|
Post by redexpress on Jul 8, 2017 15:24:35 GMT
Unfortunately that's not how buses work in London! Even if they were run by the same operator, there's no incentive to ensure overlapping routes are evenly spaced. Each route is monitored on its individual performance. From a passenger's perspective it would make sense to space buses out evenly, but for an operator all that matters is the EWT figures for each individual route. I think the 218 is a bit of a fudge anyway. They've decided they need to link Chiswick / South Acton / Park Royal with Crossrail, so the 440 has to be diverted via Acton Main Line. That leaves West Acton, where they are apparently reluctant to send DDs (despite no physical restrictions that I'm aware of), so they need a second SD route to take over from the 440, which is where the 218 comes in. Otherwise it would make more sense, as others have suggested, to combine 218 and 306 into one DD route. This would also avoid the daft situation of the 306 terminating short of a major traffic objective (Acton High Street). TfL can yell HOPPER FARE all they like, but people aren't going to want get a 207 to Acton Vale then change to a 306 - they'll all just cram onto the SD 218. I wonder if something else could cover the West Acton section instead. The 283 is pretty short - maybe it could lose the Brunel Road terminus and extend to Acton (old 70 stand) via Westway and West Acton. I've seen tender specs which tell operators to ensure buses that run on parallel sections are spaced out ?? Yes, operators are usually "encouraged" to devise schedules that do this. However there's no incentive to actually implement this in practice. As I'm sure you know, high-frequency services are managed on headways, not adherence to the scheduled times, and there's only a financial incentive to manage each individual route's headways. So if, on any given day, you end up with both 218s and 306s running together but at the correct intervals, the operator gets their bonus and everyone's happy. Except for the passengers of course! In any case the two routes are not proposed to run at the same frequency during the day (218 will be 6bph, 306 will be 5bph) so they wouldn't be able to space the buses out evenly even if they tried.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jul 8, 2017 18:15:54 GMT
There are various hints in the technical paper that some of these short routes become candidates for further extension into areas of proposed future development, should those developments ever end up going ahead. Eg, 427 to Havelocks, or one of the routes in North Acton, iirc. So this isn't just a reactionary rejig to whats going on now, but rather a result of what is thought likely to occur and be necessary in 3 years time, with a side-order of potential to protect against something as big as this needing to happen again in another decade. There are lots of hints all over the place but it is *extremely* disappointing that so little opportunity has been taken to do some modest but sensible things that would kill off a load of moans from local politicians and meet other agendas. The decisions around cutting revenue grant and the fares freeze are absolutely disastrous in the context of making the bus network work more effectively.
|
|
|
Post by ben on Jul 8, 2017 20:19:42 GMT
Think I read somewhere once that London will be the only other capital city in Europe (apart from a former eastern block country that I can't quite remember) to not receive some form of revenue grant for public transport. Its nuts, but then again almost everything since 1980 has been about money money money, and the public get what they vote for. To mis-appropriate a Jasper Carrott joke, maybe London should just turn the M25 into a moat and declare independence.
|
|
|
Post by riverside on Jul 8, 2017 21:00:14 GMT
Whenever I have used the 440 many of the residents of Noel Road and West Acton have been travelling to and from the Asda at Park Royal. I don't think they will be happy about the loss of this connection. The 218 terminating at Park Royal Asda or Central Middlesex Hospital would be of far more use to them then North Acton. At a time when TfL are looking at improving connections to hospitals this is one they are going to cut and as for the shoppers they probably think they should now go to Morrisons in Acton!
A single decker providing the service between Hammersmith and the centre of Acton is bound to struggle at times. Maybe TfL thinks that passengers can just alight off a 306 at Bromyard Avenue and then use a hopper fare on the other Uxbridge Road routes. The 266 because of its length may struggle at times to provide a decent service to the Hammersmith end, but I fear the passengers along this section are just going to swap one form of inadequacy for another.
The Turnham Green to Fulham link is very long standing. The old 91 provided this from the 1930s. I never see 391s completely emptying out at Hammersmith. Again I suppose the reply from TfL is that people can use the hopper fare.
So lots of good things for those people who want to use Crossrail. Good new links like the new 278 and the H32 and 95 to Southall Waterside also, but a fair number of ordinary West London bus passngers will be inconvenienced by these proposals. I wander what the cost of this scheme will be? Will the new connections back up the claims TfL make that resources cut from Central London will be redirected to the suburbs, or will the many reductions in these proposals mean that the whole thing ends up about cost neutral?
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 8, 2017 23:16:45 GMT
Whenever I have used the 440 many of the residents of Noel Road and West Acton have been travelling to and from the Asda at Park Royal. I don't think they will be happy about the loss of this connection. The 218 terminating at Park Royal Asda or Central Middlesex Hospital would be of far more use to them then North Acton. At a time when TfL are looking at improving connections to hospitals this is one they are going to cut and as for the shoppers they probably think they should now go to Morrisons in Acton! A single decker providing the service between Hammersmith and the centre of Acton is bound to struggle at times. Maybe TfL thinks that passengers can just alight off a 306 at Bromyard Avenue and then use a hopper fare on the other Uxbridge Road routes. The 266 because of its length may struggle at times to provide a decent service to the Hammersmith end, but I fear the passengers along this section are just going to swap one form of inadequacy for another. The Turnham Green to Fulham link is very long standing. The old 91 provided this from the 1930s. I never see 391s completely emptying out at Hammersmith. Again I suppose the reply from TfL is that people can use the hopper fare. So lots of good things for those people who want to use Crossrail. Good new links like the new 278 and the H32 and 95 to Southall Waterside also, but a fair number of ordinary West London bus passngers will be inconvenienced by these proposals. I wander what the cost of this scheme will be? Will the new connections back up the claims TfL make that resources cut from Central London will be redirected to the suburbs, or will the many reductions in these proposals mean that the whole thing ends up about cost neutral? I was a little surprised that the 218 didn't continue onto Central Middlesex Hospital given the reasons you mention though I wonder if stand space played some part in the same way, the 306 will be left to terminate at a particularly unhelpful stand when coming from the south because the 266 has taken the 427's current stand. Then again, the 70's old stand on Horn Lane still seems to exist according to Google Maps so why it isn't proposed for the 306 instead?
|
|
|
Post by kmkcheng on Jul 9, 2017 10:21:07 GMT
With regards to the 223, if they to create stand space at Harrow, I rather they extend it instead of cutting it. Maybe extend it to South Harrow to create a more direct route to NPH from South Harrow rather then the lengthy H9/H10 which takes you on a tour of the whole borough of Harrow before reaching the hospital. Of course there is a matter of stand space at South Harrow being made available to accommodate it. Or another option could be extending the 395 to NPH. This would also leave some stand space at Harrow and will use the stand at NPH that would have been used for the shortened 223
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 9, 2017 11:03:55 GMT
With regards to the 223, if they to create stand space at Harrow, I rather they extend it instead of cutting it. Maybe extend it to South Harrow to create a more direct route to NPH from South Harrow rather then the lengthy H9/H10 which takes you on a tour of the whole borough of Harrow before reaching the hospital. Of course there is a matter of stand space at South Harrow being made available to accommodate it. Or another option could be extending the 395 to NPH. This would also leave some stand space at Harrow and will use the stand at NPH that would have been used for the shortened 223 Good suggestions and here's one other - extend the X140 to Northwick Park Hospital allowing the 223 to remain at Harrow.
|
|
|
Post by redexpress on Jul 9, 2017 12:01:10 GMT
Whenever I have used the 440 many of the residents of Noel Road and West Acton have been travelling to and from the Asda at Park Royal. I don't think they will be happy about the loss of this connection. The 218 terminating at Park Royal Asda or Central Middlesex Hospital would be of far more use to them then North Acton. At a time when TfL are looking at improving connections to hospitals this is one they are going to cut and as for the shoppers they probably think they should now go to Morrisons in Acton! A single decker providing the service between Hammersmith and the centre of Acton is bound to struggle at times. Maybe TfL thinks that passengers can just alight off a 306 at Bromyard Avenue and then use a hopper fare on the other Uxbridge Road routes. The 266 because of its length may struggle at times to provide a decent service to the Hammersmith end, but I fear the passengers along this section are just going to swap one form of inadequacy for another. The Turnham Green to Fulham link is very long standing. The old 91 provided this from the 1930s. I never see 391s completely emptying out at Hammersmith. Again I suppose the reply from TfL is that people can use the hopper fare. So lots of good things for those people who want to use Crossrail. Good new links like the new 278 and the H32 and 95 to Southall Waterside also, but a fair number of ordinary West London bus passngers will be inconvenienced by these proposals. I wander what the cost of this scheme will be? Will the new connections back up the claims TfL make that resources cut from Central London will be redirected to the suburbs, or will the many reductions in these proposals mean that the whole thing ends up about cost neutral? I was a little surprised that the 218 didn't continue onto Central Middlesex Hospital given the reasons you mention though I wonder if stand space played some part in the same way, the 306 will be left to terminate at a particularly unhelpful stand when coming from the south because the 266 has taken the 427's current stand. Then again, the 70's old stand on Horn Lane still seems to exist according to Google Maps so why it isn't proposed for the 306 instead? It would be easy to extend the 306 to Acton High Street if TfL wanted to - either using the former 70 stand, or using the Town Hall stand with the 266 using Bromyard Avenue. I think the reason they aren't doing this is simply because they don't want to. Either of these options would cost money. It's all to do with planning on flows (just to save snoggle the trouble of pointing this out again). TfL's analysis is that the Hammersmith - Askew Road - Acton Vale corridor needs extra capacity, so it gets both 218 and 306. However, there is already a lot of capacity on the Acton Vale - Acton High Street corridor, so they don't feel the need to add extra capacity on this section. Hence the 306 only needs to run to Acton Vale according to their modelling. What this fails to take into account is the value that people place on a direct link between those two "corridors". When a direct link is provided (i.e. 218), I reckon most people will take the direct bus even if it means squeezing onto an overcrowded SD. But there is no point complaining about any of this because HOPPER FARE HOPPER FARE HOPPER FARE.
|
|
|
Post by Volvo on Jul 9, 2017 15:49:26 GMT
These changes sure are interesting, the 427 is getting mullured though.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jul 9, 2017 15:53:29 GMT
The 306 could be extended to Ealing Broadway and would take in both that station and Acton Mainline and would provide a new link Hammersmith to Ealing. It would provide some lost capacity from the 427 withdrawal and a 12 min service is still a reduction over the 7-8 min 427.
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Jul 9, 2017 16:17:41 GMT
The 306 could be extended to Ealing Broadway and would take in both that station and Acton Mainline and would provide a new link Hammersmith to Ealing. It would provide some lost capacity from the 427 withdrawal and a 12 min service is still a reduction over the 7-8 min 427. Good idea because it will link Ealing Broadway with Kensington Olympia and Fulham Broadway but the problem is TfL probably won't want to extend the 306 to Ealing Broadway due to the fact that the District Line also serves Ealing Broadway, West Kensington and Hammersmith and TfL don't want buses to compete with the London Underground.
|
|
|
Post by ben on Jul 9, 2017 16:30:36 GMT
With regards to the 223, if they to create stand space at Harrow, I rather they extend it instead of cutting it. Maybe extend it to South Harrow to create a more direct route to NPH from South Harrow rather then the lengthy H9/H10 which takes you on a tour of the whole borough of Harrow before reaching the hospital. Of course there is a matter of stand space at South Harrow being made available to accommodate it. Or another option could be extending the 395 to NPH. This would also leave some stand space at Harrow and will use the stand at NPH that would have been used for the shortened 223 Good suggestions and here's one other - extend the X140 to Northwick Park Hospital allowing the 223 to remain at Harrow. Trouble is though, theyre saying the section is over bussed as it is, so having an extra 5bph to it will only be moving air, even if its convenient. (Convenient air?) I have a cunning plan Turn the H17 and 223 into a circular route. This would increase the number of busses on this section by 1bph (as they would have to have the same frequency), so its still an undesirable increase. BUT.... if the terminal/hesitation point became Northwick Park hospital you'd loose *two* terminal routes needing to stand at Harrow, and at Wembley as well. That could free quite a bit of capacity that would no doubt prove useful for other schemes at those two points. Wembley has all kinds of aspirations because of redevelopment, not to mention the Park Royal opportunity area nearby. Having said that, the idea of an express link between Harrow bus station and the hospital might be one that is found useful for some. I see no reason why this section of any circular route couldnt be non-stop, and would give an additional niche to the proposal. In fact, why not run non-stop from Northwick Park hospital to Kenton station? It might avoid a tiny bit of the horrific traffic on Kenton Road. The 223 currently has a PVR of 6 busses for a 3bph service. A 4bph service (like the H17) would require, what, at most another 2 busses? Taking details from London Bus Routes, a combined one way journey would be maximum 87 minutes (excluding any savings a non stop section might have). Simplistically with a 15 min frequency and including stand time, round up to 105 minutes. Giving a PVR of 14 busses? Which is only one additional. But, as a combined route, it might reduce administrative overhead compared to two seperate tender contracts. It improves service along the former 223 route for less resources than it would otherwise require, gives a connexion to Sudbury Hill from the hospital, releases at most two stand spaces at both Harrow and Wembley, and should it prove possible to shave 1 bus from the PVR through non-stopping or an optimised rota, might even prove vehicle neutral to current requirements. I'd say that might be worth it.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jul 9, 2017 16:31:21 GMT
A few thoughts having had time to digest it all.
140/X140/278 All seems reasonable to me, useful link to Ruislip although the X140 should continue to Harrow & Wealdstone to maintain the Heathrow connection to the WCML. A night service on the 278 would be difficult to justify if the current N140 continues unaltered.
218/266/306 I can understand the lengthy 266 being curtailed but the 218 is a ridiculously short route. A brainwave I had was to extend the 270, which is fairly short in its current form, as per the 220 to Hammersmith then over the current 266 route to Acton High Street using the former route 70 stand. This assists the 220 on the busy Hammersmith to Putney section and gives Acton a useful link into south west London. The 306 can then do Sands End to North Acton and possibly on to Central Middlesex Hospital? Acton Vale is a ridiculous place to terminate it. The remaining bit of the 391 could possibly be merged with another route? The H37 would have been ideal but obviously the frequencies don't match up. Presumably the N266 will continue to Hammersmith?
