tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-77711780230772564692024-03-13T15:12:42.933-07:00MindroutesNew transport ideas in London and the UK.Screwbiedooohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08723447570846052134noreply@blogger.comBlogger25125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771178023077256469.post-88569161290742163112020-09-12T15:08:00.009-07:002020-09-12T15:28:19.671-07:00CROSSRAIL 2 - Two ways to blow £36 billion<p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: large;">Crossrail 1 is already long overdue and over-budget (currently costing around £19 billion). Next in the pipeline for London is the even-more-ambitious NE-SW axis Crossrail 2 Line. The budget for this one is currently estimated to be roughly twice that of Crossrail 1 - at around £36 bn! </span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: large;">I have already criticised the project in detail. Unlike Crossrail 1, which adds no new station catchment to London, Crossrail 2 is daringly going to include <i>one</i> new station at King's Road Chelsea, (local opposition notwithstanding). And boy, what a station it will be, budgeted to cost £1.2 bn - more, incidentally, than the budget for the Millennium Dome! Other than that, it merely joins the dots and mainly just offers shorter commute times to and from the Surrey stockbroker belt.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: large;">As usual, London must get what it wants, even as the provinces languish, struggling here and there for scraps of funding for small-scale, unsophisticated, unambitious, and usually desperately inadequate, tram lines (if they're lucky). We have heard the tired political rhetoric a hundred times: "<i>London must secure its place as a world city... London must remain competitive to attract investment... London is growing fast and badly needs infrastructure...</i> " So, it goes on...</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: large;">But I have another idea. What if the government were to spend taxpayers' money on alternative schemes in the provinces? What could be had for £36 billion?</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p style="text-align: center;"><i style="color: #0b5394;"><b><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: x-large;">We have heard the tired political rhetoric a hundred times: "London must secure its place as a world city..." etc. </span></b></i></p><p style="text-align: center;"><i style="color: #0b5394; font-family: times; font-size: xx-large;"><b><br /></b></i></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: large;">Well, let us use a little mathematics, and for reference let us look at Madrid, a city which has vastly expanded its Metro network in recent years for relatively little outlay.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: large;">Madrid manages to build one mile of Metro line (in tunnel, by the way and including stations) at an average cost of £62 million per mile. As a further jab in the guts, let me add, they complete their projects on time, within four years.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: large;">So, £36 billion divided by £62 million gives us a figure of a staggering 580 miles. Now, "Wait," I hear you say, "those are Spanish prices". They are indeed. So, let us be conservative, factor in some good old British rip-offs, incompetence, wastage and vanity, and double the building costs for the United Kingdom. That reduces the track length to a mere 290 miles.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: large;">290 miles would equate to more than seven Metro networks on the scale of Prague Metro, which has three lines and a track length of just over 40 miles, serving 61 stations.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: #0b5394; font-family: georgia; font-size: x-large;"><i><b>The UK could have <u>SEVEN</u> Prague Metro networks for the price of Crossrail 2.</b></i></span></p><p style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: #0b5394; font-family: georgia; font-size: x-large;"><i><b><br /></b></i></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: large;">Seven 40-mile underground networks like Prague's would handsomely rescue the following UK cities, which are crying out for proper mass transit: Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds, Bristol, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Belfast. You may disagree with these choices. If so, take your own pick.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: large;">I am aware that some of these cities already have some light rail schemes, and Glasgow even has a Subway line, but they are nowhere near adequate.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: #cc0000; font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;"><b><i>Put in visual terms, the choice is either this:</i></b></span></p><p style="text-align: left;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgET3l73_lHC054-D3y2CDOBML4qoouiGbxf-eocYPVfweRB_iAj6F5yfcrNqCaYeIxM8YUWd_GMrosmRZeqm2iZ7hUofx0jLN0VTHYu3e0Q78bK6AYOpifQe_YuvSIg-vTJfQlYQepAIE/s1438/crossrail2.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1014" data-original-width="1438" height="354" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgET3l73_lHC054-D3y2CDOBML4qoouiGbxf-eocYPVfweRB_iAj6F5yfcrNqCaYeIxM8YUWd_GMrosmRZeqm2iZ7hUofx0jLN0VTHYu3e0Q78bK6AYOpifQe_YuvSIg-vTJfQlYQepAIE/w500-h354/crossrail2.png" width="500" /></a></div><br /><span style="color: #cc0000; font-family: verdana; font-size: large;"><i>in a city which already has this:</i></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"> </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjaFKPoF54oxLllkcIiCxQvhyphenhyphenqVZiShvhHczZKaVoPX36b13lxWYGcLD8iyvjS0fqKfYAARZc1MWv3UOOCyawzfmt2pxwmHAh8VdSR6wlVLguE6utwQB9vSCHcWyCqZaxCl7p33EWQaRSs/s2048/image.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1460" data-original-width="2048" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjaFKPoF54oxLllkcIiCxQvhyphenhyphenqVZiShvhHczZKaVoPX36b13lxWYGcLD8iyvjS0fqKfYAARZc1MWv3UOOCyawzfmt2pxwmHAh8VdSR6wlVLguE6utwQB9vSCHcWyCqZaxCl7p33EWQaRSs/s320/image.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="color: #cc0000; font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;"><b><i>Or this:</i></b></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4v5LFwgX_K4ys4puAadOIPvs86lbfAixDEJhd7i2FPDGcQzmFlhRZUNvHxEbmnC6eEsH4Q7Vyu0SIH0AhogVEv_7gKtQkkdRc_L75cWmyaqV0YlZGxsih-fHiW069-hYFCqef7Em9rJ8/s647/belfast+metro.jpg" style="font-family: verdana; font-size: xx-large; font-weight: bold; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="598" data-original-width="647" height="238" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4v5LFwgX_K4ys4puAadOIPvs86lbfAixDEJhd7i2FPDGcQzmFlhRZUNvHxEbmnC6eEsH4Q7Vyu0SIH0AhogVEv_7gKtQkkdRc_L75cWmyaqV0YlZGxsih-fHiW069-hYFCqef7Em9rJ8/w256-h238/belfast+metro.jpg" width="256" /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicPCnoeUBm9DaxZm84oF_TNX5mZxxmRDksgflWQmNGuKmH1WiBM7j71YQrDGZ_GOCx7NMkWgF5hVjIu87z6-3NLDM04XMVqGKCNQAQ2xKWP6ROC6bjg4nU-Z2NZeN_BakddzP3RbYVYuc/s634/birmingham+metro.jpg" style="font-family: verdana; font-size: xx-large; font-weight: bold; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="576" data-original-width="634" height="233" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicPCnoeUBm9DaxZm84oF_TNX5mZxxmRDksgflWQmNGuKmH1WiBM7j71YQrDGZ_GOCx7NMkWgF5hVjIu87z6-3NLDM04XMVqGKCNQAQ2xKWP6ROC6bjg4nU-Z2NZeN_BakddzP3RbYVYuc/w256-h233/birmingham+metro.jpg" width="256" /></a> <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTul8qPP3YRL2rCXfyiHk4Fuuo3HUsTtRYt-tgFedbu1ADnoEaPPDqhhWzHN0oSyN2rq_e7m7YKfS0Hy441-DXM8cXFTOFfvcmJ4wfBYNxYFQafO4XmgAYl4wR40QdawzmbrkfsHJlJxs/s630/bristol+metro.jpg" style="font-family: verdana; font-size: xx-large; font-weight: bold; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="618" data-original-width="630" height="251" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTul8qPP3YRL2rCXfyiHk4Fuuo3HUsTtRYt-tgFedbu1ADnoEaPPDqhhWzHN0oSyN2rq_e7m7YKfS0Hy441-DXM8cXFTOFfvcmJ4wfBYNxYFQafO4XmgAYl4wR40QdawzmbrkfsHJlJxs/w256-h251/bristol+metro.jpg" width="256" /></a><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: xx-large; font-weight: bold;"> </span><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJs25jR7io8Evlj19kaAQBF6i6LGG5Cen6tWXJYxjqADfCNTzyghQCsLvvGsjvusOcZpKXM5mXqVV-lhhuLZdOKOcDh4Bvzm80ZAnksY7GNufayFOOB_AnkAb67tnphGy_rgD20V0U4CM/s639/edin+metro.jpg" style="font-family: verdana; font-size: xx-large; font-weight: bold; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="618" data-original-width="639" height="247" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJs25jR7io8Evlj19kaAQBF6i6LGG5Cen6tWXJYxjqADfCNTzyghQCsLvvGsjvusOcZpKXM5mXqVV-lhhuLZdOKOcDh4Bvzm80ZAnksY7GNufayFOOB_AnkAb67tnphGy_rgD20V0U4CM/w256-h247/edin+metro.jpg" width="256" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;"><b><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhjQFuu60BqcaGEQ5xmB3gs8RGPEm_KCcrFHCcPXhbGzaTCGwyGKfwtTS9LzmAB4zcFUyAKOD8QlM5OpRWo3PFuA8SBIPbdmcAwY3KkYm3B3kBtdOVeUL2lEe98-fSU4ASQbxIZfY4xv54/s636/glasgow+metro.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="606" data-original-width="636" height="244" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhjQFuu60BqcaGEQ5xmB3gs8RGPEm_KCcrFHCcPXhbGzaTCGwyGKfwtTS9LzmAB4zcFUyAKOD8QlM5OpRWo3PFuA8SBIPbdmcAwY3KkYm3B3kBtdOVeUL2lEe98-fSU4ASQbxIZfY4xv54/w256-h244/glasgow+metro.jpg" width="256" /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwF1HLrJQwbeTYS4vP0v8hSGW8bxwqHxqGmc0YhTT0xIW31R6AQjKDmJIzcRNzuvPeCjWKXisVF8kJhxsFwA3WUvfDL46PwI1jMi27jjPUsVbDx_bgo4td6tFRZavLgDHH1RGhV1vrYbU/s634/leeds+metro.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="610" data-original-width="634" height="246" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwF1HLrJQwbeTYS4vP0v8hSGW8bxwqHxqGmc0YhTT0xIW31R6AQjKDmJIzcRNzuvPeCjWKXisVF8kJhxsFwA3WUvfDL46PwI1jMi27jjPUsVbDx_bgo4td6tFRZavLgDHH1RGhV1vrYbU/w256-h246/leeds+metro.jpg" width="256" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh6OS3PKyOhvaoDTUC39M2kK2RL01MECI8xN_w_P62TINIKb7lQmWx0Q8SCTYTekG1qj5SBn3VTxuOwOKVabUsilTe-kFirtue8KN6j8yd6M_C7wDwC2SAlK3r9gTHVpYIXlOf6n2smzxY/s664/manchester+metro.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="664" height="231" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh6OS3PKyOhvaoDTUC39M2kK2RL01MECI8xN_w_P62TINIKb7lQmWx0Q8SCTYTekG1qj5SBn3VTxuOwOKVabUsilTe-kFirtue8KN6j8yd6M_C7wDwC2SAlK3r9gTHVpYIXlOf6n2smzxY/w256-h231/manchester+metro.jpg" width="256" /></a></div></b></span></div><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: large;">Put another way: <u>One</u> new station, or <u>427</u> new stations! You read that right.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><span style="font-size: large;">Now I am willing to concede that certain cities may not require 40 miles of metro, nor perhaps as much as three lines. Perhaps some of them could be served with one or two, or 40 stations instead of 61. In which case, there are savings to be made. Rejoice.</span></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: large;">But this is the question: Will the British government make an honourable attempt at boosting its big provincial cities? Will it ever consider that Manchester may have to be competitive against Munich? Or Leeds be competitive with Lyon? Or Bristol be competitive with Bremen? That its commitments to 21st-century sustainability and development extend all over the nation and not just to Greater London? Because Britain's continental neighbours certainly do not neglect their provincial infrastructure for the benefit of their capitals.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;">Will common sense ever win out over vanity?</span></p><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: large;"><br /></span><p></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: large;"><i><br /></i></span></p><p style="text-align: center;"><br /></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p></p>Screwbiedooohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08723447570846052134noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771178023077256469.post-41164829581598997562020-09-05T07:39:00.003-07:002020-09-05T07:39:42.762-07:00What the Elizabeth Line (Crossrail 1) is really about (satire)<p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: large;">I've extensively criticised the Crossrail 1 scheme, for its lack of new services, its duplication of existing infrastructure and its vast cost and time overruns, but most of all I think it's the sheer vanity of it that gets me.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: large;">What it's really for is the city gents who live in leafy Berkshire to get to work and home again without having to change onto the awful tube. And of course, for their wives to get the basics in at Bond Street, and for the whole tribe to get to the airport twice or three times a year to wherever.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: large;">And it's these City gents who control the purse strings of the economy. So, I suppose it shouldn't be surprising... :(</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg17XItnG_-1etd-rmq0tgdtWpE7ReV0-EBZJOBSTEiufDM5lScGoJECh4VytDGmns9eZ-77f0y1It5SnkGWXGyfHUMDtX3RFezIHcjOpr_whuAkiyhBdzNY9rpcplbm526KwnzaxFnD6Y/s1506/crossrail+satire.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="791" data-original-width="1506" height="411" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg17XItnG_-1etd-rmq0tgdtWpE7ReV0-EBZJOBSTEiufDM5lScGoJECh4VytDGmns9eZ-77f0y1It5SnkGWXGyfHUMDtX3RFezIHcjOpr_whuAkiyhBdzNY9rpcplbm526KwnzaxFnD6Y/w781-h411/crossrail+satire.jpg" width="781" /></a></div><br /><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: large;"><br /></span><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: large;"><br /></span></p>Screwbiedooohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08723447570846052134noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771178023077256469.post-59417782542757415812020-09-04T17:32:00.016-07:002020-09-05T04:21:03.031-07:00Pre-metro for Manchester<p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: large;">Trams are pretty great. The resurgence of tram construction in the past three decades has been a great success. Trams can go almost anywhere, do not require reserved rights of way, are easy to access and relatively cheap to build.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: large;">They can also be slow and cumbersome. They can congest busy intersections in city centres, get snarled up in vehicular traffic, and to some, with their pantographs and power lines, are something of an eyesore. In some cases, the urban geography simply prohibits tram routes.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: large;">This is why many cities across Europe have reached the conclusion that to remove efficiency bottlenecks, eventually the trams have to go <b>underground</b>. <i>Stadtbahn</i> networks in many German cities have begun as trams (<i>strassenbahn</i>) and have been upgraded by plunging central sections into tunnel under city centres and busy neighbourhoods. This way the trams are no longer held up by street traffic, do not inconvenience vehicles on the road and no longer impinge on the visual real estate of historic townscapes.</span></p><p style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: #0b5394; font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"><i><b>"...to remove efficiency bottlenecks, eventually the trams have to go underground."</b></i></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: large;">Often the intention is to develop into a fully-fledged mass transit metro, but often this is either not necessary or too costly. Elsewhere the network can continue as normal, operating on-street, or on segregated rights of way. It is a hybrid multi-modal solution for medium-sized cities with grand aspirations but limited funds.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: large;">And so to Manchester. Although the UK's record on urban transit outside London is just woeful (as we all know), the Metrolink network has been a prominent success story. It has been growing rapidly over the last 28 years, on-street and on existing disused railway lines and viaducts. A truly versatile light rail system.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: large;">It is far from complete, however. Large areas of the city centre and inner city do not yet benefit from the network (although many towns and neighbourhoods far out from the centre do). </span></p><p style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: #3d85c6; font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"><b><i>"Large areas of the city centre and inner city do not yet benefit from the network."</i></b></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: large;">Added to this, Manchester is a conurbation of quite some size, just shy of three million. This is no small provincial town. Manchester is a developing metropolis, which needs and deserves proper mass transit.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: large;">The tram network, as it stands will never fulfil this function. At some point Manchester must go underground. In the current climate, the idea of a full metro being built in a British provincial city seems hopelessly optimistic. The money always seems to go to London, as we all know. </span></p><p style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: #3d85c6; font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"><i><b>"Manchester is a developing metropolis which needs and deserves proper mass transit."</b></i></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: large;">But <i>pre-metro -</i> light rail which goes underground where it needs to - could fit the bill for Manchester and need not cost the earth (ask Madrid Metro how to do it). Once tunnels are dug (with the right forethought), they can be upgraded at any point in the future to full metro, if this is desired.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: large;">This scheme envisages two new tunnel sections, running roughly north-south under prime real estate in central Manchester and the inner city, and connecting to existing Metrolink tracks at either end. </span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: large;">The western route would go from Prestwich (where it could potentially share existing track as far as Bury), down to Withington, for interchange with existing routes to Chorlton, Stockport and the airport.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: large;">The southern portion would follow the axis of Princess Road, where the width of the road allows a segregated right of way in between vehicular traffic. At some point in Hulme, the line would drop into tunnel and eventually cross the existing route at Deansgate, for a low-level interchange. Continuing via an underground station at Quay street, it would then provide mainline interchange at Salford Central. </span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: large;">Further underground stations are envisaged at Victoria/AO Arena and Strangeways, before the line emerges onto Bury New Road at some convenient parkland site. On-street running takes it to Prestwich.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: large;">Not related to this new line, it is also recommended that a new station be built at Dawson Street, on the existing line between Deansgate and Cranbrook. </span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: large;">The eastern route would run from Newton Heath (again with trams potentially running as far as Rochdale), south to an unused section of the Fallowfield Loop, between Withington and Hyde Road. As the route is broken at Fallowfield, a new underground station is envisaged there.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: large;">The route shares a section of track along Princess Road, before diverting east, to eventually turn north again at Whitworth Park, through a new station at the Whitworth museum and an important new underground station in the heart of Manchester University. </span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: large;">The tunnel would continue to Princess Street (not to be confused with Princess Road) and then Piccadilly, for interchange with mainline and surface Metrolink services. It would then continue to the busy neighbourhood of Ancoats, thereafter emerging from tunnel to a new surface stop at Miles Platting. </span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: large;">It would then rejoin the existing Rochdale line, as mentioned before.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: large;">In all, this scheme proposes 25+ new stations, of which 11 would be underground, with around nine Km of new tunnel. </span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi9cFjsjyVWqwkFWybZJW1tDi_9E-cdPHRLv9QEacUqlq1WiQaK82PMVB9K9Pu2tWSr87nlh9Z0C1ZuIOKl3Cjvq8aucuO1xXhoPM3Ya0rv88Ol4doMaT17hLjmcuX33utS0hPFtjcRLJ8/s894/manchestermap.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="609" data-original-width="894" height="437" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi9cFjsjyVWqwkFWybZJW1tDi_9E-cdPHRLv9QEacUqlq1WiQaK82PMVB9K9Pu2tWSr87nlh9Z0C1ZuIOKl3Cjvq8aucuO1xXhoPM3Ya0rv88Ol4doMaT17hLjmcuX33utS0hPFtjcRLJ8/w640-h437/manchestermap.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>New pre-metro routes for Manchester Metrolink with underground stations marked solid red. (Click to expand map)</i></div></span><p></p><p style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: #3d85c6; font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"><i><b>"...25+ new stations, of which 11 would be underground."</b></i></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: large;">The key benefits of this scheme are:</span></p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: large;">Faster services between north-central-south Manchester due to unhindered tunnel routing.</span></li><li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: large;">Metrolink services delivered to important sites, such as Manchester University, Ancoats and Salford Central station.</span></li><li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: large;">Brings services to 'forgotten' inner city areas, such as Hulme, Moss Side, Rusholme, Strangeways and Levenshulme, giving a boost to local economies.</span></li><li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: large;">Convenient interchanges at Deansgate, Salford, Piccadilly and Victoria.</span></li><li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: large;">Massive Relief for the congested existing city centre bottleneck routes.</span></li><li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: large;">System can be upgraded to more pre-metro in-tunnel operations or full metro as required, and as budget allows.</span></li><li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: large;">Makes use of existing trackbed on Fallowfield Loop.</span></li><li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: large;">Services can run through to Rochdale, Bury and Stockport.</span></li><li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: large;">Brings Metrolink a step closer to being 'complete', i.e. a system that can take you 'anywhere', which is highly attractive to passengers.</span></li></ul><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p>Screwbiedooohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08723447570846052134noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771178023077256469.post-77411579378728062572011-04-20T15:58:00.004-07:002020-09-04T18:15:58.347-07:00Jubilee Line at Wood Wharf<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;"><span><span face="">Wood Wharf is a major new 7 hectare development to the east of the Canary Wharf s<span>ite in London's Docklands. Given the go-ahead by Tower Hamlets council late in 2008 the site will comprise sev</span>eral new towers, of residential (around 1,500 new homes) and commercial nature, <span>generating</span> employment for around 20,000 people.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span><span face="">Proposals<span> to ser<span>ve public transport <span>requirements</span></span></span> include a subway with 'travelator' connecting the site to the Jubilee Line station at Canary Wharf. But Canary Wharf station is already at saturation. Seeing as the Jub<span>ilee </span>line passes directly under the Wood Wharf site would it not make a lot more sen<span>se</span> to attach a new station to the line?</span></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;"><img border="0" height="0" src="http://c.gigcount.com/wildfire/IMP/CXNID=2000002.0NXC/bT*xJmx*PTEzMDU*NjY5MzI3MTMmcHQ9MTMwNTQ2NjkzODIzOSZwPTEwNzM4NDEmZD*mZz*xJm89MmUwMTI2OTg5Y2M1NDUxZDlk/YmIyMTU5ZTNkN2JhYzI=.gif" style="height: 0px; visibility: hidden; width: 0px;" width="0" /><a href="http://www.picfront.org/d/8cpD"></a><br />
