Lets have green public transport
In article ,
Bill Wright wrote: We all have the option where we live and work. No we don't. Life isn't that simple. What if you have dependent relatives at one location and the only work is at another, as one small example? Take the dependant relatives with you when you move close to work. -- *Who are these kids and why are they calling me Mom? Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Lets have green public transport
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote: Sit at a pavement cafe in London's West End as the crawling diesels of the taxis, vans and buses hurt your ears and belch out smoke. When a Pius crawls past with the rest of them past the absence of noise is heaven. And there would be even less noise and pollution - let alone congestion - if that smug Pious driver used PT. It is far too big a car for UK city only use, given it will invariably be driver only. -- *When cheese gets its picture taken, what does it say? * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Lets have green public transport
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , "Doctor Drivel" wrote: "Tim Streater" wrote in message ... The Prius is better all around in mpg. But as two of my nephews who own them say, you won't get your money back on one of these. They are cost effective in London as they pay no Congestion Charge. Their emissions are far less than the poisoning crap we now have. The low noise levels alone are worth. Most car noise is from tires, not the engine. depends on the frequency..and speed, and the car! actually AIR noise is higher at high speeds. Go to an F1 race and tell me most noise is from the tyres :-) |
Lets have green public transport
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , "Doctor Drivel" wrote: "Tim Streater" wrote in message ... In article , Tony Bryer wrote: On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 00:54:09 -0000 Doctor Drivel wrote : Most tram systems are a joke. Electric buses that costs an absolute fortune. Melbourne's tram system is progressively being extended. Trams last a long time compared with modern buses - our A & B class trams have been running since the mid 1980s - and can carry lots of people: our newest five section trams can carry 240 people. Trams are only feasible where roads are wide enough. Most roads in UK cities are not wide enough. This sort of thing was touted frequently by lefty press when I lived near Cambridge - what about trams or overhead railway to cross the city. Typical pie in the sky b/s that overlooked the narrow streets and, in the case of overhead railway, what the residents might think about having trains rumbling past ten feet from their front bedrooms. Modern tunnelling is cheap - boring or cut & cover. Say two tunnels right under Cambridge, that meet in a croass the centre with a big underground station that maybe linking with the mainline station. Oh, cut and cover under Cambridge! What a novel idea! if price were no object - and frankly with these huge renewable/eco/white elephant/my towns green dick is bigger than yours/misguided bus/ type projects it seldom is - its a VERY sane approach to organising what Cambridge actually wants and needs - essentially a parkland/pedestrian/cycling/disabled only/ surface, and still the ability to get people in and out efficiently (and goods and materials), and of course still have an airfield as well. Of course they would ruin it by covering it with solar panels, but that's the stupidity of Cambridge. |
Lets have green public transport
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , "Doctor Drivel" wrote: "Tim Streater" wrote in message ... In article , "Doctor Drivel" wrote: "Tim Streater" wrote in message ... In article , Tony Bryer wrote: On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 00:54:09 -0000 Doctor Drivel wrote : Most tram systems are a joke. Electric buses that costs an absolute fortune. Melbourne's tram system is progressively being extended. Trams last a long time compared with modern buses - our A & B class trams have been running since the mid 1980s - and can carry lots of people: our newest five section trams can carry 240 people. Trams are only feasible where roads are wide enough. Most roads in UK cities are not wide enough. This sort of thing was touted frequently by lefty press when I lived near Cambridge - what about trams or overhead railway to cross the city. Typical pie in the sky b/s that overlooked the narrow streets and, in the case of overhead railway, what the residents might think about having trains rumbling past ten feet from their front bedrooms. Modern tunnelling is cheap - boring or cut & cover. Say two tunnels right under Cambridge, that meet in a croass the centre with a big underground station that maybe linking with the mainline station. Oh, cut and cover under Cambridge! What a novel idea! Pay attention! It said, "Modern tunnelling is cheap - boring or cut & cover." One boring machine at one end drive right under a town. Cheap enough. Unlikely. Boring is considered cheap rather than run over National parks and the likes. No land purchases or eco court cases. They were considering running the HS2 under the Pennines in tunnel from Manchester to Leeds How about doing neither. How about instead usign a fraction of the money to improve existing lines. Upgrade main lines to 4 tracks as we have discussed before. # My mate when asked what was most in need of investment in Railtrack said 'level crossings and bridges' |
