🚀 go-pugleaf

==============================================================================
Steve Hunt writes:
>This is rather like trying to reduce a swelling in your body by
>beating it with a hammer.  It is a sad example of treating the symptom
>in a simpleminded way, rather than alleviating the cause.
>
>I think they have it the wrong way round.  They should improve public
>transport until it is really convenient, and then the car problem will
>automatically reduce.  Most public transport systems are *desperately*
>inconvenient when compared with cars; the fact that people prefer to
>use their cars despite the queues you describe is strong evidence of
>this.
>
We have to look on this in the long term, unfortunately individuals don't
when it comes to driving to work. BCC have had a campaign to appeal to
peoples common sense by asking them to share cars or use public transport
more. It obviously hasn't worked, the motorist sees it as applying to
other people and hopes the reduction in traffic will be to his
benefit.

>I would very happily use public transport for more of my travel needs
>if it had the following properties:-
>
>1) Operates as near to "door-to-door" as practicable.
>2) Operates frequently enough that I don't have to plan my life
>   around the timetable.
>3) Operates 24 hours a day without degradation of service at night.
>
>Until they can claim these three properties, the public transport
>lobby are not even *trying* to compete with the private vehicle.
>

The traffic problems I wrote about are those associated with rush hour
how many people who drive into work in the city manage to get to the
door of their office? Like I said in my original post: how many people
bother to find out how the two methods of transport compare?

I see you must be one of those people who sees having to wait a couple
of minutes for a bus as being a reason to drive. I am not arguing the
wider issues of public v. private transport, I _am_ talking about rush
hour traffic within Birmingham. You are hardly going to have to plan your
life around the timetable of inner-city buses at _this_ time, your
arguement is more applicable to train and plane timetables.

Ditto this point. Rush hour traffic remember.


>The habit of commuting itself is the source of many of our transport
>problems, as it creates a very high demand twice a day.  Thus big road
>schemes are needed to meet this high instantaneous demand; smaller
>roads would suffice if the demand were spread out.  Rail operators
>need much of their rolling stock just to service the two rush hours;
>they could get by with far less if the demand was ironed out.
>
>I never hear it mooted in transport debates, but it makes an awful lot
>of sense: get rid of the rush hour.  Because 9 to 5 working is so
>strongly ingrained in our culture, it would be necessary to introduce
>legislation, or positive financial incentives, to encourage companies
>to operate staggered hours or flexitime.
>
>Spreading the load of commuter traffic over four or five hours in the
>morning and evening rather than one or two should make the situation
>much more tolerable.  And as a longer-term goal, the increase in
>telecommuting promises even greater benefits.
>--

Come back to the real world, you attacked BCC's strategy as being
simple-minded, how do you intend getting businesses to do what you
say? Either entire places of work come in at different times and
so have a hell of a time communicating with each other in the overlaps
or the people at each place of work have different working hours......
I hope your on a wind up on this point. Your suggesting that we change
working practices to such an extent to pander to the motorist? I prefer
making travel by car more inconvenient relative to public transport and
allow the gradual shift to take place, with the number of buses
increasing at a realistic pace. Like I say this is a long term solution.

Andy T.