Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Tfl has issued this statment:
"TfL's High Court injunction prevents Addison Lee from instructing its drivers to use bus lanes Following a ruling from the High Court today (Thursday 26 April) Addison Lee is prevented from instructing or encouraging its drivers to drive in bus lanes and must remove the statement on its website instructing drivers to do so.[...]" [1] But this is what Addison Lee says: "TfL fails in its bid to silence Addison Lee over bus lanes Transport for London has been forced to abandon its application for a mandatory injunction requiring Addison Lee and its chairman John Griffin to withdraw their letter to drivers stating that they are entitled to drive in London bus lanes[...]" [2] Clever use of language, or are they contradicting each other? ----- [1] http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...tre/23547.aspx [2] http://www.addisonlee.com/press/read/561 -- jhk |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Paul Corfield wrote:
Clearly TfL have come away with a decision that broadly supports its position. However Addison Lee seem intent on pursuing their argument that they are being "discriminated" against. The timing of all of this is extremely dubious in my view and is only about AL making shedloads of money while not giving a damn about what happens to London's bus service. I fail to see why that applies any differently to Hackney carriages. My view is that taxis of any kind, private hire or Hackney carriage, are private transport and should not be permitted in bus lanes at all. Neil -- Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK. Put first name before the at to reply. |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 2012\04\26 19:51, Neil Williams wrote:
Paul wrote: Clearly TfL have come away with a decision that broadly supports its position. However Addison Lee seem intent on pursuing their argument that they are being "discriminated" against. The timing of all of this is extremely dubious in my view and is only about AL making shedloads of money while not giving a damn about what happens to London's bus service. I fail to see why that applies any differently to Hackney carriages. My view is that taxis of any kind, private hire or Hackney carriage, are private transport and should not be permitted in bus lanes at all. Taxis are selectively allowed in those bus lanes where they do not inhibit the buses. There are numerous bus lanes in Kings Cross, Islington, Heathrow, The City, Acton, Harrow etc. from which taxis are forbidden. Do you also believe that taxis should be permitted to charge whatever they like, the way most self-employed businessmen do and the way minicabs do? Why is a bus charging five people GBP11.50 to travel four miles public transport, but a taxi which is legally compelled to take the same five people and legally limited to charging them about a tenner for the same journey in the daytime not public transport? I'd like to hear your definition of public transport... I suspect it goes along the lines of "I'm a transport enthusiast with a travelcard, and I spit the dummy whenever I find public transport that won't take my travelcard". |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 26/04/2012 19:51, Neil Williams wrote:
Paul wrote: Clearly TfL have come away with a decision that broadly supports its position. However Addison Lee seem intent on pursuing their argument that they are being "discriminated" against. The timing of all of this is extremely dubious in my view and is only about AL making shedloads of money while not giving a damn about what happens to London's bus service. I fail to see why that applies any differently to Hackney carriages. My view is that taxis of any kind, private hire or Hackney carriage, are private transport and should not be permitted in bus lanes at all. Neil I don't find the taxis to be a problem so much as cyclists, who can really slow things down. I have also seen some cyclists get very nasty towards bus drivers without any provocation. |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
" wrote:
I don't find the taxis to be a problem so much as cyclists, who can really slow things down. I have also seen some cyclists get very nasty towards bus drivers without any provocation. Cycles are a poor companion to buses in bus lanes. They are only really there for safety reasons, IMO. They could be removed by looking to build more Dutch style segregated cycle facilities, or by moving bus lanes to the centre of the road with stops at traffic lights, as isn't at all unknown in Germany and the Netherlands. There isn't always space for this, sadly, but often there is. Neil -- Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK. Put first name before the at to reply. |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Basil Jet wrote:
