We're very disappointed with you.Will409 wrote:Not often I say this but I don't have access to that sort of information.
The same can be said for a bus journey. This has been my frustration of late. I've been reading a lot of papers and Most "pro-rail" texts that I've read state a load of emotive things that can easily apply to buses while the pro-bus texts seem to be more reason based but lack totally convincing statistics and I don't have access to any real figures.Will409 wrote:It must be remembered that not all train journeys involve a bus transfer though
Totally agree with you. What I'm trying to work out is which purposes their designs best reflect. It seems that light rail isn't as good a choice as a busway for point to suburban area services. And heavy rail comes into its own in point to point long runs, but requires feeder services to attract patronage.Will409 wrote:That said, ALL forms of PT that have been mentioned in this thread do have a place in the overall network and need to be used to what they have been designed for to the maximum extent. Public transport that is run by the Government should not be run as a profit making exercise.
One thing that's been mentioned a fair bit is that governments tend toward light rail because there's a tangible asset that they can point at and say "Isn't it pretty". Where as investing in buses is less glamorous but often the right thing to do.
Oh and... everything should be on separate grade.