David Horne

Jim Ley <> wrote:

    > On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 13:27:52 +0000,
    > (David Horne) wrote:
    >
    > > To board a bus from the centre
    > >of Manchester to the institution where I teach, I can pay 4 different
    > >prices, 50p, 60p, 70p or 75p- depending on the operator. It's just nuts.
    >
    > Or it's "competition"... Would you rather the operators organised a
    > cartel and priced it all at 80p ?

I would rather it was more heavily subsidised, run by one company under
the administration of the local government. Public transport is a public
service IMO.

David

Jim Ley

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 09:48:34 +0000,
(David Horne) wrote:

    >Jim Ley <> wrote:
    >> On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 13:27:52 +0000,
    >> (David Horne) wrote:
    >>
    >> > To board a bus from the centre
    >> >of Manchester to the institution where I teach, I can pay 4 different
    >> >prices, 50p, 60p, 70p or 75p- depending on the operator. It's just nuts.
    >>
    >> Or it's "competition"... Would you rather the operators organised a
    >> cartel and priced it all at 80p ?
    >I would rather it was more heavily subsidised, run by one company under
    >the administration of the local government. Public transport is a public
    >service IMO.

hmm, whereas I'd say that was a ridiculous expensive way to run it, I
don't want bus services they're useless for the majority of people,
you have to mobile enough to get to the bus stop quickly, but not so
mobile that you can ride a bike, that's a pretty a narrow market, I'd
much rather the subsidies went into phone and collect point to point
systems (minibus collect 10 or so dump them in town) with the level of
subsidies to make the bus service useful you could do that I'm sure.
buses on fixed routes only really work for commuters.

Jim.

David Horne

Jim Ley <> wrote:

    > On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 09:48:34 +0000,
    > (David Horne) wrote:

    > >I would rather it was more heavily subsidised, run by one company under
    > >the administration of the local government. Public transport is a public
    > >service IMO.
    >
    > hmm, whereas I'd say that was a ridiculous expensive way to run it, I
    > don't want bus services they're useless for the majority of people,

Depends on the routes, but I'm talking public transit in general now,
not just bus.

    > you have to mobile enough to get to the bus stop quickly, but not so
    > mobile that you can ride a bike, that's a pretty a narrow market,

No it isn't. Huge numbers of people take buses, and even more would take
them if they were more heavily subsidised, and if proper bus routes were
given. It would encourage less people to take the car too- always a good
thing when feasible. However, at the moment, really poor planning goes
into bus routing in the UK.

    > I'd
    > much rather the subsidies went into phone and collect point to point
    > systems (minibus collect 10 or so dump them in town)

That's a good solution for less used routes- but not all.

    > with the level of
    > subsidies to make the bus service useful you could do that I'm sure.
    > buses on fixed routes only really work for commuters.

Yeah- and getting more commuters to use _efficient_ public transit is a
good thing IMO.

David

Jim Ley

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 00:47:39 +0000,
(David Horne) wrote:

    >Jim Ley <> wrote:
    >> you have to mobile enough to get to the bus stop quickly, but not so
    >> mobile that you can ride a bike, that's a pretty a narrow market,
    >No it isn't. Huge numbers of people take buses, and even more would take
    >them if they were more heavily subsidised,

Yes, more would take cars if they were more heavily subsidised,
subsidies always distort decision making, I'm more concerned by buses
eating up subsidies which could be better used elsewhere.

I find buses useless unless they are frequent enough that it doesn't
matter if I miss one, something utterly impractical for all but the
busiest routes.

    >> I'd
    >> much rather the subsidies went into phone and collect point to point
    >> systems (minibus collect 10 or so dump them in town)
    >That's a good solution for less used routes- but not all.

Sure not all, that would be ridiculous, but subsidies which distort
the market are currently preventing those sort of solutions arising
(the subsidy goes to the bus company to run routes, it doesn't go to
the community to meet the need.) This is the problem of subsidies.

    >Yeah- and getting more commuters to use _efficient_ public transit is a
    >good thing IMO.

Well that depends on how much they're prepared to spend to achieve the
efficiencies, I don't believe most people are prepared to pay for
that.

Jim.

Hatunen

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 17:48:16 GMT, (Jim Ley)
wrote:

    >I find buses useless unless they are frequent enough that it doesn't
    >matter if I miss one, something utterly impractical for all but the
    >busiest routes.

The same is true of trams and metros, and is a point usually
evaded by those touting big transit systems in places not really
suitable for them. In general, if a rider has to look up a
schedule to make a casual trip downtown they won't take transit.
And any wait longer than 15 minutes is a killer for the system
(the time can vary from five minutes up depending on the
weather).


************* DAVE HATUNEN () *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Miles

me wrote:

    > Well, you didn't ask but.....
    >
    > You might check in and around Russell Square. It's in Bloomsbury
    > which ain't a bad place to be. You can go straight there on the tube.
    > And amongst others, you might like the Thanet Hotel. You'll be
    > close to the British Museum, not to mention the West End and truth
    > be known an awful lot of the general tourist areas.


That hotel looks nice but is rather expensive (94GBP) which is about
$166USD. Is it that hotels in London are expensive and this is what
we'll have to pay? I'd like a nice clean moderate priced hotel. Is the
Thanet easy to walk to/from the nearest underground station?

Traveler

Other than for Priceline (from which you can get a 2* to 5* hotel) or budget
hotels (often with shared facilities), this is quite a reasonable price for
a moderate hotel in Bloomsbury. London is indeed expensive. If you are
price-sensitive and can live with the restrictions, consider Priceline.

Traveler

"Miles" <> wrote in message
news:YdxGb.22811$J77.11724@fed1read07...
    > me wrote:
    > > Well, you didn't ask but.....
    > >
    > > You might check in and around Russell Square. It's in Bloomsbury
    > > which ain't a bad place to be. You can go straight there on the tube.
    > > And amongst others, you might like the Thanet Hotel. You'll be
    > > close to the British Museum, not to mention the West End and truth
    > > be known an awful lot of the general tourist areas.
    > That hotel looks nice but is rather expensive (94GBP) which is about
    > $166USD. Is it that hotels in London are expensive and this is what
    > we'll have to pay? I'd like a nice clean moderate priced hotel. Is the
    > Thanet easy to walk to/from the nearest underground station?

Jesper Lauridsen

On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 14:50:27 -0700, Hatunen <> wrote:

    >On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 13:45:09 +0000 (UTC), "Alan Harrison"
    ><> wrote:
    >>Furthermore, there are cases in Britain where a rail journey from A to B
    >>entails travelling through C, but the fare from A to B is less than that
    >>from A to C. (e.g. From my home town, Walsall, going to Worcester usually
    >>involves travel through Kidderminster, but a Walsall-Worcester return, last
    >>time I checked, ws cheaper than Walsall-Kidderminster.)
    >This is common with airfares in the USA.

It's common with airfares anywhere. That doesn't make it any less stupid.

P J Wallace

Something may not be what most people would consider logical but still
in a company's commercial interests...


On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 21:30:16 +0100, Jesper Lauridsen
<> wrote:

    >It's common with airfares anywhere. That doesn't make it any less stupid.