Paul Corfield wrote:

If you want to see the horror effect of IKEA on public transport try to
get on the 192 bus from Tottenham Hale. It can only use little midibuses
and must rank as one of the most overcrowded routes I know. If only
Angel Road Station was to the south of the North Circular road and
actually had trains stop at it - it would provide very easy access to
IKEA and the huge Tescos at Edmonton. I suspect similar IKEA horrors are
inflicted on Tramlink in south London.

Perhaps TfL might, in that case, consider recasting the routes around
that area rather than whining about it? While I'm more in favour of
TfL style regulation than a free-for-all, I can't see Stagecoach
showing that kind of "can't be bothered" attitude in the provinces.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:30:24 +0000, Paul Corfield wrote:

If you want to see the horror effect of IKEA on public transport try to
get on the 192 bus from Tottenham Hale. It can only use little midibuses
and must rank as one of the most overcrowded routes I know.

Perhaps TfL might, in that case, consider recasting the routes around
that area rather than whining about it? While I'm more in favour of
TfL style regulation than a free-for-all, I can't see Stagecoach
showing that kind of "can't be bothered" attitude in the provinces.

Where did I say TfL was whining? I made a comment about the reality of
overcrowding. I don't believe I have yet absorbed the corporate
consciousness of the whole of TfL nor do I consider that I was whining.
Believe me I can whine with the best of them and you'd know it if I was.
Thankfully I don't have to use the 192 very often but that's no respite
for those who do.

The 192 was only re-tendered about a year ago and there was no frequency
enhancement so I assume it is considered adequate.

If you listen to the last 30 mins or so of the webcast of the GLA
Transport Committee meeting last week you will see Mr Hendy very
carefully explain that there is no money for bus service expansion and
that cuts at the margin of many routes are due over the next few years.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but surely if the route is overflowing
with passengers then there is no need for any subsidy?

Or are London bus fares really so low that even a fully-loaded bus
does not cover its own running costs?

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 23:54:37 +0000, asdf wrote:


Perhaps I'm missing something, but surely if the route is overflowing
with passengers then there is no need for any subsidy?

Or are London bus fares really so low that even a fully-loaded bus does
not cover its own running costs?


London's public transport system always seems to be far too expensive to
get more people off the roads and onto buses and trains.


--
Beware of sneezing pigs

On Oct 26, 5:04*pm, Eyebee wrote:
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 23:54:37 +0000, asdf wrote:
Perhaps I'm missing something, but surely if the route is overflowing
with passengers then there is no need for any subsidy?

Or are London bus fares really so low that even a fully-loaded bus does
not cover its own running costs?

London's public transport system always seems to be far too expensive to
get more people off the roads and onto buses and trains.

Compared with other urban transit systems that I utilize, London's
fares seem unreal. Journeys cost many times their equivalent in say
Atlanta, Louisville, or Los Angeles.

London's costs, including transit fares, are a factor in making London
and unattractive metropolis in which to do business.

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:07:45 -0700 (PDT), E27002
wrote:

Compared with other urban transit systems that I utilize, London's
fares seem unreal. Journeys cost many times their equivalent in say
Atlanta, Louisville, or Los Angeles.

But ignoring the "penalty" cash fares, they compare very favourably
with the rest of the UK.

London's costs, including transit fares, are a factor in making London
and unattractive metropolis in which to do business.

I'm not sure that those making such decisions for big business care
about the price of using buses and trains, as such people will tend to
use chauffeur-driven car services instead (or at the very least
taxis).

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

On Oct 27, 3:14*pm, (Neil Williams)
wrote:
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:07:45 -0700 (PDT), E27002
wrote:

Compared with other urban transit systems that I utilize, London's
fares seem unreal. *Journeys cost many times their equivalent in say
Atlanta, Louisville, or Los Angeles.

But ignoring the "penalty" cash fares, they compare very favourably
with the rest of the UK.

But, they are high compared with competing international business
centers. And, for that matter tourist destinations.

When I have worked in Edinburgh, the monthly, all routes, bus pass has
seemed reasonable. Although it has been several years since I have
had that pleasure.

London's costs, including transit fares, are a factor in making London
and unattractive metropolis in which to do business.

I'm not sure that those making such decisions for big business care
about the price of using buses and trains, as such people will tend to
use chauffeur-driven car services instead (or at the very least
taxis).

It certainly affects employees. I would think that employee
accommodation and transportation costs would at least be a
consideration. London scores badly on both.

E27002 wrote:
On Oct 27, 3:14 pm, (Neil Williams)
wrote:
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:07:45 -0700 (PDT), E27002
wrote:

Compared with other urban transit systems that I utilize, London's
fares seem unreal. Journeys cost many times their equivalent in say
Atlanta, Louisville, or Los Angeles.
But ignoring the "penalty" cash fares, they compare very favourably
with the rest of the UK.

But, they are high compared with competing international business
centers. And, for that matter tourist destinations.

When I have worked in Edinburgh, the monthly, all routes, bus pass has
seemed reasonable. Although it has been several years since I have
had that pleasure.

The all /carriers/ pass in the former metropolitan county of West
Midlands (the transit authority is still indirectly elected for the
whole area) is excellent value, with the three month version best of
all. It even includes intercity trains on the part of the
(London-Glasgow) main line within the county. The single trolley line
has street running at the Wolverhampton end. We'd love to see your
company here, and you don't have to put up with London poseurs.

--
As through this world I've rambled, I've met plenty of funny men,
Some rob you with a sixgun, some with a fountain pen.

Woody Guthrie

E27002 wrote:


London's costs, including transit fares, are a factor in making London
and unattractive metropolis in which to do business.
I'm not sure that those making such decisions for big business care
about the price of using buses and trains, as such people will tend to
use chauffeur-driven car services instead (or at the very least
taxis).

It certainly affects employees. I would think that employee
accommodation and transportation costs would at least be a
consideration. London scores badly on both.

London is in the top two cities worldwide, with New York, according to
the Global Power City Index 2009, which tries to compare different
cities in a sort of objective manner. Tokyo and Paris form a pair just
behind, then you get the rest*. I'm not sure *fares* so much as
generally being able to get around the place matter more. Los Angeles
isn't a top ranking city by these measures and furthermore, all the top
ones are notable as having excellent dense public transportation, which
has to count for something, surely?

For the record, London scored very highly on the culture and
accessibility (transport, basically) categories, high on economy and
poor on livability (including cost of living) and environment, which is
about right, having lived here long enough - yes, it's expensive to get
around but the system is excellent and works well. This is actually
true of New York as well, and no one's claiming that's not an attractive
metropolis to do business, surely?

The point about being attractive/unattractive is that it's across a
range of factors, and overall London's good points more than outweigh
the bad. For the record the three most livable cities according to this
report are Paris, Berlin and Vancouver and the most environmental ones
are Geneva, Zurich and Vienna.

t

* Singapore, Berlin, Vienna, Amsterdam, Zurich, Hong Kong... - the 'goo
city has good public transport' aspect holds true, I suggest. LA is 13th.

"E27002" wrote:

London's costs, including transit fares, are a factor in making London
and unattractive metropolis in which to do business.

Really? People won't do business here because a bus fare costs about half
the price of a small coffee in Starbucks?

When we have people hiding in trucks at Dover, trying to escape the UK, as
opposed to hiding in trucks at Calais trying to get in, I'll accept that
we're no longer a good place to do business.

Chris

On Oct 27, 3:37*pm, "Chris Read" wrote:
"E27002" wrote:
London's costs, including transit fares, are a factor in making London
and unattractive metropolis in which to do business.

Really? People won't do business here because a bus fare costs about half
the price of a small coffee in Starbucks?

When we have people hiding in trucks at Dover, trying to escape the UK, as
opposed to hiding in trucks at Calais trying to get in, I'll accept that
we're no longer a good place to do business.

When I choose an IT contract there are certain cost that I take into
account, the rate, the cost of temporary accommodation, food and
transportation costs. I then factor in issues like safety and the
local environment.

London tends to be less attractive than Edinburgh, Los Angeles, or
Omaha. But, you needn't be concerned; you have plenty of folks
waiting in trucks at Calais. I am sure they will be able to install
and maintain software at your companies, financial institutions, etc.