|
Post by Giar on Dec 1, 2006 10:23:38 GMT -1
true. im all for them doing something about pollution. but what about actually really trying to sort alternative power sorces and clamping even harder down on the indusrial waste/pollution instead of looking at the quickest cheapest solution that they can also make a few bucks out of at the same time
|
|
|
Post by Mrs H on Dec 1, 2006 10:24:47 GMT -1
Little Donkey, Little Donkey On a dusty Road Little Donkey, Little Donkey That'll be £5.20 please
|
|
|
Post by gw on Dec 1, 2006 10:25:01 GMT -1
Surely its a breach of human rights or something putting a tracking system in your car
|
|
|
Post by Fizzy Bread on Dec 1, 2006 10:26:15 GMT -1
true. im all for them doing something about pollution. but what about actually really trying to sort alternative power sorces and clamping even harder down on the indusrial waste/pollution instead of looking at the quickest cheapest solution that they can also make a few bucks out of at the same time Yus.. in a way. even if they do charge people (even more) for using the roads, only a small amount of people will actually stop using their cars.. As for polluting the envirionment *cough USAcough*
|
|
|
Post by Giar on Dec 1, 2006 10:32:23 GMT -1
true. im all for them doing something about pollution. but what about actually really trying to sort alternative power sorces and clamping even harder down on the indusrial waste/pollution instead of looking at the quickest cheapest solution that they can also make a few bucks out of at the same time Yus.. in a way. even if they do charge people (even more) for using the roads, only a small amount of people will actually stop using their cars.. As for polluting the envirionment *cough USAcough* good call babe, that one of the main reasons the ozone an all that is getting fooked. but thats a whole different issue and im still too hung over to start thinking about the yanks. filthy race but to doll this up as souly an enviromental issue is a crock of shit cause like you say it wont stop most people from using their cars. if they really do want to do something for the planet there are far more effective ways of doing it, problem being the others dont make them a nice little pot of cash they can dip their fingers into, (to buy another Jag ) and they will actually involve a shit load of outgoing cash and effort
|
|
|
Post by jh1980 on Dec 1, 2006 10:35:04 GMT -1
true. im all for them doing something about pollution. but what about actually really trying to sort alternative power sorces and clamping even harder down on the indusrial waste/pollution instead of looking at the quickest cheapest solution that they can also make a few bucks out of at the same time well sadly their alternative power source seems to be nuclear, not something I'm in favour of, but there we are... car use has to come down. even if at some point electric cars are any damn good (which they certainly still aren't at the moment!) there's still the problem of congestion. and any money that is made by the Government is spent on improvements to transport. honestly. personally whenever I'm on a road in London I think "what was the f***ing point of driving here?" but I grant you it's not usually that bad elsewhere in the country.
|
|
|
Post by Fizzy Bread on Dec 1, 2006 10:42:52 GMT -1
Obviously there needs to be better development in the use of alternative fuels but in most cities/towns, public transport is just to cope with the necessary. Take York for example, there is only 1 bus company that runs routes around the city and one that goes through the city, they charge a bloody fortune and they're unreliable, all because there is no competition; having said that, it would be unnecessary for York to have more buses because the place isn't blummin big enough.
Cities like London, Manc and Brum though have dozens of bus companies, trams, underground etc because the size and population is big enough to warrant it.
Everywhere else though, apart from the aforementioned big cities, cars and needed and there is no alternativefor many people!
|
|
|
Post by Giar on Dec 1, 2006 10:45:06 GMT -1
only ever driven in london once and i vowed never to do it again and have stuck to public transport since. awful place to get around there are other power sorces out there, that big fook off windmill by our foot ground for one and i dont know for sure but ive been told that it can suply enough juice for a nice fat chunk of reading when its turned fully on. then there is water too. both mega bucks to get up and running but both are true natural options
|
|
|
Post by jh1980 on Dec 1, 2006 10:50:32 GMT -1
Take York for example, there is only 1 bus company that runs routes around the city and one that goes through the city, they charge a bloody fortune and they're unreliable, all because there is no competition; having said that, it would be unnecessary for York to have more buses because the place isn't blummin big enough. Erm, I take your points, but an alternative framing of the situation above is as follows. There is only one PRIVATE company running bus services. It's ethos is profit-driven not service-driven. Therefore it runs a poor service, but one which makes them money. If there were several private companies in competition, overall service would improve, but still routes would be neglected if they were not deemed sufficiently profitable. Before Bus Deregulation, buses were PUBLICLY owned and operated. They probably weren't great even then, but if the ethos is that of providing a good service, and the money is found by the state to fund that, it is the best possible way to run public transport.
|
|
|
Post by jh1980 on Dec 1, 2006 10:52:52 GMT -1
only ever driven in london once and i vowed never to do it again and have stuck to public transport since. awful place to get around there are other power sorces out there, that big fook off windmill by our foot ground for one and i dont know for sure but ive been told that it can suply enough juice for a nice fat chunk of reading when its turned fully on. then there is water too. both mega bucks to get up and running but both are true natural options Yep. It's a little annoying to say the least! Plus other drivers here are mental...! Of course. But the Government doesn't want to spend money researching these natural alternatives - I agree, that's not good. I'm not a Government stooge!!! I personally think their interest in building more nuclear plants is foolish and potentially dangerous... but hey.
|
|
|
Post by Fizzy Bread on Dec 1, 2006 10:55:37 GMT -1
Take York for example, there is only 1 bus company that runs routes around the city and one that goes through the city, they charge a bloody fortune and they're unreliable, all because there is no competition; having said that, it would be unnecessary for York to have more buses because the place isn't blummin big enough. Erm, I take your points, but an alternative framing of the situation above is as follows. There is only one PRIVATE company running bus services. It's ethos is profit-driven not service-driven. Therefore it runs a poor service, but one which makes them money. If there were several private companies in competition, overall service would improve, but still routes would be neglected if they were not deemed sufficiently profitable. Before Bus Deregulation, buses were PUBLICLY owned and operated. They probably weren't great even then, but if the ethos is that of providing a good service, and the money is found by the state to fund that, it is the best possible way to run public transport. Totally agree but it doesn't help that FirstBus couldn't tell their arses from their elbows.. My point is, there's no need for them to over do things with the running of their service. They can have whatever prices, run whatever routes they like and not be afraid of any other service replacing them and getting their fares - which all leads to a service that doesn't greatly benefit the public and therefore doesn't encourage people to NOt use their cars.
|
|
|
Post by gw on Dec 1, 2006 10:57:50 GMT -1
Obviously there needs to be better development in the use of alternative fuels but in most cities/towns, public transport is just to cope with the necessary. Take York for example, there is only 1 bus company that runs routes around the city and one that goes through the city, they charge a bloody fortune and they're unreliable, all because there is no competition; having said that, it would be unnecessary for York to have more buses because the place isn't blummin big enough. Cities like London, Manc and Brum though have dozens of bus companies, trams, underground etc because the size and population is big enough to warrant it. Everywhere else though, apart from the aforementioned big cities, cars and needed and there is no alternativefor many people! agreed. It would take me 3 buses and 2-3 hours later to get to work. And if I did a late shift I wouldnt be able to get home as buses stop at 11. We only have 1 bus company aswel, but if they put more buses than cars on the road surely that would be less eco friendly?
|
|
|
Post by Fizzy Bread on Dec 1, 2006 10:59:37 GMT -1
Obviously there needs to be better development in the use of alternative fuels but in most cities/towns, public transport is just to cope with the necessary. Take York for example, there is only 1 bus company that runs routes around the city and one that goes through the city, they charge a bloody fortune and they're unreliable, all because there is no competition; having said that, it would be unnecessary for York to have more buses because the place isn't blummin big enough. Cities like London, Manc and Brum though have dozens of bus companies, trams, underground etc because the size and population is big enough to warrant it. Everywhere else though, apart from the aforementioned big cities, cars and needed and there is no alternativefor many people! agreed. It would take me 3 buses and 2-3 hours later to get to work. And if I did a late shift I wouldnt be able to get home as buses stop at 11. We only have 1 bus company aswel, but if they put more buses than cars on the road surely that would be less eco friendly? It wouldn't be because a bus can hold 30-40 people and most of them would drive a car (on their own, no car sharing scheme)
|
|
|
Post by jh1980 on Dec 1, 2006 11:01:16 GMT -1
Totally agree but it doesn't help that FirstBus couldn't tell their arses from their elbows.. My point is, there's no need for them to overdo things with the running of their service. They can have whatever prices, run whatever routes they like and not be afraid of any other service replacing them and getting their fares - which all leads to a service that doesn't greatly benefit the public and therefore doesn't encourage people to NOt use their cars. Genuinely happy to hear that! People don't totally agree with me very often?! ;D I don't doubt it. Worst thing is they have about a third of the transport franchises in the country, or soon will! Yes. Once a private monopoly, accountable only to its shareholders is in place, it's trouble. There must be some competition surely or the old "monopolies and mergers" lot would be onto them? As you say - a far cry from a public transport service
|
|