Olympic lanes

[Mike.. . . .]

ORN

"The Olympic Route Network (ORN) will enable athletes and VIPs to
arrive promptly at their events by improving traffic flow on these
routes. Maps showing the impact of Olympic activities on the London
road network can be seen on the TfL website."

TFL maps say the lanes close to non Olympic traffic on 27th July

"When will the ORN/PRN operate?
The ORN and Games Lanes will begin operating on Wednesday 25 July, and
will end on Tuesday 14 August. "

However, everybody is saying avoid from the 15th *and* we have seen
warning signs about the lanes in central London that quote dates
before the 25th.

The question

So what exactly is happening from the 15th that we need to avoid? Just
a bit more traffic from preparations or is it more serious? Nobody
seems to say.

(anybody who has to drive into central london, like lift engineers,
are going to enjoy sitting behind buses in the one remaining non
olympic lane (from places like the Limehouse tunnel right into central
london)
--
Mike... . . . .

[Ian Jackson]

In message <3csqv75ie284jvj0c...@4ax.com>, Mike.....
<junkfo...@gmail.com> writes

According to one of LBC's programmes this morning, the Olympic lanes are
a bit of a shambles. The opinion was that no matter how careful lesser
mortals are, they will invariably find themselves accidentally driving
in the forbidden zones, and therefore risk swingeing penalties.
--
Ian

[Chris Hills]

On 11/07/2012 13:52, Ian Jackson wrote:
> According to one of LBC's programmes this morning, the Olympic lanes are
> a bit of a shambles. The opinion was that no matter how careful lesser
> mortals are, they will invariably find themselves accidentally driving
> in the forbidden zones, and therefore risk swingeing penalties.

It is almost as if they are looking for some new source of revenue to
help cover the cost of the Olympics!

[McKevvy]

The company I work for does a meat delivery run from central Scotland
to London making 17 deliveries in 3 day.
I wonder how long it will take while these farcial games are on.

McK.

[Bill]

In message
<53d63aa3-1082-4db5...@d6g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
McKevvy <vicko_...@hotmail.com> writes

>
>The company I work for does a meat delivery run from central Scotland
>to London making 17 deliveries in 3 day.
>I wonder how long it will take while these farcial games are on.
>
>McK.

From last weeks experience, if you need to go anywhere near a venue, you
should manage 3 deliveries in 17 days.
--
Bill

[Bill]

On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 13:13:48 -0700 (PDT), McKevvy
<vicko_...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>The company I work for does a meat delivery run from central Scotland
>to London making 17 deliveries in 3 day.
>I wonder how long it will take while these farcial games are on.

About the same if they arrange their deliveries for the middle of the
night for a couple of weeks...

[Mike.. . . .]

On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 13:52:11 +0100, Ian Jackson
<ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>According to one of LBC's programmes this morning, the Olympic lanes are
>a bit of a shambles. The opinion was that no matter how careful lesser
>mortals are, they will invariably find themselves accidentally driving
>in the forbidden zones, and therefore risk swingeing penalties.

"http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2030948/Let-fat-cats-bus-Olympics.html"

I must say that now I know about these lanes and the lack of tickets
to Londoners and the segregation of trains I would have been
demonstrating on the streets to not have the Olympics.

One lane into London sitting behind a loading bus is going to be slow.
I see the M4 is closed to fix cracks before the event.

[Mike.. . . .]

On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 21:48:30 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>About the same if they arrange their deliveries for the middle of the
>night for a couple of weeks...

I wonder if I can get the business we need to visit to work nights
instead?

[tim....]

"Mike.. . . ." <junkfo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:gftsv71jc8ipr9uv0...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 13:52:11 +0100, Ian Jackson
> <ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>According to one of LBC's programmes this morning, the Olympic lanes are
>>a bit of a shambles. The opinion was that no matter how careful lesser
>>mortals are, they will invariably find themselves accidentally driving
>>in the forbidden zones, and therefore risk swingeing penalties.
>
> "http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2030948/Let-fat-cats-bus-Olympics.html"
>
> I must say that now I know about these lanes and the lack of tickets
> to Londoners

Why should Londoners get special treatment? There are 6 million tickets
available and 6 million Londoners. So after they have had one each there
would be none at all left for anybody else (and what use is one ticket?)

tim

[bolta...@boltar.world]

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 10:16:38 +0100
"tim...." <tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> I must say that now I know about these lanes and the lack of tickets
>> to Londoners
>
>Why should Londoners get special treatment? There are 6 million tickets

Because we're the ones having to put up with all the shit from this 10 billion
quid ego fest? They've already rephased the lights on some major roads like
the A13 and A2 and caused traffic chaos "to test the system". They don't seem
to be in a hurry to switch the test off however.

So we're supposed to suffer until this nonsense has finished with no form of
compensation yet we don't get any special treatment for getting tickets. Well
thats fair isn't it.

B2003

[Mike.. . . .]

On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 13:45:33 +0100, Mike.. . . .
<junkfo...@gmail.com> wrote:

>However, everybody is saying avoid from the 15th *and* we have seen
>warning signs about the lanes in central London that quote dates
>before the 25th.

breaking news! All the avoid London signs now have 15th stuck over and
the lane closures 25th, all except one with 21st near Limehouse tunnel
- joker or mistake I assume.

[Mike.. . . .]

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 10:16:38 +0100, "tim...."
<tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>> I must say that now I know about these lanes and the lack of tickets
>> to Londoners
>
>Why should Londoners get special treatment?

none, but the opposite seems to be the case, Londoners will not need
hotels, think about it....

[poldy]

In article <jtm68d$iio$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, bolta...@boltar.world
wrote:

Kind of interesting that with the fiscal cutbacks of Cameron's program,
UK economy is slowing down despite the spending on the Games.
Construction companies must be doing well, no?

[Jethro_uk]

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 09:43:42 +0000, boltar2003 wrote:

> Because we're the ones having to put up with all the shit from this 10
> billion quid ego fest? They've already rephased the lights on some major
> roads like the A13 and A2 and caused traffic chaos "to test the system".
> They don't seem to be in a hurry to switch the test off however.

They probably never will. Don't forget, the dogma of "public transport"
means that nothing must ever be done to make a car journey easier or
quicker. I'm pretty certain this has been publicly admitted on a few
occasions. Pedestrian and main traffic lights are *deliberately* set to
cause traffic backups. And *still* they haven't taken the hint that no-
one, but no-one wants to use public transport.

[Clive George]

On 12/07/2012 17:34, Jethro_uk wrote:

> And *still* they haven't taken the hint that no-
> one, but no-one wants to use public transport.

That's simply not true.

[JohnT]

"Jethro_uk" <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message
news:N0DLr.727613$MP5.5...@fx27.am4...

