(*so called because in order to endure the mind-numbing boredom of it, half the passengers were on Temazepam, which also had the happy side effect that they wouldn't:a) Talk to youb) Fight you)
― Dadaismus (Dada), Wednesday, 15 February 2006 17:18 (7 years ago) Permalink
― Tehrannosaurus HoBB (the pirate king), Wednesday, 15 February 2006 17:20 (7 years ago) Permalink
― ken c (ken c), Wednesday, 15 February 2006 17:21 (7 years ago) Permalink
Public transport means publicly-owned transport, not just mass transport.
Just out of interest, nd I don't mean this to sound rude, but how old are you? It's just that if you've never lived in a city with proper functioning affordable public transport...you might not be able to see its benefits, or at least have something to compare the present mess with.
― Gatinha (rwillmsen), Wednesday, 15 February 2006 17:24 (7 years ago) Permalink
― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 15 February 2006 17:30 (7 years ago) Permalink
surely plane journeys are bigger in every sense. more distance (disregarding duration), more things to worry about (security checks etc.), more energy consumption...i still treat plane journeys as a really big deal, more than a train journey, regardless of duration.
I think I believe that you should never be able to fly somewhere cheaper than to travel there by train, regardless of all the different factors that determine the price of a ticket (time of day, how far in advance you book, seat class).
― Sororah T Massacre (blueski), Wednesday, 15 February 2006 17:32 (7 years ago) Permalink
2 of those i would consider to have excellent, fully functioning transport systems, one of them (BCN) is to my mind a model for fully integrated urban transport systems for a city of that size (approx 1 mill). london is pretty good, st petersburg is an example of a comprehensive but incoherent system where the holes are filled by the private/informal sector, leeds and sheffield are comparable in functioning but hardly excelling in public transport provision. im 25 so dont remember bus privatisation really but do remember rail privatisation.
what do you mean by publicly owned transport exactly? you mean infrastructure, or vehicles, or operations, or planning? as buses, coaches and trains have all been deregulated in various different ways in the past 26 years, the idea of a publicly owned transport system in the UK seems problematic. unless you are proposing full renationalisation of all these areas, then i believe mass-transit is the best way to describe the current set up. note that that is not what i aspire to - but at the moment "public transport" hints at "public service", which given that most buses for example in the UK with the objective (of those running them) of increasing profit rathetr than providing a public service, seems a poor description. unless the underlying ethos fundamentally changes and powers are brought in to re align the guiding principle of public transprot to be a public service (and yes 2000 saw those powers but by buggery its gonna be difficult to get there), we are kidding ourselves (and this is my main point) if we think that our transport system still exists along those lines.
as for rail vs bus, i was referring to the emphasis on this thread rather than stating a preference! i think rail and bus have different roles to play, not necessarily striaght competing, although coaches can provide interesting and perhaps useful competition to rail travel.
bus rapid transit refers to a sort of hybrid practised very successfully in curitiba, for example, in brazil (mainly cos they built the city round it, and the mayor was like an uber-ken) where high patronage corridors are given maximum road space and priority, flooded with vehicles running segregated, ghigh frequency running, high reliability and short journey times, running radially into city centres. feeder services connect suburbs to these radial routes. the effect is to create the effect of trams or trains but with buses - guess what? theyre a lot cheaper, which is why they are hot property in south america. NB this does not mean i endorse them over LRT like everyone else within that debate eg lightrailnow who seem to think that everyhitng is so fucking black and white. that site when ive looked at it has been set up to stop US cities plumping for BRT in place of LRT due to cost.
planes - these distinctions are somewhat arbitrary, are they not, steve? i can easily envisage a world where security checks are imposed on train travellers, or taken off domestic flights, flying between leds and london is no further on a plane than on a train, and when people commute 3 hrs, from wiltshire to london, i think its time we reviewed our conceptions of what role each mode of transport can or should or will fulfil in the overall picture.
for the record, i think air travel playing a similar role to intercity rail services is unsustainable and undesirable in an ideal world but thats what is happening! if its cheaper to get the plane, why not get it? if its qwuicker to get the plane, why not get it? if its more reliable to get he plane, why not get it? if air travel can compete with intercity travel, why are we still syaing things like "Surely the plane would be cheaper and quicker." instead of gettign the plane?
― ambrose (ambrose), Wednesday, 15 February 2006 18:31 (7 years ago) Permalink
in the example i've given re London to Manchester. in hindsight i think i would've taken the train up but the coach back. in this case Virgin would only have lost about £10. i'm not sure i like the way single tickets are the price they are with returns being just a fraction more. even if it amounted to the same price i'd rather it was £37 (if it must be that much) for a single no matter when, and double that for a return.
― Sororah T Massacre (blueski), Wednesday, 15 February 2006 18:52 (7 years ago) Permalink
The subsidy is less obvious than with Rail or Bus, but it is there, and it's huge. The primary way in which air travel is subsidised is by exempting aviation fuel from the fuel taxes that every other form of transport has to pay. Airlines are also to a certain extent allowed to form price fixing cartels. In the US they got bunged with soft loans and grants after 9/11. Airports are often paid for and run by governments and governements provide the Air traffic control infrastructure.
All of this goes to make air travel artificially cheap, expecially when compared to Rail. Removing the fuel duty exemption would go a long way to redressing the balance.
As far as rail vs Bus goes, Rail is more efficient per passenger kilometre once you get above a certain distance and way more attractive to the travelling public. What would make it more so would be a network of High Sped lines in the UK. Internal Air trqvel in France does not take place on nearly the same scale as it does in the UK because of the TGV network and every new line decimates the demand for air travel between the places served. Travel between london and Paris has sky rocketed in the last 10 years but the number of flights and the number of people taking them has plumeted to less than 30% of the market.
It is widely reported that 4hrs on the train is the limit at which the plane starts to become more attractive. Very soon most major cities in france will be within 4 hrs of each other (requires lGV Est, LGV atlatique Bordeaux extension and the Nimes-Perpignan LGV). Add to this that you can check in for Air France flight from Lyon St Expeury and Paris Charles de Gaulle at major French stations (and some Belgian ones), hey presto the need for short haul flights is vastly reduced.
And this is with France's much less concentrated population centres. We could have the same effect with 2 or 3 LGV. One up the East Coast to serve the Peterborough, Yorkshire, North East, Edinburgh corridor, one for London, West Midlands, Manchester/Liverpool (possibly extended to Glasgow, but that could be served vis the East coast, with a reopening of the Woodhead line to link the midlands with the Yorkshire HSL). The London-Bristol-Cardiff line could be added to although it is already quite straight and fast and could easily be upgraded to 140mph running. Add in connections to the airports and we can decimate internal air travel in the UK and short haul to near Europe.
― Ed (dali), Thursday, 16 February 2006 11:27 (7 years ago) Permalink
― ken c (ken c), Thursday, 16 February 2006 11:30 (7 years ago) Permalink
― ken c (ken c), Thursday, 16 February 2006 11:31 (7 years ago) Permalink
― Ed (dali), Thursday, 16 February 2006 11:38 (7 years ago) Permalink
PAYMENT DETAILS *********0.04 GBP Adult ********36.70 GBP Taxes,Fees & Charges ********13.92 GBP Aviation / WCHR Levy *********0.00 GBP Car Rental ********13.00 GBP Insurance ********63.66 GBP Total Paid
― Sororah T Massacre (blueski), Thursday, 16 February 2006 11:40 (7 years ago) Permalink
xpost haha that's like the firewire cable i bought from amazon. £0.01 cable, £4.50 delivery.
― ken c (ken c), Thursday, 16 February 2006 11:46 (7 years ago) Permalink
― Ed (dali), Thursday, 16 February 2006 11:51 (7 years ago) Permalink
― ken c (ken c), Thursday, 16 February 2006 11:58 (7 years ago) Permalink
I would like to know more about how train ticket prices are calculated, weighted etc.
― Sororah T Massacre (blueski), Thursday, 16 February 2006 12:00 (7 years ago) Permalink
There has never really been a rational fares system in the UK. I sound like a stuck record but the fares systems in Italy is really good. You pay by kilometre and there are 6 fares, 3 first class, and three second. The three tiers of fare are based on the speed of the train top price for the Eurostars, next for the Intercities, and everything else on the bottom tier. There are all kinds of discount cards but essentially there is one fare structure whether you book a week in advance or 5 minutes before the train leaves. They have been experimenting with demand mangement type fares on certain trains but they are not proving very popular, it seems.
― Ed (dali), Thursday, 16 February 2006 12:07 (7 years ago) Permalink
Ed, the problem with price-per-mile fares is that then the fares end up different for different routes. The good thing about the British system, ORCATS included, is that on an Open you do end up with the same ticket price whatever route you take.
(of course, this doesn't apply to the demand-managed tickets that make up most of the sales on long-distance routes)
― Forest Pines (ForestPines), Thursday, 16 February 2006 12:13 (7 years ago) Permalink
― Ed (dali), Thursday, 16 February 2006 12:19 (7 years ago) Permalink
Incidentally, "any reasonable route" was abandoned a few years ago. Valid routes now consist of:
a) a direct trainb) any combination of trains which take the physically shortest routec) a "mapped route", as shown by the maps in the Fares Manual.
When these rules were first introduced, there were a few oddities and inconsistancies if you followed the route maps to the letter - for example, a London Terminals to Finsbury Park ticket was technically valid via Cambridge.
― Forest Pines (ForestPines), Thursday, 16 February 2006 12:25 (7 years ago) Permalink
anyway, i agree, air travel is public transport, ubt even you will agree that it is not seen as such by members of the public nor much by public transport bodies. PTEs have no control over airports or anything to do with air travel as far as know, despite being "Passenger Transport Executives", which wouldnt seem to preclude air travel from their remits.
― ambrose (ambrose), Thursday, 16 February 2006 13:50 (7 years ago) Permalink
― Ed (dali), Thursday, 16 February 2006 13:52 (7 years ago) Permalink
* for example, in South Yorkshire the PTE is responsible for Doncaster-Scunthorpe trains, but not Doncaster-Scunthorpe-Cleethorpes ones.
― Forest Pines (ForestPines), Thursday, 16 February 2006 13:54 (7 years ago) Permalink
― Ed (dali), Thursday, 16 February 2006 13:55 (7 years ago) Permalink
― ambrose (ambrose), Thursday, 16 February 2006 13:59 (7 years ago) Permalink
― Ed (dali), Thursday, 16 February 2006 14:00 (7 years ago) Permalink
With the example I gave of Doncaster-Lincolnshire services, though: the local authorities in northern Lincolnshire couldn't give a toss about public transport. So, the SYPTE-funded trains on the Doncaster-Cleethorpes line turn back at the first sensible turnback point in Lincolnshire, which is Scunthorpe.
― Forest Pines (ForestPines), Thursday, 16 February 2006 14:04 (7 years ago) Permalink
― Ed (dali), Thursday, 16 February 2006 14:05 (7 years ago) Permalink
― Forest Pines (ForestPines), Thursday, 16 February 2006 14:06 (7 years ago) Permalink
― Ed (dali), Thursday, 16 February 2006 14:08 (7 years ago) Permalink
― PJ Miller (PJ Miller 68), Thursday, 16 February 2006 14:20 (7 years ago) Permalink
― ambrose (ambrose), Thursday, 16 February 2006 14:25 (7 years ago) Permalink
― Ed (dali), Thursday, 16 February 2006 14:28 (7 years ago) Permalink
― Mikey G (Mikey G), Thursday, 16 February 2006 14:29 (7 years ago) Permalink
haha yes i know this (it was mentioned upthread) i thought the discussion at the time was what if it wasn't exempt from this and whether airport tax covers this cost (seems that it doesn't).
