I clearly remember riding my motorcycle through Sheffield on a damp and
misty morning. Started to overtake a tram, as I got alongside my wheels
got stuck in the rails. So I leant the bike over and laid on the road.
suddenly to my dismay the tram started to tilt over towards me. Panic!
Then I realised it was all the passengers had come across to look at
this poor young man prostate alongside the tram!
One of our Uni lecturers was on one of the CERN experiments. He had
diplomatic plates for his car, and was in Geneva one day and decided to
park his car on some tram lines. Came back some hours later to find a
queue of four or five trams which couldn't get past. Policeman asked
him politely not to do it again.
Trams are expensive and more so if they need their own land (i.e. so as
not to be mixed with other traffic). They also need to rely on the city
having been laid out with the possibility of trams in mind when it was
built, which is not the case for most of the UK. If you want to reduce
diesel bus pollution in towns, I'd have said trolley buses made more
sense. At least they can drive round an obstruction.
The incident I related above took place 45 years ago. In the interim,
in Geneva they took most of the trams lines up, but are now putting
them back at great expense and without much in the way of consultation.
Their Council, elected by the PR list system so you can't get rid of
them, just said "We have done a study".
"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689
They also work well if run through pedestrianised areas, both keeping
them separate from other traffic and putting them close to where people
Again, not a problem if the streets have been pedestrianised.
They can suffer the same problem of not being able to take a different
route if a road needs to be closed for some reason, although more modern
designs often have battery power or auxiliary motors to allow them to
work away from the wires.
On Wednesday, April 1, 2015 at 5:17:29 PM UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
Its something very different to what we know as public transport. The main problems with uk public transport are
a) the vehicle usually doesnt go from your origin or to your destination
b) journey time is generally hugely increased compared to car travel, resulting in a vast waste of human resource.
Hirable vehicles of some sort would go part way to solving it, but only part way. Permitting small vehicles, eg kart size, in all zones might, if implemented sufficiently well, be the best option.
On 01/04/2015 18:05, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Taxis do and they are a form of public transport. If necessary, mix with
train, light railway or other long distance PT.
Well, I wouldn't do a long distance trip by bus, but around town, the
traffic usually ensures that everybody travels at much the same speed,
unless there are bus lanes, when the bus will probably be quicker. I
also suspect that the days when I could drive across London faster than
getting there by tube have long gone.
Which is what some of the driverless car experiments seem to be aimed at
I reckon east/west now takes 3hrs between 7am and 7pm. Probably half
that at 1am. Reverse journey is no quicker. North/south I would expect
to be the same. It can take 3hrs on a bad Sunday on the M25 to do the
same journey. I always found M25 clockwise in the morning, slower than
anticlockwise. Reverse for evenings. At 7am, there is a tendency for
everyone to park sideways on the M25, therefore you must be off it
From Central London (Kings Cross) to an M25 junction (A1/A2/A40/A4) by
any route, any time 7am to 9pm I expect to take an hour. Most of the day
it will take that to get from KX round or through the City to the
Blackwall Tunnel. It can take an hour to get to Westway on a bad day.
On Wednesday, April 1, 2015 at 6:34:44 PM UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
ain problems with uk public transport are
Aiming to increase use of taxis is a mad idea. Of all transports they are t
he most wasteful of resources, both material and human. Its only sensible t
o use them to fill in gaps in any other system implemented.
esulting in a vast waste of human resource.
I can drive from A to B in town in a fraction the time it takes to walk to
a bus stop, wait, go to the nearest stop then walk the rest. Long distance
buses/coaches are worse since there are inevitably less people doing any gi
ven long distance journey, thus times between vehicles are far longer.
part way. Permitting small vehicles, eg kart size, in all zones might, if
implemented sufficiently well, be the best option.
Yes... its the sensible option. Huge vehicles made sense in Victorian times
, but today much less so.
Not when using fixed public transport systems like trains
for the bulk of the trip.
No, they are in fact much less wasteful of resources than privately owned
cars because they are in use much more of the time when used at the
start and end of the trip with a train being used for the bulk of the trip.
That's not true either, they are a very viable alternative to private cars
because they do get used a lot more in a day than most private cars do.
But its not so true of a train in a capital city.
That assumes you wait for the bus to show up instead of getting there when
you know it leaves which is what most do with long distance bus trips.
Only if driverless is viable.
Still make sense for some situations tho like taking
the kids to school or home after its finished.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.