On Wed, 7 Jun 2006 16:49:52 +0100, Ian Jelf
wrote:

In message .com, Neil
Williams writes
John B wrote:

It's clear that a (half) decent service creating significant through
journey opportunities creates its own demand - there is no reason to
assume the ELL will be any different from the NLL or the (also rammed)
WLL in this respect.

Exactly. If the routes are well run and frequent then people will use
them - even the Barking - Gospel Oak line carries decent loads at times
you would not expect and it doesn't have the most attractive of service
specifications.

It's also good to see the development and use of effective orbital
journey opportunities rather than everything being geared up towards
the city centre. That can't be a bad thing, and other smaller cities
could also do with similar provision (albeit probably using buses).

Indeed as Birmingham's legendary Outer Circle 11 and Inner Circle 8
routes have proved for 75-80 years. There aren't low-frequency
occasional routes a la those in - say - Norwich but high-frequency
high-capacity routes with frequencies in excess of radial routes in may
places and which have over the decades created travel patterns all their
own.

I entirely agree - the 253 / 254 in London make no apparent sense in
terms of end to end destinations but they carry huge volumes of people.

The ELLX looks distinctly odd on paper. It will probably surprise us
all for the better, though.

The ELLX may look odd on its own. The real issue is the service pattern
to be provided over the whole set of TfL inherited routes. Thankfully
there is already some innovative thinking going on which provides a
range of through journeys not available at present.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!