Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [NewMobilityCafe] BRT UK and Yogyakarta

Expand Messages
  • Anzir Boodoo
    eric, ... I don t believe this is true. In Sheffield, the trams are run by Stagecoach (who have only recently acquired a local bus company) and the buses are
    Message 1 of 14 , Dec 9, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      eric,
      On 7 Dec 2006, at 21:39, Eric Bruun wrote:

      > Rory
      >
      > Just one more comment.
      >
      > As far as I know, most LRT systems in the UK do OK in ridership by
      > European crowding standards. I know
      > that Sheffield and Newcastle-upon-Tyne had problems initially, but
      > that is because there was no
      > coordination between rail and bus. In Sheffield it was solved by
      > letting the prevailing bus operator
      > run the rail system as well and making it part of their network. In
      > Newcastle, the buses were restricted from coming into the city
      > center (How this was done legally I don't know when other cities
      > had so much trouble arranging any kind of cooperation).As for
      > finances, no wonder LRT looks bad if it must recapture its
      > investment costs. Other
      > European countries don't have such requirements.

      I don't believe this is true.

      In Sheffield, the trams are run by Stagecoach (who have only recently
      acquired a local bus company) and the buses are mostly run by First.

      Although First put the tram routes on their bus map, there is
      integration in terms of season tickets, which are issued by the
      Transport Executive (transit authority) for travel on both modes, and
      with bus-tram interchanges, also built and run by the Transport
      Executive.

      In the Newcastle area, buses are still allowed to enter the city
      centre, and there is now a lot of bus congestion. Meanwhile service
      frequencies on the Metro reduced from one every 10 minutes to one
      every 12 minutes, and a line extension was built which uses the Metro
      trains which were released by this. Again, there is Nexus PTE (the
      local transit authority) who offer tickets available on both bus and
      Metro.

      --
      Anzir Boodoo MRes MILT Aff. IRO
      Policy Officer (West & North Yorkshire), The Chartered Institute of
      Logistics and Transport (UK)
      (this committee is based in Sheffield)
    • Kerry Wood
      Rory, Eric Some advantages of light rail over BRT that I have not seen mentioned (although I am not sure about all of them...). Most of them apply mainly or
      Message 2 of 14 , Dec 9, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Rory, Eric

        Some advantages of light rail over BRT that I have not seen mentioned
        (although I am not sure about all of them...).

        Most of them apply mainly or only on-street and are derived from the
        ability to use bigger vehicles than BRT. Sometimes much bigger,
        although there are limits, set by block length (for stops) and headway
        on more lightly used routes.

        1 It is obvious to the least-technical decision-maker that the tracks
        have to be continuous. The decision-maker may also realise that:
        -- off-vehicle ticketing is needed
        -- a tram is better able to justify priority.
        For BRT it is too easy to accept driver ticketing or route sections
        without priority and fritter away the all-important advantages of high
        speed and good timekeeping (for fast transfers).

        2 A tram carrying 400 people can clear a junction in around 12 seconds,
        thus freeing up junction time for other traffic.
        Eight standard buses carrying 50 people each would need roughly half a
        minute to go through together, or up to roughly a minute and a half to
        go through in smaller groups consistent with fast trips and good
        timekeeping. BRT is much more likely than light rail to need grade
        separation at major junctions.

        3 Trams normally obstruct the track at stops, and this works well
        enough at route capacities of up to around 30 trams/hr, or say roughly
        9000 - 12 000 passengers/hr (authorities seem to vary here -- I am
        broadly relying on IHT data).
        Standard buses with off-bus ticketing can can do the same at about the
        same route capacity (less if the driver issues tickets) but can carry
        fewer passengers -- say 30 buses/hr carrying 50 passengers each, 1500
        passengers/hr.
        Much greater capacity is possible but increases delay and reduces
        reliability as buses queue at stops. These problems can be partially
        overcome by allowing space for buses to pass at stops but this needs
        additional width and restricts the street's capacity to carry general
        traffic.

        4 Kerbside tram or bus lanes tend to be blocked by parked cars or
        delivery trucks. Centre running gets around this problem but creates a
        problem of safe passenger access at stops. Bridges are not
        passenger-friendly and pedestrian crossings may be unsafe on busy
        streets.
        A tram having a short dwell time at stops (about 15 seconds, or maybe
        less if it is low-floor) might justify traffic signals which turn red
        whenever there is a tram at the stop. Berne does this by simply relying
        on stop lines. Again, this would be harder to justify for BRT because
        the stop would be occupied more often and the signals would cause more
        traffic delay.


        Kerry Wood


        On 2006 Dec, 8, at 10:39 AM, Eric Bruun wrote:

        > Rory
        >  
        > Just one more comment.
        >  
        > As far as I know, most LRT systems in the UK do OK in ridership by
        > European crowding standards. I know
        > that Sheffield and Newcastle-upon-Tyne had problems initially, but
        > that is because there was no
        > coordination between rail and bus. In Sheffield it was solved by
        > letting the prevailing bus operator
        > run the rail system as well and making it part of their network. In
        > Newcastle, the buses were restricted from coming into the city center
        > (How this was done legally I don't know when other cities had so much
        > trouble arranging any kind of cooperation).As for finances, no wonder
        > LRT looks bad if it must recapture its investment costs. Other
        > European countries don't have such requirements.
        >  
        > I fully agree that BRT projects cropping up everywhere is a good
        > thing, its happening now in the US too.
        > But I think that there are places where LRT would be even better --
        > for example, in London. Croydon Tramlink
        > carries a lot of people efficiently and the new proposed north-south
        > tram line, perhaps using dormant tunnels, to relieve pressure on
        > the Northern Line, makes more sense than a BRT line on the street.
        >  
        > My main objection is to the generalization that BRT is a better
        > solution everywhere.
        >  
        > Eric Bruun
        >
        >
        >  
        >> -----Original Message-----
        >> From: Rory McMullan
        >> Sent: Dec 7, 2006 1:11 PM
        >> To: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com
        >> Subject: Re: [NewMobilityCafe] BRT UK and Yogyakarta
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >> Eric,
        >> Likewise I feel support for BRT and LRT are not mutually exclusive. I
        >> am no expert on either, but feel that the momentum that BRT seems to
        >> be gathering can only be a good thing.
        >> In my opinion the deregulation of buses and privatisation of the
        >> railways can surely only be an obstacle in building an integrated
        >> transport network, however it is evident that the operators are not
        >> of the same opinion.
        >> The cumbersome

        (snipped)
      • Anzir Boodoo
        Rory, ... However, there are other advantages to light rail. I have previously investigated the potential for buses to use light rail tracks, and there is a UK
        Message 3 of 14 , Dec 10, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Rory,
          On 6 Dec 2006, at 11:01, Rory McMullan wrote:

          > BRT is an innovative approach to solve the transport problems of
          > not just developing cities, but developed cities too.
          >
          > The BRT-UK confernece which finished yesterday featured speakers as
          > influencial as Moir Lockhead, CEO of First group. It was organised
          > by PTRC who I work for, so I got to go.
          >
          > There appears to be a growing realisation that Light Rail systems
          > are unaffordable in the UK, a view perhaps reinforced with the
          > publication of the Eddington Report recommending smaller scale
          > projects to tackle congestion.
          >
          > There is however some concern that BRT should not just be sold as a
          > cheap replacement for trams. The extra flexiblity of the system to
          > run on standard roads when out of congested areas is an operating
          > advantage as well as cost saving.

          However, there are other advantages to light rail. I have previously
          investigated the potential for buses to use light rail tracks, and
          there is a UK company developing a low cost road-rail solution for
          trucks and buses.

          The idea of this is to promote full integration between bus, BRT and
          light rail (and of course with heavy rail since light rail vehicles
          can also share heavy rail tracks).

          I don't want to talk about bus, BRT, light rail and heavy rail as if
          they are separate modes. Of course, for technical and operational
          reasons they do differ significantly (and I used to be a rail
          industry researcher, so I am aware of the technical specialisms), but
          to the passenger, shouldn't all local transit appear similar, work
          the same way and use the same tickets... it should permeate places as
          much as possible while making use of the speed and efficiency of
          rail, balancing segregation from and integration into the street to
          the best advantage.

          My hierarchy of modes by passenger density is:

          mini/midi bus (track guided)
          full sized bus (track guided)
          light rail vehicle
          Metro (light heavy rail!)
          heavy rail train

          infrastructure can be on street, away from street, above ground or
          below ground as best suits the circumstances... buses would join a
          track guided route, resulting in an increased frequency on the
          corridor, but operate normally on street otherwise (though with
          highly visible, light rail style stops where possible).

          The other advantage to this method is that it can be used to develop
          the track infrastructure in stages, over a period of time.

          This is something I have been looking at as a possibility with
          several others, who assure me that the engineering challenges have
          been met, and the only barriers are perceptual with the funders,
          builders and operators of systems.

          BRT and light rail can be fully integrated.

          --
          Anzir Boodoo MRes MILT Aff. IRO
          transcience, 72 Staplehurst, BRACKNELL RG12 8DD
        • Rory McMullan
          Anzir, I live in Croydon and see the trams running past every morning, I am proud of them, as I believe are most people who live in Croydon. I was looking at
          Message 4 of 14 , Dec 14, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Anzir,
             
            I live in Croydon and see the trams running past every morning, I am proud of them, as I believe are most people who live in Croydon.
             
            I was looking at the new FTR at the BRT conference, mentally comparing it with the Croydon tram, which coincidentally I think is one of the least overtly sleek and modern of the UK trams, (which I think is refreshing), and thinking that despite all the cosmetic changes to make it look like a modern transit system the FTR didn't look or feel anywhere near as nice. I thought FTR looked over-engineered and heavy, but I didn't know why.
             
            I was thinking about this last night while crossing Cherry Orchard Road, the main road along the side of East Croydon station. Like almost half of all pedestrians going this way, I always take the desire line along the tramway to avoid the pedestrian railings that channel pedestrians to the pelican crossing 30m down the road. A little bit dangerous and my girlfriend hates doing this, and I tell her that the danger is caused by poor urban design and the use of outmoded street furniture like railings, but that's another story.
             
            Anyway squeezed in between the offending railings and the tram, running along with it to use its right of way to get across the road, I saw that this ain't exactly no lightweight either.
             
            It dawned on me that it is not the weight, not the tracks and not really the design that makes trams 'feel' like quality public transit, it is the power source!
             
            Why do we need to lay miles of metal rails at huge expense, which when running on segregated rights of way at least in Croydon prohibit use by the existing stock of buses, and it would be very hard and expensive to upgrade these rails for all the current bus fleet in Croydon to run along them.
             
            Surely the way to develop a genuine high quality zero emission public transport system for our towns and cities all we need to do is to start to develop overhead power source for trolley buses.
             
            Where possible we push to incorporate this into a citywide BRT scheme along the main arterial routes, we can retrofit guided bus systems to the existing fleet of buses and slowly introduce hybrid trolley buses that can run on standard power too.
             
            Thus we maximize the benefits of BRT like added flexibility, use of the current bus fleet and rights of way, and get the extra benefits of the tram which is image mainly due to the electric power (assuming stations, ticketing, rights of way etc remain constant). 
             
            Would we not then be moving towards an integrated system, which could be developed bit-by-bit minimizing the high initial capital cost?
             
            Oh and what’s with the purple FTR, surely red with light contrast colours is a more vibrant younger faster colour combination, aka Virgin, Ferrari, TfL?
             
            All the best,
             
            Rory

            Anzir Boodoo <ab@...> wrote:
            Rory,
            On 6 Dec 2006, at 11:01, Rory McMullan wrote:

            > BRT is an innovative approach to solve the transport problems of
            > not just developing cities, but developed cities too.
            >
            > The BRT-UK confernece which finished yesterday featured speakers as
            > influencial as Moir Lockhead, CEO of First group. It was organised
            > by PTRC who I work for, so I got to go.
            >
            > There appears to be a growing realisation that Light Rail systems
            > are unaffordable in the UK, a view perhaps reinforced with the
            > publication of the Eddington Report recommending smaller scale
            > projects to tackle congestion.
            >
            > There is however some concern that BRT should not just be sold as a
            > cheap replacement for trams. The extra flexiblity of the system to
            > run on standard roads when out of congested areas is an operating
            > advantage as well as cost saving.

            However, there are other advantages to light rail. I have previously
            investigated the potential for buses to use light rail tracks, and
            there is a UK company developing a low cost road-rail solution for
            trucks and buses.

            The idea of this is to promote full integration between bus, BRT and
            light rail (and of course with heavy rail since light rail vehicles
            can also share heavy rail tracks).

            I don't want to talk about bus, BRT, light rail and heavy rail as if
            they are separate modes. Of course, for technical and operational
            reasons they do differ significantly (and I used to be a rail
            industry researcher, so I am aware of the technical specialisms) , but
            to the passenger, shouldn't all local transit appear similar, work
            the same way and use the same tickets... it should permeate places as
            much as possible while making use of the speed and efficiency of
            rail, balancing segregation from and integration into the street to
            the best advantage.

            My hierarchy of modes by passenger density is:

            mini/midi bus (track guided)
            full sized bus (track guided)
            light rail vehicle
            Metro (light heavy rail!)
            heavy rail train

            infrastructure can be on street, away from street, above ground or
            below ground as best suits the circumstances. .. buses would join a
            track guided route, resulting in an increased frequency on the
            corridor, but operate normally on street otherwise (though with
            highly visible, light rail style stops where possible).

            The other advantage to this method is that it can be used to develop
            the track infrastructure in stages, over a period of time.

            This is something I have been looking at as a possibility with
            several others, who assure me that the engineering challenges have
            been met, and the only barriers are perceptual with the funders,
            builders and operators of systems.

            BRT and light rail can be fully integrated.

            --
            Anzir Boodoo MRes MILT Aff. IRO
            transcience, 72 Staplehurst, BRACKNELL RG12 8DD


            Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

          • Anzir Boodoo
            Rory, ... It looks light compared to the Civis, but then the Civis is actually a trolleybus and carries electrical equipment as well as a diesel engine. ... I
            Message 5 of 14 , Dec 15, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Rory,
              On 14 Dec 2006, at 15:26, Rory McMullan wrote:

              > Anzir,
              >
              > I was looking at the new FTR at the BRT conference, mentally
              > comparing it with the Croydon tram, which coincidentally I think is
              > one of the least overtly sleek and modern of the UK trams, (which I
              > think is refreshing), and thinking that despite all the cosmetic
              > changes to make it look like a modern transit system the FTR didn't
              > look or feel anywhere near as nice. I thought FTR looked over-
              > engineered and heavy, but I didn't know why.

              It looks light compared to the Civis, but then the Civis is actually
              a trolleybus and carries electrical equipment as well as a diesel
              engine.

              > I was thinking about this last night while crossing Cherry Orchard
              > Road, the main road along the side of East Croydon station. Like
              > almost half of all pedestrians going this way, I always take the
              > desire line along the tramway to avoid the pedestrian railings that
              > channel pedestrians to the pelican crossing 30m down the road. A
              > little bit dangerous and my girlfriend hates doing this, and I tell
              > her that the danger is caused by poor urban design and the use of
              > outmoded street furniture like railings, but that's another story.

              I remember going to a job interview in Croydon a few years ago, and
              finding myself hemmed in between the tram tracks and the railings,
              because the railings are in the wrong place relative to where people
              want to go. This is a problem all around the centre of Croydon (I
              usually call it the city centre although Croydon is not recognised as
              a city)

              > It dawned on me that it is not the weight, not the tracks and not
              > really the design that makes trams 'feel' like quality public
              > transit, it is the power source!
              >
              > Why do we need to lay miles of metal rails at huge expense, which
              > when running on segregated rights of way at least in Croydon
              > prohibit use by the existing stock of buses, and it would be very
              > hard and expensive to upgrade these rails for all the current bus
              > fleet in Croydon to run along them.

              This is the great thing about "track guided bus", which is that you
              upgrade the buses to run on the tracks.

              > Surely the way to develop a genuine high quality zero emission
              > public transport system for our towns and cities all we need to do
              > is to start to develop overhead power source for trolley buses.

              track guided bus is compatible with an overhead power supply, as you
              have the steel rails for the return current. with a trolleybus, you
              have to have both sides of the circuit overhead, which is more
              complicated.

              > Where possible we push to incorporate this into a citywide BRT
              > scheme along the main arterial routes, we can retrofit guided bus
              > systems to the existing fleet of buses and slowly introduce hybrid
              > trolley buses that can run on standard power too.
              >
              > Thus we maximize the benefits of BRT like added flexibility, use of
              > the current bus fleet and rights of way, and get the extra benefits
              > of the tram which is image mainly due to the electric power
              > (assuming stations, ticketing, rights of way etc remain constant).

              I think stops are important... some places in Central London have BRT-
              like stops (such as Victoria LT Bus Station), but the space
              requirement can be huge. Integration in other ways can also be very
              important, such as where you can step out from the train station onto
              a bus (Leeds City Station, Feltham, Cradley Heath, Barnsley
              Interchange etc.). Ideally, I would put BRT, trolleybuses or trams
              inside the main train station if possible.

              > Would we not then be moving towards an integrated system, which
              > could be developed bit-by-bit minimizing the high initial capital
              > cost?

              I think we could be... There are places where trolleybuses with
              segregated way in certain areas would be preferable, especially as
              there is no ground level infrastructure needed apart from the tarmac.

              > Oh and what’s with the purple FTR, surely red with light contrast
              > colours is a more vibrant younger faster colour combination, aka
              > Virgin, Ferrari, TfL?

              Well, it's more lilac, rather than the purple First use as one of
              their corporate colours... the trams in Birmingham are a kind of
              purple-blue. The problem with pale colours, as they found in
              Sheffield (where trams used to be grey) is that they aren't as visible.

              Visibility is important, not just because of safety (helping
              pedestrians, cyclists and drivers see the tram early enough to get
              out of the way), but also psychologically, because people can see
              it's there and might be encouraged to use it. I think the ridership
              shot up in Sheffield when they repainted the trams from grey to
              white... now they are blue, and you can see them from some distance
              away.

              --
              Anzir Boodoo MRes MILT Aff. IRO
              transcience, 72 Staplehurst, BRACKNELL RG12 8DD
            • Rory McMullan
              Image is an important factor in the promotion of public transport, although the FTR is a fantastic project, and move in the right direction, I have some
              Message 6 of 14 , Jan 12, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                Image is an important factor in the promotion of public transport, although the FTR is a fantastic project, and move in the right direction, I have some concerns about its design, and more specifically about the power source.
                 
                Although less important I didn't particularily like the colour, I used to work in developing bicycles for some major brands and have never been a big fan of purple. Black is always the biggest seller, followed closely by silver and red. 
                 
                "> What’s with the purple FTR, surely red with light contrast colours is a more vibrant younger faster colour combination?"
                 
                Anzir Replied,

                "Well, it's more lilac, rather than the purple First use as one of their corporate colours... the trams in Birmingham are a kind of purple-blue."
                 
                I didn't identify it as First corporate colour, not bad for a logo, but I wouldn't choose it for a bus.
                 
                Anzir Continued..."The problem with pale colours, as they found in Sheffield (where trams used to be grey) is that they aren't as visible.

                Visibility is important, not just because of safety (helping pedestrians, cyclists and drivers see the tram early enough to get out of the way), but also psychologically, because people can see it's there and might be encouraged to use it. I think the ridership shot up in Sheffield when they repainted the trams from grey to white... now they are blue, and you can see them from some distance away."

                I was just doing a New Year clean-out of old files from my hard-drive and found this about the personality of colours. No idea where it came from, but it might be useful in choosing the image that we want to portray from our public transport systems.
                 
                On this evidence I still stand by a combination of Silver, White and Red as my ideal set...
                 
                Silver: You are elegant, love things that look futuristic and cool.
                White: You are very particular about the way things should be. You are always on time.
                Red: You are speedy and high energy.
                Light to Mid-Blue: You are cool, calm and quiet.
                Dark Blue: People can believe you and count on you. You have confidence.
                Beige/Light Brown: You have simple, basic tastes.
                Black: You are strong, powerful, and elegant.
                Gray: You are serious and practical.
                Dark Green: People can trust you.
                Bright Yellow-Green: You are stylish and lively.
                Yellow Gold: You are intelligent and warm.
                Sunshine Yellow: You are cheerful.
                Deep Brown: You are no-nonsense.
                Orange: You are fun and love to talk.
                Deep Purple: You are creative.

                Rory
                 

                Anzir Boodoo <ab@...> wrote:
                Rory,
                On 14 Dec 2006, at 15:26, Rory McMullan wrote:

                > Anzir,
                >
                > I was looking at the new FTR at the BRT conference, mentally
                > comparing it with the Croydon tram, which coincidentally I think is
                > one of the least overtly sleek and modern of the UK trams, (which I
                > think is refreshing), and thinking that despite all the cosmetic
                > changes to make it look like a modern transit system the FTR didn't
                > look or feel anywhere near as nice. I thought FTR looked over-
                > engineered and heavy, but I didn't know why.

                It looks light compared to the Civis, but then the Civis is actually
                a trolleybus and carries electrical equipment as well as a diesel
                engine.

