Mike Barnes wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 01/04/15 10:24, Capitol wrote:
I spent my childhood experiencing the cold wet joys of traveling on
filthy public transport. There's no way I'm going back to it. It's
another socialist dream.

+10001

Neither of you has flown Emirates First Class recently, then?


Sadly, no, but I'd like to. Unfortunately the places I fly to have a
choice between BA and UA. They have managed to organise a cartel, so the
tickets I just bought have increased in price by 35% in 6 months. The
government describes this as zero inflation.

On 01/04/2015 10:24, Capitol wrote:
....
I spent my childhood experiencing the cold wet joys of traveling on
filthy public transport. ...

I don't recall the London Transport of my youth being dirty, apart from
the inevitable discolouration and smell in the smoking areas.


--
Colin Bignell

On 01/04/15 16:50, wrote:
On Wed, 01 Apr 2015 11:16:30 +0100, Tim Watts
wrote:

On 01/04/15 09:41, stuart noble wrote:
Each bus must have carried a rather
long pole

I believe the London ones did have a long pole.

The latvin trolley buses I've been on are much more elegant - each of
the two wires retracts into a spring loaded reel on the back of the bus
(think vacuum cleaner cord retract) but it is nit string enough to
overcome the upwards spring in the pickup pole - so it reels in and out
as the pole moves.

Trolley retrievers . Hardly used in the UK though one system which
started to adopt modern practice started to use them,Walsall?

I'm guessing your Latvian examples are single deck

Yes they were.

Good point - had not thought how i would work with a double decker...

where as UK ones
were mainly double deck. This meant the ropes from the spring loaded
reels could in some circumstances on a sharp bend become caught on the
rear "corners" of a double Decker , on a single they would clear it.
So the bamboo pole was the usual method. another contributor mentioned
the bamboo being hung on the side which was a sensible place to hang
it but many like London kept them underneath to be pulled out
rearwards. problem was as traffic got busier how many following
vehicles left a 20ft gap so the pole could be pulled out.
Chaos usually ensued until a gap could be made even in the 60's.
At places where dewirements were likely such as busy road junction
between routes a bamboo pole was usually kept hanging from one of the
kerbside poles that supported the wires.
Very occasionally the wires fell down .
Some may have seen this elsewhere.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmuhKWtW5Yg

G.Harman

On 01/04/2015 14:39, wrote:
On Wednesday, April 1, 2015 at 9:23:07 AM UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 01/04/2015 08:11, wrote:
On Tuesday, March 31, 2015 at 10:57:39 PM UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 31/03/2015 21:00, Capitol wrote:
Nightjar cpb@ wrote:

They also work well if run through pedestrianised areas, both keeping
them separate from other traffic and putting them close to where people
want them.

Pedestrianised areas are bad news for local town centre shops (and
locally for small shopping areas). A number of US towns have
depedestianised the town centre as no one would go there.

Which is why you need public transport bringing people into them.

A whole lot of people arent into the time waste of public transport

If the area is pedestrianised, the only other option is walking.

there are a couple more options
1. don't pedestrianise

I am strongly in favour of traffic separation, wherever possible.

2. have available or rentable individual transport units of any of several sorts

That is only a different form of public transport. Indeed, driverless
shuttles, such as those being tested at Greenwich, may be the future of
public transport.

This is
the sort of area I had in mind:

http://goo.gl/maps/PujcD

Unfortunately they seem to have photographed that at night, during a power cut & new moon.

Works fine form me, using Chrome. It is the Homme de Fer Square in
Strasbourg if you want to find it for yourself.


--
Colin Bignell

In article ,
Nightjar cpb@ insert my surname here.me.uk wrote:
On 01/04/2015 10:24, Capitol wrote:
...
I spent my childhood experiencing the cold wet joys of traveling
on filthy public transport. ...

I don't recall the London Transport of my youth being dirty, apart from
the inevitable discolouration and smell in the smoking areas.

I use PT in London quite a bit. I've more sense than to spend ages driving
into Central London and then pay a fortune to park. And most of the buses,
underground and overground trains are relatively new and well kept.
Willing to bet the seats are cleaned more frequently than the average
private car too.

