On Wed, 13 Oct 2004, Mr. Precision wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004, Mr. Precision wrote:

David Jackman wrote:

The biggest disappointment is just how little you get for £
10,000,000,000 these days...

It's a lack of balls on the part of politicians. My personal favourite
is http://www.personalrapidtransit.com/.

Yes, this is what we need: a safe, clean, quiet, energy-efficient
urban transport system, using small, light vehicles, with no schedules
or fixed routes, which delivers people wherever they want to go, 24
hours a day, ~3 times faster than cars or buses. And kids can use it.
All that, and it's cheap, too.

The thing is, it's already been done: IT'S CALLED A BICYCLE!

And 99.9% of journeys are made on other forms of transport. Tell you
anything?

Yes, that most people are lazy and stupid.

And also that at present, the road network is wrongly configured.

People would rather use anything as long as it isn't a bicycle.

Okay then, space hoppers all round!

On a bike you have to put effort in, you get tired,

No, you get _fit_. You only have to put in as much effort as you like - i
quite enjoy a bit of exercise in the morning. If you're terribly attatched
to your 30 minutes of sitting on your arse avoiding eye contact, you can
take a more leisurely pace.

you get cold, you get wet,

Only in the winter, whereas you get hot and sweaty on the tube all year
round.

you get dirty,

I'm really advocating bikes for trips in cities, where we have roads,
which are typically not surfaced with mud. YMMV.

you get knocked down,

That's more of a problem with cars (and lorries in particular) than bikes.

you get sweaty and Oh, you only travel at 15kph.

And yet you get there, door to door, faster than by any other mode of
transport.

If you believe bicycles are the answer, you haven't thought the question
through.

On the contrary - and i haven't just thought about it, i've done it!

tom

--
I'm angry, but not Milk and Cheese angry. -- Mike Froggatt

Paul Corfield wrote:
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 16:41:42 +0100, Dave Arquati wrote:


No-one's yet mentioned the TfL 5-year £10bn investment programme,
announced today, which uses the borrowing powers recently given to the
Mayor.

Press release at:
http://tube.tfl.gov.uk/content/press...es/0410/12.asp

Full document at:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/downloads/...-year-plan.pdf

Reading one of the news sites, someone complained that Crossrail and
Thameslink 2000 weren't included - but since Crossrail is being arranged
separately and TL2K isn't a TfL project, I don't think this is something
to latch on to desperately.

Most projects in the Plan have been announced before, but there are a
few items of interest:


well precisely. The biggest disappointment is that there is nothing very
radical in terms of pushing the bus network onto the next level which
was part of the TfL proposition to government. Looks like that battle
has been lost - at least for now.

The other disappointment concerns the relegation of tram based solutions
but I imagine this reflects the now quite strong "anti" bias in
government and the understandable decision to pursue LU schemes while
they have the chance as they will deliver more benefit overall.


* Tube air-cooled trains project, which has been mentioned before but
for which I don't have any details (would anyone be able to point me at
any?)


there was an option in the SSL PPP Contract for air conditioned trains
on the SSL network. That option has been exercised. The balance of the
"air cooled" work relates to trials with additional water pipes to cool
deep tube tunnels - as suggested via the LU / Mayor "gives us your
bright ideas" initiative. No idea what lines it will be trialled on.

Found the relevant info online after a little digging - South Bank Uni
are working with LU to introduce a trial at Victoria's Victoria line
platforms where 200 l/s water from the River Tyburn (apparently) is
pumped through a space between the two platforms, and fans draw hot air
from the platforms across the cold water, with an air temperature
reduction of about 5°C. The warmed water will be sent off to the Thames
(presumably by the time it gets there, it will have cooled down).

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
...

* Tube air-cooled trains project, which has been mentioned before but
for which I don't have any details (would anyone be able to point me at
any?)


there was an option in the SSL PPP Contract for air conditioned trains
on the SSL network. That option has been exercised. The balance of the
"air cooled" work relates to trials with additional water pipes to cool
deep tube tunnels - as suggested via the LU / Mayor "gives us your
bright ideas" initiative. No idea what lines it will be trialled on.

Found the relevant info online after a little digging - South Bank Uni
are working with LU to introduce a trial at Victoria's Victoria line
platforms where 200 l/s water from the River Tyburn (apparently) is
pumped through a space between the two platforms, and fans draw hot air
from the platforms across the cold water, with an air temperature
reduction of about 5°C. The warmed water will be sent off to the Thames
(presumably by the time it gets there, it will have cooled down).

If anyone's interested, the journal papers (published before the specific
plan to use Victoria station as a trial was announced) are online at:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2003.10.017
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2003.10.018
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2003.10.019

Angus

Tom Anderson wrote:

The thing is, it's already been done: IT'S CALLED A BICYCLE!

And 99.9% of journeys are made on other forms of transport. Tell you
anything?

Yes, that most people are lazy and stupid.

And you really think ranting about bicycles is going to change that?

And yet you get there, door to door, faster than by any other mode of
transport.

Motorcycle is the fastest mode of transport through London. They keep
running these tube vs bus vs car vs motorcycle vs bicycle competitions
across London and the motorbike just keeps winning. I ride a motorcycle,
my choice. I wear a grands worth of safety kit, I get wet and I don't
believe for a second that it's the answer to London's mass transit problems.

If you believe bicycles are the answer, you haven't thought the question
through.

On the contrary - and i haven't just thought about it, i've done it!

Aren't you glad to be one in a thousand... Or is it one in ten thousand?
I forgot.

--
UCE probe.
Don't send mail to there's nobody home.
The address captures spammer addresses and /dev/nulls all their mail.
Regards, Colin.Smith at archeus.plus.com

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004, Mr. Precision wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:

The thing is, it's already been done: IT'S CALLED A BICYCLE!

And 99.9% of journeys are made on other forms of transport. Tell you
anything?

Yes, that most people are lazy and stupid.

And you really think ranting about bicycles is going to change that?

Er, no. If i wanted to change the world, i wouldn't be posting on usenet.

And yet you get there, door to door, faster than by any other mode of
transport.

Motorcycle is the fastest mode of transport through London. They keep
running these tube vs bus vs car vs motorcycle vs bicycle competitions
across London and the motorbike just keeps winning.

Ah, i hadn't considered motorbikes - that sounds quite plausible.

I ride a motorcycle, my choice. I wear a grands worth of safety kit, I
get wet and I don't believe for a second that it's the answer to
London's mass transit problems.

Why not? For what it's worth, i agree with you, and i'd say that the
reasons are the poor safety (although i don't actually know how dangerous
motorbikes are), the cost, and the fact that motorbikes don't really make
more efficient use of road space, since although they are smaller, they
still require a lot of space around them.

If you believe bicycles are the answer, you haven't thought the
question through.

On the contrary - and i haven't just thought about it, i've done it!

Aren't you glad to be one in a thousand... Or is it one in ten thousand?
I forgot.

I like to think of us as the elite avant garde of the revolution.

tom

--
there is not much call for a Chinese George Michael

Tom Anderson wrote in message ...
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004, Mr. Precision wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:

The thing is, it's already been done: IT'S CALLED A BICYCLE!

And 99.9% of journeys are made on other forms of transport. Tell you
anything?

Yes, that most people are lazy and stupid.

And you really think ranting about bicycles is going to change that?

Er, no. If i wanted to change the world, i wouldn't be posting on usenet.

And yet you get there, door to door, faster than by any other mode of
transport.

Motorcycle is the fastest mode of transport through London. They keep
running these tube vs bus vs car vs motorcycle vs bicycle competitions
across London and the motorbike just keeps winning.

Ah, i hadn't considered motorbikes - that sounds quite plausible.

I ride a motorcycle, my choice. I wear a grands worth of safety kit, I
get wet and I don't believe for a second that it's the answer to
London's mass transit problems.

Why not? For what it's worth, i agree with you, and i'd say that the
reasons are the poor safety (although i don't actually know how dangerous
motorbikes are)

Pretty dangerous is the answer.
I don't think that the figures make good reading.
Something like 1-2% of the traffic, 20-25% of the fatalities.

How many of those had an accident while riding in a manner that
contributed to the risk compared to people riding in the right
position within the speed limit and at the speed suitable for the
conditions I don't know (but would like to)


Still got a bike though before anyone thinks I'm slagging
motorcyclists off.

Dave Babb wrote:
Pretty dangerous is the answer.
I don't think that the figures make good reading.
Something like 1-2% of the traffic, 20-25% of the fatalities.

How many of those had an accident while riding in a manner that
contributed to the risk compared to people riding in the right

The single most common accident involving motorcyclists is a car pulling
out of a junction across the path of the bike.

position within the speed limit and at the speed suitable for the
conditions I don't know (but would like to)

Approx 40% of accidents adjudged the motorcyclists fault, but that's
highly averaged, each accident is unique. Speed isn't the big issue,
motorcyclists are more likely to stick to limits than other drivers in
an urban environment where the overwhelming majority of accidents occur,
less likely to obey limits on country roads. Motorcyclists are more
likely to be involved in a single vehicle accident in a country
environment than a car is and when they do, it's more likely to be
fatal. Inexperienced riders misjudging corners and their own skill is
the doozie.

In terms of numbers of accidents per mile, experienced motorcyclists are
about half as likely to be involved in an accident as an experienced car
driver. The problem is that we are 50 times more likely to be killed or
seriously injured when we do smack into something. Inexperienced
motorcyclists (L plates) on the other hand are damned near suicidal
according to the stats, the ones who survive learn to be safe.

Still got a bike though before anyone thinks I'm slagging
motorcyclists off.

Motorcyclists are aware of and simply accept the risks. The second most
dangerous form of transport in the UK. Only horses are more dangerous.

--
UCE probe.
Don't send mail to there's nobody home.
The address captures spammer addresses and /dev/nulls all their mail.
Regards, Colin.Smith at archeus.plus.com