|
Post by southlondonbus on Jul 13, 2018 11:28:00 GMT
Thou actually I'm wrong it not a petition but mroe an encouragement to reply to the consultation. But yes i doubt it will change anything.
|
|
|
Post by Nathan on Jul 13, 2018 12:30:43 GMT
A petition is now under way along Chiswick High Road to save the 27. Just like the 33 petition, I doubt this petition will change anything. I’ll be surprised if TFL listened. It's not easy for TfL...
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Jul 13, 2018 13:16:24 GMT
I'm afraid you're the one that is defying logic and not for the first time, I'm sure we'd all rather that bus travel was booming and we were talking about expanding the bus network but reality dictates otherwise. The 9,10 and 27 currently provide more than 20bph between Kensington and Hammersmith, is anybody really going to claim that level of service is justified? Sorry to be a harbinger of doom, but I wonder if the 9 might get withdrawn between Hammersmith and Olympia? Unlikely I think - they'd probably want to do that now to enable the 27 to terminate in Hammersmith Bus Station on a 24 hour basis. What I think is far more likely is that Frankenstein's 10/23 hybrid gets cut back or loses the Hyde Park Corner - Hammersmith section altogether to a slightly enhanced 9.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jul 13, 2018 13:31:27 GMT
Why not cut the 27 entirely then? That seems like a great idea! It seems you're obsessed with removing routes just for the sake of it without any logic. In the world of London's bus network there is such a thing as a frequency decrease that many seem to be oblivious to. Of course the 27 is needed, there is still scope for a slight frequency decrease alongside the 9, though it wouldn't be desirable to decrease the 10's frequency any further. I'm afraid you're the one that is defying logic and not for the first time, I'm sure we'd all rather that bus travel was booming and we were talking about expanding the bus network but reality dictates otherwise. The 9,10 and 27 currently provide more than 20bph between Kensington and Hammersmith, is anybody really going to claim that level of service is justified? I always justify my rationale regarding why routes should or shouldn't be withdrawn and state the realistic scenarios that may arise. Of course no one can be 100% correct in this matter, but generally there is some common sense behind this and that's the real logic. You can talk about figures or percentages all you like but being realistic always prevails, and considering the volatile nature of London's bus network it's imperative to consider these facts. What happens to the broken links? And the displaced passengers ramming the 9 and 10 as a result? Exacerbated by the occasional events happening at Olympia? And so on. These reasons don't enitrely justify why the 27 should remain as it's a popular route along the HSK corridor regardless, but it most certainly counts.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jul 13, 2018 14:07:11 GMT
I'm afraid you're the one that is defying logic and not for the first time, I'm sure we'd all rather that bus travel was booming and we were talking about expanding the bus network but reality dictates otherwise. The 9,10 and 27 currently provide more than 20bph between Kensington and Hammersmith, is anybody really going to claim that level of service is justified? I always justify my rationale regarding why routes should or shouldn't be withdrawn and state the realistic scenarios that may arise. Of course no one can be 100% correct in this matter, but generally there is some common sense behind this and that's the real logic. You can talk about figures or percentages all you like but being realistic always prevails, and considering the volatile nature of London's bus network it's imperative to consider these facts. What happens to the broken links? And the displaced passengers ramming the 9 and 10 as a result? Exacerbated by the occasional events happening at Olympia? And so on. These reasons don't enitrely justify why the 27 should remain as it's a popular route along the HSK corridor regardless, but it most certainly counts. We can go over this until the cows come home but 20bph plus on that section are just not justified.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jul 13, 2018 16:36:30 GMT
Well really it's 24 bph on the 3 routes combined plus maybe soon 5 DDs to Olympia aswell on the new 306 (in place of 4 SDs on the 391).
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jul 14, 2018 15:42:29 GMT
Reading comments on other thread has triggered a thought about why the 27 may be being pulled out of Chiswick Business Park. I believe the extension was supported with developer contributions (most likely a S106 payment). I wonder if the contribution has now ceased and TfL have deemed that the extension is no longer viable? It's not the only reason obviously given the 27 previously reached Turnham Green Church but it may be a factor.
The 440's rerouting via CBP is more of an operational convenience than anything because of the issues over Bollo Lane level crossings.
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Jul 14, 2018 16:22:04 GMT
Reading comments on other thread has triggered a thought about why the 27 may be being pulled out of Chiswick Business Park. I believe the extension was supported with developer contributions (most likely a S106 payment). I wonder if the contribution has now ceased and TfL have deemed that the extension is no longer viable? It's not the only reason obviously given the 27 previously reached Turnham Green Church but it may be a factor. The 440's rerouting via CBP is more of an operational convenience than anything because of the issues over Bollo Lane level crossings. I thought that the reason why the 27 was extended to Chiswick business park was because the council didn’t want buses standing on the green.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jul 14, 2018 16:25:47 GMT
Reading comments on other thread has triggered a thought about why the 27 may be being pulled out of Chiswick Business Park. I believe the extension was supported with developer contributions (most likely a S106 payment). I wonder if the contribution has now ceased and TfL have deemed that the extension is no longer viable? It's not the only reason obviously given the 27 previously reached Turnham Green Church but it may be a factor. The 440's rerouting via CBP is more of an operational convenience than anything because of the issues over Bollo Lane level crossings. I thought that the reason why the 27 was extended to Chiswick business park was because the council didn’t want buses standing on the green. Well that may be a factor but there was certainly developer funding for several bus routes including the 27. I think the 267 got some to improve frequencies and the E10 should have got the balance but its southward extension towards Acton never happened. The 70 was changed instead. Here's a Hounslow Council (CBP is in Hounslow borough) document explaining the funding. democraticservices.hounslow.gov.uk/(S(zcmck455mqmjsojxuc0t4q45))/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=73759
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2018 22:57:57 GMT
Reading comments on other thread has triggered a thought about why the 27 may be being pulled out of Chiswick Business Park. I believe the extension was supported with developer contributions (most likely a S106 payment). I wonder if the contribution has now ceased and TfL have deemed that the extension is no longer viable? It's not the only reason obviously given the 27 previously reached Turnham Green Church but it may be a factor. The 440's rerouting via CBP is more of an operational convenience than anything because of the issues over Bollo Lane level crossings. I thought that the reason why the 27 was extended to Chiswick business park was because the council didn’t want buses standing on the green. I seriously question that theory since the proposed 440 would (potentially) be standing at a worse location than the 27 did (going by the diagram of the consultation, it would run anti-clockwise around the green so the only stand would be the one opposite Belmont Road)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2018 23:06:01 GMT
I’ll be very interested to see what routes get cut between Richmond and Twickenham. They’ll be quite a few losers no matter what route gets a chop.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jul 22, 2018 8:11:10 GMT
Richmond to Twickenham is unusual in having a few routes but all SDs. A DD conversion of the 33 if Hammersmith Bridge gets sorted could potentially allow a route to be withdrawn with say a DD conversion of the 490. Personally I think the R68 may go. A swap with the R70 to Kew Retail Park replaces that section then duplicates down to Twickenham.
I think it will also focus on removing the running of several routes to Manor Circus just to turn around. The 493 and H37 will move into the Bus station with maybe the H22 419 joined to create space there.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jul 22, 2018 13:23:52 GMT
Richmond to Twickenham is unusual in having a few routes but all SDs. A DD conversion of the 33 if Hammersmith Bridge gets sorted could potentially allow a route to be withdrawn with say a DD conversion of the 490. Personally I think the R68 may go. A swap with the R70 to Kew Retail Park replaces that section then duplicates down to Twickenham. I think it will also focus on removing the running of several routes to Manor Circus just to turn around. The 493 and H37 will move into the Bus station with maybe the H22 419 joined to create space there. I don't see how you can remove the R68. It provides a number of unique links south of Twickenham. You'd also lose service on roads solely served by the R68 which is unlikely to be acceptable politically and is also completely contrary to the Mayor's comments on outer London routes. I know TfL have been cutting outer London routes anyway but no one has yet chucked the Mayor's own words back in his face. Scrapping the R68 would allow this to be done. I don't quite see TfL putting the Mayor in that position. While I understand the debate about reducing cross town centre movements in Richmond we are left with the issue that it is chronically short of stand space in the town centre and the bus station, such as it is, is borderline useless for terminating services. I suppose you could end up with the following. R68 curtailed to Twickenham Station (using old 110 stand). H22 and 419 merged across Richmond We know the 493 is being curtailed to the Bus Station 371 extended to Kew Retail park 33, 490, H37, R70 unchanged That rationalises bus movements across Richmond, takes some capacity out of Richmond - Twickenham, reduces stand requirements in and around Richmond. The worries would be whether a merged 419/H22 could actually run reliably without the need for regular curtailments. Extending the 371 could overbus the road to Kew Retail Park. The only other option would be reroute part of the 391 via the A205, Kew Retail Park and then over the railway to regain its current route near Kew Gardens. There would still be a loss of some part of the R68. I've no idea what the patronage levels are in this part of the world so I may be talking nonsense about rerouting the 391. I am more familiar, albeit a tad of out of date, with Richmond to Twickenham which has always been very busy. Whether it can lose 4 bph these days I know not.
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Jul 22, 2018 14:01:30 GMT
Richmond to Twickenham is unusual in having a few routes but all SDs. A DD conversion of the 33 if Hammersmith Bridge gets sorted could potentially allow a route to be withdrawn with say a DD conversion of the 490. Personally I think the R68 may go. A swap with the R70 to Kew Retail Park replaces that section then duplicates down to Twickenham. I think it will also focus on removing the running of several routes to Manor Circus just to turn around. The 493 and H37 will move into the Bus station with maybe the H22 419 joined to create space there. I don't see how you can remove the R68. It provides a number of unique links south of Twickenham. You'd also lose service on roads solely served by the R68 which is unlikely to be acceptable politically and is also completely contrary to the Mayor's comments on outer London routes. I know TfL have been cutting outer London routes anyway but no one has yet chucked the Mayor's own words back in his face. Scrapping the R68 would allow this to be done. I don't quite see TfL putting the Mayor in that position. While I understand the debate about reducing cross town centre movements in Richmond we are left with the issue that it is chronically short of stand space in the town centre and the bus station, such as it is, is borderline useless for terminating services. I suppose you could end up with the following. R68 curtailed to Twickenham Station (using old 110 stand). H22 and 419 merged across Richmond We know the 493 is being curtailed to the Bus Station 371 extended to Kew Retail park 33, 490, H37, R70 unchanged That rationalises bus movements across Richmond, takes some capacity out of Richmond - Twickenham, reduces stand requirements in and around Richmond. The worries would be whether a merged 419/H22 could actually run reliably without the need for regular curtailments. Extending the 371 could overbus the road to Kew Retail Park. The only other option would be reroute part of the 391 via the A205, Kew Retail Park and then over the railway to regain its current route near Kew Gardens. There would still be a loss of some part of the R68. I've no idea what the patronage levels are in this part of the world so I may be talking nonsense about rerouting the 391. I am more familiar, albeit a tad of out of date, with Richmond to Twickenham which has always been very busy. Whether it can lose 4 bph these days I know not. I vaguely remember at beginning of year was a reference to forthcoming Richmond and Twickenham area bus consultation, think it was something like Operational Performance or Investment committee agenda/minutes. Hasn’t happened yet, as other things happened. All the single decks are a legacy of the 16.5t weight limit on Richmond Bridge, but this was raised to 18t about 6 years ago, so can now take fully loaded double deckers (before that only empty DD and night routes (assumed to never be full) were permitted across the bridge)
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Jul 22, 2018 14:02:50 GMT
Richmond to Twickenham is unusual in having a few routes but all SDs. A DD conversion of the 33 if Hammersmith Bridge gets sorted could potentially allow a route to be withdrawn with say a DD conversion of the 490. Personally I think the R68 may go. A swap with the R70 to Kew Retail Park replaces that section then duplicates down to Twickenham. I think it will also focus on removing the running of several routes to Manor Circus just to turn around. The 493 and H37 will move into the Bus station with maybe the H22 419 joined to create space there. I don't see how you can remove the R68. It provides a number of unique links south of Twickenham. You'd also lose service on roads solely served by the R68 which is unlikely to be acceptable politically and is also completely contrary to the Mayor's comments on outer London routes. I know TfL have been cutting outer London routes anyway but no one has yet chucked the Mayor's own words back in his face. Scrapping the R68 would allow this to be done. I don't quite see TfL putting the Mayor in that position. While I understand the debate about reducing cross town centre movements in Richmond we are left with the issue that it is chronically short of stand space in the town centre and the bus station, such as it is, is borderline useless for terminating services. I suppose you could end up with the following. R68 curtailed to Twickenham Station (using old 110 stand). H22 and 419 merged across Richmond We know the 493 is being curtailed to the Bus Station 371 extended to Kew Retail park 33, 490, H37, R70 unchanged That rationalises bus movements across Richmond, takes some capacity out of Richmond - Twickenham, reduces stand requirements in and around Richmond. The worries would be whether a merged 419/H22 could actually run reliably without the need for regular curtailments. Extending the 371 could overbus the road to Kew Retail Park. The only other option would be reroute part of the 391 via the A205, Kew Retail Park and then over the railway to regain its current route near Kew Gardens. There would still be a loss of some part of the R68. I've no idea what the patronage levels are in this part of the world so I may be talking nonsense about rerouting the 391. I am more familiar, albeit a tad of out of date, with Richmond to Twickenham which has always been very busy. Whether it can lose 4 bph these days I know not. I would leave the R68 as it is, and instead extend the 371 to Hammersmith to replace the 419. Then extend the H22 to Turnham Green to partially replace the 391.
|
|