On Sun, 26 Aug 2007, Mark Brader wrote:

It doesn't actually work like that. People prefer through trains,
much as some transit planners would prefer otherwise.

But that argument doesn't really work if you put it the other way
round. Consider if TfL said they were willing to reduce the Victoria
and Piccadilly Line service frequencies by 20% if it meant everyone
currently changing at Finsbury Park could have a direct train.

Oh, that's impressive debating. Snip the part where I quoted what I was
responding to, and then claim that I haven't correctly responded to
something else.

What I was responding to *was*:

Ah, but you're assuming everyone currently waits for a direct train,
which half the time will be the second one. The increase in people
changing is balanced perfectly by the reduction in people waiting for
the second train.

So the correct analogy would be: consider if TfL said that half of
the Victoria Line trains would now go to Cockfosters and half of the
Piccadilly trains would go to Walthamstow.

AND that the total frequency on each line would fall by 20%.

It's equally impressive debating to separate these aspects of the problem;
you can have direct trains, but you also have to have 20% fewer of them.

Yes, it may be true that a simpler service pattern allows higher train
frequencies, and that might be a worthwhile benefit. But there is a
cost as well, so don't go around making fallacious arguments to say that
there isn't.

Quite so, and i didn't think anyone was. The question is simply whether
the benefits outweigh the costs.

For

tom

--
Also giving up smoking (cigarettes) today so apologies if it reads wierd
or I trail off into maddness at any point!! -- Agent D, 20051129