On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 23:36:28 +0000, Ross wrote:

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 07:48:02 +0000, David Bradley wrote in
, seen in uk.railway:

[...]
Jo Public doesn't really care if the public transport vehicle has steel wheels
or rubber tyres, just as long as it provides him with a travel experience
which approximates to the use of a car or improves upon that mode of travel
with either/or/and faster journey times at a perceived fair price.

I disagree. I've met too many people who simply will not travel on a
bus, full stop. Even if that bus were to have comfort levels
equivalent to a top-end limo, they wouldn't travel on it - because
it's a bus.

Trains, for some reason, don't suffer from that attitude, even when
the ambience of the train is worse than any bus operated in the area.
It's as if trains still have some perceived exclusivity whereas buses
are seen as being common as muck.

Trams, IMLX, seem to have some of the exclusivity of trains with
accessibility (and penetration) more like that of buses. Trolleybuses
I don't know about because there aren't any in regular service in the
UK, but I suspect that they'd been grouped closer to buses and seen as
almost as downmarket.


Of course, I'm looking at it from a provincial point of view, and I do
accept that buses are more socially acceptable in the London area than
in the provinces - but I suspect that even in London there are people
who simply will not travel by bus at all (but who _might_ give up
their cars for trams).

A more complete response would be nice but unfortunately the festive season is
getting in the way for that luxury. However for those that "don't do the
bus", I just wondered what they do at airports. Presumably "Park and Ride" is
out of the question, so it must be the nearest car park or "Meet and Greet" to
the departure/arrival louges. But what on earth happens when they are
presented with being bused to the aircraft? Trip abandoned?

David Bradley