On 2007-02-06 13:12:48 +0000, "dennis@home"
said:


"John" wrote in message
...

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Bob Eager wrote:
That's assuming there is a choice. Nearest suitable school for my kids
is at least 8 miles away. Terrible public transport (1.5hrs by bus).
We've sent him FURTHER away so he can go by train. GIvernments never
seem to grasp that a big stick won't work if there is no alternative.

Hmm. Every one wants to have a free choice where they live, work and send
the kids to school - and *always* have an excuse about PT in their area
not being suitable for either. So we have the inevitable congestion on
the
roads.

It's not just an excuse here. We live just 3.2 miles away from the second
largest bus station in western europe
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preston_Bus_Station) but we get just *one*
bus every half-hour up to 6.15pm and then *nothing* after that; the bus
service just stops at 6.15 until the next day.

That is to cut down on pollution caused by buses..
A bus with less than about 6-10 passengers on it is going to increase
pollution so you have to stop running them.
Don't believe all the hype about buses solving the problem.. they only do so
if managed to ensure they have passengers on them.
Shame that managing them inconveniences the passengers.

Which is fundamentally one reason why they have such limited appeal.