On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 15:56:33 +0000, asdf wrote:

On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 15:11:17 GMT, "d" wrote:

- extra vandalism of the bus
- extra traffic congestion
- extra fuel used
- extra damage to the road
- extra delay/danger to cyclists
- extra walking to and from bus stops

Christ it's like a meeting of old, crusty, whiney men in here. All cursing
the day progress was invented. It's just an old bus being replaced by a new
one. Funnily enough, the same process that brought the RM into public
service.

"Progress" is exactly what this isn't. See the perfectly legitimate
points listed above.

Few would be complaining if the buses were replaced with a new design
of modern Routemaster, "clean"-engined and accessible while retaining
the open platform and conductor.

Then I am one ofthe few because there is no such thing as a clean diesel, only
a less dirty one. Progress would have been served if the route had been
electrified with zero polluting, quiet, trolleybuses. O yes it wasn't
something to cheer about when the Routemaster was initially introduced as they
were the instrument that inhibited brand new trolleybuses at the time.

David Bradley