|
Post by snoggle on Jul 14, 2017 0:41:30 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! Well yes. I'm taking it in small chunks because TfL have done their usual thing of divorcing these changes from what the rest of the bus network does. Therefore to properly understand you need to set them alongside what else runs. TfL will, of course, have done all of this in their modelling and decison making but it's not presented like that to the public even as a supplementary piece of info. Even more frustrating is that you get a composite map of all changed routes for SE London but not ones for East or West London. Worse, some bits of the consultation drop hints about second stage route development (e.g. the 427) but many do not (104, 304, 218, 440). This second stage is quite important because TfL will be somewhat unwilling to budge from having routes terminate at points that allow subsequent relatively cheap and affordable extensions into new developments or road tunnels. They don't say this but that will be in their thinking and how they approach the assessment of consultation responses. It's a form of "bias" and they can't get away from it. I haven't even decided if I am going to respond or not given I rarely use some routes and never use others. I don't even know if TfL apply different weights to responses from users / non users of routes. If they do then non user views are likely to have less bearing on TfL's deliberations. The further issue is that route level comments aren't appropriate in some cases as there is so much interraction between the proposals. To comment sensibly (well, for me anyway) I'd want to treatise the network impact and effects and any changes I might like would be in that vein. That's completely contrary to TfL's approach and I know they take no notice of such remarks (oh dear, another loony with crayons rambling on ).
|
|
|
Post by M1199 on Jul 17, 2017 18:23:27 GMT
I received an email from TfL earlier regarding changes to route 222. When you click on the link it directs you to all the changes in regards to Crossrail, where there is no mention of route 222. Is this a mistake by TfL, or are does anyone know whether there are changes planned for the 222? (excluding the upcoming frequency reduction)
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jul 17, 2017 21:54:26 GMT
I received an email from TfL earlier regarding changes to route 222. When you click on the link it directs you to all the changes in regards to Crossrail, where there is no mention of route 222. Is this a mistake by TfL, or are does anyone know whether there are changes planned for the 222? (excluding the upcoming frequency reduction) As far as TfL have said there are no Crossrail related changes in 2019. In their commentary about West Drayton they say existing routes and frequencies should be able to handle the growth they envisage to / from the station. Any bus service changes would be in the 2020s when TfL expect more development to be triggered in and around West Drayton. That's the sole reference to the 222 in the 81 pages of the note. The U5 is getting an AM Peak frequency uplift towards Uxbridge this September which suggests to me someone has got their sums wrong in the recent U5 / 350 swapover but TfL would never be so coarse as to say there was a mistake.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jul 17, 2017 23:46:26 GMT
I think my preliminary view on the proposed changes to routes serving Hayes and also those north of Southall and the 223 is that they're useless,
Far too many broken trips and extended walking times to stops. As ever TfL deal with number but make no assessment of the ability of people to walk those extended distances. There is likely to be chaos in Hayes town centre - where are the 140 and H32 going to stand? Unless a massive deck is being built at H&H station or TfL have bought half of ASDA's car park I don't see how you turn 12-13 bph given the appalling traffic south of Hayes town centre.
The breaking of 400 trips per day on the 223 is wholly unacceptable for a low frequency service. This proposal should be scrapped and I hope Harrow Council and the users kick up an enormous fuss.
I think the changes to the 95 and E5 are just a ruse to scrap a hail and ride section that TfL cannot make accessible because of the number of drives into peoples' properties. Again a lot of trips are broken and people face extra walks and a loss of frequency. This is a lesson in how to make a bus service so cr*p that no one wants to use it. The area looks reasonably prosperous so people will drive just adding to the chronic congestion around Southall.
The ridiculous incompatible frequencies on the 140 / X140 and 278 will mean bunching at times and long waits at others. TfL just airily dismiss the broken trips by saying people will use other routes. Oh yes at 0500 in the morning or 2300 at night when frequencies are thin and the N140 isn't running? I'm sorry but the potential for chaos in Hayes and sloppy timetabling and possible longish waits if buses are missed is just not acceptable. It's easy to envisage being on a 140 arriving into Hayes to seeing a X140 and 278 both departing together for Heathrow - wait time only 15 mins on a Sunday or evening. Not acceptable if you are heading to work or catching a flight or meeting people. If the price of the X140 is scrapping the 140 south of Hayes and shafting the 223's users then it's not worth doing. If you want a new bus down Long Lane then run the 278 from Ruislip to Hayes and then Southall over the planned H32 extension. Pax for Heathrow can take the 140 or Crossrail at Hayes.