--
*For every action, there is an equal and opposite criticism *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Wednesday, April 1, 2015 at 5:17:29 PM UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 01/04/2015 14:39, wrote:
On Wednesday, April 1, 2015 at 9:23:07 AM UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 01/04/2015 08:11, wrote:
On Tuesday, March 31, 2015 at 10:57:39 PM UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 31/03/2015 21:00, Capitol wrote:
Nightjar cpb@ wrote:

They also work well if run through pedestrianised areas, both keeping
them separate from other traffic and putting them close to where people
want them.

Pedestrianised areas are bad news for local town centre shops (and
locally for small shopping areas). A number of US towns have
depedestianised the town centre as no one would go there.

Which is why you need public transport bringing people into them.

A whole lot of people arent into the time waste of public transport

If the area is pedestrianised, the only other option is walking.

there are a couple more options
1. don't pedestrianise

I am strongly in favour of traffic separation, wherever possible.

2. have available or rentable individual transport units of any of several sorts

That is only a different form of public transport. Indeed, driverless
shuttles, such as those being tested at Greenwich, may be the future of
public transport.

Its something very different to what we know as public transport. The main problems with uk public transport are
a) the vehicle usually doesnt go from your origin or to your destination
b) journey time is generally hugely increased compared to car travel, resulting in a vast waste of human resource.

Hirable vehicles of some sort would go part way to solving it, but only part way. Permitting small vehicles, eg kart size, in all zones might, if implemented sufficiently well, be the best option.


NT

On Wednesday, April 1, 2015 at 5:17:29 PM UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 01/04/2015 14:39, wrote:
On Wednesday, April 1, 2015 at 9:23:07 AM UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 01/04/2015 08:11, wrote:

This is
the sort of area I had in mind:

http://goo.gl/maps/PujcD

Unfortunately they seem to have photographed that at night, during a power cut & new moon.

Works fine form me, using Chrome. It is the Homme de Fer Square in
Strasbourg if you want to find it for yourself.

Looked on google maps, unfortunately it shows no informative detail


NT

On Wednesday, April 1, 2015 at 6:07:37 PM UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Nightjar cpb@ insert my surname here.me.uk wrote:
On 01/04/2015 10:24, Capitol wrote:
...
I spent my childhood experiencing the cold wet joys of traveling
on filthy public transport. ...

I don't recall the London Transport of my youth being dirty, apart from
the inevitable discolouration and smell in the smoking areas.

I use PT in London quite a bit. I've more sense than to spend ages driving
into Central London and then pay a fortune to park. And most of the buses,
underground and overground trains are relatively new and well kept.
Willing to bet the seats are cleaned more frequently than the average
private car too.

Public transport in London is a bit different to elsewhere, its unavoidable and the area generally high rent, so its relatively dense & well run. Last time I used PT I waited hours, literally, for a grossly late early morning bus to arrive. By the time I arrived in London the rather important meeting was almost over. Very practical.


NT

On 01/04/2015 18:05, wrote:
On Wednesday, April 1, 2015 at 5:17:29 PM UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 01/04/2015 14:39, wrote:
On Wednesday, April 1, 2015 at 9:23:07 AM UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 01/04/2015 08:11, wrote:
On Tuesday, March 31, 2015 at 10:57:39 PM UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 31/03/2015 21:00, Capitol wrote:
Nightjar cpb@ wrote:

They also work well if run through pedestrianised areas, both keeping
them separate from other traffic and putting them close to where people
want them.

Pedestrianised areas are bad news for local town centre shops (and
locally for small shopping areas). A number of US towns have
depedestianised the town centre as no one would go there.

Which is why you need public transport bringing people into them.

A whole lot of people arent into the time waste of public transport

If the area is pedestrianised, the only other option is walking.

there are a couple more options
1. don't pedestrianise

I am strongly in favour of traffic separation, wherever possible.

2. have available or rentable individual transport units of any of several sorts

That is only a different form of public transport. Indeed, driverless
shuttles, such as those being tested at Greenwich, may be the future of
public transport.

