iantheengineer wrote:


How fast would urban public transport be with no cars
on the road? (and no vans, cycles, taxis etc. if that helps).



Is this a question, is it not obvious enough.

It will be exactly the travel time + the stops for pick up/drop off, without
any delay occurring due to congestion, and there would be no need for bus
lanes!
Without busses and bus lanes there would be even less congestion.

In message , Grant Crozier
writes
With a bit of luck in eighteen months time the UK will be governed by
a decent party with a man at the helm who knows what he is doing .
First of all, they've got to find one.
--
Clive

"iantheengineer" wrote in message
...

"Nick Finnigan" wrote in message
...
"iantheengineer" wrote in message
...

To continue to build roads will continue the problem. The answer is
puvblic
transport, but public transport cannot cater for all journeys and
therefore
over time journeys will need to become more corridored. For example go
into
any city during the am peak and the tidality of the flow is there to be
seen. IF we were to get all of the people from their cars onto public
transport, or even better living nearer to the workplace, the congestion
would be far less.

cars. Without cars on the urban road network public transport would be
faster and more reliable.

How fast would urban public transport be with no cars
on the road? (and no vans, cycles, taxis etc. if that helps).

Is this a question, is it not obvious enough.

It will be exactly the travel time + the stops for pick up/drop off, without
any delay occurring due to congestion,

And what will the travel speed be, and who long will
each stop take, and how frequently will the stops occur?
Or, alternatively, how fast would a typical journey be?

On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 09:28:56 +0000, Clive wrote:

In message , David J Rainey
writes

The pits were shut because the coal they produced was too expensive and
recoverable reserves were only 0.2% of world totals. The loss of
related jobs is sad and painful. But it merely extends and prolongs the
pain for both miners and taxpayers to artificially support an industry
which is doomed.
When North sea gas runs out, what are we going to do then to replace it,
the best source of heat for the community.

Pipe it in from Russia or tanker LNG from anywhere. Some while to go before
you'll need to learn the art of skinning furry animals.

--
Take my advice, I don't use it anyway.

Mail john rather than nospam...

Clive wrote the following in:
news
In message , iantheengineer
writes

So lets see more cars on the new roads, oh and more cars on the a
road , oh and the b road, oh and yes another car parking space
required, and not forgetting the pollution emitted by the vehicle
and its effect in increasing the congestion.....


Oh and the Sallys friend thinks what a good idea, and then Jane..
and then John


Are we getting there...do I need to draw a picture for you.

So it's O.K. for you to travel, but not others, or are you going
to lead by example and stay within walking distance of your home
all of your life?

It's completely obvious that's not what he means. It's true that people
use their cars too much. It's ridiculous that people think it's ok to
commute 50 or 100 or whatever miles to work each day in a car with only
one person in it. Obviously people have to get to places some distance
away from their home but there's no need for them to be so ridiculously
far away just so some rich **** can live in a quiet little village.

It's also true that a new road doesn't just relieve congestion. If you
build a new motorway the cars don't just magically appear on it, they
have to go over other roads to get there. And so other roads become
more congested because they're feeding this new motorway. So what's the
solution, make the roads feeding the motorway bigger? Then you have to
make the roads feeding the roads feeding the motorway bigger, and so
on. The solutions to these problems are a lot more complex than just
building more and bigger roads.

--
message by Robin May, but you can call me Mr Smith.
Hello. I'm one of those "roaring fascists of the left wing".

Police Advice: do not approach Cheryl Tweedy as she may be dangerous.

In message , Robin May
writes

So it's O.K. for you to travel, but not others, or are you going
to lead by example and stay within walking distance of your home
all of your life?

It's completely obvious that's not what he means. It's true that people
use their cars too much. It's ridiculous that people think it's ok to
commute 50 or 100 or whatever miles to work each day in a car with only
one person in it. Obviously people have to get to places some distance
away from their home but there's no need for them to be so ridiculously
far away just so some rich **** can live in a quiet little village.

It's also true that a new road doesn't just relieve congestion. If you
build a new motorway the cars don't just magically appear on it, they
have to go over other roads to get there. And so other roads become
more congested because they're feeding this new motorway. So what's the
solution, make the roads feeding the motorway bigger? Then you have to
make the roads feeding the roads feeding the motorway bigger, and so
on. The solutions to these problems are a lot more complex than just
building more and bigger roads.
Don't agree. As has already been pointed out here before, France
doesn't have such a problem even with higher car ownership, because they
have a better road infrastructure. The answer is not to try and tax
people off of the roads, but give them the roads for which they pay.
Before you berate me, I am a pro-rail public transport person but I live
in part of the country with bad roads and worse public transport.
(West Cumbria.)
--
Clive

Steve Firth wrote:
DavidR wrote:

Ever been to Basingstoke?

Yes, only a ****wit would claim it was designed around the car.

In fact many New Towns were designed around the bus. Probably explains what
unpleasant places to live they are.

--
http://www.speedlimit.org.uk
"If laws are to be respected, they must be worthy of respect."

On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 19:34:56 +0000, (Steve Firth)
wrote:

DavidR wrote:

Ever been to Basingstoke?

Yes, only a ****wit would claim it was designed around the car.


LOL! Thats being charitable to ****wits. The best thing about basingstoke
is the road out of it.

greg

--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
The Following is a true story.....
Only the names have been changed to protect the guilty.

wrote:

Clive wrote:

iantheengineer writes:

Are we getting there...do I need to draw a picture for you.

So it's O.K. for you to travel, but not others, or are you going
to lead by example and stay within walking distance of your home
all of your life?

It's completely obvious that's not what he means. It's true that
people use their cars too much.

What does "too much" mean?

And who gets to decide what constitutes "too much"?

Me? Or you?

If it's you, why not me?

It's ridiculous that people think
it's ok to commute 50 or 100 or whatever miles to work each day in a
car with only one person in it.

Why (apart from that being your opinion, I mean)?

Obviously people have to get to
places some distance away from their home but there's no need for
them to be so ridiculously far away just so some rich **** can live
in a quiet little village.

I don't suppose anyone else knows what you mean by that either.

(and what a lovely turn of phrase you have)

It's also true that a new road doesn't just relieve congestion.

So if the M1 were closed, there would be no increase in congestion?

You can't have that one both ways, can you?

If you
build a new motorway the cars don't just magically appear on it, they
have to go over other roads to get there.

And *avoid* the ones they would have used in the absence of the new route...
had you forgotten that bit?

wrote:

iantheengineer writes:

Yes they do I can produce the stats if required from ROSPA that have
been statistically proven to a 90-95% confidence interval, however no
doubt you will doubt these, I have given up with this NG. They seem
to think that government bodies sit thinking of ways to waste momey
and alienate the public, dont you think you are missing the bigger
picture???

Who was it said. "There are lies, damn lies and statistics.?

Ah... that came up last week... it was Mark Twain.

Definitely *not* Winston Churchill.