|
|
Post by adamlondoner on Jul 16, 2012 8:47:37 GMT
Might have been suggested before so I apologise if this is the case.
I've always noticed the journey between Manor House and Turnpike Lane seems like quite a long one. How about a station at Harringay Green Lanes. Would be a connection point to the Overground plus useful for the shopping area there.
As far as I am away the track goes right along Green Lanes.
|
|
|
|
Post by aslefshrugged on Jul 16, 2012 9:59:35 GMT
Manor House to Haringey Green Lanes is about half a mile, Turnpike Lane just under a mile further. Lots of buses go up and down Green Lanes, would it be worth it?
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisvandenkieboom on Jul 16, 2012 10:40:30 GMT
Manor House to Haringey Green Lanes is about half a mile, Turnpike Lane just under a mile further. Lots of buses go up and down Green Lanes, would it be worth it? Indeed, also, would it be worth the disruption? |
|
|
|
Post by melikepie on Jul 16, 2012 13:01:35 GMT
I'm sure I've seen this proposal before somewhere.
And if not, I think it would be useful - it would provide a good way of avoiding central London and may well relieve pressure on the North London Line. Plus it would provide easier connections for those going to Lakeside and Southend
Personally I think its a good idea.
|
|
|
|
Post by rapidtransitman on Jul 16, 2012 18:44:28 GMT
In general there is a great lack of interchange stations between the Overground & Underground lines, which leads to less traffic being siphoned from the latter to the former, as was one of the main ideas of the Overground. Any new such stations should be considered, giving of course much consideration to net total benefit of passengers vs the delay in adding an extra station stop.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikebuzz on Jul 16, 2012 20:33:59 GMT
Such a station was considered for a later date when the extension was first planned and built.
AFAIK Harringay council have shown interest in the idea of a station.
|
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Jul 16, 2012 21:38:28 GMT
New stations (and re-opened ones) have to be balanced between benefits for the area of people living/working in the area of the proposed site and the inconvenience for those on the train having their journey time extended.
There are good cases for re-opening York Road on the Piccadilly Line north of King's Cross and City Road on the Northern Line between Angel & Old Street. The mechanics of installing escalators rather than lifts make it difficult to close out the financial case.
|
|
|
|
Post by aslefshrugged on Jul 16, 2012 21:50:58 GMT
I'm sure I've seen this proposal before somewhere. And if not, I think it would be useful - it would provide a good way of avoiding central London and may well relieve pressure on the North London Line. Plus it would provide easier connections for those going to Lakeside and Southend Personally I think its a good idea. Is there a great demand in the boroughs of Haringey and Enfield to go to Lakeside? I'd have thought that Brent Cross would have been more popular simply by it's proximity? Haringey Green Lanes is on the Barking-Gospel Oak rather than the NLL. |
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 3,624
|
Post by Ben on Jul 16, 2012 22:10:12 GMT
www.abandonedstations.org.uk/MiscTube.htmlThird item down. Its been discussed on here before, iirc? Thing is London is so busy now that if you build anything (within reason) it'll be well used. So you start to get economic appraisals based on the negative side of things, eg; is the case for people who wouldn't use it to continue to not use it the greater. This was the case for York Road aswell sadly.
|
|
|
|
Post by aslefshrugged on Jul 16, 2012 23:53:27 GMT
www.abandonedstations.org.uk/MiscTube.htmlThird item down. Its been discussed on here before, iirc? Thing is London is so busy now that if you build anything (within reason) it'll be well used. So you start to get economic appraisals based on the negative side of things, eg; is the case for people who wouldn't use it to continue to not use it the greater. This was the case for York Road aswell sadly. "A review of a possible re-opening of York Road by LU determined that the new station would attract 3.2m passengers per annum, compared to the 38.4m passengers using services through the site on the Piccadilly line. Unfortunately, a benefit analysis reported that the disbenefit caused by slowing the journey times of those 38.4m passengers would significantly outweigh the benefit for the 3.2m passengers using the rebuilt station. The costs of reconstruction to modern standards would also be extremely expensive." |
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 3,624
|
Post by Ben on Jul 17, 2012 5:21:18 GMT
Indeed, the report commissioned is available online too somewhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by melikepie on Jul 17, 2012 9:43:37 GMT
However, other studies have shown that a lot of the time, local governments underestimate the number that will use the station e.g. Mitcham Eastfields, Laurencekirk and all stations on the Ebbw Valley Line There are good cases for re-opening York Road on the Piccadilly Line north of King's Cross and City Road on the Northern Line between Angel & Old Street. The mechanics of installing escalators rather than lifts make it difficult to close out the financial case. I've never heard of any City Road proposals and searching on Google seems fruitless |
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 3,624
|
Post by Ben on Jul 17, 2012 14:50:53 GMT
Are you thinking of South Kentish Town, crusty?
|
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Jul 17, 2012 21:53:46 GMT
Are you thinking of South Kentish Town, crusty? No - a study during the 1980s looked at all closed stations. Escalators to the south for a new entrance to the north of the Barbican which has been gentrified over the years. Also an area some distance from a Tube station |
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Jul 18, 2012 8:37:25 GMT
One of the real headaches with justifying new stations since the introduction of zonal fares is showing that there is a net increase in punters (and therefore revenue)using the transport system as a whole, rather than simply redistributing the existing passengers/revenue to the new station. This is what did for Cricklewood New, where the developers wanted to recoup their costs through station access charges but the mainline operators explained that there was no net increase in volume for them, so why would they pay more? [The fact that the said developers had wholly unrealistic (ie stupid) ideas about new train services to serve the development, such as MML HSTs terminating from the north, didn't help]. The same "not enough extra revenue" problem besets LU station proposals. They all have to be paid for instead with "funny money" which is usually in short supply....
GH
|
|
