| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Integrating river services
I took a Thames Clippers boat from Canary Wharf to St.
Katherine's pier on Friday, and it was a really enjoyable experience and a reasonably quick way across the city. The journey time from Embankment to Canary Wharf is 21 minutes -- 4 minutes longer than the tube. To Greenwich, the boat takes about the same time as National Rail, and is quicker than the DLR. So my question is, would it be possible to integrate the river services into the rest of the TfL system? This would include increasing capacity and frequency to mass transit levels, and either buying out the existing providers (as was done with the tube) or taking control of scheduling and pricing while contracting out the service provision to private operators (as is the case with London Buses). And if it was possible, would it make economic sense? Matt Ashby www.mattashby.com |
Integrating river services
On 20 Mar 2005, Matt Ashby wrote:
So my question is, would it be possible to integrate the river services into the rest of the TfL system? They're already somewhat integrated as it is, with river service information being provided by TfL, and discounts for travelcard holders. I take it you're suggesting full integration - so that you can ride them with only a travelcard. I think this is a reasonable idea. After all, other cities have ferries as fully integrated parts of their transport systems - Liverpool, i think, has travelcards valid on the ferry. Others, however, don't - New York, for example, has ferries outside the rail ticket system. This would include increasing capacity and frequency to mass transit levels, Frequency, yes. Capacity, maybe. I don't think there's much sense in providing a wild excess of capacity. Now, if services were more frequent, routes were better-advertised and travelcards were all that were necessary, use would increase, probably requiring more capacity, but i don't think it would make sense to provide tube levels of capacity from day one. Of course, increasing frequency will increase capacity anyway, unless we switch to smaller boats. Which might not be a bad idea, actually. and either buying out the existing providers (as was done with the tube) or taking control of scheduling and pricing while contracting out the service provision to private operators (as is the case with London Buses). I'd imagine the latter. Nationalisation is not terribly in at the moment. The other option might be for TfL to start running its own services alongside the private operators; this would have the advantage of not requiring them to agree. I'd guesstimate that it would cost at least 2.5 million to set up a 6 bph service, and at least half that every year in running costs. Not really that much in public transport terms! And if it was possible, would it make economic sense? Hard to say without knowing how much use it would attract. And that, of course, depends on how much you spend on it! tom -- Remember when we said there was no future? Well, this is it. |
Integrating river services
Matt Ashby wrote:
I took a Thames Clippers boat from Canary Wharf to St. Katherine's pier on Friday, and it was a really enjoyable experience and a reasonably quick way across the city. The journey time from Embankment to Canary Wharf is 21 minutes -- 4 minutes longer than the tube. To Greenwich, the boat takes about the same time as National Rail, and is quicker than the DLR. So my question is, would it be possible to integrate the river services into the rest of the TfL system? This would include increasing capacity and frequency to mass transit levels, and either buying out the existing providers (as was done with the tube) or taking control of scheduling and pricing while contracting out the service provision to private operators (as is the case with London Buses). And if it was possible, would it make economic sense? Although it's a nice idea, TfL have already looked at this and concluded that it would require far too much subsidy to run - it would need the biggest subsidy per passenger of any mode of transport in London. I haven't got any figures but I'm sure the Mayor answered a question like this in one of the weekly Mayor's Question Times (the questions and answers to which are on www.london.gov.uk somewhere). -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
Integrating river services
Dave Arquati wrote:
Matt Ashby wrote: I took a Thames Clippers boat from Canary Wharf to St. Katherine's pier on Friday, and it was a really enjoyable experience and a reasonably quick way across the city. The journey time from Embankment to Canary Wharf is 21 minutes -- 4 minutes longer than the tube. To Greenwich, the boat takes about the same time as National Rail, and is quicker than the DLR. So my question is, would it be possible to integrate the river services into the rest of the TfL system? This would include increasing capacity and frequency to mass transit levels, and either buying out the existing providers (as was done with the tube) or taking control of scheduling and pricing while contracting out the service provision to private operators (as is the case with London Buses). And if it was possible, would it make economic sense? Although it's a nice idea, TfL have already looked at this and concluded that it would require far too much subsidy to run - it would need the biggest subsidy per passenger of any mode of transport in London. I haven't got any figures but I'm sure the Mayor answered a question like this in one of the weekly Mayor's Question Times (the questions and answers to which are on www.london.gov.uk somewhere). 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). |
Integrating river services
Aidan Stanger wrote:
Dave Arquati wrote: Matt Ashby wrote: I took a Thames Clippers boat from Canary Wharf to St. Katherine's pier on Friday, and it was a really enjoyable experience and a reasonably quick way across the city. The journey time from Embankment to Canary Wharf is 21 minutes -- 4 minutes longer than the tube. To Greenwich, the boat takes about the same time as National Rail, and is quicker than the DLR. So my question is, would it be possible to integrate the river services into the rest of the TfL system? This would include increasing capacity and frequency to mass transit levels, and either buying out the existing providers (as was done with the tube) or taking control of scheduling and pricing while contracting out the service provision to private operators (as is the case with London Buses). And if it was possible, would it make economic sense? Although it's a nice idea, TfL have already looked at this and concluded that it would require far too much subsidy to run - it would need the biggest subsidy per passenger of any mode of transport in London. I haven't got any figures but I'm sure the Mayor answered a question like this in one of the weekly Mayor's Question Times (the questions and answers to which are on www.london.gov.uk somewhere). 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 - or even the Thames Gateway Bridge for that matter (where did you get the £40m figure from?). Boats won't take you from Thamesmead to Romford, or Abbey Wood to Barking. 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). 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. -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
Integrating river services
Although it's a nice idea, TfL have already looked at this and concluded that it would require far too much subsidy to run - it would need the biggest subsidy per passenger of any mode of transport in London. I and it is more reliable and more comfortable than bus, nr or tube. So it might be more expensive? It is much better, perhaps that's why. 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. true, but a high capacity boat service from the east end to westminster would have cost a minute fraction of the cost of the J L E. And journey times would not be appreciably longer. I frequently use the boat instead of the jubilee, even though the pier is a longer walk than the tube. This is because the boat offers a vastly better service for a very small premium. A cheaper (or fully integrated) system, with 10 min frequencies, would probably pull in more people ... and in doing so would reduce overcrowding on other modes. Perhaps the biggest boon would be to put the current approx. 20min at peak frequency services from Thames Clippers on the tube/London connections map. It's a great service and most people simply don't know about it and hence don't consider it when planning journeys. -- u n d e r a c h i e v e r |
Integrating river services
"u n d e r a c h i e v e r" wrote in message news:slrnd42cma.1256.takeme2yourNOMORESPAMPLEASE@n ewred.gradwell.net... Although it's a nice idea, TfL have already looked at this and concluded that it would require far too much subsidy to run - it would need the biggest subsidy per passenger of any mode of transport in London. I and it is more reliable and more comfortable than bus, nr or tube. So it might be more expensive? It is much better, perhaps that's why. 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. true, but a high capacity boat service from the east end to westminster would have cost a minute fraction of the cost of the J L E. And journey times would not be appreciably longer. I frequently use the boat instead of the jubilee, even though the pier is a longer walk than the tube. This is because the boat offers a vastly better service for a very small premium. How many passengers (seated and standing) does a high capacity boat take compared to a JLE tube train ? A cheaper (or fully integrated) system, with 10 min frequencies, would probably pull in more people ... and in doing so would reduce overcrowding on other modes. Perhaps the biggest boon would be to put the current approx. 20min at peak frequency services from Thames Clippers on the tube/London connections map. It's a great service and most people simply don't know about it and hence don't consider it when planning journeys. On this very last point, however, I think potential passengers might show interest initially, but then be put off when they realise their travelcard only gives them 1/3 off the fare, rather than fully inclusive on their travelcard (like the tube and buses are). Not only that, but the increased wait times, having to wait up to 19 minutes for a boat, and in the time they've waited for the boat, they could have reached their destination already by tube or bus. Even on a 10 minute frequency, you could be waiting up to 9 minutes, and still got to your destination quicker by tube or bus. |
Integrating river services
u n d e r a c h i e v e r wrote:
Although it's a nice idea, TfL have already looked at this and concluded that it would require far too much subsidy to run - it would need the biggest subsidy per passenger of any mode of transport in London. I and it is more reliable and more comfortable than bus, nr or tube. So it might be more expensive? It is much better, perhaps that's why. Here comes the other issue with Thames boat services - the Thames is tidal, and the tides don't neatly coincide with rush hour. So at one point a boat might be able to float merrily (and cheaply) into the centre of town, but at a later time it might be struggling against the tide. This can wreak havoc with scheduling of a high-frequency service and puts the costs up too. 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. true, but a high capacity boat service from the east end to westminster would have cost a minute fraction of the cost of the J L E. And journey times would not be appreciably longer. I frequently use the boat instead of the jubilee, even though the pier is a longer walk than the tube. This is because the boat offers a vastly better service for a very small premium. How many less people would use the boat service compared to the JLE? How would they get from Stratford to London Bridge, from Canary Wharf to Baker Street or from North Greenwich to Bond Street by boat? The boat only offers a better service if it actually goes where people want to go. Can a boat service carry ~25,000 people per hour per direction? A cheaper (or fully integrated) system, with 10 min frequencies, would probably pull in more people ... and in doing so would reduce overcrowding on other modes. Perhaps the biggest boon would be to put the current approx. 20min at peak frequency services from Thames Clippers on the tube/London connections map. It's a great service and most people simply don't know about it and hence don't consider it when planning journeys. The system could only be cheaper with a massive subsidy, which is not a particularly good way to run public transport services which only benefit a small part of the population. The Thames Clippers service may be good but it also costs a lot more than using the Tube, rail or bus. -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
Integrating river services
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. 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. - or even the Thames Gateway Bridge for that matter (where did you get the £40m figure from?). TfL expect the entire project to cost £400m, and the bus lanes were expected to come to 10% of the cost. Actually they did say "up to 10%" to it could be less, though somehow I doubt it. Anyway, it would be an appalling waste of money, as tolls would ensure that traffic on the bridge would be free flowing anyway. Boats won't take you from Thamesmead to Romford, or Abbey Wood to Barking. Buses would do that without bus lanes. 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! 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. |
Integrating river services
In article ,
Aidan Stanger wrote: TfL expect the entire project to cost £400m, and the bus lanes were expected to come to 10% of the cost. Actually they did say "up to 10%" to it could be less, though somehow I doubt it. Anyway, it would be an appalling waste of money, as tolls would ensure that traffic on the bridge would be free flowing anyway. What would make those tolls any better than the tolls on the M25 crossing (which doesn't keep the bridge free flowing)? -- Mike Bristow - really a very good driver |
Integrating river services
"Dave Arquati" wrote [snip] Can you get from Heathrow to Canary Wharf by boat? Well, it would be a bit slow, but actually you can, although not by a scheduled service. The nearest point of the Grand Union Canal is close enough that you could probably hitch a lift in one of Heathrow's off-site parking shuttle vans Or from most parts of West London, Paddington, the West End etc? Well, Paddington has the Paddington Basin. The canal is generally a bit outside the route of the Circle Line. It's not really relevant to compare boat subsidies to the cost of Crossrail - or even the Thames Gateway Bridge for that matter (where did you get the £40m figure from?). Boats won't take you from Thamesmead to Romford, or Abbey Wood to Barking. There is the Ford Works ferry from Thamesmead, unless it has closed down along with the Ford factory. Barking is on the water - it had a huge fishing fleet at one time. the Beam River, which heads up to Romford is, I grant you, about as unnavigable as it can get. To arrive at Heathrow, and be met by your own canal barge, seems like a neat service to offer frazzled foreign tourists. Jeremy Parker |
Integrating river services
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. The Jubilee line might, but it's a still a very poor second best to a Crossrail branch. 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. 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. - or even the Thames Gateway Bridge for that matter (where did you get the £40m figure from?). TfL expect the entire project to cost £400m, and the bus lanes were expected to come to 10% of the cost. Actually they did say "up to 10%" to it could be less, though somehow I doubt it. Anyway, it would be an appalling waste of money, as tolls would ensure that traffic on the bridge would be free flowing anyway. I think the Dartford Crossing provides a lesson here. Unless toll collection is electronic, the buses will need to bypass queues for payment. 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. 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. 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, which will be getting a decent link via the DLR to Canary Wharf anyway. Upstream, I don't see how more value can be extracted out of river services than the current commercial ventures without a massive subsidy. Beyond Westminster, the riverside area isn't particularly teeming with demand, as demonstrated by the current limited commercial services to Chelsea Harbour and not really beyond. 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. -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
Integrating river services
"Dave Arquati" wrote in message ... snip DLR doesn't have the capacity to deal with large numbers of passengers transferring off Crossrail at Stratford and heading for Canary Wharf. The Jubilee line might, but it's a still a very poor second best to a Crossrail branch. 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. Last I heard, the Crossrail branch for the North Kent line was going to terminate at Abbey Wood, and not run on to Ebbsfleet for CTRL station, or link into the North Kent line itself. With this in mind, I can't see the branch doing a great deal to relieve capacity into London Bridge, as the crossrail branch will only really benefit passengers who want Docklands, all others will prefer to stay on the train they're on to get into London and get the tube from there. |
