On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 18:21:08 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
I didn't say that I wanted unrestricted road access, only that this is
a poor way to achieve it and to fix the transport issue in general.
It is a negative approach, not a positive one.
The correct way would be to make public transport attractive to use,
not to make private transport less attractive. Even with that,
public transport still has the limitation that it goes from point A to
point B at time T. The customer wants to go from point C to point D
and when they want to do so.
Then they generally have a short walk at either end. Is this so bad?
Not at all, but it isn't always short, people may be carrying things
that make walking for any distance impractical, and there shouldn't be
compulsion.
And if you increase the capacity of PT by making it more frequent so
overcrowding is less at peak times it makes it even more 'inefficient'
cost wise overall.
There is another of its problems.
Non-polluting taxis would be a better solution than to force people to
cram into metal cans which are vulnerable to the situation that we have
seen this past week.
Taxis would be no better than any other PT, because those who seem to
dislike close proximity to strangers would want to travel alone. And then
the taxi will be driving around empty much of the time. And then there's
the cost. I dunno what the cost per passenger mile subsidy is on PT in
London, but at the moment a taxi costs roughly 6 times the fare - more if
it's a longish journey.
They shouldn't be.
First of all, emissions could be addressed substantially by switching
to alternative types of fuel than diesel.
Secondly, cities in many other countries, and a few in the UK, have a
GPS and computer integrated booking system so that virtually all trips
are through a control centre and vehicle movements are optimised.
There is no need for taxis to be driving around empty for any length
of time looking for business.
There are two sides to commuting. One is that it is unpleasant and a
waste of time for people who do it, especially when they can work at
home. On the other hand, there are businesses and businesses that
support those businesses who rely on people being in face to face
contact. If they are no longer able to do that, then the supporting
businesses disappear. There is an economic effect.
I'm not denying any of that. Just the seemed view that it is fine to live
where you want and commute how you want. And complain about PT subsidies.
The end result of allowing this unchecked will be grid lock, which will do
those businesses who really do need free flowing traffic no good at all.
--
..andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com