wrote in message
...
On 19 Jul, 02:28, "Jonathan" wrote:
Public transport has always been awful; and over the past couple of years
I've noticed that more and more often I'm squashed inside a bus or train,
with hardly enough room to breathe, because the company decided to cancel
earlier buses or trains without notice, and without making any
alternative
arrangements.

If there was a decent tube system in south london some of the pressure
would be taken off the overground trains. But the amount of overground
lines has always been used as an excuse for not further extending the
tube south of the river rather than thinking the services could
complement each other. The its-difficult-to-tunnel excuse no longer
holds water in the 21st century so I guess the only obstacle now would
be money as it ever was - we have tight fisted victorians to thank for
the piddly mainline loading gauge meaning we can't have double deck
trains , and the frankly farcical loading gauge on the deep level tube
lines.

B2003


Lots of people I've spoken to about the petition have made lots of seemingly
excellent suggestions as to how public transport might be improved in the
long term.

But this misses the point of the petition, which is that transport operating
companies seem to routinely pull trains, buses and tubes out of service,
without putting any sort of substitute in place. The net result being that
drivers of services after large gaps attempt to solve the problem of the
backlog of passengers by cramming as many people into vehicles as possible.

Ultimately, changes to the system will have to be made, and someone will
have to spend some money upgrading the transport system we have at present.
But even if money is spent, unless transport operating companies stop
pulling vehicles out of service without notice and without providing a
substitute service, then passengers will continue to be frequently
jam-packed into carriages to a point where they almost cannot breathe, and
cannot exit without extreme difficulty.

This is the point of the petition.

I believe that that sort of gross-overcrowding situation is dangerous, and
will result in people being badly hurt or possibly even killed at some point
in the future.

--
Jonathan
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/sardines/

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 04:46:23 +0100, "Jonathan" wrote:

I believe that that sort of gross-overcrowding situation is dangerous, and
will result in people being badly hurt or possibly even killed at some point
in the future.

As some have pointed out, and I will as well, it is unpleasant but not
really dangerous. It is true that if something happened to the
vehicle concerned more people would be killed than otherwise, but
that's just because the vehicle *contains* more people. I don't
believe a given person in a train carriage containing 150 in a
crush-load would be any more at risk of being killed in such an
accident than if it contained 70 all in seats. Indeed, they might be
a bit safer, because the crush-load might prevent them being thrown
the length of the train in a collision.

There is the issue of those who can't stand for long or can't handle
the high temperatures you might get, but the best option for them if
they know that is to get off and wait for the next one. With your
suggestion, realistically that's what they'd end up having to do
anyway.

Now, I don't think crush-loading is something that should be happening
day-to-day as a matter of course, and there are some routes where it
is that should be sorted out with more capacity. (There are some such
bus routes in Central London which really should get a few more buses
per hour taken from other very quiet routes, for instance). But if it
is necessary to clear disruption, it isn't harmful and it happens the
world over.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 04:46:23 +0100, "Jonathan" wrote:


wrote in message
...
On 19 Jul, 02:28, "Jonathan" wrote:
Public transport has always been awful; and over the past couple of years
I've noticed that more and more often I'm squashed inside a bus or train,
with hardly enough room to breathe, because the company decided to cancel
earlier buses or trains without notice, and without making any
alternative
arrangements.

If there was a decent tube system in south london some of the pressure
would be taken off the overground trains. But the amount of overground
lines has always been used as an excuse for not further extending the
tube south of the river rather than thinking the services could
complement each other. The its-difficult-to-tunnel excuse no longer
holds water in the 21st century so I guess the only obstacle now would
be money as it ever was - we have tight fisted victorians to thank for
the piddly mainline loading gauge meaning we can't have double deck
trains , and the frankly farcical loading gauge on the deep level tube
lines.

B2003


Lots of people I've spoken to about the petition have made lots of seemingly
excellent suggestions as to how public transport might be improved in the
long term.

So what? In almost every case good and improved public transport will
create a surge in demand on not only the new service but on parts of the
network that feed it. Has the Jubilee Line Extension really eased
congestion or has it opened up new corridors and journey possibilities
that didn't exist before? Will London Overground and the ELLX create
sublime travelling conditions for orbital journeys for decades or will
there be a huge surge in demand within 18-24 months of it opening? I'd
suggest it would be latter.

But this misses the point of the petition, which is that transport operating
companies seem to routinely pull trains, buses and tubes out of service,
without putting any sort of substitute in place. The net result being that
drivers of services after large gaps attempt to solve the problem of the
backlog of passengers by cramming as many people into vehicles as possible.

