Crap respsonse from Connex about bikes on trains.

Theo Bekkers

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

Theo Bekkers

PeteSig wrote:
> "Theo Bekkers" <tbekkers@bekkers.com.au> wrote in message
> news:4782aeef$1@news.bekkers.com.au...
>> 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

Theo Bekkers

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

EuanB

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.

Theo Bekkers

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

PeteSig

"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

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

John Tserkezis

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

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.

Theo Bekkers

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

PeteSig

"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

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

EuanB

Bingo.

Theo Bekkers

EuanB wrote:
> PeteSig Wrote:
>> "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

> 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. :-)

Theo
Hehe.

tim

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

Theo Bekkers

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.

Theo