― ken c (ken c), Thursday, 16 February 2006 14:35 (7 years ago) Permalink
― PJ Miller (PJ Miller 68), Friday, 17 February 2006 12:24 (7 years ago) Permalink
the leeds-sheffield "fast" service takes about an hour. virgin is 45 mins. the fast service does stop at barnsley and meadowhall etc. so its more of a regional link train, for the major towns in the area.
leeds to shefield travel, will, i predict, never ever be as good or quick or easy as it should.
― ambrose (ambrose), Friday, 17 February 2006 13:17 (7 years ago) Permalink
Im very proud of our underground in Madrid, Actually, its got 12 lines now and its really modern (even though its old as well). It been refurbished from time to time. That's why i wonder why london underground bosses don't make it a little bit modern. The stations should be refurbished as the spanish ones does.
TOO EXPENSIVE. I don't know why you guys pay that money for a bloody travel card. In Madrid I pay 50 euros and I can go anywhere from anywhere. I guess that's because british don't speak up when its needed. Really, you should do a strike or something cause paying that money for the value you get its ridiculous.
I was so surpised to see slam doors trains in London. I said to myself 'wow, that's a classic'. Well, they are old but cute at the same time. Not a big deal though to complain about that, its been a shame they've been retired now.
How about the air cond?? Come on mates, speak up and tell them to fix air cond on the trains. YOU ARE PAYING TOO MUCH MONEY FOR THE BLODDY TRANSPORTATION!!! I read in Madrid this last summer that on the train it was up to 40C !!!!! THATS NOT A TRAIN BUT A SAUNA!!!
Tell them, do a strike or something. You english are very silly, you pay and pay and pay and you never complain!!
However, I still say that British transport is not shity but old. You must feel very proud of having one of the largest undergrounds in the world and the oldest one
Regards from Madrid
― israel r crespo, Tuesday, 7 March 2006 03:16 (7 years ago) Permalink
Technically very very difficult because of how deep the lines are and because it was never considered from the off. Air-conditioning the trains would make the stations a nice even 45?C or more, you'd have to air-condition the tunnels and stations as well and the cost, not to mention the amount of energy required would be astronomical.
― Ed (dali), Tuesday, 7 March 2006 07:12 (7 years ago) Permalink
I would not think the heat thrown off from the trains' A/C units would make all that much difference considering that they are constantly in motion. (Though NYC's subways are miserably hot in the summer, I admit.)
― unclejessjess (unclejessjess), Tuesday, 7 March 2006 08:10 (7 years ago) Permalink
New York's subway is stifling hot and the only deep lines are the river tunnels and the washington heights lines. Most lines have regular street vents and the A/C trains still cook the tunnels and stations (don't forget the heat from people and traction motors etc.)
― Ed (dali), Tuesday, 7 March 2006 08:26 (7 years ago) Permalink
but the air con on the newer 6 trains is great tho.
― Sororah T Massacre (blueski), Tuesday, 7 March 2006 10:25 (7 years ago) Permalink
― Ed (dali), Tuesday, 7 March 2006 10:28 (7 years ago) Permalink
― ken c (ken c), Tuesday, 7 March 2006 11:09 (7 years ago) Permalink
wait isn't that like £35? seems a lot for a single ticket.
― ken c (ken c), Tuesday, 7 March 2006 11:11 (7 years ago) Permalink
― Markelby (Mark C), Tuesday, 7 March 2006 11:13 (7 years ago) Permalink
wait isn't that like £35? seems a lot for a single ticket.
It seems to have got him to London so I'd say it's a bit of a bargain.
Radiated, convected and conducted. Geothermal heat is minimal.
― Ed (dali), Tuesday, 7 March 2006 11:15 (7 years ago) Permalink
― ken c (ken c), Tuesday, 7 March 2006 11:24 (7 years ago) Permalink