Integrating river services
In message , Dave Arquati
writes Upstream, I don't see how more value can be extracted out of river services than the current commercial ventures without a massive subsidy. Beyond Westminster, the riverside area isn't particularly teeming with demand, as demonstrated by the current limited commercial services to Chelsea Harbour and not really beyond. One big disincentive is the speed limit of 8 knots above Wandsworth Bridge. I suspect there could be some demand from Putney/Hammersmith/ Barnes/Mortlake/Kew if high-speed river services were possible - but raising the speed limit would need a vast amount of work on riverbanks and I don't see that happening. Also, most of these places already have good public transport into central London, so even a high speed river service might well not prove competitive. -- Paul Terry |
Integrating river services
Mike Bristow wrote:
Aidan Stanger wrote: TfL expect the entire project to cost £400m, and the bus lanes were expected to come to 10% of the cost. Actually they did say "up to 10%" to it could be less, though somehow I doubt it. Anyway, it would be an appalling waste of money, as tolls would ensure that traffic on the bridge would be free flowing anyway. What would make those tolls any better than the tolls on the M25 crossing (which doesn't keep the bridge free flowing)? They'd be higher. |
Integrating river services
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. 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? 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'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. - or even the Thames Gateway Bridge for that matter (where did you get the £40m figure from?). TfL expect the entire project to cost £400m, and the bus lanes were expected to come to 10% of the cost. Actually they did say "up to 10%" to it could be less, though somehow I doubt it. Anyway, it would be an appalling waste of money, as tolls would ensure that traffic on the bridge would be free flowing anyway. I think the Dartford Crossing provides a lesson here. Unless toll collection is electronic, the buses will need to bypass queues for payment. Tolling is planned to be electronic (probably similar to the Congestion Charge). 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. 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. 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. 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. Upstream, I don't see how more value can be extracted out of river services than the current commercial ventures without a massive subsidy. Beyond Westminster, the riverside area isn't particularly teeming with demand, as demonstrated by the current limited commercial services to Chelsea Harbour and not really beyond. Yes, potential is greater in E London, at least initially. 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 |
Integrating river services
Matt Wheeler wrote:
"Dave Arquati" wrote in message ... snip DLR doesn't have the capacity to deal with large numbers of passengers transferring off Crossrail at Stratford and heading for Canary Wharf. The Jubilee line might, but it's a still a very poor second best to a Crossrail branch. 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. Last I heard, the Crossrail branch for the North Kent line was going to terminate at Abbey Wood, and not run on to Ebbsfleet for CTRL station, or link into the North Kent line itself. With this in mind, I can't see the branch doing a great deal to relieve capacity into London Bridge, as the crossrail branch will only really benefit passengers who want Docklands, all others will prefer to stay on the train they're on to get into London and get the tube from there. If Crossrail goes near your desired destination, then it will be preferable to change from the North Kent Line at Abbey Wood rather than at any London terminus to the Tube, as you will get a seat on Crossrail right into the centre; if you cram onto the Tube with everyone else at London Bridge etc. then it will be much more uncomfortable. -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
Integrating river services
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. 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. 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. 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. 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 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. 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. 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. - or even the Thames Gateway Bridge for that matter (where did you get the £40m figure from?). TfL expect the entire project to cost £400m, and the bus lanes were expected to come to 10% of the cost. Actually they did say "up to 10%" to it could be less, though somehow I doubt it. Anyway, it would be an appalling waste of money, as tolls would ensure that traffic on the bridge would be free flowing anyway. I think the Dartford Crossing provides a lesson here. Unless toll collection is electronic, the buses will need to bypass queues for payment. Tolling is planned to be electronic (probably similar to the Congestion Charge). In which case I accept that toll queues will not be a problem. 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 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. The Mayor keeps mentioning the possibility of the DLR using it; I heard him say so a couple of weeks ago. Of course, he might be wrong, but he does seem to have it in his head. 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. 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). 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. 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! 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. (snip) 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 Sorry, I didn't get the rest of that sentence... -- From Mayor's Question Time answers at www.london.gov.uk: http://mqt.london.gov.uk//public/question.do?id=8289 Dee Doocey: "[...] Why can't travelcard holders use the Riverboat service for free and what consideration has been given to at least increasing the discount travelcard holder receive?" Mayor: "[...] Extending the discount for Travelcards on River services is unlikely in the foreseeable future. Given the difference between revenues per passenger mile that would be received via the Travelcard scheme and the cost of boat operation, substantial subsidy would be required to make good the shortfall, which would be unlikely to be good value for money." http://mqt.london.gov.uk//public/question.do?id=3963 Bob Neill: "What consideration has been given by the Mayor and Transport for London to run a boat service connecting Erith, Woolwich, Canary Wharf and Central London?" Mayor: "Prior to inviting tenders for a mulit-stop riverboat service between Chelsea Harbour and the Isle of Dogs and Rotherhithe, London River Services (LRS) commissioned consultants KPMG to assist in determining the likely costs and revenues of the scheme. Although LRS have not specifically looked at providing the service you have suggested, KPMG were asked to assess the implications of an extension of the proposed service to Thamesmead. The conclusion was that, even without taking the costs of new pier provision into account, the additional costs of the extension would be substantial and the level of financial assistance required would be likely to increase relatively heavily.In the light of these findings and bearing in mind pressure on existing resources, LRS officers decided there was no justification in further considering extending the scheme to Thamesmead. It is unlikely, given these findings, that a service between Erith and Central London could be justified." http://mqt.london.gov.uk//public/question.do?id=3288 Mayor: "There have been many attempts to use the Thames for transporting commuters which have failed financially. Neither of the current commuter services generate any profits for their operators. LRS recently sought bids for the operation of commuter services on the Thames. Following negotiations with one of the bidders, LRS has submitted a business case for funding to support that bidder's proposal. An earlier bid for funding to support commuter services from April 2002 was cut from the final TfL budget during discussions with Assembly Members.There are a number of demand studies underway that will be used to inform our future strategy in terms of river services. TfL will keep the Assembly informed of developments. It must be remembered that it is more expensive to provide riverboat services than it is to provide land based services. The main reason being the high capital cost of vessels and higher staffing levels. It is unlikely that a major expansion of riverboat services could be justified as representing 'value for money', and nearly every journey can be made faster and more cheaply by other public transport modes. Nevertheless, as I stated previously, LRS will consider proposals put to them." http://mqt.london.gov.uk//public/question.do?id=2707 Mayor: "LRS is currently considering a proposal from three riverboat operators who have joined forces to offer a London River Card which would enable passengers to purchase zonal tickets allowing unlimited travel for a day.Further integration between riverboat fares and Travelcard is unlikely in the foreseeable future. Given the difference between revenues per passenger mile that would be received via the Travelcard scheme and the cost of boat operation, substantial subsidy would be required to make good the shortfall. Free travel at the margin for Travelcard holders on the river would be likely to generate demand vastly exceeding existing capacity creating a need for further subsidy for additional vessels. Neither scenario would prove to be value for money." http://mqt.london.gov.uk//public/question.do?id=2883 Mayor: "There have been many attempts to use the Thames for transporting commuters; all of them have failed financially. Neither of the current commuter services generate profits for their operators. In fact, it's been widely reported that Thames Trippers are seeking sponsorship from businesses at Canary Wharf in order to support the continued operation of their services. Currently, Travelcard holders are offered discounts on fares as an incentive. London River Services has now received bids in response to the recent invitation to tender for the operation of commuter services on the Thames. The results of the tender evaluation will be known around the end of this month. It is unlikely that this process will result in any great expansion of river services for commuters. The financial facts are that it is more expensive to provide riverboat services than it is to provide land-based alternatives and they are also often slower. It is unlikely that a major expansion of riverboat services could be justified as representing value for money and there is currently no provision for revenue subsidy for a multi-stop service in the TfL budget and business plan." -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
Integrating river services
Jeremy Parker wrote:
"Dave Arquati" wrote [snip] Can you get from Heathrow to Canary Wharf by boat? Well, it would be a bit slow, but actually you can, although not by a scheduled service. The nearest point of the Grand Union Canal is close enough that you could probably hitch a lift in one of Heathrow's off-site parking shuttle vans Or from most parts of West London, Paddington, the West End etc? Well, Paddington has the Paddington Basin. The canal is generally a bit outside the route of the Circle Line. It's not really relevant to compare boat subsidies to the cost of Crossrail - or even the Thames Gateway Bridge for that matter (where did you get the £40m figure from?). Boats won't take you from Thamesmead to Romford, or Abbey Wood to Barking. There is the Ford Works ferry from Thamesmead, unless it has closed down along with the Ford factory. Barking is on the water - it had a huge fishing fleet at one time. the Beam River, which heads up to Romford is, I grant you, about as unnavigable as it can get. To arrive at Heathrow, and be met by your own canal barge, seems like a neat service to offer frazzled foreign tourists. LOL! I've driven a narrowboat before on the Grand Union (not in London), and it's a very relaxing experience, but at a maximum speed of 4 knots, it would take an awfully long time to reach Canary Wharf from Heathrow... :-) -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
Integrating river services
"Dave Arquati" wrote in message ... LOL! I've driven a narrowboat before on the Grand Union (not in London), and it's a very relaxing experience, but at a maximum speed of 4 knots, 4 (statute) miles an hour. Inland waterways don't use knots. Well now they don't use MPH either thanks to the EU and the government forgetting to get exemption for waterways from metric measurements. it would take an awfully long time to reach Canary Wharf from Heathrow... :-) Dave |
Integrating river services
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005, Dave Arquati wrote:
Aidan Stanger wrote: Dave Arquati wrote: Matt Ashby wrote: So my question is, would it be possible to integrate the river services into the rest of the TfL system? And if it was possible, would it make economic sense? Although it's a nice idea, TfL have already looked at this and concluded that it would require far too much subsidy to run - it would need the biggest subsidy per passenger of any mode of transport in London. 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. Can you get from Heathrow to Canary Wharf by boat? Yes, once the Heathrow Ship Canal is open. Or from most parts of West London, Paddington, the West End etc? Can you get from Chelsea Harbour to Canary Wharf by Crossrail? 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. Embankment, Blackfriars, London Bridge and all the other stations on the river seem to do all right, though. Remember that a pier by a bridge serves both banks pretty effectively. tom -- Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live. -- Mark Twain |
Integrating river services
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? As in, the land where the docks are? The docks which connect to the river at both ends? There's a reason it's called the Isle of Dogs, you know - the waterway cutting from the Limehouse to the Blackwall reaches, which has been there in some form for centuries - literally makes it an island! However, i have no idea what the gauge available at the ends of the docks is these days, what with all the building in recent decades. Presumably, it's inadequate, otherwise current services would use it. It would be nice if it could be used, since it would provide absolutely the closest service possible to Canary Wharf! tom -- Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live. -- Mark Twain |
Integrating river services
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? As in, the land where the docks are? The docks which connect to the river at both ends? There's a reason it's called the Isle of Dogs, you know - the waterway cutting from the Limehouse to the Blackwall reaches, which has been there in some form for centuries - literally makes it an island! Aidan said downstream from Greenwich, so that's what I was referring to - the downstream route around the North Greenwich peninsula. -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
Integrating river services
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005, Dave Arquati wrote:
Here comes the other issue with Thames boat services - the Thames is tidal, and the tides don't neatly coincide with rush hour. So at one point a boat might be able to float merrily (and cheaply) into the centre of town, but at a later time it might be struggling against the tide. They're quite capable of doing it, though. There's only a few knots of tide. This can wreak havoc with scheduling of a high-frequency service and puts the costs up too. Not sure about the scheduling - the tides are fairly predictable, after all. The boat only offers a better service if it actually goes where people want to go. Yes, but that's also true of a railway! Can a boat service carry ~25,000 people per hour per direction? No, and that's the real reason boats can never be a part of London transport in the way that trains are. Although now you've got me thinking about it, maybe long, thin boats, rather like tube trains, served by multiple quay faces ... A cheaper (or fully integrated) system, with 10 min frequencies, would probably pull in more people ... The system could only be cheaper with a massive subsidy, Play fair - the boats have rather lower capital costs than the tubes, since the track's already there. Perhaps the biggest boon would be to put the current approx. 20min at peak frequency services from Thames Clippers on the tube/London connections map. It's a great service and most people simply don't know about it and hence don't consider it when planning journeys. Hear hear. Surely nobody can disagree with that? Costs nothing, and adds a line to the map - like the ELLX on water! tom -- Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live. -- Mark Twain |
