Edinburgh Council!

Edinburgh Bus Station could be 'lost' over lease decision

Edinburgh’s bus station could be forced to relocate after its owners
told the city council its lease would not be extended.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg302gkw779o

JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
> Edinburgh Council!
>
>
>
> Edinburgh Bus Station could be 'lost' over lease decision
>
> Edinburgh’s bus station could be forced to relocate after its owners
> told the city council its lease would not be extended.
>
>
>
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg302gkw779o
>
>
>

That will make for interesting debate, an organisation run for former
miners many of which will lean to the socialist left of the political
spectrum behaving in capitalist right leaning way,

GH

On 24/04/2024 19:55, Marland wrote:
> That will make for interesting debate, an organisation run for former
> miners many of which will lean to the socialist left of the political
> spectrum behaving in capitalist right leaning way

I knew a few Miners from Fife in the early 90's, all in their late 40's
to 50's. Most of them were true Labour voters, but once they'd had their
offer of redundancy (very large payout) to shut their pit, they voted to
take it, and sod the younger people who had just started, who got
little. Money talks.

On 24/04/2024 07:55 pm, Marland wrote:

> JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:

>> Edinburgh Council!
>> Edinburgh Bus Station could be 'lost' over lease decision
>> Edinburgh’s bus station could be forced to relocate after its owners
>> told the city council its lease would not be extended.
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg302gkw779o
>
> That will make for interesting debate, an organisation run for former
> miners many of which will lean to the socialist left of the political
> spectrum behaving in capitalist right leaning way,

Not in the *slightest*.

Those running pension-management organisations such as you describe are
usually bound by internal constitutional provision to maximise and
optimise the benefit accruing to current and intended beneficiaries
rather than that of third parties, a requirement which is not only
entirely reasonable and fair but is also what one would expect.

*If* it can be claimed that providing a bus station is some sort of
necessary duty at all, that argument would surely have to be that the
wider society (particularly the local authority) has that duty, which
does not fall solely upon retired miners except in their general
capacity as taxpayers.

From a cursory Google search, it seems that Coal Pension Properties
Ltd. has never been shy of asserting and prosecuting their
pension-beneficiaries' welfare via the courts in its capacity as a
commercial landlord. We should all have pension providers at least as
solicitous as that.

On 04/05/2024 21:02, JNugent wrote:
> On 24/04/2024 07:55 pm, Marland wrote:
>
>> JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>> Edinburgh Council!
>>> Edinburgh Bus Station could be 'lost' over lease decision
>>> Edinburgh’s bus station could be forced to relocate after its owners
>>> told the city council its lease would not be extended.
>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg302gkw779o
>>
>> That will make for interesting  debate, an organisation run for former
>> miners many of which will lean to the socialist left of the political
>> spectrum behaving in capitalist right leaning way,
>
> Not in the *slightest*.
>
> Those running pension-management organisations such as you describe are
> usually bound by internal constitutional provision to maximise and
> optimise the benefit accruing to current and intended beneficiaries
> rather than that of third parties, a requirement which is not only
> entirely reasonable and fair but is also what one would expect.
>
> *If* it can be claimed that providing a bus station is some sort of
> necessary duty at all, that argument would surely have to be that the
> wider society (particularly the local authority) has that duty, which
> does not fall solely upon retired miners except in their general
> capacity as taxpayers.
>
> From a cursory Google search, it seems that Coal Pension Properties
> Ltd. has never been shy of asserting and prosecuting their
> pension-beneficiaries' welfare via the courts in its capacity as a
> commercial landlord. We should all have pension providers at least as
> solicitous as that.

We can't really blame the pension fund. It's not its job to spend its
future pensioners' money on social needs like a subsidised bus station.
The council needs to find the money to keep the bus station on its
purpose built site, because that will be cheaper than building a new one
anywhere reasonably accessible. Ironically, it has blown its transport
budget on the tram which stops outside the current bus station rather
than at Waverley or anywhere suitable for a replacement bus station.

On 04/05/2024 09:57 pm, Certes wrote:

> On 04/05/2024 21:02, JNugent wrote:
>> On 24/04/2024 07:55 pm, Marland wrote:
>>> JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>>> Edinburgh Council!
>>>> Edinburgh Bus Station could be 'lost' over lease decision
>>>> Edinburgh’s bus station could be forced to relocate after its owners
>>>> told the city council its lease would not be extended.
>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg302gkw779o
>>
>>> That will make for interesting  debate, an organisation run for former
>>> miners many of which will lean to the socialist left of the political
>>> spectrum behaving in capitalist right leaning way,
>
>> Not in the *slightest*.
>> Those running pension-management organisations such as you describe
>> are usually bound by internal constitutional provision to maximise and
>> optimise the benefit accruing to current and intended beneficiaries
>> rather than that of third parties, a requirement which is not only
>> entirely reasonable and fair but is also what one would expect.
>> *If* it can be claimed that providing a bus station is some sort of
>> necessary duty at all, that argument would surely have to be that the
>> wider society (particularly the local authority) has that duty, which
>> does not fall solely upon retired miners except in their general
>> capacity as taxpayers.
>>  From a cursory Google search, it seems that Coal Pension Properties
>> Ltd. has never been shy of asserting and prosecuting their
>> pension-beneficiaries' welfare via the courts in its capacity as a
>> commercial landlord. We should all have pension providers at least as
>> solicitous as that.
>
> We can't really blame the pension fund.  It's not its job to spend its
> future pensioners' money on social needs like a subsidised bus station.

Exactly!

That's what I said.

So far from blame, the managers should receive praise for doing their
job properly.

> The council needs to find the money to keep the bus station on its
> purpose built site, because that will be cheaper than building a new one
> anywhere reasonably accessible.  Ironically, it has blown its transport
> budget on the tram which stops outside the current bus station rather
> than at Waverley or anywhere suitable for a replacement bus station.

I readily defer to anyone with a working knowledge of the situation on
the ground.

On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 19:43:10 +0100, JMB99 wrote:
> Edinburgh’s bus station could be forced to relocate after its owners
> told the city council its lease would not be extended.
>
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg302gkw779o

There's one obstacle to their plans to "sell the Elder Street site for
housing" - they would need planning permission to change the use of the
site, and it's Edinburgh City Council that would decide if they get it.
Transport is part of the considerations, including access to public
transport - and the development probably wouldn't comply with policy as it
would have limited access to buses due to the bus station closing. Which
means that the Council would be justified in refusing permission, and the
site is potentially a lot less valuable than the pension fund thinks it
is.

Mike

Mike Humphrey <mail@michaelhumphrey.me.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 19:43:10 +0100, JMB99 wrote:
> > Edinburgh’s bus station could be forced to relocate after its owners
> > told the city council its lease would not be extended.
> >
> > https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg302gkw779o
>
> There's one obstacle to their plans to "sell the Elder Street site for
> housing" - they would need planning permission to change the use of the
> site, and it's Edinburgh City Council that would decide if they get it.
> Transport is part of the considerations, including access to public
> transport - and the development probably wouldn't comply with policy as it
> would have limited access to buses due to the bus station closing. Which
> means that the Council would be justified in refusing permission, and the
> site is potentially a lot less valuable than the pension fund thinks it
> is.

Would that really fly? There's a tram stop outside and Waverley station is
at the end of the road. I think it would qualify for the 'public transport
within 400m' criterion (not sure if that's also a Scottish thing) and if
this were anywhere else it would be marketed as being extremely well
connected.

Theo

On 05/05/2024 08:36 am, Mike Humphrey wrote:

> On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 19:43:10 +0100, JMB99 wrote:

>> Edinburgh’s bus station could be forced to relocate after its owners
>> told the city council its lease would not be extended.
>>
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg302gkw779o
>
> There's one obstacle to their plans to "sell the Elder Street site for
> housing" - they would need planning permission to change the use of the
> site, and it's Edinburgh City Council that would decide if they get it.

In the first instance, at least.

> Transport is part of the considerations, including access to public
> transport - and the development probably wouldn't comply with policy as it
> would have limited access to buses due to the bus station closing. Which
> means that the Council would be justified in refusing permission, and the
> site is potentially a lot less valuable than the pension fund thinks it
> is.

That would be a guaranteed win at appeal with the city council ordered
to pay the applicant's costs. No question.

No planning applicant has a duty to surrender the property to the local
authority's use.

JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
> On 04/05/2024 09:57 pm, Certes wrote:
>
>> On 04/05/2024 21:02, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 24/04/2024 07:55 pm, Marland wrote:
>>>> JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Edinburgh Council!
>>>>> Edinburgh Bus Station could be 'lost' over lease decision
>>>>> Edinburgh’s bus station could be forced to relocate after its owners
>>>>> told the city council its lease would not be extended.
>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg302gkw779o
>>>
>>>> That will make for interesting  debate, an organisation run for former
>>>> miners many of which will lean to the socialist left of the political
>>>> spectrum behaving in capitalist right leaning way,
>>
>>> Not in the *slightest*.
>>> Those running pension-management organisations such as you describe
>>> are usually bound by internal constitutional provision to maximise and
>>> optimise the benefit accruing to current and intended beneficiaries
>>> rather than that of third parties, a requirement which is not only
>>> entirely reasonable and fair but is also what one would expect.
>>> *If* it can be claimed that providing a bus station is some sort of
>>> necessary duty at all, that argument would surely have to be that the
>>> wider society (particularly the local authority) has that duty, which
>>> does not fall solely upon retired miners except in their general
>>> capacity as taxpayers.
>>>  From a cursory Google search, it seems that Coal Pension Properties
>>> Ltd. has never been shy of asserting and prosecuting their
>>> pension-beneficiaries' welfare via the courts in its capacity as a
>>> commercial landlord. We should all have pension providers at least as
>>> solicitous as that.
>>
>> We can't really blame the pension fund.  It's not its job to spend its
>> future pensioners' money on social needs like a subsidised bus station.
>
> Exactly!
>
> That's what I said.
>
> So far from blame, the managers should receive praise for doing their
> job properly.
>

Just as a point of order I never was saying they should not and I would
like it pointed out where I apportioned any blame ,but like I did say it
makes an interesting debate that has drawn you and others to comment on.

