"Dan Gravell" wrote in message
...

As far as I am concerned no taxi drivers want to take
me home anyway, so why should I care for their demise?

I wasn't suggesting that the All-London taxi drivers would be affected, but
that the suburban taxi drivers, who have only done the knowledge for a part
of the suburbs and are only allowed to pick up in that area, would be
affected. If you're angry with All-London taxi drivers who won't take you to
the suburbs, don't take it out on suburban taxi drivers.

Incidentally, the new directional rank at Cranbourn Street should make it a
lot easier to get a taxi to the furthest reaches of the suburbs, at least
late at night.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

"Dan Gravell" wrote in message
...

As far as I am concerned no taxi drivers want to take me home anyway, so
why should I care for their demise? Minicab drivers have always treated me
with far more respect.


IAWTW.

Getting back to South London from town in the middle of the night is
relatively cheap and painless in a minicab. I wouldn't even like to think
about how much it might cost in a Taxi, or how unwelcome my custom would be.


I cannot afford to live in Central London although would love to, so I
have to live in the suburbs and commute in.


The irony is that despite the best efforts of Westminster City Council there
are still a load of people living in Central London for whom it costs almost
nothing, and who don't even have jobs that they need to be there for.


5) The decimation of the suburban taxi trade and growth of the minicab
trade
will mean that the disabled won't be able to get around at all.

This is a fair concern.


They could always use the London Underground - Look out for the wheelchair
symbol on the line maps.

Disabled people obviously only want to go from West Ham to Hammersmith or
Woodford to Stratford anyway...

Ahem.

BTN

John Rowland wrote:

Incidentally, the new directional rank at Cranbourn Street should make it a
lot easier to get a taxi to the furthest reaches of the suburbs, at least
late at night.

Thanks, I wasn't aware of this, I'll take a look.

Dan

In article ,
"Sir Benjamin Nunn" wrote:
"Dan Gravell" wrote in message
...

I cannot afford to live in Central London although would love to, so I
have to live in the suburbs and commute in.

The irony is that despite the best efforts of Westminster City Council there
are still a load of people living in Central London for whom it costs almost
nothing, and who don't even have jobs that they need to be there for.

From where do you get the idea that one should only be permitted to live
in central London if one needs to be there for ones' job? My constituents
in Westminster, many of whom struggle to find well-paid jobs, would be
appalled.

--
http://www.election.demon.co.uk
"The guilty party was the Liberal Democrats and they were hardened offenders,
and coded racism was again in evidence in leaflets distributed in September
1993." - Nigel Copsey, "Contemporary British Fascism", page 62.

"John Rowland" wrote in message ...
"Boltar" wrote in message
om...
"John Rowland" wrote in message
...
The PCO is legally entitled to visit a taxi-driver's house at any time of
the day or night and inspect his taxi there and then, waking him if

Ah , didn't know that. HOw often would they actually do it though? After all,
he might be out working.

necessary. Any taxi driver who did the above would lose his badge. Anyway,
since the only places where a GPS unit would lose the signal for a
significant period of time are all 30mph limit anyway, the unit would
probably default to 30 unless it has reason to believe that it is on a road
where the speed limit is higher.

You mean like the dartford tunnel? Yeah , 30mph would go down well there!

B2003

Dan Gravell wrote in message ...
My thoughts...

1) Taxis will become significantly slower than minicabs, and so will become
a distress purchase for people who can't get a minicab. People will prefer
any minicab, even an illegal one, to a taxi.

I think the general trend is to fit these things to all cars in London,
or at least that's what I read.

What and lose all that revenue from Speed Cameras. I can't see that happening :-)

In article , John Rowland
writes
Apparently Livingstone wants to fit GPS-controlled speed limiters to buses
and taxis which will prevent them from ever breaking the speed limit.
[...]
1) Taxis will become significantly slower than minicabs,
[...]
3) Taxi drivers will earn less money,

So you believe that taxis can't survive as a commercial proposition
without breaking the law? What *are* you taking?

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

"David Boothroyd" wrote in message
...

I cannot afford to live in Central London although would love to, so I
have to live in the suburbs and commute in.

The irony is that despite the best efforts of Westminster City Council
there
are still a load of people living in Central London for whom it costs
almost
nothing, and who don't even have jobs that they need to be there for.

From where do you get the idea that one should only be permitted to live
in central London if one needs to be there for ones' job? My constituents
in Westminster, many of whom struggle to find well-paid jobs, would be
appalled.


The point is that a lot of people with jobs in Central London cannot afford
to live there and thus the transport infrastructure is pushed to unnecessary
extremities.

