You can't make it up!

Just zis Guy, you know? posted ...

Quoted message said:

"Three quarters of the public say the Government should
cut traffic levels on Britain's roads and seven out of ten
want more spending on public transport, a survey for
Friends of the Earth reveals today. "

So, who exactly do that 3/4 of the public think /are/ the
traffic?

I guess if they're taking a survey, then they're mostly
asking pedestrians .. it's a little hard to answer all the
questions while riding / driving .. 😉

Personally I think they're just talking bollocks ...

--
Paul

(8(|) Homer rocks .. 😉

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Three quarters of the public say the Government should
cut traffic levels on Britain's roads and seven out of ten
want more spending on public transport, a survey for
Friends of the Earth reveals today. "

So, who exactly do that 3/4 of the public think /are/ the
traffic?

Heh, too easy, its everybody else.

--
NickyD

Just zis Guy said:

"Three quarters of the public say the Government should
cut traffic levels on Britain's roads and seven out of ten
want more spending on public transport, a survey for
Friends of the Earth reveals today. "

So, who exactly do that 3/4 of the public think /are/ the
traffic?

Of course it could be a Marwellian statistic based on
responses by members of the public in an on-line survey
carried on the FoE website

Tony

Just zis Guy said:

"Three quarters of the public say the Government should
cut traffic levels on Britain's roads and seven out of ten
want more spending on public transport, a survey for
Friends of the Earth reveals today. "

So, who exactly do that 3/4 of the public think /are/ the
traffic?

These survey answers all carry the implicit information that
cutting anything they do themselves doesn't apply to the
respondent (though it does apply to anyone else, possibly
excepting their friends) and providing anything new puts
them at the front of the queue.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext.
33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177
Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email hidden]
dundee.ac.uk~pjclinchOpen ↗

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

You can't make it up!

TBH, given some of of the stats pressure groups (of all
flavours) fling about, I think there's a good chance
they did :-)

you know? said:

"Three quarters of the public say the Government should
cut traffic levels on Britain's roads and seven out of ten
want more spending on public transport, a survey for
Friends of the Earth reveals today. "

So, who exactly do that 3/4 of the public think /are/ the
traffic?

I don't see anything contradictory or illogical in the
above.

I've never really thought about it before but the place
where I currently live is very similar to a large village I
lived in in Germany. Both have populations of about 3000 and
all the usual facilities. Both also have village centres
that are about 1.5 miles from the railway station. The
difference is that in Germany there are regular buses from
the village centre to the station (co-ordinated with trains)
whereas here I've never seen a bus. It's not even as if
people here are encouraged to drive the short distance to
the station. The car park's tiny and you have to pay to use
it, unlike Germany where the car park was huge, free and
virtually empty. I guess a lot of people who might use the
train decide not to because once they get into their cars
they might as well drive all the way to their destination.
It's no surprise that the lack of a decent public transport
infrastructure forces people into their cars, even when they
would rather not use them.

BTW, I find it rather ironic that my current place of abode,
Crowthorne, is the home of the Transport Research
Laboratory. You'd think this would be a hotbed of modern
transport planning, wouldn't you? Well, there's no sign of
that. (Although the TRL is having a shared use cycle path
extended to its new front door.)

--
Michael MacClancy Random putdown - "I've just learned about
his illness. Let's hope it's nothing trivial." - Irvin S.
Cobb www.macclancy.demon.co.uk www.macclancy.co.uk

Michael MacClancy said:

I've never really thought about it before but the place
where I currently live is very similar to a large village
I lived in in Germany. Both have populations of about 3000
and all the usual facilities. Both also have village
centres that are about 1.5 miles from the railway station.
The difference is that in Germany there are regular buses
from the village centre to the station (co-ordinated with
trains) whereas here I've never seen a bus.

Roos pointed out that in Dundee the buses don't stop at the
train station, and that this is Very Dopey. I'm not sure
which is more ridiculous, that they don't stop there or that
I'd never even regarded it as being strange until she
mentioned it...

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext.
33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177
Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email hidden]
dundee.ac.uk~pjclinchOpen ↗

In article <[email hidden]>,

Michael MacClancy said:

to their destination. It's no surprise that the lack of a
decent public transport infrastructure forces people into
their cars, even when they would rather not use them.

