[Brimstone]

Boltar wrote:
When the tube initially arrived at Hounslow back in the 30s, heathrow
was a
patch of grass with some bi-planes sitting on it. When the jubilee
line was
extended LCA was already a busy airport and IMO was a clear target
for the JLE to terminate at instead of the rather pointless terminus
at Stratford.


Agreed that LCY would have been a good place for the Jubilee to serve. But
if it had been made the terminus where would the new depot have been sited
and what provision would there have been for people wanting to travel to and
from the east?

[Richard J.]

Boltar wrote:
When the tube initially arrived at Hounslow back in the 30s,
heathrow was a patch of grass with some bi-planes sitting on it.
When the jubilee line was extended LCA was already a busy
airport and IMO was a clear target for the JLE to terminate at
instead of the rather pointless terminus at Stratford.

London City is and always will be quite a small airport. It currently
handles about 1.7 mppa (million passengers per annum). Assuming 50
weeks of 5 days, that's 6800 passengers per day. According to Newham
Council, Stratford station (all lines) currently handles 52,000
passengers per day. I fail to see the logic behind "clear target" and
"rather pointless terminus"

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

[Boltar]

London City is and always will be quite a small airport. It currently
handles about 1.7 mppa (million passengers per annum). Assuming 50
weeks of 5 days, that's 6800 passengers per day. According to Newham

And you don't think thats a lot?

Council, Stratford station (all lines) currently handles 52,000
passengers per day. I fail to see the logic behind "clear target" and
"rather pointless terminus"

Airport = clear target (and obviously someone in tfl has finally
noticed or
else the DLR wouldn't be going there).

Rather pointless terminus = area that is already served by mainline
trains
to liverpool street, NLL, central line & DLR. I'm trying to think of a
reason
that a run down tip like stratford would need yet another tube line to
go
there.

B2003

[[email protected]]

Boltar wrote:
London City is and always will be quite a small airport. It currently
handles about 1.7 mppa (million passengers per annum). Assuming 50
weeks of 5 days, that's 6800 passengers per day. According to Newham

And you don't think thats a lot?

If half of all the passengers going to and from to the airport used the
Jubilee line that would average 7 passengers per train. Given that
virtually all the flights are business orientated that proportion is
optimistic.

Council, Stratford station (all lines) currently handles 52,000
passengers per day. I fail to see the logic behind "clear target" and
"rather pointless terminus"

Airport = clear target (and obviously someone in tfl has finally
noticed or else the DLR wouldn't be going there).

An airport is not a 'clear target' simply because it's an airport. It's
because of the figures above that only the DLR is going there - and
more importantly, serving the airport as only as an intermediate
station, not a terminus (Woolwich is the ultimate terminus).

Rather pointless terminus = area that is already served by mainline
trains to liverpool street, NLL, central line & DLR. I'm trying to
think of a reason that a run down tip like stratford would need yet
another tube line to go there.

Very Margaret Thatcher like thinking. Perhaps the fact that the area is
being redeveloped will be aided by the presence of the Jubilee line.
The connections that the Jubilee line have greatly assist the creation
of an integrated transport system. By your logic British Museum would
still be open instead of Holborn on the Central line, "because the
Piccadilly line already goes there".

Will you now admit that the figures don't stack up for your case?

[Dave Arquati]

Boltar wrote:
London City is and always will be quite a small airport. It currently
handles about 1.7 mppa (million passengers per annum). Assuming 50
weeks of 5 days, that's 6800 passengers per day. According to Newham


And you don't think thats a lot?


Council, Stratford station (all lines) currently handles 52,000
passengers per day. I fail to see the logic behind "clear target" and
"rather pointless terminus"


Airport = clear target (and obviously someone in tfl has finally
noticed or
else the DLR wouldn't be going there).

Rather pointless terminus = area that is already served by mainline
trains
to liverpool street, NLL, central line & DLR. I'm trying to think of a
reason
that a run down tip like stratford would need yet another tube line to
go
there.

So that people can interchange from those lines to reach Canary Wharf
and LB Southwark easily? To increase capacity between the east and
Canary Wharf?

You pointed out yourself that the airport is a traffic target otherwise
the DLR wouldn't be going there. However, the reason the DLR is going
there and not the Jubilee line is that 6,800 passengers per day does NOT
warrant a hugely expensive Underground line. The DLR can cope with 6,800
passengers per day and then some.


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

[Boltar]

f half of all the passengers going to and from to the airport used the
Jubilee line that would average 7 passengers per train. Given that
virtually all the flights are business orientated that proportion is
optimistic.

Yes , because you'll never get many business people travelling to
docklands from LCA will you. And i'd be interested to know just
how many extra people travel to stratford now the JLE goes there
who wouldn't have used the DLR previously.

An airport is not a 'clear target' simply because it's an airport. It's
because of the figures above that only the DLR is going there - and
more importantly, serving the airport as only as an intermediate
station, not a terminus (Woolwich is the ultimate terminus).

So an airport used by a large number of business people isn't a
clear target for a tube line that goes through a major business
district , but an area thats already got a surfeit of public transport
connections is. Hmm , well I'm sure theres logic in your argument
somewhere but I'm buggered if I can see it. Incidentaly , have a
think about whether the DLR would be having a new extension if
LCA didn't exist.

Very Margaret Thatcher like thinking. Perhaps the fact that the area is

Thank you, I'll take that as a complement.

being redeveloped will be aided by the presence of the Jubilee line.

So the jubilee line will somehow magically transform all the chavs
and other assorted dregs of humanity in that ******** of an area into
worthy upstanding citizens where the central line, NLL , DLR etc
failed?

of an integrated transport system. By your logic British Museum would
still be open instead of Holborn on the Central line, "because the
Piccadilly line already goes there".

Err no., Because the lines would cross anyway as they go to their
respective destinations. However I doubt someone would have come
along and said "ooo , I know , we won't send the piccadilly line to
finsbury park , we'll make it terminate at liverpool street even tho
the met, circle , H&C and central already go there."

Will you now admit that the figures don't stack up for your case?

Are you having a laugh? Your arguments are so full of holes they
would make a swiss cheese envious.

B2003

[Rupert Candy]

Boltar wrote:

Rather pointless terminus = area that is already served by mainline
trains
to liverpool street, NLL, central line & DLR. I'm trying to think of a
reason
that a run down tip like stratford would need yet another tube line to
go
there.

How about so that NR passengers from the huge commuter hinterland of NE
London and Essex can get to the equally huge centre of employment at
Canary Wharf without having to go into Central London or use the DLR's
pretend trains?

(I imagine providing access to the Dome from aforementioned areas also
had something to do with it...)

[[email protected]]

Rupert Candy wrote:

(I imagine providing access to the Dome from aforementioned areas also
had something to do with it...)

Surprisingly no - the Jubilee line was planned and well under
construction before the Dome was conceived. The Dome was basically
sited so as to be next to the Jubilee line (IIRC Birmingham NEC was
another proposed location).

Obviously once the Dome was confirmed for 2000 it then became critical
to complete the Jubilee Line in time - original completion date at the
start of construction was March 1998, but it slipped behind for various
reasons. The press tended to present the Jubilee line as being built to
serve the Dome, but it was never that way.

[[email protected]]

Boltar wrote:
f half of all the passengers going to and from to the airport used the
Jubilee line that would average 7 passengers per train. Given that
virtually all the flights are business orientated that proportion is
optimistic.

Yes , because you'll never get many business people travelling to
docklands from LCA will you. And i'd be interested to know just
how many extra people travel to stratford now the JLE goes there
who wouldn't have used the DLR previously.

I would guess you might get 35% maximum of the airport's passengers
using either DLR (or a hypothetical Jubilee line station). The others
will arrive by road. I would think that the business case for the DLR
extension has an accurate estimate, but I don't have the time to try
and locate this. Perhaps someone else could track it down.

Even if 100% of passengers used rail that would still be 14 passengers
per train, averaged out. And don't forget the airport closes Saturday
lunchtime to Sunday lunchtime.

An airport is not a 'clear target' simply because it's an airport. It's
because of the figures above that only the DLR is going there - and
more importantly, serving the airport as only as an intermediate
station, not a terminus (Woolwich is the ultimate terminus).

So an airport used by a large number of business people isn't a
clear target for a tube line that goes through a major business
district , but an area thats already got a surfeit of public transport
connections is. Hmm , well I'm sure theres logic in your argument
somewhere but I'm buggered if I can see it. Incidentaly , have a
think about whether the DLR would be having a new extension if
LCA didn't exist.

The LCA annual passenger numbers quoted above (facts) comprehensively
demolish any argument you might have IMHO. If you want to subsidise an
Underground line to a station that would provide such a meagre
passenger base go ahead and write to the ODPM and offer to do so.

As far as increased passenger numbers and airport expansion go, I can
only assume you don't know the footprint, layout and available
development space in and around London City Airport. Unless you wish to
demolish everything to the south of the Royal Docks to the riverbank
the airport is never going to provide any more passengers that a
10-minute frequency on the DLR can comfortably handle.

I've snipped the rest because I haven't got time to rationalise any
more with the irrational. Somebody else can try and deal with the rest
of the points if they want...

[Boltar]

only assume you don't know the footprint, layout and available
development space in and around London City Airport. Unless you wish to
demolish everything to the south of the Royal Docks to the riverbank
the airport is never going to provide any more passengers that a
10-minute frequency on the DLR can comfortably handle.

You mean almost the same as what they did to build Canary Wharf?
No , I'm sure that would never happen again. Never. Ever.

B2003