Do you also believe that taxis should be permitted to charge whatever they like, the way most self-employed businessmen do and the way minicabs do? Minicabs are usually cheaper than black cabs, no? Why is a bus charging five people GBP11.50 to travel four miles public transport, but a taxi which is legally compelled to take the same five people and legally limited to charging them about a tenner for the same journey in the daytime not public transport? Most taxis are not transporting 5 people. Perhaps there is an argument for allowing any car with more than 3 passengers in the bus lane, then? But not taxis. I'd like to hear your definition of public transport... I suspect it goes along the lines of "I'm a transport enthusiast with a travelcard, and I spit the dummy whenever I find public transport that won't take my travelcard". In London? Buses, trains, tubes and scheduled (not tourist) boats, IMO. Black taxis work as an addition to public transport and may encourage its use on longer journeys, but are not in themselves efficient use of road space nor of pollution, though if Boris's talk about moving to electric vehicles happens they will gain on the latter point. Except for those of limited mobility, a taxi is rarely a public transport necessity in Central London where this sort of thing is an issue. The Tube is almost always faster, IMX. Neil -- Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK. Put first name before the at to reply. |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 2012\04\26 21:13, Neil Williams wrote:
Basil wrote: Do you also believe that taxis should be permitted to charge whatever they like, the way most self-employed businessmen do and the way minicabs do? Minicabs are usually cheaper than black cabs, no? No, it depends on the extent to which they feel they have any competition. They are staggeringly cheaper than taxis for runs to and from the airport or Zone 1 terminus when booked by telephone. They are quite a bit more expensive than a taxi to the airport when booked through a hotel concierge, because the concierge gives the job to whichever minicab company offers him the biggest bung. They tend to be slightly cheaper than taxis when booked by phone for long journeys suburb to suburb but more expensive than taxis for short journeys. The minicabs booked through clipboard johnnies outside nightclubs are likely to be dearer than taxis. Five Star Car Hire in Kensal Green seem to be nearly twice taxi fares for any distance if you walk in to the office late at night, e.g. 35 quid to Ealing Broadway versus 20 in a taxi. The sign next to the freephone offering minicabs in Charing Cross Hospital brags about how the price is the same day or night, and warns that taxis charge more in the night than in the day ... but when you compare the actual fares, they are more expensive than taxi night fares, and probably more expensive than taxi day fares (although obviously taxi fares in the daytime can be a bit unpredictable). When you consider the cost of the vehicle and the fuel consumption (and consequent safety) are so much lower than a taxi, only in the case of telephone booking to the airport does the vehicle/fuel saving get passed on to the passenger - in all the other cases listed above, the profit made is higher than in a taxi, and the minicab boss pockets that profit (not the driver). This is why John Griffin chose to be a minicab boss instead of a taxi boss, and he has been whining about his unfair lot ever since he chose it. Competition in the minicab industry largely doesn't work - if you walk into a minicab office late at night with a good looking girl on your arm and a bulge in your trousers, they know that you have to get the girl home before she can change her mind, so there is no way you will walk around and compare competitors prices, and they exploit this to the hilt. Why is a bus charging five people GBP11.50 to travel four miles public transport, but a taxi which is legally compelled to take the same five people and legally limited to charging them about a tenner for the same journey in the daytime not public transport? Most taxis are not transporting 5 people. Perhaps there is an argument for allowing any car with more than 3 passengers in the bus lane, then? But not taxis. What about when buses only have one passenger, should they be kicked out of the bus lane? Do they cease to be public transport? I'd like to hear your definition of public transport... I suspect it goes along the lines of "I'm a transport enthusiast with a travelcard, and I spit the dummy whenever I find public transport that won't take my travelcard". In London? Buses, trains, tubes and scheduled (not tourist) boats, IMO. I presume you've omitted trams by accident. But you have refused or failed to give a definition, and supplied a list which arbitrarily excludes taxis, and your failure to provide a definition is an attempt to cover that up. Why are aeroplanes not public transport? I don't see a conceptual difference between a metal box full of people rolling from Euston to Glasgow Central and a metal box full of people flying from Heathrow to Paisley... except that AFAIK the train fares are controlled by government (like taxi fares) and the aeroplane fares are not (like minicab fares). Black taxis work as an addition to public transport and may encourage its use on longer journeys, but are not in themselves efficient use of road space nor of pollution, though if Boris's talk about moving to electric vehicles happens they will gain on the latter point. Public transport existed before the invention of the internal combustion engine. You're moving goalposts all over the place. Except for those of limited mobility, a taxi is rarely a public transport necessity in Central London where this sort of thing is an issue. The Tube is almost always faster, IMX. Buses are slower than the tube, but they're still public transport. More moving goalposts. |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In message
. net, at 18:51:47 on Thu, 26 Apr 2012, Neil Williams remarked: My view is that taxis of any kind, private hire or Hackney carriage, are private transport and should not be permitted in bus lanes at all. They are both "public transport" which helps dissuade people from driving their own cars into cities, have to find somewhere to park etc. -- Roland Perry |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In message , at 22:18:47 on
Thu, 26 Apr 2012, Paul Corfield remarked: My view is that taxis of any kind, private hire or Hackney carriage, are private transport and should not be permitted in bus lanes at all. Well that is my view too. I have little time for taxis or minicabs. Horses for courses. Those of us who have memorised the tube map (and possibly also the bus map) and are familiar with London are generally capable of coping without taxis. But if you aren't familiar with the territory, it's after dark and raining, and your destination is quite some trek from a tube station, Taxis can be quite useful. What we need is one of those races like they have on TopGear. How about going to a black tie dinner at the Horticultural Halls, starting from Broadcasting House. -- Roland Perry |
#10
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Basil Jet wrote:
What about when buses only have one passenger, should they be kicked out of the bus lane? Do they cease to be public transport? Their punctuality with one on board will affect more passengers later. So no. I presume you've omitted trams by accident. But you have refused or failed to give a definition, and supplied a list which arbitrarily excludes taxis, and your failure to provide a definition is an attempt to cover that up. Why are aeroplanes not public transport? I don't see a conceptual difference between a metal box full of people rolling from Euston to Glasgow Central and a metal box full of people flying from Heathrow to Paisley... except that AFAIK the train fares are controlled by government (like taxi fares) and the aeroplane fares are not (like minicab fares). Aeroplanes are public transport, so are ro-ro ferries. Private jets, however, are more like taxis and are not. But as this discussion is about London, I omitted them. Indeed, trams were omitted in error. Coaches were also omitted as they aren't really relevant to transport within London. If you want a definition I would suggest that it is something like "transport modes operating to a timetable or at high frequency on which any member of the public may travel on payment of an individual fare". Because a taxi fare is payable for a hire of the whole car, to the exclusion of any other passenger, that doesn't fit. Share taxis or jitneys (the former existing in London on a very limited basis, and the latter not at all) also fit. Black taxis work as an addition to public transport and may encourage its use on longer journeys, but are not in themselves efficient use of road space nor of pollution, though if Boris's talk about moving to electric vehicles happens they will gain on the latter point. Public transport existed before the invention of the internal combustion engine. You're moving goalposts all over the place. Not at all. Bus lanes increase the punctuality and reliability of public transport. As public transport nowadays in London (the topic under discussion) is environmentally beneficial as a whole, and reduces overall journey times versus everyone travelling by car due to better use of road space, bus lanes can be encouraged on that basis, Buses are slower than the tube, but they're still public transport. More moving goalposts. Nope. The Tube was used as an example because it is usually the fastest way to travel around central London (motorbikes possibly aside). It renders the use of taxis for anything other than those of limited mobility, and those who desire higher comfort or don't feel like doing any walking, fairly pointless. It is the backbone of central London travel, and can be used in conjunction with buses where it doesn't directly serve your journey. Neil -- Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK. Put first name before the at to reply. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
TfL consults on all TfL bus services going cashless | London Transport | |||
TfL consults on all TfL bus services going cashless | London Transport | |||
8.5% cut in central govt grant to TfL; suburban West Anglia trainsto be devolved to TfL control | London Transport | |||
Addison Lee tells drivers to drive in bus lanes | London Transport |