View Single Post
  #28   Report Post  
Old March 25th 05, 09:57 AM posted to uk.transport.london
u n d e r a c h i e v e r u n d e r a c h i e v e r is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Jul 2003
Posts: 27
Default Integrating river services

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 19:53:21 +0000, Paul Terry
wrote:
In message
,
Tom Anderson writes

Play fair - the boats have rather lower capital costs than
the tubes, since the track's already there.


On the other hand, the "stations" have to go up and down
with the tide


Anyone who has been to Venice will know that efficient
water-borne transport is possible (although it is
massively subsidised), but the tiny tidal variance in the
lagoon allows for very lightweight landing stations and
very fast and efficient two-crew operation (probably
taking no longer than a tube stop).

The great rise and fall of the Thames necessitates complex
pontoon structures, and I suspect that the UK's HSE would
not approve of ACTV Venice's operating procedures that
facilitate three-minute service intervals and timings of
one minute per stop.


indeed, there are safety considerations at the piers. But
the turn round times are very quick nonetheless.

and perhaps if frequencies were high enough, there would be
no need for so many staff on the boats, instead you have
staff at the piers to maintain passenger safety, provide
information and so on.

Tube infrastructure costs a fortune. For (I guess) 1% of the
cost of the JLE you could give Thames Clippers a very decent
fleet of boats. I'm sure they could run a very good service,
and return an operating profit if someone else was meeting
the capital costs.

Every bum on seat on the Clippers is another person not
cramming onto the tubes, buses and/or driving. That's good
for everyone who travels in London, even if their journey
doesn't have a pier at either end. For relatively little
cap. ex. (compared with tubes) we could have a high
capacity, fully integrated "line" from chelsea to greenwich.
Would it require ongoing subsidy if it operated at tube fare
levels? Yes, but it wouldn't cost billions and billions to
set up, get mired in planning arguments and/or require
parliamentary consent, and take donkey's years to complete
either.

And, right now, we could stick the excellent service that IS
there on the map and take oyster too. I'm currently carrying
two prepays around at the moment, one for the clippers and
one for LT.

--
u n d e r a c h i e v e r