Has transport in London collapsed?

>>1021115

>collapsed

For something to collapse it must first be erected.

Well London infrastructure is ancient as hell. The core of the tube network was set somewhere in beginning of 20th century and there are very little high capacity roads. There have to be some major investments done in expanding the tube (or the overground or whatever)

Do Brexit
All businesses leave London
Tube is empty
???
PROFIT

>>1021115
Victoria Line is awful in the morning. Stopped using it after they closed half of Finsbury Park. Cycling is far less effort and healthier.

>>1021115
>wait at least 15-20 minutes for a train during peak hours
Well there's your problem. Why the stupidly low frequencies London?

>>1021143

There will likely be a dozen trains in this time but people will be a dozen deep on the platform.

>>1021143
Victoria Line is literally 34 trains per hour in each direction. Still hard to get on in the peaks.

>>1021163
>>1021171
Oh, okay. That makes more sense. Dunno why OP called it collapse then. Sounds like it's at capacity and more rail needs to be built, unless they can figure out a way to double the length of the platforms or something to allow for longer trains.

>>1021175
The stations are already so close it would be pointless to extend. A large issue is the projected capacity when it was built in the 1960s. The population of london was 3 million or so, now it is 8.7m and growing. The tunnels were built with a very small diameter so without huge upgrade costs involving reboring the tunnels capacity cannot be expanded any more.

I have a solution for you OP: don't live in London.

>>1021179
Gonna have to eat those upgrade costs at some point, unless you want to keep losing economic growth to congestion. Rebuilding the tram network would also be a good idea. Won't get the same capacity as heavy rail but would be far cheaper.

>>1021201
The streets are already full of double decker buses with insane frequencies in the peaks. I don't think trams would bring more capacity than buses.

>>1021202
Unless we're talking lanes dedicated to double deck buses operating nearly bumper to bumper, trams would still get higher capacity. The bigger problem would be how red double deck buses are kinda associated with UK/London.

Ban entitlement coffins from the Metropolitan area.

>>1021202
>The streets are already full of double decker buses with insane frequencies in the peaks. I don't think trams would bring more capacity than buses.
You're objectively wrong. If you have, say, one bus every 30 seconds which will invariably kill commercial speed to not more than 12km/h on a good day, that's 120x80=9.600 pax per hour. A 60m tram carrying 440 pax every 3 minutes gets you 8.800 per hour, every 2 minutes it's 13.200, and every minute a whopping 26.400 pax/hour, more than twice what you get with one bus every 30 seconds.

Having a lot of buses bunch up on saturated corridor will always be much less efficient than a tram line.

File: Trammillennium.jpg (82KB, 460x345px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 460x345px

>>1021207
>build trams similar to pic related
>paint them red
>couple them together in trains of two or three
>???
>profit!

File: 9351964916_bf1b255b3d_b.jpg (477KB, 1024x705px) Image search: [Google]

477KB, 1024x705px

>>1021207
>>1021214
>>1021218
London used to have trolleybuses. But remember the streets are so windy and narrow you couldn't really use long trams. The rails would also have a huge effect on cycling infrastructure and probably clog up congested streets even more. London is not a grid city.

File: Trams_in_London.svg.png (1MB, 988x768px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 988x768px

>>1021233
>London used to have trolleybuses
London used to have trams too, before they were torn up in the 30s through to the 50s like they were nearly everywhere else. Pic related.
>streets are so windy and narrow you couldn't really use long trams
Judging by maps, I'm calling bullshit on that.
>probably clog up congested streets even more
Haha, I think you're missing the point here. Cars are low density traffic, and at London's level they should be considered an afterthought in traffic planning. Any street with more than a single lane in each direction is wasted on cars in London. Especially in the core of the network, where once you have enough trams going you might as well just ban cars entirely and leave access for delivery vehicles, public transport and two wheeled things only.

>>1021233
>But remember the streets are so windy and narrow you couldn't really use long trams.
It's actually the exact opposite: Since a tram is guided by rails there's absolutely no problem with windy roads. Unlike with articulated and especially double-articulated buses.

As long as the turning radius isn't too narrow there's no problem with trams, and the turning radius even for 2nd gen is not very large.

>>1021264
>Judging by maps, I'm calling bullshit on that.
>pic related of a bowl of spaghetti
GG.

File: 26945145471_d758a35f92_b.jpg (249KB, 1024x680px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 1024x680px

>>1021264
Articulated trams were never used in the past, only double decker ones. The roads in London are tight and winding, trams would eat away all space and make bottlenecks for taxis, cars, and cyclists. Sure they work in huge american and german cities with massive streets, but for the tight, winding and hilly roads buses are far more versatile.

Pic related is a new fully electric bus

File: 15091921483_94585b976b_o.jpg (1MB, 1280x802px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1280x802px

>>1021268
The bus network in London has tons of tight corners.

Watch this video to get an idea of it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vm93fQpHfmU

Sure there are some straight sections of road, but to get somewhere people want to go will take a a load of turns.

>>1021291
>>1021294
Here's a bus marketed as being suitable for UK/London:
http://www.bydeurope.com/downloads/eubs_specification/BYD_10_2_Meters_Electric_bus.pdf
It has a turning circle of 22.2m.

Here are two light rail lines:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Line_(MBTA)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newark_Light_Rail
They clearly use long articulated trams which could be longer. And they both have a minimum turning circle of LESS THAN 22.2m.

>bottlenecks for taxis, cars
Literally don't care. They are low density traffic and that roadspace is more efficiently used by trams. We're trying to discuss ways to improve the overall passenger capacity of transport around London here, and if that involves reducing the number of roads that cars can use towards the middle of the city then that's 100% okay. Bicycles use minimal space so can be easily accommodated.

>buses far more versatile
Yes, and? If London is as congested as you say, then we are far, far beyond caring about versatility. If you want to solve congestion you transition to whatever methods there are available to move the most people you can.

>>1021218
Your pic related can only carry ~115 people per car & slower than buses

File: ripp.jpg (66KB, 960x533px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 960x533px

>>1021115

L O N D O N
O
N
D
O
N
?

>>1021233
>London used to have trolleybuses

Yes. Zero emissions, quiet and efficient.

Remember that the next time you hear the Mayor of London whine about pollution: they did it to themselves!

File: tramalamafam.jpg (40KB, 360x480px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 360x480px

>>1021291
>>1021294
m8 if you think the corners in London are tight you really need to go see some of the tram networks in small European cities.

London ain't nothing on some of the narrow streets you can run trams along.

>>1021115
It seems to me like a major problem in the London tube is that the tunnels, and hence also the trains, are extremely narrow and low. You can only reach a certain capacity with those trains, even if you send 36 an hour like the other anon said. My city is tiny compared to London and even its rail transit has vehicles that are 3.62m high and 2.65m broad. The tunnels were desinged to house these and even larger vehicles. You could walk on both sides and between the tracks in some places and not get hit by a train.
I do not think it would be easy to tear up all of the tunnels in London in order to fit in bigger trains, but if the city's population keeps growing, what else are you supposed to do? Build a skytrain?

>>1021136
>Cycling is far less effort and healthier
Yes, right until you get under a lorry.

>>1021233
>clog up congested streets even more
Why are passenger cars not kicked out of the city completely yet?

File: 800px-Praha_ms_dual_gauge.jpg (218KB, 800x1067px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 800x1067px

>>1021291
Stop being funny

>>1021305
Which is why I said
>similar to pic related
>similar
because those trams are actually from the 1950's just with a modern-looking exterior, and that's just three which were modernized then they stopped because it seemed pointless. They also aren't coupled into trains (used to have trailers once), but if you designed a 2nd gen system around double-deckers you could run them in trains of two or three.

There's nothing preventing anyone from designing a modern double-deck tram following that same single-bogie concept, in fact modern articulated trams usually have fixed bogies, which resembles more a train of single-bogie cars rather than large two-bogie trams as were common from the 50's to the 70's.

There was a discussion on /n/ once about why double deck trams aren't a thing, it just doesn't have many advantages over using longer trams, and you'd have to manufacture them specifically. London already had a vehicle specially designed for it, the New Routemaster.

If London were to massively convert bus lines to trams and wanted to keep the "double-deck-flair" it would be a distant possibility. Obv not gonna happen because it would need a massive project to justify designing a specific vehicle, and they'd probably go for standard articulated trams before that, but if they had any serious intention of making surface transportation actually efficient it would be one possible way to do it.

It's a shame we've been so indoctrinated as to think that spending gorillions on fuckhueg highway project and bypasses and whatnot is ok, but designing a large tram network with a specifically designed vehicle is bonkers, even though operation would be cheaper per pax in the long run which would at leasty partly offset the initial investment.
In general bus systems with very high demand are inefficient as fuck and more expensive in the long run than any off-the-shelf tram system. If there aren't more large-scale conversions to tram it's because of this very mentality.

>>1021291
>Articulated trams were never used in the past, only double decker ones.
Uhm... the system was shut down in the early 50's, there were no articulated trams in those days.