<br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhvGtrZzChWPcBBM2GSAvcSgrmnbpeFQZe-75uhhfifYGb8aba19ewg1x-0K48vwe7G9VNP-kHxZwfmAql7c7GuhtgtSndDbGrGfAttcxdB_05I9MYZQJZph2DNuHTjzx1rHcI4Cqx1Pmw/s1200/1200px-Wood_Wharf_SE_Aerial_preview_2014.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;"><img border="0" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="1200" height="416" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhvGtrZzChWPcBBM2GSAvcSgrmnbpeFQZe-75uhhfifYGb8aba19ewg1x-0K48vwe7G9VNP-kHxZwfmAql7c7GuhtgtSndDbGrGfAttcxdB_05I9MYZQJZph2DNuHTjzx1rHcI4Cqx1Pmw/w625-h416/1200px-Wood_Wharf_SE_Aerial_preview_2014.jpg" width="625" /></span></a></div><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;"><br /></span><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;"><i>Wood Wharf development in the context of The Isle of Dogs.</i></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span face=""><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;"><span face=""><span>Neither Tower Hamlets nor the developers seem to think so. The philosophy is that once a line has been built new stations are a no-go. Furthermore, Crossrail is destined to serve the area, although at a point some way north of the Jubilee Line station and quite a bit further from Wood Wharf. Recent trends on London Underground are for larger inter<span>-</span>station spacing rather more than the 450m inter-station distance <span>bet<span>ween C<span>anary Wharf and a <span>p<span>ossible <span>Wood Wharf station.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjLxUDb46EAv78eD6f8DJTA8x309o7jLHGAD5XV89HHwJ8_64f9p8VbQg5fYaT0MfGT1HYxrcOvUFyq83aDi19XsJk1tnLYGSqyBDrhjBj6VmbWBjb6Z_ukUtHGudsl2WeDFmMMvMe5aYE/s1600/docklands.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjLxUDb46EAv78eD6f8DJTA8x309o7jLHGAD5XV89HHwJ8_64f9p8VbQg5fYaT0MfGT1HYxrcOvUFyq83aDi19XsJk1tnLYGSqyBDrhjBj6VmbWBjb6Z_ukUtHGudsl2WeDFmMMvMe5aYE/s1600/docklands.jpg" /></span></a></div>
<span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;"><i>Canary Wharf station (grey) and potential Wood Wharf station (red). Station separation (centre to centre) would be approx. 450m. The Wood Wharf development is bound by the black line.</i></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span face=""><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;"><span face=""><span>Some will argue that it will increase journey times on the line. The Jubilee Line has relatively few stations<span> for its length</span>, with notable gaps in Bermondsey and East Rotherhithe. Crucially, the Wood Wharf station would sit outside the central stretch of the line, between Baker Street and Canary Wharf, so it would have no impact <span>on </span>journeys between the West End and Docklands. The only journeys i<span>t would impact are on the short stretch between Canary <span>Wharf an<span>d Stratf<span>ord.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEisH7EBgKwtOzyNO-705clRJ_3eKCCh1IdIwdo0sYinu29lxF9yvyDFYcjpaevgDKb_Z99xbgc4KPSBOUk_qwZYr3fG1GEGZB55Eikv8M52DoANsVTOonLohuBinj1tfPPqnN1PDAz4kng/s1600/city+of+london.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEisH7EBgKwtOzyNO-705clRJ_3eKCCh1IdIwdo0sYinu29lxF9yvyDFYcjpaevgDKb_Z99xbgc4KPSBOUk_qwZYr3fG1GEGZB55Eikv8M52DoANsVTOonLohuBinj1tfPPqnN1PDAz4kng/s1600/city+of+london.png" /></span></a></div>
<span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;"><span><i>For comparison, station distribution in the City of London at the same scale.</i></span><br />
<span><span face=""><i><br />
</i></span></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span><span face="" style="font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;">But how to construct such a station on a functioning line? This could be achieved by in fact open digging into the basin of Wood Wharf to construct platforms, adjacent to the existing Jubilee Line. Spur tunnels could then be bored to connect the new platforms to the existing line, at the very end of the process, when ticket halls, escalators etc are already in place and ready to work. The switch of route could be almost overnight. Since the whole site is to be cleared, there are no surface buildings to constrain construction. <span>This presents</span> a wonderful opportunity. The existing through tunnels need not fall inoperative but can remain as alternative through routes or sidings/turnbacks. See diagram.</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;"><br />
</span><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtF81dVsDTiqTMB1f_uHfMG2_8xhns4XjgXYbI5s_Xnaq23F73hJVpFa5rjZ-_4oj2C-8c9lTaubloAETWQQpjeimWwn-qmPU_vQGJx6UwL4BMhj4zCmmHvfmGp7ocYGBD2hiKKdFJ9Pw/s1600/wood+wharf1.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;"><img border="0" height="475" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtF81dVsDTiqTMB1f_uHfMG2_8xhns4XjgXYbI5s_Xnaq23F73hJVpFa5rjZ-_4oj2C-8c9lTaubloAETWQQpjeimWwn-qmPU_vQGJx6UwL4BMhj4zCmmHvfmGp7ocYGBD2hiKKdFJ9Pw/s640/wood+wharf1.jpg" width="640" /></span></a></div>
<span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;"><i><span>Construction of new platforms can be done with the line still open, either to one side, or either side of the line.</span></i><br />
<br />
</span><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjkdn7Q8Hs4V6UMnRLA4uBGzvG6N0tPqqUqq2n5DSXXu23Rb0YprbgY8gdqD8cROVpWsXUjq9Lq85FOVvJMddLxeQiDg16oqz7MY1jj4mA5CmMv1PErEVsQ9mubv4QMGYCe0C8NiPsRizo/s1600/wood+wharf+2.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjkdn7Q8Hs4V6UMnRLA4uBGzvG6N0tPqqUqq2n5DSXXu23Rb0YprbgY8gdqD8cROVpWsXUjq9Lq85FOVvJMddLxeQiDg16oqz7MY1jj4mA5CmMv1PErEVsQ9mubv4QMGYCe0C8NiPsRizo/s640/wood+wharf+2.jpg" width="560" /></span></a></div>
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span><span face="" style="font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;"><a href="http://www13.picfront.org/token/mCEx/2009/11/27/1657731.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br />
</a></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;"><span><span face="">The Mindroutes team believe the Wood Wharf station could be constructed for as little as £30m. With such a large commercial project being undertaken much of the cost could be contributed by developers.</span></span><br />
<span><span face=""><br /></span></span>
<span><span face="">It would make operational sense because:</span></span><br />
</span><ol>
<li><span><span face="" style="font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;"><i>Canary Wharf station is already as big as it can be and is close to saturation - 50m journeys/year approx. Extra works to increase capacity will be expensive.</i></span></span></li>
<li><span><span face="" style="font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;"><i>Plans to provide an underground walkway to Canary Wharf will require much more extensive tunneling and be very expensive anyway.</i></span></span></li>
<li><span><span face="" style="font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;"><i>The Jubilee Line tunnels are already there under the site - minimal tunneling is necessary.</i></span></span></li>
<li><span><span face="" style="font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;"><i>The catchment for the station is substantial. Ridership could easily exceed 10m journeys/ year and provide relief to overstretched Canary Wharf.</i></span></span></li>
<li><span><span face="" style="font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;"><i>Increase in journey times on the line will be negligible compared to time savings for passengers at surface.</i> </span></span></li>
</ol>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span><span face="" style="font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;">Prudently the Canary Wharf team do not want construction at Wood Wharf to start until their existing office space is let. The potential for building this station exists before the building of the surface development. Once the ground is covered in expensive real estate this simple project becomes a major undertaking, much more expensive and much less feasible. Wood Wharf station is an opportunity to be realised now.</span></span></div>
Screwbiedooohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08723447570846052134noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771178023077256469.post-32821675433514149122011-04-10T14:43:00.003-07:002020-09-05T03:46:36.522-07:00Crossrail Extrapolated - New Network Map<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Whilst Crossrail Line 1 is under construction and line 2 is proposed, albeit in ambiguous form, there exist other lines and portions of lines that could be integrated into a wider Crossrail network, including Thameslink, Chiltern Railways to High Wycombe and the Metropolitan line from Baker Street northwards to create a cohesive Crossrail network across the capital, much as the RER, Cercanias and S-Bahn services do on the continent.</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">To an extent the Crossrail model overlaps with the role of London Underground. The difference I see should be thus: </span></span></div>
<ul style="text-align: justify;">
<li><span style="font-size: small;">A mainline profile</span></li>
<span style="font-size: small;">
</span>
<li><span style="font-size: small;">Greater extent. Not merely urban, or suburban, Crossrail is regional, and connects with outliers and dormitories.</span></li>
<span style="font-size: small;">
</span>
<li><span style="font-size: small;">Lower station density. Especially in urban centres, Crossrail's greater scope requires fewer stops per mile to improve efficiency. As it stands, Bond Street, Tottenham Court Road, Farringdon and Liverpool Street seems one station too many.</span></li>
<span style="font-size: small;">
</span>
<li><span style="font-size: small;">Split running. Various branches and routes can be tolerated on Crossrail, more so than on LUL.</span></li>
</ul>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Lines which might be considered for inclusion/upgrade are the following:</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">1. Thameslink: already performs a "Crossrail-like" function on a N-S axis, albeit with an unusually long extension (new upgrades will see it reach from Brighton to Kings Lynn). Some of the line might be pared back in this scenario.</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">2. Metropolitan Line: The Met has always been an odd sausage. Conceived as a mainline commuter railway, with a few underground stations in central London. it did for a period operate as far as Aylesbury. I propose routing it under Marylebone station and the West End through Charing Cross and over south London tracks to Gatwick airport. Through platforms at Baker Street would be freed up to become terminator/reversing platforms for the Circle/Hammersmith & City lines. Of course, I envisage running services through to Aylesbury again.</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">3. Chiltern Line. Running closely parallel to the Met is the Chiltern Line/Railway. An operational merger of the service to High Wycombe with the Met is possible, or it could continue to run in parallel. The former is perhaps preferable in order to maintain separate track for the Chiltern services running to Birmingham, which in fact is the remnant service retainging the Chiltern franchise. This scheme would see Baker Street cease as a Met LIne terminus, both lines instead diving into tunnel under Marylebone (already saturated) and on to south and southeast London tracks.</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">4. LTS/London Tilbury and Southend. Not a very long line, but a connection through the city and south London out to Dorking and Orpington is possible.</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">In the first version London Overground is integrated fully into Crossrail. Not the variation on the original Crossrail scheme. Instead of Bond Street, a Kensal Green station is included. This is now not feasible, since construction of Bond Street Crossrail is underway. The western extension otherwise remains the same, but the southeastern route to Abbey Wood is extended down to Dartford fr useful connections with other lines.</span></span></div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3iKxYzVZqCQA7o0l1JeqY7c9wwbpf3e1RUa8GSzjd8_rqTleSYtsbe5aP75ZACPIU6orCtjzFfsLd3LvorDyXCzb4tf-9FSfZIo3URd7IyCNfK2Y5f4FDOBkA0zg0LxrtsLQT2xJnZ4c/s1600/crossrail5.jpeg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3iKxYzVZqCQA7o0l1JeqY7c9wwbpf3e1RUa8GSzjd8_rqTleSYtsbe5aP75ZACPIU6orCtjzFfsLd3LvorDyXCzb4tf-9FSfZIo3URd7IyCNfK2Y5f4FDOBkA0zg0LxrtsLQT2xJnZ4c/s16000/crossrail5.jpeg" /></a></div>
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: small;">(c) Copyright Mindroutes / Luke Peters 2010. </span></span>To view LARGE VERSION, Left click on image, then right click 'view image'</span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">In</span><span style="font-size: large;"> the second version London Overground is extracted and stands apart. Operation of the Metropolitan and Chiltern Lines remains distinct though they share routing from West Hampstead south as far as Charing Cross.</span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgDJnho2KcoGSu_UHn3RAVnANYkv-ozN6bs-jRzFfT02YlHdR-YB_FUvgAtlmBe8mYkHZ9rO-CJmAMNJrmKDdJqtqEiIr4-T-UGOTx547oBBTSzwHWdpjdWAvOmP-8ioGaemVmouv6lvsY/s1600/crossrail6.jpeg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgDJnho2KcoGSu_UHn3RAVnANYkv-ozN6bs-jRzFfT02YlHdR-YB_FUvgAtlmBe8mYkHZ9rO-CJmAMNJrmKDdJqtqEiIr4-T-UGOTx547oBBTSzwHWdpjdWAvOmP-8ioGaemVmouv6lvsY/s16000/crossrail6.jpeg" /></a></div>
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: small;">(c) Copyright Mindroutes / Luke Peters 2010. To view LARGE VERSION, Left click on image, then right click 'view image'</span></span>Screwbiedooohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08723447570846052134noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771178023077256469.post-36588787953765104812009-12-02T17:03:00.003-08:002020-09-05T03:49:15.419-07:00OVERCROWDED COVENT GARDEN - DLR TO THE RESCUE?<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;">Covent Garden tube station, on the Piccadilly Line, is amongst the last of central London's stations with lift/stairs access only. ie. escalators have not been installed. To do so would be very difficult due to building limitations in the area. Lifts offer much reduced station access compared to escalators which move larger numbers of people more quickly between etrance and platform. The old station finds itself inadequate to cope with the demand it faces from tourists visiting the Covent Garden Piazza and Market, especially at weekends and in summertime. Until recently the station became exit only at weekends to cope with this demand spike. New lifts have eased this. Leicester Square is not too far away, so returning passengers were directed to walk the 260m to the next station. Incidentally this is the shortest interstation distance on the London Underground network. TfL hope to install a new exit to the station which will help even more.</span></div><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;"><br />
</span><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;"><br />
</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;"><br />
</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;"><br />
</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPYozZrjH7716l-C7sRYBYeUb9yuYILPw17lpbywsMCg46LqVdnlifj1dtpr4qvZqgezdSFMU-IyUvET3imCBFYDQnSjIokJA1is_znGnIMTbV4eX9QBwyXK1RtajmpIo2m_Ujh1-pUYU/s1600-h/CG+graph.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPYozZrjH7716l-C7sRYBYeUb9yuYILPw17lpbywsMCg46LqVdnlifj1dtpr4qvZqgezdSFMU-IyUvET3imCBFYDQnSjIokJA1is_znGnIMTbV4eX9QBwyXK1RtajmpIo2m_Ujh1-pUYU/s320/CG+graph.jpg" /></a></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><i><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;">Passenger journeys (entries and exits) at Covent garden tube station in recent years.</span></i></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;">This may be enough to increase the station's capacity. There is another possibility, from an unlikely direction. The DLR, Docklands Light Railway has been expanding apace in recent years. New links to Stratford iand Dagenham Dock are due to open soon and one of the next projects in the pipeline is an extension from Bank to Charing Cross in the heart of the West End. It has even been suggested it might continue on to Victoria! Well, it could be said the DLR stopped being a light railway with the introduction of three car trains. Perhaps it's not a Docklands railway any more either.</span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;"><span><span>The extension would make use of the old Jubilee Line tunnels which overran from Charing Cross along the Strand as far as Fleet Street, part of the planned 'Fleet Line' <span>which did not transpire.<span> </span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;">In the end the line terminated at Charing Cross. The tunnels, if used, would require enlargement to DLR guage. Passing along the Strand as it would, the line presents us with an interesting opportunity.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;"><br />
</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjUPlTEwYHSPinqQ68TW-v03IXt0pXUP4fa0LBHIDMHnxvhw8bdmKYhl_vmuYaVykn98d33dU-3uz81lBXmN4MEfzR1m1W4Jp6lwB6YBmZ367ww1njR-E-A8owzvdVz28QnbmYf6zNM-sU/s1600/charingcross.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjUPlTEwYHSPinqQ68TW-v03IXt0pXUP4fa0LBHIDMHnxvhw8bdmKYhl_vmuYaVykn98d33dU-3uz81lBXmN4MEfzR1m1W4Jp6lwB6YBmZ367ww1njR-E-A8owzvdVz28QnbmYf6zNM-sU/s320/charingcross.jpg" /></span></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;"><i>How the DLR extension to Charing Cross might look on the Tube Map. In this form it would do nothing to help Covent Garden.</i></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;"><br />
</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;">It has been mooted that the line provide interchange at City Thameslink (sensibly) and also a station at the site of Aldwych station (terminus of a Piccadilly Line branch line from Holborn, now closed).</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;"><br />
</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;">However, it would be possible to provide a station in addition to, or instead of Aldwych, further down the Strand opposite Southampton Row. This would be very close to Covent Garden Piazza (about 200m) and be almost as useful to the area as the current Covent Garden station. The map below indicates 300m radius catchments of the stations in the vicinity, existing and potential. </span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;"><br />
</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;"><br />
</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1VTt8nwFqruGudIgViWSM8dW5qt0RVi3WjuHDTQlhWfy5FNYFR5bAttsur8zs7WvGXUXKA6VnHbFITx3WVZLVrLQWKoW0ThFCBfs2u3PPQHtmgXFf6QJKHM_NJZGxFrtOzO55-Egvqpo/s1600-h/strand+catchment.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1VTt8nwFqruGudIgViWSM8dW5qt0RVi3WjuHDTQlhWfy5FNYFR5bAttsur8zs7WvGXUXKA6VnHbFITx3WVZLVrLQWKoW0ThFCBfs2u3PPQHtmgXFf6QJKHM_NJZGxFrtOzO55-Egvqpo/s640/strand+catchment.jpg" /></span></a></div><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;"><br />
</span><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;"><i></i><span><i>Station catchments around Covent Garden. Strand DLR station (at centre) would provide an excellent alternative to Covent Garden.</i></span><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;"><span> </span><i><span><br />
</span></i></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;">Naming the station "Strand (Covent Garden)" or somesuch would encourage the tourist, unfamiliar with London, to use the station as a Convent Garden alternative. In effect it fulfills the function of a Covent Garden station expansion.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div>Screwbiedooohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08723447570846052134noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771178023077256469.post-84459379377230339032009-11-28T05:15:00.000-08:002013-01-21T09:06:37.022-08:00THE LIVERPOOL GAPS MAP<div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<span style="font-size: large;">Following an idea from here:</span></div>
<div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/2008/01/london-gaps-map-now-with-labels.html">London Connections</a></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span></div>
<div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<span style="font-size: large;">Here is a map displaying catchment circles and gaps in Merseyside's Merseyrail system. The catchment circles are of 600m and 1000m radius.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjX4DzTxUrS0s2XXZr5xLWjvnZxuG56mg-ilmdvOpOHhjijkasm0BQ3n8W6iHXfqlA1-AHUiVxoW0B_Pnnl5k6i5yGgcnAAFZaZYolNmKtZ3BbCrrKY1HGnoe2qEsAxUn4u0QR397mr5qc/s1600/liverpool+gaps+map.bmp" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjX4DzTxUrS0s2XXZr5xLWjvnZxuG56mg-ilmdvOpOHhjijkasm0BQ3n8W6iHXfqlA1-AHUiVxoW0B_Pnnl5k6i5yGgcnAAFZaZYolNmKtZ3BbCrrKY1HGnoe2qEsAxUn4u0QR397mr5qc/s200/liverpool+gaps+map.bmp" /></a></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: large;">Note the close spacing of stations in Liverpool and Birkenhead city centres and large areas around Liverpool city centre which have no station. Is this where planners perceive the distance into town is too short to warrant a train journey? Note also the various agglomerations of closely located stations with overlapping catchments.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: large;">Merseyrail is a perplexing beast. Neither true metro, nor true suburban network, somewhere in between. In the centre it displays characteristics of any classical metro system, with frequent train spacings; further out it is a suburban/provincial commuter railway like any other. Its stock is electric, but of a regular type 508 found all over Britain's provincial and suburban railways. <br />
</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: large;">Particularly, the neglect of inner city Liverpool in its catchment rather rules out its usefulness as a metro to a large extent. Particularly this bias toward the outer extremities means it might best be compared to the RER routes in France or the S-bahn systems in Germany and elsewhere.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: large;">What could make Merseyrail a true metro?</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: large;">1. Lighter rolling stock. I don't mean lower capacity but a 'light rail' rolling stock, say like DLR, with faster acceleration and braking. would give a different image to the network and define it as separate.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: large;">2. More lines. There is potential to reopen sections of tunnel and surface line in Liverpool. Around the inner city this could provide a more metro-type service.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: large;">3. More stations. As the gaps map shows, there are plenty of spots that might benefit from a station.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: large;">4. Segregation. Various sections of Merseyrail currently use shared track and overlap with mainline services. The distinction needs to be made.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: large;">5. Autonomy. Complete autonomy of operation and ticketing, under the control of Merseyside Council.</span></div>
Screwbiedooohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08723447570846052134noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771178023077256469.post-52723943710808341342009-11-17T06:34:00.000-08:002009-11-19T18:37:29.353-08:00GREEN BELTS UNDER THREAT - WHAT TO DO?<div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: small;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;">'Green belts' seemed to be a good idea, to prevent the inexorable outward sprawl of our cities, particularly the so-called 'ribbon' developments that began in the '30s. In the UK, with our propensity for low-density, low-rise housing, our already very sprawling cities would have been even more flacid. We may have the greenbelt policy to thank that we still have countryside within easy reach of our cities. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">However the very idea of the greenbelt is not seen as all that expedient any more, since we have a need for many thousands of new homes, according to government figures. Many areas of greenbelt are being designated as essentially 'up for grabs', around London, Nottingham, West Midlands and northern cities.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">Read about it here:</span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://www.cpre.org.uk/campaigns/planning/green-belts/what-cpre-is-doing" target="_blank">http://www.cpre.org.uk/campaigns/pla...-cpre-is-doing</a></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">This is not good news. We cherish our green and pleasant land, or what is left of it. General concensus is that vast sprawling suburbs do not make such wonderful places to live anyway. So couldn't our cities absorb the extra housing need and grow 'from within'? Well the government is saying that even if we do use all the 'brownfield' sites in our cities we would still not have enough room for the needed housing.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">New long distance transport schemes are not going to help the situation either. London's Crossrail, for instance will make Maidenhead and Shenfield relatively more attractive to live in than Wandsworth or Homerton. Ironically outlying suburbs and domitories will have better transport than many parts of inner city London, a stone's throw from the commercial centres, especially south London as we all know. Should our transport policy not be contributing to encouraging the 're-habitation' of our inner cities and discouraging the 'flight to the suburbs' as started in the early decades of the 20th century?</span><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://s0.geograph.org.uk/photos/07/75/077550_54d69af3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="300" src="http://s0.geograph.org.uk/photos/07/75/077550_54d69af3.jpg" width="400" /></a><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>Suburban Leeds: this is what city-living currently means for most English. An unsustainable dream?</i><br />
</span><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><span style="font-size: small;">Schemes such as extending the tube lines south of the river (but not too far out), reopening some of the closed inner city stations, such as have been discussed on other threads (York Road, South Kentish Town among them); or capitalising on some of the existing lines that have low station densities (the JLE for example) could all make the inner city more accessible and attractive to residents. Why live in Camberwell when you can get to work quicker from Maidenhead? Maidenhead is currently experiencing a building boom in anticipation of this. Camberwell, to my knowledge, is not. Something our new subterranean stations need not do is take up surface space. New stations at Shepherd's Bush, Canada Water, Bermondsey and Wood Lane wantonly waste their 'air-rights' on fairly unnecessary station buildings. Land that could be used for residential dwellings.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">Another aspect of the problem is that England has never had much of a civic culture. I say England, not the UK, because it can be argued that Scotland has. With some exceptions our cities have been founded on rapid industrialisation, with an ungainly mass urbanisation of a predominantly rural people who were fond of their privacy. The English are best at relating to the village, not so much the city. The village is somewhere to live, the city somewhere to work. And our settlements reflect that. Extensive village-like residential suburbs surround compact, self-conscious city centres. We have some truly wonderful villages in England, and some truly appalling cities. The 'we don't do cities' problem is a paradox. The more reluctant we are to engage in the urban, the more unpleasant our cities become, which fuels an exodus, which feeds back to greater neglect. Large villages do not great cities make. If we take the example of Paris, the RER (Crossrail equivalent) was intended precisely to allow Paris to grow. It achieved this, but it never led to a depopulation of Paris, because it's just a nice place to live. Such a scenario in London is harder to imagine.</span><br />
<br />
</div><div style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: small;">Many recent attempts at urban residential spaces have been ungainly, crippled by the privacy expedient, retiring just before becoming truly part of the urban fabric, behind some 'semi-private space', a hedge, wall, a cul-de-sac or some pastiche pastoral architecture that just doesn't wash, conscious of the unpleasant side of 1960s high-density development and keen to avoid any association. Our suburbs were the attempt to reconstruct the village in the town, and our inner city developments have attempted to reconstruct the suburb in the city centre. </span><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://cgz.e2bn.net/e2bn/leas/c99/schools/cgz/accounts/staff/rchambers/GeoBytes%20GCSE%20Blog%20Resources/Images/Settlement/InnerCity_nott_TonyC_GeogPhotos.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://cgz.e2bn.net/e2bn/leas/c99/schools/cgz/accounts/staff/rchambers/GeoBytes%20GCSE%20Blog%20Resources/Images/Settlement/InnerCity_nott_TonyC_GeogPhotos.jpg" /></a><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"> <i>Nottingham terrace houses: high-density housing (compared to a country lane)</i></span><br />
<br />
</div><span style="font-size: small;">Our aristocracy is one of the sectors of our class-ridden (yes, it is) society that is different. Perhaps spoiled by magnificent country retreats, perhaps just wealthy enough to obtain any comfort, their approach to city life is rather different, and some of the more salubrious areas of west London reflect this. Here, London meets Paris, Vienna and St. Petersburg on their own terms. But the elegant Victorian pied-a-terre is the legacy of the bourgeois flanneur, not the mainstay of the proletariat. To the aristocracy, as with most things, the normal rules do not apply. At the other extreme is the low-income council tenant. Shoved onto cheap, avant-garde or just downright experimental estates after slum clearances and nazi bombs, theirs have become amongst the most detested housing schemes in all our history. The two experiences are utterly different, the one too often used to discredit the other.<br />
</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">Things have been changing. Richard Rogers coined the term 'densification' way back, as the new expedient for urban planning. New schemes tend to be more mature, oftentimes contributing contextually to the urban space. Principles such as building up to the pavement, continuing frontages, shared gardens, underground parking and decent heights (4, 5, 6 storey) make for a truly urban residential environment, as has been commonplace on the continent for a long time, where the idea of the city is much more naturally accepted. Even our provincial towns are following suit, with Manchester leading the way in mill and warehouse conversions. Such schemes remain popular with 30-somethings, singles and childless couples. They have yet to wholly win over the core unit of society, the middle-income family.</span><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.e-architect.co.uk/manchester/jpgs/manchester_mattansell_210906_05r.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="480" src="http://www.e-architect.co.uk/manchester/jpgs/manchester_mattansell_210906_05r.jpg" width="640" /></a><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-size: x-small;">Modern mid-rise apartment building in Manchester: it meets the pavement, continues the street frontage, is on a human scale and has fairly attractive design. It contributes to the urban space and houses lots of people...</span></i><br />
</span><br />
</div><br />
<span style="font-size: small;">Compare some approximate population densities of cities abroad and in England:</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Manhattan 27,500/km2</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">L.A. (city) 3,200/km2</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Paris 25,000/km2 (including bois de boulogne and bois de vincennes)</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Barcelona 16,500/km2</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Stockholm 4,400/km2</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Brussels 6,700/km2</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Athens 7,600/km2</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Naples 8,200/km2</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Berlin 3,850/km2</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Moscow 9,700/km2</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Melbourne 1,600/km2 </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Greater London 4,800/km2</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea 13,000/km2 (highest in UK)</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Borough of Brent 6,300/km2</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">City of Westminster 11,000/km2</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">City of Nottingham 3,700/km2</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">City Borough of Salford 2,200/km2</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Metropolitan Borough of Manchester 3,800/km2</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Bristol 3,600/km2</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Newcastle on Tyne 2,400/km2</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Liverpool (Borough & City) 4,200/km2</span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br />
What is clear is that many of our cities have densities that hover a little over that of L.A. - i.e. not dense at all. The most densely inhabited piece of Gt. Britain is Kensington and Chelsea which is approaching comparison with some of the denser world cities, such as Paris and Manhattan, although these in turn will have neighbourhoods of even greater density. The 11th arrondissement of Paris, for example, achieves a staggering 41,600/km2. Melbourne seems downright negligent by comparison but the Australians do enjoy the one luxury we can't afford - space!<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.pro-stay.com/paris_apartments/TUR2/paris_apartment_turenne_bedroom_view2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="http://www.pro-stay.com/paris_apartments/TUR2/paris_apartment_turenne_bedroom_view2.jpg" width="300" /></a><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><i><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">A typical Parisian street: high density and high desirability</span></span></i><br />
<br />
</div><span style="font-size: small;">What is the point of all this? Well, that we do have legroom. Our cities are not overcrowded. Anyone who tells you otherwise needs to spend less time in Chipping Sodbury and more time in Chicago. But how can we roll up acres of old low-rise and start again at higher densities? It doesn't seem that simple, especially since mostly these properties are privately-owned and the owners are quite happy. What is worth keeping and what isn't will have us divided. The horror estates can disappear and not be missed but some streets, no matter how derelict, will accrue sentimental value amongst their residents and they will be kicking and screaming to keep them. Such is the case in Salford, where decaying terraces are the subject of a rescue-or-raze debate, even though the type is extremely common, and was never wonderful in its prime. Add to this an element of suspicion. Quite understandably really, since the last time someone came along promising a bright new future all they got were monstrous windswept tower blocks. With the lessons of the 60s learned, however, we are hopefully ready to come up with decent solutions. Let us not swing the pendulum back the other way and replace these mistakes with suburbanised versions of the same thing. We can avoid the mistakes of the past, build on the successes and not have to produce schemes that pretend to be what they are not.<br />
</span><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://z.about.com/d/goamsterdam/1/0/f/1/-/-/Scheepstimmermanstraat-Borneo-ATCB.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://z.about.com/d/goamsterdam/1/0/f/1/-/-/Scheepstimmermanstraat-Borneo-ATCB.jpg" /></a><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>Amsterdam's Scheepstimmermanstraat: mid-rise, quasi-organic, probably more appealing to the English palate... </i><br />
</span><br />
</div><span style="font-size: small;">It needs to be organic. The conditions have to be right. i.e. for your roses to grow big and tall you need to water them regularly, leave them against a sunny south facing wall, in fertile compost, sheltered from breeze, give them a dose of horse manure every winter, and trim off the dead heads.</span><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.copenhagenexclusive.dk/images/04/architecture04.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="160" src="http://www.copenhagenexclusive.dk/images/04/architecture04.jpg" width="320" /></a><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>...and a similar idea in Copenhagen. </i></span><br />
</span><br />
</div><br />
<span style="font-size: small;">The equivalent in building terms is going to be: service provision (schools, hospitals, roads, play space for the kids, integrated off-street parking etc.); transport - it has to be feasible to get to work quickly; economic incentives (we can't cripple people with council tax and water rates), and some sort of tax exemption for improving/making best use of a site; great architecture (makes great places to live - let's throw open competitions); law (a last resort - but to make sure opportunities are not wasted, eg. in Salford (population density lower than Los Angeles!), derelict terraces should be bulldozed, not restored; place a moratorium on 'suburban' style development in inner cities. Simply, we have to make our cities so darn appealing to live in that people will literally be climbing over themselves to live in them.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">And how to avoid that perennial bugbear in urban design, bland uniformity? In Amsterdam, the architect Adriaan Geuze demonstrated a promising principle with Scheepstimmermanstraat. He divided the street into 60 plots and then allowed (admittedly well-heeled) residents to design their own homes. The only constraints were the dimensions. If you can allow complete freedom within certain rigid boundaries the overall effect - harmony with diversity creates an engaging, pleasant urban space. How to extrapolate that principle over a large scale and with a lower budget? Well, you just have to set the parameters, and give various portions of a brief to different contractors to interpret, and insist on an architect being involved - the same one who submitted the brief for approval in the first place! A modicum of good taste in the planning departments would be no bad thing either.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">The final, and perhaps greatest hurdle is the British people themselves, and particularly the middle-income family who traditionally inhabit the semis and terraces of suburbia and dormitory towns and whose aspiration is nothing more (nothing less) than a two-floor house with a private garden. Currently they are badly let down. Our new housing stock is the pokiest in Europe and prices are overinflated by the shortage of available land, itself partly a product of greenbelt policy. In these conditions construction quality is poor and builders are only employing architects as a last resort. Anything sells! The same applies to new city centre apartments.<br />
