http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4375264.stm

TfL had better start building all those extra lines now if they want to
stand a chance of getting them in place by 2016, not to mention John
Prestcott building the houses for the extra people to live in.
Then there is schools, shops, pubs etc etc.

Kevin

On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4375264.stm

TfL had better start building all those extra lines now if they want to
stand a chance of getting them in place by 2016, not to mention John
Prestcott building the houses for the extra people to live in. Then
there is schools, shops, pubs etc etc.

Can we not just start shooting people?

tom

--
If a scientist were to cut his ear off, no one would take it as evidence
of heightened sensibility -- Peter Medawar

TfL had better start building all those extra lines now if they want to
stand a chance of getting them in place by 2016, not to mention John
Prestcott building the houses for the extra people to live in.
Then there is schools, shops, pubs etc etc.

The article suggests an increase in demand for rail and tube and then
goes on to say it is mostly expected to come from trains, so new tube
lines sound unlikely. This would also imply that the increase on the
tube alone is somewhat less than 24% if most of the new capacity
needed is expected to come from rail.

"TKD" wrote in message
...
TfL had better start building all those extra lines now if they want to
stand a chance of getting them in place by 2016, not to mention John
Prestcott building the houses for the extra people to live in.
Then there is schools, shops, pubs etc etc.

The article suggests an increase in demand for rail and tube and then
goes on to say it is mostly expected to come from trains, so new tube
lines sound unlikely.

I don't follow that logic. The reference in the article is chair of the
panel for the South East; the South East area -excludes- London, so his
reference is purely in relation to train travel from settlements from
outside the London Boroughs -into- London. Those people still have ultimate
destinations to reach, which unless they work in close proximity to the
terminus (e.g. Paddington Basin or Broadgate) then they still have to take
another mode of transport after their train journey.

This would also imply that the increase on the
tube alone is somewhat less than 24% if most of the new capacity
needed is expected to come from rail.

See above. The article is particularly poorly written, throwing in London's
own predicted population increase at the end. Surprised they didn't pick up
on the latest ONS population predictions as well, now that's when it gets
busy!

Tom Anderson wrote:

Can we not just start shooting people?

The police have other things to do you know. You can't carry a firearm
at the same time as you're holding a laser speed gun.

Jonathan

In article , (Harry
Spencer) wrote:

"TKD" wrote in message
...
TfL had better start building all those extra lines now if they
want to stand a chance of getting them in place by 2016, not to
mention John Prestcott building the houses for the extra people to
live in. Then there is schools, shops, pubs etc etc.

The article suggests an increase in demand for rail and tube and
then goes on to say it is mostly expected to come from trains, so new
tube lines sound unlikely.

I don't follow that logic. The reference in the article is chair of
the panel for the South East; the South East area -excludes- London, so
his reference is purely in relation to train travel from settlements
from outside the London Boroughs -into- London. Those people still
have ultimate destinations to reach, which unless they work in close
proximity to the terminus (e.g. Paddington Basin or Broadgate) then
they still have to take another mode of transport after their train
journey.

This would also imply that the increase on the
tube alone is somewhat less than 24% if most of the new capacity
needed is expected to come from rail.

See above. The article is particularly poorly written, throwing in
London's own predicted population increase at the end. Surprised they
didn't pick up on the latest ONS population predictions as well, now
that's when it gets busy!

The article assumes the completion of Crossrail. That's quite a bit of
extra capacity.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

"Colin Rosenstiel" wrote in message
...

The article assumes the completion of Crossrail. That's quite a bit of
extra capacity.

It is a lot of extra capacity. The majority of which will be made up, for
the first few years at least, of shifts from other rail routes - generally
from outside Greater London. Someone from Maidenhead who works at Bond
Street will be more likely to catch a Crossrail train than a Paddington
bound service (indeed, the Paddington bound services of today are more
likely to have a destination of Shenfield or Abbey Wood after Crossrail).

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article , (Harry
Spencer) wrote:

"TKD" wrote in message
...
TfL had better start building all those extra lines now if they
want to stand a chance of getting them in place by 2016, not to
mention John Prestcott building the houses for the extra people to
live in. Then there is schools, shops, pubs etc etc.

The article suggests an increase in demand for rail and tube and
then goes on to say it is mostly expected to come from trains, so new
tube lines sound unlikely.

I don't follow that logic. The reference in the article is chair of
the panel for the South East; the South East area -excludes- London, so
his reference is purely in relation to train travel from settlements
from outside the London Boroughs -into- London. Those people still
have ultimate destinations to reach, which unless they work in close
proximity to the terminus (e.g. Paddington Basin or Broadgate) then
they still have to take another mode of transport after their train
journey.

This would also imply that the increase on the
tube alone is somewhat less than 24% if most of the new capacity
needed is expected to come from rail.

See above. The article is particularly poorly written, throwing in
London's own predicted population increase at the end. Surprised they
didn't pick up on the latest ONS population predictions as well, now
that's when it gets busy!

The article assumes the completion of Crossrail. That's quite a bit of
extra capacity.

--
Colin Rosenstiel
Bearing in mind that some of the biggest growths in population will be
around Stevenage and Harlow, Crossrail will have no benefit.

Kevin

On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 wrote:

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

In article , (Harry
Spencer) wrote:

"TKD" wrote in message
...

TfL had better start building all those extra lines now if they want
to stand a chance of getting them in place by 2016, not to mention
John Prestcott building the houses for the extra people to live in.
Then there is schools, shops, pubs etc etc.

The article suggests an increase in demand for rail and tube and then
goes on to say it is mostly expected to come from trains, so new tube
lines sound unlikely. This would also imply that the increase on the
tube alone is somewhat less than 24% if most of the new capacity
needed is expected to come from rail.

See above. The article is particularly poorly written, throwing in
London's own predicted population increase at the end. Surprised they
didn't pick up on the latest ONS population predictions as well, now
that's when it gets busy!

The article assumes the completion of Crossrail. That's quite a bit of
extra capacity.

Bearing in mind that some of the biggest growths in population will be
around Stevenage and Harlow,

Interesting; i didn't know that. Could i ask what your source for that is?

Crossrail will have no benefit.

Crossrail may well have a knock-on effect on Harlow, at least: Crossrail
will relieve Liverpool Street, and since that's the terminus for trains
from Harlow, it should provide capacity to make those more frequent.

tom

--
YOU HAVE NO CHANCE TO ARRIVE MAKE ALTERNATIVE TRAVEL ARRANGEMENTS. --
Robin May

wrote:
Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article , (Harry
Spencer) wrote:

"TKD" wrote in message
...
TfL had better start building all those extra lines now if they
want to stand a chance of getting them in place by 2016, not to
mention John Prestcott building the houses for the extra people to
live in. Then there is schools, shops, pubs etc etc.
The article suggests an increase in demand for rail and tube and
then goes on to say it is mostly expected to come from trains, so new
tube lines sound unlikely.
I don't follow that logic. The reference in the article is chair of
the panel for the South East; the South East area -excludes- London, so
his reference is purely in relation to train travel from settlements
from outside the London Boroughs -into- London. Those people still
have ultimate destinations to reach, which unless they work in close
proximity to the terminus (e.g. Paddington Basin or Broadgate) then
they still have to take another mode of transport after their train
journey.

This would also imply that the increase on the
tube alone is somewhat less than 24% if most of the new capacity
needed is expected to come from rail.
See above. The article is particularly poorly written, throwing in
London's own predicted population increase at the end. Surprised they
didn't pick up on the latest ONS population predictions as well, now
that's when it gets busy!
The article assumes the completion of Crossrail. That's quite a bit of
extra capacity.

Bearing in mind that some of the biggest growths in population will be
around Stevenage and Harlow, Crossrail will have no benefit.

Somewhat untrue. Crossrail will have huge benefits - in the order of
£20bn at the last estimate. It may have minor benefits to the new
residents in Stevenage and Harlow, but certainly not zero. As Tom said,
Crossrail releases capacity into Liverpool St for Harlow trains, and it
will also provide rapid access and increased capacity to the West End
and Canary Wharf for passengers from Stevenage changing off Thameslink
at Farringdon.


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