GH

On 05/05/2024 16:36, Marland wrote:
> JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
>> On 04/05/2024 09:57 pm, Certes wrote:
>>
>>> On 04/05/2024 21:02, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 24/04/2024 07:55 pm, Marland wrote:
>>>>> JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Edinburgh Council!
>>>>>> Edinburgh Bus Station could be 'lost' over lease decision
>>>>>> Edinburgh’s bus station could be forced to relocate after its owners
>>>>>> told the city council its lease would not be extended.
>>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg302gkw779o
>>>>
>>>>> That will make for interesting  debate, an organisation run for former
>>>>> miners many of which will lean to the socialist left of the political
>>>>> spectrum behaving in capitalist right leaning way,
>>>
>>>> Not in the *slightest*.
>>>> Those running pension-management organisations such as you describe
>>>> are usually bound by internal constitutional provision to maximise and
>>>> optimise the benefit accruing to current and intended beneficiaries
>>>> rather than that of third parties, a requirement which is not only
>>>> entirely reasonable and fair but is also what one would expect.
>>>> *If* it can be claimed that providing a bus station is some sort of
>>>> necessary duty at all, that argument would surely have to be that the
>>>> wider society (particularly the local authority) has that duty, which
>>>> does not fall solely upon retired miners except in their general
>>>> capacity as taxpayers.
>>>>  From a cursory Google search, it seems that Coal Pension Properties
>>>> Ltd. has never been shy of asserting and prosecuting their
>>>> pension-beneficiaries' welfare via the courts in its capacity as a
>>>> commercial landlord. We should all have pension providers at least as
>>>> solicitous as that.
>>>
>>> We can't really blame the pension fund.  It's not its job to spend its
>>> future pensioners' money on social needs like a subsidised bus station.
>>
>> Exactly!
>>
>> That's what I said.
>>
>> So far from blame, the managers should receive praise for doing their
>> job properly.
>>
>
> Just as a point of order I never was saying they should not and I would
> like it pointed out where I apportioned any blame ,but like I did say it
> makes an interesting debate that has drawn you and others to comment on.
>
> GH

Cardiff has not had a bus station for years and coaches stop in the
middle of nowhere in town. No one knows where to catch buses in town
any more.

The old bus station was where bus stations should be. Just outside the
railway station. They are building a new one but it's not so close.

Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
> On 05/05/2024 16:36, Marland wrote:
>> JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
>>> On 04/05/2024 09:57 pm, Certes wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 04/05/2024 21:02, JNugent wrote:
>>>>> On 24/04/2024 07:55 pm, Marland wrote:
>>>>>> JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> Edinburgh Council!
>>>>>>> Edinburgh Bus Station could be 'lost' over lease decision
>>>>>>> Edinburgh’s bus station could be forced to relocate after its owners
>>>>>>> told the city council its lease would not be extended.
>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg302gkw779o
>>>>>
>>>>>> That will make for interesting  debate, an organisation run for former
>>>>>> miners many of which will lean to the socialist left of the political
>>>>>> spectrum behaving in capitalist right leaning way,
>>>>
>>>>> Not in the *slightest*.
>>>>> Those running pension-management organisations such as you describe
>>>>> are usually bound by internal constitutional provision to maximise and
>>>>> optimise the benefit accruing to current and intended beneficiaries
>>>>> rather than that of third parties, a requirement which is not only
>>>>> entirely reasonable and fair but is also what one would expect.
>>>>> *If* it can be claimed that providing a bus station is some sort of
>>>>> necessary duty at all, that argument would surely have to be that the
>>>>> wider society (particularly the local authority) has that duty, which
>>>>> does not fall solely upon retired miners except in their general
>>>>> capacity as taxpayers.
>>>>>  From a cursory Google search, it seems that Coal Pension Properties
>>>>> Ltd. has never been shy of asserting and prosecuting their
>>>>> pension-beneficiaries' welfare via the courts in its capacity as a
>>>>> commercial landlord. We should all have pension providers at least as
>>>>> solicitous as that.
>>>>
>>>> We can't really blame the pension fund.  It's not its job to spend its
>>>> future pensioners' money on social needs like a subsidised bus station.
>>>
>>> Exactly!
>>>
>>> That's what I said.
>>>
>>> So far from blame, the managers should receive praise for doing their
>>> job properly.
>>>
>>
>> Just as a point of order I never was saying they should not and I would
>> like it pointed out where I apportioned any blame ,but like I did say it
>> makes an interesting debate that has drawn you and others to comment on.
>>
>> GH
>
>
> Cardiff has not had a bus station for years and coaches stop in the
> middle of nowhere in town. No one knows where to catch buses in town
> any more.
>
> The old bus station was where bus stations should be. Just outside the
> railway station. They are building a new one but it's not so close.
>
>
>

Salisbury bus station closed about five or six years ago, Southamptons one
for the out of town buses
must be getting on for 30 years. Neither was particularly close to the
railway station but very close to the city centre ,same with Coventry which
I used last November when a fatality halted my train service to the NEC.
Cardiff ISTR has its railway station quite close to the city centre and the
stadium so it would work there but a lot of stations were built on the what
was the edge of towns and cities and still are not at the centre so I don’t
think having them alongside the station would always be beneficial. A
shuttle or clear indication of what regular services connect the two would
be useful.

The latter is partly addressed by various operators phone apps which given
a strong enough signal and a bit of practice in using them can be very good
where selecting a stop on a map shows the buses travelling in almost real
time , here they give the make such as Enviro etc and registration number
of the approaching bus.

GH

On 05/05/2024 04:36 pm, Marland wrote:

> JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
>> On 04/05/2024 09:57 pm, Certes wrote:
>>> On 04/05/2024 21:02, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 24/04/2024 07:55 pm, Marland wrote:
>>>>> JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Edinburgh Council!
>>>>>> Edinburgh Bus Station could be 'lost' over lease decision
>>>>>> Edinburgh’s bus station could be forced to relocate after its owners
>>>>>> told the city council its lease would not be extended.
>>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg302gkw779o
>>>>
>>>>> That will make for interesting  debate, an organisation run for former
>>>>> miners many of which will lean to the socialist left of the political
>>>>> spectrum behaving in capitalist right leaning way,
>>>
>>>> Not in the *slightest*.
>>>> Those running pension-management organisations such as you describe
>>>> are usually bound by internal constitutional provision to maximise and
>>>> optimise the benefit accruing to current and intended beneficiaries
>>>> rather than that of third parties, a requirement which is not only
>>>> entirely reasonable and fair but is also what one would expect.
>>>> *If* it can be claimed that providing a bus station is some sort of
>>>> necessary duty at all, that argument would surely have to be that the
>>>> wider society (particularly the local authority) has that duty, which
>>>> does not fall solely upon retired miners except in their general
>>>> capacity as taxpayers.
>>>>  From a cursory Google search, it seems that Coal Pension Properties
>>>> Ltd. has never been shy of asserting and prosecuting their
>>>> pension-beneficiaries' welfare via the courts in its capacity as a
>>>> commercial landlord. We should all have pension providers at least as
>>>> solicitous as that.
>>>
>>> We can't really blame the pension fund.  It's not its job to spend its
>>> future pensioners' money on social needs like a subsidised bus station.
>>
>> Exactly!
>> That's what I said.
>> So far from blame, the managers should receive praise for doing their
>> job properly.
>
> Just as a point of order I never was saying they should not and I would
> like it pointed out where I apportioned any blame ,but like I did say it
> makes an interesting debate that has drawn you and others to comment on.

I didn't claim that you had personally apportioned any blame. You were
clearly simply juxtaposing the issues (though one of them didn't hold
much water).

Hope that's cleared that up!

Marland wrote:

> Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>> On 05/05/2024 16:36, Marland wrote:
>>> JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 04/05/2024 09:57 pm, Certes wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 04/05/2024 21:02, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>> On 24/04/2024 07:55 pm, Marland wrote:
>>>>>>> JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Edinburgh Council!
>>>>>>>> Edinburgh Bus Station could be 'lost' over lease decision
>>>>>>>> Edinburgh’s bus station could be forced to relocate after its owners
>>>>>>>> told the city council its lease would not be extended.
>>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg302gkw779o
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That will make for interesting  debate, an organisation run for former
>>>>>>> miners many of which will lean to the socialist left of the political
>>>>>>> spectrum behaving in capitalist right leaning way,
>>>>>
>>>>>> Not in the *slightest*.
>>>>>> Those running pension-management organisations such as you describe
>>>>>> are usually bound by internal constitutional provision to maximise and
>>>>>> optimise the benefit accruing to current and intended beneficiaries
>>>>>> rather than that of third parties, a requirement which is not only
>>>>>> entirely reasonable and fair but is also what one would expect.
>>>>>> *If* it can be claimed that providing a bus station is some sort of
>>>>>> necessary duty at all, that argument would surely have to be that the
>>>>>> wider society (particularly the local authority) has that duty, which
>>>>>> does not fall solely upon retired miners except in their general
>>>>>> capacity as taxpayers.
>>>>>>  From a cursory Google search, it seems that Coal Pension Properties
>>>>>> Ltd. has never been shy of asserting and prosecuting their
>>>>>> pension-beneficiaries' welfare via the courts in its capacity as a
>>>>>> commercial landlord. We should all have pension providers at least as
>>>>>> solicitous as that.
>>>>>
>>>>> We can't really blame the pension fund.  It's not its job to spend its
>>>>> future pensioners' money on social needs like a subsidised bus station.
>>>>
>>>> Exactly!
>>>>
>>>> That's what I said.
>>>>
>>>> So far from blame, the managers should receive praise for doing their
>>>> job properly.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Just as a point of order I never was saying they should not and I would
>>> like it pointed out where I apportioned any blame ,but like I did say it
>>> makes an interesting debate that has drawn you and others to comment on.
>>>
>>> GH
>>
>>
>> Cardiff has not had a bus station for years and coaches stop in the
>> middle of nowhere in town. No one knows where to catch buses in town
>> any more.
>>
>> The old bus station was where bus stations should be. Just outside the
>> railway station. They are building a new one but it's not so close.
>>
>>
>>

> Salisbury bus station closed about five or six years ago, Southamptons one
> for the out of town buses
> must be getting on for 30 years. Neither was particularly close to the
> railway station but very close to the city centre ,same with Coventry which
> I used last November when a fatality halted my train service to the NEC.
> Cardiff ISTR has its railway station quite close to the city centre and the
> stadium so it would work there but a lot of stations were built on the what
> was the edge of towns and cities and still are not at the centre so I don’t
> think having them alongside the station would always be beneficial. A
> shuttle or clear indication of what regular services connect the two would
> be useful.

The one in Avignon is close to Avignon-Ville but old.
Buses get stuck in traffic jams. Buses are a bit too large
for the old station, divers must take care not to hit anything.

For Avignon TGV, I'm not sure whether to call the longer
bus stop a station.

But when it comes to buses serving towns without a train station,
the bus station should be next to the train station at the end(s)
of line. Or at least, a bus stop in front of (the each) station
should be served.

Regards, ULF

Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
> On 04/05/2024 21:02, JNugent wrote:
>> On 24/04/2024 07:55 pm, Marland wrote:
>>
>>> JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> Edinburgh Council!
>>>> Edinburgh Bus Station could be 'lost' over lease decision
>>>> Edinburgh’s bus station could be forced to relocate after its owners
>>>> told the city council its lease would not be extended.
>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg302gkw779o
>>>
>>> That will make for interesting  debate, an organisation run for former
>>> miners many of which will lean to the socialist left of the political
>>> spectrum behaving in capitalist right leaning way,
>>
>> Not in the *slightest*.
>>
>> Those running pension-management organisations such as you describe are
>> usually bound by internal constitutional provision to maximise and
>> optimise the benefit accruing to current and intended beneficiaries
>> rather than that of third parties, a requirement which is not only
>> entirely reasonable and fair but is also what one would expect.
>>
>> *If* it can be claimed that providing a bus station is some sort of
>> necessary duty at all, that argument would surely have to be that the
>> wider society (particularly the local authority) has that duty, which
>> does not fall solely upon retired miners except in their general
>> capacity as taxpayers.
>>
>> From a cursory Google search, it seems that Coal Pension Properties
>> Ltd. has never been shy of asserting and prosecuting their
>> pension-beneficiaries' welfare via the courts in its capacity as a
>> commercial landlord. We should all have pension providers at least as
>> solicitous as that.
>
> We can't really blame the pension fund. It's not its job to spend its
> future pensioners' money on social needs like a subsidised bus station.
> The council needs to find the money to keep the bus station on its
> purpose built site, because that will be cheaper than building a new one
> anywhere reasonably accessible. Ironically, it has blown its transport
> budget on the tram which stops outside the current bus station rather
> than at Waverley or anywhere suitable for a replacement bus station.

Edinburgh’s public transport situation is a bit weird. The bus station
would be better termed a coach station, since none of the local buses use
it, only longer distance ones. Unlike many cities there is no bus station
for local buses nor for the medium distance buses run by the Lothian Buses
group. Many local buses run along Princes St right next to Waverley, and
the nearest tram stops - St Andrew’s Square next to the bus station and
Princes St at the Mound - are both a medium walking distance away.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

Sam Wilson wrote:

> Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
>> On 04/05/2024 21:02, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 24/04/2024 07:55 pm, Marland wrote:
>>>
>>>> JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Edinburgh Council!
>>>>> Edinburgh Bus Station could be 'lost' over lease decision
>>>>> Edinburgh’s bus station could be forced to relocate after its owners
>>>>> told the city council its lease would not be extended.
>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg302gkw779o
>>>>
>>>> That will make for interesting  debate, an organisation run for former
>>>> miners many of which will lean to the socialist left of the political
>>>> spectrum behaving in capitalist right leaning way,
>>>
>>> Not in the *slightest*.
>>>
>>> Those running pension-management organisations such as you describe are
>>> usually bound by internal constitutional provision to maximise and
>>> optimise the benefit accruing to current and intended beneficiaries
>>> rather than that of third parties, a requirement which is not only
>>> entirely reasonable and fair but is also what one would expect.
>>>
>>> *If* it can be claimed that providing a bus station is some sort of
>>> necessary duty at all, that argument would surely have to be that the
>>> wider society (particularly the local authority) has that duty, which
>>> does not fall solely upon retired miners except in their general
>>> capacity as taxpayers.
>>>
>>> From a cursory Google search, it seems that Coal Pension Properties
>>> Ltd. has never been shy of asserting and prosecuting their
>>> pension-beneficiaries' welfare via the courts in its capacity as a
>>> commercial landlord. We should all have pension providers at least as
>>> solicitous as that.
>>
>> We can't really blame the pension fund. It's not its job to spend its
>> future pensioners' money on social needs like a subsidised bus station.
>> The council needs to find the money to keep the bus station on its
>> purpose built site, because that will be cheaper than building a new one
>> anywhere reasonably accessible. Ironically, it has blown its transport
>> budget on the tram which stops outside the current bus station rather
>> than at Waverley or anywhere suitable for a replacement bus station.

> Edinburgh’s public transport situation is a bit weird. The bus station
> would be better termed a coach station, since none of the local buses use
> it, only longer distance ones. Unlike many cities there is no bus station
> for local buses nor for the medium distance buses run by the Lothian Buses
> group. Many local buses run along Princes St right next to Waverley, and
> the nearest tram stops - St Andrew’s Square next to the bus station and
> Princes St at the Mound - are both a medium walking distance away.

Most bus stations make you lose time if used by though lines.

Having local lines started & ended at a central train station
does not seem a good idea to me.

Here, for medium distance:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Bahnhofsplatz_(Mainz)#/media/File:Linie_660,_1,_Mainz.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Bahnhofsplatz_(Mainz)#/media/File:Bushaltestelle_Hauptbahnhof,_1,_Mainz.jpg

Submedium distances have been recently replaced by local lines.

For local buses see here
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Bahnhofsplatz_(Mainz)#/media/File:Square_of_Main_Train_Station_-_panoramio.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Bahnhofsplatz_(Mainz)#/media/File:Bushaltestelle_Hauptbahnhof,_2,_Mainz.jpg

and in the background
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Stra%C3%9Fenbahnhaltestelle_Mainz_Hauptbahnhof#/media/File:Stra%C3%9Fenbahn_Mainz_50_217_-_51_274_Hauptbahnhof_1902151401.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Stra%C3%9Fenbahnhaltestelle_Mainz_Hauptbahnhof#/media/File:Stra%C3%9Fenbahn_Mainz_53_233_Hauptbahnhof_1910111423.jpg

Coaches stop close to a more or less recent back entry:
https://www.mainz.de/medien/internet/downloads/1615-HBF-West--Lageplan.pdf

And there is a new bus/tram stop in the middle of the road,
with four bus lines (and soon one tram line) not serving
the station square, which often adds one change on my way home.
They say the local stops were too busy.

Regards, ULF

On Mon, 6 May 2024 14:56:19 +0000, Ulf.Kutzner@web.de (ulf_kutzner)
wrote:

>Sam Wilson wrote:
>
>> Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
>>> On 04/05/2024 21:02, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 24/04/2024 07:55 pm, Marland wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Edinburgh Council!
>>>>>> Edinburgh Bus Station could be 'lost' over lease decision
>>>>>> Edinburgh’s bus station could be forced to relocate after its owners
>>>>>> told the city council its lease would not be extended.
>>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg302gkw779o
>>>>>
>>>>> That will make for interesting  debate, an organisation run for former
>>>>> miners many of which will lean to the socialist left of the political
>>>>> spectrum behaving in capitalist right leaning way,
>>>>
>>>> Not in the *slightest*.
>>>>
>>>> Those running pension-management organisations such as you describe are
>>>> usually bound by internal constitutional provision to maximise and
>>>> optimise the benefit accruing to current and intended beneficiaries
>>>> rather than that of third parties, a requirement which is not only
>>>> entirely reasonable and fair but is also what one would expect.
>>>>
>>>> *If* it can be claimed that providing a bus station is some sort of
>>>> necessary duty at all, that argument would surely have to be that the
>>>> wider society (particularly the local authority) has that duty, which
>>>> does not fall solely upon retired miners except in their general
>>>> capacity as taxpayers.
>>>>
>>>> From a cursory Google search, it seems that Coal Pension Properties
>>>> Ltd. has never been shy of asserting and prosecuting their
>>>> pension-beneficiaries' welfare via the courts in its capacity as a
>>>> commercial landlord. We should all have pension providers at least as
>>>> solicitous as that.
>>>
>>> We can't really blame the pension fund. It's not its job to spend its
>>> future pensioners' money on social needs like a subsidised bus station.
>>> The council needs to find the money to keep the bus station on its
>>> purpose built site, because that will be cheaper than building a new one
>>> anywhere reasonably accessible. Ironically, it has blown its transport
>>> budget on the tram which stops outside the current bus station rather
>>> than at Waverley or anywhere suitable for a replacement bus station.
>
>> Edinburgh’s public transport situation is a bit weird. The bus station
>> would be better termed a coach station, since none of the local buses use
>> it, only longer distance ones. Unlike many cities there is no bus station
>> for local buses nor for the medium distance buses run by the Lothian Buses
>> group. Many local buses run along Princes St right next to Waverley, and
>> the nearest tram stops - St Andrew’s Square next to the bus station and
>> Princes St at the Mound - are both a medium walking distance away.
>
>Most bus stations make you lose time if used by through lines.
>
>Having local lines started & ended at a central train station
>does not seem a good idea to me.