I am happy to use public transport.

--
JohnT

[Dave Plowman]

In article <dIOdncvCT9PykGLS...@brightview.co.uk>,

It tends to say much about the person making the statement.

I use PT a lot round London. Generally, journey times are less than by car
- and you don't have the problem of trying to park.

--
*I brake for no apparent reason.

Dave Plowman da...@davesound.co.uk London SW 12

[JNugent]

Geese and ganders.

[NM]

I suspect those who choose to take it, as opposed to those who have no
other choice, are a small minority.

[bolta...@boltar.world]

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 19:04:00 +0200
Martin <m...@address.invalid> wrote:
>On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 16:34:53 GMT, Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com>
>wrote:

>UK commuter trains are over saturated. How do you explain that?

There's a difference between having to use it and wanting to use it.
I used to use the tube every day because I didn't have much choice as I
worked in central london. However now I work in west london I drive to work
because even though my office is only 300 metres from a tube station the car
is just a damn sight more pleasent and less stressful.

B2003

[NM]

On Jul 13, 9:33 am, boltar2...@boltar.world wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 19:04:00 +0200
>
>
>
> Martin <m...@address.invalid> wrote:

> >On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 16:34:53 GMT, Jethro_uk <jethro...@hotmailbin.com>

I'm sure your thinking is mainstream on that one, how can anyone enjoy
PT, traveling with the great unwashed in filthy cramped conditions,
from somewhere not where you started out from to somewhere not exacty
where you want to end up, at a time that is not necessarily convenient
and paying through the nose for it. masochists IMO.

[Mike.. . . .]

On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 13:45:33 +0100, Mike.. . . .
<junkfo...@gmail.com> wrote:

>However, everybody is saying avoid from the 15th *and* we have seen
>warning signs about the lanes in central London that quote dates
>before the 25th.

"http://camden.gov.uk/ccm/content/news/2012/april/russell-square-olympic-information-sessions.en;jsessionid=1A5FAC1EB4909E025F69CB0757012C45"

"What is the media transport hub?

The media transport hub will be located in and around Russell Square
and operated by LOCOG. The hub is the pick up and drop off area, which
will be used by accredited media who are staying in accommodation
around Bloomsbury, to travel to and from Olympic venues by shuttle
bus. Approximately 5,000 people will use the hub on the busiest days
of the Games.

When will the media transport hub operate?
The hub will operate between 10 July and 15 August 2012. Some
restrictions will be in place shortly before, during and after this
period. "


Beginning to get the truth, TFL and Boris were on BBC London this am,
turned into shouting match with a chauffeur. Theres going to be masses
of journos going back and forth because they are based in Blooomsbury,
where i'm sure its very nice, rather than Hackney.
We saw people carriers (not "buses") usually with one passenger!

We expereinced the start of the changes yesterday, traffic light
changes and Kingsway tunnel reversed flow. Queues at lights on A2 in
middle of day for no reason other than the lights AFAICT.

God help anybody who has to drive in from now till September.

[Surreyman]

On Wednesday, July 11, 2012 1:45:33 PM UTC+1, Mike..... wrote:
> ORN
>
> &quot;The Olympic Route Network (ORN) will enable athletes and VIPs to

> arrive promptly at their events by improving traffic flow on these
> routes. Maps showing the impact of Olympic activities on the London

> road network can be seen on the TfL website.&quot;

>
> TFL maps say the lanes close to non Olympic traffic on 27th July
>

> &quot;When will the ORN/PRN operate?

> The ORN and Games Lanes will begin operating on Wednesday 25 July, and

> will end on Tuesday 14 August. &quot;

>
> However, everybody is saying avoid from the 15th *and* we have seen
> warning signs about the lanes in central London that quote dates
> before the 25th.
>

> The question
>
> So what exactly is happening from the 15th that we need to avoid? Just
> a bit more traffic from preparations or is it more serious? Nobody
> seems to say.
>
> (anybody who has to drive into central london, like lift engineers,
> are going to enjoy sitting behind buses in the one remaining non
> olympic lane (from places like the Limehouse tunnel right into central
> london)

> --
> Mike... . . . .

"Construction finished some time ago, hence the slow down. "

Nope - urgent repairs are still being carried out, e.g. on the M4, major route from Heathrow to London! :-))

[bolta...@boltar.world]

On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 01:55:50 -0700 (PDT)
NM <nik.m...@mac.com> wrote:
>I'm sure your thinking is mainstream on that one, how can anyone enjoy
>PT, traveling with the great unwashed in filthy cramped conditions,
>from somewhere not where you started out from to somewhere not exacty
>where you want to end up, at a time that is not necessarily convenient
>and paying through the nose for it. masochists IMO.

Indeed. I've completely given up taking the main line train anywhere now. Its
just not worth the hassle of getting to the final destination at the other
end from the station aside from the inevitable delays. Plus the prices are an
utter joke. The only exception I'd make is for Eurostar/eurotunnel.

I did actually travel on the tube on wednesday to accompany my wife part
of the way on her journey to a new job. I've now got a cold. Not only is
it slow and unpleasent, its also a disease factory. And it cost me 3.60
for the priviledge of going 12 miles.

B2003

[Mike.. . . .]

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 19:04:00 +0200, Martin <m...@address.invalid> wrote:

> And *still* they haven't taken the hint that no-
>>one, but no-one wants to use public transport.
>

>UK commuter trains are over saturated. How do you explain that?

late of alternatives for London. £10 congestion charge + pounds per
hour parking + huge traffic queues to drive in. You use the train
because you have to. PT is only way for large numbers all going to
same place at same time. For the rest, cars.

[Mike.. . . .]

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 19:41:57 +0100, Dave Plowman
<da...@davesound.co.uk> wrote:

>> That's simply not true.
>
>It tends to say much about the person making the statement.
>
>I use PT a lot round London. Generally, journey times are less than by car
>- and you don't have the problem of trying to park.

so do I, in London or anywhere similar. But I dont enjoy it. It's a
negative on planning anything in London, like most people, I would
rather drive.

[Dave Plowman]

In article
<4a9e0801-ffa1-49dd...@k21g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>,

Not in London - or, I'd guess, in other large cities. It's one thing
driving to a destination - another parking. The majority of my neighbours
use PT to go to work - despite owning one or more cars.

--
*I will always cherish the initial misconceptions I had about you

[Dave Plowman]

In article
<87d69429-374f-4cf7...@n5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,

NM <nik.m...@mac.com> wrote:

> I'm sure your thinking is mainstream on that one, how can anyone enjoy
> PT, traveling with the great unwashed in filthy cramped conditions,

All that shows is you know nothing about PT. Excepting that it will be
'cramped' in rush hour. But then, so are the roads.

--
*If horrific means to make horrible, does terrific mean to make terrible?

[Dave Plowman]

In article <jtouh3$6de$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,

<bolta...@boltar.world> wrote:
> I did actually travel on the tube on wednesday to accompany my wife part
> of the way on her journey to a new job. I've now got a cold. Not only is
> it slow

Are you trying to say travelling by car is quicker than tube during the
rush hour?

> and unpleasent , its also a disease factory.

I take it you spend all of your life in a sealed room so as not to mix
with others?

> And it cost me 3.60 for the priviledge of going 12 miles.

Quite right too - designed to fleece casual users who know no better.

BTW, have you any idea of the true costs of running a car per mile?

--
*When the going gets tough, the tough take a coffee break *

[Mike.. . . .]

On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 12:18:50 +0100, Dave Plowman
<da...@davesound.co.uk> wrote:

>> I'm sure your thinking is mainstream on that one, how can anyone enjoy
>> PT, traveling with the great unwashed in filthy cramped conditions,
>
>All that shows is you know nothing about PT. Excepting that it will be
>'cramped' in rush hour. But then, so are the roads.

most people prefer a private space that goes door to door over being
under others control to go *near* where you want to be *near* the time
you want in the company of people you might not want to be near and
without means of carrying stuff easily, it will always be so. Public
policy ignores the fact. Maybe I know "nothing about PT" too? (I've
used it into work all my life, I've tried usung it at weekends to do
walks - I soon stopped).

[Dave Plowman]

In article <8o0008pu0us9462t7...@4ax.com>,

Mike.. . . . <junkfo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >I use PT a lot round London. Generally, journey times are less than by
> >car - and you don't have the problem of trying to park.

> so do I, in London or anywhere similar. But I dont enjoy it.

If you limit 'PT' to the tube, of course it's not enjoyable. Planning the
journey using the overground, buses and DLR etc as much as possible can be
- if you enjoy looking around you. Outside rush hour, obviously.

> It's a
> negative on planning anything in London, like most people, I would
> rather drive.

You actually prefer being stuck in a never ending traffic jam?

Only time I'll drive into London is when I need the car to transport
things. At other times, it simply isn't worth the bother. But I do live
quite close to an overground station.

--
*Why don't you ever see the headline "Psychic Wins Lottery"?

[Mike.. . . .]

On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 12:16:43 +0100, Dave Plowman
<da...@davesound.co.uk> wrote:

>> > > And *still* they haven't taken the hint that no-
>> > > one, but no-one wants to use public transport.
>> >
>> > That's simply not true.
>
>> I suspect those who choose to take it, as opposed to those who have no
>> other choice, are a small minority.
>
>Not in London - or, I'd guess, in other large cities. It's one thing
>driving to a destination - another parking. The majority of my neighbours
>use PT to go to work - despite owning one or more cars.

again, you ignore the difference between "want to" and "have to".

[Mike.. . . .]

On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 12:37:37 +0100, Dave Plowman
<da...@davesound.co.uk> wrote:

>> so do I, in London or anywhere similar. But I dont enjoy it.
>
>If you limit 'PT' to the tube, of course it's not enjoyable. Planning the
>journey using the overground, buses and DLR etc as much as possible can be
>- if you enjoy looking around you. Outside rush hour, obviously.

I rarely use the tube, there is none in this part of London. Buses
take forever. The train into the centre is OK. If its not into the
centre car is nicer and half the time.

>> It's a
>> negative on planning anything in London, like most people, I would
>> rather drive.
>
>You actually prefer being stuck in a never ending traffic jam?

No, I prefer driving to using PT. I would rather drive *if* its going
to be practical.
Having to use PT because of congestion/parking is a negative for the
trip, if I can achieve the objective by car somewhere else, I will.

>Only time I'll drive into London is when I need the car to transport
>things. At other times, it simply isn't worth the bother. But I do live
>quite close to an overground station.
--

[Dave Plowman]

In article <rs100851fa0c13m35...@4ax.com>,

Mike.. . . . <junkfo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> most people prefer a private space

Says it all.

--
*A bicycle can't stand alone because it's two tyred.*

[NM]

On Jul 13, 12:26 pm, Dave Plowman <d...@davesound.co.uk> wrote:

>
> BTW, have you any idea of the true costs of running a car per mile?

Regardless of how much it is I will pay it rather than use PT.

[bolta...@boltar.world]

On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 12:26:20 +0100
Dave Plowman <da...@davesound.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <jtouh3$6de$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,
> <bolta...@boltar.world> wrote:
>> I did actually travel on the tube on wednesday to accompany my wife part
>> of the way on her journey to a new job. I've now got a cold. Not only is
>> it slow
>
>Are you trying to say travelling by car is quicker than tube during the
>rush hour?

Thats exactly what I'm saying. It takes me 30 mins around the north circular
to get to work. Via tube its 1:10 not including the walk either end.

>> and unpleasent , its also a disease factory.
>
>I take it you spend all of your life in a sealed room so as not to mix
>with others?

Thats a bit different to be physically squashed in with 200 other people in
a box with air blowing through to nicely distribute any viruses someone has
sneezed out.

>> And it cost me 3.60 for the priviledge of going 12 miles.
>
>Quite right too - designed to fleece casual users who know no better.
>
>BTW, have you any idea of the true costs of running a car per mile?

Since I already pay road tax and insurance whether I use it to commute or not
those costs are irrelevant. The only thing that matters is fuel and wear and
tear and that works out at less than the tube.

B2003

[bolta...@boltar.world]

On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 12:18:50 +0100
Dave Plowman <da...@davesound.co.uk> wrote:
>In article
><87d69429-374f-4cf7...@n5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
> NM <nik.m...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm sure your thinking is mainstream on that one, how can anyone enjoy
>> PT, traveling with the great unwashed in filthy cramped conditions,
>
>All that shows is you know nothing about PT. Excepting that it will be
>'cramped' in rush hour. But then, so are the roads.

It might be cramped on the roads for the cars but the drivers have just as
much personal space as at 3am on a sunday morning and personal space is
what matters.

B2003

[Mike P]

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 16:34:53 +0000, Jethro_uk wrote:

> And *still* they haven't taken the hint that no-
> one, but no-one wants to use public transport.

It's not true. I'd gladly use PT if it were reasonably priced, and gave
me a reliable, fighting chance of getting from where I am, to where I
want to be, in reasonable comfort and on time.

Sadly, it's never been able to do that for me. It would cost me £18 a day
to get to work using PT, and take 1hr40 each way. I'd also have to
somehow get the 3 miles to the station and be there for 6am, then have a
20 min walk at the other end.

Like I'm going to do that, when I can use the car, it costs me £32 for
the entire week (inc fuel, the two tyres it's needed, a DIY 12 month
servcice, insurance and tax) and goes door to door in comfort..


--
Mike P

[Mike P]

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 19:41:57 +0100, Dave Plowman wrote:

> In article <dIOdncvCT9PykGLS...@brightview.co.uk>,
> Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

>> On 12/07/2012 17:34, Jethro_uk wrote:
>
>> > And *still* they haven't taken the hint that no- one, but no-one
>> > wants to use public transport.
>

>> That's simply not true.
>

> It tends to say much about the person making the statement.
>

> I use PT a lot round London. Generally, journey times are less than by
> car - and you don't have the problem of trying to park.

I never have a problem. If there's 2 or more of us, it makes sense to
just park at the NCP at Marble arch £20.00 for an entire day is
relatively cheap, then we can just walk to most places from there. I then
don't need to use PT. There's another NCP over the city side I use too,
and a couple of under-the-arches type places. South London round West
Norwood is never a problem to park either, and I go there a lot. Hell, I
even parked in Clapham last Friday afternoon at 3.30pm on a side road
with no restrictions.



--
Mike P

[Mike P]

I agree entirely. We live out near Reading anyway. I often have to go to
Stratford, Clapham, Highgate or West Norwood.

It's quicker, easier, and more pleasant in the car than on any form of
PT. Cheaper too, as there's always two of us and a toddler.





--
Mike P

[Mike P]

On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 12:26:20 +0100, Dave Plowman wrote:

> In article <jtouh3$6de$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,
> <bolta...@boltar.world> wrote:
>> I did actually travel on the tube on wednesday to accompany my wife
>> part of the way on her journey to a new job. I've now got a cold. Not
>> only is it slow
>
> Are you trying to say travelling by car is quicker than tube during the
> rush hour?
>
>> and unpleasent , its also a disease factory.
>
> I take it you spend all of your life in a sealed room so as not to mix
> with others?
>
>
>> And it cost me 3.60 for the priviledge of going 12 miles.
>
> Quite right too - designed to fleece casual users who know no better.
>
> BTW, have you any idea of the true costs of running a car per mile?

Yes, I do. My car, last year, over the 15,500 miles I did in it cost me
17p per mile.

That includes *buying* it, taxing it, insuring it, servicing it twice,
putting new disks and pads on it, two new tyres, and 15,500 miles worth
of diesel at 1.35 litre at an average of 55mpg on the trip computer.

So, next question please..





--
Mike P

[Mike P]

On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 12:18:50 +0100, Dave Plowman wrote:

> In article
> <87d69429-374f-4cf7...@n5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
> NM <nik.m...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm sure your thinking is mainstream on that one, how can anyone enjoy
>> PT, traveling with the great unwashed in filthy cramped conditions,
>
> All that shows is you know nothing about PT. Excepting that it will be
> 'cramped' in rush hour. But then, so are the roads.

No, it doesn't at all. On the few occasions I've had to use PT in the
last couple of months, it's always been filthy. Last time was in May,
Friday evening train, 7:18pm from Staines to Winnersh. It was filthy.



--
Mike P

[Dave Plowman]

In article <jtp5mc$k7n$3...@dont-email.me>,

Mike P <n...@here.com> wrote:
> It's not true. I'd gladly use PT if it were reasonably priced, and gave
> me a reliable, fighting chance of getting from where I am, to where I
> want to be, in reasonable comfort and on time.

> Sadly, it's never been able to do that for me. It would cost me £18 a
> day to get to work using PT, and take 1hr40 each way. I'd also have to
> somehow get the 3 miles to the station and be there for 6am, then have a
> 20 min walk at the other end.

Is this about Olympic lanes and therefore London? Or another large town?

Of course it's possible to live somewhere not well served by PT. That,
however, is a different argument.

--
*Growing old is inevitable, growing up is optional

[NM]

On Jul 13, 2:07 pm, Mike P <n...@here.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 12:18:50 +0100, Dave Plowman wrote:
> > In article

> > <87d69429-374f-4cf7-a19e-7c96a9262...@n5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,

> >    NM <nik.mor...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >> I'm sure your thinking is mainstream on that one, how can anyone enjoy
> >> PT, traveling with the great unwashed in filthy cramped conditions,
>
> > All that shows is you know nothing about PT. Excepting that it will be
> > 'cramped' in rush hour. But then, so are the roads.
>
> No, it doesn't at all. On the few occasions I've had to use PT in the
> last couple of months, it's always been filthy. Last time was in May,
> Friday evening train, 7:18pm from Staines to Winnersh. It was filthy.
>
> --
> Mike P

Then there is the massive stress making extra parameter that PT
introduces, 'Am I going to get back'? What with the cancellations,
late running, substitute bus services, no service on an even numbered
weekday with an 'r' in the month etc.etc.etc.

More than one third of all rail journies were late according to the
news a couple of days ago.

[bolta...@boltar.world]

On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 06:23:45 -0700 (PDT)
NM <nik.m...@mac.com> wrote:
>> No, it doesn't at all. On the few occasions I've had to use PT in the
>> last couple of months, it's always been filthy. Last time was in May,
>> Friday evening train, 7:18pm from Staines to Winnersh. It was filthy.
>>
>> --
>> Mike P
>
>Then there is the massive stress making extra parameter that PT
>introduces, 'Am I going to get back'? What with the cancellations,
>late running, substitute bus services, no service on an even numbered
>weekday with an 'r' in the month etc.etc.etc.

And woe betide the poor fool who wants to use PT on a w/e especially
in London where TfL seems to think no one needs to work or wants to travel
anywhere on saturday or sunday and so closes as many tube lines for
maintenance as it thinks it can get away with.

B2003

[Mike P]

On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 14:16:38 +0100, Dave Plowman wrote:

> In article <jtp5mc$k7n$3...@dont-email.me>,
> Mike P <n...@here.com> wrote:
>> It's not true. I'd gladly use PT if it were reasonably priced, and gave
>> me a reliable, fighting chance of getting from where I am, to where I
>> want to be, in reasonable comfort and on time.
>
>> Sadly, it's never been able to do that for me. It would cost me £18 a
>> day to get to work using PT, and take 1hr40 each way. I'd also have to
>> somehow get the 3 miles to the station and be there for 6am, then have
>> a 20 min walk at the other end.
>
> Is this about Olympic lanes and therefore London? Or another large town?
>
> Of course it's possible to live somewhere not well served by PT. That,
> however, is a different argument.

No, it's not. I've lived in Highgate, Streatham, Camberwell, Chalk Farm
and Northolt over the years. PT is vile in London.

Where I work now is affected by the Olympic lanes, so yes, it is about
that..


--
Mike P

[Mike P]

On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 14:16:38 +0100, Dave Plowman wrote:

> In article <jtp5mc$k7n$3...@dont-email.me>,
> Mike P <n...@here.com> wrote:
>> It's not true. I'd gladly use PT if it were reasonably priced, and gave
>> me a reliable, fighting chance of getting from where I am, to where I
>> want to be, in reasonable comfort and on time.
>
>> Sadly, it's never been able to do that for me. It would cost me £18 a
>> day to get to work using PT, and take 1hr40 each way. I'd also have to
>> somehow get the 3 miles to the station and be there for 6am, then have
>> a 20 min walk at the other end.
>
> Is this about Olympic lanes and therefore London? Or another large town?
>
> Of course it's possible to live somewhere not well served by PT. That,
> however, is a different argument.

[Dave Plowman]

In article <jtp5u6$k7n$4...@dont-email.me>,

Mike P <n...@here.com> wrote:
> > I use PT a lot round London. Generally, journey times are less than by
> > car - and you don't have the problem of trying to park.

> I never have a problem. If there's 2 or more of us, it makes sense to
> just park at the NCP at Marble arch £20.00 for an entire day is
> relatively cheap, then we can just walk to most places from there.

Crikey. You must be very fit and have lots of time. As well as rich - I
simply wouldn't consider paying 20 quid to park anywhere.

> I then don't need to use PT. There's another NCP over the city side I
> use too, and a couple of under-the-arches type places.

All of which cost an arm and a leg - compared to the PT cost.

> South London
> round West Norwood is never a problem to park either, and I go there a
> lot. Hell, I even parked in Clapham last Friday afternoon at 3.30pm on
> a side road with no restrictions.

Yes - you may be able to park for free in some places, but they're getting
fewer by the day as councils impose resident only parking as a back door
way of increasing their income.

--
*War does not determine who is right - only who is left.

[Dave Plowman]

In article <jtp623$k7n$5...@dont-email.me>,

Mike P <n...@here.com> wrote:
> Cheaper too, as there's always two of us and a toddler.

So you're not going to work? It makes rather a big difference. Obviously
if you have a car full, the costs change dramatically versus PT.
But most of the cars I see in London have only the driver.

--
*Everyone has a photographic memory. Some don't have film *

[Dave Plowman]

In article
<d50bc2bd-012b-4153...@b1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,

NM <nik.m...@mac.com> wrote:
> Then there is the massive stress making extra parameter that PT
> introduces, 'Am I going to get back'? What with the cancellations,
> late running, substitute bus services, no service on an even numbered
> weekday with an 'r' in the month etc.etc.etc.

And the roads are always clear?

> More than one third of all rail journies were late according to the
> news a couple of days ago.

And you are certain of your arrival time when using your car?
What planet is this on?

--
*Real women don't have hot flashes, they have power surges.

[Mike P]

I had the need to travel to Streatham on Tuesday - had to pick my phone
up from the police station there. I'd lost it at Heathrow on the 20th
June, it was "stolen" by someone. Somewhat amazingly, Heathrow car park
security trailed the thief back to his car, got the reg, make (and the
fact it was a marked minicab with the company name on it) and gave the
details to the police. Even more amazingly, they went and paid him a
visit. He wasn't in, but his wife was. My phone was handed in sometime
the same evening, anonymously in Streatham..

Anyway, Twyford to Streatham Hill, on PT, Tuesday afternoon, leaving
about 12:30.. 1hr59 mins, each way, cost of £18.

Twyford to Streatham in the car, bearing in mind the M4 was shut.. 50
mins each way, cost of about a tenner, and I parked for free 3 mins walk
from the Police station on Wellfield road.




--
Mike P

[Mike P]

On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 14:43:33 +0100, Dave Plowman wrote:

> In article <jtp5u6$k7n$4...@dont-email.me>,
> Mike P <n...@here.com> wrote:
>> > I use PT a lot round London. Generally, journey times are less than
>> > by car - and you don't have the problem of trying to park.
>
>> I never have a problem. If there's 2 or more of us, it makes sense to
>> just park at the NCP at Marble arch £20.00 for an entire day is
>> relatively cheap, then we can just walk to most places from there.
>
> Crikey. You must be very fit and have lots of time.

No, I am reasonably fit and know my way around London by foot. It's
really not that far to anywhere from anywhere if you are around the main
places that one might go for "fun" - ie the West End, TCR..

> simply wouldn't consider paying 20 quid to park anywhere.

Your maths doesn't add up Dave.

A Zone 1-6 Travelcard is £8.50, if there are two of us, plus the fiver it
costs us to park at Ruislip or Hillingdon for the day, plus the wasted
hour getting in on the tube to the West end, there is no difference in
cost.

>> I then don't need to use PT. There's another NCP over the city side I
>> use too, and a couple of under-the-arches type places.
>
> All of which cost an arm and a leg - compared to the PT cost.

No they don't, see above..

> Yes - you may be able to park for free in some places, but they're
> getting fewer by the day as councils impose resident only parking as a
> back door way of increasing their income.

I don't , and will never live in London again, it's a shithole, so it
doesn't bother me. The only reason I go there is when my wife makes me do
the touristy thing, or to see family.

--
Mike P

[Mike P]

On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 14:46:15 +0100, Dave Plowman wrote:

> In article <jtp623$k7n$5...@dont-email.me>,
> Mike P <n...@here.com> wrote:
>> Cheaper too, as there's always two of us and a toddler.
>
> So you're not going to work?

No, why the fuck would I want to work in London? Bar Paris, it's the most
unfriendly place I've ever had the mispleasure to be present in.

Anyway, last time I did was back in 1999. It was *still* cheaper and
quicker for me to drive from Northolt to Embankment (I worked at the
LFCDA head office on Embankment) than it was to go on the tube even in
rush hour.

I had to go on a course on Moorgate back in January. It was a week of
utter hell on PT. Train from Twyford to Paddington, then packed tube all
the way round. I had to pay £30 a day for the pleasure.

--
Mike P

[Dave Plowman]

In article <jtp82u$k7m$1...@dont-email.me>,

Mike P <n...@here.com> wrote:
> No, it's not. I've lived in Highgate, Streatham, Camberwell, Chalk Farm
> and Northolt over the years. PT is vile in London.

It has improved dramatically relatively recently. Lots of new rolling
stock on the overground and tube, and new buses. You appear to be judging
things on years ago. Unless you move every five minutes.

> Where I work now is affected by the Olympic lanes, so yes, it is about
> that..

If you live in Reading and drive to London, I'd guess the M4 flyover being
closed will have far more effect on the traffic than any Olympic lane...

--
*Age is a very high price to pay for maturity.

[Mike P]

On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 15:01:34 +0100, Dave Plowman wrote:

> In article <jtp82u$k7m$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Mike P <n...@here.com> wrote:
>> No, it's not. I've lived in Highgate, Streatham, Camberwell, Chalk Farm
>> and Northolt over the years. PT is vile in London.
>
> It has improved dramatically relatively recently. Lots of new rolling
> stock on the overground and tube, and new buses. You appear to be
> judging things on years ago. Unless you move every five minutes.
>
>> Where I work now is affected by the Olympic lanes, so yes, it is about
>> that..
>
> If you live in Reading and drive to London, I'd guess the M4 flyover
> being closed will have far more effect on the traffic than any Olympic
> lane...

Where did I say I drive down the M4 or that my work is in London?

Do please stop jumping to conclusions.

I don't drive down the M4, nor do I work in London.



--
Mike P

[bolta...@boltar.world]

On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 15:01:34 +0100
Dave Plowman <da...@davesound.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <jtp82u$k7m$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Mike P <n...@here.com> wrote:
>> No, it's not. I've lived in Highgate, Streatham, Camberwell, Chalk Farm
>> and Northolt over the years. PT is vile in London.
>
>It has improved dramatically relatively recently. Lots of new rolling
>stock on the overground and tube, and new buses. You appear to be judging
>things on years ago. Unless you move every five minutes.

New trains don't improve anything if you're stuck in a tunnel because
some 60 year old signal has packed up for the 3rd time that week.

B2003

[Mike P]

Well, quite, or the lazy arseholes have gone on strike again.



--
Mike P

[Mike P]

On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 14:25:25 +0000, boltar2003 wrote:

It also makes me laugh how people say PT is great in this country. It's
not, it's shit. You want PT that works, go to Holland, Japan or Germany
and learn. Not London.





--
Mike P

[bolta...@boltar.world]

Agreed. Or even eastern europe. Last time I visited Kiev the Metro was
the equivalent of 20p** for a single to anywhere on the system - none of this
zone nonsense - and the trains ran every 2 minutes almost to the second.

** If anyone mentions cost of living just multiply by 5. So that'll be a quid
to anywhere in the city. Still a bargain.

B2003

[Mike.. . . .]

On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 13:55:10 +0200, Martin <m...@address.invalid> wrote:

>>BTW, have you any idea of the true costs of running a car per mile?
>

>Something car enthusiasts tend to not know. :-)

only worth knowing if you think not having one a good idea.
--
Mike... . . . .

[Mike.. . . .]

On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 12:39:20 +0100, Dave Plowman
<da...@davesound.co.uk> wrote:

>> most people prefer a private space
>
>Says it all.

you like to share space with some of the peasants you find on PT,
youre welcome.

[Mike.. . . .]

On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 13:07:15 +0000 (UTC), Mike P <n...@here.com> wrote:

> On the few occasions I've had to use PT in the
>last couple of months, it's always been filthy

most every train has yobs sittong with feet on seats....

[Mike.. . . .]

On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 14:47:57 +0100, Dave Plowman
<da...@davesound.co.uk> wrote:

>> More than one third of all rail journies were late according to the
>> news a couple of days ago.
>
>And you are certain of your arrival time when using your car?
>What planet is this on?

on a planet where locally I can make any journey in half the time of a
bus. For the countryside its the only practical way. And so on.

[Mike.. . . .]

On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 14:43:33 +0100, Dave Plowman
<da...@davesound.co.uk> wrote:

>All of which cost an arm and a leg - compared to the PT cost.

PT is subsidised, cars are taxed to the hilt.

[Dave Plowman]

In article <1tm0085pg7easgubi...@4ax.com>,

I'm not talking about where you live. But about where I do - London. Which
is where this came up.

But I noticed you ignored the question. If the reason you don't use trains
is because they don't run strictly to a timetable in some cases, how can
you possibly travel by car? Unless you live where there is no other
traffic.

--

[Mike P]

On Jul 13, 7:32 pm, Dave Plowman <d...@davesound.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <1tm0085pg7easgubis1bmqo80cb71pi...@4ax.com>,

>    Mike.. .  .   . <junkforuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 14:47:57 +0100, Dave Plowman
> > <d...@davesound.co.uk> wrote:
> > >> More than one third of all rail journies were late according to the
> > >> news a couple of days ago.
>
> > >And you are certain of your arrival time when using your car?
> > >What planet is this on?
> > on a planet where locally I can make any journey in half the time of a
> > bus. For the countryside its the only practical way. And so on.
>
> I'm not talking about where you live. But about where I do - London. Which
> is where this came up.
>
> But I noticed you ignored the question. If the reason you don't use trains
> is because they don't run strictly to a timetable in some cases, how can
> you possibly travel by car? Unless you live where there is no other
> traffic.

It's far easier to factor in road delays. For example, if I need to
drive to West Norwood at a weekend, I KNOW I will get delayed going
down Wandsworth Hill and queuing for the lights in Brixton. It happens
every time. It's not a problem. Travelling by train, one has to plan
for any one of a number of things - random signal failures, unplanned
engineering works, broken trains, lack of drivers (I had this 3 times
in one week FFS back in 2010!) and any other poor excuse the Rail
Operator comes up with. As they are charging me through the nose for
the priviledge of being fucked about

[JNugent]

On 12/07/2012 22:51, Martin wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 20:13:17 +0100, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>
> wrote:
>
>> On 11/07/2012 13:45, Mike.. . . . wrote:
>>> ORN
>>>
>>> "The Olympic Route Network (ORN) will enable athletes and VIPs to
>>> arrive promptly at their events by improving traffic flow on these
>>> routes. Maps showing the impact of Olympic activities on the London
>>> road network can be seen on the TfL website."
>>>
>>> TFL maps say the lanes close to non Olympic traffic on 27th July
>>>
>>> "When will the ORN/PRN operate?
>>> The ORN and Games Lanes will begin operating on Wednesday 25 July, and
>>> will end on Tuesday 14 August. "
>>>
>>> However, everybody is saying avoid from the 15th *and* we have seen
>>> warning signs about the lanes in central London that quote dates
>>> before the 25th.
>>>
>>> The question
>>>
>>> So what exactly is happening from the 15th that we need to avoid? Just
>>> a bit more traffic from preparations or is it more serious? Nobody
>>> seems to say.
>>>
>>> (anybody who has to drive into central london, like lift engineers,
>>> are going to enjoy sitting behind buses in the one remaining non
>>> olympic lane (from places like the Limehouse tunnel right into central
>>> london)
>>
>> Geese and ganders.
>
> Tortoise and hares?

Buses.
>

[JNugent]

On 13/07/2012 12:26, Dave Plowman wrote:

> In article <jtouh3$6de$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,
> <bolta...@boltar.world> wrote:
>> I did actually travel on the tube on wednesday to accompany my wife part
>> of the way on her journey to a new job. I've now got a cold. Not only is
>> it slow
>
> Are you trying to say travelling by car is quicker than tube during the
> rush hour?
>
>> and unpleasent , its also a disease factory.
>
> I take it you spend all of your life in a sealed room so as not to mix
> with others?
>
>
>> And it cost me 3.60 for the priviledge of going 12 miles.
>
> Quite right too - designed to fleece casual users who know no better.

>
> BTW, have you any idea of the true costs of running a car per mile?

That depends on several variables, but one thing is very obvious: the fewer
miles the car is used for, the higher the cost per mile.

The upshot is that the user should seek to make every possible journey by car
in order to keep down the cost per mile.

[JNugent]

On 13/07/2012 12:39, Dave Plowman wrote:

> In article <rs100851fa0c13m35...@4ax.com>,

> Mike.. . . . <junkfo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> most people prefer a private space
>
> Says it all.

It does, doesn't it?

I am sitting in a private space as I type this.

[JNugent]

On 13/07/2012 13:39, bolta...@boltar.world wrote:

> On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 12:26:20 +0100
> Dave Plowman <da...@davesound.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article <jtouh3$6de$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,
>> <bolta...@boltar.world> wrote:
>>> I did actually travel on the tube on wednesday to accompany my wife part
>>> of the way on her journey to a new job. I've now got a cold. Not only is
>>> it slow
>>
>> Are you trying to say travelling by car is quicker than tube during the
>> rush hour?
>

> Thats exactly what I'm saying. It takes me 30 mins around the north circular
> to get to work. Via tube its 1:10 not including the walk either end.

>
>>> and unpleasent , its also a disease factory.
>>
>> I take it you spend all of your life in a sealed room so as not to mix
>> with others?
>

> Thats a bit different to be physically squashed in with 200 other people in
> a box with air blowing through to nicely distribute any viruses someone has
> sneezed out.

>
>>> And it cost me 3.60 for the priviledge of going 12 miles.
>>
>> Quite right too - designed to fleece casual users who know no better.
>>
>> BTW, have you any idea of the true costs of running a car per mile?
>

> Since I already pay road tax and insurance whether I use it to commute or not
> those costs are irrelevant. The only thing that matters is fuel and wear and
> tear and that works out at less than the tube.

Actually, that isn't quite the full story.

The only way to keep your cost per mile to a minimum is to use the car for as
many journeys as possible (thereby spreading the fixed costs over more miles
rather than fewer miles).

Every mile travelled on a bus or on a train increases the cost per mile of
using your car.

[JNugent]

On 13/07/2012 14:06, Mike P wrote:

> On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 12:26:20 +0100, Dave Plowman wrote:
>
>> In article <jtouh3$6de$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,
>> <bolta...@boltar.world> wrote:
>>> I did actually travel on the tube on wednesday to accompany my wife
>>> part of the way on her journey to a new job. I've now got a cold. Not
>>> only is it slow
>>
>> Are you trying to say travelling by car is quicker than tube during the
>> rush hour?
>>

>>> and unpleasent , its also a disease factory.
>>
>> I take it you spend all of your life in a sealed room so as not to mix
>> with others?
>>
>>

>>> And it cost me 3.60 for the priviledge of going 12 miles.
>>
>> Quite right too - designed to fleece casual users who know no better.
>>
>> BTW, have you any idea of the true costs of running a car per mile?
>

> Yes, I do. My car, last year, over the 15,500 miles I did in it cost me
> 17p per mile.
>
> That includes *buying* it, taxing it, insuring it, servicing it twice,
> putting new disks and pads on it, two new tyres, and 15,500 miles worth
> of diesel at 1.35 litre at an average of 55mpg on the trip computer.
>
> So, next question please..

If you'd only done half of whatever mileage you did, the cost per mile would
have been higher.

You keep the cpm down by doing a lot of miles.

[Mike.. . . .]

On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 20:21:50 +0100, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>
wrote:

>> Since I already pay road tax and insurance whether I use it to commute or not
>> those costs are irrelevant. The only thing that matters is fuel and wear and
>> tear and that works out at less than the tube.
>
>Actually, that isn't quite the full story.
>
>The only way to keep your cost per mile to a minimum is to use the car for as
>many journeys as possible (thereby spreading the fixed costs over more miles
>rather than fewer miles).

the best way is to know a car is useful and use it for appropriate
journeys and PT the same. Low cost per mile as above is still higher
total cost.

[Mike.. . . .]

On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 20:17:55 +0100, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>
wrote:

>The upshot is that the user should seek to make every possible journey by car
>in order to keep down the cost per mile.

if a journey is cheaper by PT and cost your only test, do it by PT and
save money. Cost per mile is irrelevant except for willy waving PT v
Car arguments.
People use cars because they are better for many things, not because
they are cheap. That's why govt can tax them so much and not reduce
demand much.

[Mike.. . . .]

On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 20:19:03 +0100, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>
wrote:

>I am sitting in a private space as I type this.

last time I took a train, two youths got on and sat on opposite sides
of the train with thier feet on the seats and shouted obsenities at
each other. No doubt if I had objected they would have attacked me. It
is often like this or some other crap thing. If some people either are
happy with this or pretend it (or some other crap thing) doesnt happen
all the time they are welcome to pretend either that a train seat is
as pleasant as a car seat or that people who dislike such stuff are
inferior and then say stupid things like "that says it all". Why
bother, nobody sensible is buying it?

[Mike.. . . .]

On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 19:32:18 +0100, Dave Plowman
<da...@davesound.co.uk> wrote:

>> >And you are certain of your arrival time when using your car?
>> >What planet is this on?
>
>> on a planet where locally I can make any journey in half the time of a
>> bus. For the countryside its the only practical way. And so on.
>
>I'm not talking about where you live. But about where I do - London. Which
>is where this came up.

I live in London, but not the centre.

>But I noticed you ignored the question.

where I am the journey takes half the time by car and is less likely
to be late, trains get cancelled, you arrive an hour late.

>If the reason you don't use trains
>is because they don't run strictly to a timetable in some cases, how can
>you possibly travel by car? Unless you live where there is no other
>traffic.

I do use trains for central London, perhaps you should read what I
post?

[Dave Plowman]

In article <ruh2085cb4n2ji5tp...@4ax.com>,

Mike.. . . . <junkfo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> last time I took a train, two youths got on and sat on opposite sides
> of the train with thier feet on the seats and shouted obsenities at
> each other.

Strange the way occasional PT users - who also don't like it - always
experience this. I'm a regular user - but not for commuting - and never
see this sort of thing. Except, of course, school kids being school kids
on the bus on their way home.

I also use one service quite regularly from the terminus. Cleaning staff
go round it when it arrives clearing out all the free newspapers which are
the vast majority of the rubbish. It then leaves for the return journey in
a tidy condition.

--
*According to my calculations, the problem doesn't exist.

[Dave Plowman]

In article <m6i2085j5p705bvgg...@4ax.com>,

Mike.. . . . <junkfo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I live in London, but not the centre.

> >But I noticed you ignored the question.

> where I am the journey takes half the time by car and is less likely
> to be late, trains get cancelled, you arrive an hour late.

Trying to think where one train being cancelled results in an hour's delay?

You also make it sound like this is the norm - but traffic congestion
isn't. Do you live in the same London as me?

--
*OK, so what's the speed of dark? *

[Nick Finnigan]

On 14/07/2012 11:56, Dave Plowman wrote:
>
> Trying to think where one train being cancelled results in an hour's delay?

With our without flange rules?

[poldy]

In article <jtp5mc$k7n$3...@dont-email.me>, Mike P <n...@here.com> wrote:

> Like I'm going to do that, when I can use the car, it costs me £32 for
> the entire week (inc fuel, the two tyres it's needed, a DIY 12 month
> servcice, insurance and tax) and goes door to door in comfort..

Parking and congestion fee for London?

[JNugent]

You might well choose that for other reasons, but not to keep your cost per
mile minimised, as it would not achieve it.

[JNugent]

I very much agree.

The narrow issue is how to keep the cost per mile down as far as possible.
And part of the answer to that is to spread the fixed overheads over as many
miles as possible, even though variable costs will (obviously) be higher for
a higher mileage than for a lower mileage (a bit like bus and train fares).

[JNugent]

Exactly so.

I never travel by PT except where closely associated with international
travel (air, shuttle buses to and from car-parks and to and from car-hire) or
occasionally by train into Central London.

The private space I referred to above is in my home. I can't see any obvious
reason not to want to extend a measure of private personal space out into the
public world by using a private vehicle.

[Dave Plowman]

In article <a6d4k6...@mid.individual.net>,

JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> The narrow issue is how to keep the cost per mile down as far as
> possible. And part of the answer to that is to spread the fixed
> overheads over as many miles as possible, even though variable costs
> will (obviously) be higher for a higher mileage than for a lower
> mileage (a bit like bus and train fares).

Absolutely. I regularly go for a drive round and round the M25 just to
keep my cost per mile down.

--
*Don't byte off more than you can view *

[JNugent]

On 14/07/2012 15:36, Dave Plowman wrote:
> In article <a6d4k6...@mid.individual.net>,
> JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> The narrow issue is how to keep the cost per mile down as far as
>> possible. And part of the answer to that is to spread the fixed
>> overheads over as many miles as possible, even though variable costs
>> will (obviously) be higher for a higher mileage than for a lower
>> mileage (a bit like bus and train fares).
>
> Absolutely. I regularly go for a drive round and round the M25 just to
> keep my cost per mile down.

I know you do. I've seen you doing it.

[Mike P]

On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 11:56:20 +0100, Dave Plowman wrote:

> In article <m6i2085j5p705bvgg...@4ax.com>,
> Mike.. . . . <junkfo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I live in London, but not the centre.
>
>> >But I noticed you ignored the question.
>
>> where I am the journey takes half the time by car and is less likely to
>> be late, trains get cancelled, you arrive an hour late.
>
> Trying to think where one train being cancelled results in an hour's
> delay?

It happens often enough as to not be a total surprise on the Reading-
Paddington main line. It usually goes thus. Train is late, broken or
cancelled. Next train sets off 25 mins later, on time, however gets it's
destination changed because it's too full to stop at other stations, or
timetable is now screwed up. It thus leaves you standing at your stop, or
if you do get on it , it is no longer going where you want it to go. I
used to travel from Burnham to Twyford every day on it. Standing on
Burnham platform, in winter, unsure when you're going to get home is not
pleasant.

More recently, when I was in a course in the City, FGW managed a 100%
record of being more than 30 mins late all 5 days on the return leg from
Paddington to Twyford.


--
Mike P

[mikeos]

On 13/07/2012 15:33, Mike P wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 14:25:25 +0000, boltar2003 wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 15:01:34 +0100
>> Dave Plowman <da...@davesound.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In article <jtp82u$k7m$1...@dont-email.me>,
>>> Mike P <n...@here.com> wrote:
>>>> No, it's not. I've lived in Highgate, Streatham, Camberwell, Chalk
>>>> Farm and Northolt over the years. PT is vile in London.
>>>
>>> It has improved dramatically relatively recently. Lots of new rolling
>>> stock on the overground and tube, and new buses. You appear to be
>>> judging things on years ago. Unless you move every five minutes.
>>
>> New trains don't improve anything if you're stuck in a tunnel because
>> some 60 year old signal has packed up for the 3rd time that week.
>
> It also makes me laugh how people say PT is great in this country. It's
> not, it's shit. You want PT that works, go to Holland, Japan or Germany
> and learn. Not London.

Yes, and try Vancouver's Skytrain - fast reliable, cheap and clean, AND
it's a completely un-manned system.

[Ian Dalziel]

On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 20:17:55 +0100, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>
wrote:

Why would anyone want to pay more to reduce their cost per mile?

--

Ian D

[Ian Dalziel]

On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 20:19:03 +0100, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>
wrote:

I hope they let you out soon.

--

Ian D

[JNugent]

Yes - I should have foreseen the "clever" remarks, shouldn't I?

So just to avoid doubt (not that opinions posted in newsgroups should need to
be larded with caveats at thesis-level): the upshot is that the user should
seek to make every possible one of his intended journeys by car in order to
keep down hios cost per mile. Using other modes where the car could be used
will increase his car cost-per-mile by spreading fixed costs over a smaller
number of miles.

[Ian Dalziel]

On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 10:30:31 +0100, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>

I don't give a toss about my "cost per mile". I'm only worried about
cost full stop.

Now, WHY should I pay more just to reduce my cost per mile figure?

--

Ian D

[NM]

On Jul 15, 10:53 am, Ian Dalziel <iandalz...@lineone.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 10:30:31 +0100, JNugent <jennings...@fastmail.fm>

> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On 15/07/2012 10:25, Ian Dalziel wrote:

> >> On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 20:17:55 +0100, JNugent <jennings...@fastmail.fm>

> >> wrote:
>
> >>> On 13/07/2012 12:26, Dave Plowman wrote:
>

> >>>> In article <jtouh3$6d...@speranza.aioe.org>,

Where does it say you would pay more? you would only pay more if you
use PT.