|
|
Post by snoggle on Oct 31, 2018 10:48:28 GMT
Proposals for a new tram or bus rapid transit line linking Sutton with Wimbledon or South Wimbledon. There are three route options including takeover of part of Thameslink Sutton loop for tram conversion. Note the emergence of bus rapid transit as an option - presumably to try to save money over trams. consultations.tfl.gov.uk/trams/sutton-link/ |
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Oct 31, 2018 11:10:44 GMT
Options 1 or 2 seem very sensible to me, and if TfL wasn't so skint, should be looking at more of these sort of schemes on busy corridors without rail.
Not sure BRT is way to go, never going to be able to attach a property uplift charge to a bus route, but would be able to get contributions from developers for a tram due to the attractiveness factor.
In a sensible world there would be a phase 2 running to Cheam, Worcester Park, New Malden, Kingston, Teddington, Hanworth and Heathrow but I will be long dead before something like that happens
|
|
|
|
Post by sid on Oct 31, 2018 13:36:52 GMT
Can we have all three options?
I've often thought that Thameslink route would be ideal for Tramlink, look how usage on the Wimbledon to West Croydon has increased.
And a guided bus way would be great and could replace the Sutton end of the 164.
|
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Oct 31, 2018 13:56:23 GMT
Interesting that the map seems to indicate a lot of on road running on the two initially preferred options. How much of the route is suitable for twin tram tracks unless the trams do not get dedicated road space.
|
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Oct 31, 2018 14:04:35 GMT
If what's happened elsewhere in London is a guide, this will be BRT if it ever happens at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Oct 31, 2018 15:09:55 GMT
Interesting that the map seems to indicate a lot of on road running on the two initially preferred options. How much of the route is suitable for twin tram tracks unless the trams do not get dedicated road space. I think we are seeing a return to on street running for many sections. I suspect it will be off carriageway parking, and probably some dedicated sections (or more likely mix of bus lane and tram only) approaching some of the major junctions. I suspect the extra cost of some dive-unders at roundabouts means they wont happen (although single deck trams can operate through much narrower and lower tunnels than buses. I have recently read that nowadays techniques exist for very quick (minimally disruptive) track laying. One of those crawler mounted diamond saws (the sort you see on motorway works with a round blade about 1.5m diameter) cuts 2 slots. A special excavator/planer removes the tarmac etc. A concrete strip foundation is laid in the trench. The trench is plated over whilst concrete cures. A second trench is cut for the other rail in similar way. The rails are then laid and remainder of cut backfilled. Apparently can be done in sections overnight. Also appears standard practice is to lay spare cable tubes at intervals across the road so utilities dont need to dig up track later. Biggest problem is cables just below surface need to be relocated deeper out of way of tracks. Don't know relative cost vs complete road closure. |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Oct 31, 2018 15:23:12 GMT
If what's happened elsewhere in London is a guide, this will be BRT if it ever happens at all. I was thinking the same, in the current financial situation I don't see why the cheaper option won't be taken if it's a possibility. Although hopefully if this does end up being a BRT it ends up being more than routes running around with LTs in a special livery. |
|
|
|
Post by busman on Oct 31, 2018 17:53:29 GMT
TfL have form in the area of developing infrastructure. In south east London we were supposed to have some kind of rapid transport system and ended up with the 472. We were twice consulted on a proper road crossing to replace the appalling Woolwich ferry. Instead we get replacement ferries and an unsolved problem. As someone aluded to earlier I wouldn’t be surprised at all if this ends up with an express bus service with priority at certain junctions. And a really budget livery to promote the service.
If TfL want to take the long view then tram is the obvious winner. Faster journeys for less money. Plus the BRT will increase local traffic even more further slowing traffic speeds for road users.
Option 3 looks dead on arrival. Linked to a Crossrail 2 project that isn’t even guaranteed to start, no new links created, existing links lost and probably more expensive by the time works begin.