I am left wondering just who did this planning and did they actually think about what they were doing in even the most basic way? Almost all of these plans for each bit of London are very poor and offer few genuine improvements.
|
|
|
Post by l1group on Jul 18, 2017 7:36:05 GMT
I don't think that many people have noticed that the 306/391 has no comments box of its own, yet the 218 has TWO comments boxes. A strongly worded email is to be typed to Transport for London I've half-filled the consultation, giving it some time before I do the rest of the consultation.
|
|
|
Post by routew15 on Jul 23, 2017 11:49:57 GMT
Does the 223 really need to be curtailed? I know the technical reports aims to remove excess capacity but links between the rest of the route and Harrow Town Centre become more indirect.
I think the route not be extended to Harrow Leisure Centre via Harrow View, Marlborough Hill, Milton Road (Northbound only), Station Road, The Bridge, Masons Avenue, Christchurch Avenue. Alternative routing would be from Harrow View direct via Headstone Drive.
One additional bus maybe required and the frequency could most probably be retained but no links broken.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jul 23, 2017 14:12:18 GMT
Does the 223 really need to be curtailed? I know the technical reports aims to remove excess capacity but links between the rest of the route and Harrow Town Centre become more indirect. I think the route not be extended to Harrow Leisure Centre via Harrow View, Marlborough Hill, Milton Road (Northbound only), Station Road, The Bridge, Masons Avenue, Christchurch Avenue. Alternative routing would be from Harrow View direct via Headstone Drive. One additional bus maybe required and the frequency could most probably be retained but no links broken. Short answer is no it doesn't. Harrow Town Centre is on obvious traffic objective and TfL are being utterly perverse in removing the low frequency 223. If it was high frequency at all times then enforced interchange to / from Harrow *might* be more tolerable but forcing people into a lottery of having to wait 20-30 mins at Northwick Park Hospital having alighted from other routes is just unacceptable compared to today's set up for 223 users. Only TfL could come up with this sort of rubbish and all because they can't find a 10 metre stretch of road in Harrow town centre. You could slightly vary your proposal by turning off Marlborough Hill via Barons Mead and Princes Drive to reach the H9/10 corridor. This looks like a viable extra corridor for a lowish frequency bus route like the 223.
|
|
|
Post by Hassaan on Jul 23, 2017 14:33:36 GMT
I think the changes to the 95 and E5 are just a ruse to scrap a hail and ride section that TfL cannot make accessible because of the number of drives into peoples' properties. Again a lot of trips are broken and people face extra walks and a loss of frequency. This is a lesson in how to make a bus service so cr*p that no one wants to use it. The area looks reasonably prosperous so people will drive just adding to the chronic congestion around Southall. I think if they looked carefully along the hail-and-ride section, they could find enough space for 2 stops in each direction: On Denbigh Road and North Road. Allendale Avenue is more difficult, but stops at the other two locations should be enough. Already between the peaks the E5 is timetabled to be less than 5 minutes slower than the 95/105 between Southall Broadway and Greenford Broadway. Indeed this difference would be even less if there was a bus stop near the southern arm of the junction on Greenford Road that the E5 could use and be timed at, like the 95/105 have on the western arm at Ruislip Road. The proposed changes would leave the double deck 105 as the slowest route between Southall and Greenford, with the single deck 95 and E5 being a few minutes faster! And these two routes would also suffer less speed humps than the 105, which I already avoid on the rare occasions I go that way because the incredibly bouncy VWs cause travel sickness for me . It is also very competitive time-wise to take the 120 to Ruislip Road and change for the 282/E6/E7/E9 going east to Greenford Broadway, and almost no humps! I actually went that way just over a week ago when travelling to Greenford Station, in the end taking about the same time as changing for the 105 that was a minute behind my 120 (thanks to the E6 turning up within a minute). On the return from Greenford Station towards Southall Broadway, I took the 105 to Greenford Broadway and changed to the E5. Even after waiting about 4-5 minutes for the E5, and having a not-particularly-quick driver changeover outside Greenford bus garage, we were still a minute ahead of the 105 I ditched! Ok the 105 may have got a bit stuck in the side roads, as the 120 was diverted that way so there were extra buses using the roads (the 120 actually used the proposed 95 route between Ruislip Road and Lady Margaret Road ). In my experience of Asian culture, most have at least one car in the household, and those that don't can often rely on family/neighbours/friends etc for at least some occasions. Certainly in my extended family the car has always been king, many people having multiple cars in the household, and using the bus just doesn't normally happen and is looked down upon. I'd say that once anyone has got a car it is pretty much game over for their bus use, unless it is extremely expensive and/or inconvenient to go by car.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 23, 2017 15:02:40 GMT
Does the 223 really need to be curtailed? I know the technical reports aims to remove excess capacity but links between the rest of the route and Harrow Town Centre become more indirect. I think the route not be extended to Harrow Leisure Centre via Harrow View, Marlborough Hill, Milton Road (Northbound only), Station Road, The Bridge, Masons Avenue, Christchurch Avenue. Alternative routing would be from Harrow View direct via Headstone Drive. One additional bus maybe required and the frequency could most probably be retained but no links broken. Short answer is no it doesn't. Harrow Town Centre is on obvious traffic objective and TfL are being utterly perverse in removing the low frequency 223. If it was high frequency at all times then enforced interchange to / from Harrow *might* be more tolerable but forcing people into a lottery of having to wait 20-30 mins at Northwick Park Hospital having alighted from other routes is just unacceptable compared to today's set up for 223 users. Only TfL could come up with this sort of rubbish and all because they can't find a 10 metre stretch of road in Harrow town centre. You could slightly vary your proposal by turning off Marlborough Hill via Barons Mead and Princes Drive to reach the H9/10 corridor. This looks like a viable extra corridor for a lowish frequency bus route like the 223. But yet there's enough room for the 395 at Northwick Park Hospital which would allow the 223 to stand at Harrow and provide a cheap direct link from South Harrow to Northwick Park Hospital which currently involves either a change of bus at Harrow or a sightseeing tour of the Borough of Harrow on the H9/H10.
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Jul 23, 2017 18:34:40 GMT
I don't really know North West London well, which is why I rarely contribute to such threads. But I have to say that the proposed change to the 223 is without question one of the most wrongheaded ideas I have seen in recent years. It defies belief that TfL can't find a way for it to still serve Harrow.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jul 23, 2017 23:03:40 GMT
I don't really know North West London well, which is why I rarely contribute to such threads. But I have to say that the proposed change to the 223 is without question one of the most wrongheaded ideas I have seen in recent years. It defies belief that TfL can't find a way for it to still serve Harrow. The only thing I can think of as some sort of "mad strategy" on the part of TfL is to propose this knowing it will be hugely unpopular thus forcing the hand of Harrow Council to relinquish a bit of road space or taxi rank to create an extra stand or lengthen an existing one. Interestingly, having checked borough boundaries, almost all the 223 runs in Brent so that council should be screaming and shouting but has no power to fix anything at Harrow itself. Another "local" aspect that will not be lost on TfL, I am sure.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2017 10:31:07 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. Have TfL forgotten the Syon Lane bus stand in Northumberland Avenue accessed via a bus only slip road off the A4 ?
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Jul 30, 2017 21:05:11 GMT
I really quite like the 278 proposal, a new and direct link between Ruislip and Heathrow, I personally though would've made the 306 go via the A4 and Gunnersbury Avenue to Ealing Broadway but then again traffic is an issue, shouldn't really be too difficult to install stops along that section though.... I also like the idea of the route for route 278. I would just prefer it numbered 387 and the number 278 used in east London instead. There was a route 278 from Stoke Newington / Stratford to V & A Docks a while back. Also, the number 387 for this route via Hayes & Harlington would match the trains for the electrified Great Western Railway in the area!
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Jul 30, 2017 21:13:04 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 Furthermore, now that route 223 is being upgraded from DEM to DE, it now uses buses of the same length as routes 395 & H9/H10. So, TfL could extend route 223 direct to South Harrow and withdraw either route 395 or H9/H10 over that section.
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Jul 30, 2017 21:17:54 GMT
I don't like the 112 proposal at all, that change will lead it to more traffic along the A4 and reduce reliability throughout on an already congested corridor As route E1 is such a short route, this would have been better for the Ealing - Osterley extension instead of route 112. Alternatively, if they really want a Hanger Lane - Osterley connection, divert route 483 to Osterley and extend route 92 or 282 from Ealing Hospital to Ealing Broadway. PS More likely extend route 92 to Ealing Hospital. Route 282 would be an indirect route from Yeading to Ealing already covered by a more direct E7 or E9. The new link on route 92 from Greenford Station to Ealing Broadway would compensate for the recent withdrawal of the direct train service between these 2 stations.
|
|