please empty your brain below
|
*slowly lowers placard saying "WOO I'M FROM HANWELL", puts face down on floor, tries to step away surreptitiously*
quin | Homepage | 13.01.12 - 3:54 a.m. | #
|
Well, I guessed wrong there - I assumed you'd be going to Slough.
Interesting trip, linking a surprising number of places I know well.
Any chance of a north /south follow up? (Redhill to Potters bar perhaps)
Timbo | 13.01.12 - 8:12 a.m. | #
|
I wonder how much would have clocked up on a black cab meter if you took a single taxi ride following the same route.
Waterhouse | 13.01.12 - 8:48 a.m. | #
|
When I lived in Ealing, several years ago, London Buses used to publish average speed times for the buses on the web.
I remember, around 2002-2003 it must have been, the average speed of the 207 being 3 miles an hour and the average speed of the 607 being 7 miles per hour. I suspect most of that average speed increase arrived once it got out of Ealing because it barely did anything anywhere else.
As a non-car owner reliant on tubes and buses, West London Tram would have been wonderful. Most of the route was ideal and the higher capacity of the tram would have taken scores of buses off the roads meaning traffic flow would have been better.
Sadly it was never to be so. The car owners of Ealing freaked. Massively. If scaled up, it would have made the HS2 outcry look like pure piffle.
So the 607 and 207 trundle on. Such is progress. And I wonder what the average speed of the 207 is now? Is it still the same speed as walking...
Andrew Bowden | Homepage | 13.01.12 - 9:41 a.m. | #
|
No intelligent bus/traffic observations to make. Just charmed by the 'Winter Warmer' ice-cream. Well spotted.
| 13.01.12 - 9:53 a.m. | #
|
Oh my god, it took a week to get from one side of London to the other by bus. Please don't do this again :)
Just by reading I wanted to get off at a very early stage. Covering more than a tube/train stop distance by bus in London is just not suitable for humans.
cybergreg | 13.01.12 - 11:04 a.m. | #
|
Ah yes, I remember the tram debacle at the time. 'We propose to spend several hundred million pounds on a tram line improving the speed, comfort and reliability of public transport in you area'.' Er, no thanks, in fact please **** off'. I can't help feeling that the opponents were more vociferous and more organised than those who stood to benefit from the scheme.
Lorenzo | 13.01.12 - 11:27 a.m. | #
|
Andrew/Lorenzo
Whilst you bemoan the lack of the tram, and I speak as someone who would only ever use it as a 'tourist', please be aware of the reality.
The tram line would have necessitated the closure of the main road in no less than four places with horrendous permanent diversions down right angled turns into side roads and back. It would have been disastrous for the locals and the local economy.
Such a thing was 'obvious' from day one to the planners, and yet instead of the scheme being canned after a preliminary study, vast amounts were spent. To me this just shows how far political will can overturn economic and practical considerations.
I visited one of the final exhibitions and the planners freely admitted this, so it wasn't a secret.
Ken | 13.01.12 - 2:04 p.m. | #
|
Surely the point of having a tram is that it runs on a road, and doesn't insist on having an exclusive alignment? Why would you close any stretch of road? I'm sure the number 7 tram managed!
swirlythingy | Homepage | 13.01.12 - 2:53 p.m. | #
|
I'd be interested to know how long your journey took, end to end. It's a shame the tram plans didn't get further. In my experience many bus routes in London are no quicker than walking, even if they go direct (and a lot divert off to various points as DG mentions). Trams tend to have less frequent stops, making for quicker journeys overall, even though you might have to walk a little further to get a stop. They also tend to stick to wider straighter main roads rather than residential roads with numerous parked cars and so on.
Jon Combe | 13.01.12 - 5:55 p.m. | #
|
I assumed Slough as well! (237 from White City, change to 81 at Hounslow or 211 from Westminster to Hammersmith, H91 to Hounslow West then 81).
ned | 13.01.12 - 5:56 p.m. | #
|
How did you get back again, or is the West-East north bank trip the subject of next weeks posts?
CornishCockney | 13.01.12 - 6:45 p.m. | #
|
I was surprised about the amount of property demolition to widen junctions, so turning vehicles would not block trams.
Rational Plan | 13.01.12 - 6:59 p.m. | #
|
If the Uxbridge Road was 4 lanes, then the tram might have worked, but as it was only S2 in places, and cars can't share road space with trams, it would mean cars and other road traffic being diverted down all sorts of side streets.
Mikey C | 13.01.12 - 10:49 p.m. | #
|
@ mikey c - of course trams can share roadspace with cars. Endless examples worldwide of such practice but the penalty is slower running speeds for the trams and a probable higher risk of dozy car drivers crashing into the trams. The planners would obviously aim to get segregation of traffic in order to give the fastest tram running times which would minimise the number of trams needed and maximise "time saving" benefits for tram users.
What seems to have been carefully forgotten is that when the West London tram plan was abandoned it coincided with Crossrail getting the go ahead *but* an upgraded "bus system" for the Uxbridge Road was promised. There's no sign of that scheme being pursued unless new double decks on the 427 and 207 are the scope of improvement!
PC | 14.01.12 - 12:41 a.m. | #
|
|
|
TridentScan v2.10.0 | Privacy Policy
|