London Banter - View Single Post

eastender[_5_] · February 19th 16, 11:42 AM posted to uk.transport.london

On 2016-02-19 10:56:43 +0000, d said:

On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 10:39:56 +0000
eastender wrote:
On 2016-02-19 09:28:33 +0000, d said:

On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 15:45:08 +0000
Mike Bristow wrote:
In article ,
d wrote:
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 10:27:44 +0000
Mike Bristow wrote:
Becuase spending £1,000,000 for a £2,000,000 benefit is worth doing.
But changing the plan so you spend £1,000,001 for a £1,999,999
benefit means your change isn't worth having. Or changing the plan
so you spend £1,000,001 for a £2,000,000.01 benefit makes your
change daft.

Newsflash - LO doesn't exist to make a profit.

Why bring profit into this discussion? As you say, it's largely irrelevant
to a public service.

Which currently on the ELL its not doing. Using your logic the whole
system should be shut down since it requires a massive subsidy and almost
certainly always will do.

What? That doesn't follow at all from what I wrote at all. Moreover,
it's patent nonsense.

In the context of a public service, do you really think that
cost and benefit has anything to do with profit?

Listen, why not take a trip to highbury and ask all the people waiting at
the ELL replacement bus stop whether they give a rats backside about your
cost benefit analysis of installing one set of points that would have allowed
a 3 mile section of line to run to the City and back.

Thought you said hardly anyone was using the line basd on your
extensive research.

*sigh*

There should be a utl.janet-and-john group really for some of the people on
here.

Yes, a lot less people were using it last time I went on it a few months
back. But even 50% full trains add up to a lot of messed up journeys over
9 days.

That would be fewer not less people. Maybe though you're one of the
lesser people of these islands.

E.