On Aug 25, 12:08 pm, asdf wrote:
On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 00:34:03 -0700, MIG wrote:
People will also miss the trains they are trying to change to while
stuck in the congestion at Camden. If I was paying for more zones,
I'd rather wait a couple of minutes at Colindale (say) for a through
train, get in a seat and stay in it to Bank (say).

Having to fight my way through crowds at Camden,

You don't have to fight anything, you just have to follow the crowd.

while missing the train I'm trying to change to,

If it takes x seconds to change platforms at Camden, then the first
train that departs after x seconds is up is the one you'll get. If
you're trying to get an earlier one, maybe you shouldn't have
bothered. This may seem unjust to you, but it's how it works at every
single interchange station on the network already. (And at your
starting station, where you get the first train to depart at least y
seconds after you leave the house, where y is the time to reach the
platform, etc.)

And it won't delay you any more than the current delays at Camden Town
when there's a train from High Barnet towards Bank in the way of
yours.

and then having to spend the rest of
the journey standing (if I can get on)

Guess what? If the service is split and the train frequency is
increased, there will be *more* seats available overall. But if TfL
don't consider your personal chances of getting a seat for your entire
journey as more important than everyone else's, that makes them
uncaring?

(Yes, I know your journey is only hypothetical.)

would dramatically reduce the quality of my journey.

(But a TfL that can introduce bendy buses obviously isn't concerned
about such considerations.)

How do you know they aren't concerned? Unlike you, they also have to
take into consideration the people who will be left behind standing on
crowded platforms if the service isn't split and the train frequency
isn't increased, and balance everyone's needs.



My concern is that performance is measured by the movement of TfL and
the relevant providers' vehicles, rather than by the arrival of
passengers at their destinations in a reasonably comfortable state.

It's a case of measuring what can be measured, rather than what's
important. That's perfectly understandable, but the changes in recent
years are about more than just measuring. Positive steps have been
taken to get the vehicles through unhindered by passengers, and while
this improves "performance", based on what can be measured, it is not
improving the journey experience (or timely arrival at destination) of
the passengers.

I am talking about measures like LU drivers risking being disciplined
if they don't shut the doors before people have a chance to get on,
and buses not stopping at compulsory stops.

I suspect that the plans for the Northern Line are similarly about
getting vehicles through unhindered by passengers, and being able to
claim increased throughput, regardless of the journey experience of
the passengers.