|
|
Post by snoggle on Feb 23, 2019 13:19:28 GMT
Okay, my turn  <snip> Any route serving and terminating at Harrow Bus Station (114, 140, 182, 183, 186, 223, 258, 340, 395, 483, H9/10, H11, H14, H17 & H18/19): A Bigger Bus Station. Crossing the road at the bus station entrance and exits can be like a game of skipping stones if the bus station is congested with buses sticking their butts out into the entrance/exit crossing while trying to navigate their way into and through the bus station. Congestion along with stand space is a pretty big problem for this small bus station, especially in the peak. But possibly the biggest problem is space for a new bus station. Available land is either greeny parky areas or it’s taken by councils and redevelopment companies who use this available land to build houses. In an ideal world (i.e. one in which public transport got the investment it deserves) the solution would be to completely rebuild Harrow-on-the-Hill Station, with the platforms covered by a raft on which a brand-new bus station and stand area would be laid out. Needless to say the bus station would have direct access to all platforms by lift via a fully-accessible ticket hall. As it was, plans to spend money to make Harrow-on-the-Hill accessible were cancelled under Boris Johnson's Mayoralty. What we will probably get is bus stops along College Road for through services not terminating at the Bus Station, and I can see routes 182 and 186 running directly along Station Road and not serving College Road/the Bus Station at all. Well Harrow on the Hill is in line to get some accessibility works done - a lift on the south (bus stn) side from street to overbridge level and I believe lifts down to platform levels. There will not be a lift at the north side. A housing redevelopment is also in the works for Harrow on the Hill. Not sure what TfL land it's going on or if it is on a deck over the station platforms. I agree the 182 and 186 will almost certainly be diverted away from the bus station. Also the 258 may be a candidate. With the rumoured rerouting of the 395 and H17 that may bring in other changes. It will probably be a two stage thing because of the X140/223 stand changes needed later as part of the Crossrail changes. While I completely agree that the bus station is too small and that there are a lot of bus movements I think breaking interchange with other bus, tube and rail services is an utterly ludicrous idea. Sadly we are seeing this stupidity being wrought in Walthamstow with Croydon next. This is the worst sort of idiotic practice that we see in deregulated areas where operators pretend other services and other modes don't exist and passengers have no need to interchange efficiently and safely. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Feb 23, 2019 14:37:49 GMT
Okay, my turn And I too will stick to my local area: Route 398: a higher frequency, maybe up to every 20 minutes Monday to Saturday with the Sunday service left as it is at every 30 minutes. Routes H9/10: frequency here is good. Maybe additional SDOs in the AM/PM peaks to assist with the loadings in the peaks. Also, longer buses could be introduced, as buses on this route do get packed to the brim. Maybe up to 10.9m or longer, depending on a route test of course. Before you ask, a low bridge at Harrow & Wealdstone Station is the reason why the H9/10 can’t take double deckers. Any route serving and terminating at Harrow Bus Station (114, 140, 182, 183, 186, 223, 258, 340, 395, 483, H9/10, H11, H14, H17 & H18/19): A Bigger Bus Station. Crossing the road at the bus station entrance and exits can be like a game of skipping stones if the bus station is congested with buses sticking their butts out into the entrance/exit crossing while trying to navigate their way into and through the bus station. Congestion along with stand space is a pretty big problem for this small bus station, especially in the peak. But possibly the biggest problem is space for a new bus station. Available land is either greeny parky areas or it’s taken by councils and redevelopment companies who use this available land to build houses. Obviously not my area but I'm quite surprised you listed the 398 as a route that needs an increased frequency ahead of the 395 given how overloaded this route seems to get whenever I've been up that way? |
|
|
|
Post by kmkcheng on Feb 23, 2019 14:44:53 GMT
Well Harrow on the Hill is in line to get some accessibility works done - a lift on the south (bus stn) side from street to overbridge level and I believe lifts down to platform levels. There will not be a lift at the north side. A housing redevelopment is also in the works for Harrow on the Hill. Not sure what TfL land it's going on or if it is on a deck over the station platforms. I think it’s the other way round. The bus station is on the north side which will be where the lift access will also be |
|
|
|
Post by LT 20181 on Feb 23, 2019 14:59:13 GMT
Okay, my turn And I too will stick to my local area: Route 398: a higher frequency, maybe up to every 20 minutes Monday to Saturday with the Sunday service left as it is at every 30 minutes. Routes H9/10: frequency here is good. Maybe additional SDOs in the AM/PM peaks to assist with the loadings in the peaks. Also, longer buses could be introduced, as buses on this route do get packed to the brim. Maybe up to 10.9m or longer, depending on a route test of course. Before you ask, a low bridge at Harrow & Wealdstone Station is the reason why the H9/10 can’t take double deckers. Any route serving and terminating at Harrow Bus Station (114, 140, 182, 183, 186, 223, 258, 340, 395, 483, H9/10, H11, H14, H17 & H18/19): A Bigger Bus Station. Crossing the road at the bus station entrance and exits can be like a game of skipping stones if the bus station is congested with buses sticking their butts out into the entrance/exit crossing while trying to navigate their way into and through the bus station. Congestion along with stand space is a pretty big problem for this small bus station, especially in the peak. But possibly the biggest problem is space for a new bus station. Available land is either greeny parky areas or it’s taken by councils and redevelopment companies who use this available land to build houses. Obviously not my area but I'm quite surprised you listed the 398 as a route that needs an increased frequency ahead of the 395 given how overloaded this route seems to get whenever I've been up that way? Oh, yes. Completely forgot about the 395 and it’s patronage. Yes, a frequency increase would do the 395 good, maybe up to every 15 minutes. Thank you for reminding me I also listed the 398 for a frequency increase, as I have seen buses along this route packed from the front to the back. It is seen (well, I see it that way) as a more direct link between Rayners Lane & South Harrow as it sticks to the main Alexandra Avenue route unlike the H9/10 & H12 which traverse through side streets, which can make the 398 a little faster than the other two routes, or three. |
|
|
|
Post by YX10FFN on Mar 3, 2019 0:16:39 GMT
The 33 needs MMCs, because I'm sure the DEs will start raising some pollution eyebrows at TFL soon (I believe Hammersmith was one of their priority areas). But it can't get them due to the Hammersmith Bridge weight issues. 72 needs them too! GAL has promised MMCs for the 209, so will the Bridge issue be fixed by late summer/autumn?
|
|
|
|
Post by rhys on Mar 3, 2019 0:22:30 GMT
The 33 needs MMCs, because I'm sure the DEs will start raising some pollution eyebrows at TFL soon (I believe Hammersmith was one of their priority areas). But it can't get them due to the Hammersmith Bridge weight issues. 72 needs them too! GAL has promised MMCs for the 209, so will the Bridge issue be fixed by late summer/autumn? By Go-Ahead purchasing MMCs for the 209, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the bridge will be repaired before the planned takeover date. The most likely scenario I see happening is that ADL will build a spec that meets the weight requirements for the 209. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Mar 3, 2019 0:47:33 GMT
The 33 needs MMCs, because I'm sure the DEs will start raising some pollution eyebrows at TFL soon (I believe Hammersmith was one of their priority areas). But it can't get them due to the Hammersmith Bridge weight issues. 72 needs them too! GAL has promised MMCs for the 209, so will the Bridge issue be fixed by late summer/autumn? The 33 & 72 do not need MMC’s - the DE’s will be upgraded in conjunction with the London wide ULEZ. Ideally, if the bridge is ever fixed, then the 33 & 72 should arguably go double deck as they were up until the late 90’s before the severe restriction was imposed. |
|
|
|
Post by YX10FFN on Mar 3, 2019 0:59:15 GMT
The 33 needs MMCs, because I'm sure the DEs will start raising some pollution eyebrows at TFL soon (I believe Hammersmith was one of their priority areas). But it can't get them due to the Hammersmith Bridge weight issues. 72 needs them too! GAL has promised MMCs for the 209, so will the Bridge issue be fixed by late summer/autumn? The 33 & 72 do not need MMC’s - the DE’s will be upgraded in conjunction with the London wide ULEZ. Ideally, if the bridge is ever fixed, then the 33 & 72 should arguably go double deck as they were up until the late 90’s before the severe restriction was imposed. I agree that they deserve double deckers. Barnes is hindered by crowded buses, because it is fairly cut off. I hope the MMCs on the 209 can at least partially mitigate that problem. |
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Mar 3, 2019 1:06:47 GMT
The 33 needs MMCs, because I'm sure the DEs will start raising some pollution eyebrows at TFL soon (I believe Hammersmith was one of their priority areas). But it can't get them due to the Hammersmith Bridge weight issues. 72 needs them too! GAL has promised MMCs for the 209, so will the Bridge issue be fixed by late summer/autumn? as they were up until the late 90’s before the severe restriction was imposed.   |
|
|
|
Post by kmkcheng on Mar 3, 2019 1:18:31 GMT
The 33 needs MMCs, because I'm sure the DEs will start raising some pollution eyebrows at TFL soon (I believe Hammersmith was one of their priority areas). But it can't get them due to the Hammersmith Bridge weight issues. 72 needs them too! GAL has promised MMCs for the 209, so will the Bridge issue be fixed by late summer/autumn? The 33 & 72 do not need MMC’s - the DE’s will be upgraded in conjunction with the London wide ULEZ. Ideally, if the bridge is ever fixed, then the 33 & 72 should arguably go double deck as they were up until the late 90’s before the severe restriction was imposed. Wasn’t the 72 last awarded with double deckers but because of the bridge problem were diverted for the 18 win instead. |
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Mar 3, 2019 6:33:56 GMT
The 33 & 72 do not need MMC’s - the DE’s will be upgraded in conjunction with the London wide ULEZ. Ideally, if the bridge is ever fixed, then the 33 & 72 should arguably go double deck as they were up until the late 90’s before the severe restriction was imposed. Wasn’t the 72 last awarded with double deckers but because of the bridge problem were diverted for the 18 win instead. Yes, 72 was awarded with 20 hybrid double decks, on assumption bridge strengthening was done 3-4 years ago Only 12 were reallocated to 18 (per tender award notes) The remainder of the order was not delivered (I believe 5 were converted to Kingston University bus spec), instead of TfL spec I’m not sure what happened to other 3 but possibly were used on another route as batch ended up as 50 buses + 5 KU |
|
|
|
Post by LT 20181 on Mar 7, 2019 23:43:59 GMT
The 33 needs MMCs, because I'm sure the DEs will start raising some pollution eyebrows at TFL soon (I believe Hammersmith was one of their priority areas). But it can't get them due to the Hammersmith Bridge weight issues. 72 needs them too! GAL has promised MMCs for the 209, so will the Bridge issue be fixed by late summer/autumn? By Go-Ahead purchasing MMCs for the 209, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the bridge will be repaired before the planned takeover date. The most likely scenario I see happening is that ADL will build a spec that meets the weight requirements for the 209. I wonder what the conversation between GAL & ADL would be like when they talk about how to make their new MMCs light enough for the Hammersmith Bridge  |
|
|
|
Post by richard on Mar 8, 2019 2:01:35 GMT
What about the 214 getting Dubble Deckers i cant see a reson for that to get them as it gose under the same Bridge as the C2 on Gordon House road!
|
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Mar 8, 2019 3:53:21 GMT
What about the 214 getting Dubble Deckers i cant see a reson for that to get them as it gose under the same Bridge as the C2 on Gordon House road! Both trees and residents are apparently the reasons why the 214 can't have double deckers. |
|
|
|
Post by ThinLizzy on Mar 8, 2019 10:51:54 GMT
By Go-Ahead purchasing MMCs for the 209, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the bridge will be repaired before the planned takeover date. The most likely scenario I see happening is that ADL will build a spec that meets the weight requirements for the 209. I wonder what the conversation between GAL & ADL would be like when they talk about how to make their new MMCs light enough for the Hammersmith Bridge GAL: Oh hello is that ADL? ADL: Yes it is, hello GAL: So we need some really light single deck buses for a new contract ADL: Why is that? GAL: So you know the song London Bridge is falling down, it's a bit like that but in Hammersmit ADL: Ah ok. So we can put less seat cushioning in GAL: We need lighter than that ADL: No seat cushions? GAL: No seats? |
|
