Zebee Johnstone wrote: > HOw much will new carriages cost, and who will pay?
Don't you have a 8 car limit on Sydney trains now because of the length of the platforms. Adding a car to the train will be very, very expensive. On the two-tier cars you will have to store the bike on the level-with-the-platform section. Extending this area will reduce the passenger capacity of the car.
"Yes Sir/Madam, you may take the velocipede on the train, please buy five normal tickets and use the rear of car 6."
Or is the group concensus that the other passengers help pay for the bike's transport? Why?
> 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?
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.
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'.
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.
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.
BTW, don't you love the good cop, bad cop comedy routine being played out in the media today by Kosky and Hull? The whole reprieve thing was complete bollox & PR spin anyway, as the changes haven't been gazetted yet. Imagine spinning the 'grace' period as a reprieve when it actual fact the government haven't done the changes yet.
Read a interpretation about 'Bike Bans on Trains in Victoria 1st January, 2008 - Frequently asked Questions' here: http://preview.tinyurl.com/2hkst3
And if the thought 'Oh dear, someone should do something about it' has crossed your mind, here's another link to get you started: http://modernthings.org/binthebikeban/
"PeteSig" wrote: > 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.
Even the Dept of Infrastructure agrees with this proposition, but not the idea of providing that space for bikes:
Department of Infrastructure wrote: ...Rearranging seats is being considered to increase the carrying capacity of trains for passengers, but not for bikes. There are no plans to remove seats to cater for bikes. ...
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!!
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.
> 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.
> 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 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.
>> 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.
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>
> 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.
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?
> 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
> > 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
>>> 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 > Bingo.
Huh? I don't own a ute. I drive a company ute and it's not 4WD. I don't own a car I drive. Tax concessions? Geez, when I buy a carton of Coke for the lunchroom fridge Govco refunds me the GST. I have John Howard to thank for that. :-)
On Jan 9, 12:46 pm, "Theo Bekkers" <tbekk...@bekkers.com.au> wrote:
> 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.
By my understanding, it's more to do with clearance around the track. They had a couple of Sydney Tangara double-deckers on evaluation, but they could only run on a couple of lines because the other lines were designed for more "cylindrical" carriages, and didn't have the shoulder clearance required to run rectangular section carriages, as is required if two levels are to be used.
> I was > suggesting that in Sydney creating extra space on the trains would be very > problematical
Sydney trains have the platform-level vestibule ends, with bench seats along the sides. This leaves a large area for standing passengers, bikes, wheelchairs, prams, luggage etc..
Melbourne trains don't have any bench-seating areas; it's 3+2 forward and backward facing for the entire length of the train, other than the areas directly in front of doors (3 each side per carriage). There is no standing room, and no easy luggage carrying areas, other than these entry spaces.
Melbourne trains need to be re-fit with bench seats along the sides, and wide open standing spaces. That's all there is to it.
tim wrote: > By my understanding, it's more to do with clearance around the track. > They had a couple of Sydney Tangara double-deckers on evaluation, but > they could only run on a couple of lines because the other lines were > designed for more "cylindrical" carriages, and didn't have the > shoulder clearance required to run rectangular section carriages, as > is required if two levels are to be used.
OK.
>> I was >> suggesting that in Sydney creating extra space on the trains would >> be very problematical
> Sydney trains have the platform-level vestibule ends, with bench seats > along the sides. This leaves a large area for standing passengers, > bikes, wheelchairs, prams, luggage etc..
My experience of Sydney trains (lived there for about three years, on and off) is that at peak hour, there is no space anywhere on the train. Getting a bicycle on, or off, would be a serious inconvenience.
> Melbourne trains don't have any bench-seating areas; it's 3+2 forward > and backward facing for the entire length of the train, other than the > areas directly in front of doors (3 each side per carriage). There is > no standing room, and no easy luggage carrying areas, other than these > entry spaces.
> Melbourne trains need to be re-fit with bench seats along the sides, > and wide open standing spaces. That's all there is to it.
Until there is a major accident, and then we will have the seatbelt brigade out in full cry.
> My experience of Sydney trains (lived there for about three years, on and > off) is that at peak hour, there is no space anywhere on the train. Getting > a bicycle on, or off, would be a serious inconvenience.
When I first started commuting, I decided to do some of the trip by train so I could ease into a long commute.
There was no way the bike was going to fit on a train before 9am, or before about 6:30pm.
Zebee Johnstone wrote: > EuanB wrote: >> Theo Bekkers Wrote:
>>>> Melbourne trains need to be re-fit with bench seats along the >>>> sides, and wide open standing spaces. That's all there is to it.
>>> Until there is a major accident, and then we will have the seatbelt >>> brigade >>> out in full cry.
>> That doesn't seem to be a problem in London, Paris, Rome, Japan etc >> etc.
> Neither are bicycle head injuries apparently. But you will note that > doesn't stop the Oz Govt...
ROTFL. Seat-belts on school buses are a hot item here in the West ATM. Current situation is that the Gov't wont allow them to be fitted by the operators (at the operator's cost) because it will set a precedent and all parents will expect school buses to be fitted with them.
|
