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.

In message
Tom Barry wrote:

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.

A couple of years ago there was a survey that claimed Buenos Aires was the
most expensive city in the world to live in relative to the local cost of
living. I doubt it would rate anywhere in the list of good places to do
business but the public transport provision is cheap and plentiful.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail