[[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

[Richard J.]

Boltar wrote:
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.

You've also got the airspace above it congested with the traffic to
exisiting airports. Why do you think that the government, desperately
trying to find somewhere to build new runways in the South East, ruled
out any major expansion of London City?
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)