Wellington in ANZ is an infuriating city for buses because of that,
though the locals have resisted efforts by the Greater Wellington
Regional Council to rationalise routes. Locals in the south/southeast
especially want all routes to go completely to the station through
Downtown, meaning bus-clogged streets.

However in Wellie's defence, geography of steep hills and long valleys
does hamper reforms.

Nobody <jock@soccer.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 6 May 2024 14:56:19 +0000, Ulf.Kutzner@web.de (ulf_kutzner)
> wrote:
>
>> Sam Wilson wrote:
>>
>>> Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
>>>> On 04/05/2024 21:02, JNugent wrote:
>>>>> On 24/04/2024 07:55 pm, Marland wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Edinburgh Council!
>>>>>>> Edinburgh Bus Station could be 'lost' over lease decision
>>>>>>> Edinburgh’s bus station could be forced to relocate after its owners
>>>>>>> told the city council its lease would not be extended.
>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg302gkw779o
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That will make for interesting  debate, an organisation run for former
>>>>>> miners many of which will lean to the socialist left of the political
>>>>>> spectrum behaving in capitalist right leaning way,
>>>>>
>>>>> Not in the *slightest*.
>>>>>
>>>>> Those running pension-management organisations such as you describe are
>>>>> usually bound by internal constitutional provision to maximise and
>>>>> optimise the benefit accruing to current and intended beneficiaries
>>>>> rather than that of third parties, a requirement which is not only
>>>>> entirely reasonable and fair but is also what one would expect.
>>>>>
>>>>> *If* it can be claimed that providing a bus station is some sort of
>>>>> necessary duty at all, that argument would surely have to be that the
>>>>> wider society (particularly the local authority) has that duty, which
>>>>> does not fall solely upon retired miners except in their general
>>>>> capacity as taxpayers.
>>>>>
>>>>> From a cursory Google search, it seems that Coal Pension Properties
>>>>> Ltd. has never been shy of asserting and prosecuting their
>>>>> pension-beneficiaries' welfare via the courts in its capacity as a
>>>>> commercial landlord. We should all have pension providers at least as
>>>>> solicitous as that.
>>>>
>>>> We can't really blame the pension fund. It's not its job to spend its
>>>> future pensioners' money on social needs like a subsidised bus station.
>>>> The council needs to find the money to keep the bus station on its
>>>> purpose built site, because that will be cheaper than building a new one
>>>> anywhere reasonably accessible. Ironically, it has blown its transport
>>>> budget on the tram which stops outside the current bus station rather
>>>> than at Waverley or anywhere suitable for a replacement bus station.
>>
>>> Edinburgh’s public transport situation is a bit weird. The bus station
>>> would be better termed a coach station, since none of the local buses use
>>> it, only longer distance ones. Unlike many cities there is no bus station
>>> for local buses nor for the medium distance buses run by the Lothian Buses
>>> group. Many local buses run along Princes St right next to Waverley, and
>>> the nearest tram stops - St Andrew’s Square next to the bus station and
>>> Princes St at the Mound - are both a medium walking distance away.
>>
>> Most bus stations make you lose time if used by through lines.
>>
>> Having local lines started & ended at a central train station
>> does not seem a good idea to me.
>
> Wellington in ANZ is an infuriating city for buses because of that,
> though the locals have resisted efforts by the Greater Wellington
> Regional Council to rationalise routes. Locals in the south/southeast
> especially want all routes to go completely to the station through
> Downtown, meaning bus-clogged streets.
>
> However in Wellie's defence, geography of steep hills and long valleys
> does hamper reforms.
>

How are the vehicles that replaced the Trolleybuses faring?