427 Reductions on parallel bus services are inevitable when new rail links open, I'd have rather kept it to Ealing Broadway or at least Ealing Hospital. 440 I agree with that and as previously mentioned an extension to Wembley would be useful.
95/112/E5/H32 These all seem good although I'd suggest the 95 should be double decked.
223 I think this is outrageous, has a section of route ever been proposed for withdrawl before purely so another route can use the stand space? Extending the X140 to H&W would solve the problem anyway.
|
|
|
Post by kmkcheng on Jul 9, 2017 17:22:27 GMT
Good suggestions and here's one other - extend the X140 to Northwick Park Hospital allowing the 223 to remain at Harrow. Trouble is though, theyre saying the section is over bussed as it is, so having an extra 5bph to it will only be moving air, even if its convenient. (Convenient air?) I have a cunning plan Turn the H17 and 223 into a circular route. This would increase the number of busses on this section by 1bph (as they would have to have the same frequency), so its still an undesirable increase. BUT.... if the terminal/hesitation point became Northwick Park hospital you'd loose *two* terminal routes needing to stand at Harrow, and at Wembley as well. That could free quite a bit of capacity that would no doubt prove useful for other schemes at those two points. Wembley has all kinds of aspirations because of redevelopment, not to mention the Park Royal opportunity area nearby. Having said that, the idea of an express link between Harrow bus station and the hospital might be one that is found useful for some. I see no reason why this section of any circular route couldnt be non-stop, and would give an additional niche to the proposal. In fact, why not run non-stop from Northwick Park hospital to Kenton station? It might avoid a tiny bit of the horrific traffic on Kenton Road. The 223 currently has a PVR of 6 busses for a 3bph service. A 4bph service (like the H17) would require, what, at most another 2 busses? Taking details from London Bus Routes, a combined one way journey would be maximum 87 minutes (excluding any savings a non stop section might have). Simplistically with a 15 min frequency and including stand time, round up to 105 minutes. Giving a PVR of 14 busses? Which is only one additional. But, as a combined route, it might reduce administrative overhead compared to two seperate tender contracts. It improves service along the former 223 route for less resources than it would otherwise require, gives a connexion to Sudbury Hill from the hospital, releases at most two stand spaces at both Harrow and Wembley, and should it prove possible to shave 1 bus from the PVR through non-stopping or an optimised rota, might even prove vehicle neutral to current requirements. I'd say that might be worth it. Merging the 223 and H17 sounds good to me but having the terminal/hesitation point at NPH doesn't solve the problem of the lost connection to Harrow from woodcock hill and South Kenton area. I'd rather have the terminal at Wembley to make it a Wembley-Wembley circular route as no existing connections are lost and calling them H16/H17
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 9, 2017 17:45:53 GMT
A few thoughts having had time to digest it all. 140/X140/278 All seems reasonable to me, useful link to Ruislip although the X140 should continue to Harrow & Wealdstone to maintain the Heathrow connection to the WCML. A night service on the 278 would be difficult to justify if the current N140 continues unaltered. 218/266/306 I can understand the lengthy 266 being curtailed but the 218 is a ridiculously short route. A brainwave I had was to extend the 270, which is fairly short in its current form, as per the 220 to Hammersmith then over the current 266 route to Acton High Street using the former route 70 stand. This assists the 220 on the busy Hammersmith to Putney section and gives Acton a useful link into south west London. The 306 can then do Sands End to North Acton and possibly on to Central Middlesex Hospital? Acton Vale is a ridiculous place to terminate it. The remaining bit of the 391 could possibly be merged with another route? The H37 would have been ideal but obviously the frequencies don't match up. Presumably the N266 will continue to Hammersmith? 427 Reductions on parallel bus services are inevitable when new rail links open, I'd have rather kept it to Ealing Broadway or at least Ealing Hospital. 440 I agree with that and as previously mentioned an extension to Wembley would be useful. 95/112/E5/H32 These all seem good although I'd suggest the 95 should be double decked. 223 I think this is outrageous, has a section of route ever been proposed for withdrawl before purely so another route can use the stand space? Extending the X140 to H&W would solve the problem anyway. Your 270 proposal would cause it to be unreliable - just because a route is short does not mean it has to be extended. The 218 does have some potential to be extended elsewhere in the future but the 270 should be left alone personally. The N266 will run as per the current 266 so from Hammersmith to Brent Cross Shopping Centre. I agree with you on the other changes apart from the 112 which is the worst candidate of any Ealing route to extend due to the A406 which absolutely cripples it's reliability. There are far better choices for an extension to Osterley such as the E9 which would create new links but also does not come with a massive headache like the A406.
|
|