Lets have green public transport
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , "Doctor Drivel" wrote: "The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message ... The point he made (drivel is kill filed) Please keep me killfiled. is that the whole railway/signalling/staffing/safety infrastructure was very expensive, and surprisingly carbon emitting in terms of upkeep. The signalling is super expensive as a US corporation has the monopoly - Westinghouse. The TRAINS were good enough, but the track..that was another matter.. Straight tracks last and last. a) The tracks are not straight. Good luck trying to straighten them b) Straight or not, they require *maintenance*. You may have heard of it. Drivel lives in a planet of idealised simplistic concepts drip fed on a diet of chlorpromazine. Don't be hard on him. |
Lets have green public transport
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , Doctor Drivel wrote: Despite the countless real world road tests he still believes 'official' figures. The Prius Mk 3 does 75 mpg. Yeh yeh. More denial. well so does a skoda diesel driven at the same performance you would get from a Priapus. |
Lets have green public transport
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , Bill Wright wrote: We all have the option where we live and work. No we don't. Life isn't that simple. What if you have dependent relatives at one location and the only work is at another, as one small example? Take the dependant relatives with you when you move close to work. Take them away from their circle of friends? Bill |
Lets have green public transport
In article ,
Huge wrote: Given the vast taxpayer subsidy to commuter travel in the SE, who is robbing who? Given the vast amount of taxes paid in the SE compared to the rest of the country, who is robbing who? I'm surprised at you, Huge. Thought you didn't like subsidies on anything? -- *In "Casablanca", Humphrey Bogart never said "Play it again, Sam" * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Lets have green public transport
On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 11:35:36 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:
Most car noise is from tires, not the engine. And in Drivel's case, from the air rushing in through his ears to fill the vacuum in his head... |
Lets have green public transport
On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 11:53:43 +0000, Doctor Drivel wrote:
Most car noise is from tires, not the engine. Sit at a pavement cafe in London's West End ... No thanks. Too many people. Live around cows then Cows can't drive, you buffoon! |
Lets have green public transport
On 21/12/2011 11:37, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , "Doctor Drivel" wrote: "Tim Streater" wrote in message ... In article , Tony Bryer wrote: On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 00:54:09 -0000 Doctor Drivel wrote : Most tram systems are a joke. Electric buses that costs an absolute fortune. Melbourne's tram system is progressively being extended. Trams last a long time compared with modern buses - our A & B class trams have been running since the mid 1980s - and can carry lots of people: our newest five section trams can carry 240 people. Trams are only feasible where roads are wide enough. Most roads in UK cities are not wide enough. This sort of thing was touted frequently by lefty press when I lived near Cambridge - what about trams or overhead railway to cross the city. Typical pie in the sky b/s that overlooked the narrow streets and, in the case of overhead railway, what the residents might think about having trains rumbling past ten feet from their front bedrooms. Modern tunnelling is cheap - boring or cut & cover. Say two tunnels right under Cambridge, that meet in a croass the centre with a big underground station that maybe linking with the mainline station. Oh, cut and cover under Cambridge! What a novel idea! Reckon the scuba equipment will be provided by the tunnel owners? |
Lets have green public transport
In article ,
Huge wrote: On 2011-12-21, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , Bill Wright wrote: We all have the option where we live and work. No we don't. Life isn't that simple. What if you have dependent relatives at one location and the only work is at another, as one small example? Take the dependant relatives with you when you move close to work. Odd. You're normally a rather sensible, if somewhat argumentative person. Have you omitted your medication lately? It is, of course, up to the individual if they choose to live a long way from either relatives or work. But if they then whinge on and on about the time, cost or inconvenience of travelling? And it's not new either Had colleagues doing just that in the '60s. -- *Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Lets have green public transport
In article ,
Bill Wright wrote: Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , Bill Wright wrote: We all have the option where we live and work. No we don't. Life isn't that simple. What if you have dependent relatives at one location and the only work is at another, as one small example? Take the dependant relatives with you when you move close to work. Take them away from their circle of friends? Seems to me you want your cake and eat it. For free. The only type of travel that is (near enough) free is walking or cycling. All others have a considerable cost. The argument is if that should be paid for entirely by the traveller or subsidised by the community. And of course the ratio between them. I'd say it is impossible to provide mass transport systems into the likes of London which provide a comfortable space for everyone at all times and is 100% reliable. But if anyone knows how I'm sure we'd all like to hear it. -- *Why is the time of day with the slowest traffic called rush hour? Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Lets have green public transport
"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message ... "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ... I take it you haven't looked at the vast range of cars in the same tax band based on emissions? The emissions regs should be tightened. Well that would remove the Prius so you are probably correct. |
Lets have green public transport
"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message ... "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ... In article , Doctor Drivel wrote: Despite the countless real world road tests he still believes 'official' figures. The Prius Mk 3 does 75 mpg. Yeh yeh. More denial. Again for the hard of thinking.. The Prius Mk 3 does 75 mpg. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ml2sPeCQIJw Really good, it even shows that the prius can do a whole 1.7 miles at 30 mph before its battery is flat. Then the idiot presenter says that is free. Just where does he think the energy comes from? |
Lets have green public transport
Neil Williams wrote:
On Dec 21, 12:13 am, "ARWadsworth" wrote: That's about walking speed. If you've ever walked down Oxford Street you'll have noted that :) Cycling in London (even without playing silly antics and overtaking on the inside and jumping red lights like many idiots do) is generally faster than travel by bus. Even a Boris Bike is faster than the bus and I can match a 3 mile tube journey too (because, whilst the tube is quick, all the walking at both ends isn't). -- Tim Watts |
Lets have green public transport
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , Huge wrote: Never was I happier than the day I no longer had to commute into London by train. No more paying collossal sums of money, with double-digit percentage increases every year, to be treated like ****. No more being stranded on freezing cold stations with no-where to shelter for hours on end. No more hours spent every day waiting for "services" which never came. No more being jammed into carriages in conditions which would bring prosecution if it were animals rather than people. No more out-of-order (or just plain closed) toilets. We all have the option where we live and work. If you decide to live miles away from work - for whatever reason - what is the alternative? You presumably used the train because despite the conditions it was a better choice overall than driving. No we don't. I don't think my salary would stretch to living in Drury Lane or anywhere near it... From then on, it's public transport one way or another... -- Tim Watts |
Lets have green public transport
On Dec 21, 4:39*pm, Tim Watts wrote:
Even a Boris Bike is faster than the bus and I can match a 3 mile tube journey too (because, whilst the tube is quick, all the walking at both ends isn't). I regularly use one between Euston and Paddington and vice-versa and it roughly matches using the Choob time-wise so long as a bike/docking station is available near the required locations. Neil |
Lets have green public transport
On Dec 21, 4:43*pm, Tim Watts wrote:
No we don't. I don't think my salary would stretch to living in Drury Lane or anywhere near it... But in the end taking that job with the commute is a choice. It might however be that the other choice is highly undesirable, e.g. unemployment, and thus that it was not a viable one. Neil |
Lets have green public transport
Bill Wright wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , Bill Wright wrote: We all have the option where we live and work. No we don't. Life isn't that simple. What if you have dependent relatives at one location and the only work is at another, as one small example? Take the dependant relatives with you when you move close to work. Take them away from their circle of friends? Euthanase them first. Then sell them for carbon credits. That's the Green Way, innit? Bill |
Lets have green public transport
Jules Richardson wrote:
On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 11:35:36 +0000, Tim Streater wrote: Most car noise is from tires, not the engine. And in Drivel's case, from the air rushing in through his ears to fill the vacuum in his head... I suspect the larger noise is from his mum in the passenger seat... |
Lets have green public transport
Clive George wrote:
On 21/12/2011 11:37, Tim Streater wrote: In article , "Doctor Drivel" wrote: "Tim Streater" wrote in message ... In article , Tony Bryer wrote: On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 00:54:09 -0000 Doctor Drivel wrote : Most tram systems are a joke. Electric buses that costs an absolute fortune. Melbourne's tram system is progressively being extended. Trams last a long time compared with modern buses - our A & B class trams have been running since the mid 1980s - and can carry lots of people: our newest five section trams can carry 240 people. Trams are only feasible where roads are wide enough. Most roads in UK cities are not wide enough. This sort of thing was touted frequently by lefty press when I lived near Cambridge - what about trams or overhead railway to cross the city. Typical pie in the sky b/s that overlooked the narrow streets and, in the case of overhead railway, what the residents might think about having trains rumbling past ten feet from their front bedrooms. Modern tunnelling is cheap - boring or cut & cover. Say two tunnels right under Cambridge, that meet in a croass the centre with a big underground station that maybe linking with the mainline station. Oh, cut and cover under Cambridge! What a novel idea! Reckon the scuba equipment will be provided by the tunnel owners? Wot, like it is in the Chunnel? |
Lets have green public transport
dennis@home wrote:
"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message ... "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ... In article , Doctor Drivel wrote: Despite the countless real world road tests he still believes 'official' figures. The Prius Mk 3 does 75 mpg. Yeh yeh. More denial. Again for the hard of thinking.. The Prius Mk 3 does 75 mpg. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ml2sPeCQIJw Really good, it even shows that the prius can do a whole 1.7 miles at 30 mph before its battery is flat. Then the idiot presenter says that is free. Just where does he think the energy comes from? Magic Pixie Dust - same as every other 'green technology' |
Lets have green public transport
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher wrote: Tim Streater wrote: In article , "Doctor Drivel" wrote: "Tim Streater" wrote in message ... In article , Tony Bryer wrote: On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 00:54:09 -0000 Doctor Drivel wrote : Most tram systems are a joke. Electric buses that costs an absolute fortune. Melbourne's tram system is progressively being extended. Trams last a long time compared with modern buses - our A & B class trams have been running since the mid 1980s - and can carry lots of people: our newest five section trams can carry 240 people. Trams are only feasible where roads are wide enough. Most roads in UK cities are not wide enough. This sort of thing was touted frequently by lefty press when I lived near Cambridge - what about trams or overhead railway to cross the city. Typical pie in the sky b/s that overlooked the narrow streets and, in the case of overhead railway, what the residents might think about having trains rumbling past ten feet from their front bedrooms. Modern tunnelling is cheap - boring or cut & cover. Say two tunnels right under Cambridge, that meet in a croass the centre with a big underground station that maybe linking with the mainline station. Oh, cut and cover under Cambridge! What a novel idea! if price were no object - and frankly with these huge renewable/eco/white elephant/my towns green dick is bigger than yours/misguided bus/ type projects it seldom is - its a VERY sane approach to organising what Cambridge actually wants and needs - essentially a parkland/pedestrian/cycling/disabled only/ surface, and still the ability to get people in and out efficiently (and goods and materials), and of course still have an airfield as well. Possibly but cost *is* important. Are you aware BTW that one reason for the guided bus was that the Labour Govt said if you don't take this £95M towards it, you won't get the A14 improvement. Since the A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon is a ****ing death-trap, that amounted to Hobson's choice. well that's Laber 4 U innit? |
Lets have green public transport
On Dec 20, 10:53*pm, "ARWadsworth"
wrote: The Natural Philosopher wrote: Bill Wright wrote: The Natural Philosopher wrote: a bit of it is coming from nuclear power at least. Well yes, the mix also includes other renewables. Sure. in homeopathic doses..:-) I wonder how much harrys solar panels contribute to the buses overnight charge up? -- Adam None, they charge with their own diesel engine, |
Lets have green public transport
On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 13:31:28 -0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote: Drivel lives in a planet of idealised simplistic concepts drip fed on a diet of chlorpromazine. Don't be hard on him. Hey, I've got some of that... -- Rod |
Lets have green public transport
On Dec 21, 1:30*am, Bill Wright wrote:
Neil Williams wrote: On Dec 20, 2:49 pm, Bill Wright wrote: Anyway what's green about running a bus on batteries? Because you can put energy back into them when braking, And how much energy will that provide? The energy wasted when braking is very small. Most fuel is used combating rolling resistance and wind resistance. London is not the sort of place where buses drop down long hills on their brakes. If the driver anticipates properly very little energy is wasted in braking for traffic conditions. Better to start a bonus scheme where the driver's pay is linked to his fuel consumption. That's the scheme all the self-employed are on, and believe me it works. just like a lot of modern trains put energy back into the overhead wire (assuming something is there to consume it) when they brake. That's different because the infrastructure and engineering are already there, so don't add weight and complexity. Even if that only wins back a few percent it's probably worthwhile. But diesel buses? Give over! I don't believe there is any plan to charge the batteries overnight, the diesel engine will do that. So given that the process of generating electricity, storing it in batteries, and then using it to drive motors is highly inefficient, how is this going to save diesel? Don't forget the weight of the batteries has to be lugged around as well. Bonkers! Bill Both batteries and electric motors have moved forward hugely in the efficiency stakes. Also, the electronic control sytems are typicallly better than 95% efficient. About town most losses are due to braking. Aerodynamic drag is low and friction is low with modern engines and lubricants. On the motorway most losses are aerodynamic, the big one varies with the square of speed. ie twice as fast = four times the losses. |
Lets have green public transport
polygonum wrote:
On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 13:31:28 -0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: Drivel lives in a planet of idealised simplistic concepts drip fed on a diet of chlorpromazine. Don't be hard on him. Hey, I've got some of that... well DO NOT take it unless you want to be a limp dribbling idiot for 48 hours. The first 24 hours were OK because I hadn't slept in 5 days, but the next were a constant desire to get up make coffee, drink it, and then collapse in a heap again and look blankly out at a meaningless universe. Conversely, it is probably a sane reaction to 13 years of labour 'government'. Which I would guess is all Drivel has ever known.. |
Lets have green public transport
On Dec 21, 1:48*am, Bill Wright wrote:
Doctor Drivel wrote: All this does is avoid a small amount of pollution in London at the cost of causing a lot of pollution in the countryside. Where no one lives. Boy you are dumb! There are more people in the countryside than there are in London. And we grow our food there. |
Lets have green public transport
On Dec 21, 9:18*am, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , *"Doctor Drivel" wrote: "The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message ... 'Just a lot of people who never grew out of train sets: hugely expensive way to move stuff around: roads much cheaper' Trains are very cheap and FAST being on segregated tracks. Until one breaks down. Then the interesting inability of trains to overtake comes into play. -- Tim That is where trolley buses come in. |
Lets have green public transport
On Dec 21, 9:32*am, Huge wrote:
On 2011-12-21, Tim Streater wrote: In article , *"Doctor Drivel" wrote: "The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message ... 'Just a lot of people who never grew out of train sets: hugely expensive way to move stuff around: roads much cheaper' Trains are very cheap Yeah, right. and FAST being on segregated tracks. Until one breaks down. Then the interesting inability of trains to overtake comes into play. Never was I happier than the day I no longer had to commute into London by train. No more paying collossal sums of money, with double-digit percentage increases every year, to be treated like ****. No more being stranded on freezing cold stations with no-where to shelter for hours on end. No more hours spent every day waiting for "services" which never came. No more being jammed into carriages in conditions which would bring prosecution if it were animals rather than people. No more out-of-order (or just plain closed) toilets. Oh, the joy of working at home. Privatisation was supposedto fix all that! I don't remember any of that when I commuted by BR. |
Lets have green public transport
harry wrote:
On Dec 21, 1:30 am, Bill Wright wrote: Neil Williams wrote: On Dec 20, 2:49 pm, Bill Wright wrote: Anyway what's green about running a bus on batteries? Because you can put energy back into them when braking, And how much energy will that provide? The energy wasted when braking is very small. Most fuel is used combating rolling resistance and wind resistance. London is not the sort of place where buses drop down long hills on their brakes. If the driver anticipates properly very little energy is wasted in braking for traffic conditions. Better to start a bonus scheme where the driver's pay is linked to his fuel consumption. That's the scheme all the self-employed are on, and believe me it works. just like a lot of modern trains put energy back into the overhead wire (assuming something is there to consume it) when they brake. That's different because the infrastructure and engineering are already there, so don't add weight and complexity. Even if that only wins back a few percent it's probably worthwhile. But diesel buses? Give over! I don't believe there is any plan to charge the batteries overnight, the diesel engine will do that. So given that the process of generating electricity, storing it in batteries, and then using it to drive motors is highly inefficient, how is this going to save diesel? Don't forget the weight of the batteries has to be lugged around as well. Bonkers! Bill Both batteries and electric motors have moved forward hugely in the efficiency stakes. No they haven't. 95% efficient motors have been around forevere - at a price. Battery efficiency is a function largely of the technology and how hard you push them. Neither has changed Also, the electronic control sytems are typicallly better than 95% efficient. About town most losses are due to braking. Aerodynamic drag is low and friction is low with modern engines and lubricants. On the motorway most losses are aerodynamic, the big one varies with the square of speed. ie twice as fast = four times the losses. We now that harry |
Lets have green public transport
harry wrote:
Until one breaks down. Then the interesting inability of trains to overtake comes into play. -- Tim That is where trolley buses come in. I've never seen a trolley bus overtake another one on the same pair of wires.. Dickhead |
Lets have green public transport
harry wrote:
On Dec 21, 9:32 am, Huge wrote: On 2011-12-21, Tim Streater wrote: In article , "Doctor Drivel" wrote: "The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message ... 'Just a lot of people who never grew out of train sets: hugely expensive way to move stuff around: roads much cheaper' Trains are very cheap Yeah, right. and FAST being on segregated tracks. Until one breaks down. Then the interesting inability of trains to overtake comes into play. Never was I happier than the day I no longer had to commute into London by train. No more paying collossal sums of money, with double-digit percentage increases every year, to be treated like ****. No more being stranded on freezing cold stations with no-where to shelter for hours on end. No more hours spent every day waiting for "services" which never came. No more being jammed into carriages in conditions which would bring prosecution if it were animals rather than people. No more out-of-order (or just plain closed) toilets. Oh, the joy of working at home. Privatisation was supposedto fix all that! I don't remember any of that when I commuted by BR. Do you in fact remember ANYTHING, harry? |
Lets have green public transport
On Dec 21, 11:03*am, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote: "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in ... In article , * Doctor Drivel wrote: It the prius problem, you can run a fully charged prius for a few miles and claim its green, if you run the same prius for a hundred miles it uses more fuel than a medium diesel car and it isn't green at all. The Prius is better all around in mpg. Despite the countless real world road tests he still believes 'official' figures. The Prius Mk 3 does 75 mpg. *It is the Volt you should be looking at. I notice the anti-Christs who want to poison the earth forget this car. You can get that froma normal diesel car for a lot less money. |
Lets have green public transport
On Dec 21, 11:35*am, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , *"Doctor Drivel" wrote: "Tim Streater" wrote in message ... The Prius is better all around in mpg. But as two of my nephews who own them say, you won't get your money back on one of these. They are cost effective in London as they pay no Congestion Charge. *Their emissions are far less than the poisoning crap we now have. *The low noise levels alone are worth. Most car noise is from tires, not the engine. Clearly you have never ridden on a trolley bus. Depends on the speed. Most is in fact from engine cooling fan. |
Lets have green public transport
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote: We all have the option where we live and work. If you decide to live miles away from work - for whatever reason - what is the alternative? You presumably used the train because despite the conditions it was a better choice overall than driving. No we don't. I don't think my salary would stretch to living in Drury Lane or anywhere near it... You'd be surprised how many 'cheap' properties there are very close to even Drury Lane. Certainly within that 3 mile bike ride you mentioned earlier. But of course you may not choose to live in them. So no different from those who have say an average house or flat in London 'worth' say 400 grand and decide they'd rather have a much larger one elsewhere. -- *It ain't the size, it's... er... no, it IS ..the size. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Lets have green public transport
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote: Ha ha v. funny. Road freight is at least 80% of the total. Our rail network strains to take the other 20%. To make much difference you'd have to make that 60/40, that is at least a doubling of the amount of freight on the railway. Could you kindly indicate which lines you think it's gonna be on? Why do you think I was suggesting going to four tracks as much as possible? That way the slow freight could mix with the slow local trains. Freight often runs overnight. As you'd see if you catch any late trains round London. And that could likely be increased. 20% may not sound like much, but putting that 20% on the roads would cause chaos. -- *Never slap a man who's chewing tobacco * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Lets have green public transport
Jules Richardson wrote:
On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 11:53:43 +0000, Doctor Drivel wrote: Most car noise is from tires, not the engine. Sit at a pavement cafe in London's West End ... No thanks. Too many people. Live around cows then Cows can't drive, you buffoon! No but they can moove rapidly and they have noxious exhausts. Bill |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:17 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter