Integrating river services
 

I took a Thames Clippers boat from Canary Wharf to St.
Katherine's pier on Friday, and it was a really enjoyable
experience and a reasonably quick way across the city.
The journey time from Embankment to Canary Wharf is 21
minutes -- 4 minutes longer than the tube. To Greenwich,
the boat takes about the same time as National Rail, and
is quicker than the DLR.

So my question is, would it be possible to integrate the
river services into the rest of the TfL system? This would
include increasing capacity and frequency to mass transit
levels, and either buying out the existing providers (as
was done with the tube) or taking control of scheduling
and pricing while contracting out the service provision to
private operators (as is the case with London Buses).

And if it was possible, would it make economic sense?


Matt Ashby
www.mattashby.com

Integrating river services
 

On 20 Mar 2005, Matt Ashby wrote:

So my question is, would it be possible to integrate the river services
into the rest of the TfL system?

They're already somewhat integrated as it is, with river service
information being provided by TfL, and discounts for travelcard holders. I
take it you're suggesting full integration - so that you can ride them
with only a travelcard.

I think this is a reasonable idea. After all, other cities have ferries as
fully integrated parts of their transport systems - Liverpool, i think,
has travelcards valid on the ferry. Others, however, don't - New York, for
example, has ferries outside the rail ticket system.

This would include increasing capacity and frequency to mass transit
levels,

Frequency, yes. Capacity, maybe. I don't think there's much sense in
providing a wild excess of capacity. Now, if services were more frequent,
routes were better-advertised and travelcards were all that were
necessary, use would increase, probably requiring more capacity, but i
don't think it would make sense to provide tube levels of capacity from
day one.

Of course, increasing frequency will increase capacity anyway, unless we
switch to smaller boats. Which might not be a bad idea, actually.

and either buying out the existing providers (as was done with the tube)
or taking control of scheduling and pricing while contracting out the
service provision to private operators (as is the case with London
Buses).

I'd imagine the latter. Nationalisation is not terribly in at the moment.

The other option might be for TfL to start running its own services
alongside the private operators; this would have the advantage of not
requiring them to agree. I'd guesstimate that it would cost at least 2.5
million to set up a 6 bph service, and at least half that every year in
running costs. Not really that much in public transport terms!

And if it was possible, would it make economic sense?

Hard to say without knowing how much use it would attract. And that, of
course, depends on how much you spend on it!

tom

--
Remember when we said there was no future? Well, this is it.

Integrating river services
 

Matt Ashby wrote:
I took a Thames Clippers boat from Canary Wharf to St.
Katherine's pier on Friday, and it was a really enjoyable
experience and a reasonably quick way across the city.
The journey time from Embankment to Canary Wharf is 21
minutes -- 4 minutes longer than the tube. To Greenwich,
the boat takes about the same time as National Rail, and
is quicker than the DLR.

So my question is, would it be possible to integrate the
river services into the rest of the TfL system? This would
include increasing capacity and frequency to mass transit
levels, and either buying out the existing providers (as
was done with the tube) or taking control of scheduling
and pricing while contracting out the service provision to
private operators (as is the case with London Buses).

And if it was possible, would it make economic sense?

Although it's a nice idea, TfL have already looked at this and concluded
that it would require far too much subsidy to run - it would need the
biggest subsidy per passenger of any mode of transport in London. I
haven't got any figures but I'm sure the Mayor answered a question like
this in one of the weekly Mayor's Question Times (the questions and
answers to which are on www.london.gov.uk somewhere).

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

Integrating river services
 

Dave Arquati wrote:

Matt Ashby wrote:
I took a Thames Clippers boat from Canary Wharf to St.
Katherine's pier on Friday, and it was a really enjoyable
experience and a reasonably quick way across the city.
The journey time from Embankment to Canary Wharf is 21
minutes -- 4 minutes longer than the tube. To Greenwich,
the boat takes about the same time as National Rail, and
is quicker than the DLR.

So my question is, would it be possible to integrate the
river services into the rest of the TfL system? This would
include increasing capacity and frequency to mass transit
levels, and either buying out the existing providers (as
was done with the tube) or taking control of scheduling
and pricing while contracting out the service provision to
private operators (as is the case with London Buses).

And if it was possible, would it make economic sense?

Although it's a nice idea, TfL have already looked at this and concluded
that it would require far too much subsidy to run - it would need the
biggest subsidy per passenger of any mode of transport in London. I
haven't got any figures but I'm sure the Mayor answered a question like
this in one of the weekly Mayor's Question Times (the questions and
answers to which are on www.london.gov.uk somewhere).

Yet they're eager to spend far more on infrastructure projects like the
£40m bus lane on the Thames Gateway Bridge, and the Canary Wharf branch
of Crossrail, which would cost far more than subsidies for boats ever
would. The cost of running boats is on the high side, but so are the
benefits: they can quickly provide plenty of capacity, link communities
N and S of the river, and serve remote parts of London which do not have
bus services (parts of Thamesmead are more than 500m from buses, and
some riverside industrial estates are much further).

