On Dec 11, 6:59 am, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Sun, 10 Dec 2006, Dave Arquati wrote:
Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article , (Dave
Arquati) wrote:

Edward Cowling London UK wrote:
In message , John Rowland
writes

A train ever ten minutes all day south of Gordon Hill and New Barnet
would do a lot to pull people back from the Picc,

Exactly !

c. The stations are in much less convenient locations than the
Piccadilly stations.

When I'm going to Hornsey it's much better located for my destination
than is Turnpike Lane.

I'm not saying that the GN stations are inconveniently located for
*everyone* - obviously some destinations will be closer to the GN
stations than the Piccadilly ones, and some bus connections will be more
easily made at GN stations. On balance, however, major destinations and
bus connections are easier at Picc stations simply because the Picc
follows the main road.I have to say, some of the GN stations really are in odd places. Oakleigh
Park in particular - it's in the middle of nowhere! Why wasn't it built it
a mile or so further south, where it would at least have been close to
some vaguely major roads? Winchmore Hill and Grane Park are also pretty
badly sited, but when with the railway having the route it does, there
aren't really any better alternatives.

I imagine GN stations will also be more convenient if you are starting
near another GN station, but the Picc has a much better catchment area
(particularly because it serves central London directly).Unless you want to go to the City, or Shoreditch, or Docklands, or ...

tom

--
VTEC Just Kicked in, Yo!!

What Tfl would do is make sure that there was a decent service within
London - i.e. turn more trains round at Gordon Hill. London TravelWatch
(part paid for by Ken) recently published a report on WAGN slamming the
off-peak frequency and also the ridiculous situation where the contra
flow peak service is 2 tph compared to the off peak 3 tph.