Nuxx Bar wrote:
On Feb 3, 4:33 pm, "John Rowland"
wrote:
Nuxx Bar wrote:

How else do you explain the
bus lanes that were installed where there were no buses?

Where? TIA.

Kew Bridge for one.

There are buses on Kew Bridge, the 65 for a start.

"Jim Harvest" wrote in message
...
x-no-archive:spindrift wrote:
"Where is the data posted above to
show ptws are 1.5 times more likely etc etc."

Please don't barge into threads you haven't read.

I read the message three times, every word 'above' your comment. I read it
upside down and standing on my head. I still didn't see any data.

I think, for fairness' sake, he meant 'above in the thread'. And as I
accepted the data but not its relevance, I must admit that I too can't quite
fathom your need to get involved.

John Rowland wrote:
Nuxx Bar wrote:
On Feb 3, 4:33 pm, "John Rowland"
wrote:
Nuxx Bar wrote:

How else do you explain the
bus lanes that were installed where there were no buses?

Where? TIA.

Kew Bridge for one.

There are buses on Kew Bridge, the 65 for a start.

And the 391. The bus lane on the bridge was removed because it slowed
down the buses (not on the bridge itself, but in the jams on Kew Road
before reaching the bus lane).
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Paul Weaver wrote:

I don't mind taxis *being* in bus lanes, but it should certainly be

I've never understood the reason why congestion-causing private
transport vehicles were allowed in express public transport lanes.

I think it's because MPs use taxis.

John Rowland wrote:

Paul Weaver wrote:

I don't mind taxis *being* in bus lanes, but it should certainly be
I've never understood the reason why congestion-causing private
transport vehicles were allowed in express public transport lanes.

I think it's because MPs use taxis.

With very few exceptions (one being the bus expressway system in
Runcorn, built as the new town was developed in the late sixties and
early seventies), there is no such thing as an "express public transport
lane". All there in in most places is part of the public road the use of
which is forbidden to those who have paid for it umpteen times over.

The reason why taxis are allwed to use so-called "bus lanes" (in sopme
places, not in all) is that it provides a non-car, non-parking
alternative to the car for those who can't, or don't want to, use buses.

x-no-archive:JNugent wrote:

With very few exceptions (one being the bus expressway system in
Runcorn, built as the new town was developed in the late sixties and
early seventies), there is no such thing as an "express public transport
lane". All there in in most places is part of the public road the use of
which is forbidden to those who have paid for it umpteen times over.

The reason why taxis are allwed to use so-called "bus lanes" (in sopme
places, not in all) is that it provides a non-car, non-parking
alternative to the car for those who can't, or don't want to, use buses.


Of course, it would be much fairer if these lanes were open to all
traffic, with a congestion charge set at a level that would allow the
traffic to flow. Those rich, or keen enough to continue to drive in
these areas (eg those currently using the taxis) will be paying for the
privilege, and everyone else will enjoy a reduced tax bill.

Too easy.

Jim Harvest wrote:

JNugent wrote:

With very few exceptions (one being the bus expressway system in
Runcorn, built as the new town was developed in the late sixties and
early seventies), there is no such thing as an "express public
transport lane". All there in in most places is part of the public
road the use of which is forbidden to those who have paid for it
umpteen times over.

The reason why taxis are allwed to use so-called "bus lanes" (in sopme
places, not in all) is that it provides a non-car, non-parking
alternative to the car for those who can't, or don't want to, use buses.

Of course, it would be much fairer if these lanes were open to all
traffic, with a congestion charge set at a level that would allow the
traffic to flow. Those rich, or keen enough to continue to drive in
these areas (eg those currently using the taxis)

Couldn't that be put more simply: "Let them eat cake"?

will be paying for the
privilege, and everyone else will enjoy a reduced tax bill.
Too easy.

You don't actually know anything about the taxi-trade and its typical
customers, do you?

x-no-archive:JNugent wrote:

Of course, it would be much fairer if these lanes were open to all
traffic, with a congestion charge set at a level that would allow the
traffic to flow. Those rich, or keen enough to continue to drive in
these areas (eg those currently using the taxis)

Couldn't that be put more simply: "Let them eat cake"?

Sorry, who are you you referring to? The rich, keen motorists, taxi
passengers, or the rest?



will be paying for the privilege, and everyone else will enjoy a
reduced tax bill.
Too easy.

You don't actually know anything about the taxi-trade and its typical
customers, do you?

You have just said on another thread that you try to post in an urbane
and non-confrontational manner.

Care to rephrase?

Jim Harvest wrote:

JNugent wrote:

Of course, it would be much fairer if these lanes were open to all
traffic, with a congestion charge set at a level that would allow the
traffic to flow. Those rich, or keen enough to continue to drive in
these areas (eg those currently using the taxis)

Couldn't that be put more simply: "Let them eat cake"?

Sorry, who are you you referring to? The rich, keen motorists, taxi
passengers, or the rest?

Is there any distinction between the first three as far as you are
concerned? Context strongly suggests not.

will be paying for the privilege, and everyone else will enjoy a
reduced tax bill.
Too easy.

You don't actually know anything about the taxi-trade and its typical
customers, do you?

You have just said on another thread that you try to post in an urbane
and non-confrontational manner.
Care to rephrase?

I was being factual - and asking a question, which you can answer either
in the affirmative or the negative.

Do you have any knowledge of the economics of the taxi-trade, or are you
working on the erroneous thesis that only the rich ride in taxis
(whereas, outside London, the rich rarely ride in taxis, and even in
London, they comprise only a tiny proportion of the riders)?

x-no-archive:JNugent wrote:


Couldn't that be put more simply: "Let them eat cake"?

Sorry, who are you you referring to? The rich, keen motorists, taxi
passengers, or the rest?

Is there any distinction between the first three as far as you are
concerned? Context strongly suggests not.


I was providing some examples of those who may wish to continue using
motor cars in an area with a high congestion charge.

I still don't understand your reference to Queen MA though.






Do you have any knowledge of the economics of the taxi-trade, or are you
working on the erroneous thesis that only the rich ride in taxis
(whereas, outside London, the rich rarely ride in taxis, and even in
London, they comprise only a tiny proportion of the riders)?

Thats better.

I see what you mean now.

I have a little knowledge of the trade, and it wasn't in my mind that
rich people are the main users of taxis.

By 'keen', I meant to cover in a concise way those who were not
necessarily rich, but who would nevertheless choose to use a car despite
a high congestion charge, because to them it was still worthwhile to use
a car, despite the extra cost.