"derek" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 13:33:26 -0000, "iantheengineer"
wrote:


"Paul Weaver" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 22:23:48 +0000, iantheengineer wrote:

It doesnt need to for most of the commute

Ahh, so the bus splits into 72 parts at each end?

No not at all, and I would think that the theory behind it is obvious,
the
key to bus usage is modal interchange,

Is that your name for what we call a bus stop?

It can be but in its loosest and at the lowest level. a bus stop is
interchange between walking and the bus ride, but many forms of interchange
are being developed, such as cycle carrying facilities on buses and cycle
lockers at train stations to enable the change from say the bus to the cycle
to complete the last part of the journey

ie facilities to allow transfer from
opne mode of travel to another.

you mean you ride the bus to the bus stop, get off and walk the rest
of the way home.

I think I have answered this point above

Fotr the most part of the commute menay
people are travelling in the same direction however upon reaching the
very
last section of the journey and at the very start of the journey we all
live
and work in slightly different places, but we use the same main
corridors.
In cities, it is generally the case that most people can walk from their
bus
stop to their office. Complications arise for people who work to site
etc,
but for the most part many people are 9-5 approx and stay office bound.
IF
you carry out any o-d survey you will see that certain routes are
trafficked
by people from the same areas going to the same areas, and it is for
these
that public transport works.

Buses may be OK if you work in the centre of a city and live in a
suburb of that same city near to an arterial road to the city centre
and are lucky (the bus stop being near to your house). If you live in
one suburb and work in another you can forget about PT.

I agree but it is only because all of the other people are using cars as
well that makes the provision of PT unviable

The main problem with public transport is the
effective routing.

You're wrong there the main problem with public transport is the
dreich people you have to share your space with. The last time I used
a bus there was a man in a dirty shabby mac sat next to me, smelling
of wee, his face covered in sores, and a "dewdrop" glistening on the
end of his nose like a pearl.


True this is a problem but not an entirely insurmountable one

In order to make it profitable a bus must collect x
punters to make the service profitable,

cloudy thinking, what has profitability to do with it? It is the
function of the bus to pick up and carry passengers. The bus must pick
up passengers - period, or it might as well stay in the depot all day.


Why operate a service in the deregulated system if it isnt profitable???

No company would, ask any community transport group who have to fill in the
gaps that PT is missing

in order to do this sometimes it is
necessary to protract the route to serve a certain catchment

Second thoughts you're right, a public transport system that didn't
have to pick up passengers would run much more efficiently. Another
example of the travelling public being unreasonable.

and by doing
this it incurrs delays compared to the direct route of using the car, but
,
by many people using their cars they create delays through traffic
congestion. Bus lanes assist to redress this balance a litlle, but at
present do not provide sufficient advantage to make the bus seem
attractive.

Correct, it would take *some* doing.


I agree we have a long way to go with the public transport system, but we
have to start somewhere. The fiirst issue is to get them efficient and
on-time so that people can rely on them. Secondly to make them more cost
effective to give cheaper fares. Thirdly to improve the quality of the ride
and interchange facilities, this includes having to sit next to Mr Dew drop
who hasnt washed this week.

If these issues were resolved and I had a bus available for my journey to
work I would use it.

DG