Tom Anderson wrote:

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007, Mizter T wrote:

On 10 Oct, 06:03, Tom Anderson wrote:
(snip) Moreover, the NLL as it
stands is increasingly popular, for some reason, and i can't see it
getting broken up in any way - quite the opposite, more trains,
services extended to more remote destinations, etc.

The NLL is popular because it takes people where they want to go,

Yes, but where are they going, and why are they going there?

I sort-of address this question in my other reply about the DLR.

I don't think that they're all going for a joy-ride (though
undoubtedly a few are - and I'm not talking about bashers, just
somewhat aimless people milling about). They're going to/from work,
the shops, hospital, the cinema, the park, the pub, their friends, the
football (both playing and spectating), their school, the museum, the
pool etc.

I guess, reading between the lines, one of your questions is whether
some of these pax would be better served by improved radial routes.
Yes, some would, but I think that the NLL (and orbital routes in
general) genuinely meets a need that radial routes either can't match,
or meets that need better than radial routes would.


and does it better than other means (despite the filthy nature of the
trains). I still can't quite understand you're dislike for orbital rail
routes, especially given that they are liked by large numbers of the
travelling public.

"People like Coldplay and voted for the Nazis. You can't trust people."

I don't dislike orbital rail routes - i even use them myself from time to
time, although of course i wear a false beard when i do so, so people
don't recognise me. My irritation stems from a preoccupation with orbital
routes that occasionally strikes some people. Yes, the NLL is busy, and
the demand would fill more and longer trains - but most of the radial
routes have vastly more demand, and are overcrowded despite having ten
times the capacity, so to talk about orbital routes as if they were the
most important thing is bonkers. Focusing attention and money on the ELL
extension, say, diverts it from problems which really are more
significant. Yes, i realise that much of the attraction of orbital routes
at the moment is the fact that they can be significantly improved for very
little money by linking things up and running more trains, but let's just
remember they're the low-hanging fruit, not the top banana.

tom


Part of the of attraction of orbital routes is to encourage people to
come and live in the city, in rejuvenated neighbourhoods, rather than
commuting in from afar on radial routes.

To an extent when you provide capacity it will be taken advantage of,
so if you provide capacity on orbital routes people will be attracted
to living near these routes rather than out on radial routes. Perhaps
one shouldn't just provide more capacity on radial routes which can
encourage longer-distance commuting - the demand is arguably
insatiable - but instead provide that capacity elsewhere, on orbital
routes.

The whole concept of orbital routes should perhaps be read in the
context of the London Plan - a hefty document, but one that clearly
sets out the aim of encouraging neighbourhoods to flourish all over
London.

And no - I'm not suggesting that radial routes have no part to play in
this, of course they do - but understanding the thinking behind this
does provide one with some idea of why orbital routes are considered
important.