Boltar wrote:
On 9 May, 21:13, Arthur Figgis wrote:
Boltar wrote:
On May 8, 9:25 pm, Simon wrote:
You are just being silly. TfL provide cheap and excitant travel for
Londoners.
Sorry , that joke is lost on me , it must be too early in the morning.
It's true, though. Try elsewhere in the country. See what response you
get in Hull to something like "the 01.00 bus was a whole 10 min late,
and they only run every 20 min".

No offence to Hull but its hardly a seething metropolis.

Though it is a major city. Insert another one if that helps.

I won't deny
that public transport in this country frankly is **** - every
reasonable size city in germany and quite number in france have a
metro system. Here what do we have: london , a toytown subway in
glasgow , the newcastle metro which has a service lousy enough to
rival the northern line in the bad old days and liverpools
"underground" which is really just a suburban NR system with a few
underground stations.
Other large cities had nothing until recently

They once had trams, but we shut 'em all (except one).

when some cut price
trams rocked up. Cities like brum and manchester need proper
underground systems , not trams and yet more buses.

Proper undergrounds cost a fortune and take ages to build (except in
Madrid?), whereas sane countries can get a tram running fairly cheaply
and quickly. France is tending to go for trams rather than metros these
days - a politician can say "vote for me and I'll build a tram", and
with luck he'll be cutting the ribbon in time for an election.

Places like France and Spain get a tramway running in the time it takes
us to agree it might be a good idea to think about it!
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK