"Aidan Stanger" wrote in message
...
Paul Terry wrote:
Tom Anderson writes

Play fair - the boats have rather lower capital costs than the tubes,
since the track's already there.

On the other hand, the "stations" have to go up and down with the tide


Anyone who has been to Venice will know that efficient water-borne
transport is possible (although it is massively subsidised), but the
tiny tidal variance in the lagoon allows for very lightweight landing
stations and very fast and efficient two-crew operation (probably taking
no longer than a tube stop).

The great rise and fall of the Thames necessitates complex pontoon
structures, and I suspect that the UK's HSE would not approve of ACTV
Venice's operating procedures that facilitate three-minute service
intervals and timings of one minute per stop.

Actually operating boat services on tidal rivers is very easy! The
(small) CityCat on the Brisbane river, and (large) Sydney ferries on the
Paramatta River do it all the time.

Not to mention the ferries plying across New York's rivers, Hong Kong, the
Mersey etc.

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005, Dave Arquati wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005, Dave Arquati wrote:


Aidan Stanger wrote:

Dave Arquati wrote:

Boats can be useful but the river serves a limited catchment area;
interchange is also difficult between river and other modes except at a
few choice locations (although I accept that that can be remedied).

Many locations upstream of Greenwich, and a few town centers downstream!

Downstream means a lengthy passage around the peninsula and through the
Thames Barrier, just to reach Woolwich,

You mean around Docklands?

Aidan said downstream from Greenwich, so that's what I was referring to
- the downstream route around the North Greenwich peninsula.

Doh! Good point. We'll just have to wait for the Bugsby's Ship Canal to
make that leg a bit quicker ...

tom

--
Your words are mostly meaningless symbols -- Andrew, to Niall

Aidan Stanger wrote:
Paul Terry wrote:
Tom Anderson writes

Play fair - the boats have rather lower capital costs than the
tubes, since the track's already there.

On the other hand, the "stations" have to go up and down with the
tide

Anyone who has been to Venice will know that efficient water-borne
transport is possible (although it is massively subsidised), but
the tiny tidal variance in the lagoon allows for very lightweight
landing stations and very fast and efficient two-crew operation
(probably taking no longer than a tube stop).

The great rise and fall of the Thames necessitates complex pontoon
structures, and I suspect that the UK's HSE would not approve of
ACTV Venice's operating procedures that facilitate three-minute
service intervals and timings of one minute per stop.

Actually operating boat services on tidal rivers is very easy! The
(small) CityCat on the Brisbane river, and (large) Sydney ferries
on the Paramatta River do it all the time.

But IIRC the tidal rise and fall in Sydney is quite small. In London it
can be more than 7 metres.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005, Aidan Stanger wrote:

Dave Arquati wrote:

In the meantime, the money not spent on the CW branch would only cover
a small portion the cost of Crossrail 2, which I believe is costed as
even more expensive that Crossrail 1.

The 2bn saved from deleting the Canary Wharf branch and Whitechapel
stop, and locating the portal at Globetown, would pay for a fair chunk
of the Clapham Junction to Dalston Junction tunnel!

Why delete Whitechapel? Seems like a good place for a station to me. Plus,
even if you didn't build that branch, you'd want lo leave yourself the
option of building it some time in the future, and a station at
Whitechapel where you could link the tunnels would be ideal.

tom

--
Your words are mostly meaningless symbols -- Andrew, to Niall

Richard J. wrote:
Aidan Stanger wrote:

Actually operating boat services on tidal rivers is very easy! The
(small) CityCat on the Brisbane river, and (large) Sydney ferries
on the Paramatta River do it all the time.

But IIRC the tidal rise and fall in Sydney is quite small. In London
it can be more than 7 metres.

Apart from the obvious need to put in place piers with sufficient rise and
fall to allow a comfortable transition between vessel and terra firma plus
vessels with sufficient power to work against the tide, how does that make
any significant difference?

Richard J. wrote to uk.transport.london on Fri, 25 Mar 2005:


But IIRC the tidal rise and fall in Sydney is quite small. In London it
can be more than 7 metres.

Given that for centuries the river provided almost the *only* public
transport available in London, I rather suspect that this is a problem
which has been overcome in the past, and can be again.
--
"Mrs Redboots"
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/
Website updated 20 March 2005

Mrs Redboots wrote:
Richard J. wrote to uk.transport.london on Fri, 25 Mar 2005:


But IIRC the tidal rise and fall in Sydney is quite small. In
London it can be more than 7 metres.

Given that for centuries the river provided almost the *only* public
transport available in London, I rather suspect that this is a problem
which has been overcome in the past, and can be again.

Is it even a problem since boats are loading and unloading now?

Aidan Stanger wrote:
Dave Arquati wrote:

Aidan Stanger wrote:

Dave Arquati wrote:

Aidan Stanger wrote:

Dave Arquati wrote:

Aidan Stanger wrote:

Yet they're eager to spend far more on infrastructure projects like the
£40m bus lane on the Thames Gateway Bridge, and the Canary Wharf branch
of Crossrail, which would cost far more than subsidies for boats ever
would. The cost of running boats is on the high side, but so are the
benefits: they can quickly provide plenty of capacity, link communities
N and S of the river, and serve remote parts of London which do not have
bus services (parts of Thamesmead are more than 500m from buses, and
some riverside industrial estates are much further).

Can you get from Heathrow to Canary Wharf by boat? Or from most parts of
West London, Paddington, the West End etc? It's not really relevant to
compare boat subsidies to the cost of Crossrail

It is really relevant to compare them to the cost of THE CANARY WHARF
BRANCH OF Crossrail, as its function would be very similar: providing
capacity to Canary Wharf, and linking communities across the river.

The Canary Wharf branch of Crossrail would only save about ten minutes on
the journey from Heathrow, or W.London, Paddington etc. to Canary Wharf,
compared with Crossrail to Stratford and then a short DLR journey.

DLR doesn't have the capacity to deal with large numbers of passengers
transferring off Crossrail at Stratford and heading for Canary Wharf.

It would if Bow to Stratford were double tracked and platforms were
lengthened.

DLR capacity is constrained by the layout of the North Quay junctions.
I'm not sure whether the junctions or indeed Canary Wharf station could
handle a very high combined frequency of trains from Bank and Stratford.

AIUI they already do in the peaks, but some trains have to turn back at
Bow Church because the single track between there and Stratford can't
take more trains.

But if the Stratford branch gets more trains after double tracking, and
the LCY branch trains to Bank come into operation, both competing for
paths through North Quay with the Bank-Lewisham and Tower
Gateway-Beckton trains, I was under the impression North Quay will be
over capacity.

The Jubilee line might, but it's a still a very poor second best to a
Crossrail branch.

Maybe, but Canary Wharf's just got the Jubilee Line, while much of
Central London still hasn't got the railways it needs to solve the
overcrowding problems. Which do you think should take priority?

CWG said they will contribute towards the cost of Crossrail.

Yes, like they contributed towards the cost of extending the Jubilee...

True... maybe the contract should be better thought out this time.

AIUI the scale of future developments at Canary Wharf will also mean
Jubilee line capacity will become a problem. Waiting until after CR2 to
build the Crossrail branch might be too long.

Meanwhile there's ALREADY a problem in Central London - the Victoria
Line is at capacity.

CR1 is supposed to reduce overcrowding to some extent on almost every
Tube line. If it doesn't do anything to the Victoria, then it will
reduce overcrowding on other lines like the Piccadilly and Northern
which may then be able to take passengers who currently use the
Victoria, etc. The Cross River Tram should also lessen overcrowding on
the Northern and Victoria lines somewhat.

We have to consider politics. If ~£2bn is available now, that doesn't
mean it will be available later. If an £8bn Crossrail is built instead
of a £10bn one, that doesn't mean that the £2bn "left over" will
suddenly carry over and magically attract another £11bn or whatever is
needed to build CR2.

If we assume the CW branch will be needed sooner or later, and we assume
the real cost of the CW branch will remain the same (which may not be
true), then whether it's built now or later is the issue; building it
later means going through the whole consultation and hybrid bill process
again later, wasting money.

But if you initially started to use boats to provide the capacity then
when you have a high demand you can build a railway.

The boats are serving a different market to the railway. If no-one has
managed to build up a high demand market for river services yet, what
makes it more likely now?

In the meantime, the money not spent on the
CW branch would only cover a small portion the cost of Crossrail 2,
which I believe is costed as even more expensive that Crossrail 1.

The 2bn saved from deleting the Canary Wharf branch and Whitechapel
stop, and locating the portal at Globetown, would pay for a fair chunk
of the Clapham Junction to Dalston Junction tunnel!

See my comment above. With respect to Whitechapel, this will provide an
interchange with the extended and more intensively used East London
Line; when orbital services are ever more in demand, it makes sense to
provide decent interchange with them when the possibility arises. The
Whitechapel stop also meets the aim of helping to regenerate the City
Fringe area.

The Crossrail branch will also provide a new route into central London

from the North Kent line, which should aid capacity into London Bridge etc.

It won't do much in the way of tph capacity, as the Greenwich Line will
still have to be served. As for passenger capacity, if they were serious
about that then they'd finish the work needed to introduce 12 car
trains.

I did mean passenger capacity (for stations from Plumstead onwards into
London Bridge). You have a point about the 12-car project - but I didn't
mean that the CW branch is exclusively for freeing up passenger capacity
on the Greenwich line; it provides other benefits too, and the whole
package is attractive.

