In message .com, at
10:45:12 on Thu, 17 Feb 2005, remarked:

Chris Tolley wrote:
On 16 Feb 2005 07:14:48 -0800, wrote:

I was also irritated that day-trippers, rather than the every day
commuters, were getting priority at the station during rush hour.

Why is that irritating?

a) After being given priority at the gates some block the platform with
their pushchairs and refuse to move down

b) They are being given priority but often pay less (family travelcard
for 2 adults + 2 kids is cheaper than 2 adult cards; or the other
option: ODTC add on to national rail ticket is about £3) and have less
need to travel during the rush hour

c) A real business (ie not a monopoly) would not discriminate against
its regular customers in favour of those who are not likely to use it
again for a long time

You've hit a nail on the head here. TFL is a kind of monopoly, which is
why people choose the car instead. But TFL realises that regular
travellers are making a distress purchase, and the "up for a day"
tourists are pure profit.

Roland Perry said:
Wouldn't that just mean a wave of people all trying to visit the
Science
museum for half an hour?

In my opinion, no.

1) There isn't much you can see in half an hour

You might not know that if you've never visited them before. In any
event, a proper staggering of closing times would take place over more
than half an hour.

2) By that time in the evening during a half term day at the museums
parents are quite possibly going to be worn out and want to go home

So what's the problem with them all closing at a time you now agree they
all want to go home anyway?

3) We always went to a particular museum when I wer a lad rather than
"The museums"

So you'd rather their one-off experience of Public Transport was a
nightmare, and they drove next time?

Nope.

So you agree they should have preferential treatment, as we all seem to
agree that the regular treatment is awful.

i) Their experience shouldn't be improved by adding delay to regular
passengers. They should be treated equaly

Ah, equally badly.

ii) Driving to the museums isn't really an option. Theres no
affordable parking in the local area (theres an expensive long stay
parking in Kingston House which is a fair walk away for kids)

The carpark under Hyde Park is close enough to make a short PT journey
to the museums, but still allow the cars to clog up the centre of
London.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
You've hit a nail on the head here. TFL is a kind of monopoly, which
is
why people choose the car instead. But TFL realises that regular
travellers are making a distress purchase, and the "up for a day"
tourists are pure profit.

Couldn't agree more


Roland Perry said:
Wouldn't that just mean a wave of people all trying to visit the
Science
museum for half an hour?

In my opinion, no.

1) There isn't much you can see in half an hour

You might not know that if you've never visited them before. In any
event, a proper staggering of closing times would take place over
more
than half an hour.

I have visted them all and I would say you really need to make a day of
it



2) By that time in the evening during a half term day at the museums
parents are quite possibly going to be worn out and want to go home

So what's the problem with them all closing at a time you now agree
they
all want to go home anyway?

That's not what I said. I said that after a certain time people are
unlikely to want to go to ANOTHER museum (they would probably be more
than happy to stay at the one they are at). Imagine it's half five,
the NatHist museum has just closed and you have been there since lunch
time... would you:
a) Go home
b) Go to the Sci museum for half an hour?
c) Be very daft and get the tube to High St Ken for food



3) We always went to a particular museum when I wer a lad rather
than
"The museums"

So you'd rather their one-off experience of Public Transport was a
nightmare, and they drove next time?

Nope.

So you agree they should have preferential treatment, as we all seem
to
agree that the regular treatment is awful.

i) Their experience shouldn't be improved by adding delay to regular
passengers. They should be treated equaly

Ah, equally badly.

No, just the same as everyone else ie no preferential treatment at the
expense of others.


ii) Driving to the museums isn't really an option. Theres no
affordable parking in the local area (theres an expensive long stay
parking in Kingston House which is a fair walk away for kids)

The carpark under Hyde Park is close enough to make a short PT
journey
to the museums, but still allow the cars to clog up the centre of
London.

--
Roland Perry

wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:

[snip]
i) Their experience shouldn't be improved by adding delay to
regular passengers. They should be treated equaly

Ah, equally badly.

No, just the same as everyone else ie no preferential treatment at
the expense of others.

What you seem to forget is that you're talking about the reopening of a
station after it had been closed because of overcrowding. You said
yourself:
"when South Ken re-opened why were famalies being waved through and
normal commuters being shouted at by staff? All this served to do was
cause a further back log as kids slowly walked down the stairs accross
the whole width."

If you've got a mixture of adult commuters, parents and children,
including toddlers in push-chairs, all of whom have had their journey
home disrupted, and you then give them all access to the platform
together, you've got all the elements of a potentially dangerous crowd
situation on the stairs and on an island platform with 630 volts DC on
either side. It seems very sensible to me that in the circumstances LU
should let the most vulnerable members of this crowd through first.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Richard J. wrote:
either side. It seems very sensible to me that in the circumstances
LU
should let the most vulnerable members of this crowd through first.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Really? I would have thought having a wall of commuters between the
kids and the edge of the platform would make the kids less likely to be
able to fall onto the tracks rather than letting families on first (and
hence being closer to the platform edge). But thats just my opinion

wrote:
Richard J. wrote:
either side. It seems very sensible to me that in the
circumstances LU should let the most vulnerable members of this
crowd through first. --
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Really? I would have thought having a wall of commuters between the
kids and the edge of the platform would make the kids less likely
to be able to fall onto the tracks rather than letting families on
first (and hence being closer to the platform edge). But thats
just my opinion

Oh, I see, what you *really* want is for the commuters to be let on
first to populate the platform edge, and therefore get on the trains
first. So much for "no preferential treatment".

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

In message . com, at
11:43:12 on Thu, 17 Feb 2005, remarked:
Imagine it's half five,
the NatHist museum has just closed and you have been there since lunch
time... would you:
a) Go home
b) Go to the Sci museum for half an hour?
c) Be very daft and get the tube to High St Ken for food

It would depend on my level of experience. A novice could view things
rather differently to a seasoned museum go-er. Especially if they live
200 miles away and need to cram all they can into one day.

--
Roland Perry