Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, [5], 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ] |
| Subject: A British perspective... | |
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 16:11:02 12/08/04 Wed In reply to: Jim (Canada) 's message, "I totally disagree, I think everyone should have a choice, but I work for the CAA" on 15:50:52 12/08/04 Wed We all know the arguments about choice versus collective responsility etc., but in a country which is small enough for public transport to be a really viable alternative, we have seen another side of this question which doesn't seem to arise in big places where public transport is rather pointless. Specifically, public transport is a flawed concept. It doesn't get you from A to B, it gets you from somewhere near A to somewhere near B. Given that the main users of public transport are both poor and elderly, this is a problem, our only solution to which so far has been to pay for taxis to take elderly people to the bus stop or train station. What, frankly, is the point, when they could just take the taxi the rest of the way, especially as they're usually only going into town to get cat food? And, if one can afford it, who would not rather sit in one's own private vehicle than sit on some filthy old seat getting chewing gum on one's new trousers while the senile old biddie next to you tries to show you the pieces of paper which she keeps in her purse and telling where she found them all, and why they remind her of her late budgie? Now, I live in two towns where the use of cars is rather limited in usefulness, but for two different reasons. In Venice they'd sink (much like the rest of the city ho ho). In London, however, there's nowhere to park, it costs 5 pounds every time you want to bring the car in, CCTV cameras will fine you 100 quid for going one mph over the speed limit, petrol in Britain costs almost £4 per gallon (70% tax), and if by chance you do find a parking space, it costs 20p for six minutes (2 pounds per hour, on top of the £5 entrace fee), and if the meter runs out a minute before you get back, your car is clamped and it costs you £80 to get it unclamped. This, in my opinion, is revealing: the only way that the authorities can get us to choose public transport over the motorcar is to make using cars articficially inconvenient and expensive... and still people use cars. This tells us quite clearly, I think, how much more convenient it is to give public transport a miss and take the car. Is this, do you think, the result of the fact that British public transport is both expensive and crap, or is it universal? [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Exactly | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:31:30 12/08/04 Wed When I lived in London, I could get the tube from South Kensington to the city in less than half an hour, and is probably the best transport option. A small town on the Ayrshire coast is not London however, although the public transport is surprisingly good. I live a ten minute walk away from the train station. The train station is a 20 minute walk from my office. A daily train journey is marginally cheaper than taking the car, but the total commute time is about an hour and a half longer, assuming the trains run on time (quite an assumption). I am quite prepared to pay a small premium to listen to my CDs in my car, than to listen to other people’s mobile phone conversations whilst catching their cold. This is in addition to adding an extra 1.5 hours to my day. Thankfully I work from home a lot, so I can escape the choice. This Government fails to understand that you cannot force people to use public transport by pricing people off the roads. The people themselves have to choose to use it, and this requires a substantial improvement. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Addendum... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:34:33 12/08/04 Wed ...just read that over, and realised it didn't make any sense. I meant to say "The destination train station is a 20 minute walk from my office"... [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Substantial improvement? Hah! | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:48:58 12/08/04 Wed I read that next year, because the service is getting worse and worse, the train companies are reacting by putting up prices. Smashing. I'll sell my car, then. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Addendum #2 | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:06:59 12/08/04 Wed I have just booked my flight ticket back to London for next week when term finishes. Including tax, the return fare in fact comes to much less than the train ticket from London Euston to Shrewsbury. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: and... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:28:23 12/08/04 Wed When I fly down to London, I often pay less for the flight than the rail connection from Stansted to Liverpool Street! Work that one out... [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: This is the age of the train.... | |
|
Author: Nick (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:15:27 12/17/04 Fri Maintaining thousands of miles of ageing track and rural stations is more expensive than maintaining a few subsidised runways and departure lounges and using untaxed aviation fuel, and the more commercial and competitive operations of the low-cost fliers use exremely low advance teaser rates and last-minute deals to keep passenger numbers up, since an empty seat is almost as expensive to get in the air as an occupied one. However in real terms, railways are probably more cost efficient than flight for getting people from A to B, and certainly have a lot more capacity. I don't know what the answer is. I think we should invest in a modern highspeed backbone, but the truth is that other European countries that have this tend to either price most of the population out of the new services (Spain), or run quite low quality or non-existent local services. Britain has the second largest railway network in Europe, and one of the largest in the world, despite our small size geographically. We have only marginally fewer miles of track then Germany, despite that country's extra 20m souls and significantly larger land area. This is expensive, but it's also a valuable asset that shouldn't be squandered. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Pricing... | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:40:32 12/08/04 Wed It won't in a few years when someone realises that they just burnt the last drop of oil, oh wait, I forgot GNER's promise... "If you find a method of transport more expensive than us, we WILL BEAT IT. Yes! That's right! If you can find a more expensive option than us, we will personally raise the price just for you! Be it a ferrari, private jet, or space craft, we Can do better!" [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I always use the trains when I am in London, but I have to drive in Canada | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:31:43 12/08/04 Wed [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |