|
|
Post by Ice Prxnce on Sept 11, 2013 15:21:27 GMT
Does anybody know what happened to the E10 extension to Chiswick Business Park and whether it is expected to happen?
MODS MSG -
ob1234, as you admitted your post has nothing to do with the thread you originally placed it in, I have created a new thread for it.
If anyone knows the answer or wishes to respond they can do so specific to your enquiry.
RM5Chris
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Sept 11, 2013 21:01:37 GMT
The proposed E10 extension has been out to consultation at least twice but there are problems with clearances on some of the roads. The extension also straddles two London Boroughs (Hounslow and Ealing) and I get a slight sense from reading council minutes that Ealing is less enthusiastic about the link than Hounslow - see the Ealing Common forum notes below to see that Ealing has specifically objected to a proposed routing. Hounslow Council notesHounslow Council Transport LIPEaling Common ward forum notesAccording to LOTS it now seems that the E10 extension has been replaced by a proposal to extend the 70 down from Acton, past Acton Town station and then via a special link road into the business park. I suspect this is out to consultation with stakeholders but not the public at the moment. I think it is a shame the E10 extension appears to have died the death. It would have partly filled in a missing link down Gunnersbury Avenue which I think is a really needed link. |
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Sept 11, 2013 21:30:22 GMT
The proposed E10 extension has been out to consultation at least twice but there are problems with clearances on some of the roads. The extension also straddles two London Boroughs (Hounslow and Ealing) and I get a slight sense from reading council minutes that Ealing is less enthusiastic about the link than Hounslow - see the Ealing Common forum notes below to see that Ealing has specifically objected to a proposed routing. Hounslow Council notesHounslow Council Transport LIPEaling Common ward forum notesAccording to LOTS it now seems that the E10 extension has been replaced by a proposal to extend the 70 down from Acton, past Acton Town station and then via a special link road into the business park. I suspect this is out to consultation with stakeholders but not the public at the moment. I think it is a shame the E10 extension appears to have died the death. It would have partly filled in a missing link down Gunnersbury Avenue which I think is a really needed link. Shame because Ealing could do with a link with Chiswick. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2013 11:37:28 GMT
Another instance of where, ultimately, people loose out.
It seems from the notes that the problem is the intersection of Gunnersbury Avenue, Gunnersbury Lane and Popes Lane. At the moment its signalled so that no right turn can be taken from G. Lane into G. Avenue northbound. That turn is accomplished by taking the next right after, into G. Drive. However... Ealing don't want buses using G. Drive, prefering junction works to enable the right turn on Gunnersbury Ave. Hounslow, however, just want the thing up and running quickly, and don't see a problem with using G. Drive.
Can't they just change the filter on the traffic light to a 'no right turn except buses'? Signal rephasing if necessary to remove conflicts... most traffic lights are computer controlled now, is that really so much bother?
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Sept 13, 2013 14:15:41 GMT
Another instance of where, ultimately, people loose out. It seems from the notes that the problem is the intersection of Gunnersbury Avenue, Gunnersbury Lane and Popes Lane. At the moment its signalled so that no right turn can be taken from G. Lane into G. Avenue northbound. That turn is accomplished by taking the next right after, into G. Drive. However... Ealing don't want buses using G. Drive, prefering junction works to enable the right turn on Gunnersbury Ave. Hounslow, however, just want the thing up and running quickly, and don't see a problem with using G. Drive. Can't they just change the filter on the traffic light to a 'no right turn except buses'? Signal rephasing if necessary to remove conflicts... most traffic lights are computer controlled now, is that really so much bother? Sounds like Ealing are just like Bromley - a council who are against buses whereas Hounslow seem to be the complete opposite. Also seems the case that Wandsworth don't like them but Lambeth have no issue. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Sept 13, 2013 18:50:58 GMT
Another instance of where, ultimately, people loose out. It seems from the notes that the problem is the intersection of Gunnersbury Avenue, Gunnersbury Lane and Popes Lane. At the moment its signalled so that no right turn can be taken from G. Lane into G. Avenue northbound. That turn is accomplished by taking the next right after, into G. Drive. However... Ealing don't want buses using G. Drive, prefering junction works to enable the right turn on Gunnersbury Ave. Hounslow, however, just want the thing up and running quickly, and don't see a problem with using G. Drive. Can't they just change the filter on the traffic light to a 'no right turn except buses'? Signal rephasing if necessary to remove conflicts... most traffic lights are computer controlled now, is that really so much bother? The double irony is that Hounslow are in receipt of the S106 monies which are paying for the various Chiswick Park bus changes. Ealing don't care because they aren't the party that potentially loses out if the money isn't spent. While there may be a traffic issue - and it is the North Circ after all - it is all a bit pathetic that something cannot be sorted out. It is this sort of "on the boundary" nonsense that makes me profoundly nervous about councils having a greater say in bus service planning and their demands for "area schemes" (in other words the bus service *we* want in *our* borough and s*d everyone else). |
|
|
|
Post by l1group on Sept 14, 2013 6:51:35 GMT
Another instance of where, ultimately, people loose out. The double irony is that Hounslow are in receipt of the S106 monies which are paying for the various Chiswick Park bus changes. Ealing don't care because they aren't the party that potentially loses out if the money isn't spent. While there may be a traffic issue - and it is the North Circ after all - it is all a bit pathetic that something cannot be sorted out. It is this sort of "on the boundary" nonsense that makes me profoundly nervous about councils having a greater say in bus service planning and their demands for "area schemes" People like me, who so desperately wants to have a link to Ealing. I've wanted this for so many years (and I'd be greatly relieved if it went ahead, as I'd be using it a lot!)! The North Circular - to be honest, it is a useful road to put buses on it! I hate how Ealing just don't seem to care about the general picture. People want to have the extension. Weirdly, the 70 extension would be also Ealing Council too. It would go via E3 to Acton Town, then as the E10 proposal to Chiswick Business Park. That, again, is kinda useful with the wider links, from Ladbroke Grove, for example. But, I'm not sure Ladbroke Grove and an extra link to Acton is better than a link to Ealing (and Northolt, don't forget that! It'd be faster than E3 if the A406 doesn't ruin it, so it would be good!). I'd think that Chiswick would prefer E10 over 70 tbh. Unless someone from Chiswick begs to differ! |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Sept 14, 2013 11:26:29 GMT
People like me, who so desperately wants to have a link to Ealing. I've wanted this for so many years (and I'd be greatly relieved if it went ahead, as I'd be using it a lot!)