Integrating river services
In message ,
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. -- Paul Terry |
Integrating river services
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 11:18:39 +0000, Dave Arquati wrote:
Although it's a nice idea, TfL have already looked at this and concluded that it would require far too much subsidy to run - it would need the Do the boats take Oyster preypay? -- Everything I write here is my personal opinion, and should not be taken as fact. |
Integrating river services
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. 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... 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. 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. 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! 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? 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. 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? - or even the Thames Gateway Bridge for that matter (where did you get the £40m figure from?). TfL expect the entire project to cost £400m, and the bus lanes were expected to come to 10% of the cost. Actually they did say "up to 10%" to it could be less, though somehow I doubt it. Anyway, it would be an appalling waste of money, as tolls would ensure that traffic on the bridge would be free flowing anyway. I think the Dartford Crossing provides a lesson here. Unless toll collection is electronic, the buses will need to bypass queues for payment. Tolling is planned to be electronic (probably similar to the Congestion Charge). In which case I accept that toll queues will not be a problem. 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. 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 Mayor keeps mentioning the possibility of the DLR using it; I heard him say so a couple of weeks ago. Of course, he might be wrong, but he does seem to have it in his head. The mind boggles! 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! 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. 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! 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!!! (snip) |
Integrating river services
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 19:53:21 +0000, Paul Terry
wrote: In message , 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. indeed, there are safety considerations at the piers. But the turn round times are very quick nonetheless. and perhaps if frequencies were high enough, there would be no need for so many staff on the boats, instead you have staff at the piers to maintain passenger safety, provide information and so on. Tube infrastructure costs a fortune. For (I guess) 1% of the cost of the JLE you could give Thames Clippers a very decent fleet of boats. I'm sure they could run a very good service, and return an operating profit if someone else was meeting the capital costs. Every bum on seat on the Clippers is another person not cramming onto the tubes, buses and/or driving. That's good for everyone who travels in London, even if their journey doesn't have a pier at either end. For relatively little cap. ex. (compared with tubes) we could have a high capacity, fully integrated "line" from chelsea to greenwich. Would it require ongoing subsidy if it operated at tube fare levels? Yes, but it wouldn't cost billions and billions to set up, get mired in planning arguments and/or require parliamentary consent, and take donkey's years to complete either. And, right now, we could stick the excellent service that IS there on the map and take oyster too. I'm currently carrying two prepays around at the moment, one for the clippers and one for LT. -- u n d e r a c h i e v e r |
Integrating river services
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. |
Integrating river services
In message , Aidan Stanger
writes 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. Nevertheless, the amount of infrastructure needed for the piers and pontoons on such services is very, very much greater than that needed for the Venice ACTV network, which uses little more than floating bus shelters. Docking is another consideration - where there is no tide to speak of, a waterbus can be docked in seconds by one person and held on a single figure-of-eight rope. Docking on the Thames invariably takes 2-3 minutes at each stop and needs several staff, thus adding considerably to time and cost. -- Paul Terry |
Integrating river services
"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. |
Integrating river services
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 |
Integrating river services
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) |
Whitechapel Crossrail was Integrating river services
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 |
Integrating river services
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? |
Integrating river services
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 |
Integrating river services
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? |
Integrating river services
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 |
Integrating river services
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) |
Integrating river services
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. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 02:32 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk