Olympic lanes

On 14/07/2012 11:19, Mike.. . . . wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 20:17:55 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

The upshot is that the user should seek to make every possible journey by car
in order to keep down the cost per mile.

if a journey is cheaper by PT and cost your only test, do it by PT and
save money. Cost per mile is irrelevant except for willy waving PT v
Car arguments.
People use cars because they are better for many things, not because
they are cheap. That's why govt can tax them so much and not reduce
demand much.

I very much agree.

The narrow issue is how to keep the cost per mile down as far as possible.
And part of the answer to that is to spread the fixed overheads over as many
miles as possible, even though variable costs will (obviously) be higher for
a higher mileage than for a lower mileage (a bit like bus and train fares).

On 14/07/2012 11:23, Mike.. . . . wrote:

JNugent wrote:

I am sitting in a private space as I type this.

last time I took a train, two youths got on and sat on opposite sides
of the train with thier feet on the seats and shouted obsenities at
each other. No doubt if I had objected they would have attacked me. It
is often like this or some other crap thing. If some people either are
happy with this or pretend it (or some other crap thing) doesnt happen
all the time they are welcome to pretend either that a train seat is
as pleasant as a car seat or that people who dislike such stuff are
inferior and then say stupid things like "that says it all". Why
bother, nobody sensible is buying it?

Exactly so.

I never travel by PT except where closely associated with international
travel (air, shuttle buses to and from car-parks and to and from car-hire) or
occasionally by train into Central London.

The private space I referred to above is in my home. I can't see any obvious
reason not to want to extend a measure of private personal space out into the
public world by using a private vehicle.

In article ,
JNugent wrote:
The narrow issue is how to keep the cost per mile down as far as
possible. And part of the answer to that is to spread the fixed
overheads over as many miles as possible, even though variable costs
will (obviously) be higher for a higher mileage than for a lower
mileage (a bit like bus and train fares).

Absolutely. I regularly go for a drive round and round the M25 just to
keep my cost per mile down.

--
*Don't byte off more than you can view *

Dave Plowman London SW 12

On 14/07/2012 15:36, Dave Plowman wrote:
In article ,
JNugent wrote:
The narrow issue is how to keep the cost per mile down as far as
possible. And part of the answer to that is to spread the fixed
overheads over as many miles as possible, even though variable costs
will (obviously) be higher for a higher mileage than for a lower
mileage (a bit like bus and train fares).

Absolutely. I regularly go for a drive round and round the M25 just to
keep my cost per mile down.

I know you do. I've seen you doing it.

On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 11:56:20 +0100, Dave Plowman wrote:

In article ,
Mike.. . . . wrote:
I live in London, but not the centre.

But I noticed you ignored the question.

where I am the journey takes half the time by car and is less likely to
be late, trains get cancelled, you arrive an hour late.

Trying to think where one train being cancelled results in an hour's
delay?

It happens often enough as to not be a total surprise on the Reading-
Paddington main line. It usually goes thus. Train is late, broken or
cancelled. Next train sets off 25 mins later, on time, however gets it's
destination changed because it's too full to stop at other stations, or
timetable is now screwed up. It thus leaves you standing at your stop, or
if you do get on it , it is no longer going where you want it to go. I
used to travel from Burnham to Twyford every day on it. Standing on
Burnham platform, in winter, unsure when you're going to get home is not
pleasant.

More recently, when I was in a course in the City, FGW managed a 100%
record of being more than 30 mins late all 5 days on the return leg from
Paddington to Twyford.


--
Mike P

On 13/07/2012 15:33, Mike P wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 14:25:25 +0000, boltar2003 wrote:

On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 15:01:34 +0100
Dave Plowman wrote:
In article ,
Mike P wrote:
No, it's not. I've lived in Highgate, Streatham, Camberwell, Chalk
Farm and Northolt over the years. PT is vile in London.

It has improved dramatically relatively recently. Lots of new rolling
stock on the overground and tube, and new buses. You appear to be
judging things on years ago. Unless you move every five minutes.

New trains don't improve anything if you're stuck in a tunnel because
some 60 year old signal has packed up for the 3rd time that week.

It also makes me laugh how people say PT is great in this country. It's
not, it's ****. You want PT that works, go to Holland, Japan or Germany
and learn. Not London.

Yes, and try Vancouver's Skytrain - fast reliable, cheap and clean, AND
it's a completely un-manned system.

On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 20:17:55 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 13/07/2012 12:26, Dave Plowman wrote:

In article ,
wrote:
I did actually travel on the tube on wednesday to accompany my wife part
of the way on her journey to a new job. I've now got a cold. Not only is
it slow

Are you trying to say travelling by car is quicker than tube during the
rush hour?

and unpleasent , its also a disease factory.

I take it you spend all of your life in a sealed room so as not to mix
with others?


And it cost me 3.60 for the priviledge of going 12 miles.

Quite right too - designed to fleece casual users who know no better.

BTW, have you any idea of the true costs of running a car per mile?

That depends on several variables, but one thing is very obvious: the fewer
miles the car is used for, the higher the cost per mile.

The upshot is that the user should seek to make every possible journey by car
in order to keep down the cost per mile.

Why would anyone want to pay more to reduce their cost per mile?

--

Ian D

On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 20:19:03 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 13/07/2012 12:39, Dave Plowman wrote:

In article ,
Mike.. . . . wrote:
most people prefer a private space

Says it all.

It does, doesn't it?

I am sitting in a private space as I type this.

I hope they let you out soon.

--

Ian D

On 15/07/2012 10:25, Ian Dalziel wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 20:17:55 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 13/07/2012 12:26, Dave Plowman wrote:

In article ,
wrote:
I did actually travel on the tube on wednesday to accompany my wife part
of the way on her journey to a new job. I've now got a cold. Not only is
it slow

Are you trying to say travelling by car is quicker than tube during the
rush hour?

and unpleasent , its also a disease factory.

I take it you spend all of your life in a sealed room so as not to mix
with others?


And it cost me 3.60 for the priviledge of going 12 miles.

Quite right too - designed to fleece casual users who know no better.

BTW, have you any idea of the true costs of running a car per mile?

That depends on several variables, but one thing is very obvious: the fewer
miles the car is used for, the higher the cost per mile.

The upshot is that the user should seek to make every possible journey by car
in order to keep down the cost per mile.

Why would anyone want to pay more to reduce their cost per mile?

Yes - I should have foreseen the "clever" remarks, shouldn't I?

So just to avoid doubt (not that opinions posted in newsgroups should need to
be larded with caveats at thesis-level): the upshot is that the user should
seek to make every possible one of his intended journeys by car in order to
keep down hios cost per mile. Using other modes where the car could be used
will increase his car cost-per-mile by spreading fixed costs over a smaller
number of miles.

On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 10:30:31 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 15/07/2012 10:25, Ian Dalziel wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 20:17:55 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 13/07/2012 12:26, Dave Plowman wrote:

In article ,
wrote:
I did actually travel on the tube on wednesday to accompany my wife part
of the way on her journey to a new job. I've now got a cold. Not only is
it slow

Are you trying to say travelling by car is quicker than tube during the
rush hour?

and unpleasent , its also a disease factory.

I take it you spend all of your life in a sealed room so as not to mix
with others?


And it cost me 3.60 for the priviledge of going 12 miles.

Quite right too - designed to fleece casual users who know no better.

BTW, have you any idea of the true costs of running a car per mile?

That depends on several variables, but one thing is very obvious: the fewer
miles the car is used for, the higher the cost per mile.

The upshot is that the user should seek to make every possible journey by car
in order to keep down the cost per mile.

Why would anyone want to pay more to reduce their cost per mile?

Yes - I should have foreseen the "clever" remarks, shouldn't I?

So just to avoid doubt (not that opinions posted in newsgroups should need to
be larded with caveats at thesis-level): the upshot is that the user should
seek to make every possible one of his intended journeys by car in order to
keep down hios cost per mile. Using other modes where the car could be used
will increase his car cost-per-mile by spreading fixed costs over a smaller
number of miles.

I don't give a toss about my "cost per mile". I'm only worried about
cost full stop.

Now, WHY should I pay more just to reduce my cost per mile figure?

--

Ian D