In article
,
() wrote:

On 19 Jul, 21:48, (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:
In article

,

() wrote:
The its-difficult-to-tunnel excuse no longer holds water in the
21st century

So we have new geology in the 21st century? What's changed pray?

Tunnelling technology , what do you think? The channel tunnel was
built through dozens of miles of water bearing chalk under the sea so
I don't think the "its nasty chalk not clay" really cuts it any more
as an excuse not to build tunnels in south london.

Huh? Chalk has pretty similar tunnelling characteristics to clay. It's
the sand in south London that's hopeless. Look at how they built the JLE.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On 20 Jul 2008 16:37:44 GMT, Adrian wrote:

(Neil Williams) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

The broadband infrastructure - as it is currently - just wouldn't cope.

So invest in it in preference to investing in commuter transport
infrastructure.

Clueless. Utterly clueless...

Would you care to elaborate as to why you think it is not sensible
rather than just rudely dismissing out of hand without any kind of
reasoned argument?

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 21:48:04 +0100, Colin McKenzie
wrote:

Perhaps a half-way house would be to remove the discount for rail
commuters continuing their journeys from London termini by zone 1
tube.

Or to offer a cheaper "Travelcard" option that included only bus
travel? There's tons of capacity in almost all of the bus network in
the peaks, and where there isn't it's hugely cheaper to provide more
than it is on rail.

The whole of zone 1 is within easy cycling distance of all
termini

That it is, but not all of us (even those of us who do cycle regularly
in other places and do enjoy it) like the idea of cycling in London as
a good stress-free way to start the day. (Nor, to be fair, is a Tube
journey, which is why my morning journey involves a bus and a walk
down the South Bank instead).

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

On Jul 20, 9:24*pm, wrote:
It still doesn't make sense to build Tube lines in South London though,
because that would involve expensive wheelchair-accessible stations which
would leave the existing surface stations underused or closed. I think it

I don't follow your reasoning. Why would wheelchair access in new tube
stations force the closure of overground stations? And a couple of new
tube lines is hardly going to have all the commuters from the whole of
south london abandoning southern region in droves and more than the
northern line in clapham means no one uses clapham junction. It would
just take the pressure off *the lines a bit.


No one in Clapham would use National Rail at Clapham Junction because
it is too far away. Clapham Junction and Clapham Common (for example)
stations have different catchment zones. A better example would be to
compare Clapham North and Clapham High Street, which do serve the same
area. I think that you will find that the Northern line is much busier
than the National Rail service here, as it is at Brixton, where the
Victoria is much busier than National Rail. Maybe not enough to close
the National Rail stations, but enough to mean it is not worthwhile
lengthening trains etc.

On Jul 20, 11:25 pm, (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:
In article
,



() wrote:
On 19 Jul, 21:48, (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:
In article

,

() wrote:
The its-difficult-to-tunnel excuse no longer holds water in the
21st century

So we have new geology in the 21st century? What's changed pray?

Tunnelling technology , what do you think? The channel tunnel was
built through dozens of miles of water bearing chalk under the sea so
I don't think the "its nasty chalk not clay" really cuts it any more
as an excuse not to build tunnels in south london.

Huh? Chalk has pretty similar tunnelling characteristics to clay. It's
the sand in south London that's hopeless. Look at how they built the JLE.

Chalk , sand , whatever. Point is theres nothing that can't be
tunnelled through now as long as they money is available. If they
think sand is an issue they should go ask the Egyptions how they built
the cairo metro.

B2003

In article
,
() wrote:

And a couple of new tube lines is hardly going to have all the
commuters from the whole of south london abandoning southern region
in droves and more than the northern line in clapham means no one
uses clapham junction. It would just take the pressure off the lines
a bit.

It's no surprise that Clapham Junction isn't used by people in Clapham.
It's not in Clapham; it's in Battersea.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article
,
() wrote:

Chalk , sand , whatever. Point is theres nothing that can't be
tunnelled through now as long as they money is available. If they
think sand is an issue they should go ask the Egyptions how they built
the cairo metro.

Precisely. The cost is too high, especially with a surface railway
network already available.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

wrote:

If they
think sand is an issue they should go ask the Egyptions how they built
the cairo metro.

Israelite slaves? Oh, no - they had to make bricks without sand.

Peter Beale

"MarkVarley - MVP" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 13:39:14 +0100, "Maria"
wrote this gibberish:


"Jonathan" wrote in message
. ..
Public transport has always been awful; and over the past couple of
years
I've noticed that more and more often I'm squashed inside a bus or
train,
with hardly enough room to breathe, because the company decided to
cancel
earlier buses or trains without notice, and without making any
alternative
arrangements.

Because I believe that this gross-overcrowding is a serious risk to
public
health and safety, I've created a petition at
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/sardines/ asking for action to be taken to
stop
this gross-overcrowding.

Therefore, if anyone else here shares my concerns, please co-sign the
petition, and if possible, please pass the message along to a few
friends.

Jonathan


Good idea. I've always thought there should be an active campaign to
discourage people who don't have to travel in rush hour from using public
transport at peak times.

María


I go to great lengths to avoid moving anywhere at peak times, I pity
the regular commuters who deal with the sheer unpleasantness of public
transport from the handful of times I've found myself with little
choice to.
the horror...
the horror......
the horror.........


Exactly my feelings, hence why I took a sizeable pay cut and moved to
somewhere nice with little traffic, rather than living in the London suburbs
(Highgate, Northolt, then Uxbridge), working in the City and commuting on
the bus and tube. AWFUL experience. Never again.

Mike P

"tim.." wrote in message

"Maria" wrote in message
...
Good idea. I've always thought there should be an active campaign to
discourage people who don't have to travel in rush hour from using
public transport at peak times.

But we do have this policy.

It's achieved by charging much higher fares in the peak.

(Or it was, until the Oyster virus came along)

Well, Oyster does encourage journeys to start before 7am, after 7pm and
after 9:30am. I suppose it could have a more complicated structure that
specifically raised zone 1 prices in the peaks, but even fewer people
would understand it then.