On Aug 24, 1:22 pm, Mr Thant
wrote:
On Aug 24, 12:52 pm, Kev wrote:


I think it's more about which scheme got planning permission.



That really makes sense. We are basing which projects get funding on
the basis of planning approvals rather that on a needs basis. It seems
incredible the a very busy station in central London closes or
operates as departure only on the basis of overcrowding and TfL can't
get its act together to sort it out.
If they can't get the planning permission then go ahead anyway without
the development.
How on earth can Livingstone bleed the travelling public dry then say
we can't do anything unless we build a multistory office block as part
of the development. They managed to rebuild St Pancras without
knocking it down and putting a 50 story eyesore on top.

Kevin

On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 05:48:35 -0700, John B wrote:

That might be fair enough if the development was in some way
necessary, but the fact was that the "seven-storey tower of shops and
flats" was entirely gratuitous. It's surprising that they thought
their application had any chance of success.

Wasn't the point that, if TfL were allowed to build a tower of shops
and flats, as well as making that particular part of Camden less
scabby and unpleasant,

It is not "scabby and unpleasant" to a whole subculture of people who
use it. I find that attitude to be most ignorant.

it would also pay for the redevelopment works?

It would have covered 10% of the cost.

(see also: Liverpool Street, Charing Cross, etc)

AFAIK those didn't involve the unnecessary demolition of surrounding
markets, nightclubs, etc. The office blocks also fit in with the local
areas there.

On 24 Aug, 11:04, John B wrote:
On Aug 24, 7:36 am, Bob wrote:

Conservative Greater London Authority member for Camden and Barnet
Brian Coleman said:
"It is a cover for reducing the service. The service was run
like this in the past and they changed it to increase trains. Why
would it work the other way round?"

Hmm...

1) running the Northern Line as two separate lines would reduce delays
and enhance capacity, as shown both by operational experience and flow
modelling; the only reason this is not already done is because of the
Camden bottleneck.

2) TfL is very, very obviously doing its best within its budget to
maximise capacity and increase throughput across London's transport
network, and I'd defy anyone to produce evidence to the contrary


As usual, TfL is trying to increase capacity for and throughput of its
vehicles, not of the people who need to travel. The same applies when
buses don't stop at bus stops, but arrive empty at their checkpoints
on time.

How does it help the throughput of passengers (surely the whole point
of a transport system) if half the people currently travelling through
Camden Town without getting off now have to change there, causing
congestion and taking longer for their journeys?



3) unless he means Yerkes' amalgamation of the C&SLR and the CCE&HR in
1924, which may be a little long ago to be representative, there is no
occasion when "the service was run like this in the past and they
changed it to increase trains".

...and people are thinking of making one of this lot the Mayor?

--
John Band
john at johnband dot orgwww.johnband.org

On 24 Aug, 15:47, asdf wrote:
On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 05:48:35 -0700, John B wrote:
That might be fair enough if the development was in some way
necessary, but the fact was that the "seven-storey tower of shops and
flats" was entirely gratuitous. It's surprising that they thought
their application had any chance of success.

Wasn't the point that, if TfL were allowed to build a tower of shops
and flats, as well as making that particular part of Camden less
scabby and unpleasant,

It is not "scabby and unpleasant" to a whole subculture of people who
use it. I find that attitude to be most ignorant.


More significantly, whether anyone likes the feel of Camden or not, it
IS the reason why so many people go there. It's completely illogical
to provide capacity for people to go there while removing the
attraction to go there in the process.



it would also pay for the redevelopment works?

It would have covered 10% of the cost.

(see also: Liverpool Street, Charing Cross, etc)

AFAIK those didn't involve the unnecessary demolition of surrounding
markets, nightclubs, etc. The office blocks also fit in with the local
areas there.

On Aug 24, 4:59 pm, MIG wrote:

How does it help the throughput of passengers (surely the whole point
of a transport system) if half the people currently travelling through
Camden Town without getting off now have to change there, causing
congestion and taking longer for their journeys?

Ah, but you're assuming everyone currently waits for a direct train,
which half the time will be the second one. The increase in people
changing is balanced perfectly by the reduction in people waiting for
the second train.

In other words, whatever service pattern you run, half of all journeys
will involve either waiting for the second train or changing at
Camden. So you might as well run the one that allows a much more
frequent service.

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London

On 2007-08-24, John B wrote:
... and one of the capital's least appealing music
venues.

Don't tell my son that! It has a following, and it would not be easy to find a
new location, nor would it be welcome in a new development, the management of
which never has any imagination.

Mr Thant wrote:

How does it help the throughput of passengers (surely the whole point
of a transport system) if half the people currently travelling through
Camden Town without getting off now have to change there, causing
congestion and taking longer for their journeys?

Ah, but you're assuming everyone currently waits for a direct train,
which half the time will be the second one. The increase in people
changing is balanced perfectly by the reduction in people waiting for
the second train.

In other words, whatever service pattern you run, half of all journeys
will involve either waiting for the second train or changing at
Camden. So you might as well run the one that allows a much more
frequent service.

What about the increase in journey times for people who'd have to change at
Kennington? A large proportion use the Charing Cross branch,

A draft document reveals how one branch would run from Edgware to
Kennington, while another would go from High Barnet through to
Morden.

Huh, I thought one *line* would run from Edgware to Morden, and
another from High Barnet to Kennington?

In any case, I hope that the line that will run to Kennington will
keep the name Northern ;-)

Ah, but you're assuming everyone currently waits for a direct train,
which half the time will be the second one. The increase in people
changing is balanced perfectly by the reduction in people waiting for
the second train.

It doesn't actually work like that. People prefer through trains,
much as some transit planners would prefer otherwise.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "Don't let it drive you crazy...
| Leave the driving to us!" --Wayne & Shuster

On Aug 25, 6:44 am, (Mark Brader) wrote:
Ah, but you're assuming everyone currently waits for a direct train,
which half the time will be the second one. The increase in people
changing is balanced perfectly by the reduction in people waiting for
the second train.

It doesn't actually work like that. People prefer through trains,
much as some transit planners would prefer otherwise.



People will also miss the trains they are trying to change to while
stuck in the congestion at Camden. If I was paying for more zones,
I'd rather wait a couple of minutes at Colindale (say) for a through
train, get in a seat and stay in it to Bank (say).

Having to fight my way through crowds at Camden, while missing the
train I'm trying to change to, and then having to spend the rest of
the journey standing (if I can get on) would dramatically reduce the
quality of my journey.

(But a TfL that can introduce bendy buses obviously isn't concerned
about such considerations.)