GH

On 6 May 2024 18:37:33 GMT, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk>
wrote:

>Nobody <jock@soccer.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 6 May 2024 14:56:19 +0000, Ulf.Kutzner@web.de (ulf_kutzner)
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Sam Wilson wrote:
>>>
>>>> Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
>>>>> On 04/05/2024 21:02, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>> On 24/04/2024 07:55 pm, Marland wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Edinburgh Council!
>>>>>>>> Edinburgh Bus Station could be 'lost' over lease decision
>>>>>>>> Edinburgh?s bus station could be forced to relocate after its owners
>>>>>>>> told the city council its lease would not be extended.
>>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg302gkw779o
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That will make for interesting  debate, an organisation run for former
>>>>>>> miners many of which will lean to the socialist left of the political
>>>>>>> spectrum behaving in capitalist right leaning way,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not in the *slightest*.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Those running pension-management organisations such as you describe are
>>>>>> usually bound by internal constitutional provision to maximise and
>>>>>> optimise the benefit accruing to current and intended beneficiaries
>>>>>> rather than that of third parties, a requirement which is not only
>>>>>> entirely reasonable and fair but is also what one would expect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *If* it can be claimed that providing a bus station is some sort of
>>>>>> necessary duty at all, that argument would surely have to be that the
>>>>>> wider society (particularly the local authority) has that duty, which
>>>>>> does not fall solely upon retired miners except in their general
>>>>>> capacity as taxpayers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From a cursory Google search, it seems that Coal Pension Properties
>>>>>> Ltd. has never been shy of asserting and prosecuting their
>>>>>> pension-beneficiaries' welfare via the courts in its capacity as a
>>>>>> commercial landlord. We should all have pension providers at least as
>>>>>> solicitous as that.
>>>>>
>>>>> We can't really blame the pension fund. It's not its job to spend its
>>>>> future pensioners' money on social needs like a subsidised bus station.
>>>>> The council needs to find the money to keep the bus station on its
>>>>> purpose built site, because that will be cheaper than building a new one
>>>>> anywhere reasonably accessible. Ironically, it has blown its transport
>>>>> budget on the tram which stops outside the current bus station rather
>>>>> than at Waverley or anywhere suitable for a replacement bus station.
>>>
>>>> Edinburgh?s public transport situation is a bit weird. The bus station
>>>> would be better termed a coach station, since none of the local buses use
>>>> it, only longer distance ones. Unlike many cities there is no bus station
>>>> for local buses nor for the medium distance buses run by the Lothian Buses
>>>> group. Many local buses run along Princes St right next to Waverley, and
>>>> the nearest tram stops - St Andrew?s Square next to the bus station and
>>>> Princes St at the Mound - are both a medium walking distance away.
>>>
>>> Most bus stations make you lose time if used by through lines.
>>>
>>> Having local lines started & ended at a central train station
>>> does not seem a good idea to me.
>>
>> Wellington in ANZ is an infuriating city for buses because of that,
>> though the locals have resisted efforts by the Greater Wellington
>> Regional Council to rationalise routes. Locals in the south/southeast
>> especially want all routes to go completely to the station through
>> Downtown, meaning bus-clogged streets.
>>
>> However in Wellie's defence, geography of steep hills and long valleys
>> does hamper reforms.
>>
>
>How are the vehicles that replaced the Trolleybuses faring?
>
>GH

The *original* plan of years ago when the wired trolley network was
summarily removed fell flat... but Metlink as of September 2023 was
claiming 20% 'lectric versus 80% diseasel:

<https://www.metlink.org.nz/news-and-updates/news/funding-for-electric-bus-depot-welcomed>

All GWRC smoke and mirrors mixed with the fumes from the Beehive and
Parliament, adjacent to the railway station's central focus!

At least Te Whanganui-a-Tara (oops, Wellington for Pakeha/non-Maori
readers) has plenty of wind to disperse the fumes.

On 05/05/2024 22:41, Marland wrote:
> Salisbury bus station closed about five or six years ago, Southamptons one
> for the out of town buses
> must be getting on for 30 years. Neither was particularly close to the
> railway station but very close to the city centre ,same with Coventry which
> I used last November when a fatality halted my train service to the NEC.
> Cardiff ISTR has its railway station quite close to the city centre and the
> stadium so it would work there but a lot of stations were built on the what
> was the edge of towns and cities and still are not at the centre so I don’t
> think having them alongside the station would always be beneficial. A
> shuttle or clear indication of what regular services connect the two would
> be useful.
>
> The latter is partly addressed by various operators phone apps which given
> a strong enough signal and a bit of practice in using them can be very good
> where selecting a stop on a map shows the buses travelling in almost real
> time , here they give the make such as Enviro etc and registration number
> of the approaching bus.
Alternatively, https://bustimes.org/ could be used, which shows all buses
and avoids having to install the proprietary application for every bus
company that one might be interested in.