|
Post by ADH45258 on Jul 9, 2018 16:13:52 GMT
I'm intrigued to know the Richmond changes as they mention the 391. Ironic that both the 27 and 391 could be facing changes since the 391 replaced part of the 27 and now will be supporting the withdrawal of the 27 to Hammersmith. I can imagine the Richmond changes are that more routes will terminate at the bus station (likely saving the amount of routes running to Manor Circus to turn/stand). It's been rumoured the 493 is being cut to the bus station with maybe the H37. To create space the H22 and 419 may be joined. Or 419/371 merged with the H22 extended to Turnham Green via the 391.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jul 9, 2018 16:21:38 GMT
Potentially lots of option to reduce stand time. Also the 209 could factor in as it's been assessed. It does juplicate the 419 alot and the increased 485 could be diverted to 4 buses an hour around the hail and ride unique section of the 419. 209 to Richmond at a lower freq with DDs.
I can't see the H37 being extended anywhere as it serves it's purpose and it could be costly to extend such a frequent route.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 9, 2018 18:12:20 GMT
I'm intrigued to know the Richmond changes as they mention the 391. Ironic that both the 27 and 391 could be facing changes since the 391 replaced part of the 27 and now will be supporting the withdrawal of the 27 to Hammersmith. I can imagine the Richmond changes are that more routes will terminate at the bus station (likely saving the amount of routes running to Manor Circus to turn/stand). It's been rumoured the 493 is being cut to the bus station with maybe the H37. To create space the H22 and 419 may be joined. I don’t see the H37 being touched at all and I suspect it’s frequent nature will be used as an excuse to cut back the H22, 493 & possibly R70. I see the 371 continuing to stand in its current place to keep the link to Sainsbury’s. I sadly potentially could see the H22 & R70 merged into each other requiring neither route to stand in Richmond leaving enough room for the 493 to slot in at the bus station.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jul 9, 2018 18:57:49 GMT
But the H22 and R70 would both loose links into Richmond. The 110 is mentioned aswell so maybe that may replace something into Richmond.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jul 12, 2018 21:15:35 GMT
TFL do have a get out clause aswell in that the could restore the previous freq of the 391 back to every 12 mins and even DD the route should it struggle to cope with the loss of the 27.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jul 13, 2018 0:01:39 GMT
TFL do have a get out clause aswell in that the could restore the previous freq of the 391 back to every 12 mins and even DD the route should it struggle to cope with the loss of the 27. TfL will not be enhancing the volume of buses that run between Chiswick and Hammersmith. The only direction is downwards - fewer buses. This is all to facilitate the construction and operation of Cycle Superhighway 9. The plan is clearly to get as many buses and doubled up stops out of the way before works start. That's the opposite of the approach in Waltham Forest where the bus network destruction followed on behind the Mini Holland cycle lanes. TfL have clearly clicked that the scale of short term disruption will be enormous in Chiswick so getting buses cleared out might give them (and operators) a bit of breating space.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jul 13, 2018 7:09:45 GMT
So do you think TFL are content with leaving the amount of buses per hour they have stated or still want to maybe remove another route as in their own words "these are still more then required for this section". Do you believe another route could be for the chop?
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jul 13, 2018 9:04:54 GMT
So do you think TFL are content with leaving the amount of buses per hour they have stated or still want to maybe remove another route as in their own words "these are still more then required for this section". Do you believe another route could be for the chop? I suspect there will be further thinning of frequencies of all routes along that section. I also think the 9 and 10 will be reduced in frequency to reduce bus movements east of Hammersmith. It is also worth noting the slowly emerging plan to rationalise and reduce bus movements in and across Hammersmith and also in Richmond. Again I expect some of this is related to CS9 works.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jul 13, 2018 9:39:08 GMT
I have to say is the current freqs on 9, 10 and 27 all required between Hammersmith and H S Kensington. I would question if the 27 could even be cut to Notting Hill Gate.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jul 13, 2018 9:51:54 GMT
I have to say is the current freqs on 9, 10 and 27 all required between Hammersmith and H S Kensington. I would question if the 27 could even be cut to Notting Hill Gate. Why not cut the 27 entirely then? That seems like a great idea! It seems you're obsessed with removing routes just for the sake of it without any logic. In the world of London's bus network there is such a thing as a frequency decrease that many seem to be oblivious to. Of course the 27 is needed, there is still scope for a slight frequency decrease alongside the 9, though it wouldn't be desirable to decrease the 10's frequency any further.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jul 13, 2018 9:59:21 GMT
Decreasing freqs isn't always so easy as at other sections of the route can be busy. Of corse with all 3 routes combined the other could probably cope every 10 to 12 mins but that would be a real struggle between Knightsbridge and Aldwych where is the only route providing that link.
If the 10/23 goes ahead there will be a new Paddington link to Kensington/Hammersmith and with 5 other routes down Kensington Church Street I think things would cope!
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jul 13, 2018 10:44:33 GMT
I have to say is the current freqs on 9, 10 and 27 all required between Hammersmith and H S Kensington. I would question if the 27 could even be cut to Notting Hill Gate. Why not cut the 27 entirely then? That seems like a great idea! It seems you're obsessed with removing routes just for the sake of it without any logic. In the world of London's bus network there is such a thing as a frequency decrease that many seem to be oblivious to. Of course the 27 is needed, there is still scope for a slight frequency decrease alongside the 9, though it wouldn't be desirable to decrease the 10's frequency any further. I'm afraid you're the one that is defying logic and not for the first time, I'm sure we'd all rather that bus travel was booming and we were talking about expanding the bus network but reality dictates otherwise. The 9,10 and 27 currently provide more than 20bph between Kensington and Hammersmith, is anybody really going to claim that level of service is justified?
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Jul 13, 2018 11:02:48 GMT
Why not cut the 27 entirely then? That seems like a great idea! It seems you're obsessed with removing routes just for the sake of it without any logic. In the world of London's bus network there is such a thing as a frequency decrease that many seem to be oblivious to. Of course the 27 is needed, there is still scope for a slight frequency decrease alongside the 9, though it wouldn't be desirable to decrease the 10's frequency any further. I'm afraid you're the one that is defying logic and not for the first time, I'm sure we'd all rather that bus travel was booming and we were talking about expanding the bus network but reality dictates otherwise. The 9,10 and 27 currently provide more than 20bph between Kensington and Hammersmith, is anybody really going to claim that level of service is justified? Sorry to be a harbinger of doom, but I wonder if the 9 might get withdrawn between Hammersmith and Olympia?
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jul 13, 2018 11:19:19 GMT
A petition is now under way along Chiswick High Road to save the 27.
|
|
|
Post by 15002 on Jul 13, 2018 11:21:19 GMT
A petition is now under way along Chiswick High Road to save the 27. Just like the 33 petition, I doubt this petition will change anything. I’ll be surprised if TFL listened.
|
|