Sorry but things go wrong for a whole pile of legitimate reasons and
sometimes due to complete cock ups. This happens to Tesco and Homebase
just like it happens to bus and rail companies. The consequence in
retail is that you can't buy what you want, you can't pay using your
preferred method of payment or else the frozen chicken is a strange
shade of green and is climbing out of the freezer. Nonetheless there
isn't a contingency range of stock or a secondary debit card payment
system. You go somewhere else or pay by cash. Only in the chicken
example might you be offered some compensation and a replacement - due
to legal issues and the desire to maintain a good corporate image.

Bus and train companies just do not have loads of vehicles and drivers
just waiting to spring into action to fill gaps. Most of the time there
will be no issue at all and certainly not the "safety risk" you seem to
imagine is waiting to leap out from behind a hedge and to inflict death
and destruction on standing passengers.

Have you travelled in the Far East? I have and can tell you that
travelling conditions there are far more crushed than here. They have
extremely efficient and reliable trains and well run bus networks and
yet there is no demand for constraints and restrictions due to safety
concerns. It is recognised that travel at peak times will mean a crush
and places like Tokyo, Hong Kong and Singapore all have well planned,
medium - long term strategies to keep building new lines, extensions,
resignalling and to buy more rolling stock. I'm of the opinion that all
of their good work will still result in overcrowding because the extra
capacity facilitates easier access to work and leisure facilities and
thus people travel more. Good and improved public transport also
triggers further economic development which creates more reasons for
people to travel - it's a viscious cycle but a positive one overall.

Ultimately, changes to the system will have to be made, and someone will
have to spend some money upgrading the transport system we have at present.

Fine - I completely agree with that but first I'd like the country to
work out some objectives and priorities for what it wants its transport
network to do and an agreed, long term way of delivering those
objectives and priorities. Until we do this we'll keep getting our
repeated lurches from left to right in our transport policies which gets
us nowhere.

But even if money is spent, unless transport operating companies stop
pulling vehicles out of service without notice and without providing a
substitute service, then passengers will continue to be frequently
jam-packed into carriages to a point where they almost cannot breathe, and
cannot exit without extreme difficulty.

Sorry but it's been like this for decades and will continue to be so. As
others have mentioned, the Central Line in the peak is as badly crowded
now as it was back in the 80s when I first used it and I dare say back
several decades before then when it had a bigger catchment area as other
tube and rail lines weren't in use.

You are demanding a panacea that is undeliverable. The alternative is a
fully reserved tube, bus and train service which is a palpable nonsense
because it is unmanageable in the context of almost all railway services
(TGV and Eurostar being particular exceptions). It would also be hugely
unpopular with the public because some people prefer to stand and it
would make journey times longer, the service less attractive and also
make the cost of any new line or extension unsustainable. The final
result would be to worsen safety because people would transfer to the
roads and use cars which are less safe than public transport.

This is the point of the petition.

I believe that that sort of gross-overcrowding situation is dangerous, and
will result in people being badly hurt or possibly even killed at some point
in the future.

You clearly do not understand what the safety regulations say in respect
of the (bus and rail) transport industry. There is no requirement to
provide seats for everyone - in fact just the opposite is allowed. There
is a test of reasonable practicality in terms of safety improvement and
that invokes whether it is value for money to spend the money. I have
to say that your perception of danger is out of kilter with that of many
other people and to try to use such an incorrect perception as the basis
of arguing for transport improvement is unlikely to secure any
improvement whatsoever. There are loads of other very good arguments
for improving public transport - I suggest you employ those instead.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

"Jonathan" wrote in message
...
Public transport has always been awful; and over the past couple of years
I've noticed that more and more often I'm squashed inside a bus or train,
with hardly enough room to breathe, because the company decided to cancel
earlier buses or trains without notice, and without making any alternative
arrangements.

Because I believe that this gross-overcrowding is a serious risk to public
health and safety, I've created a petition at
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/sardines/ asking for action to be taken to stop
this gross-overcrowding.

Therefore, if anyone else here shares my concerns, please co-sign the
petition, and if possible, please pass the message along to a few friends.

Jonathan


Good idea. I've always thought there should be an active campaign to
discourage people who don't have to travel in rush hour from using public
transport at peak times.

María

On 19 Jul, 13:39, "Maria" wrote:
Good idea. *I've always thought there should be an active campaign to
discourage people who don't have to travel in rush hour from using public
transport at peak times.

Perhaps they could charge higher fares?

U

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

In message
, at
05:46:58 on Sat, 19 Jul 2008, Mr Thant
remarked:
I've always thought there should be an active campaign to
discourage people who don't have to travel in rush hour from using public
transport at peak times.

Perhaps they could charge higher fares?

Perversely, they charge habitual rush-hour travellers lower fares.
--
Roland Perry

On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 14:04:17 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

Perversely, they charge habitual rush-hour travellers lower fares.

Abolishing this suddenly would probably cause economic meltdown in
London and the South East (and by extension the rest of the UK),
though.

While I agree that lots of commuting is not desirable, it needs to be
dealt with the other way, such as a phased-in legal requirement to
allow (or even mandate) home working for employees (such as office
workers, call centre workers etc) where it is feasible with modern-day
technology.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

"Neil Williams" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 14:04:17 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

Perversely, they charge habitual rush-hour travellers lower fares.

Abolishing this suddenly would probably cause economic meltdown in
London and the South East (and by extension the rest of the UK),
though.

While I agree that lots of commuting is not desirable, it needs to be
dealt with the other way, such as a phased-in legal requirement to
allow (or even mandate) home working for employees (such as office
workers, call centre workers etc) where it is feasible with modern-day
technology.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

This would be a good approach, too. Speaking for myself, I believe I cd
work two days a week from home. I sometimes work one but I feel guilty
about asking! Ridiculous, I know.

María

(Neil Williams) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

While I agree that lots of commuting is not desirable, it needs to be
dealt with the other way, such as a phased-in legal requirement to allow
(or even mandate) home working for employees (such as office workers,
call centre workers etc) where it is feasible with modern-day
technology.

The broadband infrastructure - as it is currently - just wouldn't cope.

"Neil Williams" wrote in message
...

While I agree that lots of commuting is not desirable, it needs to be
dealt with the other way, such as a phased-in legal requirement to
allow (or even mandate) home working for employees (such as office
workers, call centre workers etc) where it is feasible with modern-day
technology.

With the UK xDSL market the way it is ?

I am someone who has the freedom to 'work where I want' when I don't *need*
to be in the office so I will either stay at home, or if I've meetings in
town will use another office somewhere.

If we assume everyone VPN's into a corporate network and that a large number
of the masses are on a 'normal' ADSL package then the max they will ever see
is 56Kbit/sec - not much use for a great deal - 1 VoIP call and a that's
about it.

I'd love for everyone to stay at home my trip to work would be so much
better for it! If everyone can avoid LST on a Monday between 09:00-10:00
that's great for me and a Friday between 16:00-17:00. Any day it's raining
too.


There is a harsh way to address the problem to a certain extent;

Extend J4 (I think) to cover in-boundary tickets in the evening rush (as
NEAR tried to make you believe anyway last year)
Enforce the luggage (Bigger than 1x1m) rule
Enforce the bike rule at at intermediate stations
Bring back the 'on time train get the road' rule (In ARS areas)
Ban children from taking up seats
Ban non folding push chairs
Ban any 'group' travel (like the 20 primary school kids we often pick up
with teachers)
Earlier first trains with clock face time tabling (I know its not that
simple)
Longer units/sets (Again not easy)
Scrap 1st Class on all local peek services

Line and journey (to me anyway) specific bits;

ECML/Hertford Loop to KGX/ZMG
Let gold card holders use NXEC services south of PBO (Unless its already
allowed - but I doubt it)
All Services to run to ZMG (as now in the peeks) but all day
Re time table the KGX terminators for matching ZMG connections (both-ways)

Southbury Loop/ENF/CHI
Reverse the London Fields/Cambridge Heath stopping pattern (Where not all
trains call at either, or 1 station)
Stop ARS holding off for a late running airport
Stop ARS holding off for a late CHI
Re tighten the time table on the ENF leg to stop long dwell times at SVS and
HAC
Move the airports off Bethnal Green West Jn. onto the Mains rather then the
Suburban's
Semi fast workings ENF-BHK-EDR-SVS-HAC-LST


While pricing us off the network won't work (as people will always need to
get into/from the city in the peeks) I don't know what can be done.
Everything come back to money (firstly) and then paths. We already know
there is likely to be a bigish increase in fares for 2009 anyway so what are
people supposed to do. As things are at the moment I know people who pay
less to drive into town for work rather then a train. (Including CC Charge,
Parking, and fuel) It also takes them about the same time but with the
advantage when the trains break they can still get home!

Just my 2p worth as usual...