Prague Metro Plans Extension To Airport + New Line

"David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)" wrote in message
...
ALAN HARRISON wrote:

[]
Commuter example - Walsall to Birmingham, 4 trains an hour, 2 calling at
all
stations, the other 2 semifast and calling only at Tame Bridge Parkway.
Time
between 20 and 30 minutes, quicker than bus or private car, at least in
rush
hour, fare less than cost of parking in Birmingham for a day.

Now that I'm travelling at around 40 miles more than a car can legally
drive here, sat backwards while reading usenet, listening to some new
pieces someone sent me today, checking my teaching schedule for
tomorrow, etc., I'm reminded of a conversation I had with a Manchester
conductor recently. He lives outside the city, and says that the driving
into the city is becoming a nightmare. It was an easy drive 10 years
ago, he says, and is now so unpredictable he has to leave at least an
hour longer when he has an important engagement.

I think that the government are sleepwalking on this, but what's new. I
actually agree that congestion charging isn't the answer, because the
commuter trains etc. are already crowded to capacity. The idea is that
there will be more public transport investment, but that can't fix
things quickly. A city like Manchester is growing quickly, and hundreds
of thousands of jobs are going to be created over the next few years,
according to current predictions. That said, there's a lot of building
in the brownfield sites in the centre of the city. Maybe more people
will have to live in the city instead of commuting to it...

Though I obviously travel a lot over the UK in my work, not having to
commute into the centre of Manchester since moving is wonderful. It's
one of the best things we did, and I just regret not doing it sooner.

I read the uk.transport newsgroup. It is obvious from the discussions there
that the Government has squandered its money on rail and cut spending on
roads to increase congestion.

We in the US love it when Governments try to kill business. Such
Government stupidity will allow the US to continue to dominate in world
commerce.

"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Jack May" wrote in message
. ..

"Peter Schleifer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 17:11:38 -0700, "Jack May"
wrote:


"Peter Schleifer" wrote in message
m...
On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 12:21:08 -0700, "Jack May"
wrote:


.. BART to SFO is roughly $2B for essentially no significant
benefit.

The benefit must be quantifiable. It doesn't help your
point that you don't know the actual usage and are
just speculating

The reports were less than half the number of people using BART to SFO as
used to justify Federal funding to BART. The Feds were ****ed.

Now its your turn to present data or do you just sit back and do nothing
except demand data from other people instead of even making a feeble effort
to prove your point if you even have a point.


I don't get this. Did you mean "but leave"?

Of course not. To use transit you have to get to the transit. I would
typically do that by driving to the transit and parking my car. The very
few times I have done that it is obvious that I would have to leave my car
in a place where my car could be vandalized and where things could be
stolen. That would result in a very expensive trip

Near the airport I park in a fenced in area protected by the parking lot
people. Besides if I had to drive to BART, it makes no sense to use BART
instead of just driving to the airport parking lot.

The Airtrains to JFK and EWR seem to be considered successful, at
least they are carrying more people than expected. Continental
promotes the Newark Airtrain on their web site (they also code-share
with Amtrak).

Carrying more people than predicted is not a criterion of success.

of course it is.

Predictions are political and vary wildly depending on how badly they want
to sell the voters on approving funding.


The criterion is it doing better than other approaches especially if
those other are cheaper.

cheaper for who?

Tax payers since users pay very little in comparison.


I would expect transit to the NYC airports would be more successful than
any other airports in the US.

so you accept that the rules that apply for one airport
are different for another

Of course I do. The conversation has been about prediction equations, not
about rigid rules. Learn to read.

"Stephen Sprunk" wrote in message
.. .
"Jack May" wrote in message
. ..
"Peter Schleifer" wrote in message

A horrific waste of money, to be sure. They should have been able to do
it for a tenth that cost -- and without the fare penalty for using the SFO
station, which discourages use.

BART is heavy rail, not light rail and very expensive at around $250M per
mile.

I note that you haven't specified how many people actually use the
service, though, nor the projections for expected use.

"Prior to construction, BART projected there would be 17,800 average daily
boardings to and from the airport by the year 2010. During the first year of
operation that began in 2003, there were 5,864 daily boardings, the second
year 6,675, and the third year 7,116. While there has been ridership
growth -- 14 percent after the first year and 7 percent after the second --
it's unlikely the 2010 projection will be met."

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...07/08/BART.TMP

The BART people use a $1.5B figure but I think that is only local money and
deletes the Federal funds they received.

As opposed to leaving it unprotected to be vandalized at home or in an
airport parking lot?

What vandalism at the cheaper private parking off the airport grounds? The
private lots are fenced and monitored. I live in an upper middle class
city with almost no crime. Car vandalism is very rare. I also drive to the
parking lot near the airport and of course they drop me off at the door of
the airline security check in.

Given you have an obsessive hatred of transit, your position isn't
surprising. It's not common, though, as evidenced by the need to ban
overnight parking at P&R lots here on the line that connects to the
airport in order to keep the lots free for commuters.

I fly in and out of DFW at times as a stop over since my brother and sister
live in Garland. It looks to me like mainly cars at DFW, very little
transit

My hatred of transit is its very high cost from limited funds resulting in
increased congestion while carrying only a small percent. I want
transportation to work. You apparently just want to feed your live in the
past mental problems which seem to be getting worse.

"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Jack May" wrote in message
. ..

wrote in message
...
In article , "Jack May"
wrote:

I am just going by the research done by the Nobel Prize winner.

On a very narrow market, which IMHO is not expandable to
other countries.

You make this assessment based on apparently absolutely nothing.

The Nobel prize he was given was for major breakthroughs in economics used
by many other people.

As usual typical transit fetish ignorance to protect your view of life from
being totally destroyed by reality.

"Bolwerk" wrote in message
...
tim..... wrote:
"Jack May" wrote in message
. ..
wrote in message
...
In article , "Jack May"
wrote:


Oh, for ****'s sake. It's not even expandable to other cities. It's
probably not even expandable to other parts of San Francisco (Muni?). It's
about commuting on BART. For the case at hand (BART) and similarly
designed systems, it was probably a very effective model.

You have exactly zero evidence for your conclusion and you are just wildly
lying with no basis for what you are saying. The theory is being used
world wide and the Nobel guy has stated that even he has been surprised how
accurate it has been in many different applications.

It just doesn't tell you anything about the T, the NY Subway, the L, the
Tube, the (DC/Paris/etc.) Metro, or the U-Bahn.

Give us a cite for your statement because it is extremely obvious that
everything you are saying is a totally fabricated lie with not basis.

Typical transit retard that will say anything to protect their large
collection of lies.

"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Jack May" wrote in message
news

wrote in message
...
In article ,
(David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)) wrote:

Paul Dwerryhouse wrote:

Jack Campin - bogus address writes:


I very much doubt that he received his Nobel prize
for a survey on transit usage. Being good at one
thing does not automatically make everything you
do turn to gold.

His Nobel Prize is for developing the field of economics that finds out how
people decide what they will do in the real world. It is a broad area of
research, but he has also used his techniques apparently a lot in
transportation since he is at UC Berkley.

UC Berkley has a very strong transportation group with access to a lot a
data and a strong understanding of their field.

"Peter Schleifer" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 10:20:03 -0700, "Jack May"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
In article , "Jack May"
wrote:
I am just going by the research done by the Nobel Prize winner.

Then you made a statement contradicting the work you had referred to.

Well that is non specific. What contridiction?

"David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)" wrote in message
...
ALAN HARRISON wrote:

[]
Commuter example - Walsall to Birmingham, 4 trains an hour, 2 calling at
all
stations, the other 2 semifast and calling only at Tame Bridge Parkway.
Time
between 20 and 30 minutes, quicker than bus or private car, at least in
rush
hour, fare less than cost of parking in Birmingham for a day.

Now that I'm travelling at around 40 miles more than a car can legally
drive here, sat backwards while reading usenet, listening to some new
pieces someone sent me today, checking my teaching schedule for
tomorrow, etc., I'm reminded of a conversation I had with a Manchester
conductor recently. He lives outside the city, and says that the driving
into the city is becoming a nightmare. It was an easy drive 10 years
ago,

I don't think it was. I lived there 15 years ago and everyone
complained about how awful the traffic was. My own
experience was that it was bad

tim

"Jack May" wrote in message
. ..

"tim....." wrote in message
...

"Jack May" wrote in message
. ..

"Peter Schleifer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 17:11:38 -0700, "Jack May"
wrote:


"Peter Schleifer" wrote in message
om...
On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 12:21:08 -0700, "Jack May"
wrote:


. BART to SFO is roughly $2B for essentially no significant
benefit.

The benefit must be quantifiable. It doesn't help your
point that you don't know the actual usage and are
just speculating

The reports were less than half the number of people using BART to SFO as
used to justify Federal funding to BART. The Feds were ****ed.

Now its your turn to present data or do you just sit back and do nothing
except demand data from other people instead of even making a feeble
effort to prove your point if you even have a point.

I didn't demand that you do anything. You made a wolly
point that proved nothing.

If you want data then I can give you some.
Every rail conection that has been built to a UK aiport
has exceeded its expected usage by at least a factor
of 3 within 5 years of being built!

I don't get this. Did you mean "but leave"?

Of course not. To use transit you have to get to the transit. I would
typically do that by driving to the transit and parking my car.

Well that's just plain silly. Anyone who uses transit
to the airport in Europe uses transit ALL the way.

Suggesting that you have to leave a car in a lot to do
so is ridiculous.

Carrying more people than predicted is not a criterion of success.

of course it is.

Predictions are political and vary wildly depending on how badly they want
to sell the voters on approving funding.

Yeah, so what. If these numbers are beaten then this
still means that the spending was successful.

The criterion is it doing better than other approaches especially if
those other are cheaper.

cheaper for who?

Tax payers since users pay very little in comparison.


I would expect transit to the NYC airports would be more successful than
any other airports in the US.

so you accept that the rules that apply for one airport
are different for another

Of course I do. The conversation has been about prediction equations, not
about rigid rules.

It is you who seems to be applying the rules rigidly.

Learn to read.

Insulting people do not help your point.

tim

tim..... wrote:

"David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)" wrote in message
...
ALAN HARRISON wrote:

[]
Commuter example - Walsall to Birmingham, 4 trains an hour, 2 calling at
all
stations, the other 2 semifast and calling only at Tame Bridge Parkway.
Time
between 20 and 30 minutes, quicker than bus or private car, at least in
rush
hour, fare less than cost of parking in Birmingham for a day.

Now that I'm travelling at around 40 miles more than a car can legally
drive here, sat backwards while reading usenet, listening to some new
pieces someone sent me today, checking my teaching schedule for
tomorrow, etc., I'm reminded of a conversation I had with a Manchester
conductor recently. He lives outside the city, and says that the driving
into the city is becoming a nightmare. It was an easy drive 10 years
ago,

I don't think it was. I lived there 15 years ago and everyone
complained about how awful the traffic was. My own
experience was that it was bad

Not from places like Wilmslow. I've had several people make this point
to me.

--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
http://www.davidhorne.net - real address on website
"He can't be as stupid as he looks, but nevertheless he probably
is quite a stupid man." Richard Dawkins on Pres. Bush"