|
Post by sid on Jul 12, 2017 9:52:37 GMT
Wouldn't leaving the 140 as it is, with the addition of the X140, and extending the 350 from Hayes to Ruislip be a better option?
|
|
|
Post by kmkcheng on Jul 12, 2017 9:56:42 GMT
TfL's logic seems to be that E-W jnys transfer to Crossrail and access is via enhanced N-S routes reaching stations. Problem with that is that the Crossrail service pattern is skip stop in West London rather than all stations. Therefore travel between adjacent stns is impossible without going *two* stops and travelling back on yourself. How they reconcile this stopping pattern with "reduced demand on the Uxbridge Road" I know not. Most Crossrail stations are away from the main Uxbridge Road "drag" and there is a vast amount of housing and retail on or near that corridor. I think the 427 decision is ludicrous. Still not sure about this 140/X140 thing. The impact in Harrow town centre is undesirable given the effect on the 223. I agree that a short extension beyond Harrow Town Centre might help matters. The only people who have "overbussed" Harrow - Northwick Park is TfL. The buses don't turn up out of nowhere of their own volition. I just wish they'd tell the truth that it is stand space that's the issue. Even if they extended the X140 to H&W is there stand space there? I'm not sure there is. Like you I am not convinced about the impact of cross Hayes traffic of turning the 140 there and assuming people are on the X140, jumping on Crossrail or waiting for a 278. Part of the attractiveness of the 140 is that it is a long yet high frequency service. Anyone else would be turning this into a bigger success story. TfL, though, break out their hammers and start smashing it to bits. I can't conceive why you'd do this. No commercial operator would - look at all the highly successful longer urban routes there are run by the stand out commercial bus companies. I couldn't agree with you more - as a regular user of the 140 I've been of the opinion that an express variant has been needed for a while, but not at the expense of the original route. The 140 is a ridiculously busy route, you can pretty much guarantee a relatively full bus at any time of day (most obviously peaks and Saturday/Sunday mid-afternoons) and no kind of frequency increase alongside the X140 probably won't help this. TFL have been insistent to not spend any more money on the 140 by not giving it the frequency increase that it really needs but are now not really solving the issue by spending more money! I would personally increase the frequency of the 140 but leave the route as it is - have the X140 running parallel (in fact as 140s stand in Harrow Weald garage itself they leave the main on-road stand there free). Travelling to Heathrow on the 140 before wasn't particularly pleasant because of the ageing VPs (egg my house if you must but I'm a new-bus bod ) but with the new VWHs the route presents a very attractive option to cross West London, if a little time-consuming. Might I add though: the 105 is longer and has to deal with Southall traffic but they're not cutting that! The other option to the outcome of this change is that the X140 takes all the 140 passengers, 607-style, and renders the 140 a pointless stub-route. I'd be curious to the result. What would be VERY nice would be if the X140 could divert Harrow-South Harrow via a certain school with near-enough 1500 students to help alleviate that stress because that can be fairly mental. I certainly agree cutting the 140 from Heathrow is a bad idea. Every bus stop north of Hayes (except those that x140 would serve) would lose their direct service to Heathrow and as has been mentioned before, don't think many people would want to change buses if they have luggage, even with the hopper fare available
|
|
|
Post by planesandtrains on Jul 12, 2017 10:06:04 GMT
I am still working my way through this lot of proposals but the 112 seems to be superficially good until you consider the traffic conditions that can and do occur all too frequently. I'd extend the E1, at its planned reduced frequency, down there. It provides cross Ealing links, frees up stand space at EB and should be less exposed to traffic conditions. I also don't understand the quoted stand issues as a check on Streetview shows a multi vehicle TfL stand on the link road adjacent to Tescos. Buses could also run up past Sky, and subject to agreement, turn at a large roundabout shown under construction on Streetview, just past the Sky shuttle bus stand. OK there wouldn't be a common stop with the H28 but that's hardly a crisis is it? Views on the rest when I've thought some more. Also worth noting that the U5's AM peak enhancement kicks in this September which rather suggests someone, somewhere got their calculations wrong or demand has gone bananas since the double deck conversion. Ah hem, 2 single deckers out at the same time on the U5. Oh Abellio... It's always a good idea to have a few spare double deckers when running a double decker route...
