|
Crossrail noes fail
Tom Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007, Mizter T wrote: On 10 Oct, 06:03, Tom Anderson wrote: (snip) Moreover, the NLL as it stands is increasingly popular, for some reason, and i can't see it getting broken up in any way - quite the opposite, more trains, services extended to more remote destinations, etc. The NLL is popular because it takes people where they want to go, Yes, but where are they going, and why are they going there? I sort-of address this question in my other reply about the DLR. I don't think that they're all going for a joy-ride (though undoubtedly a few are - and I'm not talking about bashers, just somewhat aimless people milling about). They're going to/from work, the shops, hospital, the cinema, the park, the pub, their friends, the football (both playing and spectating), their school, the museum, the pool etc. I guess, reading between the lines, one of your questions is whether some of these pax would be better served by improved radial routes. Yes, some would, but I think that the NLL (and orbital routes in general) genuinely meets a need that radial routes either can't match, or meets that need better than radial routes would. and does it better than other means (despite the filthy nature of the trains). I still can't quite understand you're dislike for orbital rail routes, especially given that they are liked by large numbers of the travelling public. "People like Coldplay and voted for the Nazis. You can't trust people." :) I don't dislike orbital rail routes - i even use them myself from time to time, although of course i wear a false beard when i do so, so people don't recognise me. My irritation stems from a preoccupation with orbital routes that occasionally strikes some people. Yes, the NLL is busy, and the demand would fill more and longer trains - but most of the radial routes have vastly more demand, and are overcrowded despite having ten times the capacity, so to talk about orbital routes as if they were the most important thing is bonkers. Focusing attention and money on the ELL extension, say, diverts it from problems which really are more significant. Yes, i realise that much of the attraction of orbital routes at the moment is the fact that they can be significantly improved for very little money by linking things up and running more trains, but let's just remember they're the low-hanging fruit, not the top banana. tom Part of the of attraction of orbital routes is to encourage people to come and live in the city, in rejuvenated neighbourhoods, rather than commuting in from afar on radial routes. To an extent when you provide capacity it will be taken advantage of, so if you provide capacity on orbital routes people will be attracted to living near these routes rather than out on radial routes. Perhaps one shouldn't just provide more capacity on radial routes which can encourage longer-distance commuting - the demand is arguably insatiable - but instead provide that capacity elsewhere, on orbital routes. The whole concept of orbital routes should perhaps be read in the context of the London Plan - a hefty document, but one that clearly sets out the aim of encouraging neighbourhoods to flourish all over London. And no - I'm not suggesting that radial routes have no part to play in this, of course they do - but understanding the thinking behind this does provide one with some idea of why orbital routes are considered important. |
Crossrail noes fail
That's a fair question. One could get all Daily Mail-esque and put
forward the notion that a number of these passengers during the daytime aren't going to or from work but are supported by the state in some way and are spending their days doing other things. Because of course, the kinds of people who work in the docklands have jobs and incomes that make them chained to their desks all day, never having meetings anywhere else, working lunches, etc....? |
Crossrail noes fail
most of the radial routes have vastly more demand, and are overcrowded despite having ten
times the capacity, so to talk about orbital routes as if they were the most important thing is bonkers. Most of the radial routes have vastly more demand because the orbital routes are currently atrocious, meaning that people much prefer to take the absurd detour of going into zone 1 and going back out again. Orbital routes would reduce the load on the radial ones drastically. Its a bit like the same logic that means that most people take the M25 rather than drive from Dartford to Heathrow via Oxford Street. |
Crossrail noes fail
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007, lonelytraveller wrote:
most of the radial routes have vastly more demand, and are overcrowded despite having ten times the capacity, so to talk about orbital routes as if they were the most important thing is bonkers. Most of the radial routes have vastly more demand because the orbital routes are currently atrocious, I don't believe that's true. I think most of the radial demand is people going between the outer bits of town, where they live, and the inner bits, where they work and play. Not all, but a large majority. meaning that people much prefer to take the absurd detour of going into zone 1 and going back out again. Orbital routes would reduce the load on the radial ones drastically. Its a bit like the same logic that means that most people take the M25 rather than drive from Dartford to Heathrow via Oxford Street. But Dartford to Heathrow is half the distance via Oxford Street than via the M25! Well, via Vauxhall Bridge, anyway - 33.6 vs 60.2 miles, according to google. The only reason people use the M25 is because Oxford Street isn't a six-lane motorway - if it was, people would take the through-town route. If you had the situation where you had an overcrowded through-town route and an underused round-town route, and expanding them didn't have the negative environmental consequences that it does with roads, you'd be mad to improve the orbital rather than the radial. tom -- 4 8 15 16 23 42 |
Crossrail noes fail
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007, Mizter T wrote:
Tom Anderson wrote: On Wed, 10 Oct 2007, Mizter T wrote: On 10 Oct, 06:03, Tom Anderson wrote: the NLL as it stands is increasingly popular, for some reason The NLL is popular because it takes people where they want to go, Yes, but where are they going, and why are they going there? The whole concept of orbital routes should perhaps be read in the context of the London Plan - a hefty document, but one that clearly sets out the aim of encouraging neighbourhoods to flourish all over London. Ah, well that's another story. I'm off to the pub but will give you my thoughts on the London Plan strategy when i get back ... tom -- 4 8 15 16 23 42 |
Crossrail noes fail
On 11 Oct, 18:05, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007, lonelytraveller wrote: most of the radial routes have vastly more demand, and are overcrowded despite having ten times the capacity, so to talk about orbital routes as if they were the most important thing is bonkers. Most of the radial routes have vastly more demand because the orbital routes are currently atrocious, I don't believe that's true. I think most of the radial demand is people going between the outer bits of town, where they live, and the inner bits, where they work and play. Not all, but a large majority. meaning that people much prefer to take the absurd detour of going into zone 1 and going back out again. Orbital routes would reduce the load on the radial ones drastically. Its a bit like the same logic that means that most people take the M25 rather than drive from Dartford to Heathrow via Oxford Street. But Dartford to Heathrow is half the distance via Oxford Street than via the M25! Well, via Vauxhall Bridge, anyway - 33.6 vs 60.2 miles, according to google. The only reason people use the M25 is because Oxford Street isn't a six-lane motorway - if it was, people would take the through-town route. If you had the situation where you had an overcrowded through-town route and an underused round-town route, and expanding them didn't have the negative environmental consequences that it does with roads, you'd be mad to improve the orbital rather than the radial. tom -- 4 8 15 16 23 42 if Oxford Street was a 6 lane motorway, then all the radial traffic would be using it - it would be even more jammed up than it is now. |
Crossrail noes fail
|
Crossrail noes fail
On 12 Oct, 00:01, (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:
The Central extension to Ealing Broadway was constructed alongside the Ealing & Shepherd's Bush Railway on its own tracks and did not run over it. In particular, the right-to-left hand running flyover was only located on the Central. Not according to the London Railway Atlas - it says they shared tracks east of the junction from 1920 until 1938, when a second pair for the main line was built, and it was this pair abandoned in 1964, so in effect the Central has always run on the original E&SB, and still does. The flyover is shown doubling as a flying junction, so trains from Kensington Olympia heading west could use it to cross the eastbound Central Line. U -- http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/ A blog about transport projects in London |
Crossrail noes fail
On 11 Oct, 18:05, Tom Anderson wrote:
most of the radial routes have vastly more demand, and are overcrowded despite having ten times the capacity, so to talk about orbital routes as if they were the most important thing is bonkers. Most of the radial routes have vastly more demand because the orbital routes are currently atrocious, I don't believe that's true. I think most of the radial demand is people going between the outer bits of town, where they live, and the inner bits, where they work and play. Not all, but a large majority. Hmm. An *awful lot* of non-financial-services companies, including major corporations not just the traditional small-business-light-industry roles, have relocated to outer London, where Home Counties commuters can easily drive into work. Some of these have adequate public transport access; others don't. Last time I was looking to change my job, my only geographical requirement was Greater London (at the time I was working in Finchley Road doing consumer goods marketing). I had five interviews over six months, for jobs based in Hanger Lane, Hayes, Uxbridge, Cambridge (yes, I know), and Farringdon. Eventually I decided to change careers and move into something much more financial-services-y so my current job is in z1 (although while writing this post, I had an unsolicited phone call offering me an interview for a consumer goods marketing job based in Ealing. Which I have no intention of taking, but it's another data point.) Excluding the Cambridge outfit, that suggests that only 1/6 of jobs in consumer goods marketing within Greater London are in z1, and that the majority are well outside the central zones. I can see why consumer goods marketing might be widely distributed than /some/ jobs - a lot of firms put marketers and factories on the same sites - but nonetheless it's a good example of an industry where the work-in- centre, live-in-outside split doesn't seem to apply. In terms of connections, I would have commuted to all of these jobs via the centre, purely due to poor orbital links. When I was working at Finchley Road, I tried to commute using the NLL for a few months, but gave up because it was so horrible and shifted to going via z2 - z1 - z2 on the Underground instead. It was an extra five minutes on the journey and extra £200 p.a., but four times the frequency and only substantial, rather than unbearable, overcrowding... -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 05:41 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk