Aidan Stanger wrote:
Dave Arquati wrote:
Aidan Stanger wrote:
Yet they're eager to spend far more on infrastructure projects like the
£40m bus lane on the Thames Gateway Bridge, and the Canary Wharf branch
of Crossrail, which would cost far more than subsidies for boats ever
would. The cost of running boats is on the high side, but so are the
benefits: they can quickly provide plenty of capacity, link communities
N and S of the river, and serve remote parts of London which do not have
bus services (parts of Thamesmead are more than 500m from buses, and
some riverside industrial estates are much further).
Can you get from Heathrow to Canary Wharf by boat? Or from most parts of
West London, Paddington, the West End etc? It's not really relevant to
compare boat subsidies to the cost of Crossrail
It is really relevant to compare them to the cost of THE CANARY WHARF
BRANCH OF Crossrail, as its function would be very similar: providing
capacity to Canary Wharf, and linking communities across the river.
The Canary Wharf branch of Crossrail would only save about ten minutes on
the journey from Heathrow, or W.London, Paddington etc. to Canary Wharf,
compared with Crossrail to Stratford and then a short DLR journey.
DLR doesn't have the capacity to deal with large numbers of passengers
transferring off Crossrail at Stratford and heading for Canary Wharf.
The Jubilee line might, but it's a still a very poor second best to a
Crossrail branch.
The Crossrail branch will also provide a new route into central London
from the North Kent line, which should aid capacity into London Bridge etc.
I'm not saying such a branch should never be built, but it should be a
lower priority than Crossrail Line 2. Meanwhile, boats can provide the
connectivity at a sensible cost.
What connectivity can the boats provide? They already provide
connectivity from southern part of the City, but the service is
expensive to provide and only accessible for destinations close to the
river.
- or even the Thames Gateway Bridge for that matter (where did you get the
£40m figure from?).
TfL expect the entire project to cost £400m, and the bus lanes were
expected to come to 10% of the cost. Actually they did say "up to 10%" to
it could be less, though somehow I doubt it. Anyway, it would be an
appalling waste of money, as tolls would ensure that traffic on the
bridge would be free flowing anyway.
I think the Dartford Crossing provides a lesson here. Unless toll
collection is electronic, the buses will need to bypass queues for
payment. A lack of public transport lanes will also endanger the
acceptability of the whole project - those lanes are meant to be
convertible to tram or DLR later on should they be needed.
Boats won't take you from Thamesmead to Romford, or Abbey Wood
to Barking.
Buses would do that without bus lanes.
No use if they get stuck in the toll queues, or in queues at the bridge
exits.
Boats can be useful but the river serves a limited catchment area;
interchange is also difficult between river and other modes except at a
few choice locations (although I accept that that can be remedied).
Many locations upstream of Greenwich, and a few town centers downstream!
Downstream means a lengthy passage around the peninsula and through the
Thames Barrier, just to reach Woolwich, which will be getting a decent
link via the DLR to Canary Wharf anyway. Upstream, I don't see how more
value can be extracted out of river services than the current commercial
ventures without a massive subsidy. Beyond Westminster, the riverside
area isn't particularly teeming with demand, as demonstrated by the
current limited commercial services to Chelsea Harbour and not really
beyond.
The problem with the river is that any pier will by its nature only have
half the catchment area of an inland rail/Tube station.
But development density is high enough for that not to be a problem.
There must be a problem somewhere or TfL wouldn't have dismissed the
idea of subsidised river services.
--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London