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jul 12, 2017 10:18:17 GMT
Come this weekend they will have a few spare from the C2 reduction.
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Jul 12, 2017 10:28:45 GMT
Wouldn't leaving the 140 as it is, with the addition of the X140, and extending the 350 from Hayes to Ruislip be a better option? Or just divert the H98 to Ruislip and this will link Hounslow with Ruislip.
|
|
|
Post by Lewis J.N. on Jul 12, 2017 10:56:09 GMT
Wouldn't leaving the 140 as it is, with the addition of the X140, and extending the 350 from Hayes to Ruislip be a better option? Or just divert the H98 to Ruislip and this will link Hounslow with Ruislip. Without sending something away from Ruislip there's no stand space for a new route either.
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Jul 12, 2017 11:57:28 GMT
Or just divert the H98 to Ruislip and this will link Hounslow with Ruislip. Without sending something away from Ruislip there's no stand space for a new route either. Perhaps TFL could put a bus stand at Rayners Lane and send the 278 to Rayners Lane. Linking Eastcote and Rayners Lane to Hayes and Heathrow.
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Jul 12, 2017 21:47:39 GMT
It's worth noting that most Tesco superstores always have some sort of bus stand provision erected with the construction of its retail outlets. Gallions Reach and Barking Tescos are the local examples closest to me; with Gallions Reach actually having a decent 40m or so bus stop and stand on the perimeters of their carpark. That doesn't mean TfL will use their noggin and take advantage of this though!!
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jul 12, 2017 22:55:13 GMT
I thought I would take a quick look at the 207, 427 and 607 patronage and my "rough and ready" capacity calculation.
207 - carries 12.3m pass jnys, demand down 9% over last 3 years but still over subscribed by over 1.1m pass jnys a year 427 - carries 8.1m pass jnys, demand down just 1% over last 3 years but overall trend since its creation is up. Has only 200k spare seats a year - in other words close to capacity. 607 - carries 7m pass jnys, demand down 8.7% over last 3 years but overall trend over 17 years is strongly upwards (over 109%). Is oversubscribed by 584k seats a year.
Now clearly my capacity vs demand calculation is simplistic and cannot properly represent the geographic and time distribution of demand across the full Shepherds Bush - Uxbridge corridor. All I will say is that TfL must be making some very heroic assumptions about how people will use Crossrail given it has no intermediate stops between Acton and Paddington and will have an irregular skip stop pattern between Paddington and Hayes and Harlington. OK the 207 and 607 have lost some patronage - no doubt due to damaging roadworks in several places and other changes in transport use - but I do not see how you chop the 427 to the extent they are and expect other routes to take up the slack. Yes the 195, E8 and 483 may pick up some very localised demand but anyone travelling any distance is going to be reliant on the 607 and possibly yet another change. If you want Acton Town Centre will you really travel to Acton Main Line and then walk or take a reduced bus service? I'd love to see some detailed data that actually supports TfL's decision making here as it doesn't make sense to me.
I also realised when looking at the 266 changes that a journey I made a few months ago won't be possible on one bus in future - Acton town centre to Willesden Junction station. Currently very easy on the 266. In future I'd need to change buses at North Acton. For such a short trip and to a major hub of the Overground network this strikes me as utterly ridiculous. Acton Central is very badly located - no bus links and a longish trek into actual Acton - so it's not a particularly viable alternative.
As I have never used the 120, 105, 95 or E5 north of Southall Broadway can someone say if there is any logic to TfL abandoning the hail and ride bit of the E5 in this area and moving the 95 away from what I assume is an area of housing? I know TfL want to "speed up" the 95 service but surely all it is a time saving made here to be expended on the southern extension through Southall Town Centre to the station? Is this a "non issue" for this area or do people who know the area feel there are problems with TfL's "fiddling"?
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jul 13, 2017 8:00:47 GMT
I thought I would take a quick look at the 207, 427 and 607 patronage and my "rough and ready" capacity calculation. 207 - carries 12.3m pass jnys, demand down 9% over last 3 years but still over subscribed by over 1.1m pass jnys a year 427 - carries 8.1m pass jnys, demand down just 1% over last 3 years but overall trend since its creation is up. Has only 200k spare seats a year - in other words close to capacity. 607 - carries 7m pass jnys, demand down 8.7% over last 3 years but overall trend over 17 years is strongly upwards (over 109%). Is oversubscribed by 584k seats a year. Now clearly my capacity vs demand calculation is simplistic and cannot properly represent the geographic and time distribution of demand across the full Shepherds Bush - Uxbridge corridor. All I will say is that TfL must be making some very heroic assumptions about how people will use Crossrail given it has no intermediate stops between Acton and Paddington and will have an irregular skip stop pattern between Paddington and Hayes and Harlington. OK the 207 and 607 have lost some patronage - no doubt due to damaging roadworks in several places and other changes in transport use - but I do not see how you chop the 427 to the extent they are and expect other routes to take up the slack. Yes the 195, E8 and 483 may pick up some very localised demand but anyone travelling any distance is going to be reliant on the 607 and possibly yet another change. If you want Acton Town Centre will you really travel to Acton Main Line and then walk or take a reduced bus service? I'd love to see some detailed data that actually supports TfL's decision making here as it doesn't make sense to me. I also realised when looking at the 266 changes that a journey I made a few months ago won't be possible on one bus in future - Acton town centre to Willesden Junction station. Currently very easy on the 266. In future I'd need to change buses at North Acton. For such a short trip and to a major hub of the Overground network this strikes me as utterly ridiculous. Acton Central is very badly located - no bus links and a longish trek into actual Acton - so it's not a particularly viable alternative. As I have never used the 120, 105, 95 or E5 north of Southall Broadway can someone say if there is any logic to TfL abandoning the hail and ride bit of the E5 in this area and moving the 95 away from what I assume is an area of housing? I know TfL want to "speed up" the 95 service but surely all it is a time saving made here to be expended on the southern extension through Southall Town Centre to the station? Is this a "non issue" for this area or do people who know the area feel there are problems with TfL's "fiddling"? The 427 reduction was only to be expected, new rail links inevitably mean reductions on parallel bus services. I think the 427 should at least go to Ealing Hospital but only time will tell how things pan out. The 218/306 don't give much of an overlap with the 266 and I think the question has to be, does the 266 really need to be withdrawn from Hammersmith? I know it's a long route by todays standards but inevitably when routes are chopped up links are lost.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 13, 2017 11:12:49 GMT
I thought I would take a quick look at the 207, 427 and 607 patronage and my "rough and ready" capacity calculation. 207 - carries 12.3m pass jnys, demand down 9% over last 3 years but still over subscribed by over 1.1m pass jnys a year 427 - carries 8.1m pass jnys, demand down just 1% over last 3 years but overall trend since its creation is up. Has only 200k spare seats a year - in other words close to capacity. 607 - carries 7m pass jnys, demand down 8.7% over last 3 years but overall trend over 17 years is strongly upwards (over 109%). Is oversubscribed by 584k seats a year. Now clearly my capacity vs demand calculation is simplistic and cannot properly represent the geographic and time distribution of demand across the full Shepherds Bush - Uxbridge corridor. All I will say is that TfL must be making some very heroic assumptions about how people will use Crossrail given it has no intermediate stops between Acton and Paddington and will have an irregular skip stop pattern between Paddington and Hayes and Harlington. OK the 207 and 607 have lost some patronage - no doubt due to damaging roadworks in several places and other changes in transport use - but I do not see how you chop the 427 to the extent they are and expect other routes to take up the slack. Yes the 195, E8 and 483 may pick up some very localised demand but anyone travelling any distance is going to be reliant on the 607 and possibly yet another change. If you want Acton Town Centre will you really travel to Acton Main Line and then walk or take a reduced bus service? I'd love to see some detailed data that actually supports TfL's decision making here as it doesn't make sense to me. I also realised when looking at the 266 changes that a journey I made a few months ago won't be possible on one bus in future - Acton town centre to Willesden Junction station. Currently very easy on the 266. In future I'd need to change buses at North Acton. For such a short trip and to a major hub of the Overground network this strikes me as utterly ridiculous. Acton Central is very badly located - no bus links and a longish trek into actual Acton - so it's not a particularly viable alternative. As I have never used the 120, 105, 95 or E5 north of Southall Broadway can someone say if there is any logic to TfL abandoning the hail and ride bit of the E5 in this area and moving the 95 away from what I assume is an area of housing? I know TfL want to "speed up" the 95 service but surely all it is a time saving made here to be expended on the southern extension through Southall Town Centre to the station? Is this a "non issue" for this area or do people who know the area feel there are problems with TfL's "fiddling"? The 427 reduction was only to be expected, new rail links inevitably mean reductions on parallel bus services. I think the 427 should at least go to Ealing Hospital but only time will tell how things pan out. The 218/306 don't give much of an overlap with the 266 and I think the question has to be, does the 266 really need to be withdrawn from Hammersmith? I know it's a long route by todays standards but inevitably when routes are chopped up links are lost. If you want a more reliable 266, then cutting it back is the only option really - it goes back to the same point I keep making about politicians needing to grow balls regarding a substantial reduction of congestion but it won't happen so expect routes to keep being trimmed as congestion increases.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jul 13, 2017 11:31:57 GMT
The 427 reduction was only to be expected, new rail links inevitably mean reductions on parallel bus services. I think the 427 should at least go to Ealing Hospital but only time will tell how things pan out. The 218/306 don't give much of an overlap with the 266 and I think the question has to be, does the 266 really need to be withdrawn from Hammersmith? I know it's a long route by todays standards but inevitably when routes are chopped up links are lost. Hmm not entirely sure about your first remark. Yes there is a history of this happening in London. Yes some changes have been pretty severe - e.g. when the Victoria Line opened. However I think we have moved on somewhat from the late 60s or 70s or even the worst aspects of the 80s. A reduction I could probably cope with but the complete loss of a substantial section of route - I'm just not sure. If Crossrail properly paralleled the route then fine but it doesn't. It runs to the south and then the north and the stations are, in some cases, some distance from traffic generators served by the Uxbridge Road buses. I also don't see older people or those laden with shopping or with a young family in tow taking a bus then Crossrail then another bus for a longish but still local trip. Going to Central London then that's more likely as the train would bring a big time advantage. My worry with the Acton changes is that a number of shortish local trips become needlessly difficult - someone cited the West Acton to ASDA example. No matter how you describe it changing buses at North Acton is not nice. Horrible modern blocks, a busy gyratory road system, not a lot of footfall. Imagine having to change buses there in the midst of a storm or a freezing cold winter's night. For all the changes to the 440 it will still be half hourly evenings and Sundays and yet the 218 round the West Acton loop will be x15 at those times. Imagine if you live at West Acton, want to reach ASDA on a Sunday and just miss the 440 - 29 minute wait or a schlep across the A40 and hope for a 260 or a 487. Faced with having to change at North Acton I probably would not bother at all. Also does the West Acton bit of today's 440 really need 50% more daytime buses and 100% more evening buses and double deckers at that? Looks like overkill to me. There's no doubt the 266 is unreliable - it took three buses to ride it end to end due to sudden curtailments due to late running. I can understand TfL wishing to improve the reliability but not entirely convinced Acton is the right curtailment point. I made a mistake in my post last night - I'd got it in my head the 266 was being curtailed at N Acton rather than Acton High St. Therefore not quite so many links are lost but I've never seen an empty 266 east of Acton High St heading towards Brent Cross. There is carry over traffic and I expect a fair proportion is going beyond North Acton (218 terminus). There's also the issue about whether people travelling from east of Acton will want to schlep round West Acton on a 218. The actual overlap of stops between the 218 and 266 is going to be very small - they may only have 1 or 2 stops in common which may cause overcrowding in Acton where the pavements are not exactly wide. The more I think about all of this the less convinced I am.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jul 13, 2017 13:50:53 GMT