Option 1 would be best for spreading additional footfall on the Northern line. Northbound tram passengers can alight the tram at Morden and get a seat on the tube. Southbound tube passengers can alight at South Wimbledon and get a seat on the tram.
Option 2 seems best for creating more new links but only has one point of interchange with the Northern line at Colliers Wood. Not sure if this will be an issue for this station though, as I’ve never used it before.
|
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Oct 31, 2018 19:31:47 GMT
TfL have form in the area of developing infrastructure. In south east London we were supposed to have some kind of rapid transport system and ended up with the 472. We were twice consulted on a proper road crossing to replace the appalling Woolwich ferry. Instead we get replacement ferrys and an unsolved problem. As someone aluded to earlier I wouldn’t be surprised at all if we end up with an express bus service with priority at certain junctions. And a really budget livery to promote the service. If TfL want to take the long view then tram is the obvious winner. Faster journeys for less money. Plus the BRT will increase local traffic even more further slowing traffic speeds for road users. Option 3 looks dead on arrival. Linked to a Crossrail 2 project that isn’t even guaranteed to start, no new links created, existing links lost and probably more expensive by the time works begin. Option 1 would be best for spreading additional footfall on the Northern line. Northbound tram passengers can alight the tram at Morden and get a seat on the tube. Southbound tube passengers can alight at South Wimbledon and get a seat on the tram. Option 2 seems best for creating more new links but only has one point of interchange with the Northern line at Colliers Wood. Not sure if this will be an issue for this station though, as I’ve never used it before. I think the tram option is only in as a sop to Merton and Sutton councils, with more or less no chance of it actually happening: perhaps when that Crystal Palace extension opens I might change my view. So Option 3 out of the window straightaway, and probably just as well: at least it has a service at present, even if only the inadequate and unreliable Thameslink, with years of disruption before any alternative tram got going. I suspect in the age of Brexit, and a supposed Canada plus plus plus (is that enough pluses?) deal, what we'll get is a BRT minus minus minus, with a few tarted up buses dressed to look like trams on a ten minute headway, saving about three minutes on a Sutton to Morden journey, if that's the route chosen. Sorry to sound so pessimistic, but what is it about recent mayors and tram promises? It's evident to me that TfL would just love it if trams had never happened (again) in London. Another tram depot? Forget it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2018 21:07:33 GMT
I live right by Throwley Way and it will just cause unnecessary disruption and I wouldn't want to lose the Thameslink into Central London as its really useful in either direction. If there had to be an option I think the BRT is the best option but extended either to either Wimbledon or Tooting.
|
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Oct 31, 2018 21:27:41 GMT
I think the Thames link line is possibly a bit problematic to operate. Coming down from St Albans via many stations then heading straight back up after pausing for a couple of mins at Sutton mean it can easily become unreliable. Govia may be happy to of load the stretch between Sutton and Wimbledon and focus just on Sutton to St Albans via Mitcham Junction.
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Oct 31, 2018 22:47:06 GMT
TfL have form in the area of developing infrastructure. In south east London we were supposed to have some kind of rapid transport system and ended up with the 472. We were twice consulted on a proper road crossing to replace the appalling Woolwich ferry. Instead we get replacement ferries and an unsolved problem. As someone aluded to earlier I wouldn’t be surprised at all if this ends up with an express bus service with priority at certain junctions. And a really budget livery to promote the service. If TfL want to take the long view then tram is the obvious winner. Faster journeys for less money. Plus the BRT will increase local traffic even more further slowing traffic speeds for road users. Option 3 looks dead on arrival. Linked to a Crossrail 2 project that isn’t even guaranteed to start, no new links created, existing links lost and probably more expensive by the time works begin. Option 1 would be best for spreading additional footfall on the Northern line. Northbound tram passengers can alight the tram at Morden and get a seat on the tube. Southbound tube passengers can alight at South Wimbledon and get a seat on the tram. Option 2 seems best for creating more new links but only has one point of interchange with the Northern line at Colliers Wood. Not sure if this will be an issue for this station though, as I’ve never used it before. I can hear the outraged screams of Assembly Member Steve O'Connell already. He will be livid to see BRT being suggested as he has been campaigning for the tram for years and years. Politically it is very dangerous for the Mayor to be seen to be dropping the tram in the Sutton area. It will very badly locally and offers his opponents a big stick to clobber the Mayor with. Furthermore Mr O'Connell has been beligerant about the cost overruns on Crossrail which he argues could have paid for the tram extension in its totality. Given TfL are having to find at least £450m he's pretty much correct on that point. I suspect BRT has come into play simply because it is impossible to raise enough private sector funding from housing and town centre redevelopment to pay for either tram route at an indicative cost of £425m. Funding a few fancy bus stops, poncy liveries on standard buses and some bus lanes is rather more achieveable with the normal scale of S106 / Community Infrastructure Levy rake offs from developers. If City Hall pushes too far on both contributions to transport links *and* affordable housing numbers it's very likely the developers will just walk away. Therefore City Hall is being forced to compromise by developers. This just goes to show the utter utter falacy of having transport policy and funding largely directed by the extent to which money can be screwed out of the private sector. It's more sensible to do the right thing for transport reasons and to find public money to pay for it. By all means tax things like land value increases subsequent to the transport infrastructure being in place. |
|
|
|
Post by rj131 on Oct 31, 2018 23:03:56 GMT
If its going to be in a bus form they could do like a similar scheme as in the East London transport routes  the theme for the ELT routes is orange, so why not that exact branding and make it green or something like that? And call the routes like SL1, SL2 etc and brand it ‘South London Transit’ you’re welcome  |
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Oct 31, 2018 23:33:13 GMT
Once again, an alternative mode somewhere between BRT and tram both in concept and cost goes unmentioned - the trolleybus. Progressive fleets in different parts of the world e.g. Berlin are rediscovering this emission-free bus, now with the ability to work considerable distances off-wire, that doesn't have so much space occupied by batteries and, given its own roads to operate on, has the potential acceleration of a tram. A great opportunity to see whether the concept could work again in London was lost with the EL routes, I always felt.
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Oct 31, 2018 23:49:17 GMT
Once again, an alternative mode somewhere between BRT and tram both in concept and cost goes unmentioned - the trolleybus. Progressive fleets in different parts of the world e.g. Berlin are rediscovering this emission-free bus, now with the ability to work considerable distances off-wire, that doesn't have so much space occupied by batteries and, given its own roads to operate on, has the potential acceleration of a tram. A great opportunity to see whether the concept could work again in London was lost with the EL routes, I always felt. The problem is that the legislative and regulatory framework in the UK is extremely unclear. There are apparently significant legal issues about how you would actually seek powers to build a trolleybus network and especially things like fixing wire spans to buildings etc. It's also pretty clear to me that TfL is extremely averse to adding any additional infrastructure on the road network that would require long term maintenance, repair and later upgrading and replacement. It had no choice with Tramlink but look at the millions spent to get the track back into decent condition and now we have the not insignificant safety recommendations that are partly complete but others remain under research / implementation. I suspect things like tougher glass fitted in tram windows is not an easy thing to do because of the weight impacts on the trams themselves, how it may increase body stress and also track damage. These things are all related and interconnected. I can't see TfL wanting any sort of repeat of the fall out from the Croydon crash involving trolleybuses. Heck we're headed to the position where normal buses in London will have a man with a red flag in front of them and carrying no passengers so the Mayor can ensure no one is killed or injured on the bus network. Simples - carry no passengers. We also have next to zero professional competence in trolleybus wiring design / installation / maintenance. You'd have to bring in the Swiss to get it done properly. I'm personally not averse to trolleybuses at all - I'd be very happy to have lots of them in London but rechargeable electric buses are clearly the preferred strategy for TfL and even then only in selected places. There is no push at all to "electrify" outer London's bus routes. |
|
the theme for the ELT routes is orange, so why not that exact branding and make it green or something like that? And call the routes like SL1, SL2 etc and brand it ‘South London Transit’ 