Integrating river services
 

Aidan Stanger wrote:
Dave Arquati wrote:


Matt Ashby wrote:

I took a Thames Clippers boat from Canary Wharf to St.
Katherine's pier on Friday, and it was a really enjoyable
experience and a reasonably quick way across the city.
The journey time from Embankment to Canary Wharf is 21
minutes -- 4 minutes longer than the tube. To Greenwich,
the boat takes about the same time as National Rail, and
is quicker than the DLR.

So my question is, would it be possible to integrate the
river services into the rest of the TfL system? This would
include increasing capacity and frequency to mass transit
levels, and either buying out the existing providers (as
was done with the tube) or taking control of scheduling
and pricing while contracting out the service provision to
private operators (as is the case with London Buses).

And if it was possible, would it make economic sense?

Although it's a nice idea, TfL have already looked at this and concluded
that it would require far too much subsidy to run - it would need the
biggest subsidy per passenger of any mode of transport in London. I
haven't got any figures but I'm sure the Mayor answered a question like
this in one of the weekly Mayor's Question Times (the questions and
answers to which are on www.london.gov.uk somewhere).


Yet they're eager to spend far more on infrastructure projects like the
£40m bus lane on the Thames Gateway Bridge, and the Canary Wharf branch
of Crossrail, which would cost far more than subsidies for boats ever
would. The cost of running boats is on the high side, but so are the
benefits: they can quickly provide plenty of capacity, link communities
N and S of the river, and serve remote parts of London which do not have
bus services (parts of Thamesmead are more than 500m from buses, and
some riverside industrial estates are much further).

Can you get from Heathrow to Canary Wharf by boat? Or from most parts of
West London, Paddington, the West End etc? It's not really relevant to
compare boat subsidies to the cost of Crossrail - or even the Thames
Gateway Bridge for that matter (where did you get the £40m figure
from?). Boats won't take you from Thamesmead to Romford, or Abbey Wood
to Barking.

Boats can be useful but the river serves a limited catchment area;
interchange is also difficult between river and other modes except at a
few choice locations (although I accept that that can be remedied).

The problem with the river is that any pier will by its nature only have
half the catchment area of an inland rail/Tube station.

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

Integrating river services
 

Although it's a nice idea, TfL have already looked at
this and concluded that it would require far too much
subsidy to run - it would need the biggest subsidy per
passenger of any mode of transport in London. I

and it is more reliable and more comfortable than bus, nr or
tube. So it might be more expensive? It is much better,
perhaps that's why.

The problem with the river is that any pier will by its
nature only have half the catchment area of an inland
rail/Tube station.

true, but a high capacity boat service from the east end to
westminster would have cost a minute fraction of the cost of
the J L E. And journey times would not be appreciably
longer. I frequently use the boat instead of the jubilee,
even though the pier is a longer walk than the tube. This is
because the boat offers a vastly better service for a very
small premium.

A cheaper (or fully integrated) system, with 10 min
frequencies, would probably pull in more people ... and in
doing so would reduce overcrowding on other modes. Perhaps
the biggest boon would be to put the current approx. 20min
at peak frequency services from Thames Clippers on the
tube/London connections map. It's a great service and most
people simply don't know about it and hence don't consider
it when planning journeys.

--
u n d e r a c h i e v e r

Integrating river services
 

"u n d e r a c h i e v e r"
wrote in message
news:slrnd42cma.1256.takeme2yourNOMORESPAMPLEASE@n ewred.gradwell.net...

Although it's a nice idea, TfL have already looked at
this and concluded that it would require far too much
subsidy to run - it would need the biggest subsidy per
passenger of any mode of transport in London. I

and it is more reliable and more comfortable than bus, nr or
tube. So it might be more expensive? It is much better,
perhaps that's why.

The problem with the river is that any pier will by its
nature only have half the catchment area of an inland
rail/Tube station.

true, but a high capacity boat service from the east end to
westminster would have cost a minute fraction of the cost of
the J L E. And journey times would not be appreciably
longer. I frequently use the boat instead of the jubilee,
even though the pier is a longer walk than the tube. This is
because the boat offers a vastly better service for a very
small premium.

How many passengers (seated and standing) does a high capacity boat
take compared to a JLE tube train ?


A cheaper (or fully integrated) system, with 10 min
frequencies, would probably pull in more people ... and in
doing so would reduce overcrowding on other modes. Perhaps
the biggest boon would be to put the current approx. 20min
at peak frequency services from Thames Clippers on the
tube/London connections map. It's a great service and most
people simply don't know about it and hence don't consider
it when planning journeys.