The 427 reduction was only to be expected, new rail links inevitably mean reductions on parallel bus services. I think the 427 should at least go to Ealing Hospital but only time will tell how things pan out. The 218/306 don't give much of an overlap with the 266 and I think the question has to be, does the 266 really need to be withdrawn from Hammersmith? I know it's a long route by todays standards but inevitably when routes are chopped up links are lost. If you want a more reliable 266, then cutting it back is the only option really - it goes back to the same point I keep making about politicians needing to grow balls regarding a substantial reduction of congestion but it won't happen so expect routes to keep being trimmed as congestion increases. I'm open minded about whether cutting the 266 back to Acton is a good move or not but inevitably links will be lost if it is. I don't understand the bit about politicians and balls, the only way I can see of reducing congestion is road charging which inevitably won't be popular with many.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jul 13, 2017 13:56:30 GMT
The 427 reduction was only to be expected, new rail links inevitably mean reductions on parallel bus services. I think the 427 should at least go to Ealing Hospital but only time will tell how things pan out. The 218/306 don't give much of an overlap with the 266 and I think the question has to be, does the 266 really need to be withdrawn from Hammersmith? I know it's a long route by todays standards but inevitably when routes are chopped up links are lost. Hmm not entirely sure about your first remark. Yes there is a history of this happening in London. Yes some changes have been pretty severe - e.g. when the Victoria Line opened. However I think we have moved on somewhat from the late 60s or 70s or even the worst aspects of the 80s. A reduction I could probably cope with but the complete loss of a substantial section of route - I'm just not sure. If Crossrail properly paralleled the route then fine but it doesn't. It runs to the south and then the north and the stations are, in some cases, some distance from traffic generators served by the Uxbridge Road buses. I also don't see older people or those laden with shopping or with a young family in tow taking a bus then Crossrail then another bus for a longish but still local trip. Going to Central London then that's more likely as the train would bring a big time advantage. My worry with the Acton changes is that a number of shortish local trips become needlessly difficult - someone cited the West Acton to ASDA example. No matter how you describe it changing buses at North Acton is not nice. Horrible modern blocks, a busy gyratory road system, not a lot of footfall. Imagine having to change buses there in the midst of a storm or a freezing cold winter's night. For all the changes to the 440 it will still be half hourly evenings and Sundays and yet the 218 round the West Acton loop will be x15 at those times. Imagine if you live at West Acton, want to reach ASDA on a Sunday and just miss the 440 - 29 minute wait or a schlep across the A40 and hope for a 260 or a 487. Faced with having to change at North Acton I probably would not bother at all. Also does the West Acton bit of today's 440 really need 50% more daytime buses and 100% more evening buses and double deckers at that? Looks like overkill to me. There's no doubt the 266 is unreliable - it took three buses to ride it end to end due to sudden curtailments due to late running. I can understand TfL wishing to improve the reliability but not entirely convinced Acton is the right curtailment point. I made a mistake in my post last night - I'd got it in my head the 266 was being curtailed at N Acton rather than Acton High St. Therefore not quite so many links are lost but I've never seen an empty 266 east of Acton High St heading towards Brent Cross. There is carry over traffic and I expect a fair proportion is going beyond North Acton (218 terminus). There's also the issue about whether people travelling from east of Acton will want to schlep round West Acton on a 218. The actual overlap of stops between the 218 and 266 is going to be very small - they may only have 1 or 2 stops in common which may cause overcrowding in Acton where the pavements are not exactly wide. The more I think about all of this the less convinced I am. Inevitably TfL are going to be trying to coerce as many people as possible onto Crossrail and removing or reducing a few competing bus routes helps in that respect.
I agree that North Acton is not the best place to be changing buses but if the 266 has to be withdrawn from Hammersmith it's difficult to see what else can be done?
|
|
|
Post by Lewis J.N. on Jul 13, 2017 21:56:55 GMT
The more I think about all of this the less convinced I am. My exact thoughts which is why I'm giving it a bit of time before I compose my reply to the consultation!
|
|