|
Post by vjaska on Sept 25, 2022 14:13:42 GMT
I think that the 306 should be extended to cover another bit of distance, in the first plcae why did TfL just make the 306 North Acton to Fulham Sands End that would have given customers between North Acton and Hammersmith a double decker because the 218 can always get very full. I’d imagine the whole point was to create two routes that could cope with the capacity the 266 had without overbussing the other parts of the 306. I presume the 218 was made a single decker route due to the West Acton section
|
|
|
Post by YX10FFN on Sept 25, 2022 16:03:46 GMT
I think that the 306 should be extended to cover another bit of distance, in the first plcae why did TfL just make the 306 North Acton to Fulham Sands End that would have given customers between North Acton and Hammersmith a double decker because the 218 can always get very full. I’d imagine the whole point was to create two routes that could cope with the capacity the 266 had without overbussing the other parts of the 306. I presume the 218 was made a single decker route due to the West Acton section A large proportion of that 266 capacity on the section to Hammersmith came from Acton town centre (and certainly now it does as the 266 dumps you off there), which means passengers squeeze onto a 218 (which was still cut by TFL in the end regardless) and the 306 picks up the local scraps on Askew Road whilst constantly regulating due to its overpadded timetable. What that section needs is one double deck route, not one single deck route and one double deck route which terminates in the middle of nowhere, being useless to passengers who want Acton and beyond. I've previously said I'm in favour of extending the 306 to Acton, returning the 440 to West Acton (reopening useful shopping and hospital links to Park Royal) and getting rid of the 218.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Sept 25, 2022 16:07:04 GMT
I think that the 306 should be extended to cover another bit of distance, in the first plcae why did TfL just make the 306 North Acton to Fulham Sands End that would have given customers between North Acton and Hammersmith a double decker because the 218 can always get very full. I’d imagine the whole point was to create two routes that could cope with the capacity the 266 had without overbussing the other parts of the 306. I presume the 218 was made a single decker route due to the West Acton section Could the 306 not cope alone on that section at its current frequency, if extended further to either Acton High Street or North Acton? As many have suggested, the 440 could easily revert back to serving West Acton. The main reason really from removing the 440 here was to serve Acton Main Line, however the 440 could just have a short double run to serve the station (using the mini roundabout immediately to the south of the station), then go via West Acton to get to Acton High Street. Separately, I also think the West Acton area could benefit from a direct bus link to Ealing Broadway. Could an E10 extension work, maybe continuing to Willesden Junction or Old Oak Common? Ideally this could go via Madeley Road and North Ealing Station (with a bus gate installed on Queens Drive), and serve the loop around the playing fields - with the 218 or 440 then going direct along the full length of Noel Road.
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Sept 25, 2022 17:30:55 GMT
I’d imagine the whole point was to create two routes that could cope with the capacity the 266 had without overbussing the other parts of the 306. I presume the 218 was made a single decker route due to the West Acton section A large proportion of that 266 capacity on the section to Hammersmith came from Acton town centre (and certainly now it does as the 266 dumps you off there), which means passengers squeeze onto a 218 (which was still cut by TFL in the end regardless) and the 306 picks up the local scraps on Askew Road whilst constantly regulating due to its overpadded timetable. What that section needs is one double deck route, not one single deck route and one double deck route which terminates in the middle of nowhere, being useless to passengers who want Acton and beyond. I've previously said I'm in favour of extending the 306 to Acton, returning the 440 to West Acton (reopening useful shopping and hospital links to Park Royal) and getting rid of the 218. The issue with the 218 is there's a total mismatch in demand when you compare the North Acton-Acton section and the Acton-Hammersmith section. A 5pbh single decker route is fine for Twyford Avenue and Noel Road but totally inadequate as the only Hammersmith-Acton route. The 218 can get absolutely swamped on King Street if it comes first. If the 306 was running into the heart of Acton at 8bph that would probably be enough. Some of the 440 changes have been quite successful, the Wembley link is well used and Horn Lane works better with two bus routes but I do agree the West Acton-Park Royal link needs to be restored. In Chiswick the 440 changes have been a total failure and I've previously suggested diverting the 110 via Wellesley Road and extending the 440 to Brentford County Court instead as the current arrangement isn't working.
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Sept 25, 2022 17:40:56 GMT
I wish that TfL would direct money to improving the routes, creating links, maintaining links, maintaining frequencies and increasing the frequencies for the routes that are not in Central London. I wish that focus on improving the routes that are not in Central London and focus on areas like North West, West London and etc.
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Sept 25, 2022 17:47:49 GMT
A large proportion of that 266 capacity on the section to Hammersmith came from Acton town centre (and certainly now it does as the 266 dumps you off there), which means passengers squeeze onto a 218 (which was still cut by TFL in the end regardless) and the 306 picks up the local scraps on Askew Road whilst constantly regulating due to its overpadded timetable. What that section needs is one double deck route, not one single deck route and one double deck route which terminates in the middle of nowhere, being useless to passengers who want Acton and beyond. I've previously said I'm in favour of extending the 306 to Acton, returning the 440 to West Acton (reopening useful shopping and hospital links to Park Royal) and getting rid of the 218. The issue with the 218 is there's a total mismatch in demand when you compare the North Acton-Acton section and the Acton-Hammersmith section. A 5pbh single decker route is fine for Twyford Avenue and Noel Road but totally inadequate as the only Hammersmith-Acton route. The 218 can get absolutely swamped on King Street if it comes first. If the 306 was running into the heart of Acton at 8bph that would probably be enough. Some of the 440 changes have been quite successful, the Wembley link is well used and Horn Lane works better with two bus routes but I do agree the West Acton-Park Royal link needs to be restored. In Chiswick the 440 changes have been a total failure and I've previously suggested diverting the 110 via Wellesley Road and extending the 440 to Brentford County Court instead as the current arrangement isn't working. Having a single decker route like the 218 wasn’t a smart idea before the 218 was created I’ve seen the 266 rammed with people between Hammersmith and Acton high Street so I don’t what made TfL in there right mind would think that a single decker route like the 218 would be ideal to replace the 266. Yeah you have the 306 but the 306 doesn’t even go to Acton High Street or stop at the same place at Hammersmith Bus Station. Why couldn’t TfL have left the 440 alone and had just the 306 between Sands End and North Acton via its current route to Acton Vale, 207 to Acton and 266 to North Acton.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Sept 25, 2022 19:52:48 GMT
I’d imagine the whole point was to create two routes that could cope with the capacity the 266 had without overbussing the other parts of the 306. I presume the 218 was made a single decker route due to the West Acton section A large proportion of that 266 capacity on the section to Hammersmith came from Acton town centre (and certainly now it does as the 266 dumps you off there), which means passengers squeeze onto a 218 (which was still cut by TFL in the end regardless) and the 306 picks up the local scraps on Askew Road whilst constantly regulating due to its overpadded timetable. What that section needs is one double deck route, not one single deck route and one double deck route which terminates in the middle of nowhere, being useless to passengers who want Acton and beyond. I've previously said I'm in favour of extending the 306 to Acton, returning the 440 to West Acton (reopening useful shopping and hospital links to Park Royal) and getting rid of the 218. I think you & ADH45258 are confusing what I said in my post with an opinion on the changes they made. My reply was merely an attempt at what TfL’s thinking might of been in response to the OP’s question of what was TfL thinking. My opinion is completely different and only agrees with TfL on sadly cutting the 266 back
|
|
|
Post by YX10FFN on Sept 25, 2022 20:24:51 GMT
A large proportion of that 266 capacity on the section to Hammersmith came from Acton town centre (and certainly now it does as the 266 dumps you off there), which means passengers squeeze onto a 218 (which was still cut by TFL in the end regardless) and the 306 picks up the local scraps on Askew Road whilst constantly regulating due to its overpadded timetable. What that section needs is one double deck route, not one single deck route and one double deck route which terminates in the middle of nowhere, being useless to passengers who want Acton and beyond. I've previously said I'm in favour of extending the 306 to Acton, returning the 440 to West Acton (reopening useful shopping and hospital links to Park Royal) and getting rid of the 218. I think you & ADH45258 are confusing what I said in my post with an opinion on the changes they made. My reply was merely an attempt at what TfL’s thinking might of been in response to the OP’s question of what was TfL thinking. My opinion is completely different and only agrees with TfL on sadly cutting the 266 back Wasn't directly aimed at you- just stating my opinion on that logic from TFL and why I don't believe it works at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Sept 25, 2022 21:16:41 GMT
I think you & ADH45258 are confusing what I said in my post with an opinion on the changes they made. My reply was merely an attempt at what TfL’s thinking might of been in response to the OP’s question of what was TfL thinking. My opinion is completely different and only agrees with TfL on sadly cutting the 266 back Wasn't directly aimed at you- just stating my opinion on that logic from TFL and why I don't believe it works at the moment. No problem - with the way this place is currently, I feel I have to clarify certain things because some like jumping to conclusions. My opinion on the changes doesn’t matter that match unlike your own given your proximity to the affected areas 😉
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Oct 4, 2022 20:11:28 GMT
I’d imagine the whole point was to create two routes that could cope with the capacity the 266 had without overbussing the other parts of the 306. I presume the 218 was made a single decker route due to the West Acton section A large proportion of that 266 capacity on the section to Hammersmith came from Acton town centre (and certainly now it does as the 266 dumps you off there), which means passengers squeeze onto a 218 (which was still cut by TFL in the end regardless) and the 306 picks up the local scraps on Askew Road whilst constantly regulating due to its overpadded timetable. What that section needs is one double deck route, not one single deck route and one double deck route which terminates in the middle of nowhere, being useless to passengers who want Acton and beyond. I've previously said I'm in favour of extending the 306 to Acton, returning the 440 to West Acton (reopening useful shopping and hospital links to Park Royal) and getting rid of the 218. You are totally right but that would require TfL to admit they were wrong!
|
|
|
Post by transportizm on Oct 4, 2022 20:29:57 GMT
I am thinking that the West and South London Bus Changes might change because the 74 was a very highly used bus route I think it was in the top 30.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Oct 4, 2022 20:41:07 GMT
I am thinking that the West and South London Bus Changes might change because the 74 was a very highly used bus route I think it was in the top 30. I doubt its top 30 as it had more or less exactly 3m passengers. The 430 had 2.7m passengers so it still think the combined figure would be enough to justify the 4-5 minuite freq on the overlap. In contrast the 93 had 6m passengers.
|
|
|
Post by abellion on Oct 5, 2022 5:28:27 GMT
I am thinking that the West and South London Bus Changes might change because the 74 was a very highly used bus route I think it was in the top 30. In terms of Putney the 93 and 220 were far busier compared to the 14/22/74/414/430 and they are largely unique with their links. I think cutting the 74 away from Baker Street is stupid but on a whole the Putney-Central corridor had a reduction coming eventually.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Oct 5, 2022 7:57:56 GMT
I am thinking that the West and South London Bus Changes might change because the 74 was a very highly used bus route I think it was in the top 30. In terms of Putney the 93 and 220 were far busier compared to the 14/22/74/414/430 and they are largely unique with their links. I think cutting the 74 away from Baker Street is stupid but on a whole the Putney-Central corridor had a reduction coming eventually. I personally would have merged a Roehampton to Marble Arch route with possibly the 414 Putney Heath to Baker Street or just to Marble Arch aswell. However the 19 then came into play to replace the 14 which would have still left 3 routes from S Kensington to Hyde Park which I'm sure was felt was excessive. However if the 19 dosent divert then it can't replace the 49 which in turn can't extended to East Acton to replace the 72. Unfortunately 1 change can affect many others and you kind of have to have all or nothing of the changes it seems.
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Oct 5, 2022 10:03:57 GMT
In terms of Putney the 93 and 220 were far busier compared to the 14/22/74/414/430 and they are largely unique with their links. I think cutting the 74 away from Baker Street is stupid but on a whole the Putney-Central corridor had a reduction coming eventually. I personally would have merged a Roehampton to Marble Arch route with possibly the 414 Putney Heath to Baker Street or just to Marble Arch aswell. However the 19 then came into play to replace the 14 which would have still left 3 routes from S Kensington to Hyde Park which I'm sure was felt was excessive. However if the 19 dosent divert then it can't replace the 49 which in turn can't extended to East Acton to replace the 72. Unfortunately 1 change can affect many others and you kind of have to have all or nothing of the changes it seems. I think the splitting of the 49 is unnecessary, results in a loss of north-south and cross river links and creates a lot of unnecessary knock on changes. Keeping it as it is would make the other changes far simpler to plan. I don’t think the 49, 283 and enhanced 272 are all required between East Acton and Wood Lane/Shepherds Bush. Maybe keep the 72 at a reduced frequency.
|
|