I've struggle to find well-paid jobs, and I'm appalled at the number of
people who have to pay lots of money to live in not-particularly-nice areas
that aren't close to their workplaces, and suffer miserable commutes every
day.

Radical idea, I know, but if people who wanted to do so were actually able
to live close to their workplaces, there would be savings in transport costs
(both to the customer and the state), reduced pollution, reduced disparity
in deprivation, and increased leisure time.

BTN

In article ,
"Sir Benjamin Nunn" wrote:
"David Boothroyd" wrote in message
...
From where do you get the idea that one should only be permitted to live
in central London if one needs to be there for ones' job? My constituents
in Westminster, many of whom struggle to find well-paid jobs, would be
appalled.

The point is that a lot of people with jobs in Central London cannot afford
to live there and thus the transport infrastructure is pushed to unnecessary
extremities.

What a surprise that not all of the 1,000,000 people who work in the City
of London and Westminster can live there. Even if we had developed at
the typical densities of European capitals (instead of our unusually
low densities), there is no way all of them could possibly live within
easy reach of their workplaces.

I've struggle to find well-paid jobs, and I'm appalled at the number of
people who have to pay lots of money to live in not-particularly-nice areas
that aren't close to their workplaces, and suffer miserable commutes every
day.

For nine years I've paid over the odds to live in central London, but
that's my choice. I could have a much larger home in the suburbs but I
prefer to live here.

But I don't begrudge home to those in social housing in Westminster. The
fact is that there has always been a working-class population in central
London. The area between Victoria Street, Pimlico and the river was
historically a very poor one containing slums, and Peabody blocks have
replaced slum housing by Aldwych and in Soho. Even in Mayfair there are
social housing blocks (around Balderton Street).

Radical idea, I know, but if people who wanted to do so were actually able
to live close to their workplaces, there would be savings in transport costs
(both to the customer and the state), reduced pollution, reduced disparity
in deprivation, and increased leisure time.

Do you think people are prepared to put up with housing densities which
will go considerably over 1,000 habitable rooms per hectare in the city
centre? Or are you the new Pol Pot, determined to abolish cities and
move everyone back to the land?

--
http://www.election.demon.co.uk
"The guilty party was the Liberal Democrats and they were hardened offenders,
and coded racism was again in evidence in leaflets distributed in September
1993." - Nigel Copsey, "Contemporary British Fascism", page 62.

"David Boothroyd" wrote in message
...

The point is that a lot of people with jobs in Central London cannot
afford
to live there and thus the transport infrastructure is pushed to
unnecessary
extremities.

What a surprise that not all of the 1,000,000 people who work in the City
of London and Westminster can live there. Even if we had developed at
the typical densities of European capitals (instead of our unusually
low densities), there is no way all of them could possibly live within
easy reach of their workplaces.


They don't all need to - but if *more* of them did, there would be less
crowding on transport and the other benefits that go with it. For a lot of
people, the choice isn't there.


I've struggle to find well-paid jobs, and I'm appalled at the number of
people who have to pay lots of money to live in not-particularly-nice
areas
that aren't close to their workplaces, and suffer miserable commutes
every
day.

For nine years I've paid over the odds to live in central London, but
that's my choice. I could have a much larger home in the suburbs but I
prefer to live here.

But I don't begrudge home to those in social housing in Westminster.


And I do.

I find the idea that people given a free home can choose where they live,
while those who work hard and pay tax are often forced into living where
they can afford it contemptibly unfair. Although not surprising in this
country, admittedly.

If I actually had to work in Westminster, I think I'd be even more angry at
this situation.

Having given up on London, I've been searching hard for a flat close to my
office lately - somewhere cheap and not particularly good. There are lots of
such places in central Ipswich, lots of them unoccupied, and practically
none of them are on the market to either buy or let because they all belong
to housing associations and are intended for people that don't need to be
close to my office. Or indeed any office.

Instead, I'm facing pressure to live somewhere 'more desirable' (expensive)
miles away from the town centre and necessitating a car journey. Typically
everything on the market is aimed at conventional, conformist 'families' and
miles from my own personal requirements. ****s.

The biggest ****ing irony of all is that there are people in Suffolk who
commute daily into London...


Radical idea, I know, but if people who wanted to do so were actually
able
to live close to their workplaces, there would be savings in transport
costs
(both to the customer and the state), reduced pollution, reduced
disparity
in deprivation, and increased leisure time.

Do you think people are prepared to put up with housing densities which
will go considerably over 1,000 habitable rooms per hectare in the city
centre? Or are you the new Pol Pot, determined to abolish cities and
move everyone back to the land?


Heh. If I could live and work in a more rural area, I'd do it in a second,
but the option isn't there. I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Anathaema to your sort though it may be, I just want to live in a world of
greater choice.

BTN