"Crossrail will eat money. Kill it, Boris, and save the bankrupt Tube
instead"
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...ils/article.do

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 01:48:16 -0700 (PDT)
John B wrote:


"Crossrail will eat money. Kill it, Boris, and save the bankrupt Tube
instead"
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...ils/article.do

Probably if the lines was to be built to tube gauge he'd suddenly be all
in favour of it. Personally I'd go the other way - forget through running
onto the main lines unless they can have their loading gauge increased and
just build sodding huge double decker trains RER style that can hoover up
passengers and stick the termini somewhere convenient for interchange onto the
main line or the tube.

B2003

On Wed, 29 Apr 2009, John B wrote:

"Crossrail will eat money. Kill it, Boris, and save the bankrupt Tube
instead"
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...ils/article.do

This is the crux of the idiocy:

"The Central line's parallel capacity can easily be increased by station
improvements and better management."

Pray tell us, Mr Jenkins, how. How, one might say, *the *****.

tom

--
I prefer gin now sleep doesn't want me anyway.

John B wrote:
"Crossrail will eat money. Kill it, Boris, and save the bankrupt Tube
instead"
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...ils/article.do

--

I must say, it's nice to see unanimity from the utl regulars on the
subject of Jenkins being a cock on this. It is apparently a sound
working principle that the only people allowed to comment on public
transport in the Evening Standard are those manifestly unqualified to do so.

Tom

In message , Tom Barry
writes
John B wrote:
"Crossrail will eat money. Kill it, Boris, and save the bankrupt Tube
instead"
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...ils/article.do
--

I must say, it's nice to see unanimity from the utl regulars on the
subject of Jenkins being a cock on this. It is apparently a sound
working principle that the only people allowed to comment on public
transport in the Evening Standard are those manifestly unqualified to
do so.


He was the headline speaker one year at the Institute of Tourist
Guiding's AGM.

He spoke total drivel about a subject he'd not grasped and failed to
understand, let alone answer, a question put to him pointing out the
hole in his argument.

Discuss! :-)
--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

On 30 Apr, 23:18, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009, John B wrote:
"Crossrail will eat money. Kill it, Boris, and save the bankrupt Tube
instead"
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...-details/artic...

This is the crux of the idiocy:

"The Central line's parallel capacity can easily be increased by station
improvements and better management."

Pray tell us, Mr Jenkins, how. How, one might say, *the *****.


Sir Simon is a polemicist, meaning that he likes to dispute the
obvious.

While I take your point, Tom, I notice you didn't include the rest of
his paragraph. I've done that, and emphasised the important 5 words:

"This project's only real friends have been in the City, eager to fend
off the "threat" from Docklands and garner the bulk of the 900,000
extra office jobs predicted for London a decade ago. NOBODY EXPECTS
THAT NEED NOW. The Central line's parallel capacity can easily be
increased by station improvements and better management."

wrote:

Sir Simon is a polemicist, meaning that he likes to dispute the
obvious.

While I take your point, Tom, I notice you didn't include the rest of
his paragraph. I've done that, and emphasised the important 5 words:

"This project's only real friends have been in the City, eager to fend
off the "threat" from Docklands and garner the bulk of the 900,000
extra office jobs predicted for London a decade ago. NOBODY EXPECTS
THAT NEED NOW. The Central line's parallel capacity can easily be
increased by station improvements and better management."


The mistake here* is assuming that the Central Line is the one relieved
by Crossrail. By my reckoning it also relieves the District, Jubilee,
DLR, Southeastern lines into London Bridge and particularly the
Piccadilly. This means the effect is felt in places like Hammersmith,
Earls Court etc. where the District and Piccadilly suddenly have
substantial relief from overcrowding.

Pushing the argument a bit, it also relieves the A40 and M4...

Tom

* OK, the other mistake, apart from the convenient omission of the fact
that Crossrail massively improves access to Canary Wharf from the
western half of the city.

On Fri, 1 May 2009 02:17:36 -0700 (PDT)
wrote:
THAT NEED NOW. The Central line's parallel capacity can easily be
increased by station improvements and better management."

Obviously its been a while since he travelled on the central line in
the rush hour. Unless he's designed a real life tardis tube train it'll
need more than station improvements to get more people on them. Though that
applies to most of the tube lines TBH. You have to wonder in amazement how
the victorians could some up so many world changing inventions yet the same
people were so ****wittedly naive and inept when it came to setting the
loading gauge of our railways, tube and mainline alike.

B2003

"Ian Jelf" wrote in message
...
In message , Tom Barry
writes
John B wrote:
"Crossrail will eat money. Kill it, Boris, and save the bankrupt Tube
instead"
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...ils/article.do
--

I must say, it's nice to see unanimity from the utl regulars on the
subject of Jenkins being a cock on this. It is apparently a sound working
principle that the only people allowed to comment on public transport in
the Evening Standard are those manifestly unqualified to do so.


He was the headline speaker one year at the Institute of Tourist Guiding's
AGM.

He spoke total drivel about a subject he'd not grasped and failed to
understand, let alone answer, a question put to him pointing out the hole
in his argument.

Discuss! :-)
--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

If he can find people stupid enough to pay him to talk/write rubbish, you
have to admire him, and feel jealous!

MaxB

On May 1, 10:55*am, Tom Barry wrote:
wrote:
Sir Simon is a polemicist, meaning that he likes to dispute the
obvious.

While I take your point, Tom, I notice you didn't include the rest of
his paragraph. *I've done that, and emphasised the important 5 words:

"This project's only real friends have been in the City, eager to fend
off the "threat" from Docklands and garner the bulk of the 900,000
extra office jobs predicted for London a decade ago. NOBODY EXPECTS
THAT NEED NOW. The Central line's parallel capacity can easily be
increased by station improvements and better management."

The mistake here* is assuming that the Central Line is the one relieved
by Crossrail. *By my reckoning it also relieves the District, Jubilee,
DLR, Southeastern lines into London Bridge and particularly the
Piccadilly. *This means the effect is felt in places like Hammersmith,
Earls Court etc. where the District and Piccadilly suddenly have
substantial relief from overcrowding.

Pushing the argument a bit, it also relieves the A40 and M4...

Tom

* OK, the other mistake, apart from the convenient omission of the fact
that Crossrail massively improves access to Canary Wharf from the
western half of the city.

....and the entire wrongheaded stupidity of the piece, which is that it
ignores the fact that by the time Crossrail opens, City & CW levels of
employment will be back to mid-2000s levels anyway.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org