On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 13:05:32 +0100, John Rowland wrote:

No disrepect to Paul, but TfL consultations are just for show. They have
already decided what to do. The high-profile consultation over the western
extension of the Congestion charge showed us Ken's vision of democracy. "If
voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal.", as Ken himself said when
he wasn't in charge. Viva Zapata!

Consultation isn't just some sort of majority vote. It's an
opportunity for people to point out the unforseen (by TfL)
consequences of the decisions in question, so that TfL can take them
into account.

"asdf" wrote in message

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 13:05:32 +0100, John Rowland wrote:

No disrepect to Paul, but TfL consultations are just
for show. They have already decided what to do. The
high-profile consultation over the western extension of
the Congestion charge showed us Ken's vision of
democracy. "If voting changed anything, they'd make it
illegal.", as Ken himself said when he wasn't in
charge. Viva Zapata!

Consultation isn't just some sort of majority vote. It's
an opportunity for people to point out the unforseen (by
TfL) consequences of the decisions in question, so that
TfL can take them into account.

For "can take them into account" read "can take them into account if we
wanted to but we don't so we won't."

Ivor

"Bill Hayles" wrote in message

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 00:49:21 +0100, Ian Jelf
wrote:


And I had the same on a WMPTE Leyland National once (in
the early eighties).

I rang the bell and the driver gave me a bit of a
tongue-lashing saying that it wasn't necessary on one
man operated buses.

We used to disable the bell (*) on our Leyland Nationals
for the same reason. We didn't need it. After all, in
those days it was our job to issue tickets, to know where
everybody was travelling to and not allow them to over
ride.

I may be wrong (not unusual..!) but wouldn't disabling the bell result in
a PG9 if checked by the "man from the ministry"..?

Ivor

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 13:05:32 +0100, "John Rowland"
wrote:

Paul Corfield wrote:

In the light of your comments you might be interested to read the
proposals here

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/proj...ions/5003.aspx

and perhaps send in some comments to TfL. Closing date 20 July 2007.

No disrepect to Paul, but TfL consultations are just for show. They have
already decided what to do. The high-profile consultation over the western
extension of the Congestion charge showed us Ken's vision of democracy. "If
voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal.", as Ken himself said when
he wasn't in charge. Viva Zapata!

I actually know where and how this consultation started and it was at
the suggestion of someone outside of TfL. TfL have decided to make a
decision on something that affects a lot of people but I believe they
are interested in views on this subject. We can all be as cynical as we
want to be about consultation and I'd agree that TfL's track record is
not ideal. However having been involved in commenting on the route 393
extension to Chalk Farm TfL have done a good job of writing to me to
tell be about the process, that they've received my comments, inviting
me to a public meeting, telling me about the consultation results and
acknowledging the wide range of views / opposition to the proposal. At
least they are trying and at least information is being put out in the
public domain which has to be better than before. I want to see all bus
service proposals treated in the same way but I might be waiting a while
for that to happen.

I have to say I have some severe doubts about the bus stopping proposals
because I doubt the bus companies can actually get the message to their
staff and that's where it will fall down in future (just as it so
demonstrably does today). I'm also struggling with the hail and ride
proposals because I think that the accessibility issues and the proposed
solutions will result in the de facto abolition of hail and ride. I'd
prefer that TfL just said that rather than pretend they and the highway
authorities can comply with the legislation and still have hail and ride
services. I use a few routes that are hail and ride and I think the
concept is very good and very convenient and I'd hate to see it go
because the people who value it most (often old people) would suffer
through the introduction of facilities that are apparently for their
benefit (fixed accessible boarding points but with a longer walk to
them).

--
Paul C

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 22:54:11 GMT, wrote:

Blackpool trams -- wonderful during the Illuminations.

Well, they look nice, but they're an utterly ineffective means of
public transport. Slow and not enough capacity.

Somebody remind me of the southern terminal, please -- it's called Starr
Gate, right?

Yep.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 20:46:25 +0100, Paul Corfield
wrote:

I have to say I have some severe doubts about the bus stopping proposals
because I doubt the bus companies can actually get the message to their
staff and that's where it will fall down in future (just as it so
demonstrably does today).

I'd agree with that, and I will continue to stick my hand out as not
doing so is to risk the bus not stopping. It does surprise me that
(while the European system is superior) they didn't just choose the
system in use in the whole rest of the UK, namely that it is necessary
to signal to get on or off.

I'm also struggling with the hail and ride
proposals because I think that the accessibility issues and the proposed
solutions will result in the de facto abolition of hail and ride. I'd
prefer that TfL just said that rather than pretend they and the highway
authorities can comply with the legislation and still have hail and ride
services. I use a few routes that are hail and ride and I think the
concept is very good and very convenient and I'd hate to see it go
because the people who value it most (often old people) would suffer
through the introduction of facilities that are apparently for their
benefit (fixed accessible boarding points but with a longer walk to
them).

It's interesting you think that, as I think it is a very *poor*
concept and that abolition would be the best approach. Some reasons
for this, from experience in Milton Keynes where about 50% of routes
are minibus-operated hail and ride, a-

- Hail and ride by definition does not provide fixed stops, and thus
does not provide passenger information or any kind of shelter. This
makes the service far more difficult to use and understand for a new
or infrequent user than a fixed-stop bus route.

- Drivers often stop in very dangerous locations on hail-and-ride
routes. This is largely because of passengers not realising what
kinds of locations are unsafe for a large vehicle, but it can also be
because there are no stops where no parking is enforced so there
genuinely is nowhere safe.

- Buses stop too frequently, making the service very slow.

- People in some areas always wait in the same place anyway, thus
making it a de-facto stop!

You are right that it can help the elderly, but if you're talking
about an estate route you can put in reasonably (but not stupidly)
close stops instead, and if someone can't walk from their home to a
nearby bus stop (potentially a few hundred yards) they're unlikely to
be able to walk a few hundred yards around the supermarket (or
whatever) either, and thus probably won't be using buses in the first
place.

I would concede one thing, which is that, like is common in Germany, I
would allow alighting (but not boarding) between stops by arrangement
with the driver on selected routes in the evening only.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 20:21:38 GMT, Neil Williams wrote:

- Hail and ride by definition does not provide fixed stops, and thus
does not provide passenger information or any kind of shelter. This
makes the service far more difficult to use and understand for a new
or infrequent user than a fixed-stop bus route.

On hail and ride routes in London there are information and timetable
displays affixed to various lamp-posts along the route.

- Buses stop too frequently, making the service very slow.

IMX hail and ride in London is only used on the infrequent
round-the-houses routes that provide a local service anyway (as
opposed to ones that take the most direct route from A to B). There is
almost always a more direct service available on a different route
number.

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 19:56:52 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
wrote:



"Bill Hayles" wrote in message

We used to disable the bell (*) on our Leyland Nationals
for the same reason. We didn't need it.
I may be wrong (not unusual..!) but wouldn't disabling the bell result in
a PG9 if checked by the "man from the ministry"..?


I never heard of any visits from said gentlemen in all the time I was
driving buses.


--
Bill Hayles

http://billnot.com

"asdf" wrote in message

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 20:21:38 GMT, Neil Williams wrote:

- Hail and ride by definition does not provide fixed
stops, and thus does not provide passenger information
or any kind of shelter. This makes the service far
more difficult to use and understand for a new or
infrequent user than a fixed-stop bus route.

On hail and ride routes in London there are information
and timetable displays affixed to various lamp-posts
along the route.

So why not just provide a bus stop and be done with it..?!

Ivor

"Bill Hayles" wrote in message

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 19:56:52 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
wrote:



"Bill Hayles" wrote in message

We used to disable the bell (*) on our Leyland
Nationals for the same reason. We didn't need it.
I may be wrong (not unusual..!) but wouldn't disabling
the bell result in a PG9 if checked by the "man from
the ministry"..?


I never heard of any visits from said gentlemen in all
the time I was driving buses.

They have been known to do blitzes in the Birmingham area, i.e. lay in
wait at an outer terminus (one of the favourites is South Parade, in
Sutton Coldfield) and check *everything* that arrives for several hours.

I've had them a couple of times, but they never found anything wrong.


Ivor