|
|
Post by enviroPB on Dec 13, 2020 11:12:27 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. Unless the U3 goes 24/7, you completely missed my point regarding the 222N. Students keep the night patronage healthy and it could be argued that swapping the U3 with the 222 at night could be beneficial. In any case that's the only option I'd give consent to; the 222 works well in its current form and I am aware that TfL gave it 24 hour status to partially aid journeys to Heathrow at night. So unfortunately not interested in the potential of an X222 nor sending the 222 to Heathrow. |
|
|
|
Post by M1199 on Dec 13, 2020 12:35:55 GMT
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. Unless the U3 goes 24/7, you completely missed my point regarding the 222N. Students keep the night patronage healthy and it could be argued that swapping the U3 with the 222 at night could be beneficial. In any case that's the only option I'd give consent to; the 222 works well in its current form and I am aware that TfL gave it 24 hour status to partially aid journeys to Heathrow at night. So unfortunately not interested in the potential of an X222 nor sending the 222 to Heathrow. In theory, the 222 technically serves Brunel, if you alight at Ferndale Cresent, walk back the 20m or so, go through the gate, your in the grounds of the University. Ok it's not the middle of it, but it's where most the dorms are. If you were to swap the 222/U3 routing for the Uni, you'd have to swap them from Yiewsley Library, with the 222 then taking the circuitous way round. You couldn't send it up Station Road and then left onto Cleveland Road, the turn is far too tight, to one side you got housing and a rather large tree (which DML646 had a fight with once and lost.... ending it's London career!) and to the over side, you got the embankment down to the former GWR branch line and Cowley Station. |
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Dec 13, 2020 13:04:46 GMT
Unless the U3 goes 24/7, you completely missed my point regarding the 222N. Students keep the night patronage healthy and it could be argued that swapping the U3 with the 222 at night could be beneficial. In any case that's the only option I'd give consent to; the 222 works well in its current form and I am aware that TfL gave it 24 hour status to partially aid journeys to Heathrow at night. So unfortunately not interested in the potential of an X222 nor sending the 222 to Heathrow. In theory, the 222 technically serves Brunel, if you alight at Ferndale Cresent, walk back the 20m or so, go through the gate, your in the grounds of the University. Ok it's not the middle of it, but it's where most the dorms are. If you were to swap the 222/U3 routing for the Uni, you'd have to swap them from Yiewsley Library, with the 222 then taking the circuitous way round. You couldn't send it up Station Road and then left onto Cleveland Road, the turn is far too tight, to one side you got housing and a rather large tree (which DML646 had a fight with once and lost.... ending it's London career!) and to the over side, you got the embankment down to the former GWR branch line and Cowley Station. The gate close to Ferndale Crescent bus stop closes at 10pm, and it's rather circuitous to access the campus when it's shut. You can say it's literally locking out customers for the 222(N). As I'm an advocate for little change to be seen on the 222 as any change would see an increase to journey times, unfortunately the ideas for the 222 now fall into the "If it ain't broke" category. The town centres of Uxbridge and Hounslow are where buses normally get delayed, coupled with Yiewsley High Street and Sipson village if a string of cars pass at the same time as a bus. Otherwise the 222 is free to cane it everywhere else and its reliability is ensured because of open roads & dual carriageways. Cowley Road is a great example of the former. |
|
|
|
Post by M1199 on Dec 13, 2020 14:07:40 GMT
In theory, the 222 technically serves Brunel, if you alight at Ferndale Cresent, walk back the 20m or so, go through the gate, your in the grounds of the University. Ok it's not the middle of it, but it's where most the dorms are. If you were to swap the 222/U3 routing for the Uni, you'd have to swap them from Yiewsley Library, with the 222 then taking the circuitous way round. You couldn't send it up Station Road and then left onto Cleveland Road, the turn is far too tight, to one side you got housing and a rather large tree (which DML646 had a fight with once and lost.... ending it's London career!) and to the over side, you got the embankment down to the former GWR branch line and Cowley Station. The gate close to Ferndale Crescent bus stop closes at 10pm, and it's rather circuitous to access the campus when it's shut. You can say it's literally locking out customers for the 222(N). As I'm an advocate for little change to be seen on the 222 as any change would see an increase to journey times, unfortunately the ideas for the 222 now fall into the "If it ain't broke" category. The town centres of Uxbridge and Hounslow are where buses normally get delayed, coupled with Yiewsley High Street and Sipson village if a string of cars pass at the same time as a bus. Otherwise the 222 is free to cane it everywhere else and its reliability is ensured because of open roads & dual carriageways. Cowley Road is a great example of the former. Never knew about the gate being locked up at night, never used to be, that's easily sorted though, leave it unlocked! Have to agree you you on the 'If it ain't broke' category though. A lot of these suggestions just seem to be for the sake of it. I just hope TfL don't implement any of them, but as I have no doubt they have paid someone a load of £££ to come up with these, they would have to justify the spending..... |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Dec 13, 2020 14:51:21 GMT
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. Unless the U3 goes 24/7, you completely missed my point regarding the 222N. Students keep the night patronage healthy and it could be argued that swapping the U3 with the 222 at night could be beneficial. In any case that's the only option I'd give consent to; the 222 works well in its current form and I am aware that TfL gave it 24 hour status to partially aid journeys to Heathrow at night. So unfortunately not interested in the potential of an X222 nor sending the 222 to Heathrow. No I didn’t miss any point because I didn’t discuss anything about the N222 at all. You said in your original post that Brunel isn’t served by a double decker route and I merely pointed out that the U4 does this job already for years and that there isn’t any need in diverting a double decker as the U3 could officially keep the deckers it currently has. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Dec 13, 2020 14:55:52 GMT
The gate close to Ferndale Crescent bus stop closes at 10pm, and it's rather circuitous to access the campus when it's shut. You can say it's literally locking out customers for the 222(N). As I'm an advocate for little change to be seen on the 222 as any change would see an increase to journey times, unfortunately the ideas for the 222 now fall into the "If it ain't broke" category. The town centres of Uxbridge and Hounslow are where buses normally get delayed, coupled with Yiewsley High Street and Sipson village if a string of cars pass at the same time as a bus. Otherwise the 222 is free to cane it everywhere else and its reliability is ensured because of open roads & dual carriageways. Cowley Road is a great example of the former. Never knew about the gate being locked up at night, never used to be, that's easily sorted though, leave it unlocked! Have to agree you you on the 'If it ain't broke' category though. A lot of these suggestions just seem to be for the sake of it. I just hope TfL don't implement any of them, but as I have no doubt they have paid someone a load of £££ to come up with these, they would have to justify the spending..... I agree although I do like the idea of removing the pedestrian zone for bus only operation. |
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Dec 13, 2020 19:30:46 GMT
Unless the U3 goes 24/7, you completely missed my point regarding the 222N. Students keep the night patronage healthy and it could be argued that swapping the U3 with the 222 at night could be beneficial. In any case that's the only option I'd give consent to; the 222 works well in its current form and I am aware that TfL gave it 24 hour status to partially aid journeys to Heathrow at night. So unfortunately not interested in the potential of an X222 nor sending the 222 to Heathrow. No I didn’t miss any point because I didn’t discuss anything about the N222 at all. You said in your original post that Brunel isn’t served by a double decker route and I merely pointed out that the U4 does this job already for years and that there isn’t any need in diverting a double decker as the U3 could officially keep the deckers it currently has. It's clear you didn't read my post properly, so here's a quote from the original post: I did not mention the U4 specifically but I did talk about the eastern side of Brunel, which the U4 serves. I read the study and none of the options were to deck the U3. Don't want an apology, probably not going to get it. As always, I somewhat have to pigeon hole myself saying I've been visiting Brunel off and on for the past 8 years; obviously cause it's me, mostly at night. Indeed my youngest brother is currently studying there, so I do hope to see the back of Isambad's campus from 2022! I shouldn't have to justify myself when commenting on a topic like this; but if you think I don't know what I'm talking about, it's your decision. At least read my post fully though before you critique anything about it, it's just common decency at this point. |
|
|
|
Post by justjxck1994 on Dec 28, 2020 16:03:37 GMT
The idea of merging Routes U1 + U7 would be good for service increase. Rerouting U2 to West Drayton would also give new links from Hillingdon Station, and re-routing U1 via Charville Lane would give new links to Ruislip
|
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Jan 12, 2021 17:05:45 GMT
I heard on the grapevine a quite big Uxbridge consultation is planned for later on this year - also heard the controversial X222 idea is potentially to be taken forward.
Be interesting to see what else is proposed. Hillingdon doesn't have quite the same degree of new developments as Croydon & Sutton do so doesn't look like there is too much chance of larger scale frequency increases or new routes like proposed over there, but more a tidy up of the network to provide some new links, improve reliability & efficiency and also to reduce pressure on layover space in Uxbridge town centre.
|
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Jan 12, 2021 17:51:29 GMT
I heard on the grapevine a quite big Uxbridge consultation is planned for later on this year - also heard the controversial X222 idea is potentially to be taken forward. Be interesting to see what else is proposed. Hillingdon doesn't have quite the same degree of new developments as Croydon & Sutton do so doesn't look like there is too much chance of larger scale frequency increases or new routes like proposed over there, but more a tidy up of the network to provide some new links, improve reliability & efficiency and also to reduce pressure on layover space in Uxbridge town centre. I don't think the X222 would be a good idea, the A10 is a good enough express route linking Uxbridge, Stockley Park and Heathrow, and could become limited stop along the full route if needed. A better option might be to swap part of the 222 & U3 routeings towards Uxbridge, with the U3 linking Uxbridge/Heathrow but via Cowley Road and West Drayton. A direct link between Uxbridge and Heathrow Terminal 5 might also be very useful. The U1/U2/U7 changes make more sense, though I think the U7 should instead be extended from Hayes to Southall Station in place of the 427, plus with a frequency increase. The U1 could maybe convert to DD and merge with the U4 or U5, with the U2 change as planned? I wonder if the Harrow review might also go to consultation stage? I think the previous Harrow area consultation (which covered the H9/H10 terminus change to Northwick Park) had been mentioned as including a larger number of routes - perhaps the 258/395/H17 changes were originally due to be part of this? |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jan 12, 2021 18:17:04 GMT
I heard on the grapevine a quite big Uxbridge consultation is planned for later on this year - also heard the controversial X222 idea is potentially to be taken forward. Be interesting to see what else is proposed. Hillingdon doesn't have quite the same degree of new developments as Croydon & Sutton do so doesn't look like there is too much chance of larger scale frequency increases or new routes like proposed over there, but more a tidy up of the network to provide some new links, improve reliability & efficiency and also to reduce pressure on layover space in Uxbridge town centre. I don't think the X222 would be a good idea, the A10 is a good enough express route linking Uxbridge, Stockley Park and Heathrow, and could become limited stop along the full route if needed. A better option might be to swap part of the 222 & U3 routeings towards Uxbridge, with the U3 linking Uxbridge/Heathrow but via Cowley Road and West Drayton. A direct link between Uxbridge and Heathrow Terminal 5 might also be very useful. The U1/U2/U7 changes make more sense, though I think the U7 should instead be extended from Hayes to Southall Station in place of the 427, plus with a frequency increase. The U1 could maybe convert to DD and merge with the U4 or U5, with the U2 change as planned? I wonder if the Harrow review might also go to consultation stage? I think the previous Harrow area consultation (which covered the H9/H10 terminus change to Northwick Park) had been mentioned as including a larger number of routes - perhaps the 258/395/H17 changes were originally due to be part of this? I don't agree with swapping the 222 and U3 - unless I'm mistaken, the U3 is designed to take people from the residential areas around West Drayton and beyond to Heathrow Central whereas the 222 provides more direct & long distance links to Uxbridge & Hounslow. Even the other U route changes make little sense especially if you look at it from a cost point of view which some like to obsess over - the U2 is more frequent than the U1 but a double decker conversion of both the U1 & U3 would deter any need to faff about with route changes and lets not forget, the U3 has been pretty much fully double decker for a while now. Same thing with the U7, instead of withdrawing, spend the money there on giving it a frequency increase and let it keep it's deckers and investigate the Southall extension you propose. Swapping the U3 & U5 to provide capacity when the former could do with a decker conversion - why not throw the money at the U7 and the pedestrian section in Uxbridge itself. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2021 11:21:39 GMT
Going to give my opinion on this:
Restructure A10:
Creates new links but would make bus route longer and potentially less reliable. Alternative Heathrow route (U3) is available from Brunel University and Hillingdon Hospital (which I will abbreviate to BU and HH), albeit a bit longer. The U5 provides a link between both locations and Stockley Park but is much longer. Also BU and HH are within walking distance of the A10, so I don't really see the need to restructure the A10. I would suggest providing a bus route that would follow the proposed A10 to Stockley Park and terminate there as this would provide a quicker route than the U5. Perhaps the U1 could be rerouted after HH since I don't see the point of it going beyond HH if another bus with a similar frequency covers the HH to West Drayton section. This would also create new links from Stockley Park north of Uxbridge.
X222:
If they were to swap east of Bath road, U3 would be way too long. 222 terminating at Heathrow Central means that there are 3 bus routes between Uxbridge and Heathrow Central. Instead, the U3 and 350 should swap routes south of West Drayton station, to provide a link between Uxbridge and Heathrow Terminal 5, whilst still keeping buses from Harmondsworth serving both Terminals. The problem with this is that the 350 would become circuitous and Hayes would lose a link to HT5. This could be solved by cutting 195 back to Uxbridge Road and rerouting it to Hayes Sainsbury's. A new route would be created from Charville Lane (numbered 495) to Heathrow Terminal 5 via current 195 to Hayes Asda. It would then go on Station Road, Shepiston Road (giving residents a bus for the first time), Holloway Lane then current 350 to Heathrow Terminal 5. The 495 would be SD and operate with the 350's current frequency.
Idea 2:
Extending the U1 to Hayes would be beneficial as it creates links between Hayes and Ruislip, and still retains links between Ruislip and BU and HH. However this would make the route less reliable since it is basically an extension of the U7. Therefore the route should be renumbered U7. Extending the U2 is good as it creates new links between Hillingdon and West Drayton, and keeps the same number of bus routes on Apple Tree Avenue. Also the U1 between HH and West Drayton isn't needed since the U3 is very similar to the U1 between Uxbridge and West Drayton and people travelling from Ickenham and Ruislip can change at Uxbridge for the much faster 222 for Yiewsley and West Drayton (and beyond).
Idea 3:
If this was to take place, I wouldn't go ahead with idea 1 (X222 to Heathrow Central) since there would be 2 routes on Cowley Road going to Heathrow Central.
Idea 4:
Agree
The problem is that there isn't enough space for buses to stand at Uxbridge station. Therefore I would recommend extending a bus from Uxbridge to Hillingdon station via the current U2. I think that the U4 is the best option considering the links it would create. This would take place alongside the U2 rerouting, and would maintain the link to Brunel University from Hillingdon station.
|
|
|
|
Post by M1199 on Jan 13, 2021 21:09:54 GMT
I don't think the X222 would be a good idea, the A10 is a good enough express route linking Uxbridge, Stockley Park and Heathrow, and could become limited stop along the full route if needed. A better option might be to swap part of the 222 & U3 routeings towards Uxbridge, with the U3 linking Uxbridge/Heathrow but via Cowley Road and West Drayton. A direct link between Uxbridge and Heathrow Terminal 5 might also be very useful. The U1/U2/U7 changes make more sense, though I think the U7 should instead be extended from Hayes to Southall Station in place of the 427, plus with a frequency increase. The U1 could maybe convert to DD and merge with the U4 or U5, with the U2 change as planned? I wonder if the Harrow review might also go to consultation stage? I think the previous Harrow area consultation (which covered the H9/H10 terminus change to Northwick Park) had been mentioned as including a larger number of routes - perhaps the 258/395/H17 changes were originally due to be part of this? I don't agree with swapping the 222 and U3 - unless I'm mistaken, the U3 is designed to take people from the residential areas around West Drayton and beyond to Heathrow Central whereas the 222 provides more direct & long distance links to Uxbridge & Hounslow. Even the other U route changes make little sense especially if you look at it from a cost point of view which some like to obsess over - the U2 is more frequent than the U1 but a double decker conversion of both the U1 & U3 would deter any need to faff about with route changes and lets not forget, the U3 has been pretty much fully double decker for a while now. Same thing with the U7, instead of withdrawing, spend the money there on giving it a frequency increase and let it keep it's deckers and investigate the Southall extension you propose. Swapping the U3 & U5 to provide capacity when the former could do with a decker conversion - why not throw the money at the U7 and the pedestrian section in Uxbridge itself. When The U Line network was created in 1989, it was the U3 that broke the most new ground, the majority of routes it serves never had a bus route before. Living down Appletree Avenue as a kid, used to get well excited when I used to see those litle MA's turning form Appletree into Violet Ave! It was only when the 223 was withdrawn in 1994 and it was extended from Wise Lane to Heathrow, (in my eyes) it went from a small time back street route to a mainstream route. It's not a route you'd catch from end to end (well I do when I go out for a bash!) but it is good at getting people from their homes to the Airport, to the Train station, the Hospital and to Uxbridge. With the only alteration to the U3 being the Heathrow extension in 1994, shows that it is a route that works well with what it does! An X222, I still just don't get it! Uxbridge to Heathrow is roughly 5 miles, any time savings would end up being mearly a few minutes if that! Traffic along the Cowley Road and through Yiewsley/West Drayton can be horrendous at times. The only way I could see it working would be to run it to Hounslow with a double run via Heathrow Central. The A10 in it's current form, would still be quicker. Wouldn't mind seeing a route from Uxbridge to T5, maybe extending the U1 to T5 via the 350 routing from West Drayton, with the 350 being rerouted from West Drayton to T5 via the 222 route to Bath Rd and then via the 423 route. As I mentioned in this thread earlier, I'd also merge the U7/9, that create some stand space at Uxbridge and I'd have to question Carousel! Is there really a need for 3 different routes between Uxbridge and High Wycombe!? Whenever I go through Uxbridge, I always see their vehicles littering the public highway! Like you, I just see little point in faffing about in changing things and wasting money in trying to achieve something that isn't really needed. If this so called consultation comes out, you know full well though the changes will go ahead! |
|
|
|
Post by CircleLineofLife on Jan 16, 2021 20:39:07 GMT
I think there should be an N114 that goes to uxbridge as it would be easier for the drivers as well as the residents as well.
U1/U3 merger with Heathrow T5 should be done imo, instead of the U1 going to Hayes or charville
U7 got DDs now so should venture into LB Ealing like southall, and cut 427 to ealing broadway, we dont need a thanos snap on that route.
Dont touch the 222 maybe if not extend the N114 extend the N222 to ruislip or harrow
I would like to see a route ultilise the unused part of eastcote road perpendicular, to bury street, but just throwing that out there.
The X140 should also be extended to edgware to match 140/340 corridor but that should be on the harrow bus study,
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2021 8:00:30 GMT
I think there should be an N114 that goes to uxbridge as it would be easier for the drivers as well as the residents as well. U1/U3 merger with Heathrow T5 should be done imo, instead of the U1 going to Hayes or charville U7 got DDs now so should venture into LB Ealing like southall, and cut 427 to ealing broadway, we dont need a thanos snap on that route. Dont touch the 222 maybe if not extend the N114 extend the N222 to ruislip or harrow I would like to see a route ultilise the unused part of eastcote road perpendicular, to bury street, but just throwing that out there. The X140 should also be extended to edgware to match 140/340 corridor but that should be on the harrow bus study, The U1 to Hayes should still go ahead IMO since it will provide new links between Charville and Ruislip/Ickenham. The reason for this is that I don't see the point of the U1 going between Hillingdon Hospital and West Drayton, as this area would be better served by the U2 as per bus study, to provide better links. The new U1 route should be renumbered U7 as it resembles the U7 more than the U1. As for your U1/U3 merger I disagree with it going to T5 (even though I proposed this on the other thread) since Harmondsworth would lose its Heathrow Central link. The A10 could instead be extended to Terminal 5 non stop. |
|
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...