Its something very different to what we know as public transport. The main problems with uk public transport are
a) the vehicle usually doesnt go from your origin or to your destination

Taxis do and they are a form of public transport. If necessary, mix with
train, light railway or other long distance PT.

b) journey time is generally hugely increased compared to car travel, resulting in a vast waste of human resource.

Well, I wouldn't do a long distance trip by bus, but around town, the
traffic usually ensures that everybody travels at much the same speed,
unless there are bus lanes, when the bus will probably be quicker. I
also suspect that the days when I could drive across London faster than
getting there by tube have long gone.


Hirable vehicles of some sort would go part way to solving it, but only part way. Permitting small vehicles, eg kart size, in all zones might, if implemented sufficiently well, be the best option.

Which is what some of the driverless car experiments seem to be aimed at
doing.


--
Colin Bignell

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Nightjar cpb@ insert my surname here.me.uk wrote:
On 01/04/2015 10:24, Capitol wrote:
...
I spent my childhood experiencing the cold wet joys of traveling
on filthy public transport. ...

I don't recall the London Transport of my youth being dirty, apart from
the inevitable discolouration and smell in the smoking areas.

I use PT in London quite a bit. I've more sense than to spend ages driving
into Central London and then pay a fortune to park. And most of the buses,
underground and overground trains are relatively new and well kept.
Willing to bet the seats are cleaned more frequently than the average
private car too.

But neither I, nor my passengers, put their feet on my car seats.

--
From KT24 in Surrey

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

"Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 01/04/2015 10:11, whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 March 2015 15:37:18 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 31/03/2015 12:47, Tim Streater wrote:
...
Trams are expensive and more so if they need their own land (i.e. so as
not to be mixed with other traffic).

They also work well if run through pedestrianised areas, both keeping
them separate from other traffic and putting them close to where people
want them.

Like amsterdam ?

I don't know that city. My only visit to the Netherlands was by mistake,
when I missed my turn on a motorway. I was thinking of Strasbourg:

http://goo.gl/maps/PujcD

although that is only one of several places where they seem to work well.

They also need to rely on the city
having been laid out with the possibility of trams in mind when it was
built, which is not the case for most of the UK.

Again, not a problem if the streets have been pedestrianised.

But hwo would somewhere like mcdonalds or any large supermarket get their
deliveries ?...

It is normal for delivery vehicles to be permitted into pedestrianised
areas, if there is no alternative. Sometime the permitted hours are
limited to early morning or overnight.

And in fact if you have a look behind that tram, there are quite a
few vehicles there at that time.

On 4/1/2015 1:04 PM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

I use PT in London quite a bit. I've more sense than to spend ages driving
into Central London and then pay a fortune to park. And most of the buses,
underground and overground trains are relatively new and well kept.
Willing to bet the seats are cleaned more frequently than the average
private car too.

I was amazed, a year or two ago, when I took the underground from
Heathrow to KingsX, at how very clean the trains and platforms all were.
Especially when compared to the NYC subways!

On 01/04/2015 19:38, Tim Streater wrote:
....
However I'd be interested to know what this system cost and who paid
for it.

Full details given he

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strasbourg_tramway

--
Colin Bignell

On 01/04/2015 20:48, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
"cpb"@ wrote:

On 01/04/2015 19:38, Tim Streater wrote:
...
However I'd be interested to know what this system cost and who paid
for it.

Full details given he

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strasbourg_tramway

Thanks. Seems a lot cheaper than the Edinburgh one, however I notice
that it's subsidised by local inhabitants, essentially. Still, they
appear to have voted for it.


TBH, as Strasbourg is the seat of the European Parliament, I was mildly
surprised to discover that it wasn't us who had funded it.

--
Colin Bignell

In message , Mike Barnes
writes
Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 30/03/2015 21:38, wrote:
On Monday, 30 March 2015 17:03:53 UTC+1, Capitol wrote:
Almost nothing. Most on here are too old/frail to do any diy nowadays,

Well really. I'll have you know I only just remember pre-decimal
currency, punched cards, and petrol going over £1 a gallon.


I remember London trams, the farthing and petrol at 2/6d a gallon, but
I'm not yet old or frail.

