Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Camden Town revisited - many times, many,many times
It doesn't actually work like that. People prefer through trains,
much as some transit planners would prefer otherwise. But that argument doesn't really work if you put it the other way round. Consider if TfL said they were willing to reduce the Victoria and Piccadilly Line service frequencies by 20% if it meant everyone currently changing at Finsbury Park could have a direct train. Oh, that's impressive debating. Snip the part where I quoted what I was responding to, and then claim that I haven't correctly responded to something else. What I was responding to *was*: Ah, but you're assuming everyone currently waits for a direct train, which half the time will be the second one. The increase in people changing is balanced perfectly by the reduction in people waiting for the second train. So the correct analogy would be: consider if TfL said that half of the Victoria Line trains would now go to Cockfosters and half of the Piccadilly trains would go to Walthamstow. Yes, it may be true that a simpler service pattern allows higher train frequencies, and that might be a worthwhile benefit. But there is a cost as well, so don't go around making fallacious arguments to say that there isn't. -- Mark Brader "Those who do not understand UNIX Toronto are condemned to reinvent it." -- Henry Spencer My text in this article is in the public domain. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Camden Town revisited - many times, many,many times
On Aug 26, 1:18 pm, (Mark Brader) wrote:
Yes, it may be true that a simpler service pattern allows higher train frequencies, and that might be a worthwhile benefit. But there is a cost as well, so don't go around making fallacious arguments to say that there isn't. Oh sorry, I was just looking for a place to drop in my hypothetical, and neglected to check what your comment was actually about. Mea culpa. U -- http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/ A blog about transport projects in London |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Camden Town revisited - many times, many,many times
Oh sorry ... Mea culpa.
Thanks. -- Mark Brader, Toronto | "You often seem quite gracious, in your way." | --Steve Summit |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Camden Town revisited - many times, many,many times
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007, Mark Brader wrote:
It doesn't actually work like that. People prefer through trains, much as some transit planners would prefer otherwise. But that argument doesn't really work if you put it the other way round. Consider if TfL said they were willing to reduce the Victoria and Piccadilly Line service frequencies by 20% if it meant everyone currently changing at Finsbury Park could have a direct train. Oh, that's impressive debating. Snip the part where I quoted what I was responding to, and then claim that I haven't correctly responded to something else. What I was responding to *was*: Ah, but you're assuming everyone currently waits for a direct train, which half the time will be the second one. The increase in people changing is balanced perfectly by the reduction in people waiting for the second train. So the correct analogy would be: consider if TfL said that half of the Victoria Line trains would now go to Cockfosters and half of the Piccadilly trains would go to Walthamstow. AND that the total frequency on each line would fall by 20%. It's equally impressive debating to separate these aspects of the problem; you can have direct trains, but you also have to have 20% fewer of them. Yes, it may be true that a simpler service pattern allows higher train frequencies, and that might be a worthwhile benefit. But there is a cost as well, so don't go around making fallacious arguments to say that there isn't. Quite so, and i didn't think anyone was. The question is simply whether the benefits outweigh the costs. For tom -- Also giving up smoking (cigarettes) today so apologies if it reads wierd or I trail off into maddness at any point!! -- Agent D, 20051129 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Oyster fares and Shepherd's Bush London Overground ( Revisited ) | London Transport | |||
North London Line Revisited | London Transport | |||
Supermarket transport-oriented film list revisited | London Transport | |||
Another Tube derailment - Camden Town | London Transport | |||
On the topic of Camden Town... | London Transport |