Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2020 15:12:04 GMT
Page 24 drew the most interest from me especially these two quotes: "Analysis by TfL has shown that changes to the bus network in response to an extended pedestrian High Street would lead to a net reduction in people choosing to travel by bus" "TfL believes that the best way to increase the number of people in Uxbridge choosing to travel by sustainable modes would be to re-introduce bus services along the full length of Uxbridge High Street. This would: • Improve access to the town centre by bus. • Reduce bus journey times to/from Uxbridge Station. • Increase the number of people choosing to travel by bus. • Decrease the number of people choosing to travel by private car" Correct me if I'm wrong but this is the first time I've seen TfL say anything bad about pedestrianisation and the effects it can have on buses - regardless, it's great to see that TfL are even considering this sort of idea and I hope this is extended to other town centres with pedestrian zones that could be replaced. Like Brixton perhaps |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2020 15:18:03 GMT
If the 222 was withdrawn between Heathrow Airport North and Hounslow, that fundamentally breaks a unique outer London orbital link Hounslow to Uxbridge.
Instead of adding extra buses to the 81, I would extend the H98 to Uxbridge.
But I note the date of this is somewhat old and as others have already said, I also doubt any of this will take place.
|
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Dec 12, 2020 16:09:27 GMT
Page 24 drew the most interest from me especially these two quotes: "Analysis by TfL has shown that changes to the bus network in response to an extended pedestrian High Street would lead to a net reduction in people choosing to travel by bus" "TfL believes that the best way to increase the number of people in Uxbridge choosing to travel by sustainable modes would be to re-introduce bus services along the full length of Uxbridge High Street. This would: • Improve access to the town centre by bus. • Reduce bus journey times to/from Uxbridge Station. • Increase the number of people choosing to travel by bus. • Decrease the number of people choosing to travel by private car" Correct me if I'm wrong but this is the first time I've seen TfL say anything bad about pedestrianisation and the effects it can have on buses - regardless, it's great to see that TfL are even considering this sort of idea and I hope this is extended to other town centres with pedestrian zones that could be replaced. Interesting. I’ve had the same feeling for years in terms of my own shopping habits and what I’ve observed in Woolwich. Buses used to pass the main shopping area on the way through Woolwich Town Centre. Not only was that convenient for people doing large amounts of shopping, it also enables you to see the range of shops on offer as you are passing by. When the area was pedestrianised, most of the shops became hidden from view. Car parking is a headache in Woolwich, so now everyone shops at the Charlton retail area or other locations like Bluewater. Is it just me, or has there been a change in sentiment from TfL towards buses since Andy Byford took over? Some of the more recent local council proposals for Woolwich would push buses even further away from the shops. I always thought the revised General Gordon Place layout was calamitous for buses and the overall health of the shopping street. Hopefully this is a sign of TfL starting to push back. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Dec 12, 2020 17:19:08 GMT
Page 24 drew the most interest from me especially these two quotes: "Analysis by TfL has shown that changes to the bus network in response to an extended pedestrian High Street would lead to a net reduction in people choosing to travel by bus" "TfL believes that the best way to increase the number of people in Uxbridge choosing to travel by sustainable modes would be to re-introduce bus services along the full length of Uxbridge High Street. This would: • Improve access to the town centre by bus. • Reduce bus journey times to/from Uxbridge Station. • Increase the number of people choosing to travel by bus. • Decrease the number of people choosing to travel by private car" Correct me if I'm wrong but this is the first time I've seen TfL say anything bad about pedestrianisation and the effects it can have on buses - regardless, it's great to see that TfL are even considering this sort of idea and I hope this is extended to other town centres with pedestrian zones that could be replaced. Like Brixton perhaps Brixton has very little pedestrianisation (Electric Avenue, Popes Road, & the majority of Electric Lane are the main pedestrian parts due to the market) and wasn’t what I was referring to which probably explains why it’s not struggling like other towns. It’s not the only factor but it’s certainly a contributing one. |
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Dec 12, 2020 18:25:30 GMT
Is it just me, or has there been a change in sentiment from TfL towards buses since Andy Byford took over? I've definitely noticed a shift in sentiment towards buses since Byford arrived. Starting to become more pro-bus in my eyes. The director of bus operations at TfL is also about to depart (to become managing director at South Western Trains) so this could be a good opportunity for some fresh and enthusiastic blood from an external bus background. Interestingly what Byford did at New York with buses was move towards simplified networks and more direct/express routes. There was some signs of that here in London before his arrival so hopefully that journey is accelerated. Quite literally. There's definitely room for a root-and-branch reorganisation of the entire bus network in Central London, to have far fewer but higher-frequency routes. We must stop being squeamish about asking more people to change buses - people won't mind so much if they know that the connections are very high frequency, the stops are conveniently located and have shelters, and the new network makes more journeys easy. |
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Dec 12, 2020 18:50:29 GMT
I've definitely noticed a shift in sentiment towards buses since Byford arrived. Starting to become more pro-bus in my eyes. The director of bus operations at TfL is also about to depart (to become managing director at South Western Trains) so this could be a good opportunity for some fresh and enthusiastic blood from an external bus background. Interestingly what Byford did at New York with buses was move towards simplified networks and more direct/express routes. There was some signs of that here in London before his arrival so hopefully that journey is accelerated. Quite literally. There's definitely room for a root-and-branch reorganisation of the entire bus network in Central London, to have far fewer but higher-frequency routes. We must stop being squeamish about asking more people to change buses - people won't mind so much if they know that the connections are very high frequency, the stops are conveniently located and have shelters, and the new network makes more journeys easy. Couldn't agree more. Lots of room to improve efficency and simplify & speed journeys. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Dec 12, 2020 19:50:54 GMT
There's definitely room for a root-and-branch reorganisation of the entire bus network in Central London, to have far fewer but higher-frequency routes. We must stop being squeamish about asking more people to change buses - people won't mind so much if they know that the connections are very high frequency, the stops are conveniently located and have shelters, and the new network makes more journeys easy. Couldn't agree more. Lots of room to improve efficency and simplify & speed journeys. Not at the expense of losing current links though and sorry to say but there hasn’t been a lot of encouragement on that particular front. Buses can be sped up through other means like reducing congestion and implementation of bus priority without any loss of current links needed and by reducing congestion, you also reduce pollution as well. |
|
|
|
Post by beaver14uk on Dec 12, 2020 23:08:37 GMT
Would like to see more express routes back like X43 and X53. There's definitely room for a root-and-branch reorganisation of the entire bus network in Central London, to have far fewer but higher-frequency routes. We must stop being squeamish about asking more people to change buses - people won't mind so much if they know that the connections are very high frequency, the stops are conveniently located and have shelters, and the new network makes more journeys easy. Couldn't agree more. Lots of room to improve efficency and simplify & speed journeys. |
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Dec 12, 2020 23:08:57 GMT
There's definitely room for a root-and-branch reorganisation of the entire bus network in Central London, to have far fewer but higher-frequency routes. We must stop being squeamish about asking more people to change buses - people won't mind so much if they know that the connections are very high frequency, the stops are conveniently located and have shelters, and the new network makes more journeys easy. Couldn't agree more. Lots of room to improve efficency and simplify & speed journeys. Breaking direct links does nothing to simplify or speed journeys for passengers. I can think of few things more likely to push people into cabs or their own cars than needing three buses to get somewhere - it's just too much of a faff. Will the next bus come? Will I get on it? Will I be able to get in the shelter or will I have to stand outside in the rain? You can't have direct links to everywhere of course, but I detest having to change, particularly when it's cold or dark. I don't always feel safe at stops. The more straightforward my journey is the better. |
|
|
|
Post by M1199 on Dec 12, 2020 23:55:48 GMT
Some interesting ideas there! Most of which I hope never see the light of day! The A10 as an Express & the X222 concept, they're good idea's, but are they necessary? The X140 works, as Harrow to Heathrow is what, 10 miles (as the crow flies) Uxbridge to Heathrow is only 5. The A10 in it's current form takes roughly 35min end to end, 25min when it followed its original routing. The document says that the A10 currently takes only 8 minutes longer than the 724, what can you actually achieve in 8 minutes....! Routing the A10 via the Uni and Hospital, I just don't get that, adding a 3rd route to an already overbussed corridor IMO, not to mention Pield Heath Road, which snarls up very quickly, will only lead to longer running times! The A10 Heathrow (not so) Fast... The U4 gets to both those destinations in a quick enough time and has the capacity to do so too. An X222, where would it stop!? Can only think of maybe Cowley 'Station Road', West Drayton Station and Porters Way, could then potentially send it along the 350 route to Harmondsworth to stop at Hatch Lane. Swapping the 222/U3 in West Drayton! Just can't imagine 222's running round the Wise Lane Estate! Or a single decker U3 coping along the Bath Road in and out of Hounslow! Swapping the U3/U5 between the Hospital and Uxbridge would be purely just to justify the continued use of DD's on the U5, as I've said before, IMO the U5 needs them even less than what the 350 needed them! And anyway, the U3 is a busy route all the way though to the back end of West Drayton and more than justifies DD's on occasions. The U1/U2/U7 is the interesting one, as an enthusiast, wouldn't mind seeing happen. It'd reduce the amount of buses standing at Uxbridge and open up some new links across the borough. The downside is that West Drayton would loose a long established link with Ruislip (apart from in 94-96!) and it could lead to the U1 becoming quite unreliable during the peak hours having to travel along the Uxbridge Road. The U2, looking at the map, would use Royal Lane and either Violet Ave (the part unserved by buses) or Birch Ave, which would mean these roads would see a bus service for the First time, there's a lot of residential and controlled parking along these roads so would be interesting to see what would happen to address this should it ever get rerouted! A Night bus to & from Harrow should of been implemented years ago, would imagine it would get plenty of use, I certainly would of made use of it, many a time after a drunken night in Trinity or The Junction, then getting ripped off by some dodgy cabbie! First I've heard of Hillingdon council wanting to pedrestrianise the southern end of the High Street, As they've just spent a load of wedge remodeling the road layout down that end, I imagine that proposal could be on hold for now. Even if it was pedrestrianised, I can't see how Buses would loose revenue because of it. I've probably caught the bus into Uxbridge that way more than anybody else on the forum, the majority of people get off to go into The Chimes/intu Uxbridge (or whatever it will be renamed shortly) or due to the fact that it takes ages to cross the lights from Vine Street onto Marjacks Roundabout, it worked before for many years before that cut through was implemented and would work again. Stand space has been a problem for years! it doesn't help that there's more 'country'buses terminating in Uxbridge than ever before, one thing I cant work out is way the 222 still stands on Bakers Road. When First took on the U3, it also stayed out on the road for a long time before eventually going inside to stand. Some amendments/adjustments I'd make: 222: No change to current routing, but to stand inside UX X222: Uxbridge-Cowley'Stn Rd'-West Drayton Stn-Porters Way-Heathrow Central-Harlington Cnr-Cranford Parkway-Hounslow West Stn-Hounslow'Bell Cnr'-Hounslow A10: No change! Works well as it is U1/2/3: No change U5: Extend from Uxbridge, up Belmont Road to serve Uxbridge College, terminating at the Hillingdon Sports and Leisure Complex in Gatting Way U7/9: Withdraw route U9 by extending the U7 the Harefield Hospital - which was proposed some 10-15 years ago! At least with moving the 222 into the garage and amalgamating the U7/9, you free up 3 stand spaces in Bakers Road and a space on York Road, moving the U5 up to the sports complex would also give you another space to play with on York Road/Chippendale Waye. Non of the above probably makes any sense, but hey ho!  |
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Dec 13, 2020 0:22:23 GMT
If the 222 was withdrawn between Heathrow Airport North and Hounslow, that fundamentally breaks a unique outer London orbital link Hounslow to Uxbridge. Instead of adding extra buses to the 81, I would extend the H98 to Uxbridge. But I note the date of this is somewhat old and as others have already said, I also doubt any of this will take place. How would you extend the H98? |
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Dec 13, 2020 10:13:33 GMT
Interesting pre-consultation  Honestly TfL money and resources wouldn't be wasted if some of these suggestions come to fruition. Look at the South Newham Development Paper for example, d*mn near every idea turned into reality! I'm not saying anything's written in stone but the study wasn't borne out of thin air... I'm only familiar with the 222, U1 and U3 so can only offer little input. It'd be nice for a fully double decker service to serve the heart of Brunel university. The outer fringes, eastern side in particular sees a cacophony of services whilst the centre is almost bone dry. I think a swap with the U5 would prove popular with students and staff there. The 222 and U3 swap option south of West Drayton sounds more of a hassle than the potential benefits it may bring. However swapping it to the U3's routing via the university may beneficial all round. Added capacity during the day as aforementioned with the U5 proposal would be preferred, not local enough to suggest if the U5 over that part over the 222. However at night, going through the heart of Brunel would help patronage on the 222N. It's known the student body of Brunel tend to club hop to Kingston with its uni students & nightlife there, so would be a success if the 222 swap was considered north of West Drayton. Finally I'm not surprised of the inner north London orbital night link considered. I also find it interesting that a night route between Uxbridge and Harrow is being considered over an existing Tube line (i.e. the Metropolitan Uxbridge line). It's just easier to create a N114 and extend it from Ruislip to Uxbridge over the U1. The 114 route goes close enough to said stations before Ruislip (Rayners Lane, Eastcote) and as an added bonus, its Mill Hill Broadway terminus has trains running through it 24/7! Easiest and least hassle-free option in my eyes.  |
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Dec 13, 2020 10:40:12 GMT
Couldn't agree more. Lots of room to improve efficency and simplify & speed journeys. Breaking direct links does nothing to simplify or speed journeys for passengers. I can think of few things more likely to push people into cabs or their own cars than needing three buses to get somewhere - it's just too much of a faff. Will the next bus come? Will I get on it? Will I be able to get in the shelter or will I have to stand outside in the rain? You can't have direct links to everywhere of course, but I detest having to change, particularly when it's cold or dark. I don't always feel safe at stops. The more straightforward my journey is the better. Yes, but I'm talking about Central London where the routes would be ultra-high frequency - roads like Regent Street and Piccadilly could have a bus at least every minute, but on a single route. You are right about not having direct links for all journeys, and the reality is that lots of people already take two or three buses to make their regular journeys. Recognising that is why the hopper fare was introduced. For that reason attention should be paid to interchange points, to make the change as seamless as possible and ensure the wait is a pleasant as possible. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Dec 13, 2020 10:45:02 GMT
Interesting pre-consultation Honestly TfL money and resources wouldn't be wasted if some of these suggestions come to fruition. Look at the South Newham Development Paper for example, d*mn near every idea turned into reality! I'm not saying anything's written in stone but the study wasn't borne out of thin air... I'm only familiar with the 222, U1 and U3 so can only offer little input. It'd be nice for a fully double decker service to serve the heart of Brunel university. The outer fringes, eastern side in particular sees a cacophony of services whilst the centre is almost bone dry. I think a swap with the U5 would prove popular with students and staff there. The 222 and U3 swap option south of West Drayton sounds more of a hassle than the potential benefits it may bring. However swapping it to the U3's routing via the university may beneficial all round. Added capacity during the day as aforementioned with the U5 proposal would be preferred, not local enough to suggest if the U5 over that part over the 222. However at night, going through the heart of Brunel would help patronage on the 222N. It's known the student body of Brunel tend to club hop to Kingston with its uni students & nightlife there, so would be a success if the 222 swap was considered north of West Drayton. Finally I'm not surprised of the inner north London orbital night link considered. I also find it interesting that a night route between Uxbridge and Harrow is being considered over an existing Tube line (i.e. the Metropolitan Uxbridge line). It's just easier to create a N114 and extend it from Ruislip to Uxbridge over the U1. The 114 route goes close enough to said stations before Ruislip (Rayners Lane, Eastcote) and as an added bonus, its Mill Hill Broadway terminus has trains running through it 24/7! Easiest and least hassle-free option in my eyes. You don't need to to swap the 222 & U3 in order to give Brunel University a double decker route as the U3 can take double deckers itself and deserves them too - officially, it has two double decker school workings and unofficially, it's already converted to fully double decker since the pandemic started. Also to add that the U4 serves Brunel and has been double decker for years. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Dec 13, 2020 10:50:07 GMT
Breaking direct links does nothing to simplify or speed journeys for passengers. I can think of few things more likely to push people into cabs or their own cars than needing three buses to get somewhere - it's just too much of a faff. Will the next bus come? Will I get on it? Will I be able to get in the shelter or will I have to stand outside in the rain? You can't have direct links to everywhere of course, but I detest having to change, particularly when it's cold or dark. I don't always feel safe at stops. The more straightforward my journey is the better. Yes, but I'm talking about Central London where the routes would be ultra-high frequency - roads like Regent Street and Piccadilly could have a bus at least every minute, but on a single route. You are right about not having direct links for all journeys, and the reality is that lots of people already take two or three buses to make their regular journeys. Recognising that is why the hopper fare was introduced. For that reason attention should be paid to interchange points, to make the change as seamless as possible and ensure the wait is a pleasant as possible. Two buses yes but I'm not sure very many people take three buses to complete a journey myself, rare instances maybe but I don't think it's the norm. |
|
Honestly TfL money and resources wouldn't be wasted if some of these suggestions come to fruition. Look at the South Newham Development Paper for example, d*mn near every idea turned into reality! I'm not saying anything's written in stone but the study wasn't borne out of thin air...