Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

London Underground "too fast"??

  • 24-09-2015 2:06pm
    #1
    MGWR
    Closed Accounts Posts: 611 ✭✭✭


    BBC
    A mathematical study of transport in London and New York suggests the British capital should be wary of its trains travelling too quickly.

    If Tube journeys are too fast, relative to going by road, then the model predicts an increase in the overall level of congestion. This is because key locations outside the city centre, where people switch transport modes, become bottlenecks.By contrast, New York's layout is such that faster trains will always help.

    Reporting their findings in the journal Royal Society Interface, the researchers calculate that London's system would function best with underground trains travelling about 1.2 times faster than the average speed on the roads. This makes the optimum Tube speed approximately 13mph (21km/h); the current average is 21mph (33km/h). ...
    More "creative" maths. I suppose that they are actually looking for more revenue from the infamous "congestion charge"?


Comments

  • #2
    eeguy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,478 ✭✭✭eeguy


    Ah here, so rather than cause congestion around the city, they want more congestion IN the city.

    How about extending the tube to prevent this instead?


  • #3
    n97 mini
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,295 ✭✭✭n97 mini


    Make sense. Suppose Mullingar was a major interchange point and IE was shuttling people to it so quick, much quicker than they were leaving, the station would become chockers.


  • #4
    Markcheese
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,837 ✭✭✭Markcheese


    But if you slowed the trains down wouldn't you limit the ability of the line to carry passengers at peak ? ( say 7 trains per hour rather than 10 trains)
    Would it be better to improve flow at the suburban centres - (better connecting buses- bike facilities ect)

    Slava ukraini 🇺🇦



  • #5
    MGWR
    Closed Accounts Posts: 611 ✭✭✭MGWR


    eeguy wrote: »
    Ah here, so rather than cause congestion around the city, they want more congestion IN the city.

    How about extending the tube to prevent this instead?
    Expanding the tube system? Makes too much sense.


  • #6
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,537 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    It's still a bizarre notion. Lets set everything up so the roads remain completely clogged up with traffic...
    Given buses in London carry far more than the tube anyway surely more on the tube initially makes buses more attractive which in turn decreases traffic further making them better again and so on, without further impact on the tube.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    MGWR
    Closed Accounts Posts: 611 ✭✭✭MGWR


    Cookie_Monster wrote: »
    It's still a bizarre notion. Lets set everything up so the roads remain completely clogged up with traffic...
    Given buses in London carry far more than the tube anyway surely more on the tube initially makes buses more attractive which in turn decreases traffic further making them better again and so on, without further impact on the tube.
    How many of the bus routes serve the same purpose as the tube trains, i.e. insofar as going from the outer London towns and boroughs to Central London? and versus the many bus routes designed for intra-borough travel? It'd be very difficult to increase those bus routes' average speed to as high as 21 mph, although you could run them more frequently of course.


  • #8
    eeguy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,478 ✭✭✭eeguy


    There's 4 million people on the tube daily.

    Are they really going to consider f*cking all these people over by slowing the tubes, just to ease congestion outside the city?

    It's a major slap in the face for those who want commuters to abandon their cars in favour of public transport.

    Maybe if they look to extend the lines to more suburban areas and build a multi-story beside the station for the park-and-riders.


  • #9
    Vic_08
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭Vic_08


    eeguy wrote: »
    There's 4 million people on the tube daily.

    Are they really going to consider f*cking all these people over by slowing the tubes, just to ease congestion outside the city?

    It depends who you mean by "they".

    If you mean some French guy at an institute nobody has ever heard of then yes.

    If you mean TfL who run the tube then no. They have spent a lot of time and money in the last 2 decades squeezing the maximum capacity out of the network, they are not going to turn around and undo that based on some half-baked theory.


    eeguy wrote: »

    Maybe if they look to extend the lines to more suburban areas and build a multi-story beside the station for the park-and-riders.

    There is very little scope to extend any of the existing lines (which already serve suburban areas) as they are all projected to be at their maximum capacity through zone 1 without the addition of serving more areas.

    This is why the focus is now on projects such as Crossrail and Thameslink (both due to be complete in 2018/19) and Crossrail 2 in the planning stage.


Advertisement