</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">Until this changes convincing them that an urban lifestyle can fulfill their aspirations will be hard. Ironically, it may be tearing up the green belt rules and ending the 'land shortage' which will do it, leading to lower house prices, greater competition among builders, and an increase in both size and quality, in both city and suburb. But balancing that with the pressure to sprawl outwards is going to be a challenge. The suburban aspiration is pretty much hard-wired.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">Approximately 1.7m new Londoners are expected to arrive in the coming years, many from abroad. It may be these immigrants who lead the way in our urban renaissance, with a greater cultural appreciation of the city life. They may even teach us that final goal</span><span style="font-size: small;"> - civic pride - for people to love their city as much as the Parisians do, and want to live there, rather than continue the inexorable chain of exodus, new development and exodus again. We will know we have achieved this when the Maidenheads stagnate and the Camberwells boom.<br />
</span><br />
</div>Screwbiedooohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08723447570846052134noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771178023077256469.post-26012328177526526942009-11-11T14:14:00.001-08:002020-09-05T03:52:11.993-07:00CITY HALL FINALLY CALLS IN THE SPANIARDS<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: xx-large;">Well, someone did hear my prayers. The London Assembly has finally eaten humble pie and admitted it needs help. They also followed some of my advice and went to the Managing Director of Madrid Metro. Just the man. Read about it </span><a href="http://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co.uk/content/towerhamlets/advertiser/news/story.aspx?brand=ELAOnline&category=news&tBrand=northlondon24&tCategory=newsela&itemid=WeED25%20Aug%202009%2010%3A56%3A20%3A633" style="font-family: verdana; font-size: xx-large;">here</a><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: xx-large;">.</span></div><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">The problem is the Jubilee line closures which have been plaguing weekend services for months. Need new glasses - go to Specsavers; chipped windscreen - ask Autoglass. Subway not working - ask a Spaniard. They really do know...</div></span>Screwbiedooohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08723447570846052134noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771178023077256469.post-20464864443293580332009-11-07T14:59:00.006-08:002020-09-05T15:43:49.810-07:00NEW "CITY LINE" PROPOSAL<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><span style="color: black; font-size: large;">The City Line would be a new line created by joining two existing ones: the Waterloo & City line and the Northern City Line; and one closed line - the Great Northern section between Finsbury Park and Alexandra Palace.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black; font-size: large;"> </span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-size: large;">The idea is not new. In 1913, the </span><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_and_Metropolitan_District_Railways#Metropolitan_Railway" style="color: black;" title="Metropolitan and Metropolitan District Railways">Metropolitan Railway</a></span><span style="color: black; font-size: large;"> (MR) purchased the GN&CR (Great Northern and City Railway) and revived a plan to extend the Northern City Line southward to a terminus at Lothbury in the City as part of a number of plans to connect the GN&CR to the </span><span style="font-size: large;"><a class="mw-redirect" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterloo_%26_City_Line" style="color: black;" title="Waterloo & City Line">Waterloo & City Railway</a></span><span style="color: black; font-size: large;"> (W&CR) and the Metropolitan Railway itself.</span><span style="color: black; font-size: large;"> When the </span><span style="font-size: large;"><i style="color: black;">Metropolitan Railway Act, 1913</i></span><span style="color: black; font-size: large;"> was passed </span><span style="color: black; font-size: large;">neither of the proposals for connections were permitted, but Lothbury station was allowed, as the terminus station</span><span style="font-size: large;">. </span><span style="color: black; font-size: large;">In 1914, The MR introduced revised proposals for its connections between the GN&CR and the MR and W&CR which removed the need for a station at Lothbury. Although these connections were never made, the Lothbury station idea was not revived again.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black; font-size: large;">In the 1930s London Underground unveiled an ambitious scheme of new projects called the New Works Programme. Amongst several new routes was an extension to the Northern City Line from Finsbury Park to Alexandra Palace. The track already existed and operated a steam driven service. The existing line from Moorgate to Finsbury Park was integrated into the Northern Line and preliminary work began but post-war austerity eventually led to the scheme being scrapped in the 1950s. The track was torn up and the service dropped altogether.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black; font-size: large;">More recently the </span><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_of_England_and_Wales" style="color: black;" title="Green Party of England and Wales">Green Party</a></span><span style="color: black; font-size: large;"> has proposed that the Northern City Line be connected to the Waterloo & City line to create a new cross-London heavy rail route, something akin to the Crossrail scheme. The core section of the route would be from Finsbury Park to </span><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clapham_Junction_railway_station" style="color: black;" title="Clapham Junction railway station">Clapham Junction</a></span><span style="color: black; font-size: large;"> via Moorgate, </span><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank-Monument_station" style="color: black;" title="Bank-Monument station">Bank</a></span><span style="color: black; font-size: large;"> and </span><span style="font-size: large;"><a class="mw-redirect" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterloo_station" style="color: black;" title="Waterloo station">Waterloo</a></span><span style="color: black; font-size: large;">, with a new connection at </span><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackfriars_station" style="color: black;" title="Blackfriars station">Blackfriars</a></span><span style="color: black; font-size: large;">. Through services could then run from Welwyn Garden City and Hertford North to destinations like </span><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hounslow_railway_station" style="color: black;" title="Hounslow railway station">Hounslow</a></span><span style="color: black; font-size: large;">, </span><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richmond_station_%28London%29" style="color: black;" title="Richmond station (London)">Richmond</a></span><span style="color: black; font-size: large;">, </span><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shepperton_railway_station" style="color: black;" title="Shepperton railway station">Shepperton</a></span><span style="color: black; font-size: large;">, </span><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_railway_station_%28London%29" style="color: black;" title="Kingston railway station (London)">Kingston</a></span><span style="color: black; font-size: large;"> and </span><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weybridge_railway_station" style="color: black;" title="Weybridge railway station">Weybridge</a></span><span style="color: black; font-size: large;">.</span><span style="font-size: large;"> It would retain the aspect of a mainline railway.</span><br />
<br />
</span><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjUGnHGHDxPTKuo4p6TPkKBIPEsgDXVV74MD8GY-OuO6Y8GG4qI1TAOusiGfyoMZQ-aklZRQS-5xi50bRw4UOBgg0KPyj1RB-v6uT5n8DIE_NDAdoEbKluddNhr9x6xp2V_YHhaCfxX8go/s1600/1946+map.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjUGnHGHDxPTKuo4p6TPkKBIPEsgDXVV74MD8GY-OuO6Y8GG4qI1TAOusiGfyoMZQ-aklZRQS-5xi50bRw4UOBgg0KPyj1RB-v6uT5n8DIE_NDAdoEbKluddNhr9x6xp2V_YHhaCfxX8go/s1600/1946+map.jpg" /></span></a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: small;"><i> Existing infrastructure for this proposal was clearly evident on 1946 tube maps.</i></span></span></div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">This proposal is to, similarly, link up the two lines as proposed by the Metropolitan Railway, Lothbury station notwithstanding, and in addition connect to the Great Northern stretch from Finsbury Park to Alexandra Palace. However, in this instance it would be a "tube" line, operated by London Underground. It would certainly be preferrable to expand the bore of the tunnels to allow larger than standard profile trains, however the cost of such an undertaking might well rule it out.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">Extensions northward and southward are envisaged. In the north, to run from the original terminator tunnels at Finsbury Park (not the surface platforms currently being used) via the old 'Northern Heights' route (which is mostly in cutting and unobstructed), through rebuilt station sites at Stroud Green and Crouch End, interchange at Highgate, before plunging into tunnel under Queens Wood to a new underground station at Muswell Hill and on to Alexandra Palace for interchange with National Rail.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">The southward section from Waterloo would require a substantial new tunnel via Battersea, Clapham Junction, Wandsworth and Roehampton, all areas never reached by the Underground before. New stations could be incorporated on the existing stretches, at the South bank/Tate Modern and at New North Road.</span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br />
<small><span style="font-size: x-large;">View <a href="http://maps.google.co.uk/maps/ms?near=camden+town&f=p&rl=1&ie=UTF8&hl=en&t=k&source=embed&msa=0&msid=108943605863307549028.000477cf591f0093876cd&ll=51.53033,-0.165584&spn=0.15544,0.157017" style="color: blue; text-align: left;">City Line (Waterloo & City - Northern City Line integration)</a> in a larger map</span></small></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">The scheme does of course require alternative routing for mainline services from Hertfordshire currently terminating at Moorgate. The surface platforms at Finsbury Park would still be usable and Kings Cross or St. Pancras would seem to be the logical alternative.</span><br /><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">What this proposal would give would be a very useful link through the City of London, connecting many 'new' neighbourhoods screaming for tube services, such as Muswell Hill, Crouch End, Battersea, Wandsworth, Roehampton University, with the added bonus of serving entertainment venues on the South Bank, Battersea Power Station and the new Arsenal football stadium.</span><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">Of the 25 envisaged stations, interchange would be achieved at:</span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;">- Alexandra Palace (National Rail)</span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;">- Highgate (Northern Line)<br />
- Finsbury Park (Piccadilly, Victoria, National Rail)<br />
- Highbury & Islington (Victoria, Overground)<br />
- Old Street (Northern)<br />
- Moorgate (Circle, H&C, Metropolitan, Northern)<br />
- Bank (Central, DLR, Northern)<br />
- Waterloo (Jubilee, Northern, Bakerloo, National Rail)<br />
- Vauxhall (Victoria, National Rail)<br />
- Battersea Park (National Rail)<br />
- Clapham Junction (Overground, National Rail)<br />
- East Putney (District)</span><br />
<br />
</span><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgLwkra8UkpWtzXxir8xSlCVXiOSWRPrBNWc1-vG4ZUjv9c-BtotW74IJG0xKF66DTCG7nhF_ScPC-O_La_3CVbxc24XxAZmkXqFGVTfbW7aEcH8IbksQ_bFB5qGc2EOztejfLs_1wrwrI/s1600-h/city+line.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgLwkra8UkpWtzXxir8xSlCVXiOSWRPrBNWc1-vG4ZUjv9c-BtotW74IJG0xKF66DTCG7nhF_ScPC-O_La_3CVbxc24XxAZmkXqFGVTfbW7aEcH8IbksQ_bFB5qGc2EOztejfLs_1wrwrI/s640/city+line.jpg" /></span></a></div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">Development phases are envisaged thus:</span><br />
</span><ol><li><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: small;">Tunneling of new link between Moorgate and Bank, incorporating new N-S aligned Bank platforms.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: small;">Tunnel widening, Waterloo-Bank.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: small;">Platform lengthening, Waterloo.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: small;">Exit tunnel from Finsbury Park northbound onto the disused Northern Heights route.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: small;">Construction of stations: Stroud Green, Crouch End, New North road, South Bank/Tate Modern</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: small;">Rerouting mainline trains from NCL to Kings Cross/St. Pancras.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: small;">City Line opens, Highgate high level - Waterloo.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: small;">Northbound tunnel to Muswell Hill and Alexandra Palace.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: small;">South west extension to Roehampton via Battersea.</span></li>
</ol></div><span style="font-family: verdana;"><span style="font-size: large;">And if it all looks too expensive, I would ask <a href="http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQQ/is_5_43/ai_102286983/" style="color: blue;">this guy</a> how to do it...</span><br />
</span><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: large;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: large;">ADDENDUM: <a href="http://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/news/article/10136/battersea_power_station_scheme_approved">this scheme </a>currently extending the Northern Line to Battersea would conflict with this plan. Appetite for another line through this part of Battersea is likely to be very low. The Northern Line plan does miss an opportunity however, in stopping the line at BPS. A relatively simple extension of the line a couple of stops west would carry it to Clapham Junction. Experience shows that short and simple extensions of this type are rarely carried out afterwards and of course, cost far more to do in two phases.</span></div><br />
<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-Lost4_8-0"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lothbury_tube_station#cite_note-Lost4-8"></a></sup>Screwbiedooohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08723447570846052134noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771178023077256469.post-74364405279118465372008-10-06T12:03:00.003-07:002020-09-05T03:53:00.453-07:00THE CASE FOR YORK ROAD<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: xx-large;">If you have ever taken the Piccadilly Line north from King's Cross you may have noticed the lengthy interval before you arrive at the next station (Caledonian Road). It's almost a mile and a half. A similar distance on the parallel Northern Line (Mornington Crescent branch) has two intermediate stations. Leaving such a gap in inner London seems like an odd planning decision. But it was not always thus.</span></div><script type="text/javascript">
var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://ssl." : "http://www.");
document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + gaJsHost + "google-analytics.com/ga.js' type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E"));
</script><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/York_Road_tube_station" style="font-family: verdana; font-size: xx-large;">York Road</a><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: xx-large;"> is a disused station on London Underground's Piccadilly Line. It opened in 1906 but never saw a high volume of traffic. Eventually Sunday services were withdrawn and it closed completely in 1932. The station catchment suffered due to being on the edge of a large area of goods depots and marshalling yards behind King's Cross station with no habitation and little commuter traffic. This despite being about 1km from the adjacent stations on the line (King's Cross and Caledonian Road) and on the edge of central London.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiGB-_OKKB4zXUE3ugkzka0G-fSCB9eHPivc5tQHWnDrM1BZqZeiuhYYR-qFFd4U2ccRvH5DG3ihhP_wt7bYCIQNYs_wzh8zZxndEFMHBSTdsNJQ5B-3V4RawUdDUUyoB_r2oBpuKko_Ag/s547/york+road.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;"><img border="0" data-original-height="398" data-original-width="547" height="455" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiGB-_OKKB4zXUE3ugkzka0G-fSCB9eHPivc5tQHWnDrM1BZqZeiuhYYR-qFFd4U2ccRvH5DG3ihhP_wt7bYCIQNYs_wzh8zZxndEFMHBSTdsNJQ5B-3V4RawUdDUUyoB_r2oBpuKko_Ag/w625-h455/york+road.jpg" width="625" /></span></a></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></div><i><div style="text-align: justify;"><i><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;">How York Road appeared on the Tube Map in the 1920s.</span></i></div></i><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: xx-large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;"><br />
To the east of the station is the run-down residential neighbourhood of West Barnsbury, in the Borough of Islington. This neighbourhood is an excellent example of an area that fails to thrive precisely because of poor transport links. It would benefit greatly in prestige and development by having a local tube station.<br />
<br />
</span><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEigXlGSiBCqr5U9ZqBGFVksyiDyZZQWNErnNq-FJRaGshKJBFXe8Rq2L81eljEF-o2jdpEcD_kyvBF-yIrvgLysRW6DDRPuKxtepLnE2-RlEGS53-K3zgfe9a6x3nOAGdCOowYa8GPtXIQ/s1600-h/250px-YorkRoad1.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5254134646769982834" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEigXlGSiBCqr5U9ZqBGFVksyiDyZZQWNErnNq-FJRaGshKJBFXe8Rq2L81eljEF-o2jdpEcD_kyvBF-yIrvgLysRW6DDRPuKxtepLnE2-RlEGS53-K3zgfe9a6x3nOAGdCOowYa8GPtXIQ/s320/250px-YorkRoad1.jpg" style="cursor: pointer; display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: justify;" /></a><span><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">York Road </span><span style="font-style: italic;">station on the Piccadilly Line. Closed since 1932, current evidence suggests it would now be very useful.</span></div></span>
</span></div><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;"><br />
The case for reopening the station has not previously been strong. That is until the King's Cross Railway Lands Development scheme was announced (now called <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%27s_Cross_Central">King's Cross Central</a>). This scheme involves the mixed-use development of 65 acres of land to the north of King's Cross station - precisely the area of depots that have been the vacuum in York Road's catchment until now. This should bring thousands of new jobs and residents to the area. Preliminary work has begun.<br />
<br />
</span><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdHDFXdLsC-jxfeiRBr_chNPvqEPg5LkoKBKt6h3jDI4HAa1Rnh7ddNPNhTYYmibk5MHsWp4yNW-8RCz6Q9P1929xk5kebMqxARSV7z-Kw75248ckiDWHa62q1_TL1TatBMqmWNX3qAUQ/s1600-h/6_MaidenLaneMap.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5254200702410274482" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdHDFXdLsC-jxfeiRBr_chNPvqEPg5LkoKBKt6h3jDI4HAa1Rnh7ddNPNhTYYmibk5MHsWp4yNW-8RCz6Q9P1929xk5kebMqxARSV7z-Kw75248ckiDWHa62q1_TL1TatBMqmWNX3qAUQ/s320/6_MaidenLaneMap.jpg" style="cursor: pointer; display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: justify;" /></a><span style="font-style: italic;"><div style="text-align: justify;">A 1930s map of the area, showing the location of <span style="font-weight: bold;">Maiden Lane</span> station (1) and <span style="font-weight: bold;">York Road</span> (2)</div></span>
</span></div><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;"><br />
</span><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;">The reopening of York Road and also the construction of a new York Way station on the North London Line (London Oveground) close to the site of the former Maiden Lane station a little way to the north, have already been suggested by concerned parties (see map) though both Islington and Camden councils would seem to be in favour of the latter option.<br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: xx-large;"><br /></span></div><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><iframe frameborder="0" height="350" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://maps.google.co.uk/maps/ms?near=camden+town&f=p&rl=1&ie=UTF8&hl=en&t=k&s=AARTsJpRY7imyP9ZdcSU24caEMD8E0v2cQ&msa=0&msid=108943605863307549028.00045899e18ea2dbcfe0a&ll=51.53912,-0.122136&spn=0.018685,0.036478&z=14&output=embed" width="425"></iframe></div>
</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;"><small><a href="http://maps.google.co.uk/maps/ms?near=camden+town&f=p&rl=1&ie=UTF8&hl=en&t=k&msa=0&msid=108943605863307549028.00045899e18ea2dbcfe0a&ll=51.53912,-0.122136&spn=0.018685,0.036478&z=14&source=embed" style="color: blue; text-align: left;">View Larger Map</a></small><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;">As is clear from the map, the York Road station is ideally placed for the northernmost part of the King's Cross central development (bound by Wharf Road). Pedestrian distances from the nodal centre of the site are far shorter than walking to King's Cross (250m as opposed to 808m). A <a href="http://www.alwaystouchout.com/project/50">viability study</a> performed by London Underground found the station would attract about 3.2m passenger journeys/year.<br />
</span></div><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;"><br />
However on a cost:benefit analysis the idea was rejected for two reasons:<br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;">1. Inconvenience of longer journey times for the 38.4m through journeys/year</span><br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;"><br />
2. Station refurbishment would be too expensive </span><br />
<br />
Let us investigate the evidence for this:<br />
<br />
1. The extra station would add around 30 seconds to through journeys in standing time and deceleration/acceleration. Multiplied by 38.4m this is a total time loss of 320,000 hours/year.<br />
<br />
Now, analysing the mean walking distances of passengers on the northern sector of Kings Cross central we see that the absence of York Road means average additional walking distances of 558m to reach the next nearest station (King's Cross St. Pancras) instead (808m-250m). At a walking speed of 4.5 km/h this is a 7.4 minute walk. Let us take this as the average additional distance for all passengers on our notional York Road station. Extrapolated over 3.2m passengers this represents a loss of 395,000 hours/year - 75,000 hours more than the delay to through passengers.<br />
<br />
</span><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhRKWfzWIw-_bditkVcNBQydVaz48-w4290bY1nlvgxaJN1AFr_UOv8eVDHLZHbSq5TJfZbJHsaQZhqQPWIxfztqkRmWSL7tl2ISDQR5vJ_P9Ezrd8UGL6cpEDOsscxTUxComULyCtcAOo/s1600-h/yw.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhRKWfzWIw-_bditkVcNBQydVaz48-w4290bY1nlvgxaJN1AFr_UOv8eVDHLZHbSq5TJfZbJHsaQZhqQPWIxfztqkRmWSL7tl2ISDQR5vJ_P9Ezrd8UGL6cpEDOsscxTUxComULyCtcAOo/s320/yw.jpg" /></a><br />
</span></div><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;"><br />
<br />
Furthermore if we compare the station usage of adjacent stations:<br />
<br />
Kings X/St Pancras 66.36m/year on 6 lines<br />
York Road (projected) 3.2m/year on 1 line<br />
Caledonian Road (actual) 5.33m/year on 1 line<br />
Holloway Road (actual) 7.49m/year on 1 line<br />
Arsenal 2.73m/year on 1 line<br />
Finsbury Park 24.8m/year on 2 lines<br />
<span><br />
<a href="http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/corporate/modesoftransport/tube/performance/entriesandexits.asp?id=10&agekey=2007">* Tube entry and exit statistics 2007</a></span><br />
<br />
what is clear is that York Road, although not on the scale of King's Cross or Finsbury Park would have a passenger traffic comparable to the next three stations on the line, and indeed greater than Arsenal station. In fact it would have passenger figures higher than 17 other stations that uniquely serve the Piccadilly Line. By London Underground's logic shouldn't they be all closed down?<br />
<br />
2. York Road is a station already constructed. Lift shafts, ticket office etc. exist already. The station would need major refurbishment and new platforms, but minor structural works. London Underground has the money to rebuild Shepherd's Bush (£65m) and Camden Town (£135m), compared to which the refit of York Road would be pocket change (LUL estimates for reopening South Kentish Town are £12m). King's Cross Central is a multi-billion pound development and the developers ought to be able to contribute. Reopening York Road would be in their interests. Long-term, running costs of the station would be no more than any other small Piccadilly line station though York Road would generate more revenue than many.<br />
</span></div><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The reasoning against reopening the station appears to be very weak.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The advantages would be:</div>
</span><ul><li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;">Convenience to King's Cross Central development</span></li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;">Relief of congestion at King's Cross</span></li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;">Revitalisation of a forgotten corner of Islington, very close to central London.</span></li>
</ul><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: x-large;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">The alternative</span><br />
<br />
The alternative proposal - to construct a York Way North London Line Overground Station near the site of the former station called Maiden Lane, has the backing of Islington and Camden councils. Being around 350m metres apart there would be no practical interchange component if the two stations were open. Whilst on its own Maiden Lane would undoubtedly be advantageous, it suffers compared to York Road on six counts:<br />
<br />
1. It is further from the King's Cross Central development<br />
2. It is further from the unserved catchment of West Barnsbury<br />
3. It is located in an industrial area with low passenger demand<br />
4. Services on the North London Line are oriented East-West and are not convenient for services to or via central London<br />
5. Lower train frequencies<br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;">The other alternative</span><br />
<br />
There is a further, more costly option. That is to leave York Road abandoned, and York Way/Maiden Lane forgotten, and instead create a new interchange station between the NLL and Piccadilly Lines. This would be somewhere towards the back of Bunning Way, alongside the Eurostar Tracks out of St Pancras. As it currently stands station access to this site would be poor and would require major works. Further, the station would impact the viability of Caledonian Road & Barnsbury Station, 400m along the line to the east. The interchange component of such a station would be extremely useful however.</span><br />
</div></div></div>Screwbiedooohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08723447570846052134noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771178023077256469.post-72970156139933074782008-10-03T17:46:00.002-07:002020-09-04T13:58:46.663-07:00TRANSPORT SOLUTIONS FOR CAMDEN TOWN - The good, the bad and the costly<script type="text/javascript">
var <span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% yellow;" class="goog-spellcheck-word">gaJsHost</span> = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% yellow;" class="goog-spellcheck-word">ssl</span>." : "http://www.");
document.write(<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% yellow;" class="goog-spellcheck-word">unescape</span>("%3Cscript <span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% yellow;" class="goog-spellcheck-word">src</span>='" + <span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% yellow;" class="goog-spellcheck-word">gaJsHost</span> + "google-analytics.com/<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% yellow;" class="goog-spellcheck-word">ga</span>.js' type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E"));
</script><br />
<script type="text/javascript">
var <span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% yellow;" class="goog-spellcheck-word">pageTracker</span> = _<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% yellow;" class="goog-spellcheck-word">gat</span>._<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% yellow;" class="goog-spellcheck-word">getTracker</span>("<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% yellow;" class="goog-spellcheck-word">UA</span>-5866873-1");
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% yellow;" class="goog-spellcheck-word">pageTracker</span>._<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% yellow;" class="goog-spellcheck-word">trackPageview</span>();
</script><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">Camden's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camden_Market">market</a> area in north London is immensely popular. At weekends upwards of 100,000 shoppers and tourists congregate on its 3 major market sites to search for clothes, jewellery and brik-a-brak. The majority of them arrive at Camden Town station.<br />
<br />
The station is important also as a major interchange between the two branches of the Northern Line (Edgware-Kennington and High Barnet-Morden). Despite mixed train routing on the two branches passengers frequently have to change at Camden to reach their destination. This leads to significantly more congestion across its four platforms than would otherwise be the case. Added to this, Camden Town itself is a well-populated area close to central London.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
These three factors make it one of the busiest stations on the network and mean that at some periods on weekends access to the 101 year-old station is limited to set-down only, so as to avoid dangerously congesting the platforms. i.e. during these periods no-one may enter the station. This is obviously inconvenient for shoppers wishing to return home as well as locals wishing to make regular journeys. Through passengers, transfer passengers and those arriving are not disrupted.</div><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhCSq3n0jYNnYWYy9xvupxIuIFvSRyURa66A6h63A9x4ht7Dyi1hfEADKV9vUhEVluAPgchfQ_63zdp63AYL40K1XP8zObq6KWTSw0Bhu5yn8uMGPOdbl8QIZ8xlUijmvzgoYi2cQKtofs/s1600-h/800px-CamdenHighSt_CamdenLock.JPG" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5253124320756054946" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhCSq3n0jYNnYWYy9xvupxIuIFvSRyURa66A6h63A9x4ht7Dyi1hfEADKV9vUhEVluAPgchfQ_63zdp63AYL40K1XP8zObq6KWTSw0Bhu5yn8uMGPOdbl8QIZ8xlUijmvzgoYi2cQKtofs/s320/800px-CamdenHighSt_CamdenLock.JPG" style="cursor: pointer; display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center;" /></a><span style="font-size: 85%;"><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">Camden</span><span style="font-style: italic;">'s agglomeration of street and alternative markets attract enormous crowds, especially at weekends.</span></span></div><span style="font-size: 85%;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><br />
</span></span>London Underground project a 20% increase over the next 20 years. Furthermore, in the near future the line will be defnitively split into two routes, further increasing the demand for interchange at the station. London Underground quite rightly wishes to remedy the situation so that Camden Town can meet the demands placed on it. They hired Ove Arup to design an entirely new Camden Town station, from the bottom up.<br />
<br />
At an estimated cost of £135m (these things always overrun), the design requires the demolition of a whole city block, including certain local landmarks of sentimental significance. Among them, the listed Electric Ballroom, one of London's oldest nightclubs; Buck Street market, one of the smaller markets in Camden; and a church. The resulting plan would incorporate new accommodations for the Electric Ballroom and the church as well as commercial office space and would take seven years to construct but significant opposition from residents and Camden Borough Council has led to over 16 versions of these plans being rejected over the last few years. Currently plans are at an impasse, with no adequate solution to satisfy both London Underground's needs below ground and local interests above ground. Allegedly, however, in 2007 the government declared that the Electric Ballroom is a dilapidated building, which could swing the tide in the favour of LU's ambitions.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjpccC7uyVJBl96KCLb6XbTtX6A3v2iWVj_vnHV0Tf5wyTLL1Wu1XcRqDrQlzDVboZVSZqvB4Rhihyphenhyphene7w3DOAV2cd2U_8vZr-Qc89HcLMfs8hNUqwM9su-DOR2VE-xDUU8PDw9PUva_1AE/s1600-h/camdentown3.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5253126330740069666" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjpccC7uyVJBl96KCLb6XbTtX6A3v2iWVj_vnHV0Tf5wyTLL1Wu1XcRqDrQlzDVboZVSZqvB4Rhihyphenhyphene7w3DOAV2cd2U_8vZr-Qc89HcLMfs8hNUqwM9su-DOR2VE-xDUU8PDw9PUva_1AE/s320/camdentown3.jpg" style="cursor: pointer; display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center;" /></a><span style="font-size: 85%;"><span style="font-style: italic;">The proposed £135m overhaul of </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">Camden Town </span><span style="font-style: italic;">would look like this. Demolition of a whole city block has led to enormous local opposition.</span></span></div><br />
A cursory glance at the plans reveals many of the hallmarks of modern LU station planning. I hesitate to mention words like waste and vanity, in what is merely a rebuild. Including commercial development is undoubtedly part of the business model and it is not clear what long-term income TfL might extract from its tenants. Whilst Ove Arup are an extremely well thought of company, their inclusion may be what the bosses of <a href="http://mindroutes.blogspot.com/2008/10/lessons-from-madrid-metro.html">Madrid Metro</a> warn precisely against in metro construction. Prestige architecture is a luxury that the taxpayer cannot afford and requires cost-cutting in other more essential areas, such as reaching neighbourhoods where there is <i>no</i> service at all. Lottie gets new ballet shoes while Tom and Charlie go barefoot. At £135m it's an expensive enlargement.<br />
<br />
There are currently three other stations in the vicinity of Camden's markets other than Camden Town: Chalk Farm, on the Northern Line Edgware branch, Kentish Town West (KTW) and Camden Road, both on the Overground North London Line. (see map)<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><iframe frameborder="0" height="350" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://maps.google.co.uk/maps/ms?near=camden+town&f=p&rl=1&ie=UTF8&hl=en&t=k&s=AARTsJpwglDc9ED2zXSIOUGGeb2UEvFHQw&msa=0&msid=108943605863307549028.00045861c9f517c4ca6e2&ll=51.543132,-0.145912&spn=0.009342,0.018239&z=15&output=embed" width="425"></iframe></div><div style="text-align: center;"><small><a href="http://maps.google.co.uk/maps/ms?near=camden+town&f=p&rl=1&ie=UTF8&hl=en&t=k&msa=0&msid=108943605863307549028.00045861c9f517c4ca6e2&ll=51.543132,-0.145912&spn=0.009342,0.018239&z=15&source=embed" style="color: blue; text-align: left;">View Larger Map</a></small></div><br />
For the sake of simplified analysis let us take the junction of Camden High Street and Castlehaven Road as the nodal centre of the principal market area of Camden Town. The station resources relative to this point are as follows:<br />
<ol><li>Camden Town 350m (all destinations on Northern Line, central and south London)<br />
</li>
<li>Chalk Farm 600m (Edgware branch destinations only)<br />
</li>
<li>Camden Road 600m (East London destinations only)<br />
</li>
<li>KTW 715m. (West London destinations only)<br />
</li>
</ol>Factoring in the route connections of each station tilts the bias towards Camden Town for passenger uptake. Furthermore, train frequencies on 3. and 4. are typically only 4tph, as opposed to Northern Line frequencies around 20tph/branch. N.b. Northern Line frequencies are projected to increase to over 30tph once the line is split in two.). Chalk Farm can serve central and south London but requires counter-intuitive strategy on the part of the passenger as it is:<br />
<br />
a) almost twice as far to walk as Camden Town<br />
b) in the opposite direction to central/south London<br />
c) has half as many train services as Camden Town<br />
d) may require a change at Camden Town anyway<br />
<br />
Even without detailed statistical data it can be seen that stations 2, 3 and 4 cannot significantly reduce passenger demand for Camden Town station. The same conclusion has been reached by London Underground and Camden Borough Council. Doing nothing is not an option. But with the redevelopment plans on the buffers, are there any other alternatives? Here I shall briefly put forward some new scenarios.</div><br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Option 1 - Rebuild Camden Town station in a different place.</span><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;"></div><br />
Pros:<br />
<ul><li>The existing station could operate mostly unimpeded whilst works progress. </li>
<li>Sensitive conservation sites and landmarks need not be disturbed as in the current plans, or at worse, less sensitive ones demolished. </li>
<li>New ticket halls and escalators can be excavated directly under the street.</li>
<li>Would be cheaper than the current scheme</li>
<li>All the capacity and facility improvements of the Ove Arup scheme would be achieved, albeit in a slightly different place<br />
</li>
</ul>Cons:<br />
<ul><li>Some more serious excavation would be required to bore the four tunnels to platform gauge on the existing route</li>
<li>Tube traffic disruption during tunnel boring<br />
</li>
<li>Serious traffic disruption on Camden High Street</li>
<li>The new station would necessarily be marginally further away from Camden markets</li>
<li>Would probably still take 3-4 years</li>
</ul><span style="font-style: italic;">Guesstimated congestion relief at Camden Town - 0% (but all the capacity to contain it)</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Option 2 - Build a new Overground station next to Camden Market<br />
<br />
</span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">Two railway lines pass very close to Camden Market. One is the North London Line, with stations already at Camden Road and Kentish Town West. The other is a link between the NLL and the Watford-Euston Line. This line is not currently an Overground route though maps of the network's future do display it offering through services between the two lines. Station construction on this stretch would be relatively straightforward and inexpensive as there is plenty of elbow room around the site. The main problem with this idea would be the need to rethink Overground routings and the issue of train frequency (which currently stands at 4tph on the NLL). <br />
<br />
To be viable the station would have to offer through services between Willesden Green (or even Watford) and Stratford thus allowing useful interchange at Dalston (ELL), Highbury and Islington (Victoria) and Queen's Park (Bakerloo), as well as the termini; and increased train frequencies to say 8tph. It would replace the function of Camden Road and KTW relative to this site.<br />
<br />
Pros:<br />
<ul><li>Relatively cheap, quick and easy construction (18 months?)</li>
<li>On the site of the markets themselves</li>
<li>No local heritage damaged</li>
<li>If option 3 were to be pursued in tandem this could become an important Underground/Overground interchange</li>
</ul>Cons:<br />
<ul><li>Would require adaptation of LO's long-term strategy to be viable.</li>
<li>London Overground does not yet have the image of "convenience" that would attract passengers in the same way that an Underground station would. That may change.</li>
<li>Interchange on LO is limited and the east-west axis of the line would not necessarily be conducive for journeys to or through central London.</li>
</ul><span style="font-size: 85%;">N.B. There is also space to locate a station directly on the NLL, thus not impacting Overground routings. Once again train frequency would have to improve and the station itself would be marginally further from the markets. In effect, this would be a replacement for Camden Road station which would likely become unviable.<br />
</span></div><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br />
</span><span style="font-style: italic;">Guesstimated congestion relief at Camden Town - 0-15% (dependent on routings and frequencies)</span><br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;"><br />
<br />
Option 3 - Refit Camden Town to a basic level and provide extra capacity in a new station nearby.</span><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">A "Camden Market" underground station halfway up Chalk Farm Road (see map), close to the nodal centre of the markets would attract significant shopper traffic away from Camden Town (and also Chalk Farm). Being at only 150m from the nodal point, the station would undoubtedly attract the majority of passengers from south, central London and the Edgware branch wishing to visit the market. Camden Town would be left to cope with predominantly High Barnet traffic, regular local catchment and transfer passengers - well within its capacity.<br />
<br />
How big would Camden Market station have to be? Well, on a rough assumption, around 50-75% of all market traffic would alight here. Once the Northern Line's running is definitively split passengers on the High Barnet-Morden branch would still use Camden Town as changing to the Edgware branch for one station would be inefficient. However since most journeys will not originate on the Northern Line, many passengers would be expected to reroute their journeys to interchange onto the Edgware-Kennington line at Euston, Tottenham Court Road and Embankment, etc. Add to this the residential catchment but remember it would not have the interchange problems that Camden Town does. It would likely have to be no significantly bigger than any of the other Edgware branch stations e.g. Chalk Farm, although weekend demand spikes would be very marked, so wider platforms would be an asset.</div><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">As to construction sites, this proposal is in the vicinity of Camden's <a href="http://www.stablesmarket.com/">stable market.</a> This large site still contains semi-permanent structures and could feasibly be excavated for construction of an Underground station, without major planning issues. Some local protest would undoubtedly be stirred because of disruption during works, but upon completion the market could return to normality, barring one or two well-located station entrances.<br />
<br />
Try to see this as an enlargement of Camden Town with an extra pair of platforms up the road.</div><br />
Pros:<br />
<ul><li>Minimal disruption to Camden Town station during works and all buildings remain.<br />
</li>
<li>Could be done relatively quickly (2-3 years, as opposed to seven at Camden Town)<br />
</li>
<li>Free up capacity at Camden Town by removing a large proportion of market traffic</li>
<li>In effect, an enlargement of Camden Town with extra platforms<br />
</li>
<li>Improved general catchment on the line hence increased fare revenues</li>
<li>As a single line station it would be far cheaper than rebuilding Camden Town interchange</li>
<li>More convenient access for market shoppers</li>
<li>Easy planning due to semi-permanent structures in the vicinity<br />
</li>
</ul>Cons:<br />
<ul><li>Slight increase in journey times on the Edgware branch</li>
<li>Extra operating costs of a new station</li>
<li>Some disruption to traffic on Chalk Farm Road and possibly demolitions during works.</li>
<li>Disruption to stable market could stir some protest<br />
</li>
<li>Not useful to High Barnet branch passengers</li>
</ul><span style="font-style: italic;">Guesstimated congestion relief at Camden Town - 20-50%</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Option 4 - Reopen South Kentish Town Station</span><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">South Kentish Town station lies about 600m north of Camden Town up the Kentish Town road. It was one of the original stations on High Barnet branch of the Northern Line. It closed during a strike in 1924 but was never reopened as passenger demand was never very high. The station structures remain in place and the station building is now a commercial outlet. The walking distance from the nodal point is 570m. It would therefore be the second closest station to the market area, but still generally less convenient than Camden Town (depending on which side of the markets you are on).<br />
<br />
It could be expected to divert a major chunk of northbound High Barnet branch passengers even if the doors are open at Camden Town. The natural incentive of escaping the crowded area around Camden Town might contribute to this organically. As the sole improvement in the area it would be a great convenience to many more passengers (south and northbound) whilst Camden Town remains set-down only, although obviously not ideal. As in the case of Chalk Farm, the use of the station for south and central London would mostly be counter-intuitive for reasons listed earlier. However, the pedestrian route from Camden Market doglegs and there may be ways to improve passenger access with a more direct right of way, possibly incorporating a subway, and any feasibility study should investigate this.<br />
<br />
The great attraction of this scheme is that in Underground terms it would be extremely good value for money. No excavation is required, just a refurbishment. The short timescales involved would make it a "quick fix" solution, if not a comprehensive one.</div><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgLV-_7Kek3_plC0xxVuFX-LUV3iBOnyesRS54g5xvnwOetqrLOsgEmfYQejMR7RTBWzAgxvhyphenhyphenx4hEJOVNp__CHkIErCVd86EdnVLPuwJurKUM7SiEMY1iXJHCN0Qak2tNK-18prWih9BA/s1600-h/skt.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5253124947982200850" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgLV-_7Kek3_plC0xxVuFX-LUV3iBOnyesRS54g5xvnwOetqrLOsgEmfYQejMR7RTBWzAgxvhyphenhyphenx4hEJOVNp__CHkIErCVd86EdnVLPuwJurKUM7SiEMY1iXJHCN0Qak2tNK-18prWih9BA/s320/skt.jpg" style="cursor: pointer; display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center;" /></a><span style="font-size: 85%;"><span style="font-style: italic;">Leslie Green's original <span style="font-weight: bold;">South Kentish Town</span> station. Being less than 600m walk from Camden's principal markets makes it a viable alternative to Camden Town, and extremely good value for money.</span></span></div><br />
Pros:<br />
<ul><li>Could be done very quickly (18 months?)</li>
<li>Extra capacity and catchment on the line, hence more fare revenues</li>
<li>Likely to naturally divert most of High Barnet passenger traffic from Camden Town</li>
<li>Highly cost effective as the station structure is already in place. It would require minimal structural works and refitting - a small fraction of Camden Town redevelopment (£135m)</li>
<li>No demolition/controversy required and Camden Town's buildings undisturbed.<br />
</li>
<li>With adequate passenger encouragement could remove traffic for central/south London routes away from Camden Town also</li>
</ul>Cons:<br />
<ul><li>Slight increase in journey times on the High Barnet branch</li>
<li>Extra operating costs of a new station</li>
<li>Some disruption to traffic on Kentish Town Road during works.</li>
<li>Not useful to Edgware branch passengers, nor central/south London passengers without adequate encouragement to walk slightly further</li>
</ul><span style="font-style: italic;">Guesstimated congestion relief at Camden Town - 2-10%</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Option 5 - Option 3 + Option 4</span><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">Creating a new "Camden Market" station on Chalk Farm Road and reopening the disused South Kentish Town Station in combination would add significant station capacity to both the Edgware and High Barnet branches in the Camden market vicinity. This would negate the need for expansion works at Camden Town. A simple refit would suffice. Additionally passenger convenience is increased for the local catchment area by providing journeys closer to origin and destination.<br />
<br />
Returning to our nodal point analysis, the station resource list for the Camden Market area in this scenario would then look like this:<br />
<ol><li>Camden Market 150m (Northern Line Edgware Branch, central and south London)</li>
<li>Camden Town 350m (all destinations on Northern Line, central and south London)</li>
<li>South Kentish Town 570m (<span style="font-size: 78%;">improved access notwithstanding</span>, Northern Line High Barnet branch)</li>
<li>Camden Road 600m (East London destinations only)</li>
<li>KTW 715m. (West London destinations only)</li>
</ol>A reduction in pedestrian congestion is also likely in the crowded streets as pedestrian journeys would be cut. Most significantly of all, the two station projects in combination would likely cost far less than the £135m Camden Town projection, could be completed within three years and would not cause the upheaval amongst local residents that demolition of such local icons as the Electric Ballroom can cause.</div><br />
<span style="font-style: italic;">Guesstimated congestion relief at Camden Town - 22-60%</span><div><i><br /></i></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmSg0-kTQnDEEMjrAcuTAQ1P1aOZzNfEfpolYV1rmR928plEtqmw4TLRHCAbYR7_hWbQzF-K8s4kfAszKvm_qGvig1VC69M8AMbyq6Vvnr80Pv2k5M___DgDJFDJKz0AEIAv-nkNCp3Qk/s655/camden+market.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="How station and platform layout of these two new stations would appear (Mapping courtesy of carto metro)" border="0" data-original-height="482" data-original-width="655" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmSg0-kTQnDEEMjrAcuTAQ1P1aOZzNfEfpolYV1rmR928plEtqmw4TLRHCAbYR7_hWbQzF-K8s4kfAszKvm_qGvig1VC69M8AMbyq6Vvnr80Pv2k5M___DgDJFDJKz0AEIAv-nkNCp3Qk/s16000/camden+market.jpg" title="How station and platform layout of these two new stations would appear (Mapping courtesy of carto metro)" /></a></div><br /><i>How station and platform layout of these two new stations would appear (Mapping courtesy of carto metro)<br /></i>
<br />
<span style="font-size: 85%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">SAMPLE ANALYSIS</span><br />
<br />
</span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 85%;">Taking 30 random stations on the Underground or Overground and planning the most convenient route to visit Camden Markets shows the following changes in station usage. Preferred station currently is listed first, preferred station with the 3 notional stations (Camden Market Underground CMU, Camden Market Overground CMO, South Kentish Town SKT) available is listed second.<br />
</span></div><span style="font-size: 85%;"><br />
<span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 78%;">ORIGIN Actual Notional<br />
<br />
Embankment Camden Town CMU<br />
Roding Valley Camden Road CMO<br />
Upminster Bridge Camden Town CMU<br />
Tooting Bec Camden Town CMU<br />
Ladbroke Grove Camden Town Camden Town<br />
Highgate Camden Town SKT<br />
Surrey Quays Camden Road CMO<br />
Cal. Rd & Barnsbury Camden Road CMO<br />
Arsenal Camden Town Camden Town<br />
Baker St. Camden Town Camden Town<br />
Acton Central Kentish Town West CMO<br />
Hendon Central Chalk Farm CMU<br />
Bank Camden Town Camden Town<br />
Bond St. Camden Town CMU<br />
South Harrow Camden Town Camden Town<br />
Tottenham Hale Camden Road CMO<br />
Fulham Broadway Camden Town CMU<br />
London Bridge Camden Town Camden Town<br />
Canary Wharf Camden Town CMU<br />
Victoria Camden Town CMU<br />
Brixton Camden Town CMU<br />
Shadwell Camden Road CMO<br />
K'ton (Olympia) Kentish Town West CMO<br />
Osterley Camden Town CMU<br />
Hillingdon Camden Town Camden Town<br />
Holborn Camden Town CMU<br />
West Ruisip Camden Town CMU<br />
Clapham Junction Kentish Town West CMO<br />
Lambeth North Camden Town CMU<br />
South Kensington Camden Town CMU<br />
Euston Camden Town CMU<br />
Finsbury Park Camden Town CMO<br />
Covent Garden Camden Town CMU<br />
Southfields Camden Town CMU<br />
Edgware Chalk Farm CMU<br />
</span><br />
In this sample 21 of the journeys (70%) currently terminate at Camden Town. 7 of the Camden Town journeys are unaffected (33%), 12 change to CMU (57%), 1 changes to CMO (5%) and 1 changes to SKT (5%). i.e. the new stations divert 67% of journeys away from Camden Town.<br />
<br />
5 journeys (17%) terminate at Camden Road. Of these, all 5 (100%) would prefer CMO.<br />
<br />
2 journeys (7%) terminates at Kentish Town West and would also prefer CMO (100%).<br />
<br />
2 journeys (7%) terminates at Chalk Farm and would prefer CMU (100%).<br />
<br />
CONCLUSION<br />
<br />
</span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 85%;">Camden Town receives the bulk of traffic for Camden Markets. Camden Market Underground station would have the potential to remove around 50% of Market passenger traffic from Camden Town. What proportion of Camden Town's total traffic that would be (including interchange passengers, and normal catchment) is not clear but it is undoubtedly very significant. It would also take traffic away from Chalk Farm, although the volume is less significant there.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 85%;">South Kentish Town would displace far fewer passengers, but, again a 5-10% reduction may be highly useful considering the modest cost of refurbishing that station.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 85%;">The case for an Overground station at Camden Market looks weak as it does not displace many journeys from Camden Town in this sampling (just the one from Finsbury Park). It is undoubtedly preferable to Camden Road, or Kentish Town West, however, for Overground journeys.</span></div><span style="font-size: 85%;"><br />
<span style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">RECOMMENDATION</span><br />
<br />
Barring laws, bills, acts of parliament, public enquiries, planning permission and of course, the money to do it this might be a good solution to remove 20,000+ passenger journeys to and from Camden Town per weekend, and much cheaper than the reconstruction of Camden Town (£135m):<br />
<br />
1. Reopen South Kentish Town for some very cost effective immediate light relief. estimate 18 months, £12m<br />
2. Construct Camden Market Underground Station for a very significant diversion in passengers from Camden Town. estimate 2 years, £30m<br />
3. <i>If necessary</i> refurbish Camden Town with some platform widening works, estimate 2 years, £20m</span><br />
<br />
</span></div>Screwbiedooohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08723447570846052134noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771178023077256469.post-25868531581517037232008-10-02T15:31:00.000-07:002008-10-07T09:03:34.654-07:00ON AIR-RIGHTS, FOOTPRINTS AND DENSIFICATION, or How we're running out of space and shouldn't be wasting it<script type="text/javascript"><br />var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://ssl." : "http://www.");<br />document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + gaJsHost + "google-analytics.com/ga.js' type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E"));<br /></script><br /><script type="text/javascript"><br />var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker("UA-5866873-1");<br />pageTracker._trackPageview();<br /></script><div style="text-align: justify;">We're running out of space. In 2000 the government told us the UK would be needing 3.8m new homes by 2016 and may have to start tearing up greenbelt policy to meet demand. Our cities simply don't have room to grow any more. Even if every brownfield site were built on, we'd still need heaps of greenfields to meet demand for new single-occupant properties. (Great article about this <a href="http://www.newstatesman.com/200005220020">here</a>.)<br /></div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">Well, that sounds kind of serious, doesn't it? We don't want to ruin our countryside. It's a small, overcrowded country we live in and we want to keep our green and pleasant land, thank you very much. Sounds like something should be done about this. Something that will allow us to keep our gentle suburbs, keep our countryside and provide all these much-needed new homes. "Densification" (to quote Richard Rogers) was the answer. i.e. to pile in higher-densities of occupancy into our towns and cities and in so doing create more viable, efficient and pleasant urban environments. Kind of like Paris...<br /></div><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjvfTv5m4XXHNk_3Hhvetxh7ekEBVCwLiRSlQAm1uHRbbHvZQC77JcckV-Giwl79nE7hC6WIa49kCBQM7rrieSea4I5AJQ6mSErAldLzhox4p66tz1XJ6jhmqNSEaAXMAfQXf1NEZonh-A/s1600-h/paris+metro.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjvfTv5m4XXHNk_3Hhvetxh7ekEBVCwLiRSlQAm1uHRbbHvZQC77JcckV-Giwl79nE7hC6WIa49kCBQM7rrieSea4I5AJQ6mSErAldLzhox4p66tz1XJ6jhmqNSEaAXMAfQXf1NEZonh-A/s320/paris+metro.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5252710741749307282" border="0" /></a><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:85%;" ><span style="font-weight: bold;">Abbesses</span> Metro station in Paris. A classic piece of Hector Guimard art nouveau. Like almost all Paris stations, there is no surface building. It's infrastructure that gets out of your way, and feels kinda sexy at the same time...</span><br /></div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">Paris, for example, does everything London does in half the space, with the same number of people (to quote Ken Livingstone). Which is a good thing in terms of urban viability and countryside protection. Problem's always been, us Brits just love to stretch out. We love our suburbs, our low-rise and our open skies. We're going to need some tough love from our politicians, quangos and planners if we're going to get in line.<br /><br />The kind of people that politicise, quang and plan our public transport, for example. They ought to know that one of the unique marvels of an underground rail station is that it needn't occupy any surface space at all. All you need is a hole in the ground with a wrought iron awning (a la Hector Guimard), or perhaps an elegant little building, tucked neatly under a bigger one, a la Leslie Green or Harry Bell Measures. They knew all about "air-rights" 100 years ago! The station buildings were constructed with flat roofs and reinforced steel frames with the deliberate aim of selling off that valuable skyward square footage.<br /></div><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg4OR1TiahGpU2_FNoN6VWlJeCJCfQKpdND6kysmlNYefsINA-hfx98zl87eJlckzOnYGu0xdNnlPcWPdUEDqm4LStjDFoKULNk4vGutVif1Jb4gWYDHQamfAhJv8M9higDfl4KhOFsljc/s1600-h/oxford+circus.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg4OR1TiahGpU2_FNoN6VWlJeCJCfQKpdND6kysmlNYefsINA-hfx98zl87eJlckzOnYGu0xdNnlPcWPdUEDqm4LStjDFoKULNk4vGutVif1Jb4gWYDHQamfAhJv8M9higDfl4KhOFsljc/s320/oxford+circus.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5252711137521529682" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:85%;">Leslie Green's classic <span style="font-weight: bold;">Oxford Circus</span> station: classy burnt russett tiles - check!; reinforced steel structure - check!; sufficient contextuality affording a neat contribution to the density of the metropolis and urban viability - check!!!</span><br /></div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">So what's the current deal? Take a look at London's newer stations on the Jubilee Line. Southwark follows this same principle, but has so far not attracted an air-rights tennant. Points for trying. Further east though, Bermondsey, Canada Water and North Greenwich all have big monumental surface buildings with no prospect of air-rights development. You kind of start to forgive. They seem to look at you, wink and whisper "it were a bit shit round 'ere before we come along like". You nod back and force a smile. Another 150 single mums out in the farmyard...<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhhWvSkdObTT55nD2cDbJuYva8lLDrhivSIFg08BtJ3F2xFOGoEUepo7ddBTtqpk65DyJJLJzeizoxabuppDhQye7pey28hp2pvZYZYZqeZFG87Xa3a1lnp5v22b8A2HlcRTTRpc2iKQEA/s1600-h/Canada_Water_station_building.JPG"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhhWvSkdObTT55nD2cDbJuYva8lLDrhivSIFg08BtJ3F2xFOGoEUepo7ddBTtqpk65DyJJLJzeizoxabuppDhQye7pey28hp2pvZYZYZqeZFG87Xa3a1lnp5v22b8A2HlcRTTRpc2iKQEA/s320/Canada_Water_station_building.JPG" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5252718001040780530" border="0" /></a><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:85%;" >Station with attitude: <span style="font-weight: bold;">Canada Water.</span> It knows it's the most important building around here...<br /><br /></span></div>It gets worse though. Out west and as I write this, Harry Bell Measures' dear old Shepherd's Bush station is being replaced with an even bigger monster. The new Central Line station sits like some genetically-modified conservatory that couldn't make it round Holland Park Roundabout on its way to the Chelsea Flower Show. Gone is the human scale of the hole in the pavement as is the pragmatic capitalisation of what is prime central London real estate. It has what planners call a large "footprint". You can't miss it and it ain't gonna get out of your way. Its' a huge glass atrium, has no internal access to the new Overground station next door, is costing around £65m and is totally...empty! "Nul points" Shepherd's Bush.<br /></div><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjW2tmMhQfoM8TARMfddUhGYiSMirhXgSQFYMXEB8Nrnd7-sNIIWAP3lkS8XLxWj8Ombf1UOKrIvruwtXfQhRhlLHZUm45vnQ5o7rlTXmbZYON6I0Z1mKWrjnO7AXlX6Rxu68k5GdZxDPM/s1600-h/shep-bush-large.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjW2tmMhQfoM8TARMfddUhGYiSMirhXgSQFYMXEB8Nrnd7-sNIIWAP3lkS8XLxWj8Ombf1UOKrIvruwtXfQhRhlLHZUm45vnQ5o7rlTXmbZYON6I0Z1mKWrjnO7AXlX6Rxu68k5GdZxDPM/s320/shep-bush-large.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5252709100992027634" border="0" /></a><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:85%;" >Artist's impression of the new <span style="font-weight: bold;">Shepherd's Bush</span> Central Line station. As you can see, it's space well-used. It contains, erm... nothing.</span><br /></div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">It looks unlikely that London will ever discover the charms of Hector Guimard's discreet human-scale chic but the contextual pragmatism of the Central and Northern line pioneers may have a future. The proposed Camden Town redevelopment features a steel and glass office building incorporated into the original design. But at a price. So far more than 16 plans have been rejected for the £135m (!), seven year project, mainly on the grounds of conservation as several Camden landmarks would be demolished.<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEijco-GlYobXmkl9Ut_j5sdXtl3vf2QYLBC_SlUmUuf6-XdJNMpYRXgrwWyZoopxmbTGW0KA_wAO1e1sdZrp2HPtcjlLU5sjxEvdmlT13U_vYmhlpsSJR5H_OKQZj_Ucba7i9FCaQs47R0/s1600-h/camdentown1.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 357px; height: 185px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEijco-GlYobXmkl9Ut_j5sdXtl3vf2QYLBC_SlUmUuf6-XdJNMpYRXgrwWyZoopxmbTGW0KA_wAO1e1sdZrp2HPtcjlLU5sjxEvdmlT13U_vYmhlpsSJR5H_OKQZj_Ucba7i9FCaQs47R0/s320/camdentown1.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5252954695579627394" border="0" /></a><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:85%;" ><span style="font-weight: bold;">Camden Town</span>'s latest proposal (rejected): points for using the space, shame about the landmarks (and the price!). You can't have it all.</span><br /></div><br />What seems clear is that if we are serious about combating the problem of suburban sprawl and "densifying" our inner cities our planners need to reconsider their priorities. Whilst schemes like Crossrail are beneficial in some ways (although vastly expensive), who will want to stay in inner London if it's quicker to commute from the home counties? This is going to require some hefty transport improvements for inner (and especially south) London. Whilst perhaps insignificant in the larger scheme of things, wasted space above underground stations demonstrates how seriously the issue is being taken.<br /><br />Assuming it can't keep the Electric Ballroom et al intact, the Camden scheme is right about one thing - incorporating its new tenants from the start. That way the space does get used, and presumably London Underground will make a buck or two as the landlords. That's the lesson from Southwark and others. In 108 years no-one ever did build on top of Harry Bell Measures' dear old Shepherd's Bush.<br /></div>Screwbiedooohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08723447570846052134noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771178023077256469.post-82305573832263504922008-10-02T14:58:00.000-07:002008-10-02T18:22:12.391-07:00THE PRIORITY PARADOXIt goes like this:<br /><br />The Piccadilly Line was overcrowded. The Victoria Line was built to relieve it.<br />The Central Line and Paddington are overcrowded. Crossrail 1 will be built to relieve them.<br />Victoria and Kings Cross are overcrowded. Crossrail 2 will be built to relieve them.<br /><br />In areas that have no lines or stations there are no overcrowded lines or stations. Therefore we do not need to build new lines to relieve the overcrowding there...<br /><br />The result of this logic is "concentration":- of resources, investment and opportunities and, naturally, further overcrowding! Central London stations become more overcrowded, overconnected, overblown, as more lines join them up.<br /><br />Reaching underserved neighbourhoods first has the more pleasing effect of "distribution".Screwbiedooohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08723447570846052134noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771178023077256469.post-2957092947510165232008-10-01T13:47:00.000-07:002009-12-04T17:27:15.562-08:00LESSONS FROM MADRID METRO<script type="text/javascript">
