|
Post by routew15 on Oct 24, 2016 17:38:55 GMT
Hounslow council is consulting on creating a bus stand on Ealing Road removing the need for the 235 to enter the Great Western Quarter. The page reads: -Content from Hounslow CouncilConsultation pageThis is a late find and the Consultation closes tomorrow
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Oct 24, 2016 17:48:09 GMT
So the whingebag residents at GWQ win and the council spends public money (?) to fix the stand problem.
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Oct 24, 2016 18:14:58 GMT
They should have done this in the first place then the residents wouldn't have complained or the barrier wouldn't have been broken. If the 235 had double deckers I would have suggested that the 235 should be extended to Ealing Broadway to relief the 65.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Oct 24, 2016 19:13:58 GMT
They should have done this in the first place then the residents wouldn't have complained or the barrier wouldn't have been broken. If the 235 had double deckers I would have suggested that the 235 should be extended to Ealing Broadway to relief the 65. Sorry but that's just the benefit of hindsight. I suspect the 235's extension was all part and parcel of the planning permission for GWQ and that S106 funding was used to extend the 235 in the first place. The objective will have been to ensure the residents had direct, convenient access to public transport. The fact the place was filled with a load of public transport hating so and sos was probably beyond anyone's reasonable predictive ability. The other side effect, here, is a likely reduction in "poor people" traipsing through the development from Clayponds north of the A4. We know from past newspaper reports this was an issue. The far better option, but possibly at the cost of a bus on the PVR, would be to stand the 235 on the Great West Road itself with buses turning under the A4. This would reduce walking distances for those who make more use of this end of the route.
|
|
|
Post by routew15 on Oct 24, 2016 21:15:36 GMT
They should have done this in the first place then the residents wouldn't have complained or the barrier wouldn't have been broken. If the 235 had double deckers I would have suggested that the 235 should be extended to Ealing Broadway to relief the 65. Sorry but that's just the benefit of hindsight. I suspect the 235's extension was all part and parcel of the planning permission for GWQ and that S106 funding was used to extend the 235 in the first place. The objective will have been to ensure the residents had direct, convenient access to public transport. The fact the place was filled with a load of public transport hating so and sos was probably beyond anyone's reasonable predictive ability. The other side effect, here, is a likely reduction in "poor people" traipsing through the development from Clayponds north of the A4. We know from past newspaper reports this was an issue. The far better option, but possibly at the cost of a bus on the PVR, would be to stand the 235 on the Great West Road itself with buses turning under the A4. This would reduce walking distances for those who make more use of this end of the route. The benefit of hindsight or the lack of foresight?
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Oct 24, 2016 22:53:25 GMT
Sorry but that's just the benefit of hindsight. I suspect the 235's extension was all part and parcel of the planning permission for GWQ and that S106 funding was used to extend the 235 in the first place. The objective will have been to ensure the residents had direct, convenient access to public transport. The fact the place was filled with a load of public transport hating so and sos was probably beyond anyone's reasonable predictive ability. The other side effect, here, is a likely reduction in "poor people" traipsing through the development from Clayponds north of the A4. We know from past newspaper reports this was an issue. The far better option, but possibly at the cost of a bus on the PVR, would be to stand the 235 on the Great West Road itself with buses turning under the A4. This would reduce walking distances for those who make more use of this end of the route. The benefit of hindsight or the lack of foresight? Although I've seen no evidence as to who was breaking the "bus only" barrier I'd not be astonished if it was a tiny minority of the residents so as keep the "smelly" buses away. I don't think anyone could have foreseen since ridiculous behaviour. If the buses have been smashing the barriers then someone's designed it wrongly or Abellio has (had) some very poor drivers. Any way round there is nothing wrong with putting in gates or barriers to regulate entry and to assume they will broadly work as planned. I would really like to see some background papers and evidence about what has gone on at GWQ as I suspect it will be very instructive as to how to approach the provision of bus services to the many, many large developments being built or planned in vast swathes of London - Silvertown, North Greenwich, Battersea / Nine Elms, New Bermondsey, Convoys Wharf, Barking Riverside, Meridian Water, North Tottenham etc etc. You can't plan on car borne access for all residents - it's against the planning guidance. However you have to have effective ways of getting public transport into these places so it's a viable, safe *and operable* alternative. IMO it is simply not acceptable for people to believe they can ghetto-ise these new developments to the exclusion of public services and the rest of us who may have cause to visit such places. There is already far too much privatisation of public space with all the risk of prosecution / hassle for having the temerity to walk on a pavement or past a building that looks like "public space" but isn't.
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Oct 25, 2016 2:26:03 GMT
TfL have mucked up by not having cleaner & greener buses on the 235 upon contract renewal. The rich, snooty, uppety so & sos mucked up by not adhering to the fact that the 235 will be on their private property. It's not like they weren't told; estate agents turn into public transport messiahs after discussing the house specifications partly to affirm the sell but mainly because it's their job to inform you of these things. I still find it utterly disgusting that no prosecutions are persued for active vandalism, just because the people destroying the barriers are presumed to be wealthy. The bitter beautiful irony however is that these people in a posh estate are acting no better than those in an impoverished estate. Just goes to show you can lead a horse to water....
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Oct 25, 2016 3:05:02 GMT
TfL have mucked up by not having cleaner & greener buses on the 235 upon contract renewal. The rich, snooty, uppety so & sos mucked up by not adhering to the fact that the 235 will be on their private property. It's not like they weren't told; estate agents turn into public transport messiahs after discussing the house specifications partly to affirm the sell but mainly because it's their job to inform you of these things. I still find it utterly disgusting that no prosecutions are persued for active vandalism, just because the people destroying the barriers are presumed to be wealthy. The bitter irony however is that these people in a posh estate are acting no better than those in an impoverished estate. Just goes to show you can lead a horse to water.... The 235's contract went out for tender earlier this year and has subsequently been won by Metroline with new MMC Enviro 200's on order for a contract start date in January so TfL haven't mucked up at all
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Oct 25, 2016 6:06:08 GMT
They should have done this in the first place then the residents wouldn't have complained or the barrier wouldn't have been broken. If the 235 had double deckers I would have suggested that the 235 should be extended to Ealing Broadway to relief the 65. Sorry but that's just the benefit of hindsight. I suspect the 235's extension was all part and parcel of the planning permission for GWQ and that S106 funding was used to extend the 235 in the first place. The objective will have been to ensure the residents had direct, convenient access to public transport. The fact the place was filled with a load of public transport hating so and sos was probably beyond anyone's reasonable predictive ability. The other side effect, here, is a likely reduction in "poor people" traipsing through the development from Clayponds north of the A4. We know from past newspaper reports this was an issue. The far better option, but possibly at the cost of a bus on the PVR, would be to stand the 235 on the Great West Road itself with buses turning under the A4. This would reduce walking distances for those who make more use of this end of the route. TfL tends to have a rather clumsy policy with these big developments, you need to look at the council planning committee minutes where the plans are discussed for approval. TfL has an anti car stance where they want on site parking reduced. They try and get s106 to add to public transport and they get PTAL as a basis of planning. In detail. The anti car is reflected in demanding cuts in number of spaces per apartment. Obviously some people keep cars for visiting relatives out of London etc, but don't use them all week, the policy encourages them to take up an on road space (usually just outside a controlled zone) instead. As an example the new development at Tolworth where TfL want spaces cut from about 1 to 0.3 per apartment, even though that is on boundary and there is virtually no public transport West or SW of site The s106 is usually either a rail station improvement or a bus extension, often the bus extension is easy to do rather than of any benefit to the residents, in the case of GWC, it was a random extension of a bus going to the sleepy Surrey town of Sunbury. I suspect many of the residents work either along the A4 golden mile, or take train towards central London for work. Of all the potential public transport improvements the ability to get a direct bus to Sunbury seems a barmy choice. It smacks of getting money then finding some half baked project just to use it up. PTAL might not be understood by some, it is a public transport assessibility factor. Basically is a number 1 to 6 saying how much public transport in the area, so a development next to a major transport interchange gets high rating, a development with nearest bus stop half mile away gets very low. The TfL assumption is that if it is high or medium then journeys will not involve cars, regardless of if other end of journey has very low PTAL. (Personally I don't get this assumption as it implies those affected will choose not to live there, which seems to me as effectively selecting the residents). Effectively the policy causes parking problems nearby, results in obscure transport changes, and uses a sledgehammer to crack a nut by assuming the people who live there will choose to have friends, relatives and work that is all reachable by public transport. The need to extend on street parking zone restrictions nearby couple of years later shows the policy failed as it just caused overflow parking nearby. GWC got it all wrong, as an unreliable bus gate was needed to try and enforce this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2016 8:06:40 GMT
Totally agree. Why put a high frequency service effectively running in the opposite direction to the most likely demand ?
A shuttle bus to Gunnersbury or Turnham Green stations would have been far more useful and likely to have been welcomed.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Oct 25, 2016 14:46:55 GMT
TfL tends to have a rather clumsy policy with these big developments, you need to look at the council planning committee minutes where the plans are discussed for approval. TfL has an anti car stance where they want on site parking reduced. They try and get s106 to add to public transport and they get PTAL as a basis of planning. In detail. The anti car is reflected in demanding cuts in number of spaces per apartment. Obviously some people keep cars for visiting relatives out of London etc, but don't use them all week, the policy encourages them to take up an on road space (usually just outside a controlled zone) instead. As an example the new development at Tolworth where TfL want spaces cut from about 1 to 0.3 per apartment, even though that is on boundary and there is virtually no public transport West or SW of site The s106 is usually either a rail station improvement or a bus extension, often the bus extension is easy to do rather than of any benefit to the residents, in the case of GWC, it was a random extension of a bus going to the sleepy Surrey town of Sunbury. I suspect many of the residents work either along the A4 golden mile, or take train towards central London for work. Of all the potential public transport improvements the ability to get a direct bus to Sunbury seems a barmy choice. It smacks of getting money then finding some half baked project just to use it up. PTAL might not be understood by some, it is a public transport assessibility factor. Basically is a number 1 to 6 saying how much public transport in the area, so a development next to a major transport interchange gets high rating, a development with nearest bus stop half mile away gets very low. The TfL assumption is that if it is high or medium then journeys will not involve cars, regardless of if other end of journey has very low PTAL. (Personally I don't get this assumption as it implies those affected will choose not to live there, which seems to me as effectively selecting the residents). Effectively the policy causes parking problems nearby, results in obscure transport changes, and uses a sledgehammer to crack a nut by assuming the people who live there will choose to have friends, relatives and work that is all reachable by public transport. The need to extend on street parking zone restrictions nearby couple of years later shows the policy failed as it just caused overflow parking nearby. GWC got it all wrong, as an unreliable bus gate was needed to try and enforce this. A few comments. 1. Surely all TfL is doing is enforcing the requirements of the Mayor's Transport Strategy? It must take its lead from that and if this means a reduction in car parking in new residential developments then that's what it must say in responding to developers. It is the Mayor's agent and nothing else (despite appearances!). I do sometimes read planning applications for developments. I am aware of the issues TfL raises. 2. I don't see how TfL can possibly predict in any reliable way who will move into a new development, where their family may live, where their employment will be or anything else. TfL have no crystal ball and neither do the developers. TfL has no remit to change PTAL scores outside Greater London. It can only seek to improve PTAL scores within Greater London at the location where a development is planned and where funding may be forthcoming. This may or may not have ramifications for elsewhere but unless you know who will move into an area and where they are from [1] it is only over a "best endeavours" task. It will never achieve some form of transport accessibility perfection as you can't put an underground station under everyone's house nor put 20 bph down every main road. It's neither practical nor fundable. 3. I agree that some of the bus service changes brought in are perhaps less than ideal but they are better than providing nothing and gaining no funding and no betterment from developers. It would only go the property company's shareholders otherwise. Also you have to start somewhere - sure the first go at providing a bus link may not be ideal but sometimes developments take time to establish themselves and for travel patterns to become evident. Then TfL can make changes as necessary. I expect this will happen on a number of upcoming developments like New Bermondsey, North Greenwich and Meridian Water. 4. If you consider the policy to be flawed then you will have the opportunity to comment when the Mayor consults on his new Transport Strategy. It is a legal requirement for one to be drawn up and I imagine City Hall and TfL are working on it now. I do not see how a policy of seeking to accommodate car parking for almost every resident could ever work in the context of the sort of densification that is now necessary to accommodate the demand for housing in London. Let's also be realistic and accept that even with excellent public transport on their doorsteps some people will always run a car because they consider their needs to be above those of us who use public transport exclusively. They have no NEED to run a car but they simply choose to do so. (Note I am not referencing people here whose health issues mean a car is the best option for them). We have a badly swekwed transport system in this country that is grossly pro car and which has created a completely false perceived reliance on cars which is not necessary. Given the spread and generally high frequency of London's public transport there is far less excuse in London than, say, the depths of rural Wales or Cornwall for car ownership. [1] possible, I suppose, if you were decanting part of / an entire estate elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Oct 25, 2016 16:44:14 GMT
Sorry but that's just the benefit of hindsight. I suspect the 235's extension was all part and parcel of the planning permission for GWQ and that S106 funding was used to extend the 235 in the first place. The objective will have been to ensure the residents had direct, convenient access to public transport. The fact the place was filled with a load of public transport hating so and sos was probably beyond anyone's reasonable predictive ability. The other side effect, here, is a likely reduction in "poor people" traipsing through the development from Clayponds north of the A4. We know from past newspaper reports this was an issue. The far better option, but possibly at the cost of a bus on the PVR, would be to stand the 235 on the Great West Road itself with buses turning under the A4. This would reduce walking distances for those who make more use of this end of the route. TfL tends to have a rather clumsy policy with these big developments, you need to look at the council planning committee minutes where the plans are discussed for approval. TfL has an anti car stance where they want on site parking reduced. They try and get s106 to add to public transport and they get PTAL as a basis of planning. In detail. The anti car is reflected in demanding cuts in number of spaces per apartment. Obviously some people keep cars for visiting relatives out of London etc, but don't use them all week, the policy encourages them to take up an on road space (usually just outside a controlled zone) instead. As an example the new development at Tolworth where TfL want spaces cut from about 1 to 0.3 per apartment, even though that is on boundary and there is virtually no public transport West or SW of site The s106 is usually either a rail station improvement or a bus extension, often the bus extension is easy to do rather than of any benefit to the residents, in the case of GWC, it was a random extension of a bus going to the sleepy Surrey town of Sunbury. I suspect many of the residents work either along the A4 golden mile, or take train towards central London for work. Of all the potential public transport improvements the ability to get a direct bus to Sunbury seems a barmy choice. It smacks of getting money then finding some half baked project just to use it up. PTAL might not be understood by some, it is a public transport assessibility factor. Basically is a number 1 to 6 saying how much public transport in the area, so a development next to a major transport interchange gets high rating, a development with nearest bus stop half mile away gets very low. The TfL assumption is that if it is high or medium then journeys will not involve cars, regardless of if other end of journey has very low PTAL. (Personally I don't get this assumption as it implies those affected will choose not to live there, which seems to me as effectively selecting the residents). Effectively the policy causes parking problems nearby, results in obscure transport changes, and uses a sledgehammer to crack a nut by assuming the people who live there will choose to have friends, relatives and work that is all reachable by public transport. The need to extend on street parking zone restrictions nearby couple of years later shows the policy failed as it just caused overflow parking nearby. GWC got it all wrong, as an unreliable bus gate was needed to try and enforce this. Totally agree. Why put a high frequency service effectively running in the opposite direction to the most likely demand ? A shuttle bus to Gunnersbury or Turnham Green stations would have been far more useful and likely to have been welcomed. I'm a little lost as to why the 235 is a bad choice for North Brentford - surely there would be some people who would prefer to go to Hounslow rather than Gunnersbury or Turnham Green given it has a decent town centre with most of the main shops?. Also, I think it's quite naive to suggest the 235 was chosen because they wanted a direct link to Sunbury from Brentford - it most likely was down to providing a local link into Brentford and/or Hounslow from North Brentford. Now, I'm not saying that a link to Turnham Green or Gunnersbury isn't valid or needed as I've no opinion on the matter of which route should of wen to North Brentford but just baffled as to why it's such a bad choice?
|
|
|
Post by ServerKing on Oct 25, 2016 19:28:41 GMT
TfL have mucked up by not having cleaner & greener buses on the 235 upon contract renewal. The rich, snooty, uppety so & sos mucked up by not adhering to the fact that the 235 will be on their private property. It's not like they weren't told; estate agents turn into public transport messiahs after discussing the house specifications partly to affirm the sell but mainly because it's their job to inform you of these things. I still find it utterly disgusting that no prosecutions are persued for active vandalism, just because the people destroying the barriers are presumed to be wealthy. The bitter beautiful irony however is that these people in a posh estate are acting no better than those in an impoverished estate. Just goes to show you can lead a horse to water.... The thing is there's nothing that special about GWQ except its astronomical prices per 'apartment' that some of those who think themselves more entitled have shelled out for. In time, you'll see these same 'residents' sub-let it to the rest of us plebs, and society will break down faster than those aging Darts on the route anyway (I hear they were reinstated after I left for North London ) but to be honest it's just a new build estate with a Sainsbury's at the bottom. Across the road at Layton Road and just over the bridge by Green Dragon Lane is the real Brentford (set of People Just Do Nothing on BBC3), not this pretentious bunch living next to the Great West Road. It's very chalk and cheese, let's see if developer Ballymore pull their finger out and demolish that eyesore opposite Goddards and Half Acre and build the 'waterside experience' they have sold us in the brochure The chavvy element to Brentford will never disappear, those living spitting distance from the posher areas of Brentford Docks / Marina / Butts Estate / GWQ will never let any more pretentious shops replace their betting shop, nail bar, and kebab shop or cafe. I still pass through the area, now and then as I spent last week moving the last of my things back to North London. Still can't see a sensible place for a bus stand for the 235 other than GWQ. Gt West Road is no good, and Ealing Road too narrow. If the route isn't really wanted, cut it back to the Court If anything, people from GWQ want a bus up to Ealing which they can get in the form of the 65
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2016 21:26:55 GMT
, I'm sure nobody in their right mind would want to choose Hounslow as a shopping destination over Chiswick, Richmond or Westfield White City.
|
|
|
Post by John tuthill on Oct 25, 2016 22:41:47 GMT
, I'm sure nobody in their right mind would want to choose Hounslow as a shopping destination over Chiswick, Richmond or Westfield White City. Are you trying to curry favour?
|
|