London trams? They exist today, don't they? :-)

I too am far from old or frail but I remember sugar and sweets being
rationed.

+1 And tea
--
bert

In message , Tim Lamb
writes
In message , Mike Barnes
writes
Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 30/03/2015 21:38, wrote:
On Monday, 30 March 2015 17:03:53 UTC+1, Capitol wrote:
Almost nothing. Most on here are too old/frail to do any diy nowadays,

Well really. I'll have you know I only just remember pre-decimal
currency, punched cards, and petrol going over £1 a gallon.


I remember London trams, the farthing and petrol at 2/6d a gallon, but
I'm not yet old or frail.

London trams? They exist today, don't they? :-)

I too am far from old or frail but I remember sugar and sweets being
rationed.

Yes. I remember when they came off ration... Cadbury's 2oz. milk
chocolate bar for 6d.


Gosh you toff, Able to afford a 6p bar of chocolate.
--
bert

In message , Tim Lamb
writes
In message , Nightjar
writes
On 30/03/2015 21:38, wrote:
On Monday, 30 March 2015 17:03:53 UTC+1, Capitol wrote:
Almost nothing. Most on here are too old/frail to do any diy nowadays,

Well really. I'll have you know I only just remember pre-decimal
currency, punched cards, and petrol going over £1 a gallon.


I remember London trams, the farthing and petrol at 2/6d a gallon, but
I'm not yet old or frail.

I'll raise you Trolley Buses!



Yup I remember those in newcastle u-t
--
bert

In message , Nightjar
writes
On 01/04/2015 20:48, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
"cpb"@ wrote:

On 01/04/2015 19:38, Tim Streater wrote:
...
However I'd be interested to know what this system cost and who paid
for it.

Full details given he

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strasbourg_tramway

Thanks. Seems a lot cheaper than the Edinburgh one, however I notice
that it's subsidised by local inhabitants, essentially. Still, they
appear to have voted for it.


TBH, as Strasbourg is the seat of the European Parliament, I was mildly
surprised to discover that it wasn't us who had funded it.

Just be glad they don't move it back to Brussels every 6 months.
--
bert

bert wrote:
In message , Mike Barnes
writes
Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 30/03/2015 21:38, wrote:
On Monday, 30 March 2015 17:03:53 UTC+1, Capitol wrote:
Almost nothing. Most on here are too old/frail to do any diy nowadays,

Well really. I'll have you know I only just remember pre-decimal
currency, punched cards, and petrol going over £1 a gallon.


I remember London trams, the farthing and petrol at 2/6d a gallon, but
I'm not yet old or frail.

London trams? They exist today, don't they? :-)

I too am far from old or frail but I remember sugar and sweets being
rationed.

+1 And tea

IIRC sweets were derationed twice, have I made it up?

Nightjar cpb@ wrote:
I
also suspect that the days when I could drive across London faster than
getting there by tube have long gone.

I reckon east/west now takes 3hrs between 7am and 7pm. Probably half
that at 1am. Reverse journey is no quicker. North/south I would expect
to be the same. It can take 3hrs on a bad Sunday on the M25 to do the
same journey. I always found M25 clockwise in the morning, slower than
anticlockwise. Reverse for evenings. At 7am, there is a tendency for
everyone to park sideways on the M25, therefore you must be off it
before then.

On Wed, 01 Apr 2015 21:53:24 +0100, bert wrote:

In message , Tim Lamb
writes
In message , Nightjar
writes
On 30/03/2015 21:38, wrote:
On Monday, 30 March 2015 17:03:53 UTC+1, Capitol wrote:
Almost nothing. Most on here are too old/frail to do any diy
nowadays,

Well really. I'll have you know I only just remember pre-decimal
currency, punched cards, and petrol going over £1 a gallon.


I remember London trams, the farthing and petrol at 2/6d a gallon, but
I'm not yet old or frail.

I'll raise you Trolley Buses!



Yup I remember those in newcastle u-t

And me in Brighton.


--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £30a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On 01/04/15 22:23, Capitol wrote:
Nightjar cpb@ wrote:
I
also suspect that the days when I could drive across London faster than
getting there by tube have long gone.

I reckon east/west now takes 3hrs between 7am and 7pm. Probably
half that at 1am. Reverse journey is no quicker. North/south I would
expect to be the same. It can take 3hrs on a bad Sunday on the M25 to do
the same journey. I always found M25 clockwise in the morning, slower
than anticlockwise. Reverse for evenings. At 7am, there is a tendency
for everyone to park sideways on the M25, therefore you must be off it
before then.

From Central London (Kings Cross) to an M25 junction (A1/A2/A40/A4) by
any route, any time 7am to 9pm I expect to take an hour. Most of the day
it will take that to get from KX round or through the City to the
Blackwall Tunnel. It can take an hour to get to Westway on a bad day.

In article ,
wrote:
Its something very different to what we know as public transport. The
main problems with uk public transport are

Think you're going to generalise a bit he-

a) the vehicle usually doesnt
go from your origin or to your destination

That assumes you can park exactly at your destination. Usually not the
case in town centres.

b) journey time is generally
hugely increased compared to car travel, resulting in a vast waste of
human resource.

Again, that depends. In general, I find PT at least as fast as a car in
rush hour. Evenings, PT usually slows down while the roads are less
congested. So the car usually wins then.

But I'm talking about London.

--
*Someday, we'll look back on this, laugh nervously and change the subject

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
charles wrote:
I use PT in London quite a bit. I've more sense than to spend ages
driving into Central London and then pay a fortune to park. And most
of the buses, underground and overground trains are relatively new and
well kept. Willing to bet the seats are cleaned more frequently than
the average private car too.

But neither I, nor my passengers, put their feet on my car seats.

No kids or dogs, then?

Pretty difficult to put your feet up on any seat in PT these days too.
Except on some main line trains.

--
*Forget the Joneses, I keep us up with the Simpsons.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
S Viemeister wrote:
On 4/1/2015 1:04 PM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

I use PT in London quite a bit. I've more sense than to spend ages
driving into Central London and then pay a fortune to park. And most
of the buses, underground and overground trains are relatively new and
well kept. Willing to bet the seats are cleaned more frequently than
the average private car too.

I was amazed, a year or two ago, when I took the underground from
Heathrow to KingsX, at how very clean the trains and platforms all were.
Especially when compared to the NYC subways!

They do try. They are generally tidied when they turn round at the
terminus - not only at the end of the day.

Personally, I'd make the dispensers of these free papers pay towards the
cleaning. ;-)

--
*Forget about World Peace...Visualize using your turn signal.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Wednesday, April 1, 2015 at 6:34:44 PM UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 01/04/2015 18:05, wrote:
On Wednesday, April 1, 2015 at 5:17:29 PM UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 01/04/2015 14:39, wrote:
On Wednesday, April 1, 2015 at 9:23:07 AM UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 01/04/2015 08:11, wrote:
On Tuesday, March 31, 2015 at 10:57:39 PM UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 31/03/2015 21:00, Capitol wrote:
Nightjar cpb@ wrote:

They also work well if run through pedestrianised areas, both keeping
them separate from other traffic and putting them close to where people
want them.

Pedestrianised areas are bad news for local town centre shops (and
locally for small shopping areas). A number of US towns have
depedestianised the town centre as no one would go there.

Which is why you need public transport bringing people into them.

A whole lot of people arent into the time waste of public transport

If the area is pedestrianised, the only other option is walking.

there are a couple more options
1. don't pedestrianise

I am strongly in favour of traffic separation, wherever possible.

2. have available or rentable individual transport units of any of several sorts

That is only a different form of public transport. Indeed, driverless
shuttles, such as those being tested at Greenwich, may be the future of
public transport.

Its something very different to what we know as public transport. The main problems with uk public transport are
a) the vehicle usually doesnt go from your origin or to your destination

Taxis do and they are a form of public transport. If necessary, mix with
train, light railway or other long distance PT.

Aiming to increase use of taxis is a mad idea. Of all transports they are the most wasteful of resources, both material and human. Its only sensible to use them to fill in gaps in any other system implemented.


b) journey time is generally hugely increased compared to car travel, resulting in a vast waste of human resource.

Well, I wouldn't do a long distance trip by bus, but around town, the
traffic usually ensures that everybody travels at much the same speed,
unless there are bus lanes, when the bus will probably be quicker. I
also suspect that the days when I could drive across London faster than
getting there by tube have long gone.

I can drive from A to B in town in a fraction the time it takes to walk to a bus stop, wait, go to the nearest stop then walk the rest. Long distance buses/coaches are worse since there are inevitably less people doing any given long distance journey, thus times between vehicles are far longer.


Hirable vehicles of some sort would go part way to solving it, but only part way. Permitting small vehicles, eg kart size, in all zones might, if implemented sufficiently well, be the best option.

Which is what some of the driverless car experiments seem to be aimed at
doing.

Yes... its the sensible option. Huge vehicles made sense in Victorian times, but today much less so.


NT

On Thursday, April 2, 2015 at 12:51:58 AM UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
Its something very different to what we know as public transport. The
main problems with uk public transport are

Think you're going to generalise a bit he-

a) the vehicle usually doesnt
go from your origin or to your destination

That assumes you can park exactly at your destination. Usually not the
case in town centres.

It doesn't assume that at all.


b) journey time is generally
hugely increased compared to car travel, resulting in a vast waste of
human resource.

Again, that depends. In general, I find PT at least as fast as a car in
rush hour. Evenings, PT usually slows down while the roads are less
congested. So the car usually wins then.

But I'm talking about London.

Yes, which is particularly bad for cars and relatively good for PT.


NT

On 02/04/2015 00:46, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
Its something very different to what we know as public transport. The
main problems with uk public transport are

Think you're going to generalise a bit he-

a) the vehicle usually doesnt
go from your origin or to your destination

That assumes you can park exactly at your destination. Usually not the
case in town centres.

b) journey time is generally
hugely increased compared to car travel, resulting in a vast waste of
human resource.

Again, that depends. In general, I find PT at least as fast as a car in
rush hour. Evenings, PT usually slows down while the roads are less
congested. So the car usually wins then.

But I'm talking about London.

I use PT to get from the Dales to South London for work. Similar journey
time to driving, goes to where I want to go, can work/sleep/whatever
during that time. It's massively better than driving.

wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, April 1, 2015 at 6:34:44 PM UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 01/04/2015 18:05, wrote:
On Wednesday, April 1, 2015 at 5:17:29 PM UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 01/04/2015 14:39, wrote:
On Wednesday, April 1, 2015 at 9:23:07 AM UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 01/04/2015 08:11, wrote:
On Tuesday, March 31, 2015 at 10:57:39 PM UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 31/03/2015 21:00, Capitol wrote:
Nightjar cpb@ wrote:

They also work well if run through pedestrianised areas, both
keeping
them separate from other traffic and putting them close to where
people
want them.

Pedestrianised areas are bad news for local town centre
shops (and
locally for small shopping areas). A number of US towns have
depedestianised the town centre as no one would go there.

Which is why you need public transport bringing people into them.

A whole lot of people arent into the time waste of public transport

If the area is pedestrianised, the only other option is walking.

there are a couple more options
1. don't pedestrianise

I am strongly in favour of traffic separation, wherever possible.

2. have available or rentable individual transport units of any of
several sorts

That is only a different form of public transport. Indeed, driverless
shuttles, such as those being tested at Greenwich, may be the future
of
public transport.

Its something very different to what we know as public transport. The
main problems with uk public transport are
a) the vehicle usually doesnt go from your origin or to your
destination

Taxis do and they are a form of public transport. If necessary, mix with
train, light railway or other long distance PT.

Aiming to increase use of taxis is a mad idea.

Not when using fixed public transport systems like trains
for the bulk of the trip.

Of all transports they are the most wasteful of resources, both material
and human.

No, they are in fact much less wasteful of resources than privately owned
cars because they are in use much more of the time when used at the
start and end of the trip with a train being used for the bulk of the trip.

Its only sensible to use them to fill in gaps in any other system
implemented.

