Boltar wrote:
thoss wrote...
writes
Stuck in a traffic jam again this morning caused (surprise surprise)
by a bus crawling along the road and stopping in the middle of it even when
it could pull into the bus stop, I suddenly wondered why it was deemed
necessary to have a bus stop every 200 hundred metres. Are the people who
use the bus too bone idle to be able to walk more than the length of a
football pitch to get to the stop?

I take it you would be all in favour of the proposed West London Tram,
because that would drastically cut down the number of stops along
Uxbridge Road. It's one of the best arguments against the tram, IMHO.

Would intersecting routes have more stops just off Uxbridge Road to
compensate?

Sounds like a good idea to me then. No doubt the nimbys in croydon said the
same thing 5 years ago.

They said a lot of things, but that wasn't one of them.

Lets turn your argument on its head however and see
how it sounds - you have a nice fast tram service and someone comes along and
says "we're going to replace it with a slow bus that stops every 200 / 400
metres so lazy people don't have to walk so far.

'Tis not that simple, as Uxbridge Road currently has the limited stop
607 as well as the 207.

What do you think? Good idea?" I'm sure they'd be oh so popular.

A couple of years ago there was a proposal to install more stops in
Hurst Road between Station Road (Sidcup) and FootsCray Lane. This mile
was formerly part of (limited stop) route 726, so there were only three
stops - one at the end and one in front of each of two schools.

The plan was fiercely opposed by NIMBYs who didn't want a bus stop in
front of their house. However, the real mystery is why TfL wanted more
stops there, as the absence of sidestreets and the presence of stops on
the end roads meant that nobody in the area was more than about 500m
from a stop anyway.

I don't know what the eventual outcome was.