Nes wrote:
Just wondering why are all the RM-type crew buses being withdrawn? First the
94, then 15 and now the 11? I know there are others, but those routes are
what first comes to mind.

Because Ken reckons that with bendy buses and off-bus ticketing, an
equivalent or better level of service can be provided with conductorless
buses. We shall see.

It's certain that low-floor double deckers weigh about 1.5x what RMLs
do, per passenger, with fewer seats.

Bendy buses weigh even more, but maybe not on a per passenger basis. It
is rarely possible for them to overtake cycles safely while on the move
in London. This will either slow them down or lead to collisions.

There is vague talk of retaining RMLs on one route, but I wouldn't count
on it. If you want to ride on them in normal service, make the most of
the next year or two.

Colin McKenzie

Because Ken reckons that with bendy buses and off-bus ticketing, an
equivalent or better level of service can be provided with conductorless
buses. We shall see.

That's not what I recall his election manifesto saying: something along the
lines of "vote for Ken and conductors will be safe" I seem to recall.

But why should that surprise me: just one more of Ken's many lies.

And also, it's not the first time that mass Routemaster withdrawals have
resulted from Ken's misguided ideas: remember "Fares Fair"?

Marc.

"Mait001" wrote in message
...

And also, it's not the first time that mass Routemaster withdrawals have
resulted from Ken's misguided ideas: remember "Fares Fair"?

Marc.

Yes, cheaper public transport and the travelcard - wasn't that a terrible
idea.

Jonn

Unless I'm very much mistaken, it was Jonn Elledge
), in message
who said:
"Mait001" wrote in message
...

And also, it's not the first time that mass Routemaster withdrawals
have resulted from Ken's misguided ideas: remember "Fares Fair"?

Marc.

Yes, cheaper public transport and the travelcard - wasn't that a
terrible idea.


Umm... cheaper how?

I thought it was simply transfering some of the cost from a voluntary
payment to an involuntary contribution.

BTN

In article , (Ben Nunn) wrote:

I thought it was simply transfering some of the cost from a voluntary
payment to an involuntary contribution.

Well, I never realized that paying a bus or train fare was voluntary. If I had known that I would have declined to pay.

--
Peter Beale

"Mait001" wrote in message
...

And also, it's not the first time that mass Routemaster withdrawals have
resulted from Ken's misguided ideas: remember "Fares Fair"?

Marc.

Yes, cheaper public transport and the travelcard - wasn't that a terrible
idea.

Jonn

Jonn,

Cheaper public transport, subsidised in a lawful way is not a bad idea.

The problem with Ken's scheme was that it was unlawful, and led to its
challenge by Bromley Council (which owed a duty to its ratepayers so to do)
which challenge was, ultimately, upheld by the House of Lords.

Had Ken introduced a more modest scheme to start with, which would have been
legally watertight, then the legal challenge, huge Court costs etc. would not
have occurred and the ultimate disastrous demise of "Fares Fair", and with it a
fair number of Routemasters which had to go in the ensuing service cuts, would
not have happened.

Hence Ken was directly to blame for the service reductions and Routemaster
demise that followed.

Marc.

On 28 Oct 2003 15:06:05 GMT, (Mait001) wrote:



The problem with Ken's scheme was that it was unlawful, and led to its
challenge by Bromley Council (which owed a duty to its ratepayers so to do)
which challenge was, ultimately, upheld by the House of Lords.

What was unlawful about it? I remember Fares Fair and that it was was
withdrawn shortly after being introduced but can't remember why it was
supposedly unlawful.

The problem with Ken's scheme was that it was unlawful, and led to its
challenge by Bromley Council (which owed a duty to its ratepayers so to do)
which challenge was, ultimately, upheld by the House of Lords.

What was unlawful about it? I remember Fares Fair and that it was was
withdrawn shortly after being introduced but can't remember why it was
supposedly unlawful.


It was unlawful because the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords said it
was unlawful. It was judicially reviewed by the High Court, then the Court of
Appeal then finally it reached the House of Lords which upheld the original
complaint by Bromley.

In a nutshell, the scheme was unlawful because the ratepayers of Bromley were
being asked to subsidise a transport system to a disproportionate extent from
which they derived little benefit (there being no Underground within the
borough).

Marc.

On 28 Oct 2003 18:46:36 GMT, (Mait001) wrote:



In a nutshell, the scheme was unlawful because the ratepayers of Bromley were
being asked to subsidise a transport system to a disproportionate extent from
which they derived little benefit (there being no Underground within the
borough).


Why is that unlawful? Unfair, perhaps, but unlawful? What law was it
breaking?

(Mait001)typed


Had Ken introduced a more modest scheme to start with, which would have been
legally watertight, then the legal challenge, huge Court costs etc.
would not
have occurred and the ultimate disastrous demise of "Fares Fair", and
with it a
fair number of Routemasters which had to go in the ensuing service
cuts, would
not have happened.

Hence Ken was directly to blame for the service reductions and Routemaster
^^^^^^^^
demise that followed.

As a barrister, would you term this chain of events as 'directly'?

--
Helen D. Vecht:
Edgware.