’s eight buses per hour from this total would take the total number of buses provided per hour down to 14, more than enough to serve the demand along this corridor” “Under the proposals route 27 buses would no longer travel westbound from Hammersmith Grove. Instead they would terminate at Hammersmith Grove before turning around and travelling eastbound. This would affect around 1,200 passengers a day who currently use route 27 to travel between Gunnersbury / Chiswick Business Park / Chiswick High Road and stops east of Hammersmith bus station. These passengers would still be able to complete this journey by bus with a single change at Hammersmith bus station onto route 190, 237, 267, 391 or H91. The Hopper fare means this is free of charge.” This is the clearest indication they’ve used the 237 in their Chiswick High Road corridor ‘buses per hour’ data. Inappropriate and misleading since they claim the 237 goes to Hammersmith! 😡 Just shows what they know about bus routes
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2018 12:29:49 GMT
The most lightly used route has always been the 190. It was never busy when it was the 290 every 30 mins.
|
|