! The North Circular - to be honest, it is a useful road to put buses on it! I hate how Ealing just don't seem to care about the general picture. People want to have the extension. Weirdly, the 70 extension would be also Ealing Council too. It would go via E3 to Acton Town, then as the E10 proposal to Chiswick Business Park. That, again, is kinda useful with the wider links, from Ladbroke Grove, for example. But, I'm not sure Ladbroke Grove and an extra link to Acton is better than a link to Ealing (and Northolt, don't forget that! It'd be faster than E3 if the A406 doesn't ruin it, so it would be good!). I'd think that Chiswick would prefer E10 over 70 tbh. Unless someone from Chiswick begs to differ! I don't disagree with you about the North Circ being useful for buses. The problem on that stretch is it is overloaded with traffic and having buses stop here and there would slow the traffic which will annoy people in the area. Also waiting for buses beside the A406 is a pretty awful experience - I've done it too many times at South Woodford. The E10 proposal would be really useful if it ran on just a short distance through the business park to terminate at Gunnersbury Station thus completing the link to Chiswick High Road. A really good, but unaffordable, idea would be to run the E10 down the 237 to that new Great Western Business Park where the 235 is going. Nice round the corner link from the Chiswick Business Park, Acton Town and Ealing Common. I understand the old route 27 stand at Turnham Green has been lost as part of the changes to routes in this area so it couldn't run there. Another oddity is that the 27 does not stop near Gunnersbury Station either for some daft reason. Having looked at Google Streetview I struggle to see why a bus only right turn can't be provided at the A406 / Popes Lane junction. I can sort of understand why Ealing Council are not in favour of Gunnersbury Drive being used by buses - it has so many parked cars on it that it's effectively a single lane road! I suspect the residents would be revolting if a bus was to pass by their front doors. What is bizarre is that its junction with the A406 allows turns in both directions and is unsignalled and yet it's apparently not possible to signalise a turn at Gunnersbury Road. The other thing on Streetview is the special bus link road from Bollo Lane into the Business Park. The camera car hasn't been round the business park but I can at least understand how buses will make the link. Well I guess we will find out soon enough what will use that link road. The E10 is by far the better option in my view to extend. The 70 idea is less useful IMO as it largely duplicates what the 440 does. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Sept 14, 2013 12:31:52 GMT
People like me, who so desperately wants to have a link to Ealing. I've wanted this for so many years (and I'd be greatly relieved if it went ahead, as I'd be using it a lot!)! The North Circular - to be honest, it is a useful road to put buses on it! I hate how Ealing just don't seem to care about the general picture. People want to have the extension. Weirdly, the 70 extension would be also Ealing Council too. It would go via E3 to Acton Town, then as the E10 proposal to Chiswick Business Park. That, again, is kinda useful with the wider links, from Ladbroke Grove, for example. But, I'm not sure Ladbroke Grove and an extra link to Acton is better than a link to Ealing (and Northolt, don't forget that! It'd be faster than E3 if the A406 doesn't ruin it, so it would be good!). I'd think that Chiswick would prefer E10 over 70 tbh. Unless someone from Chiswick begs to differ! Having looked at Google Streetview I struggle to see why a bus only right turn can't be provided at the A406 / Popes Lane junction. I can sort of understand why Ealing Council are not in favour of Gunnersbury Drive being used by buses - it has so many parked cars on it that it's effectively a single lane road! I suspect the residents would be revolting if a bus was to pass by their front doors. What is bizarre is that its junction with the A406 allows turns in both directions and is unsignalled and yet it's apparently not possible to signalise a turn at Gunnersbury Road. The other thing on Streetview is the special bus link road from Bollo Lane into the Business Park. The camera car hasn't been round the business park but I can at least understand how buses will make the link. Well I guess we will find out soon enough what will use that link road. The E10 is by far the better option in my view to extend. The 70 idea is less useful IMO as it largely duplicates what the 440 does. Strikes me strange why one council (Ealing) has a problem with a bus using a road that is a single lane due to parked cars whilst another (Lambeth) doesn't have a problem with Radbourne Road which is similar and is part of the 255's extension. It seems to demonstrate one council's seemingly hatred for buses and anothers liking for them. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Sept 14, 2013 13:03:21 GMT
Strikes me strange why one council (Ealing) has a problem with a bus using a road that is a single lane due to parked cars whilst another (Lambeth) doesn't have a problem with Radbourne Road which is similar and is part of the 255's extension. It seems to demonstrate one council's seemingly hatred for buses and anothers liking for them. I don't think it is necessarily a dislike of buses with Ealing. From memory the Council was swapped electoral control a few times in the recent past with Labour in majority control now but I believe they were wiped out by the Tories as a result of supporting the West London Tram. Given this historical legacy it is only natural that any councillor in Ealing will be nervous of the electoral consequences of ignoring what constituents say about any transport proposal. The Ealing Common area is particularly contentious because of past plans to smash a huge rebuild of the A406 through the area - you only need look to East and North London to see what has NOT been inflicted on Ealing. Of course the traffic jams are horrific but Ealing residents will not want to an inch of Ealing Common dug up for a transport scheme. I suspect that even erecting a bus stop would upset some residents in the area! Clearly in some bits of London people will want to have a nice local bus service - this was most recently shown in stark terms with the 324. Although there was a vocal campaign from one area near Stanmore this was completely outweighed by the numbers in favour all along the route. It is usually those who are against something that shout the loudest - witness HS2. Those in favour tend to keep quiet and just wait for the desired change to come along (depends on the issue obviously!). Some boroughs, like Barnet and Bexley, are not very pro bus despite having far more generous service levels than they possibly justify or would get if they were part of Hertfordshire or Kent (as I suspect some locals would prefer). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2013 20:55:49 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by l1group on Sept 19, 2013 18:07:33 GMT
No, not exactly  (good catch btw) The E10 using longer buses though... That'd be a problem at the other, Northolt end (Islip Manor)! |
|
|
|
Post by Ice Prxnce on Sept 19, 2013 19:00:59 GMT
No, not exactly (good catch btw) The E10 using longer buses though... That'd be a problem at the other, Northolt end (Islip Manor)! Yeah, I wonder how G try to put 10.2m Enviro200s on the route. It must surely drive on the pavement or the grass at the Islip Manor Roundabout. |
|
|
|
Post by riverside on Mar 12, 2014 16:01:55 GMT
March 2014 and still no progress on providing some sort of bus link to Chiswick Business Park via the specially built bus only access road from Bollo Lane. I know that Ealng Council failed to support the E10 extension but then there were rumours that the 70 would be extended to this point. It seems a crying shame that money is spent to enable improvements to public transport and then just wasted. The extension of the 27 has not been particularly successful with most buses carrying fresh air.What is probably needed is a route that runs right through the business park, but how you would do this, I don't know.
The extension of the 440 from Turnham Green to Chiswick(Power Road) via the former H91 route has also not been successful, with very few passengers carried. At the time the preferred option of many residents was a diversion of the 391, but TfL understandably thought that too many through passengers would be inconvenienced. It seems as if TfL need to look again at bus service provision in Chiswick as a certain amount of tidying up is required. A link from this direction to Kew Retail Park would also be useful.
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Mar 12, 2014 23:06:28 GMT
March 2014 and still no progress on providing some sort of bus link to Chiswick Business Park via the specially built bus only access road from Bollo Lane. I know that Ealng Council failed to support the E10 extension but then there were rumours that the 70 would be extended to this point. It seems a crying shame that money is spent to enable improvements to public transport and then just wasted. The extension of the 27 has not been particularly successful with most buses carrying fresh air.What is probably needed is a route that runs right through the business park, but how you would do this, I don't know. The extension of the 440 from Turnham Green to Chiswick(Power Road) via the former H91 route has also not been successful, with very few passengers carried. At the time the preferred option of many residents was a diversion of the 391, but TfL understandably thought that too many through passengers would be inconvenienced. It seems as if TfL need to look again at bus service provision in Chiswick as a certain amount of tidying up is required. A link from this direction to Kew Retail Park would also be useful. I understand that the route 70 is still under consideration. I would guess that Tower Transit have provided costs for an extended service and TfL are working out if it is affordable. I cannot see that a short extension of the 70 just to the business park will make much sense. If the 27 and 440 extensions are as unsuccessful as you say you might as well scrap them and use the money for something else - perhaps leave the 440 running into the Business Park with the 27 cut back to Turnham Green. To take up your idea perhaps extend the R68 up to Kew Bridge, Gunnersbury, Chiswick Business Park, Bollo Lane, Acton and round to Ealing Broadway? While not ideal in terms of serving Chiswick or the area off Gunnersbury Avenue it would give a through service across the Business Park and link Ealing, Chiswick, Kew, Richmond and beyond. A 15 minute M-S frequency is a decent place to start so no overbussing on the existing R68 route. |
|
(good catch btw)