Paul Corfield wrote:

On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 18:25:22 +0000, Tom Anderson
wrote:

On Mon, 15 Jan 2007, Paul Corfield wrote:

the Tokyo rail system is certainly an experience ;-)

Ah yes. I understand that the Japanese have some novel ideas about the
relationship between rolling stock and permanent way:

http://urchin.earth.li/photopub/disp...&thumb=640x640

VBG

Ditto. Splendid!

Ian Jelf wrote:

Non-Londoners will often go to extreme lengths to avoid the Tube. In
my experience, most prefer taxis, even where a simple bus transfer (or
sometimes even a walk, depending on luggage, would suffice.

By the same token, non-Londoners often go to extreme lengths to use
the Tube, even where a simple bus journey (or sometimes even a walk)
would not only suffice, but be considerably quicker!

--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

On 16 Jan 2007 10:31:19 -0800, "Mizter T" wrote:

Paul Corfield wrote:

Having looked at the comments there are some YouTube links and this
shows the early rush hour apparently

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9E7J7MLko4&NR

as it's not very busy.


That's pretty busy.

That said getting on some bendy-buses in the early evening peak isn't
dissimilar!

I'm impressed by all the boarding passengers going nowhere near the
doors until everyone trying to get off has got off.

Paul Corfield wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 23:05:57 +0000, Dave A wrote:

I think the economics of accessible buses actually stack up quite well.
There's no additional procurement cost beyond that of replacing aging
vehicles, because new vehicles are low-floor as standard anyway.
Meanwhile, provision of "free taxi rides" was essentially done via the
Dial-a-Ride service, which is extremely expensive (per passenger-km) to
run. Having the mainstream bus fleet accessible to wheelchair users will
*save* TfL money with lower demand for Dial-a-Ride.

Additionally, low-floor buses are much more attractive to customers with
prams, pushchairs and heavy luggage, and so will attract more custom
from those groups, further enhancing the business case.
The economics of step-free access to the Underground are somewhat
different because of the capital cost involved. Given that, step-free
access is usually incorporated into rebuilds that would have happened
anyway, and as with buses, new custom does not just come from wheelchair
users but also from those with prams, pushchairs, luggage etc.

An interesting overview. I'm almost tempted to post this to a non usenet
group to watch it be torn to shreds by the anti TfL, anti low floor bus
brigade but I won't. I'm not sure I could cope with the mental stress
and you won't be able to enjoy the fun ;-)

If I'm missing something, please let me know... (although not in some
TfL-baiting arena!)


--
Dave Arquati
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007, Ian Jelf wrote:

In message , Paul Corfield
writes

I've had almost the same reaction on telling people I went on the
Subway in New York to Brooklyn. "You did what? Do you know how
dangerous that is?" "Err, I am standing here and am still alive to tell
the tale. It wasn't that bad."

We had exactly the same reaction when we were in New York. I've been
twice and on neither occasion did I feel any more unsafe than I would
have done on the Tube.

When i was in New York, i went on the following little trip:

7 train from Manhattan to Shea Stadium; said goodbye to my friends who
were going to see the tennis and walked into Flushing in search of Chinese
food; having found it, and a local burger place i can't honestly
recommend, walked back, and then along the length of Flushing Meadows,
getting lost in Kew Gardens Hills on the way (and passing an enormous rail
depot of some sort) and eventually found Briarwood Van Wyck Boulevard
station; sat there for a while waiting for an E train towards Jamaica
before getting round to reading the small print on the map and realising
that it wasn't going to come; walked out and down to Sutphin Boulevard
station, and caught a J train; changed at Broadway Junction (an amazing
station!) onto the A, and rode it to Hoyt Schermerhorn; walked around the
Fulton Street mall and environs, ate cheesecake, bought a couple of
T-shirts in Modell's (one of which has now fallen to bits); somehow got
back to east 66th street - i think it wasn't via the 4 from Borough Hall,
but rather the 2 or 3 to Times Square, so i could have a go on the shuttle
to Grand Central and then get the 6 home!

Anyway, should i have been afraid? I was a bit worried when i was lost in
Kew Gardens, since i was off the edge of all my maps, but it seemed like a
nice area, and i knew roughly where i was heading, so wasn't afraid as
such. I managed to walk through a couple of motorway junctions on the way
(these seem to be a popular feature of New York parks!), which didn't make
things any easier. Brooklyn itself was fine - felt rather like Brixton,
actually, far more London-like than any other part of New York (although
the scabby northern end of Broadway had something of the Seven Sisters
Road to it).

Still I don't believe in "doing a city" by going round in an air
conditioned tourist coach. I think it adds to the experience to travel
about how the residents do -

But using a real transport system is a great way to see somewhere. My
interest in trams has taken me to some very surprising bits of actually
rather famous cities over the years!

I strongly agree - in any metropolis, the transport network (which means
trains and trams in all but pathological or utopian cases) is the veins
and arteries of the city, and tells you more about how it lives and
breathes than anything you'll see in a coach.

tom

--
MADSKILLZ!

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007, Mizter T wrote:

Paul Corfield wrote:

On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 18:25:22 +0000, Tom Anderson
wrote:

On Mon, 15 Jan 2007, Paul Corfield wrote:

the Tokyo rail system is certainly an experience ;-)

Ah yes. I understand that the Japanese have some novel ideas about the
relationship between rolling stock and permanent way:

http://urchin.earth.li/photopub/disp...&thumb=640x640

VBG

Ditto. Splendid!

Can't take the credit for it, but will pass on the love!

tom

--
MADSKILLZ!

The Rough Guides concluded some time ago that the top of their 10 sights for
Lisbon was to ride the 28 tram. The description started "Avoid guided
tours".
Ahem! bg

Not done Lisbon yet but I know a fair bit about the tram system and
it's clearly an experience not to be missed - despite the modernisation
and upgrading that is going on.
The 12 and even more so the 28 are truly, truly amazing experiences. Any
lover of trams must make the pilgrimage to Lisbon. I've not done it
for some years but we fully intend to go back in the not-too-distant
future, all being well.

As an aside, it's a truly delightful delightful City anyway.

--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

Tom Anderson wrote:

I strongly agree - in any metropolis, the transport network (which means
trains and trams in all but pathological or utopian cases) is the veins
and arteries of the city, and tells you more about how it lives and
breathes than anything you'll see in a coach.

In many cities, it's the buses as well. Bangkok, for example, doesn't
really have an integrated transport system, but rather it has the
Skytrain and underground for the rich, and the buses for the poor. KL
can be similar at times, though it's quite a bit more developed. In
both cases, if you can work out where they're going, you'll meet the
*real* people on the buses.

I'd say the same thing about travelling by train in these countries.
First class is nice and cheap, but only in third class will you get a
*real* feel for the place.

Neil

In message
"Clive D. W. Feather" wrote:

In article , Tim Fenton
writes
The Rough Guides concluded some time ago that the top of their 10 sights
for Lisbon was to ride the 28 tram.

However, they seem to have something against the 46 (IIRC) bus in Rome.
The description - repeated more than once - says it's only used by
perverts and pickpockets. I'm wondering if one of their investigators
got groped.


I first visited Rome around 1978 (via Laker!) and we were warned about one
particular bus-route for the same reasons. Presumably the same route.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

"Clive D. W. Feather" wrote in message
...
The Rough Guides concluded some time ago that the top of their 10 sights
for
Lisbon was to ride the 28 tram.

However, they seem to have something against the 46 (IIRC) bus in Rome.
The description - repeated more than once - says it's only used by
perverts and pickpockets. I'm wondering if one of their investigators got
groped.

Not the 64, Clive? That passes the front of Stazione Termini and terminates
near the Vatican. Much used by tourists. Way back in the 60s it was worked
by double deckers.

--
Tim

"Can capitalism survive? No, I do not think it can" - Josef Schumpeter