John Slee wrote: > No it's not - in fact it's b***** good. We don't have a car, and in > general we find public transport a terrific resource. Just because a car > goes the direct route does not mean that the per capita travel cost is > less than that of a deviant bus. ;-)
No that's true, though in the case I gave public transport was far more expensive. If the rest of Europe can deliver decent public transport why can't we? The answer as I see it is that elsewhere it's service that matters and here it's profit that rules. Sadly the British public will put up with an expensive and useless service so there is little incentive for the rail/bus companies to improve it. Where in the country is this excellent public transport system you talk of? I've certainly not found it. The nearest think I can think of is assorted Metro systems and (sometimes) the Tube, though they only serve specific routes and link to generally poor bus services. > As for cost - why don't you just get older quicker? - Twirlies* are to > be coveted - (I should know - I'm looking forward to getting mine in > 2011, unless the next govt puts the age up from 60 to 65.) Well I suppose at least then I personally will get value for money, though of course the next generation have to fund it. Not a sound justification to my mind. Steve NB Bream