That's not true either, they are a very viable alternative to private cars
just
because they do get used a lot more in a day than most private cars do.

b) journey time is generally hugely increased compared to car travel,
resulting in a vast waste of human resource.

Well, I wouldn't do a long distance trip by bus, but around town, the
traffic usually ensures that everybody travels at much the same speed,
unless there are bus lanes, when the bus will probably be quicker. I
also suspect that the days when I could drive across London faster than
getting there by tube have long gone.

I can drive from A to B in town in a fraction the time it takes to
walk to a bus stop, wait, go to the nearest stop then walk the rest.

But its not so true of a train in a capital city.

Long distance buses/coaches are worse since there are inevitably less
people
doing any given long distance journey, thus times between vehicles are far
longer.

That assumes you wait for the bus to show up instead of getting there when
you know it leaves which is what most do with long distance bus trips.

Hirable vehicles of some sort would go part way to solving it,
but only part way. Permitting small vehicles, eg kart size, in all
zones might, if implemented sufficiently well, be the best option.

Which is what some of the driverless car experiments seem to be aimed at
doing.

Yes... its the sensible option.

Only if driverless is viable.

Huge vehicles made sense in Victorian times, but today much less so.

Still make sense for some situations tho like taking
the kids to school or home after its finished.

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
charles wrote:
I use PT in London quite a bit. I've more sense than to spend ages
driving into Central London and then pay a fortune to park. And most
of the buses, underground and overground trains are relatively new and
well kept. Willing to bet the seats are cleaned more frequently than
the average private car too.

But neither I, nor my passengers, put their feet on my car seats.

No kids or dogs, then?

Kids are well grown up and both 6 ft tall. Dogs go in the boot.

Pretty difficult to put your feet up on any seat in PT these days too.
Except on some main line trains.

--
From KT24 in Surrey

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
wrote:
I use PT in London quite a bit. I've more sense than to spend ages
driving into Central London and then pay a fortune to park. And most
of the buses, underground and overground trains are relatively new and
well kept. Willing to bet the seats are cleaned more frequently than
the average private car too.

But neither I, nor my passengers, put their feet on my car seats.

No kids or dogs, then?

Pretty difficult to put your feet up on any seat in PT these days too.
Except on some main line trains.


Very common on the underground in the outer suburbs.

wrote:
But I'm talking about London.

Yes, which is particularly bad for cars and relatively good for PT.

But only if you don't have luggage. I traveled across London from
Gatwick a couple of years ago with 2 x 70lb suitcases. It was a
nightmare. Presumably there are lifts in the stations, but they were not
very apparent. The whole exercise took 3 hours and I would not like to
repeat it. My taxi service had been fouled up by weather and flight delays.

In article ,
Capitol wrote:
Pretty difficult to put your feet up on any seat in PT these days too.
Except on some main line trains.


Very common on the underground in the outer suburbs.

Have you ever been on a modern underground train?

--
*Great groups from little icons grow *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Capitol wrote:
But only if you don't have luggage. I traveled across London from
Gatwick a couple of years ago with 2 x 70lb suitcases. It was a
nightmare. Presumably there are lifts in the stations, but they were not
very apparent. The whole exercise took 3 hours and I would not like to
repeat it.


My taxi service had been fouled up by weather and flight delays.

Then use your car. But forget the cost of parking it at the airport - as
so many seem to do when commenting.

--
*I used up all my sick days so I called in dead

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Capitol wrote:
Pretty difficult to put your feet up on any seat in PT these days too.
Except on some main line trains.


Very common on the underground in the outer suburbs.

Have you ever been on a modern underground train?

They vary. The new Metropolitan Lines ones are the best for "feet on seats".

--
From KT24 in Surrey

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

On Thursday, April 2, 2015 at 10:52:21 AM UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Capitol wrote:
Pretty difficult to put your feet up on any seat in PT these days too.
Except on some main line trains.


Very common on the underground in the outer suburbs.

Have you ever been on a modern underground train?

Its a shame the 1930s ones are gone from the Northern line.


