|
Post by vjaska on Jun 30, 2019 21:58:23 GMT
The H14 route works in its current form providing a reliable link from Harrow & Northwick Park Hospital to the corridor right up to Headstone Lane & Hatch End. It was double decked due to increased demand and currently copes fine AFAIK - if extra demand comes, it would be better simply increasing the H14 rather diverting a route that is prone to unreliability due to heavy traffic in Wembley & Neasden. Short routes are just as much as important as more longer ones. A rerouted 182 would not be much different in length from the existing routeing. With my proposal to a) extend the 340 to Northwick Park to compensate for the 186 change and b) reduce the routes along the Harrow Weald corridor, the only alternative would be to terminate both the 182 and H14 at Harrow Bus Station, where there is insufficient stand space. The 182 manages fine at the moment, and Harrow View suffers far less traffic issues than the route through Wealdstone. You've completely missed the point I made - I didn't say anything about the length of your 182 proposal but rather that, the 182 is a much longer route that encounters far more traffic hotspots than the H14 and thus leaves the people on the Harrow to Hatch End corridor a far less reliable service as a result. It makes no sense to remove a perfectly viable route and I'm doubtful as to whether the Harrow Weald corridor needs any reducing.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Jun 30, 2019 22:25:52 GMT
A rerouted 182 would not be much different in length from the existing routeing. With my proposal to a) extend the 340 to Northwick Park to compensate for the 186 change and b) reduce the routes along the Harrow Weald corridor, the only alternative would be to terminate both the 182 and H14 at Harrow Bus Station, where there is insufficient stand space. The 182 manages fine at the moment, and Harrow View suffers far less traffic issues than the route through Wealdstone. You've completely missed the point I made - I didn't say anything about the length of your 182 proposal but rather that, the 182 is a much longer route that encounters far more traffic hotspots than the H14 and thus leaves the people on the Harrow to Hatch End corridor a far less reliable service as a result. It makes no sense to remove a perfectly viable route and I'm doubtful as to whether the Harrow Weald corridor needs any reducing. In any case, I think the 340 should replace the 186 to Northwick Park and St Marks Hospitals, but would the H14 still be needed to Northwick Park as well, or curtailed to Harrow?
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Jun 30, 2019 23:21:06 GMT
You've completely missed the point I made - I didn't say anything about the length of your 182 proposal but rather that, the 182 is a much longer route that encounters far more traffic hotspots than the H14 and thus leaves the people on the Harrow to Hatch End corridor a far less reliable service as a result. It makes no sense to remove a perfectly viable route and I'm doubtful as to whether the Harrow Weald corridor needs any reducing. In any case, I think the 340 should replace the 186 to Northwick Park and St Marks Hospitals, but would the H14 still be needed to Northwick Park as well, or curtailed to Harrow? The H14 would still need to go to Northwick Park Hospital.
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Jul 1, 2019 6:10:01 GMT
If the 182 were to go to Hatch End it'd open up some new link for Harrow View which would be advantageous, the H14 only provides a link to Harrow but the 182 would link Harro View to Sudbury, Wembley, and Neasden. On the contrary the 182 isn't coping well as it is.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Jul 1, 2019 9:29:03 GMT
If the 182 were to go to Hatch End it'd open up some new link for Harrow View which would be advantageous, the H14 only provides a link to Harrow but the 182 would link Harro View to Sudbury, Wembley, and Neasden. On the contrary the 182 isn't coping well as it is. If the 182 is struggling now, then perhaps a split could be useful? Maybe reroute the 92 from Wembley Stadium to Brent Cross via the 182, retaining links towards Wembley Central and Sudbury. Then extend the H14 from Northwick Park to Brent Park, via route 182 to Wembley, then the 92 to Brent Park. The Hatch End to Brent Park route could be numbered either 182 or H14. Both this and the revised 92 would be increased in frequency to match the existing 182. Route 183 could possibly be rerouted via Brent Cross to give a more direct link to Harrow - via the 142 then 210 to Golders Green. Another route such as the 268 could then be extended to West Hendon via the 183 routeing through Hendon, or divert the 210 away from Brent Cross?
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Jul 1, 2019 14:04:40 GMT
If the 182 were to go to Hatch End it'd open up some new link for Harrow View which would be advantageous, the H14 only provides a link to Harrow but the 182 would link Harro View to Sudbury, Wembley, and Neasden. On the contrary the 182 isn't coping well as it is. If the 182 is struggling now, then perhaps a split could be useful? Maybe reroute the 92 from Wembley Stadium to Brent Cross via the 182, retaining links towards Wembley Central and Sudbury. Then extend the H14 from Northwick Park to Brent Park, via route 182 to Wembley, then the 92 to Brent Park. The Hatch End to Brent Park route could be numbered either 182 or H14. Both this and the revised 92 would be increased in frequency to match the existing 182. Route 183 could possibly be rerouted via Brent Cross to give a more direct link to Harrow - via the 142 then 210 to Golders Green. Another route such as the 268 could then be extended to West Hendon via the 183 routeing through Hendon, or divert the 210 away from Brent Cross? The 182 provides useful radial link that would be lost if the route was split. Trying to bolt some other routes to maintain the links would be a bad idea. There's also the problem of the routes you plan to alter not matching the existing frequency of the 182.
|
|
|
Post by Lukeo on Jul 1, 2019 14:23:55 GMT
I can see why they want to shorten the 186 (long route) but the H14 is an alternative. Perhaps the 340 could have been an alternative to extend to Northwick Park Hospital. It is a shorter route than the 186, but maintains links towards Wealdstone, Canons Park and Edgware. The 340's frequency is not quite as high as the H14, but would be no different from the existing 186. Though not entirely related to Northwick Park Hospital, I would also make some changes to the Harrow Weald to Harrow corridor, which is possibly overbused. I would reroute the 182 over the H14 route to Hatch End instead (with the H14 withdrawn) - the section over Harrow View could do with increased frequency as more housing developments are being built. The 258 and 340 could perhaps then be increased in frequency slightly to compensate. I like the idea of extending the 340 rather than the 186, but in terms of the plans you're basically swapping the H14 with the 340. The problem with that then would be stand space, as the 340 only takes up 1 space whereas the H14 would take up 2 spaces at Harrow Bus Station. Personally I don't believe the Harrow Weald to Harrow corridor is overbused. The multitude of routes often makes up for gaps in the 140 and 182, but additionally I often see people wait specifically for either the 140 or 182. There's high demand for those 2 routes along the corridor, so I can't see either of them being removed. Their bus garage is based at Harrow Weald too. As for the H14, it's fine at its current frequency, though I'm sure it'll increase within the few years when more capacity becomes necessary.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Jul 1, 2019 15:01:29 GMT
If the 182 is struggling now, then perhaps a split could be useful? Maybe reroute the 92 from Wembley Stadium to Brent Cross via the 182, retaining links towards Wembley Central and Sudbury. Then extend the H14 from Northwick Park to Brent Park, via route 182 to Wembley, then the 92 to Brent Park. The Hatch End to Brent Park route could be numbered either 182 or H14. Both this and the revised 92 would be increased in frequency to match the existing 182. Route 183 could possibly be rerouted via Brent Cross to give a more direct link to Harrow - via the 142 then 210 to Golders Green. Another route such as the 268 could then be extended to West Hendon via the 183 routeing through Hendon, or divert the 210 away from Brent Cross? The 182 provides useful radial link that would be lost if the route was split. Trying to bolt some other routes to maintain the links would be a bad idea. There's also the problem of the routes you plan to alter not matching the existing frequency of the 182. The 182 is a very indirect route anyway, and its length can cause unreliability. The only link that would be lost is from Neasden to the Harrow area, or from Sudbury/Wembley to Wealdstone/Harrow Weald - and the hopper fare can be used for these journeys. All key journeys and links are maintained in my revised 92 and H14*. I think both the 92 and H14* could do with a frequency increase anyway, and as mentioned, I would increase the frequencies of these to match the 182, both at every 8 minutes. * I would probably opt to use the 182 route number for the Hatch End to Brent Park route, with the H14 withdrawn.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Jul 1, 2019 15:04:03 GMT
Perhaps the 340 could have been an alternative to extend to Northwick Park Hospital. It is a shorter route than the 186, but maintains links towards Wealdstone, Canons Park and Edgware. The 340's frequency is not quite as high as the H14, but would be no different from the existing 186. Though not entirely related to Northwick Park Hospital, I would also make some changes to the Harrow Weald to Harrow corridor, which is possibly overbused. I would reroute the 182 over the H14 route to Hatch End instead (with the H14 withdrawn) - the section over Harrow View could do with increased frequency as more housing developments are being built. The 258 and 340 could perhaps then be increased in frequency slightly to compensate. I like the idea of extending the 340 rather than the 186, but in terms of the plans you're basically swapping the H14 with the 340. The problem with that then would be stand space, as the 340 only takes up 1 space whereas the H14 would take up 2 spaces at Harrow Bus Station. Personally I don't believe the Harrow Weald to Harrow corridor is overbused. The multitude of routes often makes up for gaps in the 140 and 182, but additionally I often see people wait specifically for either the 140 or 182. There's high demand for those 2 routes along the corridor, so I can't see either of them being removed. Their bus garage is based at Harrow Weald too. As for the H14, it's fine at its current frequency, though I'm sure it'll increase within the few years when more capacity becomes necessary. The H14 would be replaced in these proposals by a rerouted 182, so no need for extra stand space at Harrow Bus Station. The 340 swaps with the 186, but the H9/H10 change provides additional stand space for the 186. I would also reroute the 340 via Greenhill Way to replace the 182, with the 140/186/258 continuing via Station Road. The 340 would also continue links from Harrow Weald to Northwick Park currently covered by the 182.