var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://ssl." : "http://www.");
document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + gaJsHost + "google-analytics.com/ga.js' type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E"));
</script><br />
<script type="text/javascript">
var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker("UA-5866873-1");
pageTracker._trackPageview();
</script><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">In the past decade Madrid has astonished the world with its explosion of Metro construction. It has amazed not only for the scale of its ambitions, but with timeframes and budgets that would make other cities blush. With two major project phases (1999-2003, 2003-2007) Madrid Metro has cast itself as one of the world's most extensive systems.<br />
<br />
Phase One included the new Line 12, or "Metrosur" which runs in a loop around some of Madrid's southern suburbs, and a Line 10 extension to reach it from the city. The Second Phase was even more ambitious, including 10 Metro extensions and three new light rail/tram lines (see map below).<br />
</div><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjvB0JMjVkLxC_lu58ftTyrgqVG3Efaumf8QxdRGApYccUXbGjhLViK7hTWLi5JA61wK9AYahDZ3z-kEDXBF5HeNMyUHzU2fCtkIIrO27jVHzHUQVav598duQfEbOQWZbD_cS03uoaL2TA/s1600-h/693px-Madrid_Metro_Scale.svg.png" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5252554234439865506" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjvB0JMjVkLxC_lu58ftTyrgqVG3Efaumf8QxdRGApYccUXbGjhLViK7hTWLi5JA61wK9AYahDZ3z-kEDXBF5HeNMyUHzU2fCtkIIrO27jVHzHUQVav598duQfEbOQWZbD_cS03uoaL2TA/s400/693px-Madrid_Metro_Scale.svg.png" style="cursor: pointer; display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center;" /></a><span style="font-size: 85%;"><span style="font-style: italic;">Scale map of the </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">Madrid Metro</span><span style="font-style: italic;"> network. Thicker lines denote new construction 2003-2007 (</span><span style="font-style: italic;">47.4 km of metro lines with 42 new stations plus 28 km of light rail lines with 39 new stations).</span></span><span style="font-size: 85%;"><span style="font-style: italic;"> Metrosur is the green loop line at bottom left.</span></span><br />
</div><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">This was achieved under the guidance of Metro President Manuel Melis, quoted from this <a href="http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQQ/is_5_43/ai_102286983">article</a>.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-style: italic;">Talking of the Metrosur project Mr Manuel Melis said construction had gone according to plan, though he admitted that the timescale could have been even shorter. He said: "We completed everything on time and within budget In fact, we could have finished six months earlier because we were too conservative in our planning. Tunnel construction went faster than we expected."</span><br />
</div><span style="font-style: italic;"><br />
</span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-style: italic;">The entire cost of the 1999-2003 metro development programme amounted to [euro]3.16 billion. These projects, incorporating Metrosur and the Line 10 extension, included planning, civil works, electrical and mechanical installations, interchanges, maintenance facilities, and rolling stock at an average cost of [euro]42 million/km.</span> <span style="font-style: italic;">Previous projects have been undertaken successfully on the same basis, as Melis explained. He said on that occasion: "I believe that rail transport projects are simple engineering projects, easy to design and build, and, with the appropriate staff and management techniques, they can easily be completed on time and within budget. I refer particularly to those Madrid Metro projects where completion dates have not only been met, but have been beaten by several years in comparison with similar projects elsewhere."</span><br />
</div><span style="font-style: italic;"><br />
</span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-style: italic;">"Civil works amounted to about 70% of the total cost of our programmes. The most important part of this cost is the tunnel part. Transport infrastructure projects can be divided easily into manageable parts. Each section of the project can be designed simultaneously and all contracts can be awarded simultaneously, so that any manageable contract worth up to [euro]150 million, for example, can be completed within three years. Even enormous tunnelling projects such as the Channel Tunnel have been excavated in this timescale. Therefore, provided that funds are available, any lineal project such as a metro can be designed and built in 40 to 45 months, as we have demonstrated.</span><br />
</div><span style="font-style: italic;"><br />
</span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-style: italic;">"Station architecture is an important factor, too. It should never be handed over to world-renowned architects. A transport project is a serious engineering work that should not be confused with a museum or an emblematic building for a city. Several million passengers/day may move through metro stations, so their design must take into account this fact by giving easy access from the street to the trains, via wide escalators and corridors and shallow station platforms.</span><br />
</div><span style="font-style: italic;"><br />
</span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgefhCLcYjHC3G8uoeb8dMAyVUknxcqsNtNkbSJMtqWmm-yRF5gELKRnI9qACmzL2q7FVOCwg_Gfz7YGuoJiU2LZq2C9-GYVXO2vvGQga7DjqqsEmrwkKvyZ6IqbWdkKkQaXF8bFxVdBRw/s1600-h/%3Cuntitled%3E++010.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5252545123421758770" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgefhCLcYjHC3G8uoeb8dMAyVUknxcqsNtNkbSJMtqWmm-yRF5gELKRnI9qACmzL2q7FVOCwg_Gfz7YGuoJiU2LZq2C9-GYVXO2vvGQga7DjqqsEmrwkKvyZ6IqbWdkKkQaXF8bFxVdBRw/s400/%3Cuntitled%3E++010.jpg" style="cursor: pointer; display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center;" /></a><span style="font-size: 85%; font-style: italic;">A typical new <span style="font-weight: bold;">Metro - Metro Ligero</span> (light rail) interchange in Madrid's northern suburbs. Madrid punches above its weight with down to earth "does what it says on the tin" architecture. (c) Luke Peters 2006</span><br />
</div><span style="font-style: italic;"><br />
</span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">Metrosur (Line 12) is 41 km long and has 28 stations. It took four years to complete from authorisation to completion at a cost of 42m Euro/km, and is almost entirely underground. Compare this to the Jubilee Line Extension, the last London Underground Project of any note:<br />
<br />
16km long with 11 stations, about 80% underground and 20% overground on existing rights of way; took 9 years to build from authorisation to completion at a whoppingly over-budget £3.5bn, or £218m/km.<br />
</div><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">I'll repeat that because it's an important figure and won't even bother converting it to Euros. Jubilee Line Extension: £218m per kilometre. Metrosur: 42m Euros per kilometre. That's roughly 6 times the price/km. i.e. if the JLE were being built in Spain they could have built 6 of them for the same money!<br />
</div><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj24KCANJAj7HV5lQ9JpVn3a2AcFx0kJBac4bFJzhAlQ8TeDMqEGIUEV-PQe7XHrTMHE4SK_CQSm-ueKL0CdxFIgdBRcZUzZx_0pkBoZr_-5pD2l-UVCQ4eWwVPf6j4NjfwPUMBzBqL8Jo/s1600-h/FosterCanaryWharfStation.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5252548131293649650" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj24KCANJAj7HV5lQ9JpVn3a2AcFx0kJBac4bFJzhAlQ8TeDMqEGIUEV-PQe7XHrTMHE4SK_CQSm-ueKL0CdxFIgdBRcZUzZx_0pkBoZr_-5pD2l-UVCQ4eWwVPf6j4NjfwPUMBzBqL8Jo/s400/FosterCanaryWharfStation.jpg" style="cursor: pointer; display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center;" /></a><span style="font-size: 85%;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Canary Wharf </span>station on the Jubilee Line. Designed by world-renowned architect <span style="font-weight: bold;">Sir Norman Foster</span>, the station has been likened to a cathedral. It's an impressive achievement, but for the same money five or six simpler stations could have been built.</span></span><br />
</div><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">Furthermore, construction of the Victoria Line took 10 years. The Chelsea-Hackney Line was thought up in 1901 (!) and has still not come to fruition (although it arguably shouldn't, in its current form). The East London Line Extension was put forward in the 1980s and phase one completion is due in 2010. Relatively simple extensions to the Bakerloo, Victoria and Northern Lines are operating on a, shall we say, "open" timescale.<br />
</div><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">Could it be London has a project management problem, rooted in a flawed philosophy? After all, why should projects take so long and go so much over-budget when cities like Madrid demonstrate time and again that with the right approach, large infrastructure can be built far more easily and cheaply than we in London perceive?<br />
</div><br />
Consider these two contrasting philosphies for a moment:<br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Philosophy A:</span><br />
<br />
1. <span style="font-style: italic;">Metro Lines are expensive, difficult projects of questionable benefit, that take a long time to design and construct (high investment, low return). Therefore:</span><br />
<br />
2. Metro Lines are rare. Therefore:<br />
<br />
3. We must spend a lot of money and time ensuring we do not waste this rare opportunity, or we will not undertake it. Therefore:<br />
<br />
4. <span style="font-style: italic;">Metro Lines are expensive, difficult projects of questionable benefit, that take a long time to design and construct (high investment, low return).</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Philosophy B:</span><br />
<br />
1. <span style="font-style: italic;">Metro Lines are affordable, straightforward and worthwhile projects that take a short time to design and construct (low investment, high return). Therefore:</span><br />
<br />
2. Metro Lines are common. Therefore:<br />
<br />
3. We will not waste time and money worrying about this common opportunity. Let's get to it. Therefore:<br />
<br />
4. <span style="font-style: italic;">Metro Lines are affordable, straightforward and worthwhile projects that take a short time to design and construct (low investment, high return).<br />
<br />
</span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">We invented the underground railway but somewhere along the line we fell from the faith. Somehow it belongs to an age of Edwardian pioneers and top hats. Aside from prepubescent networks in Glasgow, Liverpool and Newcastle, the rest of the UK never bothered with the idea at all. It was always far too much trouble. And yet Sr. Melis and his colleagues in Madrid have no psychological obstacles to Metro construction at all. They just get on and perform, what could seem in some circles, miracles:<br />
</div><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-style: italic;">"This latest project demonstrates again the importance of our philosophy. Many cities around the world desperately need new metro lines, but they cannot afford to build them at an estimated [euro]150 million to [euro]200 million/km, nor be forced to wait a dozen years for the lines to become reality. These estimates of costs and time are simply wrong. In Madrid, with all humbleness, we have now proved it on more than one occasion.</span><br />
</div><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">And it does take on something of a religious aspect when you consider that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seville_metro">Seville</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barcelona_metro">Barcelona</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilbao_metro">Bilbao</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valencia_metro">Valencia</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaga_Metro">and Malaga</a> are all doing the same, within an economy far weaker than the UK's.<br />
</div><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">London has one or two lines in the distant pipeline, the £16bn Crossrail line and the aforementioned Chelsea-Hackney Line. Relatively simple extensions to the Bakerloo and Victoria Lines are indefinitely mothballed. Outside London there are no new metro lines planned at all. Even very large cities such as Manchester and Birmingham have opted for surface light rail schemes, though the potential for full metro exists.<br />
<br />
Clearly one of the mistakes made on the Jubilee Line Extension was to employ just those "world-renowned architects" Sr. Melis said we should avoid. Over-ambitious, monumental stations overran the budget for no gain to the passenger other than a brief "wow" on first visiting the station, followed by another "wow" upon seeing the ticket price. Britain has probably learned its lesson on this front, but is still waiting for its own evangelical Sr Melis to spread the gospel. Until then, all its pagan superstitions about Underground construction are likely to be self-fulfilling.<br />
</div><br />
By the way an average journey in Madrid costs around 70 euro cents (about 50p). Sobering...<br />
<span style="font-style: italic;"></span>Screwbiedooohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08723447570846052134noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771178023077256469.post-32253388210414569592008-10-01T12:46:00.000-07:002008-10-07T07:29:31.781-07:00PICCADILLY LINE EXTENSION FROM HOLBORN TO PECKHAM<script type="text/javascript"><br />var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://ssl." : "http://www.");<br />document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + gaJsHost + "google-analytics.com/ga.js' type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E"));<br /></script><br /><script type="text/javascript"><br />var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker("UA-5866873-1");<br />pageTracker._trackPageview();<br /></script><iframe marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" src="http://maps.google.co.uk/maps/ms?hl=en&ie=UTF8&t=k&s=AARTsJoCWtoHmd4VANAuGoIhiKRPRDgTvg&msa=0&msid=108943605863307549028.000458267972652760b30&ll=51.501797,-0.103683&spn=0.0374,0.072956&z=13&output=embed" frameborder="0" height="350" scrolling="no" width="425"></iframe><br /><small><a href="http://maps.google.co.uk/maps/ms?hl=en&ie=UTF8&t=k&msa=0&msid=108943605863307549028.000458267972652760b30&ll=51.501797,-0.103683&spn=0.0374,0.072956&z=13&source=embed" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 255); text-align: left;">View Larger Map</a></small><br /><br /><span class="ms" jstcache="45" jsdisplay="!$this.errMsg || $this.missingPrefs" jseval="insertModContent(this,$this);" jsskip="1">The Aldwych spur from Holborn was originally conceived to be extended south of the river. As with so many schemes it never came to fruition and the service to Aldwych operated as a single track shuttle until closure in the 1990s (despite having twin tunnels). Some modification of Holborn would be necessary and this could be run as a spur of the Piccadilly line with trains direct from Cockfosters or be a self-contained line terminating at Holborn.<br /><br />Aside from connecting Peckham to the network this would usefully serve the major development area around Elephant & Castle, serving not just Elephant & Castle but also Walworth Road, some way north of the proposed Thameslink station. A new station on the South Bank opens up access to major leisure facilities there.<br /><br />Estimated cost to Madrid Metro specs 273m Euros; to JLE specs £1.4bn </span>Screwbiedooohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08723447570846052134noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771178023077256469.post-71565869515885964872008-10-01T11:03:00.000-07:002008-10-02T08:16:08.392-07:00NETWORK NETWORKS NETWORKED<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYjYD1wStvbcgLnHkVJCpm94RpJTnWM7EjFuFBJg_YVdyODt5ritWxmS94oKI8mn52WOPf-dA26l9V9VXLeQy1n8LRvBZH-d8mZg1GT2RFn-GKvF0LxB_daBPAnV19JOziJWhkLdVYbtI/s1600-h/brainwaves.gif"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYjYD1wStvbcgLnHkVJCpm94RpJTnWM7EjFuFBJg_YVdyODt5ritWxmS94oKI8mn52WOPf-dA26l9V9VXLeQy1n8LRvBZH-d8mZg1GT2RFn-GKvF0LxB_daBPAnV19JOziJWhkLdVYbtI/s320/brainwaves.gif" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5252568147978370210" border="0" /></a><br />In the beginning there was the Railway network. Then someone dug a tunnel and created the Underground network (though a lot of it runs overground). Then, somewhere between the two a light rail network was conceived for the Docklands. Not long after a Tramlink network for Croydon, and an Overground network, which was pinched off the Railway network and the Underground network (and some of it runs underground). Soon to be added is a Crossrail network, which is a bit like a Thameslink network, only it isn't, and maybe a cross-river transit or two, which is sort of a tram.<br /><br />Isn't it all getting a <span style="font-style: italic;">teensy</span> bit over-complicated?<br /><br />Some off-the-cuff suggestions:<br /><br />Couldn't DLR and London Overground be integrated? Train profile and power supply differences notwithstanding, they kind of do the same thing.<br /><br />Couldn't Thameslink be integrated into the new Crossrail scheme. Again, it's kind of the same concept.<br /><br />Couldn't London Overground absorb some more of the inner south London rail network to start providing a more rational "metro" service.<br /><br />Three networks is about all I can get my head around...Screwbiedooohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08723447570846052134noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771178023077256469.post-83969627457931550902008-10-01T09:46:00.001-07:002008-10-02T14:54:36.354-07:00LONDON OVERGROUND BRANDING<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiOdq0qMeZvve575NrqEJbNL3D92yEinXJuyF0Xpz3dwieGg5BrsTpq60lqzsG30vWwiD4dQ7h-YmiQcuSGQvLvR893B651KLdgzbDnqayJzZR2KsSlnjOuW5bg0wkoV4KJFs9ibIkYfps/s1600-h/Overground+geo+2010.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiOdq0qMeZvve575NrqEJbNL3D92yEinXJuyF0Xpz3dwieGg5BrsTpq60lqzsG30vWwiD4dQ7h-YmiQcuSGQvLvR893B651KLdgzbDnqayJzZR2KsSlnjOuW5bg0wkoV4KJFs9ibIkYfps/s320/Overground+geo+2010.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5252233280019640642" border="0" /></a><br />Now, I have a problem with any "Metro" system that names its lines "East London Railway" or "West London Line" etc. Why? To me it conjures up fat controllers and steam engines, complicated timetables and no Sunday service.<br /><br />Now, that's fine for a system with no pretensions beyond being a suburban rail service. But TFL clearly do have big ambitions for the Underground's little sister. It's on the Tube map, its being extended, its being homogenised, it's getting new trains and an orange roundel of its own. It almost looks like an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-Bahn">S-Bahn</a>.<br /><br />Except for one thing. The East London Railway doesn't sound like it's going to get me anywhere fast. Looking on the map, all the lines are a similar double-stripe orange, and it's not clear where services are running from and to.<br /><br />What would convince me? Well, a branding and diagrammatic scheme in line with London Underground. Now, I don't much care if it's a double line to distinguish it from Underground lines. That's fine. Or if they use pastel colours or dashed lines. Don't care at all. What is important is that the colour should be distinct and that the lines should be distinctly numbered.<br /><br />I'm far more inclined to hop on Overground Line 3 Westbound, than attempt to make the o8.53 stopping service to Gospel Oak on the "Gospel Oak to Barking traction Railway (steam trains to all parts of the metropolis)", especially if it had a neat light blue, or lilac colour. Then I could swiftly change onto Line 1 Eastbound (the green one), and continue my journey to Highbury & Islington confidently knowing I won't be waiting more than 8 minutes on the platform. I need something to sweep away the images of rattling points and clouds of steam.<br /><br />My general rule of thumb; how easily could you explain it to a foreigner? Make any sense to anyone?Screwbiedooohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08723447570846052134noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771178023077256469.post-3457501616304875842008-10-01T08:56:00.001-07:002009-11-09T16:09:20.100-08:00WHAT'S WRONG WITH CROSSRAIL 1?<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhuH9KGyWwr2c7o0OGb4_6WQFvW0vUrwjGHAldCA2pNaHlRdUJivteBZOPgFZD9bK74kBLzGV_xfaZ9B6k7Ee2JpEaMS4XXBRg1EYKfBgPovuMosSOZstyiCw5ktslVLI-xma3dr-TXgKE/s1600-h/825px-CrossrailLine1Map.svg.png" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5252215023204585874" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhuH9KGyWwr2c7o0OGb4_6WQFvW0vUrwjGHAldCA2pNaHlRdUJivteBZOPgFZD9bK74kBLzGV_xfaZ9B6k7Ee2JpEaMS4XXBRg1EYKfBgPovuMosSOZstyiCw5ktslVLI-xma3dr-TXgKE/s320/825px-CrossrailLine1Map.svg.png" style="cursor: pointer; display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center;" /></a><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">Now, the Crossrail concept is discussed <a href="http://mindroutes.blogspot.com/2008/10/whats-wrong-with-chelney.html">here</a>. Unlike Crossrail 2 however, this one looks like it might get built. On balance this would be a good thing, but for the ever-pervasive problem of value for money. Crossrail 1 is going to be immensely expensive (current estimate £16bn), and yet, as with Crossrail 2, what it brings to the table in terms of new services is not what it ought to be.<br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Unlike Crossrail 2, this project does plug into a major commuter route out to Maidenhead (which could conceivably be extended to Reading, (high-speed train competition notwithstanding), but in the east falls short at Shenfield. (Why isn't it reaching Southend?).<br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">The London Transport Users Committee had this to say on the matter:<br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-style: italic;">LTUC note that the draft train service specification for west of Paddington has few of the features of a metro service and some stations (e.g. Hanwell) with only 2 tph would have a service that is completely inadequate. Burnham – current off-peak journey times to and from Paddington are 25 and 29 minutes respectively. Crossrail will increase the journey time to 38 minutes. Taplow – improved service off peak from one train per hour to two per hour. Current off peak journey time to and from Paddington between 29 and 35 minutes. Crossrail will increase the journey time to 43 minutes.</span><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-style: italic;">Crossrails south-eastern branch would offer extra capacity for </span><span style="font-style: italic;">growth of rail traffic in Kent, but does little to improve rail facilities in Thurrock or South Essex, in that there would be no station east of Custom House and that the regenerated Stratford area would not be directly served. Although some may argue for a service to cover this area, LTUC would not be in support for a third eastern branch of Crossrail. It may be that the existing c2c route via Tilbury to Fenchurch Street can be developed to meet the rail needs of Thames Gateway North, but we are concerned that little work appears to have been done to verify this and that no section of the rail industry seems to be taking full responsibility for this issue. LTUC also believe a station at Silvertown should be built from the outset, instead of passive provision. This would enable a short pedestrian or bus link to London City Airport. </span><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Through central London Crossrail 1 is little more than a big fat Central line, linking the same old stations again, which are likely to collapse soon under their own gargantuan complexity, whilst peripheral neighbourhoods languish. Overall number of new stations for London? Technically 2 - Woolwich and Isle of Dogs, but both are a stone's throw from existing stations. We could say that no new neighbourhoods are being served therefore. NONE!<br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Does this represent value for money? (They say £16bn at the moment but it'll be 6 times what anyone tells you!) Not really, not whilst Chelsea, Battersea, Camberwell, Walworth, Peckham, Hackney etc. etc. don't have a single tube station amongst them. Add to this projected services that are slower and not significantly more frequent than current timetables.<br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">New extensions to the <a href="http://mindroutes.blogspot.com/2008/09/northen-line-extension-southward-1.html">Northern Line</a>, <a href="http://mindroutes.blogspot.com/2008/09/bakerloo-line-southward-extension-1.html">Bakerloo line</a>, <a href="http://mindroutes.blogspot.com/2008/09/waterloo-city-line-extension-proposed_28.html">and Waterloo and City</a> could be achieved for 1bn Euros (if <a href="http://mindroutes.blogspot.com/2008/10/lessons-from-madrid-metro.html">Madrid Metro</a> were in charge, at 2003 prices and with Spanish base costs). Even if you conservatively multiply that figure by four, to 4bn Euros, it's less than a quarter of Crossrail 1's projected cost. That, including 21 new station sites in south London, as opposed to the <span style="color: #cc0000; font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">TWO</span> that Crossrail 1 offers. You do the math...<br />
</div>Screwbiedooohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08723447570846052134noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771178023077256469.post-79766675147703801932008-10-01T07:56:00.000-07:002011-04-20T16:34:17.204-07:00WHAT'S WRONG WITH CROSSRAIL 2/CHELNEY?<div style="text-align: justify;">The Chelesea-Hackney line was conceived decades ago as a way of linking two inner London areas (Chelsea and Hackney) into the tube network. Despite relatively high population densities and their central locations, they had been overlooked ever since the Underground started its life over a century ago.<br />
<br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYp2Pkqm0s7XVewQcyu-Y6tudWYEWPXLAZf4GRHxMzUkcFyYUuE198nNZZAvyi2cil0yA6VQceNYIAeWZDlMpfmKYnW0XDIXvA9IgEnv0EO5naDldjQATg8FAYm4f69TbUZRD83-iqifc/s1600-h/chelney.png" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5252199789552028162" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYp2Pkqm0s7XVewQcyu-Y6tudWYEWPXLAZf4GRHxMzUkcFyYUuE198nNZZAvyi2cil0yA6VQceNYIAeWZDlMpfmKYnW0XDIXvA9IgEnv0EO5naDldjQATg8FAYm4f69TbUZRD83-iqifc/s1600/chelney.png" style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center;" /></a></div>The safeguarded route (see image) shows the line passing through central London then onto two existing lines - the District Line to Wimbledon and the Central Line to Epping (both on the LU network).<br />
<br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Although initially conceived as a LUL line like any other, the idea was taken over by the same group that conceived Crossrail 1 and the idea took root that this line too should be built to Crossrail standards.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">For those unaware, the Crossrail is in concept an express, long-range, heavy metro line that bores through the centre in tunnels and extends far out to suburbs and peripheral towns on the surface. It is closely based on the RER system in Paris. An "underground" line, by contrast, would ordinarily have no interurban pretenses, lighter infrastructure and greater station densities, without express facilities. The Crossrail/RER advantage lies in the relief of congestion it would provide at rail termini, as it distributes commuter traffic closer to their final destination, whereas normally they would be funneled onto and off the underground network at very high density. It also provides the potential for much quicker intra-urban journeys.</span><br />
<br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">The line would serve existing national rail lines in Hackney and add one new underground station in Chelsea, providing benefits to those areas.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Currently it is caught between two concepts and can't decide which one it is. In its current form it has the profile and expense of a heavy Crossrail line and the lower station densities, but the range of an LU line (Epping to Wimbledon). Until extended routes are published onto say, SWT rails, or East Anglia trains out to Chelmsford. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">The main flaw in the concept is that it provides a grand total of one new station to London. ONE! One station for Chelsea, which urgently requires two or three. Its central route doubles up capacity between Sloane Square and Victoria (is this really necessary?) and merely joins the dots through central London's same old stations which are set to become major, passenger-unfriendly labyrinths. In this profile the inclusion of both Piccadilly Circus and Tottenham Court Road stations seems ridiculous. The Crossrail stations are enormous, with platforms over 250m long. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">The cost of a scheme like this is immense, much more than a normal tube line, since stations have to be much bigger. Don't believe what the experts project. You usually have to multiply this figure by 6! Immense cost, for the luxury of having an alternative route between Wimbledon and Epping, and one new station in Chelsea! Does it make sense?</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">What's the solution? If this scheme is to work, firstly it has to decide what it wants to be: either a scaled-down light, LU line, between Wimbledon and Epping, but providing sensible new services to London i.e. some route alterations and more stations! ;<br />
<br />
or:-<br />
<br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">An express heavy rail line linking onto existing surface commuter routes that is going to usefully free up capacity on lines into Liverpool Street and Victoria/Waterloo, perhaps between Guildford (over SWT routes) and Chelmsford, by extending the existing Ongar route. (?)</div>Screwbiedooohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08723447570846052134noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771178023077256469.post-38800618713466268202008-09-30T16:59:00.000-07:002008-10-07T07:29:54.442-07:00A BETTER CROSSRAIL 2?<script type="text/javascript"><br />var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://ssl." : "http://www.");<br />document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + gaJsHost + "google-analytics.com/ga.js' type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E"));<br /></script><br /><script type="text/javascript"><br />var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker("UA-5866873-1");<br />pageTracker._trackPageview();<br /></script><iframe marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" src="http://maps.google.co.uk/maps/ms?hl=en&ie=UTF8&t=k&s=AARTsJoibeIWFvvrPw0zyuZkQBKuRQJGdw&msa=0&msid=108943605863307549028.00045824893a37ddb2a78&ll=51.517716,-0.070724&spn=0.149548,0.291824&z=11&output=embed" frameborder="0" height="350" scrolling="no" width="425"></iframe><br /><small><a href="http://maps.google.co.uk/maps/ms?hl=en&ie=UTF8&t=k&msa=0&msid=108943605863307549028.00045824893a37ddb2a78&ll=51.517716,-0.070724&spn=0.149548,0.291824&z=11&source=embed" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 255); text-align: left;">View Larger Map</a></small><br /><br />The problems with the envisaged Crossrail 2 "Chelsea-Hackney" scheme are discussed in <a href="http://mindroutes.blogspot.com/2008/10/whats-wrong-with-chelney.html">another post </a>This is a radically different proposal which would see Stevenage or even Letchworth joined to the Medway towns. This would use existing rights of way into London as far as Moorgate and London Bridge, requiring a new linking tunnel from London Bridge to Moorgate via a new Cannon Street station in tunnel. This would leave Cannon Street mainline station as obsolete so it would probably have to close (freeing up some pretty valuable real estate!). A new tunnel section under London Bridge would emerge onto new stations envisaged through Bermondsey, one of the most depressed areas of inner London.Screwbiedooohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08723447570846052134noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771178023077256469.post-36848786955276661952008-09-28T15:26:00.001-07:002020-09-05T04:03:26.163-07:00SOME NEW STATION IDEAS<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjO0tk78Yq52S9MqfGcKFct43FzRo4pFJ20McK0rm_FrLS_2gE06U6AZ-56jVmKkXjXHx9gA0RYFxc1fRXm-po3VX-Mhb_fICUTtzti1ZO0DC-aRXddWs0aseeXQL3O6BXuz4igebDlm4E/s1600-h/NEW+STATIONS.gif" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img alt="" border="0" height="431" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5251214328895412450" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjO0tk78Yq52S9MqfGcKFct43FzRo4pFJ20McK0rm_FrLS_2gE06U6AZ-56jVmKkXjXHx9gA0RYFxc1fRXm-po3VX-Mhb_fICUTtzti1ZO0DC-aRXddWs0aseeXQL3O6BXuz4igebDlm4E/w625-h431/NEW+STATIONS.gif" style="cursor: pointer; display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center;" width="625" /></a><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: large;"><div style="text-align: justify;">Hands up if you'd like to see some of these stations on the Tube Map. Some may have been closed for reasons of underuse, expense or fire, and not reopened. Some would be entirely new.
The principle: London has several inner city areas with poor transport links and socioeconomic problems, all within a stone's throw of the city centre. New lines aside, to encourage regeneration of these neghbourhoods and revitalisation of residential communities, the following stations could be built relatively inexpensively and be of immense benefit to inner London communities.
Furthermore, we are all aware that we face a housing shortage, and need to increase our urban densities if we are to safeguard our countryside for future generations. The logical target of such densification (to coin Richard Rogers) would logically be the fringes of central London. Naturally we're facing a chicken or egg situation. Development won't come without transportation and investment tends to go to successful places first... This obstacle notwithstanding, more people need more station capacity and I believe the best way to provide it is with more stations, not necessarily enlarging existing ones, thereby increasing the convenience of the passenger at the same time.
N.B. I personally don't believe you need to employ world-class architects and use gilted escalators such as happened on the JLE (OK I exaggerate about the gilted escalators, but only just). New stations need only be functional and need not be prohibitively expensive. Of course, it's always a lot easier and cheaper to build them during construction of the line, but hey, it's too late and London does need to find solutions.
1. Wood Lane (Almost Complete) - included for reference.
2. Lords. Not the old Metropolitan Station but on the Jubilee line on the large gap between Baker Street and St John's Wood.
3. York Road. Reopen this station! The King's Cross Railway Lands development is next door, a rundown backwater of Barnsbury behind it. It's a long old way up to Cally Road!
4. Mount Pleasant. A long old trundle on the Circle Line too between King's X and Farringdon. This is a densely populated area.
5. Barnsbury. Although the concept of the Victoria was to be effectively an Express Line between existing stations, it may be time for the line to mature and reach more of the neighbourhoods it passes under, this being one of them.
6. Pentonville Road. An entirely new station for the Northern Line City branch.
7. City Road. An old station which could be reopened in an area which needs some vitality.
8. Shoreditch High Street is about to have a brand spanking new station on the East London Line, passing right over the central line. It's a huge distance between Liverpool St and Bethnal Green and this is a well-populated central neighbourhood. Dosn't it make sense to have an interchange here?
9. Tower Bridge. The JLE was all about quality, not quantity, but once again it bypasses busy neighbourhoods entirely.
10. South Kentish Town was closed decades ago and is now a Cash Converters. We all know the problems of overcrowding at Camden Town. I propose this as a better solution to a massive overhaul of Camden Town station.</div></span>Screwbiedooohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08723447570846052134noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771178023077256469.post-66739842337829249392008-09-28T12:22:00.000-07:002008-10-01T15:15:20.886-07:00Northern Line extension southward 1 (proposed)One possible route south from Kennington. N.B. In the near future the Northern line will likely be split in 2. This extension would apply to the Charing X branch, the City branch continuing to Morden as usual. Most likely this line will be coloured lime green on the map, and either retain the Northern Line name or something else (west end line?)<br /><br />Total cost, to Madrid Metro specs = 315m Euros; to JLE specs = £1.64bn<br /><br /><iframe marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" src="http://maps.google.co.uk/maps/ms?near=waterloo&f=p&rl=1&ie=UTF8&hl=en&s=AARTsJoz5XTvkcdBjuJ0o2OueoQeGkYchA&msa=0&msid=108943605863307549028.000457f8c91d2d8e70824&ll=51.459783,-0.11261&spn=0.074869,0.145912&z=12&output=embed" frameborder="0" height="350" scrolling="no" width="425"></iframe><br /><small><a href="http://maps.google.co.uk/maps/ms?near=waterloo&f=p&rl=1&ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=108943605863307549028.000457f8c91d2d8e70824&ll=51.459783,-0.11261&spn=0.074869,0.145912&z=12&source=embed" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 255); text-align: left;">View Larger Map</a></small>Screwbiedooohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08723447570846052134noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771178023077256469.post-34545177276015922102008-09-28T12:19:00.000-07:002009-11-13T11:17:14.732-08:00Bakerloo Line Southward Extension 1 (proposed)<div style="text-align: justify;">One possible route southwards for the Bakerloo Line. This plugs a gap in services around Old Kent Road, Walworth and Peckham, some of the most deprived and worst-connected inner-city neighbourhoods in London. The idea has been mooted for some time, but the political will does not yet exist to take on the relatively modest scheme, whilst massive schemes such as Crossrail have been prioritised.<br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Bakerloo services to New Cross means London Overgound services need no longer stop there and the clumsy spur can be ripped up. The station will allow interchange onto the tube for mainline commuters from Kent. <br />
</div><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><iframe frameborder="0" height="350" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://maps.google.co.uk/maps/ms?near=waterloo&f=p&rl=1&ie=UTF8&hl=en&s=AARTsJrPTjllmnrB9cnyKf5SycvLQSqEdw&msa=0&msid=108943605863307549028.000457f8691e7d3b3b584&ll=51.48515,-0.057935&spn=0.074827,0.145912&z=12&output=embed" width="425"></iframe><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><small><a href="http://maps.google.co.uk/maps/ms?near=waterloo&f=p&rl=1&ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=108943605863307549028.000457f8691e7d3b3b584&ll=51.48515,-0.057935&spn=0.074827,0.145912&z=12&source=embed" style="color: blue; text-align: left;">View Larger Map</a></small><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><small><span style="font-size: small;">There exists the potential to takeover National Rail tracks beyond Greenwich, which are at surface or in cutting, on to Catford, Woolwich, or even as far as Dartford. </span></small><br />
</div><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMoOe6FnY5NvDpNe1fF0pqQ2va8ja9v2dA6hiturJCE1eCRLdAXodoEHDIJ0FyUKmsQvTouuXRpVqXOctzw-NUvKXgxByjnG3JBlD1x7JL66WsJlTJ1mj_ozdJ8okQ1z4JN7yG41b_gX0/s1600-h/BLE.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMoOe6FnY5NvDpNe1fF0pqQ2va8ja9v2dA6hiturJCE1eCRLdAXodoEHDIJ0FyUKmsQvTouuXRpVqXOctzw-NUvKXgxByjnG3JBlD1x7JL66WsJlTJ1mj_ozdJ8okQ1z4JN7yG41b_gX0/s400/BLE.jpg" /></a><br />
</div><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;">Total cost (E&C - Greenwich); To Madrid Metro specs = 294m Euros; to JLE specs = £1.52bn<br />
</div><small><span style="font-size: small;"> </span> </small>Screwbiedooohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08723447570846052134noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771178023077256469.post-24136870289919640522008-09-28T10:34:00.000-07:002011-08-20T10:25:35.154-07:00Waterloo & City Line extension (proposed)A proposed extension to the Waterloo and City line to Battersea and Putney.<br />
At present the W&C Line is merely a fancy "travelator" for Waterloo commuters to and from the City. The Line could be vastly more useful to Londoners, bringing tube service to Battersea and Wandsworth, including developments at Battersea power station, and interchange on the District, Victoria, Bakerloo, Northern, Jubilee, Central, DLR, Circle and Mainline services. Platforms and stations at Waterloo and Bank would have to be enlarged (they are currently very short).<br />
However there exists the possibility of keeping it as a short-train light rail service with on-street running from Nine Elms through to Putney.<br />
<br />
Total cost: to Madrid Metro specs = 504m Euros; to JLE specs = £2.6bn<br />
<br />
NOTE: This is approximately half of the proposed new City Line, which would include a southern routing like this and a northern extension. <br />
<br />
<br />
<iframe frameborder="0" height="350" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://maps.google.co.uk/maps/ms?near=waterloo&f=p&rl=1&ie=UTF8&hl=en&s=AARTsJpEm8nhOM0V1sWi1vhZErRcDgYiJw&msa=0&msid=108943605863307549028.000457f6e230bab68c52d&ll=51.486942,-0.149002&spn=0.074825,0.145912&z=12&output=embed" width="425"></iframe><br />
<small><a href="http://maps.google.co.uk/maps/ms?near=waterloo&f=p&rl=1&ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=108943605863307549028.000457f6e230bab68c52d&ll=51.486942,-0.149002&spn=0.074825,0.145912&z=12&source=embed" style="color: blue; text-align: left;">View Larger Map</a></small>Screwbiedooohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08723447570846052134noreply@blogger.com0