"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 14:53:29 +0100, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 10:34:49 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

public transport .
At present, it is inconvenient, expensive and time consuming to use,
is generally filthy and smelly.

How would you know?

:-)

Mary


I recently went on a bus, a train and the London Underground.

On a brand new train, the seats are ripped, there's graffiti on the
walls and there are bogies parked on the backs of the seats.

Andy! Couldn't you control yourself :-)))

It would take two buses running at infrequent and erratic times to go
to the next town with a time of nearly an hour. Why would I want to
do that when I can be there in ten minutes in the car when I want to
go?

That doesn't make them filthy and smelly.

Move to Leeds. Our buses are very good and frequent. Some are pure luxury.
We don't have an underground (although I believe that not all are like the
admittedly horrid London underground) and I've certainly never seen a train
such as you describe.

In a Sunday supplement not long ago, there was an article about the
world's metropolitan underground railways.

The Moscow metro was described as "Trains let loose in a subterranean
winter palace"

The Tube was described as "Trains let loose in a public toilet".

That sums it up.

Well, if it were in a Sunday supplement it must be true.

er - how often do you travel on the Moscow Metro?

Mary

.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl