On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 22:18:25 +0100, Dave Arquati
wrote:

I don't know whether TL2K is pitched to try to attract some people out
of their cars for M25-based journeys, as the "Superlink" alternative to
Crossrail was. If so, they're probably making a mistake - there's not
much rail can do to solve M25 congestion.

It may not solve M25 congestion, but it would allow individuals to
avoid it by encouraging park and ride.
--
Terry Harper
Website Coordinator, The Omnibus Society
http://www.omnibussoc.org

Terry Harper wrote:
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 22:18:25 +0100, Dave Arquati
wrote:


I don't know whether TL2K is pitched to try to attract some people out
of their cars for M25-based journeys, as the "Superlink" alternative to
Crossrail was. If so, they're probably making a mistake - there's not
much rail can do to solve M25 congestion.


It may not solve M25 congestion, but it would allow individuals to
avoid it by encouraging park and ride.

Park and ride to where? If to central London, then those individuals
won't use the M25 for the greater part of their journey. The M25 has
encouraged a whole host of local and medium distance orbital journeys
which are extremely difficult to address with public transport.

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

Dave Arquati wrote:

Park and ride to where? If to central London, then those individuals
won't use the M25 for the greater part of their journey. The M25 has
encouraged a whole host of local and medium distance orbital journeys
which are extremely difficult to address with public transport.


I'm interested by this, you saying that because the M25 was built and
people started making different journeys, those journeys are now hard to
satisfy by rail?

Doesn't a (further) orbital rail system provide this?

Dan

Dan Gravell wrote:
Dave Arquati wrote:

Park and ride to where? If to central London, then those individuals
won't use the M25 for the greater part of their journey. The M25 has
encouraged a whole host of local and medium distance orbital journeys
which are extremely difficult to address with public transport.


I'm interested by this, you saying that because the M25 was built and
people started making different journeys, those journeys are now hard to
satisfy by rail?

That's precisely what I'm saying. I think the ORBIT multimodal study
pointed this out too, but I'm afraid I don't have any links to hand.

Doesn't a (further) orbital rail system provide this?

No. The M25 doesn't just generate journeys solely along its own route,
it encourages them along radial routes too - so a huge number of
journeys are now made which use the M25 as part of a longer journey. For
example, Maidenhead to Watford, Luton to Uxbridge, Tunbridge Wells to
Croydon... the list is practically endless.

Although you might be able to provide a rail-based alternative to
M25-only journeys (which would be incredibly expensive!), it wouldn't
really help with the part-M25 journeys. If we constructed an interchange
station for every point our hypothetical M25 railway crossed a radial
route, then there would be a possible public transport journey between
any two M25-area towns - but it would often require two changes, and
would therefore be slower and less attractive than a car.

Now, of course, the M25 has not only generated new and diverse journeys
but has encouraged development along its route - notably at Lakeside and
Bluewater - which totally depends on the M25 for access.

The only way to combat M25 congestion now is to introduce area-wide road
user charging and widen it all to at least 4 lanes each way. That way,
the growth induced by widening will be curtailed by the charges, and the
result should (in theory) be a more reliable and useful motorway.

The more likely result is that the government will decide to widen, but
won't have the political willpower to introduce charging, and we'll be
back to square one (or more like square -1) in a few years' time.

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

In article , (Dave
Arquati) wrote:

Now, of course, the M25 has not only generated new and diverse
journeys but has encouraged development along its route - notably at
Lakeside and Bluewater - which totally depends on the M25 for access.

I live in Basingstoke, and shop in both Lakeside and Bluewater.

I don't use the M25 to get to either of them...

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981

I'm Backing Blair - www.backingblair.co.uk

In article ,
Paul Cummins wrote:
I live in Basingstoke, and shop in both Lakeside and Bluewater.

I don't use the M25 to get to either of them...

I suspect you're unusual in that.

--
Mike Bristow - really a very good driver

Paul Cummins wrote:
In article , (Dave
Arquati) wrote:


Now, of course, the M25 has not only generated new and diverse
journeys but has encouraged development along its route - notably at
Lakeside and Bluewater - which totally depends on the M25 for access.


I live in Basingstoke, and shop in both Lakeside and Bluewater.

I don't use the M25 to get to either of them...

Well, if we all had Tardises, we wouldn't need the M25...

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

On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 01:06:41 +0100, Dave Arquati
wrote:

Terry Harper wrote:

It may not solve M25 congestion, but it would allow individuals to
avoid it by encouraging park and ride.

Park and ride to where? If to central London, then those individuals
won't use the M25 for the greater part of their journey. The M25 has
encouraged a whole host of local and medium distance orbital journeys
which are extremely difficult to address with public transport.

