|
Thameslink 2000 and other animals
http://www.businessweekly.co.uk/news...rticle_id=9316
The above article implies that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) will reopen the Thameslink 2000 public inquiry in September so that the remaining issues over the scheme, which have now been solved, can be laid to rest and work can begin. Interestingly, it also says that DEFRA have commissioned a studies (not that that means anything useful) into the East-West rail link between Oxford and Cambridge via Bletchley and Bedford, as part of an investigation into supporting the new Milton Keynes & South Midlands housing plans around Milton Keynes. The article hints that they might actually consider building the houses around the railway line to make sure there is a rail link to support the growth. (gasp of shock) Finally, detailed plans are apparently under development for the new Aylesbury Parkway station a short distance to the northwest of Aylesbury. It seems as though funding is around too. This would be supported by something Adrian Shooter said to the Imperial College Railway Society a few weeks ago. -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
Thameslink 2000 and other animals
Dave Arquati wrote:
Interestingly, it also says that DEFRA have commissioned a studies (not that that means anything useful) into the East-West rail link between Oxford and Cambridge via Bletchley and Bedford... Hahahahaha. -- Michael Hoffman |
Thameslink 2000 and other animals
Dave Arquati wrote:
http://www.businessweekly.co.uk/news...rticle_id=9316 The above article implies that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) will reopen the Thameslink 2000 public inquiry in September so that the remaining issues over the scheme, which have now been solved, can be laid to rest and work can begin. So it actually has funding approval, and as soon as the issues about building around London Bridge/Borough are rubber stamped it's building time? What changes will this make to the metro service on the Wimbledon loop? I'm assuming around a doubling in frequency to actually make it approaching a metro service? Dan |
Thameslink 2000 and other animals
Dan Gravell wrote:
Dave Arquati wrote: http://www.businessweekly.co.uk/news...rticle_id=9316 The above article implies that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) will reopen the Thameslink 2000 public inquiry in September so that the remaining issues over the scheme, which have now been solved, can be laid to rest and work can begin. So it actually has funding approval, and as soon as the issues about building around London Bridge/Borough are rubber stamped it's building time? Hmm... the wording with respect to funding approval was decidedly vague - but at least there seems to be a will from the ODPM to get something done. In the meantime, they better get a bloody move on fitting out the St Pancras Thameslink box, or there will be a lot of ****ed off Thameslink commuters come 2007. What changes will this make to the metro service on the Wimbledon loop? I'm assuming around a doubling in frequency to actually make it approaching a metro service? Er... sadly not, I'm afraid. TL2K is designed to focus on those lucrative commuters from further afield, and the service to the Wimbledon loop would remain exactly the same. The best hope there is probably for Tramlink to take over the Wimbledon-Sutton section, which might spur Thameslink to increase frequency to the two remaining arms of the loop - but don't hold your breath too much. The TL2K service pattern is on my website (5th heading down): http://www.alwaystouchout.com/project/23 -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
Thameslink 2000 and other animals
Dave Arquati wrote:
Dan Gravell wrote: What changes will this make to the metro service on the Wimbledon loop? I'm assuming around a doubling in frequency to actually make it approaching a metro service? Er... sadly not, I'm afraid. TL2K is designed to focus on those lucrative commuters from further afield, and the service to the Wimbledon loop would remain exactly the same. The best hope there is probably for Tramlink to take over the Wimbledon-Sutton section, which might spur Thameslink to increase frequency to the two remaining arms of the loop - but don't hold your breath too much. The TL2K service pattern is on my website (5th heading down): http://www.alwaystouchout.com/project/23 Thanks for the information and the link to your excellent site. I'm finding it hard to express my rage and frustration at this news, so I'll sign off now. Dan |
Thameslink 2000 and other animals
Dave Arquati wrote to uk.transport.london on Wed, 6 Apr 2005:
Interestingly, it also says that DEFRA have commissioned a studies (not that that means anything useful) into the East-West rail link between Oxford and Cambridge via Bletchley and Bedford, as part of an investigation into supporting the new Milton Keynes & South Midlands housing plans around Milton Keynes. Would this be the same Oxford-Cambridge rail link via Bedford that was dug up 40-something years ago? -- "Mrs Redboots" http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/ Website updated 3 April 2005 |
