TfL just released a map with three different Elizabeth Lines on it

What the- Image: TfL.

One of the sillier pieces I have written this year – and isn’t that a competitive title? - was, in effect, a lengthy dissertation on the word “line”. Was a line a line if it branched? Was the Northern line a line, or more of a network? And so forth. It’s amazing how many words you can get out of these things if you try.

Anyway. I'm not saying that Transport for London are deliberately trolling me, but I do think it might be stretching its the definition of the word “line” to the limit. Here’s a draft of its new tube map, reflecting services as they’ll be next December, showing the Elizabeth Line for the first time:

Click to expand.

It might not be immediately obvious what's weird about this – In which case, look more closely at Paddington, or Liverpool Street:

Click to expand.

More like the Elizabeth Lines, am I right?

The trio of different Elizabeth Lines is an artefact of the way TfL is assembling the route formally known as Crossrail in stages. The Liverpool Street-Shenfield section has been operated by MTR as part of the TfL Rail franchise since May 2015. Next May, the Paddington inner suburban services, currently branded as Heathrow Connect, will come under the same banner.


Seven months later, the first proper bit of Crossrail – the actual tunnel, or at least most of it – opens, providing services between Paddington and Abbey Wood via Whitechapel and Canary Wharf.

But that’s when things get complicated – because it won’t yet be ready to connect up to the services on either side. The Shenfield line is expected to join the line in May 2019; the Heathrow route, and the western arm out to Reading, the following December.

So that leaves TfL with a dilemma. Next December it’ll be running three separate services that will one day become part of the Elizabeth Line – but which won’t, yet, be considered a single line. The map suggests that the authority’s intended solution is to brand them all as Elizabeth line anyway.

I’m not entirely sold on this, I must say. I can see the logic in showing signs of progress, and they’ll all be part of the Elizabeth Line soon enough. But there is a danger, surely, that someone will want to get from, say, Ilford to Heathrow, glance at the map, and assume they can now do it with one train. In fact, it’ll take three – the same number as now – with two awkward changes, at Paddington and Liverpool Street. Seems to be asking for trouble.

Also, whatever the truth about the District and Northern lines, surely we can all agree that three train services operating entirely separately don't count as one line. Right? Right?

It’s only a draft map – perhaps this’ll change. And on the upside, it has given me something to write about, so.

Anyway, happy Christmas, you lot. Here’s a video of how the new tunnel looks from the inside:

Jonn Elledge is the editor of CityMetric. He is on Twitter as @jonnelledge and also has a Facebook page now for some reason. 

Want more of this stuff? Follow CityMetric on Twitter or Facebook

 
 
 
 

When should you forget the bus and just walk?

Might as well talk, tbh. Image: Getty.

It can often be tempting to jump on a bus for a short journey through the city, especially when it’s raining or you’re running behind schedule. Where there are dedicated bus lanes in place, it can feel as though you speed past gridlocked traffic. But as city authorities begin new initiatives to get people walking or cycling, that could all change – and so could you.

British people are wasting tens of hours in traffic every year: London comes top, with the average commuter spending 74 hours in traffic, followed by Manchester, with 39 hours and Birmingham and Lincoln, both with 36 hours.

It might surprise some people to learn that cities are intentionally slowing down private vehicles, in order to shift people to other, more efficient, modes of transport. In fact, Transport for London removed 30 per cent of the road capacity for private vehicles in central London between 1996 and 2010. That trend continues today, as the organisation gives over more space for buses, cyclists and pedestrians.

London’s road capacity, over time. Image: Transport for London/author provided.

Clamp down on cars

The loss of road capacity for cars has occurred across most UK cities, but not on the same scale everywhere. The good news is that the changes, when made, appear to have reduced actual car congestion. It seems that by making it less attractive to use your car, you’ll be more likely to use other transport. In fact, the average speed of buses and cyclists can be up to twice as fast as normal traffic in cities such as London.

The relationship between walking and improved health has been proven to such an extent that it seems everyone – your doctor, your family, regional and national government – wants to increase physical activity. The savings in health care costs, are via improved fitness, reduced pollution and improved mental health, and its impact on social care are huge.

For instance, Greater Manchester wants to increase the number of people who get the recommended level of exercise (only about half currently do). The most advanced of these plans is London’s, which has the specific goal of increasing the number of walks people take by a million per day.

So, the reality is that over the next few years, walking will gradually appear more and more “normal” as we are purposefully nudged towards abandoning our rather unhealthy, sedentary lifestyles.


The long journey

Consider this: the typical bus journey in the UK is almost three miles, with an average journey time of around 23 minutes. The equivalent walk would take approximately 52 minutes, travelling at just over three miles per hour. It seems obvious that the bus is much faster – but there’s much more to consider.

People normally walk at least a quarter of a mile to and from the bus stop – that’s roughly ten minutes. Then, they have to wait for a bus (let’s say five minutes), account for the risk of delay (another five minutes) and recover from the other unpleasant aspects of bus travel, such as overcrowding.

This means that our 23 minute bus journey actually takes 43 minutes of our time; not that much less than the 52 minutes it would have taken to walk. When you think of the journey in this holistic way, it means you should probably walk if the journey is less than 2.2 miles. You might even choose to walk further, depending on how much value you place on your health, well-being and longevity – and of course how much you dislike the more unpleasant aspects of bus travel.

The real toss up between walking and getting the bus is not really about how long it takes. It’s about how we change the behaviour and perceptions we have been conditioned to hold throughout our lives; how we, as individuals, engage with the real impacts that our travel decisions have on our longevity and health. As recent converts to walking, we recommend that you give it a go for a month, and see how it changes your outlook.

The Conversation

Marcus Mayers, Visiting Research Fellow, University of Huddersfield and David Bamford, Professor of Operations Management, University of Huddersfield.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.