                > I was thinking about this last night while crossing Cherry Orchard
                > Road, the main road along the side of East Croydon station. Like
                > almost half of all pedestrians going this way, I always take the
                > desire line along the tramway to avoid the pedestrian railings that
                > channel pedestrians to the pelican crossing 30m down the road. A
                > little bit dangerous and my girlfriend hates doing this, and I tell
                > her that the danger is caused by poor urban design and the use of
                > outmoded street furniture like railings, but that's another story.

                I remember going to a job interview in Croydon a few years ago, and
                finding myself hemmed in between the tram tracks and the railings,
                because the railings are in the wrong place relative to where people
                want to go. This is a problem all around the centre of Croydon (I
                usually call it the city centre although Croydon is not recognised as
                a city)

                > It dawned on me that it is not the weight, not the tracks and not
                > really the design that makes trams 'feel' like quality public
                > transit, it is the power source!
                >
                > Why do we need to lay miles of metal rails at huge expense, which
                > when running on segregated rights of way at least in Croydon
                > prohibit use by the existing stock of buses, and it would be very
                > hard and expensive to upgrade these rails for all the current bus
                > fleet in Croydon to run along them.

                This is the great thing about "track guided bus", which is that you
                upgrade the buses to run on the tracks.

                > Surely the way to develop a genuine high quality zero emission
                > public transport system for our towns and cities all we need to do
                > is to start to develop overhead power source for trolley buses.

                track guided bus is compatible with an overhead power supply, as you
                have the steel rails for the return current. with a trolleybus, you
                have to have both sides of the circuit overhead, which is more
                complicated.

                > Where possible we push to incorporate this into a citywide BRT
                > scheme along the main arterial routes, we can retrofit guided bus
                > systems to the existing fleet of buses and slowly introduce hybrid
                > trolley buses that can run on standard power too.
                >
                > Thus we maximize the benefits of BRT like added flexibility, use of
                > the current bus fleet and rights of way, and get the extra benefits
                > of the tram which is image mainly due to the electric power
                > (assuming stations, ticketing, rights of way etc remain constant).

                I think stops are important... some places in Central London have BRT-
                like stops (such as Victoria LT Bus Station), but the space
                requirement can be huge. Integration in other ways can also be very
                important, such as where you can step out from the train station onto
                a bus (Leeds City Station, Feltham, Cradley Heath, Barnsley
                Interchange etc.). Ideally, I would put BRT, trolleybuses or trams
                inside the main train station if possible.

                > Would we not then be moving towards an integrated system, which
                > could be developed bit-by-bit minimizing the high initial capital
                > cost?

                I think we could be... There are places where trolleybuses with
                segregated way in certain areas would be preferable, especially as
                there is no ground level infrastructure needed apart from the tarmac.

                > Oh and what’s with the purple FTR, surely red with light contrast
                > colours is a more vibrant younger faster colour combination, aka
                > Virgin, Ferrari, TfL?

                Well, it's more lilac, rather than the purple First use as one of
                their corporate colours... the trams in Birmingham are a kind of
                purple-blue. The problem with pale colours, as they found in
                Sheffield (where trams used to be grey) is that they aren't as visible.

                Visibility is important, not just because of safety (helping
                pedestrians, cyclists and drivers see the tram early enough to get
                out of the way), but also psychologically, because people can see
                it's there and might be encouraged to use it. I think the ridership
                shot up in Sheffield when they repainted the trams from grey to
                white... now they are blue, and you can see them from some distance
                away.

                --
                Anzir Boodoo MRes MILT Aff. IRO
                transcience, 72 Staplehurst, BRACKNELL RG12 8DD


                Check in here via the homepage at http://www.newmobility.org
                To post message to group: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com
                Please think twice before posting to the group as a whole
                (It might be that your note is best sent to one person?)




                Yahoo! Groups Links

                <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NewMobilityCafe/

                <*> Your email settings:
                Individual Email | Traditional

                <*> To change settings online go to:
                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NewMobilityCafe/join
                (Yahoo! ID required)

                <*> To change settings via email:
                mailto:NewMobilityCafe-digest@yahoogroups.com
                mailto:NewMobilityCafe-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

                <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                NewMobilityCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



                What kind of emailer are you? Find out today - get a free analysis of your email personality. Take the quiz at the Yahoo! Mail Championship.

              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.