|
Post by snoggle on Mar 18, 2016 17:03:33 GMT
As usual, the nonsense brigade are out with all sorts of reasons to scupper re-routings. Hopefully, the E8 & H28 are sorted out along the routings proposed. Well we disagree then. I think the H28 rerouting proposal is a disaster and wrecks valued links. People in Hounslow itself are clearly not happy with the loss of the 110 alongside the 117 to the Hospital. Finally sending the E8 down a residential road in order to serve the hospital was never going to be popular. Given the E8 is being rerouted to Hounslow via the main road I think we can see what's going to happen there. Oddly the suggested idea of extending the E2, rather than the E8, has been seemingly rejected / not seriously considered. Given the service levels are pretty much equivalent you have to wonder why it was rejected given the obvious upside of creating more links to the hospital from a wider part of Ealing. I appreciate there may be scheduling issues with extending what is a long route already but that's not insurmountable.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2016 17:27:19 GMT
Interesting. I don't understand at all the 110 "extension" to the hospital but from the other end of the route, it serves no purpose, other than marginally quicker journey times to the hospital for residents along Stanies Road.
One alternative could be, to split the H28 creating a second route, so Syon Lane Tescos via whatever route variation to Hounslow then Hanworth Road, via 110 to Powder Mill Lane, ahead into Whitton High Street and terminate at Whitton Dene. No point sending the H28 to Brentford. There's nothing there really, just a Morrisons.
Second half would be Bulls Bridge to Isleworth Fire Station, or West Middx Hospital !
|
|
|
Post by paulo on Mar 18, 2016 18:56:07 GMT
As usual, the nonsense brigade are out with all sorts of reasons to scupper re-routings. Hopefully, the E8 & H28 are sorted out along the routings proposed. Not sure what the 110 change achieves. It's revised to run from Twickenham to west mid hospital over the 267 route which is fairly high frequency anyway. If increasing the patronage on the 110 is the idea, then Why not let it follow the river road from Twickenham high street to Kingston and therefore enable a more direct route than the 281. All seems a bit pointless to me.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Mar 18, 2016 23:22:21 GMT
As usual, the nonsense brigade are out with all sorts of reasons to scupper re-routings. Hopefully, the E8 & H28 are sorted out along the routings proposed. Not sure what the 110 change achieves. It's revised to run from Twickenham to west mid hospital over the 267 route which is fairly high frequency anyway. If increasing the patronage on the 110 is the idea, then Why not let it follow the river road from Twickenham high street to Kingston and therefore enable a more direct route than the 281. All seems a bit pointless to me. Doesn't it provide a much quicker link from the Sixth Cross Road area to the hospital which, if I'm correct, isn't currently served by buses that don't go via Hounslow? The E8 covers the other end of the current 110 but as ever, some people will be inconvenienced by the changes like those just outside Hounslow who will need to change buses at Hounslow itself.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Mar 18, 2016 23:28:00 GMT
As usual, the nonsense brigade are out with all sorts of reasons to scupper re-routings. Hopefully, the E8 & H28 are sorted out along the routings proposed. Well we disagree then. I think the H28 rerouting proposal is a disaster and wrecks valued links. People in Hounslow itself are clearly not happy with the loss of the 110 alongside the 117 to the Hospital. Finally sending the E8 down a residential road in order to serve the hospital was never going to be popular. Given the E8 is being rerouted to Hounslow via the main road I think we can see what's going to happen there. Oddly the suggested idea of extending the E2, rather than the E8, has been seemingly rejected / not seriously considered. Given the service levels are pretty much equivalent you have to wonder why it was rejected given the obvious upside of creating more links to the hospital from a wider part of Ealing. I appreciate there may be scheduling issues with extending what is a long route already but that's not insurmountable. Fair enough regarding H28 but I still think in regards to the E8, locals have overreacted. Amhurst Gardens is capable of using deckers and this is reflected by TfL's route test using a 10.7m double decker bus (unlikely that the E8's eventual deckers will even be that long). I understand the issue about trees and that emergency service vehicles use the road to reach the hospital but even then, a bus service could quite easily operate without issues. The E8 was probably chosen over the E2 due to it not serving Greenford Broadway which can quite easily screw any route over.
|
|
|
Post by Hassaan on Mar 19, 2016 22:28:03 GMT
Looks like common sense prevailed for the E8 and H28. In what way is it sensible to divert a route (H28) away from a heavily populated area and leave them with a 10 minute walk to the nearest bus stop, when the proposed route is currently no more than a 5 minute walk to the nearest bus stop. And what is the point of sending a new major trunk route (E8) on a detour via Twickenham Road, getting it stuck in traffic tailing back from Isleworth War Memorial and then taking it down a side road which may not be easiest to turn into or out of during busy times. There are better routes to send to West Middlesex Hospital, like the 195 or E2, as they give direct access to many more people, especially those affected by the reduction in facilities at Ealing Hospital. My favourite gem from the consultation is on page 51: Looks like they were too slow and ran out of time
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Mar 20, 2016 1:51:41 GMT
Looks like common sense prevailed for the E8 and H28. In what way is it sensible to divert a route (H28) away from a heavily populated area and leave them with a 10 minute walk to the nearest bus stop, when the proposed route is currently no more than a 5 minute walk to the nearest bus stop. And what is the point of sending a new major trunk route (E8) on a detour via Twickenham Road, getting it stuck in traffic tailing back from Isleworth War Memorial and then taking it down a side road which may not be easiest to turn into or out of during busy times. There are better routes to send to West Middlesex Hospital, like the 195 or E2, as they give direct access to many more people, especially those affected by the reduction in facilities at Ealing Hospital. My favourite gem from the consultation is on page 51: Looks like they were too slow and ran out of time Or, more likely, they want to take the "lie of the land" and ensure they don't upset the locals and can also "kick" TfL in the most effective way to get the "right" answer that gives them least political grief locally. Cynical moi?
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Mar 20, 2016 13:24:23 GMT
Looks like common sense prevailed for the E8 and H28. In what way is it sensible to divert a route (H28) away from a heavily populated area and leave them with a 10 minute walk to the nearest bus stop, when the proposed route is currently no more than a 5 minute walk to the nearest bus stop. And what is the point of sending a new major trunk route (E8) on a detour via Twickenham Road, getting it stuck in traffic tailing back from Isleworth War Memorial and then taking it down a side road which may not be easiest to turn into or out of during busy times. There are better routes to send to West Middlesex Hospital, like the 195 or E2, as they give direct access to many more people, especially those affected by the reduction in facilities at Ealing Hospital. My favourite gem from the consultation is on page 51: Looks like they were too slow and ran out of time I still think the E8 is the best route for the job - granted, the E2 serves more people but it's got Greenford Broadway to contend with which is a nightmare at the best of times whereas the E8 doesn't. Even with the traffic near the hospital, I don't see it being too much of an issue (would of more of an issue for the 195 or E2). They could of done a double run via Amhurst Road to the hospital as an alternative but the residents would of probably come out with pitchforks Like I said before - I'm not local, just offering my own view.
|
|
|
Post by outwest on Mar 26, 2016 9:00:17 GMT
May it have been better to extend the 235 to Ealing Broadway helping the 65, rather than the E8 to Hounslow, and not changing the H28 ?
|
|
|
Post by riverside on Mar 28, 2016 11:18:15 GMT
The general reaction of passengers/residents is not surprising. Let's take them one at a time.
481: 99% in favour of doubling service to every thirty minutes and introduction of Sunday service. As this is not a new service(so residents are used to buses), the change will still see only 4 buses an hour pass along any given stretch of road plus the buses are relatively small single deckers, this proposal was never likely to generate any serious opposition. It is a welcome strengthening of services in this part of SW London.
E8: The extension to Hounslow(thus providing a long overdue link with Ealing) was bound to be welcomed and it is good to see that this is being pursued. The proposed diversion via Amhurst Gardens to serve West Middlesex Hospital was always going to meet with controversy. When this consultation first appeared I expressed my concerns about routing the E8 via such a narrow residential road. This is not a case of nimbyism. Unlike some of the residents of the Peabody Estate near Tulse Hill who recently thwarted the plan to extend the 315, these residents already have the H28 passing their front doors, a route that because of its size and frequency is more suited to negotiate the road conditions of Amhurst Gardens. I hope that the E8 becomes established on London Road and sticks to the direct route.
It is interesting to see how TfL will champion an argument/point of view in one consultation whilst taking the complete opposite point of view in another. In the proposal advanced for the E8, TfL tried to do two things at once ie provide new links to both Hounslow and the West Middlesex Hospital. Passengers wishing to travel to Hounslow (the majority) would be subject to a diversion to the hospital thus lengthening their journey times. The other people paying the cost would be the residents of Amhurst Gardens who would now have a high frequency double deck service traversing their road. In this case TfL decided that the through passengers would have to be inconvenienced. Now contrast that to a scheme just a few years ago, slightly to the east where TfL took exactly the OPPOSITE view.
For decades and decades the former 91 and its successor the H91 always diverted off Chiswick High Road, between Turnham Green and Gunnersbury Roundabout to serve the Wellesley Road area of Gunnersbury. In a package of changes for the area it was decided that the H91 should run direct via Chiswick High Road. I think Section 106 money was being provided to increase the frequency and make the route more attractive to workers on the 'Golden Mile'(no not Blackpool, but part of the Great West Road apparently). The replacement service proposed by TfL was an extension of the 440 from Turnham Green to Chiswick(Power Road). The residents of Wellesley Road stated that the 440 would not take them to where they wanted to go and instead asked TfL to divert the 391 to serve this area. Such a diversion of the 391 would be similar to diverting the E8 via West Middlesex Hospital. In this case, however, TfL stated that diverting the 391 would result in an unacceptable lengthening of journey time for through passengers and so to this day Wellesley Road is served by the 440, which carries tiny numbers of passengers on this section.
If the diversion of the 391 was unacceptable, then by the same reckoning the diversion of the E8 should also be deemed unacceptable. TfL should now forget about ever running the E8 via West Middlesex Hospital. Instead they should listen to the clear message of the people they consulted that an extension of the E2 would be of far more benefit. Such an extension would give a greater number of people access to the hospital, while also meaning that Amhurst Gardens would not have to have a high frequency double deck service. There could be problems about stand space at the hospital but if the West Middlesex is serious about working to improve accessibility to the services they provide then it is up to them to work with TfL to come up with a solution.
H28: Again, it is not surprising that this proposal has met opposition. I can appreciate what TfL is trying to achieve here. The route of the H28 on a map looks like the readings you might find on a cardiograph machine. It is far from an ideal route and I appreciate that some untangling is desirable. However, it was TfL who designed the route. It was designed to provide a multiplicity of needs in a local area, so as to provide numerous short journeys in the most cost efficient way. It was not designed for long through journeys. I don't know the answer to this problem. Maybe the H28 is the Maria of the TfL network and needs the help of singing nuns! There is benefit in the diversion/extension to Brentford but that seems to come at an excessive price in the complete withdrawal of a bus service from Wood Lane.
110: The proposal for the 110 to approach the West Middlesex from the other direction has merit, but as it has already been said on here before it seems pointless to merely duplicate the 267. I think it was Snoggle who proposed that this extension would be of more benefit if it was diverted via part of the St. Margaret's Road area. I would agree with that and feel that the 110 would have more utility if such a route were to be adopted.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Mar 28, 2016 13:37:06 GMT
The general reaction of passengers/residents is not surprising. Let's take them one at a time. 481: 99% in favour of doubling service to every thirty minutes and introduction of Sunday service. As this is not a new service(so residents are used to buses), the change will still see only 4 buses an hour pass along any given stretch of road plus the buses are relatively small single deckers, this proposal was never likely to generate any serious opposition. It is a welcome strengthening of services in this part of SW London. E8: The extension to Hounslow(thus providing a long overdue link with Ealing) was bound to be welcomed and it is good to see that this is being pursued. The proposed diversion via Amhurst Gardens to serve West Middlesex Hospital was always going to meet with controversy. When this consultation first appeared I expressed my concerns about routing the E8 via such a narrow residential road. This is not a case of nimbyism. Unlike some of the residents of the Peabody Estate near Tulse Hill who recently thwarted the plan to extend the 315, these residents already have the H28 passing their front doors, a route that because of its size and frequency is more suited to negotiate the road conditions of Amhurst Gardens. I hope that the E8 becomes established on London Road and sticks to the direct route. It is interesting to see how TfL will champion an argument/point of view in one consultation whilst taking the complete opposite point of view in another. In the proposal advanced for the E8, TfL tried to do two things at once ie provide new links to both Hounslow and the West Middlesex Hospital. Passengers wishing to travel to Hounslow (the majority) would be subject to a diversion to the hospital thus lengthening their journey times. The other people paying the cost would be the residents of Amhurst Gardens who would now have a high frequency double deck service traversing their road. In this case TfL decided that the through passengers would have to be inconvenienced. Now contrast that to a scheme just a few years ago, slightly to the east where TfL took exactly the OPPOSITE view. For decades and decades the former 91 and its successor the H91 always diverted off Chiswick High Road, between Turnham Green and Gunnersbury Roundabout to serve the Wellesley Road area of Gunnersbury. In a package of changes for the area it was decided that the H91 should run direct via Chiswick High Road. I think Section 106 money was being provided to increase the frequency and make the route more attractive to workers on the 'Golden Mile'(no not Blackpool, but part of the Great West Road apparently). The replacement service proposed by TfL was an extension of the 440 from Turnham Green to Chiswick(Power Road). The residents of Wellesley Road stated that the 440 would not take them to where they wanted to go and instead asked TfL to divert the 391 to serve this area. Such a diversion of the 391 would be similar to diverting the E8 via West Middlesex Hospital. In this case, however, TfL stated that diverting the 391 would result in an unacceptable lengthening of journey time for through passengers and so to this day Wellesley Road is served by the 440, which carries tiny numbers of passengers on this section. If the diversion of the 391 was unacceptable, then by the same reckoning the diversion of the E8 should also be deemed unacceptable. TfL should now forget about ever running the E8 via West Middlesex Hospital. Instead they should listen to the clear message of the people they consulted that an extension of the E2 would be of far more benefit. Such an extension would give a greater number of people access to the hospital, while also meaning that Amhurst Gardens would not have to have a high frequency double deck service. There could be problems about stand space at the hospital but if the West Middlesex is serious about working to improve accessibility to the services they provide then it is up to them to work with TfL to come up with a solution. H28: Again, it is not surprising that this proposal has met opposition. I can appreciate what TfL is trying to achieve here. The route of the H28 on a map looks like the readings you might find on a cardiograph machine. It is far from an ideal route and I appreciate that some untangling is desirable. However, it was TfL who designed the route. It was designed to provide a multiplicity of needs in a local area, so as to provide numerous short journeys in the most cost efficient way. It was not designed for long through journeys. I don't know the answer to this problem. Maybe the H28 is the Maria of the TfL network and needs the help of singing nuns! There is benefit in the diversion/extension to Brentford but that seems to come at an excessive price in the complete withdrawal of a bus service from Wood Lane. 110: The proposal for the 110 to approach the West Middlesex from the other direction has merit, but as it has already been said on here before it seems pointless to merely duplicate the 267. I think it was Snoggle who proposed that this extension would be of more benefit if it was diverted via part of the St. Margaret's Road area. I would agree with that and feel that the 110 would have more utility if such a route were to be adopted. I've seen double deckers use much narrower and more unsuitable roads than Amhurst Gardens so I really don't see the massive fuss. Also, the E2 is a longer route and has to deal with the car park that is Greenford Broadway during most times of the day. If they wish, swap the E2 & E8 between Ealing & Brentford otherwise I really don't see the problem. It's an outsiders view as I don't live in the area but if it was my area on the road next to my house, I'd welcome it with open arms.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Mar 28, 2016 13:44:56 GMT
riverside - two comments on your long treatise of the TfL proposals. 110 - unfortunately I was the only person who proposed a diversion via St Margarets so TfL duly ignored me! E8 - I think you have missed one crucial issue in your H91 / E8 comparison. In the case of the Chiswick changes all the routes already existed so there were both existing links and existing volumes of passengers who would benefit / not benefit from the changes. In the E8 example there are, of course, *no* existing users beyond Brentford towards Hounslow. Therefore no one can possibly suffer "disbenefits" from a longer route because the new E8 route will undoubtedly be quicker *or* take the same length of time that the alternatives of changing buses or taking a 267 (if you boarded a bus near Kew Bridge and were going to W M Hospital). Where TfL will get themselves into a pickle is introducing the E8 via the direct route and missing the hospital and then wanting to come back and send it down via the hospital. In this future scenario there will be existing passengers used to a direct route who will suffer longer journey times if the E8 is eventually sent via Amhurst Gardens. The counter balance is that some people will gain from having a direct bus to the hospital. The key will be the respective numbers of people in each group when it comes to a future business case. Whenever there are extensions to routes then you only ever get *new* passengers on that route on the specific bit of the extension. Of course the reality is that some passengers will be brand new to the public transport network, some will be people who used the route already but now stay on and travel on the extension and the third will be people who may transfer from any existing service (if one ran down the same roads as the extension). A good example of the latter would be the 415 going to Old Kent Rd. I'm sure it picks up people who'd used the 53, 453 etc previously.
|
|
|
Post by l1group on May 19, 2016 14:15:54 GMT
As some of the changes have been already done, as well as some about to happen next week, this is going to be a very interesting time for West London.
481 - the patronage of the every 30 minute service seems popular, and there are not too many heavy loads on the route now there are more frequent buses. I even got to do the 481 end to end twice last week!
E8/110/635 - some of the spider maps are updated on the TfL website. The Hounslow spider map weirdly points to two weird shops: Wheelhouse and Littlewoods. Anyone trying to find those shops will be disappointed, as Wheelhouse is demolished, and Littlewoods is now a TKMaxx. Also, the Brentford County Court spider map weirdly puts the N9 to not serve Hounslow Bell Corner when it does! The E8 extension has been long coming, and finally it's close. I can also think that people from my old school will start using the E8 extension as well. Just don't bring the E8 to Amhurst Gardens, because it'll inconvenience too many people with direct journeys, and some will just elect to change to the 237, which is the current situation, ironically, especially with the 1hr bus ticket available!
"We are investigating options for the terminus at Bell Corner with LB Hounslow as there are plans to build a new civic centre in this area." - my mother has told me about this (she works in the current Civic Centre), the car park where the H22 currently, and the E8 will stand, will have the new Hounslow Civic Centre be built over, so I do not know what the alternative plans are when this is built. If this is built, that is.
Oh, and I'm the one that wanted the E8 to go to Heathrow T4 via N9 and 482... (Yeah, I read the report just now. Seriously, Heathrow T4 is the worst linked terminal of all of the terminals).
H28 - I hope the change doesn't go ahead, as it does cut a swathe of people with no bus route, and I don't think all the people who live in the Wood Lane area are able to walk however far it is to get the H91, and they are also cut off from Hounslow Town Centre.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on May 19, 2016 16:41:09 GMT
As some of the changes have been already done, as well as some about to happen next week, this is going to be a very interesting time for West London. 481 - the patronage of the every 30 minute service seems popular, and there are not too many heavy loads on the route now there are more frequent buses. I even got to do the 481 end to end twice last week! Nice to get some feedback and that people seem to approve of the changes. No demonstrations in the streets saying "no more 481s"?
|
|