>The roads in London are tight and winding
Other anon beat me to the punch with this one.

> trams would eat away all space and make bottlenecks for taxis, cars, and cyclists.
Modern trams in an urban environment with lots of traffic only make sense if they have a ROW. If the streets are small this would mean closing them off to regular traffic and leaving them exclusively for trams, at the most you can allow taxis as well. There's nothing wrong with having some streets only for public transit, and others only for private cars, lorries and bikes. It's generally never a good idea to mix public transit with any other traffic.

>Sure they work in huge american and german cities with massive streets
I hate this dumb argument. For starters, a tram ROW is more narrow than a bus lane, because the tram doesn't need margin for steering. We have a 2nd gen tram with the widest standard size which is 2.65m, the ROW is about 3m for each direction, while a bus lane has to be at least 3m, ideally 3.5m to allow decent speeds.

>but for the tight, winding and hilly roads buses are far more versatile.
>versatile
bus "versatility" is a meme. Versatile how? Do you change the routes every few weeks? That would be a bloody pain in the arse. I bet there's bus lines in London that haven't changed in decades. Are buses better at taking turns then trams? No, they're much worse because trams are guided by the rails and never swerve off their lane. Hills, ok, yeah, trams can have grades up to around 6%. Other than that how are buses more versatile?

Seems to me many people repeat the same non-arguments like you're doing, it's like something we've been fed all our lives (like this "versatility" meme which sounds nice like but doesn't mean jack shit), but the case for buses is by far not as clear as you'd think.

>>1021213

>how do we solve the problem with zero space on the trains? I know! Make more people use them!

>>1021291
tight and winding is not really much of a problem for a tram

but I agree that trams wouldn't help much in London, because aside the tightness and curviness of the streets the main problem is that they are FULL
the bus lanes are full of never ending queue of red buses, it wouldn't really make a change if there were trams instead of those buses

File: Tagesfahrt_Neue_Schwebebahn02.jpg (443KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

443KB, 1024x768px

take transport to another level

>>1021398
A monorail would be unsuitable for London.

File: 15797188854_ebbe9b556b_h.jpg (704KB, 1600x965px) Image search: [Google]

704KB, 1600x965px

>>1021313
Just look at that piece of shit rail crossing over the other one. Can't even fucking turn.

>>1021315
Yes this is an issue which will never be solved due to cost.

>>1021327
Alternatively I can risk falling in front of a train if I take the overcrowded tube.

>>1021333
>Modern trams in an urban environment with lots of traffic only make sense if they have a ROW. If the streets are small this would mean closing them off to regular traffic and leaving them exclusively for trams, at the most you can allow taxis as well. There's nothing wrong with having some streets only for public transit, and others only for private cars, lorries and bikes. It's generally never a good idea to mix public transit with any other traffic.

There aren't enough roads to do this. How will people recieve deliveries? How will coaches run?

Buses have far better capacity and make better use of road space than trams.

You can fit 120 people with a tiny footprint, and it doesn't require any expensive and hazardous infrastructure. There will also never be signalling issues.

>>1021434

I can tell you grew up in a big city and haven't spent much time out of it.

I am sure you believe that London is the only place in the world that has to deal with certain issues and despite it's shittiness, that it is the best place on the world.

>>1021434
>Can't even fucking turn.

The line is quite literally turning to the right.

>>1021434
>Buses have far better capacity and make better use of road space than trams.
You must be thinking of really old trams.

File: danger_seeking_granny_doing_mad_stunts_on_hazardous_infrastructure.jpg (205KB, 929x622px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 929x622px

>>1021434
>There aren't enough roads to do this. How will people recieve deliveries? How will coaches run?
"Removing" maybe one road in ten won't collapse any city. Whenever road space is reduced this same bullshit argument is used. If it's not this one road, it'll be an adjacent road 100m further away. And if it's some small road in a residential area with no significant traffic you can still allow local traffic to share the tram line. Ffs in the video posted earlier half the streets have on-street parking, talk about wasted space.

>Buses have far better capacity and make better use of road space than trams.
You can spout this crap all you want it doesn't make it true. Fewer, larger vehicles are much more efficient than a string of small vehicles. A long tram can carry as many passengers as 3-4 buses. Having buses run every few minutes or even every minute or less means that average speed will be shit, and you'll need more vehicles for the same capacity. Inefficient as fuck pham.

>You can fit 120 people with a tiny footprint, and it doesn't require any expensive and hazardous infrastructure. There will also never be signalling issues.
Oh wow so much talking out your ass
>120 people
New Routemaster carries 80. Friggin EIGHTY, not even close to 120. Articulated buses are more problematic to run along small winding streets than trams.
>hazardous infrastructure
>a guided transport more hazardous than one dependent on a person driving it
my fucking sides. also pic related.

File: 15466042494_da7a3afba1_k.jpg (1MB, 2048x1361px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2048x1361px

>>1021437
Nah I hate London. I just don't want to fall off my bike because of a tram rail again.

>>1021441
While crossing the other track, great use of road space there.

>>1021444
Because of trams lack of versatility they will never provide greater capacity than buses in London. As I mentioned before, it's not a grid city - you would be lucky to meet half the current journeys fulfilled by buses.

>>1021454
>we should use a much more inefficient mode of transport because I'm too dumb to ride my bike along tram rails
please end yourself

>>1021441
Isn't that a left turn from the right ?

File: 6833346992_8a49dd9f68_h (1).jpg (1012KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

1012KB, 1600x1200px

>>1021452
>"Removing" maybe one road in ten won't collapse any city. Whenever road space is reduced this same bullshit argument is used. If it's not this one road, it'll be an adjacent road 100m further away. And if it's some small road in a residential area with no significant traffic you can still allow local traffic to share the tram line. Ffs in the video posted earlier half the streets have on-street parking, talk about wasted space.
London is not built on a grid. If you close one road, the alternative is really going to be a long way around and cause congestion. There has to be on street parking because there would be no where else for the people to park their cars - most houses do not have garages.

>You can spout this crap all you want it doesn't make it true. Fewer, larger vehicles are much more efficient than a string of small vehicles. A long tram can carry as many passengers as 3-4 buses. Having buses run every few minutes or even every minute or less means that average speed will be shit, and you'll need more vehicles for the same capacity. Inefficient as fuck pham.
But the tram will not take people where they want to go. There are 700 bus routes in London and on main trunk roads you will get maybe 10 different route options - not possible with trams. Trams would just block the large road and only go to a few destinations.

>New Routemaster carries 80. Friggin EIGHTY, not even close to 120. Articulated buses are more problematic to run along small winding streets than trams.
That's only the advertised weight. In reality during the peaks it will be much higher than that crush loaded.

>a guided transport more hazardous than one dependent on a person driving it
The rails are dangerous for cyclists and motorcyclists. Trams also have a slower stopping distance compared to buses. This is not even considering the dangerous exposed overhead cables.

File: 27990283186_0a7981db5b_b.jpg (192KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 1024x683px

>>1021455
>much more inefficient
Maybe 20 years ago... All new buses are either hybrids or electric. Sure it's perhaps not as efficient as overhead cables, but then there is no rail infrastructure maintenance.

>>1021457
>London is not built on a grid. If you close one road, the alternative is really going to be a long way around and cause congestion.
>he doesn't understand how induced demand works
laughingtransitplanners.png

> There has to be on street parking because there would be no where else for the people to park their cars - most houses do not have garages.
>what are underground parking garages
They pay for themselves in a matter of just a few years.

>But the tram will not take people where they want to go. There are 700 bus routes in London and on main trunk roads you will get maybe 10 different route options - not possible with trams. Trams would just block the large road and only go to a few destinations.
That's a terrible way of organizing public transit, and it's only done precisely because vehicles have limited capacity, and each line can only have so high a frequency while maintaining some regularity.
It's much better to have fewer route options with reasonably high frequency and higher speeds. Time lost changing over you make up by having greater speed. In a big city it's better to be able to use a combination of transport, say tram and tube, than using a bus for the whole trip which is slow as balls.

>That's only the advertised weight. In reality during the peaks it will be much higher than that crush loaded.
Then the same would go for trams and instead of 200 passengers we ought to calculate 300 passengers per unit.

>The rails are dangerous for cyclists and motorcyclists. Trams also have a slower stopping distance compared to buses. This is not even considering the dangerous exposed overhead cables.
Why the fuck must everyone and their uncle ride/drive on tram tracks? That makes no sense and is just shitty planning. The whole MUH NO GRID argument is just silly, there's more than enough streets so that public transit can run along some of them, and other uses can be prioritized on other streets. Also bikes are irrelevant for transit planning purposes.

>>1021457
>Trams also have a slower stopping distance compared to buses.
Maybe don't have a picknick on the tram tracks.

>This is not even considering the dangerous exposed overhead cables.
Yeah it's really dangerous if you're like 14 feet tall.

>>1021459
>All new buses are either hybrids or electric
Efficiency wasn't referring to energy efficiency, but to how many passengers a line can carry per hour.
Also a rail vehicle is inherently more energy efficient than a road vehicle. That's the whole bloody point of steel wheels on steel rails.

>but then there is no rail infrastructure maintenance.
>what is road maintenance
wew lad

File: 26811128925_7d5c6fa01b_b.jpg (180KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 1024x683px

>>1021461
>what are underground parking garages
Councils already make enough cash from on street parking, it would be financially insane for them to justify building underground complexes.

>That's a terrible way of organizing public transit, and it's only done precisely because vehicles have limited capacity, and each line can only have so high a frequency while maintaining some regularity.
Wrong. It allows people to make better use of the bus service by having buses which take them exactly where they want to go. It covers the most areas possible this way.

>Then the same would go for trams and instead of 200 passengers we ought to calculate 300 passengers per unit.
It does not matter if there are 300 people on it who will all alight to simply catch a bus or taxi, which then will need to use the road anyway.

>Why the fuck must everyone and their uncle ride/drive on tram tracks? That makes no sense and is just shitty planning. The whole MUH NO GRID argument is just silly, there's more than enough streets so that public transit can run along some of them, and other uses can be prioritized on other streets. Also bikes are irrelevant for transit planning purposes.
Let me explain this to you. The streets go in different directions at different angles. You will not be able to separate tram tracks from cyclists or motorcyclists, as it would cause chaos elsewhere. Your dream vision of trams will only work if the city is bulldozed and rebuilt entirely with wide streets and good planning.

>>1021462
>Yeah it's really dangerous if you're like 14 feet tall.
Overhead cables can snap and fall. I wouldn't want to be walking down a street if that happened. They are also incredibly unsightly and expensive.

>>1021463
That is called capacity, not efficiency.

>>1021457
Are you really this ignorant about transit, or do you have some list of bullshit non-arguments that you're working your way through?

>>1021466
Go and play with your toy tram set

>>1021465
>Councils already make enough cash from on street parking, it would be financially insane for them to justify building underground complexes.
>improving public transit doesn't justify reducing street parking
>having this much of a car-centric mentality

>Wrong. It allows people to make better use of the bus service by having buses which take them exactly where they want to go. It covers the most areas possible this way.
Wrong. Having "buses which take them exactly where they want to go" is a 19th-century style transit planning. It makes bus lines inefficient, and buses bunch up, reducing average speed. Case in point:
>Official figures on bus speeds around the capital show that some routes are so slow that it would be faster to get to work at an average speed of 10mph on the back of a donkey.
>The Transport for London statistics show that some buses crawl along at just 4.6mph during the morning rush hour.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/london-buses-move-more-slowly-than-mice-or-chickens-a3187751.html

So awesome to go exactly where you want to at 4.6mph. Way better than having to do one changeover.

>It does not matter if there are 300 people on it who will all alight to simply catch a bus or taxi, which then will need to use the road anyway.
>hurr durr buses go where people want to go, trams go nowhere, because I say so
dumbass.

>Let me explain this to you. The streets go in different directions at different angles. You will not be able to separate tram tracks from cyclists or motorcyclists, as it would cause chaos elsewhere. Your dream vision of trams will only work if the city is bulldozed and rebuilt entirely with wide streets and good planning.
>I can't fathom even one street where I can't drive on with my deathcage

>Overhead cables can snap and fall. I wouldn't want to be walking down a street if that happened. They are also incredibly unsightly and expensive.
HAHAHAHA OH WOW that's some quality talking out your ass right there m8

>>1021465
>That is called capacity, not efficiency.
Using the same space to carry more people in the same time window = more efficient transportation. Deal with it.

>>1021465
>It allows people to make better use of the bus service by having buses which take them exactly where they want to go.
Consider the case of a major bus route with a max capacity of 30 buses per hour that goes to 15 different destinations. If all the buses are direct, you'll be waiting up to 30 minutes for a bus. If it's a trunk route with connectors though, you'll be waiting no more than, say, 2+15 minutes if the connectors are operating at a 15 minute frequency. Basically, you're a dumb fuck. Stop being a dumb fuck.

>>1021468
>HAHAHAHA OH WOW that's some quality talking out your ass right there m8
It happens often on the rail network. A few years ago a train driver was even electrocuted after his train brought down the OHLE.

Please propose a tram line on a map and we can discuss whether it would help anything.

>>1021475
We've already thoroughly established by now that you're stuck in your shitty congested inefficient cager mindset, so I don't see what else there is to discuss. You aren't interested in solving the problem.

File: 14480599736_6104b83c2d_h.jpg (644KB, 1600x1063px) Image search: [Google]

644KB, 1600x1063px

>>1021473
Buses are every few minutes in the peak already, it's not an issue.

>>1021477
>completely misses the point
If you're indicative of the average Londoner then we might as well just nuke the city and put all you dumb retards out of your misery already.

>>1021476
>States cyclists don't matter in transport planning
>Calls me a cager
Seems like you are just a lightrailcager aka supercager

File: 15430463093_d7db2a5426_k.jpg (1005KB, 2048x1356px) Image search: [Google]

1005KB, 2048x1356px

But to be honest I agree the buses do suck. And 4.6mph is an overstatement, it's closer to 2mph. That's why I and many others just cycle.

I think trams would be pretty neat but I still have doubts about it fitting into reality. But it's a pretty neat idea. However, the upfront cost will likely prevent it from ever happening.

>>1021479
>Seems like you are just a lightrailcager aka supercager
>lightrailcager aka supercager
hearty kek. Won't even deny that you have a point there.

>>1021479
At no point have I stated that cyclists don't matter in transit planning. At most I've implied that mixing bicycle and car/tram traffic is inefficient, and it is. Meanwhile you consistently and against all logic argue that cars and inefficiently utilised buses are the way to go. Yep, I sure am the cager here.

>>1021434
>Alternatively I can risk falling in front of a train if I take the overcrowded tube.
Not with ten lanes of people ion front of you.

However, I was kinda serious about the lorry thing. Read somewhere it was a major issue in Londod. Or is it just a lesser thing blown out of proportion by the shitty media?

Itt: anons that have never lived in London arguing about the usability of their one and only special means of transportation suitable for this city.

Just buy more trains you imbeciles.

>>1021475
>a few year ago
>one train driver

Even at 4.6mph morning rush speed, I bet london buses kill many more people than that, yearly.

Overhead cables are unsightly though, I agree on that.

>>1021570
itt: anons saying trams are no good for a city that had a gianormous tram network some years back and that has exhausted all the potential of other means of transit.

>>1021570

itt: Londoners who think their roads are narrow and twisty

I guess it is understandable since the only thing you know about outside of london you see on american hollywood shows so thats all you have to compare to.

>>1021465

>Overhead cables can snap and fall.

In my country we have overhead mains power and hurricanes. In the last 29 years of my life I have never heard of someone getting electrocuted by a downed line and we are Democratic Republic of Congo tier terrible when it comes to maintaining infrastructure.

I am sure you Londoners are capable of better maintenance than a country with a per capita GDP of $6,485.68

This is a map showing bus lines in London.

>>1021650
10/10

op here, this is the first thread i start in 4chan that doesn't die with 2 replies lol

so essentially I'm correct, london transport is over capacity, great

today i took the overground from finsbury park to hackney at like 6pm and it was absolutely packed too

fuck this shithole, I'm done with big cities, I can't wait to move somewhere else.

>>1021686
h&i not f park

>>1021655
I can't post the pic for some reason. Was trying to post a screencap of this map http://www.harrywood.co.uk/maps/busmap/

>>1021591
>overhead cables are unsightly
Good thing a better option has been invented then. Just don't tell the Brits it was invented by the French.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-level_power_supply
(You are now imagining red articulated double deck ground power supply trams running all around London.)

WAIT A FUCKING MINUTE

http://www.wrightbusinternational.com/datasheets/Routemaster%20spec%20sheet.pdf
A London double deck bus, supposedly for capacity reasons.
Passenger capacity: 62+25 = 87

http://actbus.net/scania-k320ub-6x2-specifications/
An Australian single deck bus, not much longer than the double deck one, and in fact has an overall SMALLER volume.
Passenger capacity: 53+48 = 101

WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING LONDON?

Regular normal length bus in Vienna, Austria: 64+29 = 93
http://www.fpdwl.at/fahrzeuge/showtypespecs.php?type=nl220

Guess Britains really are bad at everything.

Why are you guys buying shitty, expensive double-deck buses (that don't even have AC - no AC in 2016, what a third-world country) with less capacity than an off-the-shelf single-deck normal length bus?

>>1021794
Double-deckers have more seating capacity on the upper deck. I guess they need that to make their hour-long trips on buses going 4.6mph

>>1021834
hahaha oh wow I complain about public transit in my city but wew lad at least we have nice comfy a/c on every last bus and train and subway. Get your shit together London you used to be cool.

>>1021790
Overhead cables forming a sort of "roof" above the street make me feel comfy, the more cluttered the better. Maybe I have a slight case of agoraphobia.

>>1021790
>(You are now imagining red articulated double deck ground power supply trams running all around London.)
You are aware that Londons trams used ground level power supply in the central area back in the day? They used the standard conduit system, the type that also existed in Manhattan until the 1940's, and in Washington DC until its system closed in 1962. Though somewhat expensive to build and maintain, it nevertheless proved itself to be an effective system for avoiding overhead wires.

In this video they even explain how they change over from conduit to wire:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rc9gtJndKE4
WARNING: FEELS

>>1021846
The conduit system has been around longer, but the newer method is generally safer and cheaper.

>>1021841
Those numbers were for TOTAL seating capacity. The "gain" is in the buses being a few metres shorter because buses are shit at turning. The capacity is completely terrible for mass transit in a city like London.

>>1021794
Seems to be cause by having two stairs in the same bus. Typical double decker bus in Hong Kong have a capacity of ~130-150 people with the highest capacity one able to carry up to 171 in it. (Was made in UK btw)

>>1021794
It's because London is retarded as usual. London double-deck buses have two doors (or one door and a hop on/hop off platform) and TWO stairs. Because IDK Londoners don't know how to get on or off a fucking bus in a civil manner or something?

Actually no i take that back, of *course* Londoners don't know how to act in a civil manner.

File: 1471146755761.jpg (71KB, 702x721px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 702x721px

>>1021115
The last time I was in London was about a year ago, Central Line, three trains came and went within 10 minutes and the crush was Japan tier to get onto all of them. I came to your conclusion, that London is full tube a shit.

>>1022513
>I came to your conclusion, that London is shit.
ftfy

>>1022513
>Central Line, three trains came and went within 10 minutes
>three trains
>10 minutes
just fuck my shit up pham.

ffs BCN is like a quarter of london and with an oversized subway running every 2.5 minutes during rush hour with relatively full trains. I can't fathom a tube line running right through london with a shit frequency of over 3 minutes.

File: lanova-draha-na-petrin-lanovka-na-petrin-03-_1[1].jpg (550KB, 1063x1600px) Image search: [Google]

550KB, 1063x1600px

>>1021331
the number of czechfags on /n/... actually doesnt surprise me at all.

I rode 22 to school every day since first grade throught here because manesuv bridge was closd bck then for many years. I loved this section for its uniqueness. and the whole line for that brief moment where you could see the funicular (line) in between the houses.

Pic related, parking your modern funicular in medieval fortification wall is super comfy

>>1021331
>>1022981
Maximum comfy

>>1023142
if you ever happen to be in Prague, dont miss the funicular (if it operates that is). Normal ticket is valid on that one too.

>retarded privatisation
>two decades of no new tracks while existing infrastructure falls apart
>meanwhile, the population London is growing at insane pace
>TfL budget depleted after declaring privatisation a failure and buying back lines at extortion prices

File: _92354852_mediaitem92354851.jpg (40KB, 624x351px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 624x351px

>7 dead in London tram crash
>But but muh trams are safe
Fuck you all

File: Screen shot 2016-11-09 at 4.19.16 PM.png (148KB, 362x415px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 362x415px

>>1021115
I wish it would collapse. Right on me head.

>>1025330

They are safe provided you don't run corners way over the correct speed which is what the driver did yesterday, the madman.

>>1025330
>tram kills 5 in one deadly accident in 10 years
>UNSAFE
>cars kill dozens every week
>Perfectly safe
kys

File: 113281190_Tram_crash_in_Croydon_Today_-NEWS-large_trans++-1z1phUOpKzlleX_VqsT_Qo3FGRhTwRqllOv9U2_NSs.jpg (86KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 600x600px

>>1025525
Slightly strange it happened a few days after you fuckers shilling so hard to replace buses with trams in London.
I told you they can't turn the tight corners in London, and look what happened :^)

7 dead btw

>>1025539
>can't turn the tight corners in London, going at mach 5
ftfy

At least not without multi track drifting. :^)

File: 2545882D00000578-2936448-The_roof_of_the_bus_appeared_to_have_been_torn_clean_off_in_the_-a-61_1422891908632.jpg (166KB, 962x659px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 962x659px

>>1025539

Yes, and double-deck buses (which are a terrible choice for inner-city systems, btw) are apparently to tall for London streets.

>>1025572
You can cut down an overhanging tree but you can't demolish the buildings to make wider roads :^)

>>1025612
And for that Jesus invented articulated buses.

>>1025641
Articulated buses? Too sensible a solution, let's buy dumb low-capacity double-decker buses instead. This is Britain, after all. We don't do "smart" or "sensible" solutions.

>>1025641
>>1025651
We replaced thousands of double deckers with articulated curators in 2005. Sadly the death toll for pedestrians and cyclists was huge, and fare dodging rife. They had to go. Worst transport decision in history.

>>1025689
Citaros*

>>1025689
lol, "death toll"

Boris Johnson didn't like them and launched a populist campaign against them.

Or are Londoners really dumber than the rest of the world?

>>1025745
>Or are Londoners really dumber than the rest of the world?
Well there's this one anon that thinks one tram accident means trams are unsafe, so I'd say Londoners are indeed quite dumb.

>>1025751
>anecdotal generalisation criticizing anecdotal generalisation
I can't even tell if you're being intentionally ironic or you really don't have any self-distance at all.

File: 1473613660882.jpg (122KB, 1389x1027px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 1389x1027px

>>1025745
>>1025751
>Bendy buses were involved in 1,751 accidents over the year - 75 per cent more than other buses, the figures reveal.
>Mr Pope, chairman of the Assembly's transport committee, said: "These figures are alarming and worryingly high.
>Today's figures show that bendy buses cause 5.6 pedestrian injuries per million miles operated, compared with 2.6 for all other buses.
>They are involved in 2.62 collisions with cyclists per million miles, compared with 0.97 for other buses. And they have 153 accidents per million miles, compared with only 87 per million on non-bendy routes.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/bendy-buses-the-fatal-facts-6588794.html

>>1025757
The joke flew right over your head, didn't it?
Anon was only pretending to be retarded.

File: nintchdbpict000281723884.jpg (192KB, 960x639px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 960x639px

Obsolete 1850s tech 'tram system' peddlers have blood on their hands.

>Pic: En route to the scrapyard after workers cover the affected rail death cage in blue tarps.

>>1021115
>>1021115

I have an unrelated question.
Where do I get a cheap commuter bike from? I need something for less than £50, as it will be left outside the house overnight. And not stolen. All the self-owned bike stores have racing bikes for >£600 or kiddies bikes.

My commute is ~15min on bike, and 1h walking (or 50min on the bus).

>>1026292
also to make my post relevant. Why do we have seats on the underground? anyone not able to stand for their commute is either in a care home, or getting a (tax-payer funded) shuttle connection.

You could fit twice as many people if there were only standing spots. Compare new District/Ham./Circle trains to the old Piccadilly trains.

>>1025890
>being so dumb you can't even handle bendy buses without a pedestrian holocaust
wow great argument against londoners being dumb

>>1025944
Uh y-yeah, exactly, I w-was j-just pretending to be r-retarded, haha, jokes on you!

File: lowq_bait.jpg (16KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 600x600px

>>1026221

I'm from london too op, south london so I also have the joy of arbitrary rail strikes ad infinitum

>>1026296
You try dodging the rear of a bendy bus as it mounts the pavement on a tight turn in the peak.

>>1026292
Look at ebay and craigslist. But you should spend a bit more and get something low end from Halfords. Also you can't keep it outside, it will get damaged by the rain long before it's stolen.
http://www.halfords.com/cycling/bikes/road-bikes/carrera-zelos-mens-road-bike

>>1026296

bruh. They call them BENDY buses in official statements.

Not articulating buses, like any other grown up. But a fucking BENDY bus.

>>1025539

I just came from spending a week in central london and some of the old areas and i swear that your roads are fucking straight and broad. Sure i saw a couple of small roads but who the hell is going to send a tram or even a bus up a dead end residential street?

Your pic doesnt even show a tight corner

>>1027502
>I take the bendy to get my tendies weeee

File: IMG_7143.png (8KB, 59x47px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 59x47px

>>1021115
She saw you OP. You just missed the love of your life. So fucking meta boyo!

>>1026294
The MBTA took the seats out of a red line train, which I like a lot better and fits more people, but for some reason they haven't made any more and almost never run it. They still have a few seats in them for accessibility purposes (there's a pretty wide gap between people able to balance standing up on a subway for extended periods of time while possibly not having anything to hold on to, and people in a care home), and I think the first car is a normal one for the same reason, but not having to be pretty much on top of someone sitting down makes standing a lot more comfortable, and there are extra grab bars so you can fill the entire train.

>>1022663
ay amigo mío, soy el OP y uno de los sitios a los que me molaría largarme es bcn xd