A large part of then M25 traffic is transferring from one motorway to
another. It draws traffic out from the inner area, and in from the
outer sector, simply because there are no better alternatives. I went
to a family funeral in Sunbury on Tuesday, and my route took me via
the M23, then M25 and then M3. Before the M25 I would probably have
gone A272, A24, A244 then A3 to the Scilly lsles, then via Hampton
Court bridge, or else over Walton bridge from Esher. Both shorter
routes, but much more congested and taking considerably longer.

People heading in towards London are frequently looking for somewhere
to leave their cars and continue by public transport, as many threads
on this board will testify. Depending on their ultimate destination,
they may well use the M25 to get to another motorway, which is a
better approach to that place than is ploughing through the centre. In
other cases, they would like a railway line which gets them to their
destination. Only Thameslink offers a cross-London route for this
purpose, ignoring the West London Line as being orbital.
--
Terry Harper
Website Coordinator, The Omnibus Society
http://www.omnibussoc.org

Terry Harper wrote:
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 01:06:41 +0100, Dave Arquati
wrote:


Terry Harper wrote:

It may not solve M25 congestion, but it would allow individuals to
avoid it by encouraging park and ride.

Park and ride to where? If to central London, then those individuals
won't use the M25 for the greater part of their journey. The M25 has
encouraged a whole host of local and medium distance orbital journeys
which are extremely difficult to address with public transport.


A large part of then M25 traffic is transferring from one motorway to
another. It draws traffic out from the inner area, and in from the
outer sector, simply because there are no better alternatives. I went
to a family funeral in Sunbury on Tuesday, and my route took me via
the M23, then M25 and then M3. Before the M25 I would probably have
gone A272, A24, A244 then A3 to the Scilly lsles, then via Hampton
Court bridge, or else over Walton bridge from Esher. Both shorter
routes, but much more congested and taking considerably longer.

People heading in towards London are frequently looking for somewhere
to leave their cars and continue by public transport, as many threads
on this board will testify. Depending on their ultimate destination,
they may well use the M25 to get to another motorway, which is a
better approach to that place than is ploughing through the centre. In
other cases, they would like a railway line which gets them to their
destination. Only Thameslink offers a cross-London route for this
purpose, ignoring the West London Line as being orbital.

There is such a huge variety of origins and destinations for these trips
that Thameslink itself will make little difference to M25 traffic. AFAIR
about half of traffic on the M25 is long-distance, with origins and
destinations nowhere near the M25, and the other half is short or medium
distance trips around the south east. Thameslink 2000 may provide a
direct route from Croydon to St Albans, Dartford to Enfield etc. but
despite providing an alternative for those trips, it does nothing for a
huge variety of other trips. An illustrative exercise might be to take a
single origin like Croydon and list all destinations (or more
realistically, all towns above a particular size) within 15 miles of the
M25, and then count how many of those destinations can be reached using
Thameslink - or indeed any rail service with one or no changes.

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

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 23:54:28 +0100, Dave Arquati
wrote:

Terry Harper wrote:

On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 01:06:41 +0100, Dave Arquati
wrote:

Terry Harper wrote:

It may not solve M25 congestion, but it would allow individuals to
avoid it by encouraging park and ride.

Park and ride to where? If to central London, then those individuals
won't use the M25 for the greater part of their journey. The M25 has
encouraged a whole host of local and medium distance orbital journeys
which are extremely difficult to address with public transport.

People heading in towards London are frequently looking for somewhere
to leave their cars and continue by public transport, as many threads
on this board will testify. Depending on their ultimate destination,
they may well use the M25 to get to another motorway, which is a
better approach to that place than is ploughing through the centre. In
other cases, they would like a railway line which gets them to their
destination. Only Thameslink offers a cross-London route for this
purpose, ignoring the West London Line as being orbital.

There is such a huge variety of origins and destinations for these trips
that Thameslink itself will make little difference to M25 traffic. AFAIR
about half of traffic on the M25 is long-distance, with origins and
destinations nowhere near the M25, and the other half is short or medium
distance trips around the south east. Thameslink 2000 may provide a
direct route from Croydon to St Albans, Dartford to Enfield etc. but
despite providing an alternative for those trips, it does nothing for a
huge variety of other trips. An illustrative exercise might be to take a
single origin like Croydon and list all destinations (or more
realistically, all towns above a particular size) within 15 miles of the
M25, and then count how many of those destinations can be reached using
Thameslink - or indeed any rail service with one or no changes.

You didn't read what I said in the first place, did you?

It may not solve the M25 congestion - no rail-based plan will ever do
that, but it will solve a problem for many car drivers and take them
off the M25.

The One-Day Travelcard is a blessing for any journey inside the M25
with a destination withing Zone 6. As you ought to be aware, virtually
every journey involves at least three modes of transport, counting
walking as one mode. Multi-mode transport is a way of life in the
urban scene.
--
Terry Harper
Website Coordinator, The Omnibus Society
http://www.omnibussoc.org