This is a regular topic over there in uk.railway. The fact
is that if you want to get people to drive less, you need to
make the alternatives palatable. Unfortunately, providing
cheap public transport as a social service to people who
need it is in conflict with providing desirable public
transport for people who don't need it. There's no point in
jsut cutting prices, because anyone who is driving a 15
grand car with fuel at close to four quid a gallon has
already demonstrated that their decision is not mediated by
price. However, a rail / bus / whatever system that cost
about what running a new-ish car does might be very
attractive, but would exclude many of the existing users.

Outside of Usenet, where all problems have obvious
solutions, this is a difficult balance to strike. And
because the UK government is, for practical purposes, the
London government, while London has particular and unique
travel problems, the rest of the country doesn't get a great
deal of thought put into it.

So, here in Birmingham, buses link housing estates where the
majority of people don't work in factories, to the sites of
factories where ther majority of people don't work. Because
the last time the routes were seriously altered was during
slum clearance in 1950, and no-one dares change them.

ian

Peter Clinch said:

Roos pointed out that in Dundee the buses don't stop at
the train station, and that this is Very Dopey. I'm not
sure which is more ridiculous, that they don't stop there
or that I'd never even regarded it as being strange until
she mentioned it...

Near us the bus timetable was completely disconnected from
the ferry timetable. I had a chance of a word with the bus
company manager and pointed this out to him. A few weeks
later there was an announcement that a new timetable was
being introduced which synchronised the bus times with the
ferry times. Result I thought - until I got the bus
timetable and found they now left exactly five minutes
before the ferries got in.

Tony

Why the insistance on PT?

What we need is to stop silly 100+ mile commutes, and get
people to walk or cycle for short journeys instead of drive.
That would reduce the problem significantly.

Then if we moved away from out-of-town facilities where
appropriate (retail parks for example), built a proper
motorway network[1] & a proper high speed rail network and
increase the understanding that roads are for everyone, and
not just for cars - then the problem is almost gone.

You'd still need PT as an option of course, but the main
thrust should be on sensible use of private transport, as
that is (understandably) what people want.

Of course, that's all easier said than done. There's the
small matter of finance, whinging pressure groups, public
opposition to anything that affects them, etc. etc.

[1]as opposed to the ill thought out mess of many hundreds
of distinct schemes which have been put together badly -
which is what we have today

Michael MacClancy said:

Quoted message said:

"Three quarters of the public say the Government should
cut traffic levels on Britain's roads and seven out of
ten want more spending on public transport, a survey for
Friends of the Earth reveals today. " So, who exactly do
that 3/4 of the public think /are/ the traffic?

Quoted message said:

I don't see anything contradictory or illogical in
the above.

It's the the fact that the mythical "they" must "do
something" about the problem that gets me. When "they" build
new roads to reduce congestion, then some other "they" use
that as an opportunity to commute further, which fills up
the costly new road again. But it is "they" who are at fault
for not making public tranpsort cheaper (although "they"
also must not recover this cost out of tax or motoring
duties, obviously) and more attractive (although "they" must
be aware that only other people can be expected to share a
smelly bus with the vagrants and ne'er-do-wells who frequent
such things).

Quoted message said:

I've never really thought about it before but the place
where I currently live is very similar to a large village
I lived in in Germany. Both have populations of about 3000
and all the usual facilities. Both also have village
centres that are about 1.5 miles from the railway station.
The difference is that in Germany there are regular buses
from the village centre to the station (co-ordinated with
trains) whereas here I've never seen a bus.

That was St. Margaret's intention. Anybody who still uses a
bus aged over <mumble> should consider themselves a failure,
after all.

Quoted message said:

It's not even as if people here are encouraged to drive
the short distance to the station. The car park's tiny and
you have to pay to use it,

Cost of station parking is ludicrous. Of course, in towns
that's partly the market at work; if the station carpark
were cheap then non rail-users would drive to the town and
park in the station car park. Plus, of course, it's a big
moneyspinner.

But I think you shuld get at least a 75% rebate on a car
park season ticket if you have a rail season ticket above a
certain value.

Quoted message said:

I guess a lot of people who might use the train decide not
to because once they get into their cars they might as
well drive all the way to their destination.

And the car-loving press take great delight in making sure
everybody knows how bad the trians are, forgetting that the
occasional ten minute delay on a train is as nothinf
compared with the daily hour-long delay due to traffic
congestion ;-)

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.ukOpen ↗

Victory is ours! Down with Eric the Half A Brain!

Ian G Batten said:

There's no point in jsut cutting prices, because anyone
who is driving a 15 grand car with fuel at close to four
quid a gallon has already demonstrated that their decision
is not mediated by price.

Not so. I would take the train a lot more if the prices
came even close to competitive - there are some routes and
times where they are and I do. But for most it doesn't
even come close to competitive for me alone let alone me
and the family

Tony

John Hearns said:

Contrast with Switzerland. Local trains will sit in the
station and wait for (x) minutes if the inter-city express
is delayed. Local buses sit outside the station and wait
till trains get in.

The local bus at Goring & Streatley certainly waits for
the train, and there is a shuttle bus from Didcot to my
office every few minutes (provided by the estate
management company).

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.ukOpen ↗

Victory is ours! Down with Eric the Half A Brain!

Just zis Guy said:

"Three quarters of the public say the Government should
cut traffic levels on Britain's roads and seven out of ten
want more spending on public transport, a survey for
Friends of the Earth reveals today. "

So, who exactly do that 3/4 of the public think /are/ the
traffic?

Exactly. I suspect three-quarters also think *they* should
be allowed to drive as much as they like, petrol should be
30p a gallon and claim they would never take a bus even if
it was free.

Tony Raven said:

Ian G Batten said:

There's no point in jsut cutting prices, because anyone
who is driving a 15 grand car with fuel at close to four
quid a gallon has already demonstrated that their
decision is not mediated by price.

Not so. I would take the train a lot more if the prices
came even close to competitive - there are some routes and
times where they are and I do. But for most it doesn't
even come close to competitive for me alone let alone me
and the family

Competitive with what?

The common fallacy being to compare a 50ukp rail fare with
the distance 50ukp worth of petrol would get you.

If you mean the 40p per mile that the Inland Revenue (not
generous fellows) recognise as the cost of motoring, most
rail fares will be cheaper.

Zog The Undeniable said:

Just zis Guy said:

"Three quarters of the public say the Government should
cut traffic levels on Britain's roads and seven out of
ten want more spending on public transport, a survey for
Friends of the Earth reveals today. "

So, who exactly do that 3/4 of the public think /are/ the
traffic?

Exactly. I suspect three-quarters also think *they* should
be allowed to drive as much as they like, petrol should be
30p a gallon and claim they would never take a bus even if
it was free.

It's a fairly common opinion.

I was at a local council meeting where there was general
consensus that "most people" wouldn't use buses even if they
were free so the council's efforts should be spent on
improving driving conditions and improving parking because
"everyone needs their car these days".

Fortunately (what with it being a market aware Tory
council), car park charges are moving rapidly towards a true
market price. Before you begin to think this might be cheap,
you need to factor in the value of the tens of hectares of
town centre development land that are car parks.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Not Responding said:

The common fallacy being to compare a 50ukp rail fare with
the distance 50ukp worth of petrol would get you.

If you mean the 40p per mile that the Inland Revenue (not
generous fellows) recognise as the cost of motoring, most
rail fares will be cheaper.

We rehearse this one over in uk.railway, too.

It neglects two key points. Firstly, the cost per mile of
running a car falls with additional miles. Tax, insurance
and (for most purposes) depreciation are independent of
mileage, and with service intervals now out to 15 or 20K
miles, for a lot of people they're servicing cars on date,
not on distance. Ergo, raising your mileage from 12000 per
year to 15000 per year really does cost just the fuel, plus
_maybe_ tyres.

Secondly, although counter-factual attempts to change large
parts of reality are a popular Usenet sport, a substantial
part of the employed, car-using, wouldn't-touch-a-train
population drive company cars. The marginal cost of driving
a company car is the fuel, and may not even be that
(although private-use fuel cards aren't common, they're not
unheard of either). And now the P11D rules mean that almost
everyone without bottomless pockets is running high-
efficiency diesels as their company car, the marginal price
per mile for a company car driver has actually fallen.

ian

On 21/5/04 4:47 pm, in article [email hidden], "Just zis Guy,

you know? said:

John Hearns said:

Contrast with Switzerland. Local trains will sit in the
station and wait for (x) minutes if the inter-city
express is delayed. Local buses sit outside the station
and wait till trains get in.

The local bus at Goring & Streatley certainly waits for
the train, and there is a shuttle bus from Didcot to my
office every few minutes (provided by the estate
management company).

Are you on the old Harwell airfield site then?

The thing that always got me when I was living in Steventon
and commuting to Hammersmith (well, the hospital which is
Wormwood Scrubs) was that the local busses stopped in the
early evening and had not thought of meeting the commuter
trains out from London. (the reason for living there was
that my wife was working on the Harwell site).

Not quite as bad as Tony's ferries though. That got everyone
in the lab laughing.

..d

[ This started in uk.rec.cycling but wandered somewhat in
topic, I've x-posted it as it's really more relevant in uk.r
than anywhere else ]

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit
identified as "[Not Responding]"
<[email hidden]> breathed:

Quoted message said:

On Fri, 21 May 2004 16:14:07 +0100, "Tony Raven"

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Not so. I would take the train a lot more if the prices
came even close to competitive - there are some routes and
times where they are and I do. But for most it doesn't
even come close to competitive for me alone let alone me
and the family

Quoted message said:

Competitive with what?

Competitive with the "perceived cost of driving". This is
basically the cost of fuel plus a bit for wear and tear. It
doesn't matter how much those in the know bang on about it,
to most people the cost of driving is petrol (possibly plus
tyres), all the other car costs are just "what it takes to
have a car", and don't get set against individual trips.

Quoted message said:

The common fallacy being to compare a 50ukp rail fare with
the distance 50ukp worth of petrol would get you.

It's not a fallacy at all - when you have to get self+family
from A to B and you've the choice between spending 50 quid
at the local Esso, or buying them each a ticket probably
costing rather more than that, *each*, there simply is no
competition - the cost is what comes out of your pocket
there and then.

Quoted message said:

If you mean the 40p per mile that the Inland Revenue (not
generous fellows) recognise as the cost of motoring, most
rail fares will be cheaper.

Consider:

I live in Leeds. To drive to London and back will cost me
about 45 quid in petrol plus Underground tickets when I'm
there. It makes little difference if I have a passenger or
not, and if I have several they'll probably chip in for fuel
anyway. I can choose to leave whenever I want subject to
allowing enough time to get there, and come back whenever
I've finished whatever I'm doing.

If I go by train, unless I book in advance, it'll cost at
least 70 quid per person for a ticket which can't be used to
come back between 4pm and 7pm. For full flexibility it's 100
quid, per person.

So if I have 200 quid and take a notion to spend a Friday
afternoon in Camden, I can take self+SO on the train and
perhaps have enough change to buy a cheeseburger between us
when we get there, or we can drive and blow 160 quid on new
gear and CDs.

So I've not allowed for the wear caused by a 400 mile round
trip? Big deal, the money for car servicing, tyres and tax
is saved up separately, insurance is a fixed monthly cost.
The cost decision of whether to choose train or car for a
trip to London is based entirely with how much cash I have
to fork out at the point of departure, and there simply is
no competition, the car wins every time.

If the govt really wanted people to use PT over driving,
they'd introduce some kind of very expensive, but very
valuable, railcard. This would probably cost a good few
hundred quid a year, but would open up access to being able
to take four people from Leeds to London for a total walk-on
fare of about 50 quid between them, with no restrictions,
and automatically give unlimited free travel on all bus,
metro, underground and tram systems. It might also include a
set number of vouchers for free delivery of shopping from
major retailers.

That would be a serious attempt to level the playing field.

Back OB u.r.c, it's also considerably easier to take a
couple of bikes, folding or elsewise, on/in the car than
trying to take them on the train.

--
- Pyromancer.
- inkubus-sukkubus.co.ukinkubus-sukkubus.co.ukOpen ↗ <-- Pagan Gothic Rock!
- littlematchgirl.co.uklittlematchgirl.co.ukOpen ↗ <-- Electronic Metal!
- revival.stormshadow.comrevival.stormshadow.comOpen ↗ <-- The Gothic
Revival.