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Jul 1, 2019 16:29:57 GMT
The 182 provides useful radial link that would be lost if the route was split. Trying to bolt some other routes to maintain the links would be a bad idea. There's also the problem of the routes you plan to alter not matching the existing frequency of the 182. The 182 is a very indirect route anyway, and its length can cause unreliability. The only link that would be lost is from Neasden to the Harrow area, or from Sudbury/Wembley to Wealdstone/Harrow Weald - and the hopper fare can be used for these journeys. All key journeys and links are maintained in my revised 92 and H14*. I think both the 92 and H14* could do with a frequency increase anyway, and as mentioned, I would increase the frequencies of these to match the 182, both at every 8 minutes. * I would probably opt to use the 182 route number for the Hatch End to Brent Park route, with the H14 withdrawn. The 182 maybe indirect but it’s very useful. Not all routes need to be direct to be useful round the corner links can be useful too.
|
|
|
Post by george on Jul 1, 2019 16:41:53 GMT
The 182 is a very indirect route anyway, and its length can cause unreliability. The only link that would be lost is from Neasden to the Harrow area, or from Sudbury/Wembley to Wealdstone/Harrow Weald - and the hopper fare can be used for these journeys. All key journeys and links are maintained in my revised 92 and H14*. I think both the 92 and H14* could do with a frequency increase anyway, and as mentioned, I would increase the frequencies of these to match the 182, both at every 8 minutes. * I would probably opt to use the 182 route number for the Hatch End to Brent Park route, with the H14 withdrawn. The 182 maybe indirect but it’s very useful. Not all routes need to be direct to be useful round the corner links can be useful too. I agree with this. 39 and 46 are prime examples.
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Jul 1, 2019 16:47:45 GMT
The 182 is a very indirect route anyway, and its length can cause unreliability. The only link that would be lost is from Neasden to the Harrow area, or from Sudbury/Wembley to Wealdstone/Harrow Weald - and the hopper fare can be used for these journeys. All key journeys and links are maintained in my revised 92 and H14*. I think both the 92 and H14* could do with a frequency increase anyway, and as mentioned, I would increase the frequencies of these to match the 182, both at every 8 minutes. * I would probably opt to use the 182 route number for the Hatch End to Brent Park route, with the H14 withdrawn. The 182 maybe indirect but it’s very useful. Not all routes need to be direct to be useful round the corner links can be useful too. Two other very good examples, one now destroyed: the 61 between Eltham and Chislehurst and the 45 between South Kensington and Kings Cross (and further North too at times.)
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Jul 1, 2019 16:54:11 GMT
It depends on the route though. The function of the 39 is not to link Clapham and Junction and Putney Bridge. The 39 provides many useful links to residential streets and just happens to end up at Clapham Junction/Putney Bridge so people can reach those areas for amenities.
The problem comes when the function of a circuitous route is to link two places which could have a more direct link. For example, there'd be no point in extending the 283 from East Acton to Ealing Broadway and then saying the function of that route is to link Hammersmith to Ealing Broadway. An Ealing Broadway-Hammersmith 283 would function well if it were to provide new links to Hammersmith and Ealing Broadway for residents but not provide a viable link between Ealing and Hammersmith
|
|
|
Post by BusesInLondon on Jul 1, 2019 18:02:43 GMT
The H14 route works in its current form providing a reliable link from Harrow & Northwick Park Hospital to the corridor right up to Headstone Lane & Hatch End. It was double decked due to increased demand and currently copes fine AFAIK - if extra demand comes, it would be better simply increasing the H14 rather diverting a route that is prone to unreliability due to heavy traffic in Wembley & Neasden. Short routes are just as much as important as more longer ones. A rerouted 182 would not be much different in length from the existing routeing. With my proposal to a) extend the 340 to Northwick Park to compensate for the 186 change and b) reduce the routes along the Harrow Weald corridor, the only alternative would be to terminate both the 182 and H14 at Harrow Bus Station, where there is insufficient stand space. The 182 manages fine at the moment, and Harrow View suffers far less traffic issues than the route through Wealdstone. Have you used Harrow View during the peak? Usually the H19 is quicker...
|
|
|
Post by Lukeo on Jul 2, 2019 11:09:50 GMT
A rerouted 182 would not be much different in length from the existing routeing. With my proposal to a) extend the 340 to Northwick Park to compensate for the 186 change and b) reduce the routes along the Harrow Weald corridor, the only alternative would be to terminate both the 182 and H14 at Harrow Bus Station, where there is insufficient stand space. The 182 manages fine at the moment, and Harrow View suffers far less traffic issues than the route through Wealdstone. Have you used Harrow View during the peak? Usually the H19 is quicker... That is true lol. I haven’t gone via Wealdstone in the peaks for a long time though so can’t comment there, although I have seen bad traffic off-peak (late morning).
|
|