On this very last point, however, I think potential passengers might
show interest initially, but then be put off when they realise their
travelcard only gives them 1/3 off the fare, rather than fully
inclusive on their travelcard (like the tube and buses are).
Not only that, but the increased wait times, having to wait up to 19
minutes for a boat, and in the time they've waited for the boat, they
could have reached their destination already by tube or bus. Even on a
10 minute frequency, you could be waiting up to 9 minutes, and still
got to your destination quicker by tube or bus.

Integrating river services
 

u n d e r a c h i e v e r wrote:
Although it's a nice idea, TfL have already looked at
this and concluded that it would require far too much
subsidy to run - it would need the biggest subsidy per
passenger of any mode of transport in London. I

and it is more reliable and more comfortable than bus, nr or
tube. So it might be more expensive? It is much better,
perhaps that's why.

Here comes the other issue with Thames boat services - the Thames is
tidal, and the tides don't neatly coincide with rush hour. So at one
point a boat might be able to float merrily (and cheaply) into the
centre of town, but at a later time it might be struggling against the
tide. This can wreak havoc with scheduling of a high-frequency service
and puts the costs up too.

The problem with the river is that any pier will by its
nature only have half the catchment area of an inland
rail/Tube station.

true, but a high capacity boat service from the east end to
westminster would have cost a minute fraction of the cost of
the J L E. And journey times would not be appreciably
longer. I frequently use the boat instead of the jubilee,
even though the pier is a longer walk than the tube. This is
because the boat offers a vastly better service for a very
small premium.

How many less people would use the boat service compared to the JLE? How
would they get from Stratford to London Bridge, from Canary Wharf to
Baker Street or from North Greenwich to Bond Street by boat? The boat
only offers a better service if it actually goes where people want to go.

Can a boat service carry ~25,000 people per hour per direction?

A cheaper (or fully integrated) system, with 10 min
frequencies, would probably pull in more people ... and in
doing so would reduce overcrowding on other modes. Perhaps
the biggest boon would be to put the current approx. 20min
at peak frequency services from Thames Clippers on the
tube/London connections map. It's a great service and most
people simply don't know about it and hence don't consider
it when planning journeys.

The system could only be cheaper with a massive subsidy, which is not a
particularly good way to run public transport services which only
benefit a small part of the population. The Thames Clippers service may
be good but it also costs a lot more than using the Tube, rail or bus.

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

Integrating river services
 

Dave Arquati wrote:
Aidan Stanger wrote:

Yet they're eager to spend far more on infrastructure projects like the
£40m bus lane on the Thames Gateway Bridge, and the Canary Wharf branch
of Crossrail, which would cost far more than subsidies for boats ever
would. The cost of running boats is on the high side, but so are the
benefits: they can quickly provide plenty of capacity, link communities
N and S of the river, and serve remote parts of London which do not have
bus services (parts of Thamesmead are more than 500m from buses, and
some riverside industrial estates are much further).

Can you get from Heathrow to Canary Wharf by boat? Or from most parts of
West London, Paddington, the West End etc? It's not really relevant to
compare boat subsidies to the cost of Crossrail

It is really relevant to compare them to the cost of THE CANARY WHARF
BRANCH OF Crossrail, as its function would be very similar: providing
capacity to Canary Wharf, and linking communities across the river.

The Canary Wharf branch of Crossrail would only save about ten minutes on
the journey from Heathrow, or W.London, Paddington etc. to Canary Wharf,
compared with Crossrail to Stratford and then a short DLR journey.

I'm not saying such a branch should never be built, but it should be a
lower priority than Crossrail Line 2. Meanwhile, boats can provide the
connectivity at a sensible cost.

- or even the Thames Gateway Bridge for that matter (where did you get the
£40m figure from?).

TfL expect the entire project to cost £400m, and the bus lanes were
expected to come to 10% of the cost. Actually they did say "up to 10%" to
it could be less, though somehow I doubt it. Anyway, it would be an
appalling waste of money, as tolls would ensure that traffic on the
bridge would be free flowing anyway.

Boats won't take you from Thamesmead to Romford, or Abbey Wood
to Barking.

Buses would do that without bus lanes.

Boats can be useful but the river serves a limited catchment area;
interchange is also difficult between river and other modes except at a
few choice locations (although I accept that that can be remedied).

Many locations upstream of Greenwich, and a few town centers downstream!

The problem with the river is that any pier will by its nature only have
half the catchment area of an inland rail/Tube station.

But development density is high enough for that not to be a problem.

Integrating river services
 

In article ,
Aidan Stanger wrote:
TfL expect the entire project to cost £400m, and the bus lanes were
expected to come to 10% of the cost. Actually they did say "up to 10%" to
it could be less, though somehow I doubt it. Anyway, it would be an
appalling waste of money, as tolls would ensure that traffic on the
bridge would be free flowing anyway.

What would make those tolls any better than the tolls on the M25 crossing
(which doesn't keep the bridge free flowing)?

--
Mike Bristow - really a very good driver