You think spending billions of pounds to construct some tunnels that
will carry only 12tph to a part of London that's just had a new railway
built to it, when other parts are grossly underserved, is attractive?
Even though that capacity could easily be provided with boats instead?

Can boats provide 12,000 passengers per hour, given that each stop
requires a couple of minutes for mooring, disembarkation etc.?

I'm not saying such a branch should never be built, but it should be a
lower priority than Crossrail Line 2. Meanwhile, boats can provide the
connectivity at a sensible cost.

What connectivity can the boats provide? They already provide
connectivity from southern part of the City, but the service is
expensive to provide and only accessible for destinations close to the
river.

I think I meant to type "capacity" there - providing capacity would be
far cheaper (per passenger) to provide if there were more passengers.
As for Connectivity, there is more potential downstream of Canary Wharf,
but the Wapping and Rotherhithe areas could also benefit.

Boats still can't reasonably provide a capacity of around 30,000
passengers per hour per direction. Providing capacity is cheaper per
passenger if there are more passengers, yes... until you have too many
passengers and have to provide more boats.

What I mean is that bigger boats are (at the same loading relative to
capacity) cheaper to operate than small boats.

True... but they're still expensive to operate (and buy) for the demand
they'd generate compared to a railway.

I still think that the subsidy per passenger would be higher than any
other public mode, even if every boat were full. I looked up what's been
said in the London Assembly about the affordability of river services;
the answers I found are at the bottom. They're quite extensive.

They're cheaper per passenger than trains where the trains run empty!
Crossrail trains will be very high capacity, and the Thames Gateway area
will take a while to develop enough to support them. Isn't it better to
use boats to build up demand until development is already well underway?

Again, the boats serve a different market to the railway. The railway
enables journeys from west London to Canary Wharf. New development in
the Royal Docks will also warrant new infrastructure; the DLR doesn't
provide a brilliant link to the western parts of central London, but it
will do an excellent job of feeding Custom House station. New Thames
Gateway developments will also feed into Custom House via the DLR
Dagenham Dock extension, or into Abbey Wood via GWT. The development may
not be there now, but plenty could be by 2013.

Look at it from the other angle; we build a whole load of new houses in
the Thames Gateway area, and new infrastructure isn't provided to
transport them into central London. The existing infrastructure will be
overloaded and we'll be moaning about lack of foresight.

A lack of public transport lanes will also endanger the
acceptability of the whole project - those lanes are meant to be
convertible to tram or DLR later on should they be needed.

That's rather a poor location for a tram to cross the river, and the
plans for the DLR to use it are dead and buried.

Where else would a tram cross the river other than at the bridge?

The best location would be a tunnel from the Thamesmere area to
Creekmouth. Of course that would be in the distant future, if at all.

Surely it's bad forward planning to build an expensive bridge in the
area without public transport lanes, and then to decide later that we do
want a segregated public transport crossing after all, and have to build
a brand new tunnel which will be very expensive. Don't forget that there
will be plenty of development in the Gallions Reach area by, say, 2016
for a tram route to serve on its way to Barking or Dagenham.

The idea of the bus lanes is to link Greenwich Waterfront Transit and East
London Transit, which should have built up a good passenger base by the
time the bridge opens.

Greenwich Waterfront Transit is something else that should be cancelled
to provide funding for the boat service!

The boat service won't get people around Thamesmead or conveniently link
them into the faster railway services from Abbey Wood or Woolwich!

Boats won't take you from Thamesmead to Romford, or Abbey Wood
to Barking.

Buses would do that without bus lanes.

No use if they get stuck in the toll queues, or in queues at the bridge
exits.

Considering the roads they flow out onto, that's unlikely.

TfL's own report on the bridge showed that during the peaks, demand
would exceed capacity, even at the desired tolling levels.

Then the desired tolling levels are too low! Raising them at peak times
could be one source of funding for the boat service!

If only it were that simple. Think politics again! The necessary tolling
level to allow free-flowing traffic in the peaks is not the desirable
level, as it excludes the people whose communities we are trying to
regenerate with the bridge. This reduces the benefits of the bridge and
makes it less likely to be built. Whether that's a good thing or not is
a matter of personal opinion, but TfL definitely aren't going to propose
a tolling level that would negate the benefits of their bridge!

That implies
slow-moving traffic which would hamper non-segregated bus services. The
bridge traffic will also be flowing out onto roundabouts I believe;
these are either be the standard kind or signalled (I'm not familiar
with the Thamesmead one, but I know the Barking one is signalled).
Signals definitely mean traffic will build up to some extent, and
standard roundabouts definitely seem to cause queues under busy traffic
conditions (the Headington roundabout in Oxford comes immediately to
mind; I rarely drive in London but I'm sure there are examples around here).

