Routes 27, 224 and 440

[Eastlondoner62]

Two new consultations:

consultations.tfl.gov.uk/buses/routes-27-and-440/

consultations.tfl.gov.uk/buses/routes-224-and-440/

[southlondonbus]

I wonder if the supposed other spare capacity will come from removing the 391 in the later Richmond Consultation.

[rmz19]

Jul 2, 2018 10:58:25 GMT Eastlondoner62 said:

Two new consultations:

consultations.tfl.gov.uk/buses/routes-27-and-440/

consultations.tfl.gov.uk/buses/routes-224-and-440/

I really question TFL's logic regarding their rationale behind these changes. They base their proposals on the fact that there is spare capacity i.e., in their words, buses that are 'not full'. So buses have to be full in order to be deemed useful and justified?

TFL couldn't be more vague. By that rather ridiculous logic then bus routes all over London should only exist running along their busiest sections, regardless of how long these sections are.  Of course buses won't always be full, in this case the 27 between Hammersmith and Chiswick, nevertheless it's still well used within this section, factoring in the handy link to and from Chiswick Business Park. The 27 could've reverted back to its former terminus at Turnham Green as this would retain the useful NHG/HSK/Olympia - Chiswick link rather than having to change at Hammersmith, or even extend the 9 in its place to minimise lost links.

Also why introduce an N27 when it's pretty much identical to its daytime counterpart? Surely there should be some distinction between the 27 and its night equivalent to justify the usage of the 'N' prefix rather than a mere terminus change in the same area. The 27 should either have a night counterpart with an extension from either end of its termini or should just remain as a 24 Hour route.

[riverside]

Jul 2, 2018 10:58:25 GMT Eastlondoner62 said:

Two new consultations:

consultations.tfl.gov.uk/buses/routes-27-and-440/

consultations.tfl.gov.uk/buses/routes-224-and-440/

Once again someone at TfL needs to proof read documents. I don't think a 237 is going to help you make a journey between Hammersmith and Gunnersbury/Chiswick Business Park. Neither for that matter will a 190! These proposals are a sign of what is to come across London.

The 27 carries very few people to and from Chiswick Business Park. Having a service that runs through the Business Park is a good idea, however, with the 440 terminating at Turnham Green I don't think it will help to greatly improve connectivity. Ideally I would extend the 440 to Hammersmith to part compensate for the withdrawal of the 27 over its western section. As the real purpose of this exercise is axe wielding there is no way that will happen and so the 440 will not fulfill its true potential at the Chiswick end.

I think I understand what will happen to the 27 but maybe I have got hold of the wrong end of the stick. TfL seem to want to terminate the 27 at Hammersmith but the Bus Station is full, so therefore it is going to be sent to the old 266/267 stand in Hammersmith Grove via the whole of the King Street/Glenthorne Road one way system. If this is the case it would make more sense to create a new stand at Hammersmith Town Hall, then passengers from the east could be transported to the shops in King Street and on the return journey to Chalk Farm the 27 could begin to pick up passengers in Glenthorne Road. Maybe I have misunderstood the proposals. The N27 will terminate in the Bus Station as there are no capacity problems at night.

So the 27 continues to whither. As a conductor at Stamford Brook I worked on the route when it still travelled between Archway and Teddington Station at weekends and as a very small boy I remember travelling on the summer Sunday extension to Hampton Court through Bushey Park.

Soon after the weight restictions on Hammersmith Bridge were imposed the long established link between Barnes and Kensington was severed, now the same is to happen to the link between Chiswick and Kensington. TfL is definitely focused on making people change buses or transfer to the Underground. Hammesmith which for so many years had many, many through routes is increasingly becoming a place to turf passengers off buses.

[snowman]

Firstly, the timing is odd, tender ITT for 440 was issued 14 May, tender bids required 23 July and consultation closes 12 Aug (I guess the tender may have asked for options, but that was 7 weeks ago, so why is this part 7 weeks later)

I understand the logic for cutting the service to Chiswick Business Park, if you are coming from Central London via Hammersmith, likely to use District line, not a slow bus. Although clearly much harder to reach CPB from North, hence the 440 change.

Not sure I like the full bus wording, gives wrong impression that it is a target to fill the bus, but clearly if passengers can be carried on 16 buses, then 30 is excessive, and proposed 22 per hour a reasonable balance. Unlike some I would suggest 22 buses an hour wont discourage travel (not like getting 10-20 minute gaps from this change).

Looking at wider picture, if cuts are to be made (and there is a proposed 7% cut across London) then it makes sense to target some heavily over-bussed sections, rather than cause real hardship where bus frequency is already low. But looks like finding a suitable stand in Hammersmith has resulted in bit of a strange end point.

Could this make the 27 suitable for a LT conversion, or are there restrictions in the relatively modern stand at Chalk Farm. Not really an old stand from days of much smaller buses.

Don't know the Wembley area buses enough to comment on other change.

[wirewiper]

I don't think people along Beresford Avenue will be very happy about losing their direct link to and from Wembley Central. Especially as changing buses at Alperton Station will mean crossing a busy road in both directions.

Perhaps the 79 could be rerouted at Alperton to run to Stonebridge Park Station via Beresford Avenue.

[southlondonbus]

I'd have rather seen the 27 and 391 merged with maybe the new 27 retained as far as Kensington (or just cut to Hammersmith) reduced to every 10 mins (with the 391 withdrawn) and the C2 diverted at Great Portland Street to Hammersmith Grove. That would remove 2 bph from the 27 and the entire 391 plus a route from over bussed Portland Place.

I can see the number '27' in Chiswick being like the '13' along the Finchley Road. Historical service everybody likes.

[vjaska]

Jul 2, 2018 12:38:17 GMT southlondonbus said:

I'd have rather seen the 27 and 391 merged with maybe the new 27 retained as far as Kensington (or just cut to Hammersmith) reduced to every 10 mins (with the 391 withdrawn) and the C2 diverted at Great Portland Street to Hammersmith Grove. That would remove 2 bph from the 27 and the entire 391 plus a route from over bussed Portland Place.

I can see the number '27' in Chiswick being like the '13' along the Finchley Road. Historical service everybody likes.

Your C2 sounds problematic in all honesty and would end up longer and more prone to reliability issues.

[vjaska]

Jul 2, 2018 12:19:10 GMT wirewiper said:

I don't think people along Beresford Avenue will be very happy about losing their direct link to and from Wembley Central. Especially as changing buses at Alperton Station will mean crossing a busy road in both directions.

Perhaps the 79 could be rerouted at Alperton to run to Stonebridge Park Station via Beresford Avenue.

The consultation mentions that depending on future growth, they might extend the 83 to Stonebridge Park via Beresford Avenue - still, I feel sorry for 224 passengers losing their direct link.

[wirewiper]

Extending the 83 would work too. But it needs to be part of the plan now, not some aspiration for the future.

Whether the 79 or 83 it would be a win-win for Beresford Avenue, as they would keep their 224 link to Sainsburys and also gain a more direct link to Wembley Central without the current double-run via Sainsbury's.

[southlondonbus]

I do feel there should be a link from Chiswick High Road as far as Kensington. If the proposed 306/391 goes ahead then there won't be a direct link from C High Rd to Olympia.

[misty]

Why is the 27 gonna terminate in Grove road this would mean it still has to go down Kings Street and round the one way system to park up. Must be easier to terminate at Brook Green.

[danorak]

So reading between the lines, they've analysed the Crossrail bus consultation. Any chance we might see a response this side of services starting? I wonder if there might be similar follow-ups elsewhere.

[ADH45258]

The new 27 proposals will remove the useful link from Kensington to Hammersmith. I think this is just a way for TFL to shorten the 27 so it can be extended from Camden Town to Parliament Hill and replace the C2.

A direct link from Chiswick Business Park towards Hammersmith is also removed.

A simple solution could be to extend the 9 in place, which is quite a short route. If Chiswick Park can't take LTs, it could instead terminate at Turnham Green or Gunnersbury. Then terminate the 27 at Hammersmith Bus Station over 24 hours.

[snoggle]

Oh ho ho ho what jolly japesters TfL now are. I note that TfL are now employing their nice new carefully crafted excuse phrases to wield the knife.

We constantly review our bus services to ensure we have enough buses to meet passenger demand. Currently, there is a lot of spare capacity (i.e. buses that are not full) on routes running between "x" and "y".

While route "ZZ" is used by many people in some areas it is not being well used along this stretch, which is not an effective use of our limited resources.

We know that each of our proposals will impact on some passengers. Many will gain new opportunities for direct connections to areas not previously available, while others may have to change buses to complete their journey. The new Hopper fare means there is no longer a financial penalty for changing onto a second bus within an hour.

You just know these phrases are going to feature in the next umpteen consultation proposals. I bet the one for the 48 and 55 "rationalisation" proposal is already written. And as for the xx, xx, xx and new route xxx proposal - Oooh!

While I recognise the issues with Bollo Lane (interesting revelation about x12 service to Richmond come December) crossing I do feel it is somewhat ridiculous to lop that section near Acton Green / Chiswick Park. It strikes me as ludicrous to be removing bus links to / from tube stations even recognising the difficult street / rail line layout in this area. It makes even less sense given there are tentative plans to rejig LU platform locations near Chiswick Park as part of the Picc Line upgrade. I've only used the 440 a couple of times in this area but I was struck by how much new housing was being added and now TfL take the bus route away! Duh! I would actually run the 440 on from Turnham Green and turn it at Chiswick Park. This maintains the link but avoids the crossings. They could turn buses at the roundabout and put a bus stop under the bridge. THe loading bay and parking spaces could be moved round to where the existing 440 bus stops are so no great loss of amenity.

I must admit I am now a tad lost as to what the future 440 will be given they've carefully avoided mention of what will happen in the West Acton area. TfL certainly haven't cleared that up with this proposal.

I think people are missing why TfL are so keen to rip buses away from Chiswick High Road. It's called "Cycle Superhighway 9". Some of the locals are up in arms about the proposal because of the impact on their ability to drive and park where they want. Ripping away lots of buses from the area makes the design of bus stops etc much easier and provides TfL with a "defence" about congestion concerns - "oh look you it won't be as congested because we're removing loads of buses from the area".

The distinction between the 27 and N27 is a ludicrous waste of money. Do one thing or the other but don't f*rt about with different termini distinguished by about 1/4 mile of distance.

I see that no one has actually got off their backsides and been to look at these areas - witness the ludicrous comment "oh people can just change off the 224 at Alperton if they want to go to Wembley". Have they tried to cross the road at Alperton Station? Again the 224 is not a route I know well but when I used it it was ridiculously overloaded from Wembley across Alperton towards Park Royal.