|
Post by rj131 on Jul 3, 2018 12:34:14 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! 😡 Someone write a snotty letter to TfL about that epic 237 blunder, just shows how much they care doesn’t it. And what if the next mayor decides to dramatically increase fares and do away with the hopper? Then there’s going to be a mass rebellion, great times ahead.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2018 13:01:04 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! 😡 Someone write a snotty letter to TfL about that epic 237 blunder, just shows how much they care doesn’t it. And what if the next mayor decides to dramatically increase fares and do away with the hopper? Then there’s going to be a mass rebellion, great times ahead. Sadly they will acknowledge the error and do absolutely diddly squat else. They might not even apologise for it and even have the audacity to claim it makes no difference to the consultation!
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 3, 2018 13:23:20 GMT
The most lightly used route has always been the 190. It was never busy when it was the 290 every 30 mins. From my observations, it’s the 391 that seems the most lightly used - haven’t seen a lightly used 190 ever though I’m not in the area as much as yourself.
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Jul 3, 2018 13:53:29 GMT
The most lightly used route has always been the 190. It was never busy when it was the 290 every 30 mins. From my observations, it’s the 391 that seems the most lightly used - haven’t seen a lightly used 190 ever though I’m not in the area as much as yourself. Both are quite lightly used Richmond End of route (and there are multiple other routes Richmond-Manor Circus) 190 is rarely busy to west of Chiswick House (from Chalkers Corner R68 is busier), there is little housing (mainly cemetaries and sports grounds), and Mortlake station is close 391 is rarely busy in the Kew area (Sandycoombe Road) apart from this short section, basically parallels other busy routes Kew Bridge-Hammersmith
|
|
|
Post by rj131 on Jul 3, 2018 14:49:21 GMT
The most lightly used route has always been the 190. It was never busy when it was the 290 every 30 mins. From my observations, it’s the 391 that seems the most lightly used - haven’t seen a lightly used 190 ever though I’m not in the area as much as yourself. I love the 190, I visit Hammersmith often and use it from there to West Brompton, that section is well used and is often busy, however not so much Sundays. I’ve not been on this myself but there is a video on YouTube of a 190 in the evening peak using one of the ex-18 VWs when it was on loan to AH on this section and it was packed to the rafters so it definitely has good usage. 391 I can’t say about so much about other than the one time I used it, it had a standing load and it has quite large patronage figures for a single decker route. It’s consistently in the 3 millions and that’s D6 territory, which as we know is an incredibly busy route.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2018 14:58:20 GMT
From my observations, it’s the 391 that seems the most lightly used - haven’t seen a lightly used 190 ever though I’m not in the area as much as yourself. I love the 190, I visit Hammersmith often and use it from there to West Brompton, that section is well used and is often busy, however not so much Sundays. I’ve not been on this myself but there is a video on YouTube of a 190 in the evening peak using one of the ex-18 VWs when it was on loan to AH on this section and it was packed to the rafters so it definitely has good usage. 391 I can’t say about so much about other than the one time I used it, it had a standing load and it has quite large patronage figures for a single decker route. It’s consistently in the 3 millions and that’s D6 territory, which as we know is an incredibly busy route. With respect you can’t base one YouTube video as an overall indicator of the 190’s patronage. Could have been exceptional traffic levels and/or hideous gaps in the service, not to mention any problems on the trains at Richmond. (Signal failures on that stretch of the District and LOROL are fairly common). In my experience it’s swings and roundabouts. Overall the 391 is much busier that that isn’t to say the 190 carries dust.
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Jul 4, 2018 6:04:33 GMT
With the 440 out to tender (and the 94 tender revised to couple of tranches later), does raise the prospect of some fleet changes.
Whilst I can find nothing to suggest that double decking of 440 is being considered, there would obviously be about 5 or 6 double decks released from shortened 27 and any cuts to 94 could release more. So buses might become available. On the other hand a double deck service over Hammersmith Bridge (assuming it eventually gets strengthened) would seem more likely use for any released buses.
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Jul 5, 2018 0:34:09 GMT
I've just realised something by removing the 224 from Wembley Central and Ealing Road. Wembley Central and Ealing Road loses there link to Central Middlesex Hospital.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Jul 5, 2018 7:11:38 GMT
I've just realised something by removing the 224 from Wembley Central and Ealing Road. Wembley Central and Ealing Road loses there link to Central Middlesex Hospital. 440 will serve Wembley Triangle which is not far from Wembley Central.
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Jul 5, 2018 7:35:14 GMT
I've just realised something by removing the 224 from Wembley Central and Ealing Road. Wembley Central and Ealing Road loses there link to Central Middlesex Hospital. 440 will serve Wembley Triangle which is not far from Wembley Central. Yes but said he that wouldn't remove links to hospital and TfL are planning to removing a link to Central Middlesex Hospital. Would it not have been better to extend the 440 to Wembley Central instead.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Jul 5, 2018 9:50:56 GMT
440 will serve Wembley Triangle which is not far from Wembley Central. Yes but said he that wouldn't remove links to hospital and TfL are planning to removing a link to Central Middlesex Hospital. Would it not have been better to extend the 440 to Wembley Central instead. The H17 could even be extended slightly to Wembley Stadium to create stand space for the 440 at Wembley Central.
|
|
|
Post by kmkcheng on Jul 5, 2018 11:19:53 GMT
Yes but said he that wouldn't remove links to hospital and TfL are planning to removing a link to Central Middlesex Hospital. Would it not have been better to extend the 440 to Wembley Central instead. The H17 could even be extended slightly to Wembley Stadium to create stand space for the 440 at Wembley Central. Or maybe extend 223 to Central Middlesex Hospital so it maintains the link to Wembley Central and also link Northwick Park Hospital to Central Middlesex (although via an indirect route)
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Jul 7, 2018 6:37:16 GMT
With the BCI tri-axle about to be tested (elsewhere in London), occurred to me :
The excess capacity on Hammersmith-Chiswick section could in next few years be tackled differently. Would be very easy to reduce frequency and use bigger buses on H91 and 267 both long (fairly) straight routes. I wouldn’t rule out a shortened 27 or shortened 94 eventually getting the LTs off the 267
The 440 changes are likely to make it a much busier route as it’s only real competition for longer journeys is the Overground
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Jul 7, 2018 6:50:42 GMT
With the 27 now out of Chiswick, a contender for an LT conversion perhaps? If the route 10 / 23 merger still occurs, despite Oxford Street "transformation" shelved, then LTs from route 10 could switch to route 27.
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Jul 7, 2018 6:53:42 GMT
The H17 could even be extended slightly to Wembley Stadium to create stand space for the 440 at Wembley Central. Or maybe extend 223 to Central Middlesex Hospital so it maintains the link to Wembley Central and also link Northwick Park Hospital to Central Middlesex (although via an indirect route) I even wonder with routes 223 & 224 having low pvr's and both awarded to RATP, maybe route 223 could be extended from Wembley Central to absorb the rest of route 224?
|
|