NT

On Thursday, April 2, 2015 at 2:34:47 AM UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, April 1, 2015 at 6:34:44 PM UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 01/04/2015 18:05, wrote:
On Wednesday, April 1, 2015 at 5:17:29 PM UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 01/04/2015 14:39, wrote:
On Wednesday, April 1, 2015 at 9:23:07 AM UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 01/04/2015 08:11, wrote:
On Tuesday, March 31, 2015 at 10:57:39 PM UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 31/03/2015 21:00, Capitol wrote:
Nightjar cpb@ wrote:

They also work well if run through pedestrianised areas, both
keeping
them separate from other traffic and putting them close to where
people
want them.

Pedestrianised areas are bad news for local town centre
shops (and
locally for small shopping areas). A number of US towns have
depedestianised the town centre as no one would go there.

Which is why you need public transport bringing people into them.

A whole lot of people arent into the time waste of public transport

If the area is pedestrianised, the only other option is walking.

there are a couple more options
1. don't pedestrianise

I am strongly in favour of traffic separation, wherever possible.

2. have available or rentable individual transport units of any of
several sorts

That is only a different form of public transport. Indeed, driverless
shuttles, such as those being tested at Greenwich, may be the future
of
public transport.

Its something very different to what we know as public transport. The
main problems with uk public transport are
a) the vehicle usually doesnt go from your origin or to your
destination

Taxis do and they are a form of public transport. If necessary, mix with
train, light railway or other long distance PT.

Aiming to increase use of taxis is a mad idea.

Not when using fixed public transport systems like trains
for the bulk of the trip.

for long trips that can make sense. Too often it doesnt

Of all transports they are the most wasteful of resources, both material
and human.

No, they are in fact much less wasteful of resources than privately owned
cars because they are in use much more of the time when used at the
start and end of the trip with a train being used for the bulk of the trip.

The main resource they waste is human time. Car cost is worth less on the whole. They also waste fuel by increasing mileage per journey.


Its only sensible to use them to fill in gaps in any other system
implemented.

That's not true either, they are a very viable alternative to private cars
just
because they do get used a lot more in a day than most private cars do.

only for people that do very little mileage, or cant drive

b) journey time is generally hugely increased compared to car travel,
resulting in a vast waste of human resource.

Well, I wouldn't do a long distance trip by bus, but around town, the
traffic usually ensures that everybody travels at much the same speed,
unless there are bus lanes, when the bus will probably be quicker. I
also suspect that the days when I could drive across London faster than
getting there by tube have long gone.

I can drive from A to B in town in a fraction the time it takes to
walk to a bus stop, wait, go to the nearest stop then walk the rest.

But its not so true of a train in a capital city.

yes, of which we, like every country, have only one

Long distance buses/coaches are worse since there are inevitably less
people
doing any given long distance journey, thus times between vehicles are far
longer.

That assumes you wait for the bus to show up instead of getting there when
you know it leaves which is what most do with long distance bus trips.

no it doesnt. Mass transport timings here are often a farce, partly thanks to the level of congestion


Hirable vehicles of some sort would go part way to solving it,
but only part way. Permitting small vehicles, eg kart size, in all
zones might, if implemented sufficiently well, be the best option.

Which is what some of the driverless car experiments seem to be aimed at
doing.

Yes... its the sensible option.

Only if driverless is viable.

indeed. I certainly hope it is


Huge vehicles made sense in Victorian times, but today much less so.

Still make sense for some situations tho like taking
the kids to school or home after its finished.

In some cases yes. It would seem sensible to use the same buses & drivers for other routes at other times.


NT

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In articleJvOdnYX2DI5TkYDInZ2dnUVZ7sOdnZ2d@brightvie w.co.uk,
wrote:
Pretty difficult to put your feet up on any seat in PT these days too.
Except on some main line trains.


Very common on the underground in the outer suburbs.

Have you ever been on a modern underground train?


OK, you have just conformed that you are an idiot.

On 02/04/15 12:52, Capitol wrote:
OK, you have just conformed that you are an idiot.

And you have confirmed that you cant spell...;-)

--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 02/04/15 12:52, Capitol wrote:
OK, you have just conformed that you are an idiot.

And you have confirmed that you cant spell...;-)

Correct!