|
Post by riverside on Nov 10, 2015 12:25:35 GMT
Like Danorak I am very surprised by the proposal to route the proposed extended double decked E8 via Amhurst Gardens. It is a very ordinary residential road. Maybe TfL think that because it is a relatively small road the residents will not have the numerical muscle to get up a head of steam to protest against the proposals. There does not seem to be too much benefit for the residents either as they have not far to walk to London Road to get a bus to Hounslow. They will gain a new link to Ealing but this will probably not be enough to recompense for the perceived inconvenience of extra buses along their road. Usually when these proposals come up I do not have great sympathy with the objectors but this might be a time when their concerns need to be listened to very carefully. It will be interesting to see how this pans out.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 10, 2015 13:18:07 GMT
Like Danorak I am very surprised by the proposal to route the proposed extended double decked E8 via Amhurst Gardens. It is a very ordinary residential road. Maybe TfL think that because it is a relatively small road the residents will not have the numerical muscle to get up a head of steam to protest against the proposals. There does not seem to be too much benefit for the residents either as they have not far to walk to London Road to get a bus to Hounslow. They will gain a new link to Ealing but this will probably not be enough to recompense for the perceived inconvenience of extra buses along their road. Usually when these proposals come up I do not have great sympathy with the objectors but this might be a time when their concerns need to be listened to very carefully. It will be interesting to see how this pans out. I think what TfL are doing is picking the nearest available road suitable for buses that also allows the E8 to serve the hospital all at the same time. As an outsider, I personally don't see the issue for Amhurst Gardens - they get a more frequent and direct service to Hounslow, a new link beyond Brentford and their link to the local hospital is preserved. Lots of other areas would give their right arm & leg for that.
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Nov 10, 2015 13:32:45 GMT
Like Danorak I am very surprised by the proposal to route the proposed extended double decked E8 via Amhurst Gardens. It is a very ordinary residential road. Maybe TfL think that because it is a relatively small road the residents will not have the numerical muscle to get up a head of steam to protest against the proposals. There does not seem to be too much benefit for the residents either as they have not far to walk to London Road to get a bus to Hounslow. They will gain a new link to Ealing but this will probably not be enough to recompense for the perceived inconvenience of extra buses along their road. Usually when these proposals come up I do not have great sympathy with the objectors but this might be a time when their concerns need to be listened to very carefully. It will be interesting to see how this pans out. I think what TfL are doing is picking the nearest available road suitable for buses that also allows the E8 to serve the hospital all at the same time. As an outsider, I personally don't see the issue for Amhurst Gardens - they get a more frequent and direct service to Hounslow, a new link beyond Brentford and their link to the local hospital is preserved. Lots of other areas would give their right arm & leg for that. Who knows, Amhurst Gardens residents may strew the road with petals to welcome the arrival of the E8. Like riverside, I've not got a lot of time for bus NIMBYs, but here TfL seems to be using a residential road as a rat-run to get to the hospital. That may well make operational sense, but cutting down three fully grown trees, going from single to double deckers, and from 6 bus movements per hour to 15 is the sort of thing that would have them lying down in the road in some places. Mind you, apparently the trees that are being felled have a self-defence mechanism against pruning - they sprout spikes!
|
|
|
Post by riverside on Nov 10, 2015 14:00:37 GMT
Like Danorak I am very surprised by the proposal to route the proposed extended double decked E8 via Amhurst Gardens. It is a very ordinary residential road. Maybe TfL think that because it is a relatively small road the residents will not have the numerical muscle to get up a head of steam to protest against the proposals. There does not seem to be too much benefit for the residents either as they have not far to walk to London Road to get a bus to Hounslow. They will gain a new link to Ealing but this will probably not be enough to recompense for the perceived inconvenience of extra buses along their road. Usually when these proposals come up I do not have great sympathy with the objectors but this might be a time when their concerns need to be listened to very carefully. It will be interesting to see how this pans out. I think what TfL are doing is picking the nearest available road suitable for buses that also allows the E8 to serve the hospital all at the same time. As an outsider, I personally don't see the issue for Amhurst Gardens - they get a more frequent and direct service to Hounslow, a new link beyond Brentford and their link to the local hospital is preserved. Lots of other areas would give their right arm & leg for that. I understand what you are saying and the thinking behind TfL's plans but I really do question the suitability of Amhurst Gardens for such a route. I think TfL are putting forward a proposal that is for their convenience. If Amhurst Gardens is considered so suitable for a fairly intensive double deck service then the same logic could be used to solve another capacity problem in the local area. The H37 would benefit from being double deck. The problem is the railway bridge at the northern end of St. John's Road. This could easily be avoided by diverting the H37 by the old 37 route that was used for decades ( I can certainly remember RMLs negotiating it) via Loring Road and Linkfield Road to access London Road. It would instantly solve capacity problems and would use roads that saw bus use for decades. Having said that given the nature of the roads I could quite understand the residents would not be too happy about the H37 using this route. I understand that it is not easy to serve West Middlesex Hospital on a route between Ealing and Hounslow but it looks to me that the residents of Amhurst Gardens will end up having to pay the price of the wider public having better connections. I suppose that's life but I cannot help having some sympathy for their predicament.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Nov 10, 2015 14:20:08 GMT
I think what TfL are doing is picking the nearest available road suitable for buses that also allows the E8 to serve the hospital all at the same time. As an outsider, I personally don't see the issue for Amhurst Gardens - they get a more frequent and direct service to Hounslow, a new link beyond Brentford and their link to the local hospital is preserved. Lots of other areas would give their right arm & leg for that. I understand what you are saying and the thinking behind TfL's plans but I really do question the suitability of Amhurst Gardens for such a route. I think TfL are putting forward a proposal that is for their convenience. If Amhurst Gardens is considered so suitable for a fairly intensive double deck service then the same logic could be used to solve another capacity problem in the local area. The H37 would benefit from being double deck. The problem is the railway bridge at the northern end of St. John's Road. This could easily be avoided by diverting the H37 by the old 37 route that was used for decades ( I can certainly remember RMLs negotiating it) via Loring Road and Linkfield Road to access London Road. It would instantly solve capacity problems and would use roads that saw bus use for decades. Having said that given the nature of the roads I could quite understand the residents would not be too happy about the H37 using this route. I understand that it is not easy to serve West Middlesex Hospital on a route between Ealing and Hounslow but it looks to me that the residents of Amhurst Gardens will end up having to pay the price of the wider public having better connections. I suppose that's life but I cannot help having some sympathy for their predicament. Wasn't the route around the St Johns Road low bridge deemed unsuitable for buses? I can remember it being quite tight when the 37's used it.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 10, 2015 14:50:50 GMT
I understand what you are saying and the thinking behind TfL's plans but I really do question the suitability of Amhurst Gardens for such a route. I think TfL are putting forward a proposal that is for their convenience. If Amhurst Gardens is considered so suitable for a fairly intensive double deck service then the same logic could be used to solve another capacity problem in the local area. The H37 would benefit from being double deck. The problem is the railway bridge at the northern end of St. John's Road. This could easily be avoided by diverting the H37 by the old 37 route that was used for decades ( I can certainly remember RMLs negotiating it) via Loring Road and Linkfield Road to access London Road. It would instantly solve capacity problems and would use roads that saw bus use for decades. Having said that given the nature of the roads I could quite understand the residents would not be too happy about the H37 using this route. I understand that it is not easy to serve West Middlesex Hospital on a route between Ealing and Hounslow but it looks to me that the residents of Amhurst Gardens will end up having to pay the price of the wider public having better connections. I suppose that's life but I cannot help having some sympathy for their predicament. Wasn't the route around the St Johns Road low bridge deemed unsuitable for buses? I can remember it being quite tight when the 37's used it. Yeah, apparently it was down to parked cars. However, in an age where car usage needs to be discouraged (to a certain point), parking restrictions should be looked at to allow the H37 to gain deckers.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 10, 2015 15:00:28 GMT
I think what TfL are doing is picking the nearest available road suitable for buses that also allows the E8 to serve the hospital all at the same time. As an outsider, I personally don't see the issue for Amhurst Gardens - they get a more frequent and direct service to Hounslow, a new link beyond Brentford and their link to the local hospital is preserved. Lots of other areas would give their right arm & leg for that. I understand what you are saying and the thinking behind TfL's plans but I really do question the suitability of Amhurst Gardens for such a route. I think TfL are putting forward a proposal that is for their convenience. If Amhurst Gardens is considered so suitable for a fairly intensive double deck service then the same logic could be used to solve another capacity problem in the local area. The H37 would benefit from being double deck. The problem is the railway bridge at the northern end of St. John's Road. This could easily be avoided by diverting the H37 by the old 37 route that was used for decades ( I can certainly remember RMLs negotiating it) via Loring Road and Linkfield Road to access London Road. It would instantly solve capacity problems and would use roads that saw bus use for decades. Having said that given the nature of the roads I could quite understand the residents would not be too happy about the H37 using this route. I understand that it is not easy to serve West Middlesex Hospital on a route between Ealing and Hounslow but it looks to me that the residents of Amhurst Gardens will end up having to pay the price of the wider public having better connections. I suppose that's life but I cannot help having some sympathy for their predicament. Fair points you make. The low bridge on St. John's Road doesn't help the situation as the E8 could of been re-routed along there. However, I've a similar road to Amhurst Gardens right next to my house and I'd happily support a bus route along there of any frequency providing it meets demand - I suspect it depends on what borough you live in.
|
|
|
Post by outwest on Nov 10, 2015 15:23:25 GMT
Shame they can't lower the road under the bridge on St John's Road.
|
|
|
Post by Unorm on Nov 10, 2015 16:03:07 GMT
Looks like the Tesco to Tesco route [H28] would become a Tesco to County Court if it goes ahead, but at least serves the [Osterley] Tesco termini
|
|
|
Post by Jack on Nov 10, 2015 16:06:34 GMT
The E8 has to go down Amhurst Gardens to avoid St Johns Road railway bridge which is the whole reason why the 117/H37 cannon have double deckers.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 10, 2015 16:15:33 GMT
Looks like the Tesco to Tesco route [H28] would become a Tesco to County Court if it goes ahead, but at least serves the [Osterley] Tesco termini That way, if you shoplift at Tesco, you can have a nice trip to court lol.
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Nov 10, 2015 19:45:55 GMT
The E8 extension looks like a good link. The 110 proposal is hardly much change still goes around in a C Shape, but just extended from Twickenham to WMH and at the other end returns to it's old destination of Hounslow Bus Station.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2015 0:40:23 GMT
I don't think this is a well thought out plan. Personally , I'd have extended the 195 to West Middx Hospital and let the E8 run direct via London Road to Hounslow.
|
|
|
Post by iranair747 on Nov 11, 2015 0:44:31 GMT
I don't think this is a well thought out plan. Personally , I'd have extended the 195 to West Middx Hospital and let the E8 run direct via London Road to Hounslow. If you read the consultation documents it clearly says why this isn't to be:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2015 0:46:52 GMT
I don't think this is a well thought out plan. Personally , I'd have extended the 195 to West Middx Hospital and let the E8 run direct via London Road to Hounslow. If you read the consultation documents it clearly says why this isn't to be: London Road does not have a low bridge mate, you're thinking of St Johns Road.
|
|