Thameslink 2000 and other animals
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 12:17:28 +0100, Dave Arquati wrote:
Dan Gravell wrote: Dave Arquati wrote: http://www.businessweekly.co.uk/news...rticle_id=9316 The above article implies that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) will reopen the Thameslink 2000 public inquiry in September so that the remaining issues over the scheme, which have now been solved, can be laid to rest and work can begin. If it happens then "hooray". It might get build by the year 2100. So it actually has funding approval, and as soon as the issues about building around London Bridge/Borough are rubber stamped it's building time? Hmm... the wording with respect to funding approval was decidedly vague - but at least there seems to be a will from the ODPM to get something done. In the meantime, they better get a bloody move on fitting out the St Pancras Thameslink box, or there will be a lot of ****ed off Thameslink commuters come 2007. Well exactly. Why on earth they didn't just add the money to the £400m or so that's been released for the Northern Ticket Hall at KX I don't know. We have such a stupid parsimonious attitude to schemes that are eminently logical and which have to be done at some point. It'll only be more expensive and disruptive to do it separately in the future. What changes will this make to the metro service on the Wimbledon loop? I'm assuming around a doubling in frequency to actually make it approaching a metro service? Er... sadly not, I'm afraid. TL2K is designed to focus on those lucrative commuters from further afield, and the service to the Wimbledon loop would remain exactly the same. The best hope there is probably for Tramlink to take over the Wimbledon-Sutton section, which might spur Thameslink to increase frequency to the two remaining arms of the loop - but don't hold your breath too much. Having looked at your site I was somewhat amazed to see how poor the Thameslink 2000 scheme is when you look at the inner area coverage. Quite why you need 4 trains an hour to Dartford off Thameslink I don't know when there is no improvement on the Wimbledon loop. And as for not extending platforms to take 12 car trains at places like Kentish Town then that's bloody daft. I wonder if we will end up with a battle between TfL and the DfT (SRA) over the scope of Thameslink 2000 in the same manner as Crossrail? -- Paul C Admits to working for London Underground! |
Thameslink 2000 and other animals
Mrs Redboots wrote:
Dave Arquati wrote to uk.transport.london on Wed, 6 Apr 2005: Interestingly, it also says that DEFRA have commissioned a studies (not that that means anything useful) into the East-West rail link between Oxford and Cambridge via Bletchley and Bedford, as part of an investigation into supporting the new Milton Keynes & South Midlands housing plans around Milton Keynes. Would this be the same Oxford-Cambridge rail link via Bedford that was dug up 40-something years ago? Yup. They've decided they need it again. -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
Thameslink 2000 and other animals
Paul Corfield wrote:
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 12:17:28 +0100, Dave Arquati wrote: Dan Gravell wrote: Dave Arquati wrote: http://www.businessweekly.co.uk/news...rticle_id=9316 The above article implies that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) will reopen the Thameslink 2000 public inquiry in September so that the remaining issues over the scheme, which have now been solved, can be laid to rest and work can begin. If it happens then "hooray". It might get build by the year 2100. So it actually has funding approval, and as soon as the issues about building around London Bridge/Borough are rubber stamped it's building time? Hmm... the wording with respect to funding approval was decidedly vague - but at least there seems to be a will from the ODPM to get something done. In the meantime, they better get a bloody move on fitting out the St Pancras Thameslink box, or there will be a lot of ****ed off Thameslink commuters come 2007. Well exactly. Why on earth they didn't just add the money to the £400m or so that's been released for the Northern Ticket Hall at KX I don't know. We have such a stupid parsimonious attitude to schemes that are eminently logical and which have to be done at some point. It'll only be more expensive and disruptive to do it separately in the future. It's bad enough that Thameslink passengers have to suffer the blockade, but the comfort was meant to be that they'd get a brand new station out of it that can actually handle the number of passengers who now use King's Cross Thameslink, let alone the future passengers off the CTRL. They will *have* to fund it sooner or later, if only to avoid having to close KXTL because of safety issues! I totally agree that they should have tacked it onto the Northern Ticket Hall funds. What changes will this make to the metro service on the Wimbledon loop? I'm assuming around a doubling in frequency to actually make it approaching a metro service? Er... sadly not, I'm afraid. TL2K is designed to focus on those lucrative commuters from further afield, and the service to the Wimbledon loop would remain exactly the same. The best hope there is probably for Tramlink to take over the Wimbledon-Sutton section, which might spur Thameslink to increase frequency to the two remaining arms of the loop - but don't hold your breath too much. Having looked at your site I was somewhat amazed to see how poor the Thameslink 2000 scheme is when you look at the inner area coverage. Quite why you need 4 trains an hour to Dartford off Thameslink I don't know when there is no improvement on the Wimbledon loop. And as for not extending platforms to take 12 car trains at places like Kentish Town then that's bloody daft. I wonder if we will end up with a battle between TfL and the DfT (SRA) over the scope of Thameslink 2000 in the same manner as Crossrail? The Mayor and co are definitely not too happy about the way Thameslink 2000 has been progressed; I believe many people feel an opportunity was missed to make better use of Blackfriars - Herne Hill and create new inner-urban stations at Walworth or Camberwell. I don't know whether TL2K is pitched to try to attract some people out of their cars for M25-based journeys, as the "Superlink" alternative to Crossrail was. If so, they're probably making a mistake - there's not much rail can do to solve M25 congestion. I'm not sure quite how they're going to maintain a reliable 24tph-ish service through the central core when trains are approaching from 9 different southerly origins! -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
Thameslink 2000 and other animals
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 22:18:25 +0100, Dave Arquati
wrote: I don't know whether TL2K is pitched to try to attract some people out of their cars for M25-based journeys, as the "Superlink" alternative to Crossrail was. If so, they're probably making a mistake - there's not much rail can do to solve M25 congestion. It may not solve M25 congestion, but it would allow individuals to avoid it by encouraging park and ride. -- Terry Harper Website Coordinator, The Omnibus Society http://www.omnibussoc.org |
Thameslink 2000 and other animals
Terry Harper wrote:
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 22:18:25 +0100, Dave Arquati wrote: I don't know whether TL2K is pitched to try to attract some people out of their cars for M25-based journeys, as the "Superlink" alternative to Crossrail was. If so, they're probably making a mistake - there's not much rail can do to solve M25 congestion. It may not solve M25 congestion, but it would allow individuals to avoid it by encouraging park and ride. Park and ride to where? If to central London, then those individuals won't use the M25 for the greater part of their journey. The M25 has encouraged a whole host of local and medium distance orbital journeys which are extremely difficult to address with public transport. -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
Thameslink 2000 and other animals
Dave Arquati wrote:
Park and ride to where? If to central London, then those individuals won't use the M25 for the greater part of their journey. The M25 has encouraged a whole host of local and medium distance orbital journeys which are extremely difficult to address with public transport. I'm interested by this, you saying that because the M25 was built and people started making different journeys, those journeys are now hard to satisfy by rail? Doesn't a (further) orbital rail system provide this? Dan |
Thameslink 2000 and other animals
Dan Gravell wrote:
Dave Arquati wrote: Park and ride to where? If to central London, then those individuals won't use the M25 for the greater part of their journey. The M25 has encouraged a whole host of local and medium distance orbital journeys which are extremely difficult to address with public transport. I'm interested by this, you saying that because the M25 was built and people started making different journeys, those journeys are now hard to satisfy by rail? That's precisely what I'm saying. I think the ORBIT multimodal study pointed this out too, but I'm afraid I don't have any links to hand. Doesn't a (further) orbital rail system provide this? No. The M25 doesn't just generate journeys solely along its own route, it encourages them along radial routes too - so a huge number of journeys are now made which use the M25 as part of a longer journey. For example, Maidenhead to Watford, Luton to Uxbridge, Tunbridge Wells to Croydon... the list is practically endless. Although you might be able to provide a rail-based alternative to M25-only journeys (which would be incredibly expensive!), it wouldn't really help with the part-M25 journeys. If we constructed an interchange station for every point our hypothetical M25 railway crossed a radial route, then there would be a possible public transport journey between any two M25-area towns - but it would often require two changes, and would therefore be slower and less attractive than a car. Now, of course, the M25 has not only generated new and diverse journeys but has encouraged development along its route - notably at Lakeside and Bluewater - which totally depends on the M25 for access. The only way to combat M25 congestion now is to introduce area-wide road user charging and widen it all to at least 4 lanes each way. That way, the growth induced by widening will be curtailed by the charges, and the result should (in theory) be a more reliable and useful motorway. The more likely result is that the government will decide to widen, but won't have the political willpower to introduce charging, and we'll be back to square one (or more like square -1) in a few years' time. -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
Thameslink 2000 and other animals
Dan Gravell wrote: Hmm... the wording with respect to funding approval was decidedly vague - but at least there seems to be a will from the ODPM to get something done. In the meantime, they better get a bloody move on fitting out the St Pancras Thameslink box, or there will be a lot of ****ed off Thameslink commuters come 2007. Don't be silly , this is Britain. They might be able to build and fit out an entire motor racing circuit in Dubai in 9 months or put up a new skyscraper in 2 years in new york, but in good old blighty it takes a year to overhaul a couple of bloody escalators, never mind build a few box tunnels. You should think yourself lucky its being build at all! /sarcasm B2003 |
Thameslink 2000 and other animals
In article ,
Paul Cummins wrote: I live in Basingstoke, and shop in both Lakeside and Bluewater. I don't use the M25 to get to either of them... I suspect you're unusual in that. -- Mike Bristow - really a very good driver |
Thameslink 2000 and other animals
Paul Cummins wrote:
In article , (Dave Arquati) wrote: Now, of course, the M25 has not only generated new and diverse journeys but has encouraged development along its route - notably at Lakeside and Bluewater - which totally depends on the M25 for access. I live in Basingstoke, and shop in both Lakeside and Bluewater. I don't use the M25 to get to either of them... Well, if we all had Tardises, we wouldn't need the M25... -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
Thameslink 2000 and other animals
"Dave Arquati" wrote in message ... Mrs Redboots wrote: Dave Arquati wrote to uk.transport.london on Wed, 6 Apr 2005: Interestingly, it also says that DEFRA have commissioned a studies (not that that means anything useful) into the East-West rail link between Oxford and Cambridge via Bletchley and Bedford, as part of an investigation into supporting the new Milton Keynes & South Midlands housing plans around Milton Keynes. Would this be the same Oxford-Cambridge rail link via Bedford that was dug up 40-something years ago? Yup. They've decided they need it again. -- Or it could be a counter to the road lobby "outer M25" Consisting A34, part dualled A43.A421,A428,A14 Alan Quick |
Thameslink 2000 and other animals
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 01:06:41 +0100, Dave Arquati
wrote: Terry Harper wrote: It may not solve M25 congestion, but it would allow individuals to avoid it by encouraging park and ride. Park and ride to where? If to central London, then those individuals won't use the M25 for the greater part of their journey. The M25 has encouraged a whole host of local and medium distance orbital journeys which are extremely difficult to address with public transport. A large part of then M25 traffic is transferring from one motorway to another. It draws traffic out from the inner area, and in from the outer sector, simply because there are no better alternatives. I went to a family funeral in Sunbury on Tuesday, and my route took me via the M23, then M25 and then M3. Before the M25 I would probably have gone A272, A24, A244 then A3 to the Scilly lsles, then via Hampton Court bridge, or else over Walton bridge from Esher. Both shorter routes, but much more congested and taking considerably longer. People heading in towards London are frequently looking for somewhere to leave their cars and continue by public transport, as many threads on this board will testify. Depending on their ultimate destination, they may well use the M25 to get to another motorway, which is a better approach to that place than is ploughing through the centre. In other cases, they would like a railway line which gets them to their destination. Only Thameslink offers a cross-London route for this purpose, ignoring the West London Line as being orbital. -- Terry Harper Website Coordinator, The Omnibus Society http://www.omnibussoc.org |
Thameslink 2000 and other animals
"Mrs Redboots" wrote in message
... Would this be the same Oxford-Cambridge rail link via Bedford that was dug up 40-something years ago? Mostly - from memory the bit between Biggleswade (or Sandy or somewhere) and Cambridge will not be reinstated, replaced instead with a cheaper brand new curve from Arlesey to Letchworth. -- John Rowland - Spamtrapped Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001 http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood. That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line - It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes |
Thameslink 2000 and other animals
Terry Harper wrote:
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 01:06:41 +0100, Dave Arquati wrote: Terry Harper wrote: It may not solve M25 congestion, but it would allow individuals to avoid it by encouraging park and ride. Park and ride to where? If to central London, then those individuals won't use the M25 for the greater part of their journey. The M25 has encouraged a whole host of local and medium distance orbital journeys which are extremely difficult to address with public transport. A large part of then M25 traffic is transferring from one motorway to another. It draws traffic out from the inner area, and in from the outer sector, simply because there are no better alternatives. I went to a family funeral in Sunbury on Tuesday, and my route took me via the M23, then M25 and then M3. Before the M25 I would probably have gone A272, A24, A244 then A3 to the Scilly lsles, then via Hampton Court bridge, or else over Walton bridge from Esher. Both shorter routes, but much more congested and taking considerably longer. People heading in towards London are frequently looking for somewhere to leave their cars and continue by public transport, as many threads on this board will testify. Depending on their ultimate destination, they may well use the M25 to get to another motorway, which is a better approach to that place than is ploughing through the centre. In other cases, they would like a railway line which gets them to their destination. Only Thameslink offers a cross-London route for this purpose, ignoring the West London Line as being orbital. There is such a huge variety of origins and destinations for these trips that Thameslink itself will make little difference to M25 traffic. AFAIR about half of traffic on the M25 is long-distance, with origins and destinations nowhere near the M25, and the other half is short or medium distance trips around the south east. Thameslink 2000 may provide a direct route from Croydon to St Albans, Dartford to Enfield etc. but despite providing an alternative for those trips, it does nothing for a huge variety of other trips. An illustrative exercise might be to take a single origin like Croydon and list all destinations (or more realistically, all towns above a particular size) within 15 miles of the M25, and then count how many of those destinations can be reached using Thameslink - or indeed any rail service with one or no changes. -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
Thameslink 2000 and other animals
Alan Quick wrote:
"Dave Arquati" wrote in message ... Mrs Redboots wrote: Dave Arquati wrote to uk.transport.london on Wed, 6 Apr 2005: Interestingly, it also says that DEFRA have commissioned a studies (not that that means anything useful) into the East-West rail link between Oxford and Cambridge via Bletchley and Bedford, as part of an investigation into supporting the new Milton Keynes & South Midlands housing plans around Milton Keynes. Would this be the same Oxford-Cambridge rail link via Bedford that was dug up 40-something years ago? Yup. They've decided they need it again. Or it could be a counter to the road lobby "outer M25" Consisting A34, part dualled A43.A421,A428,A14 Hopefully TPTB will recognise that an "outer M25" will create traffic problems even worse than the current M25 does - if the current M25 creates widely distributed trips that are all but impossible to cater for with public transport, then an outer M25 will be that much worse. Unfortunately, some of the "outer M25" road schemes may slip in as infrastructure to support the new housing planned in MK or the M11 corridor. -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
Thameslink 2000 and other animals
"Dave Arquati" wrote in message ... Alan Quick wrote: "Dave Arquati" wrote in message ... Interestingly, it also says that DEFRA have commissioned a studies (not that that means anything useful) into the East-West rail link between Oxford and Cambridge via Bletchley and Bedford, as part of an investigation into supporting the new Milton Keynes & South Midlands housing plans around Milton Keynes. Would this be the same Oxford-Cambridge rail link via Bedford that was dug up 40-something years ago? Yup. They've decided they need it again. Or it could be a counter to the road lobby "outer M25" Consisting A34, part dualled A43.A421,A428,A14 Hopefully TPTB will recognise that an "outer M25" will create traffic problems even worse than the current M25 does - if the current M25 creates widely distributed trips that are all but impossible to cater for with public transport, then an outer M25 will be that much worse. Unfortunately, some of the "outer M25" road schemes may slip in as infrastructure to support the new housing planned in MK or the M11 corridor. -- It is happening, look at the Highways Agency road projects, e.g. A14 upgrade to 3 dual lanes plus auxillary lanes where A428 joins (8 lanes total) A421 Milton Keynes to Bedford project to incude new dual carriageway over M1 A421/A428 two dualling projects, connecting to previous dualling bypass projects. Part of the B4031 has been upgraded and designated the A421 after the dualling to the connecting junctions. Dualling to follow to meet demand!. Alan Quick |
Thameslink 2000 and other animals
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 23:54:28 +0100, Dave Arquati
wrote: Terry Harper wrote: On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 01:06:41 +0100, Dave Arquati wrote: Terry Harper wrote: It may not solve M25 congestion, but it would allow individuals to avoid it by encouraging park and ride. Park and ride to where? If to central London, then those individuals won't use the M25 for the greater part of their journey. The M25 has encouraged a whole host of local and medium distance orbital journeys which are extremely difficult to address with public transport. People heading in towards London are frequently looking for somewhere to leave their cars and continue by public transport, as many threads on this board will testify. Depending on their ultimate destination, they may well use the M25 to get to another motorway, which is a better approach to that place than is ploughing through the centre. In other cases, they would like a railway line which gets them to their destination. Only Thameslink offers a cross-London route for this purpose, ignoring the West London Line as being orbital. There is such a huge variety of origins and destinations for these trips that Thameslink itself will make little difference to M25 traffic. AFAIR about half of traffic on the M25 is long-distance, with origins and destinations nowhere near the M25, and the other half is short or medium distance trips around the south east. Thameslink 2000 may provide a direct route from Croydon to St Albans, Dartford to Enfield etc. but despite providing an alternative for those trips, it does nothing for a huge variety of other trips. An illustrative exercise might be to take a single origin like Croydon and list all destinations (or more realistically, all towns above a particular size) within 15 miles of the M25, and then count how many of those destinations can be reached using Thameslink - or indeed any rail service with one or no changes. You didn't read what I said in the first place, did you? It may not solve the M25 congestion - no rail-based plan will ever do that, but it will solve a problem for many car drivers and take them off the M25. The One-Day Travelcard is a blessing for any journey inside the M25 with a destination withing Zone 6. As you ought to be aware, virtually every journey involves at least three modes of transport, counting walking as one mode. Multi-mode transport is a way of life in the urban scene. -- Terry Harper Website Coordinator, The Omnibus Society http://www.omnibussoc.org |
Thameslink 2000 and other animals
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 23:57:00 +0100, Dave Arquati
wrote: Hopefully TPTB will recognise that an "outer M25" will create traffic problems even worse than the current M25 does - if the current M25 creates widely distributed trips that are all but impossible to cater for with public transport, then an outer M25 will be that much worse. Your trouble is that you are looking at it from inside the M25. An "outer M25" would allow traffic wishing to get past London to avoid having to go anywhere near the place. The traffic problems you are talking about exist already, but they have to be accommodated by narrow lanes and single carriageway roads. -- Terry Harper Website Coordinator, The Omnibus Society http://www.omnibussoc.org |
Thameslink 2000 and other animals
Terry Harper wrote:
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 23:54:28 +0100, Dave Arquati wrote: Terry Harper wrote: On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 01:06:41 +0100, Dave Arquati wrote: Terry Harper wrote: It may not solve M25 congestion, but it would allow individuals to avoid it by encouraging park and ride. Park and ride to where? If to central London, then those individuals won't use the M25 for the greater part of their journey. The M25 has encouraged a whole host of local and medium distance orbital journeys which are extremely difficult to address with public transport. People heading in towards London are frequently looking for somewhere to leave their cars and continue by public transport, as many threads on this board will testify. Depending on their ultimate destination, they may well use the M25 to get to another motorway, which is a better approach to that place than is ploughing through the centre. In other cases, they would like a railway line which gets them to their destination. Only Thameslink offers a cross-London route for this purpose, ignoring the West London Line as being orbital. There is such a huge variety of origins and destinations for these trips that Thameslink itself will make little difference to M25 traffic. AFAIR about half of traffic on the M25 is long-distance, with origins and destinations nowhere near the M25, and the other half is short or medium distance trips around the south east. Thameslink 2000 may provide a direct route from Croydon to St Albans, Dartford to Enfield etc. but despite providing an alternative for those trips, it does nothing for a huge variety of other trips. An illustrative exercise might be to take a single origin like Croydon and list all destinations (or more realistically, all towns above a particular size) within 15 miles of the M25, and then count how many of those destinations can be reached using Thameslink - or indeed any rail service with one or no changes. You didn't read what I said in the first place, did you? It may not solve the M25 congestion - no rail-based plan will ever do that, but it will solve a problem for many car drivers and take them off the M25. I did read what you said, but I disagree that it will solve a problem for "many" car drivers. My original point was that not only will it not solve M25 congestion, it will make virtually no difference whatsoever. I think that the effect on car drivers will be pretty negligible. I could be wrong - for all I know, loads of motorists want a train alternative from Sutton to Enfield or Dartford to St Albans! The One-Day Travelcard is a blessing for any journey inside the M25 with a destination withing Zone 6. As you ought to be aware, virtually every journey involves at least three modes of transport, counting walking as one mode. Multi-mode transport is a way of life in the urban scene. Since every journey involves walking (well, for those who can walk, I guess...), there's not much point in debating the multi-modality of journeys that involve walking. I'm lost; where were we? -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
Thameslink 2000 and other animals
Terry Harper wrote:
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 23:57:00 +0100, Dave Arquati wrote: Hopefully TPTB will recognise that an "outer M25" will create traffic problems even worse than the current M25 does - if the current M25 creates widely distributed trips that are all but impossible to cater for with public transport, then an outer M25 will be that much worse. Your trouble is that you are looking at it from inside the M25. An "outer M25" would allow traffic wishing to get past London to avoid having to go anywhere near the place. The traffic problems you are talking about exist already, but they have to be accommodated by narrow lanes and single carriageway roads. Some traffic problems exist already, yes. However, isn't it obvious that a high-quality "outer M25" route will generate lots of extra traffic above and beyond the traffic that currently exists? -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
Thameslink 2000 and other animals
"Dave Arquati" wrote in message ... Some traffic problems exist already, yes. However, isn't it obvious that a high-quality "outer M25" route will generate lots of extra traffic above and beyond the traffic that currently exists? It will create extra traffic but it will also reduce the use of some neighbouring roads. If the A421 were dual all the way from the A1 to the M1 I (and a lot of others) wouldn't drive through Kempton and use the A422, which has to be a good thing. Saying that I don't think the plans for the A14 are worthwhile and the Great Barford bypass on the A421 is only worthwhile because it will take traffic from the village Dave |
Thameslink 2000 and other animals
"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
... I could be wrong - for all I know, loads of motorists want a train alternative from Sutton to Enfield or Dartford to St Albans! Well, I live in St Albans and have been to gigs at the Mick Jagger Centre in Dartford :-) Seriously, though, I don't think that building more roads or railways is the answer. Having spent much of the past two years commuting between St A and places like Camberley or Basingstoke, the question that always comes to mind when sitting in 8 lanes of stationary traffic on the M25 is "How many of these journeys are really necessary?" Mine certainly weren't - with a decent IT infrastructure and a different attitude on the part of my employers, I could have done much of my work from home or from somewhere local, being much more productive and less polluting. Ideally I'd like the Government to set aside the money it would waste on widening the M25, and use it instead as a carrot to encourage employers to change their working practices - maybe even subsidising the installation of broadband, video-conferencing, etc - to cut down on unnecessary travelling. Since that isn't going to happen, the sooner they introduce road charging, the better. That might make employers reconsider the wisdom of having a large number of employees travelling around every day. -- Garry Smith |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 09:30 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk