David Bradley wrote:

However there
is a rule that says if the frequency of any route is less than 10 minutes then
it is a candidate for fiscally advantageous to operate it as a trolleybus
route.

A rule, eh? As 'asdf' has mentioned, 'on your web site, you state that
"the opinion of the country's largest group of professional transport
planners is that the best option for most places is trolleybuses" '.
Did "the country's largest group of professional transport planners"
devise this rule? And, in any case, will you please tell us more about
this group?

On 13 Nov 2005 11:55:03 -0800, wrote:

David Bradley wrote:

However there
is a rule that says if the frequency of any route is less than 10 minutes then
it is a candidate for fiscally advantageous to operate it as a trolleybus
route.

A rule, eh? As 'asdf' has mentioned, 'on your web site, you state that
"the opinion of the country's largest group of professional transport
planners is that the best option for most places is trolleybuses" '.
Did "the country's largest group of professional transport planners"
devise this rule? And, in any case, will you please tell us more about
this group?

The contents of the web page that is the home page of www.tfwl.org.uk which
has 'the opinion' statement was written in 2001 and has been continuously
displayed on another web site since that time. In four years a lot has
changed I am seeking an updated statement that reflects current thinking of
the organisations to whom this opinon originates from, together with
permissions to reproduce the exchange of emails received then and subsequently
on the issues you raise.

I am afraid that not everyone responds as immediately as you would wish and
you will just have to wait until I get the appropriate clearance "to publish".
However as a jesture of goodwill I am prepared to remove that paragraph for
the time being.

David Bradley

David Bradley wrote:

The contents of the web page that is the home page of www.tfwl.org.uk which
has 'the opinion' statement was written in 2001 and has been continuously
displayed on another web site since that time. In four years a lot has
changed I am seeking an updated statement that reflects current thinking of
the organisations to whom this opinon originates from, together with
permissions to reproduce the exchange of emails received then and subsequently
on the issues you raise.

Another dodgy answer. You claimed that the opinion came from "the
country's largest group of professional transport planners". "Group" -
singular. Such a group must have a name, so why not tell us?

And you haven't told us where the "10 minute frequency" "rule" came
from. Such a clear-cut rule must be documented and attributable, so...?

On 13 Nov 2005 15:51:31 -0800, wrote:

David Bradley wrote:

The contents of the web page that is the home page of www.tfwl.org.uk which
has 'the opinion' statement was written in 2001 and has been continuously
displayed on another web site since that time. In four years a lot has
changed I am seeking an updated statement that reflects current thinking of
the organisations to whom this opinon originates from, together with
permissions to reproduce the exchange of emails received then and subsequently
on the issues you raise.

Another dodgy answer. You claimed that the opinion came from "the
country's largest group of professional transport planners". "Group" -
singular. Such a group must have a name, so why not tell us?

Because I MUST have permission first to use this information. It is one thing
for people working withinr such organisations to express an opiniont privately
but quite another for those same statements to be published.

And you haven't told us where the "10 minute frequency" "rule" came
from. Such a clear-cut rule must be documented and attributable, so...?

The 10 minute justification comes from the Arnhem report into whether to
replace or retain trolleybuses. When we were considering London we changed it
to five minutes because everything in the UK is absurdly more expensive to do
than on the other side of the Channel. We have never analysed the revenue
against costs of the proposal in full detail but did do some very rough
calculations of costs and revenue and that seemed to confirm that it was a
viable concept financially.

David Bradley

David Bradley wrote:

Because I MUST have permission first to use this information. It is one thing
for people working withinr such organisations to express an opiniont privately
but quite another for those same statements to be published.

It isn't this lot, then?:

http://www.tbus.org.uk/introduction.htm

wrote:
David Bradley wrote:

Because I MUST have permission first to use this information. It is
one thing for people working withinr such organisations to express
an opiniont privately but quite another for those same statements to
be published.

It isn't this lot, then?:

http://www.tbus.org.uk/introduction.htm

If one scrolls to the bottom of http://www.tbus.org.uk/home.htm a familiar
name is listed second from top.