These roundabouts will have overpasses or underpasses. Some traffic
would queue on the slip roads (though not for very long) but most
traffic would flow straight out onto Eastern Way or the North Circular.


Boats can be useful but the river serves a limited catchment area;
interchange is also difficult between river and other modes except at a
few choice locations (although I accept that that can be remedied).

Many locations upstream of Greenwich, and a few town centers downstream!

Downstream means a lengthy passage around the peninsula and through the
Thames Barrier,

Assuming they're going to Central London. However, if you assume they're
going to the E side of the Isle Of Dogs, it would be quite a direct
route.

That's true. However, Crossrail will be faster from further afield (e.g.
Erith changing at Abbey Wood), and there will be DLR or Tube links
nearer (Woolwich, Silvertown, North Greenwich). I don't see where the
demand would come from for those services.


Thamesmead and Dagenham mainly. Also waterfront locations as far down as
Purfleet... talking of which, another reason why I oppose this Crossrail
plan is that it would only give Canary Wharf half a service - if you're
going to send Crossrail there, you should at least do it properly and
include a Tilbury branch as well as a SELKENT branch.

just to reach Woolwich, which will be getting a decent
link via the DLR to Canary Wharf anyway.

Another TfL project that's a wast of money. They should've concentrated
on the NLL/Crossrail tunnel instead.

They obviously see a good cost-benefit ratio for the DLR to Woolwich, so
it's probably not a waste of money. The money is coming from the
Treasury, and we know how stingy they can be!


They saw a good BCR because it was calculated WITHOUT the presence of a
Crossrail/NLL tunnel. Building that would empty that part of the DLR.

TfL minutes of meetings say w.r.t. the DLR extension that "care had been
taken over the design of the scheme with respect to Crossrail, which was
aligned to cover the same area, though at a later date."
(http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/pdfdocs/minutesjune2002.rtf)

The DLR will provide a better service over the Stratford-Woolwich
corridor than the NLL ever could, given capacity constraints west of
Stratford and the operating costs of heavy rail.


The DLR route to Woolwich is very slow and indirect!

It's not that bad!

The problem with the river is that any pier will by its nature only have
half the catchment area of an inland rail/Tube station.

But development density is high enough for that not to be a problem.

There must be a problem somewhere or TfL wouldn't have dismissed the
idea of subsidised river services.

That assumes that TfL are

....sensible enough to know what to dismiss. I think if that were the
case they wouldn't be dismissing Routemasters!!!

Maybe you should slog it out with them instead then :-)

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

Brimstone wrote:
Mrs Redboots wrote:
Richard J. wrote to uk.transport.london on Fri, 25 Mar 2005:


But IIRC the tidal rise and fall in Sydney is quite small. In
London it can be more than 7 metres.

Given that for centuries the river provided almost the *only*
public transport available in London, I rather suspect that this
is a problem which has been overcome in the past, and can be again.

Is it even a problem since boats are loading and unloading now?

Yes, but carrying relatively few passengers. This discussion is about
using the river for mass transit - many thousands of passengers per
hour. In comparison with trains, boats have very long dwell times,
partly because berthing at a pier takes longer than arriving at a
platform, and partly because it takes longer to embark/disembark. So to
get the capacity you'd have to provide many more pier berths than at
present, equivalent to having, say, 8 platforms at every tube stop.
Having 7-metre tides and strong currents means that berthing will be
even slower and it's more difficult to design such a pier for large
numbers of people.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Richard J. wrote:
Brimstone wrote:
Mrs Redboots wrote:
Richard J. wrote to uk.transport.london on Fri, 25 Mar 2005:


But IIRC the tidal rise and fall in Sydney is quite small. In
London it can be more than 7 metres.

Given that for centuries the river provided almost the *only*
public transport available in London, I rather suspect that this
is a problem which has been overcome in the past, and can be again.

Is it even a problem since boats are loading and unloading now?

Yes, but carrying relatively few passengers. This discussion is about
using the river for mass transit - many thousands of passengers per
hour. In comparison with trains, boats have very long dwell times,
partly because berthing at a pier takes longer than arriving at a
platform, and partly because it takes longer to embark/disembark.

Surely that depends on the design of the vessel and of the pier?

So to get the capacity you'd have to provide many more pier berths than
at present, equivalent to having, say, 8 platforms at every tube stop.
Having 7-metre tides and strong currents means that berthing will be
even slower and it's more difficult to design such a pier for large
numbers of people.

I accept that a different design would be needed for commuter (compared to
the current leisure) levels of traffic but why would they be more difficult
to design? The basics will be the same, i.e. to give the boat something
fairly firm to come alongside that rises and falls with the water level and
keeps the travellers feet out of the oggin with a bridge of some description
to dry land.