I think this is a classic case of even though the numbers make sense,
they don't take account of people's mental processes. A through
journey is ALWAYS going to be more attractive than a journey where you
have to change, and if the idea is to get people out of their cars, you
have to make the system as attractive as possible.

To take just one example. From my house, I have two railway stations
within an easy walk. One is two minutes away, one six minutes away.
If I want to go to Charing Cross, I can either walk two minutes, get a
Cannon Street train and change at London Bridge. Or I can walk six
minutes and get a direct train. Which option do you think I choose?
The latter, every time.

Notwithstanding that, if they are determined to get rid of through
services, why not upgrade the shuttle, as asdf says, by way of
compensation?

Patrick

"Patrick" writes:
I think this is a classic case of even though the numbers make sense,
they don't take account of people's mental processes. A through
journey is ALWAYS going to be more attractive than a journey where you
have to change, and if the idea is to get people out of their cars, you
have to make the system as attractive as possible.

Indeed. Here in Toronto, the TTC now explicitly takes this factor into
account when planning route changes. In this annual planning document
(archived on a fan site)

http://transit.toronto.on.ca/archives/reports/2005.pdf

you will find this weighting table on page 9:

each minute of in-vehicle travelling time 1.0
each minute of waiting time 1.5
each minute of walking time 2.0
each transfer 10.0

And I think the TTC has it right. (I just wish they'd followed the same
principles in 1966, but that's another story and off-topic for this group.)

I don't live in London, and I've been on the Mill Hill East branch exactly
once, so I don't presume to say what the Underground should do with it --
but I do say that total trip time and operational convenience are not the
only things they should have been thinking about.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "It's been proven. Places stay clean until somebody
| drops the first piece of litter." -- TTC poster

My text in this article is in the public domain.

Mark Brader wrote:
"Patrick" writes:
I think this is a classic case of even though the numbers make sense,
they don't take account of people's mental processes. A through
journey is ALWAYS going to be more attractive than a journey where you
have to change, and if the idea is to get people out of their cars, you
have to make the system as attractive as possible.

Indeed. Here in Toronto, the TTC now explicitly takes this factor into
account when planning route changes. In this annual planning document
(archived on a fan site)

http://transit.toronto.on.ca/archives/reports/2005.pdf

you will find this weighting table on page 9:

each minute of in-vehicle travelling time 1.0
each minute of waiting time 1.5
each minute of walking time 2.0
each transfer 10.0

And I think the TTC has it right. (I just wish they'd followed the same
principles in 1966, but that's another story and off-topic for this group.)

I don't live in London, and I've been on the Mill Hill East branch exactly
once, so I don't presume to say what the Underground should do with it --
but I do say that total trip time and operational convenience are not the
only things they should have been thinking about.

I agree that transfers are inherently unattractive - although the actual
number is subject to some debate (10 (generalised) minutes seems a bit
arbitrary, if easy to use - research suggests that it depends on
different weightings for transfer walk time and transfer wait time (as
distinct from access walk time and wait time)).

In planning terms, it all comes down to the question: is the net
additional inconvenience to MHE passengers (including a transfer
penalty) less than the net benefit (in terms of reliability) to all
other Northern line passengers? If the answer is yes, the decision is a
sensible one.

Given the relative contribution of MHE to total Northern line ridership,
I suspect the decision *is* sensible. Of course, it depends how much it
actually improves reliability on the rest of the line!

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