Crap respsonse from Connex about bikes on trains.

EuanB wrote:
Theo Bekkers Wrote:
Or is the group concensus that the other passengers help pay for the
bike's transport? Why?
Same reason I contribute the same amount of tax to the upkeep of roads
and use an eigth of the space, additionally contributing nothing to
wear and tear?

You want user pays taxation? Can I get a discount from education taxes
please?
OTOH, the public transport is (mostly) user pays, with some subsidisation
from the public purse.

Theo

PeteSig wrote:
"Theo Bekkers" wrote in message
...
Zebee Johnstone wrote:


People who reply to this issue from outer fringe Perth or Sydney's
tunnels and double-deckers need to get a grip and realise this is a
Victorian issue. If you aren't very familiar with the Melbourne and
Victorian PT system you may be talking rubbish.

Mostly agree. OTOH I go to Melbourne evwery year for a couple of weeks and
was once there for 3 months, so am not speaking from total ignorance.

We don't need to build new trains or add carriages. We don't need to
extend platforms. The trains are 6 car sets and don't need to be made
any longer. And all carriages are 'level with the platform'.

I'm aware of that Peter. Melbourne train carriages have not yet reached the
double-decker stage due to the good length of station platforms. I don't
recall if you have excess length in your underground stations. I was
suggesting that in Sydney creating extra space on the trains would be very
problematical assuming that Sydney has similar restrictions to baggage and
bicycles during peak hours as Melbourne and Perth. I too have been hassled
taking my bicycle on the train.

The cost to rejig the interior layout of carriages to allow some open
areas that enble standing room (like there was in the early 80s) is
going to be relatively low (compared to bulding new rolling stock...
or constructing 1 or 2 kms of the Eastlink tollway). And it will
actually enable *more passengers* to travel. as seated space takes up
much more room. Standing passengers can cram in much more in the peak.

Agreed.

Providing space for more people, that can also enable people to take
bikes on board will help the transport system earn more revenue, not
less.

Because there will be more passengers or becaus the bikes will be paying
their way.

Theo

PeteSig wrote:

And in the meantime, passengers who need their bikes at both ends of
the journey can go whistle."
_________________
Murray

Obviously all people are created equal, but some are more equal than
others!!

Why don't they provide space for people who 'need' their cars at both ends
of their journey? Or is a bicycle not a vehicle?

Theo

Theo Bekkers Wrote:
EuanB wrote:
Theo Bekkers Wrote:
Or is the group concensus that the other passengers help pay for the
bike's transport? Why?
Same reason I contribute the same amount of tax to the upkeep of
roads
and use an eigth of the space, additionally contributing nothing to
wear and tear?

You want user pays taxation? Can I get a discount from education taxes
please?
OTOH, the public transport is (mostly) user pays, with some
subsidisation
from the public purse.

Theo

You've attributed your arguement to me. I'm quite happy paying for the
roads through taxes. I'm suggesting the same principle should be
applied to all commonly shared utilities. Epic fail Theo.

Public transport may well be user pays which is grossly unfair seeing
as private transport isn't.


--
EuanB

EuanB wrote:
Theo Bekkers Wrote:
EuanB wrote:
Theo Bekkers Wrote:

Or is the group concensus that the other passengers help pay for
the bike's transport? Why?

Same reason I contribute the same amount of tax to the upkeep of
roads and use an eigth of the space, additionally contributing
nothing to wear and tear?

You want user pays taxation? Can I get a discount from education
taxes please?
OTOH, the public transport is (mostly) user pays, with some
subsidisation
from the public purse.

You've attributed your arguement to me.

I was responding to you. I can't see an attribution problem?

I'm quite happy paying for
the roads through taxes. I'm suggesting the same principle should be
applied to all commonly shared utilities. Epic fail Theo.

Sorry, Public transport is a commonly shared utility? Since when?

Public transport may well be user pays which is grossly unfair seeing
as private transport isn't.

Huh. Both public and private transport have their infrastructure supplied
form the public purse. I don't know about Victoria, but here in WA public
transport fares do not even meet the running costs of the system. The
balance is subsidized from the public purse as well as the replacement of
buses, trains, etc.

Theo

"Theo Bekkers" wrote:

Obviously all people are created equal, but some are more equal than
others!!

Why don't they provide space for people who 'need' their cars at both ends
of their journey? Or is a bicycle not a vehicle?

HoHoHo!! Nice try Theo.

Same reason they don't provide space for ships

Yes, bicycles are vehicles. Vehicles for road use, with some special
qualities:

zero emission - much less of a burden on our environment.
2 wheels in line - narrow track, able to travel narrow paths.
lightweight -easily able to be transported on or in other vehicles, cars,
trains, camels, aircraft.

Motorcars fail on all of these counts. But you already knew all this.

--
Cheers
Peter

~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*)

PeteSig wrote:

Yes, bicycles are vehicles. Vehicles for road use, with some special
qualities:

2 wheels in line - narrow track, able to travel narrow paths.

I don't want to nitpick or anything, but tricycles and quadcycles are
classed as bicycles too.

I'm just saying this because I have a trike, and it's in every way classed a
bicycle. And I don't want to be left out... :-)
--
Linux Registered User # 302622
http://counter.li.org

Theo Bekkers Wrote:
EuanB wrote:
Theo Bekkers Wrote:
EuanB wrote:
Theo Bekkers Wrote:

Or is the group concensus that the other passengers help pay for
the bike's transport? Why?

Same reason I contribute the same amount of tax to the upkeep of
roads and use an eigth of the space, additionally contributing
nothing to wear and tear?

You want user pays taxation? Can I get a discount from education
taxes please?
OTOH, the public transport is (mostly) user pays, with some
subsidisation
from the public purse.

You've attributed your arguement to me.

I was responding to you. I can't see an attribution problem?
I'll make it as simple as I can for you, as we seem to be having
trouble communicating.

At no time did I advocate a `user pays' taxation system. You inferred
I did. You're wrong.

Sorry for any confusion.


--
EuanB

EuanB wrote:
Theo Bekkers Wrote:
EuanB wrote:
Theo Bekkers Wrote:
EuanB wrote:
Theo Bekkers Wrote:

Or is the group concensus that the other passengers help pay for
the bike's transport? Why?

Same reason I contribute the same amount of tax to the upkeep of
roads and use an eigth of the space, additionally contributing
nothing to wear and tear?

You want user pays taxation? Can I get a discount from education
taxes please?
OTOH, the public transport is (mostly) user pays, with some
subsidisation
from the public purse.

You've attributed your arguement to me.

I was responding to you. I can't see an attribution problem?

I'll make it as simple as I can for you, as we seem to be having
trouble communicating.

At no time did I advocate a `user pays' taxation system. You inferred
I did. You're wrong.

Sorry for any confusion.

OK. My mistake, I thought you were talking about attribution, as in the
number of 's before the line.

You want the opposite to user pays then, as in you want other people (other
passengers or the 'public') to pay for the space your bike takes up on
public trains?

Theo

"Theo Bekkers" wrote:

You want the opposite to user pays then, as in you want other people
(other passengers or the 'public') to pay for the space your bike takes up
on public trains?

Yeah Theo, like the big tax concession we all paid for when you bought your
4WD ute

--
Cheers
Peter

~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*)