|
Post by matthieu1221 on Jun 22, 2024 13:43:35 GMT
That's theoretical depending on how many people go upstairs, for years one or two buses per hour were deemed adequate for the express service between Croydon and Sutton but now five per hour are not adequate? This is rather reminiscent of the 177/180 'problem' between Woolwich and Greenwich that we no longer hear anything about because the casatrophy predicted by some on here never materialised. One or two buses an hour were not adequate which is why the frequency was doubled twice and got decked. We’re seeing enormous volumes of passengers on the route so cutting capacity should not be on the agenda. It's odd how some here aren't celebrating induced demand!
For years bus usage has been in decline in Central London, mostly, but elsewhere because of a vicious cycle of cuts, lower bus speeds, leading to a decline in passenger numbers, which leads to more cuts, etc...
Yet here the opposite is happening which isn't being universally celebrated?
|
|
|
Post by PGAT on Jun 22, 2024 14:03:19 GMT
One or two buses an hour were not adequate which is why the frequency was doubled twice and got decked. We’re seeing enormous volumes of passengers on the route so cutting capacity should not be on the agenda. It's odd how some here aren't celebrating induced demand!
For years bus usage has been in decline in Central London, mostly, but elsewhere because of a vicious cycle of cuts, lower bus speeds, leading to a decline in passenger numbers, which leads to more cuts, etc...
Yet here the opposite is happening which isn't being universally celebrated?
Good news doesn’t generate engagement like bad news does
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 22, 2024 15:02:40 GMT
One or two buses an hour were not adequate which is why the frequency was doubled twice and got decked. We’re seeing enormous volumes of passengers on the route so cutting capacity should not be on the agenda. It's odd how some here aren't celebrating induced demand! For years bus usage has been in decline in Central London, mostly, but elsewhere because of a vicious cycle of cuts, lower bus speeds, leading to a decline in passenger numbers, which leads to more cuts, etc... Yet here the opposite is happening which isn't being universally celebrated?
Completely agree and I’ve been saying this on here for years
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Jun 22, 2024 17:36:22 GMT
One or two buses an hour were not adequate which is why the frequency was doubled twice and got decked. We’re seeing enormous volumes of passengers on the route so cutting capacity should not be on the agenda. It's odd how some here aren't celebrating induced demand!
For years bus usage has been in decline in Central London, mostly, but elsewhere because of a vicious cycle of cuts, lower bus speeds, leading to a decline in passenger numbers, which leads to more cuts, etc...
Yet here the opposite is happening which isn't being universally celebrated?
And where has this demand come from? Largely from other bus routes I would suggest, the 269 has certainly gone a lot quieter since the SL3 commenced.
|
|
|
Post by lj61nwc on Jun 22, 2024 18:10:14 GMT
It's odd how some here aren't celebrating induced demand!
For years bus usage has been in decline in Central London, mostly, but elsewhere because of a vicious cycle of cuts, lower bus speeds, leading to a decline in passenger numbers, which leads to more cuts, etc...
Yet here the opposite is happening which isn't being universally celebrated?
And where has this demand come from? Largely from other bus routes I would suggest, the 269 has certainly gone a lot quieter since the SL3 commenced. You can suggest that but I and others can't firmly tell you where the demand has come from (unless someone here works as a journey analyst at TfL ) I can say the 407 is certainly still seeing quite a bit of usage, I do feel like 213 has slightly fallen down but not enough to say that where demand has come from.
|
|
|
Post by PGAT on Jun 22, 2024 18:12:30 GMT
407 and 213 definitely would have taken *some* of a hit but it might not even be noticeable on next year's annual passenger sheet. You don't get such enormous volumes of passengers and growth from abstraction alone
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Jun 22, 2024 18:33:11 GMT
407 and 213 definitely would have taken *some* of a hit but it might not even be noticeable on next year's annual passenger sheet. You don't get such enormous volumes of passengers and growth from abstraction alone The 213 is still fairly busy in the weekday peaks, it’ll be the evenings where the hit will be seen. The current frequency perfectly matches the current demand imo.
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Jun 30, 2024 12:34:25 GMT
|
|
|
Post by abellion on Jun 30, 2024 12:43:10 GMT
Someone says the SL5 should stop at Sandilands for people coming from Wimbledon and Beckenham.. does East Croydon not exist?? I still support Harlington Corner as it is a good interchange point, Feltham less so because it is out of the way and could get the route stuck in additional congestion.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jun 30, 2024 16:56:37 GMT
Someone says the SL5 should stop at Sandilands for people coming from Wimbledon and Beckenham.. does East Croydon not exist?? I still support Harlington Corner as it is a good interchange point, Feltham less so because it is out of the way and could get the route stuck in additional congestion. If anything I'd rather see another SL route start at Feltham then run to Heathrow then on somewhere. Maybe via T5, T4, Hatton Cross then to Hammersmith.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 30, 2024 22:21:46 GMT
Someone says the SL5 should stop at Sandilands for people coming from Wimbledon and Beckenham.. does East Croydon not exist?? I still support Harlington Corner as it is a good interchange point, Feltham less so because it is out of the way and could get the route stuck in additional congestion. Second Harlington Corner, it gives a nice interchange with the SL9 rather than having to run all the way to Heathrow to make the same change and running via Harlington Corner won't add much time at all. Feltham would add a lot of time but if the SL routes were split at Kingston instead, a Feltham could be added in that way instead. I'm still not convinced by adding a stop at Beddington, Plough Lane and certainly, Sandilands doesn't need one as you mention that East Croydon gives access already to the tram among other things like National Rail and multiple other bus routes.
|
|
|
Post by mark on Jul 1, 2024 7:50:33 GMT
Someone says the SL5 should stop at Sandilands for people coming from Wimbledon and Beckenham.. does East Croydon not exist?? I still support Harlington Corner as it is a good interchange point, Feltham less so because it is out of the way and could get the route stuck in additional congestion. Second Harlington Corner, it gives a nice interchange with the SL9 rather than having to run all the way to Heathrow to make the same change and running via Harlington Corner won't add much time at all. Feltham would add a lot of time but if the SL routes were split at Kingston instead, a Feltham could be added in that way instead. I'm still not convinced by adding a stop at Beddington, Plough Lane and certainly, Sandilands doesn't need one as you mention that East Croydon gives access already to the tram among other things like National Rail and multiple other bus routes. I’m not convinced that there is a vast untapped market interchange between the SL7 and SL9 and even if there is a stop at Harlington Corner will require passengers to walk some distance between stops and cross the A4. Much easier to change at Heathrow Central. Feltham, by contrast, opens up interchange with mainline rail services from Staines and points west thereof and, effectively, reinstates the old railair link.
|
|
|
Post by borneobus on Jul 1, 2024 10:23:42 GMT
Second Harlington Corner, it gives a nice interchange with the SL9 rather than having to run all the way to Heathrow to make the same change and running via Harlington Corner won't add much time at all. Feltham would add a lot of time but if the SL routes were split at Kingston instead, a Feltham could be added in that way instead. I'm still not convinced by adding a stop at Beddington, Plough Lane and certainly, Sandilands doesn't need one as you mention that East Croydon gives access already to the tram among other things like National Rail and multiple other bus routes. I’m not convinced that there is a vast untapped market interchange between the SL7 and SL9 and even if there is a stop at Harlington Corner will require passengers to walk some distance between stops and cross the A4. Much easier to change at Heathrow Central. Feltham, by contrast, opens up interchange with mainline rail services from Staines and points west thereof and, effectively, reinstates the old railair link. I agree that there's probably not a "vast untapped market interchange between the SL7 and SL9" and pax boarding between Feltham and Hatton Cross will most probably currently take a 90 to H&H Stn and then catch a SL9 (or 140)... ...however if I was interchanging SL7/SL9 under the new proposal I would definitely alight at Harlington Corner and walk across the A4 to the northbound SL9 stop (walk takes 3 minutes - source Google Maps) rather than changing at Heathrow Central Bus Station which would increase time by circa 20 minutes... I wholeheartedly agree with your point re Feltham being a valuable rail interchange but as you're aware the 285 already provides this link (which I use) but the SL7 would be a welcome addition
|
|
|
Post by YX10FFN on Jul 1, 2024 11:17:11 GMT
I still support Harlington Corner as it is a good interchange point, Feltham less so because it is out of the way and could get the route stuck in additional congestion. It is a good and well used interchange point, only problem is passengers very often try and dash across the A4 if their connecting bus is already at or near the other stop!
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Jul 1, 2024 15:10:40 GMT
I can’t see any need for an SL5 stop at Sandilands or an extension to Grove Park.
|
|