Many Birds with One Stone
 

"Gawnsoft" wrote in
message ...
On Sat, 7 Aug 2004 16:36:17 -0500, "Stephen Sprunk"
The cost of drivers will destroy any savings the taxibuses have over
other
modes,

Surely not over taxis.


Taxis aren't mass transport, they are a way rich people can get arround
easilly using lanes designed for mass transit (busses)
--
Everything above is the personal opinion of the author, and nothing to do
with where he works and all that lovely disclaimery stuff.
Posted in his lunch hour too.

Many Birds with One Stone
 

In message , at 09:52:03 on Tue, 10
Aug 2004, Paul Weaver remarked:
Taxis aren't mass transport, they are a way rich people can get arround
easilly using lanes designed for mass transit (busses)

Taxis are mass transport because during a day a large number of people
get to use the same vehicle, which is already inside the central area.

It is worth encouraging this, as the alternative is to cope with
(including the manufacturing environmental costs) dozens of individual
vehicles, each making its way through the suburbs.
--
Roland Perry

Many Birds with One Stone
 

"Paul Weaver" wrote in message
...
"Gawnsoft" wrote in
message ...
On Sat, 7 Aug 2004 16:36:17 -0500, "Stephen Sprunk"
The cost of drivers will destroy any savings the taxibuses have over
other modes,

Surely not over taxis.

Taxis aren't mass transport,

I hadn't considered taxis a form of transit since, when the driver is
excluded, they have a load factor similar to private cars.

they are a way rich people can get arround easilly using lanes designed
for
mass transit (busses)

In some cities, perhaps. Being able to use HOV lanes is a minor benefit
compared to the cost. Whining about how they're only used by "the rich" is
gratuitously inflammatory and adds nothing to the debate; in fact they're
only marginally more expensive than owning and operating your own car if you
live in a dense urban area. For a business traveler (who I suppose you
assume are all "rich"), taxis are often significantly cheaper than a rental
car, especially when combined with transit.

S

--
Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
K5SSS --Isaac Asimov

Many Birds with One Stone
 

Stephen Sprunk ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

I hadn't considered taxis a form of transit since, when the driver is
excluded, they have a load factor similar to private cars.

Not to mention all the single-occupant cruising around looking for a fare
when a private car would be parked.

Many Birds with One Stone
 

Paul Weaver wrote:

"Gawnsoft" wrote:

"Stephen Sprunk"

The cost of drivers will destroy any savings the taxibuses have
over other modes,

Surely not over taxis.

Taxis aren't mass transport,

Correct.

they are a way rich people can get
arround easilly using lanes designed for mass transit (busses)

Very incorrect.

The large number of taxis in provincial cities (I cite Liverpool in
particular, with over 1500 licensed taxis) could not be sustained if
patronised only by "rich" people (who, in places outside London, encounter
far less restriction on car-use anyway, and are to be found in very small
numbers).

Taxi-riders in the UK (maybe not in the West End, Kensington or the square
mile of the City) are overwhelmingly members of the working and middle
classes, perhaps even of the underclass - certainly not "the rich".


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.734 / Virus Database: 488 - Release Date: 04/08/04

Many Birds with One Stone
 

Paul Weaver wrote:
"Brimstone" wrote in message
...
chris harrison wrote:
Brimstone wrote:

Adrian wrote:

Stephen Sprunk ) gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying :


I hadn't considered taxis a form of transit since, when the
driver is excluded, they have a load factor similar to private
cars.

Not to mention all the single-occupant cruising around looking
for a fare when a private car would be parked.


Occupying space that could be economically active?



As opposed to being parked somewhere waiting for the single-occupant
to pick it up later?

Sorry, I was meaning that the space occupied by the unused car could
be economically active, i.e. retail, commercial or industrial
premises or even housing.

Assuming parked on private land, that's none of your business what
it's used for, yes it could be another estate agent, or it could be a
park, but it's not your choice, unlike roads that space is owned and
the owner will do what they want with it.

I don't recall making any suggestion that land use is my business. Would you
care to refresh my memory?

Many Birds with One Stone
 

Gawnsoft wrote:
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 09:52:03 +0100, "Paul Weaver"
wrote (more or less):

"Gawnsoft" wrote
in message ...
On Sat, 7 Aug 2004 16:36:17 -0500, "Stephen Sprunk"
The cost of drivers will destroy any savings the taxibuses have
over other modes,

Surely not over taxis.


Taxis aren't mass transport, they are a way rich people can get
arround easilly using lanes designed for mass transit (busses)

In my experience, taxi's are often used by those who cannot afford to
run a car.

Surely those who choose not to run a car will also use taxis?

I realise that a small number of people find it difficult to believe, but
there are actually people in the UK who exercise their choice and don't
drive. They choose to use public transport to get about.


This also varies from place to place, I expect. Certainly Glasgow
taxis are almost an order of magnitude cheaper than Edinburgh taxis,
for example.

Many Birds with One Stone
 

In message , at 23:37:39 on
Tue, 10 Aug 2004, Gawnsoft
remarked:
Most people going to dixons to buy a new TV aren't going to want to
take it home on the bus.

True. Luckily many such shops have delivery vans. It's certainly how
I get lots of my purchases to my home from the shops.

So instead of getting the whatever that you carefully picked out in
the shop, at home and useful that afternoon; you get to take a day off
work, and wait in all of next Thursday, in the hope that the one they
deliver from the warehouse doesn't have a big scratch on the side.
--
Roland Perry

Many Birds with One Stone
 

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 23:37:39
on Tue, 10 Aug 2004, Gawnsoft
remarked:
Most people going to dixons to buy a new TV aren't going to want to
take it home on the bus.

True. Luckily many such shops have delivery vans. It's certainly
how I get lots of my purchases to my home from the shops.

So instead of getting the whatever that you carefully picked out in
the shop, at home and useful that afternoon; you get to take a day off
work, and wait in all of next Thursday, in the hope that the one they
deliver from the warehouse doesn't have a big scratch on the side.

So you pay out the costs of owning a car so that you can go a buy a new TV
and carry it home yourself every few years? An interesting slant on
cost/benefit analysis.

Many Birds with One Stone
 

In message , at 10:17:02 on Wed, 11
Aug 2004, Brimstone remarked:
So you pay out the costs of owning a car so that you can go a buy a new TV
and carry it home yourself every few years? An interesting slant on
cost/benefit analysis.

Only on Usenet do you find propositions like this taken to such
ridiculous extremes.

What's actually happening is that over the period of ownership of the
car, people find *enough* times they need to transport something large,
or go somewhere inconvenient for public transport, or travel at hours
that public transport doesn't work, or on routes that PT fail to
support.
--
Roland Perry