reducing congestion
 

reducing congestion
 

"JNugent" wrote the following
in:

wrote:

"JNugent" wrote:

wrote:

Greg Hennessy wrote:

[ ... ]

If you were to believe the CPRE, the SE is currently like
downtown Hong Hong during the rush hour, when the reality
is that approximately 15% of the land within 1 hours
commute of charring cross is built on.

A one hour commute by your favoured mode is only about ten
miles at most. Are you suggesting that there are open fields
within that area?

A one hour journey by car can take one (easily) up to 60 miles
(probably not a lot more, unless one lives adjacent to a
motorway interchange).

You'll have to travel a fair distance from Charing Cross before
you can do anything more than 30mph and even that is pretty
ambitious as an average speed, especially considering the fact
that you'll face congestion and a lot of traffic lights. I'd be
absolutely amazed if you could travel as much as 60 miles. Even
half that seems optimistic.

Who said anything about either living or working at Charing Cross?

For goodness sake, it's even quoted in your post (and this one). Keep
up. For your benefit:

the reality
is that approximately 15% of the land within 1 hours
commute of charring cross is built on.

--
message by Robin May, but you can call me Mr Smith.
Enjoy the Routemaster while you still can.

"Handlebar catch and nipple."

reducing congestion
 

reducing congestion
 

"Cast_Iron" wrote in message
...
"Cast_Iron" wrote in message
...


I buy a second house. I won't be spending much time there,

Then why bother, why not simply stay in holiday accommodation and
contribute
to the local economy? Plus it may well work out cheaper.

If you buy, you not only get the holiday, you also get a capital gain.
Unless you need to take out a mortgage, it is usually a very good way to
invest money.

so, as I won't have time to do the decorating myself, that,
along with a few repairs, have to be done by a local
builder.

If only everyone did that, but there are many who will use a tradesman
from
their own area, "because they know him". No gain to the local economy.

A holiday home is not likely to be close enough by for most tradesmen to be
willing to do the journey.

I'm not moving an existing house, so all the
furniture, tv, hi-fi, video etc, have to be bought locally.

On the contrary, they can be bought anywhere. Where do you suppose a
permanent local resident buys their furniture etc?

They will buy locally too, but they don't usually refit a whole house at a
time.

Some holiday home owners
when setting up simply move their existing furniture from their permanent
home to the holiday cottage and renew from suppliers in their area. No
gain
to the local economy.

That, as much as anything, is a factor of distance and convenience. IMO, if
the holiday home is far enough away to be worth having, it is too far for
that to be convenient. However, I will admit to having taken a bed with me,
to make sure I had somewhere to sleep on the first night.

How many years' food shopping will a permanent resident
have to do to put the same amount of money into the local
economy?

Many holiday home owners simply take food from their permanent home's
nearest supermarket. No gain to the local economy.

That wasn't the question.

Then, of course, there are the ongoing costs. I
will need both a gardener and someone to clean the house,
if I want to prevent things getting out of hand while I am
away. That is without even spending any time at the house.

That's your way of doing things, not everyone is quite so houseproud or
they
will send someone they know.

Again, probably not practical if the place is far enough away to count as a
holiday home and, if you have a swimming pool, it is essential to have
someone attend to it regularly.

But the net result is that buying a holiday home is depriving someone else
of a permanent home.

Only if there is a local shortage of housing. If you buy in France, for
example, there are tax advantages to buying a new property, so there are
lots of older properties around that nobody wants. They are the ones
invariably offered to the British buyers.

Colin Bignell

reducing congestion
 

"JNugent" wrote the following
in:

wrote:

"JNugent" wrote:

wrote:

"JNugent" wrote:

wrote:

Greg Hennessy wrote:

[ ... ]

If you were to believe the CPRE, the SE is currently like
downtown Hong Hong during the rush hour, when the reality
is that approximately 15% of the land within 1 hours
commute of charring cross is built on.

A one hour commute by your favoured mode is only about ten
miles at most. Are you suggesting that there are open fields
within that area?

A one hour journey by car can take one (easily) up to 60 miles
(probably not a lot more, unless one lives adjacent to a
motorway interchange).

You'll have to travel a fair distance from Charing Cross before
you can do anything more than 30mph and even that is pretty
ambitious as an average speed, especially considering the fact
that you'll face congestion and a lot of traffic lights. I'd be
absolutely amazed if you could travel as much as 60 miles. Even
half that seems optimistic.

Who said anything about either living or working at Charing
Cross?

For goodness sake, it's even quoted in your post (and this one).

Charing Cross is mentioned (as the centre of a particular circle
of which 15% is built-up) - but there is no mention or claim of
either *living* or *working* there.

The claim referred to Charing Cross and areas within 1 hour's commute
of it. The reply to that said 1 hour's commute of Charing Cross (the
reference to Charing Cross was left implicit but was nonetheless
perfectly clear) is about 10 miles at most (a little pessimistic
perhaps, but far more realistic than what you went on to say). Your
reply to that was that a one hour journey by car can take a person
"(easily) up to 60 miles". You said that in reply to a post that was
clearly talking about a one hour commute from Charing Cross. If you
fail to see that or the relevance of Charing Cross to all this, there's
nothing I can do other than recommend attending English classes to
improve your reading comprehension.

--
message by Robin May, but you can call me Mr Smith.
Enjoy the Routemaster while you still can.

"Handlebar catch and nipple."

reducing congestion
 

Cast_Iron wrote:
Stimpy wrote:

It worked fine for some of us thank you very much

(age 42 and semi-retired)

The current fashionable theory always works for someone, good for you.

Thank you ;-)

reducing congestion
 

"Cast_Iron" wrote in message
...


But the net result is that buying a holiday home is
depriving someone else of a permanent home.

Only if there is a local shortage of housing. If you buy in
France, for example, there are tax advantages to buying a
new property, so there are lots of older properties around
that nobody wants. They are the ones invariably offered to
the British buyers.

Colin Bignell

Just in case you hadn't noticed this discussion has nothing to do with
France or any other country outside the UK.

reducing congestion
 

JNugent wrote:
wrote:

JNugent wrote:

It was Maggie and co that forced an end to tied housing.

Sheer, biased, blinkered, knee-jerk, nonsense.
The tied cottage was being "phased out" (pilloried as a
social anachronism) decades before 1979.
S'funny, that.
Had the tied cottages remained in their original use,
there'd be less need for hand-wringing over the housing
fate of agricultural workers, wouldn't there?

I didn't say it wasn't on the way out, I merely made the
point that Thatcher forced it to end. A subtle but
distinct difference that is obviously lost on you.

The more so because it was a lie.

So it wasn't a Thatcher government the introduced the "Right to Buy"
legislation then?

reducing congestion
 

Greg Hennessy wrote:
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 20:07:40 +0000 (UTC), "Cast_Iron"
wrote:


If you were to believe the CPRE, the SE is currently like
downtown Hong Hong during the rush hour, when the reality
is that approximately 15% of the land within 1 hours
commute of charring cross is built on.


A one hour commute by your favoured mode is only about ten
miles at most.

What are you wittering on about ?

Are you suggesting that there are open fields within that
area?


If you had a point you would have made it by now.



If you can't understand your own posts and responses to them I suggest you
go to school and learn.

reducing congestion
 

JNugent wrote:
wrote:

Greg Hennessy wrote:

[ ... ]

If you were to believe the CPRE, the SE is currently like
downtown Hong Hong during the rush hour, when the reality
is that approximately 15% of the land within 1 hours
commute of charring cross is built on.

A one hour commute by your favoured mode is only about ten
miles at
most. Are you suggesting that there are open fields within
that area?

A one hour journey by car can take one (easily) up to 60
miles (probably not a lot more, unless one lives adjacent
to a motorway interchange).

So what are you talking about?

Try the last line of Greg Hennessy's post. Ten mile west of Charing Cross
doesn't even get you to Southall. travelling for the same distance in any
other direction is still well within the London conurbation.

reducing congestion
 

JNugent wrote:
wrote:

"JNugent" wrote:

wrote:

"JNugent" wrote:

wrote:

Greg Hennessy wrote:

[ ... ]

If you were to believe the CPRE, the SE is currently
like
downtown Hong Hong during the rush hour, when the
reality
is that approximately 15% of the land within 1 hours
commute of charring cross is built on.

A one hour commute by your favoured mode is only about
ten
miles at most. Are you suggesting that there are open
fields
within that area?

A one hour journey by car can take one (easily) up to
60 miles (probably not a lot more, unless one lives
adjacent to a
motorway interchange).

You'll have to travel a fair distance from Charing Cross
before
you can do anything more than 30mph and even that is
pretty
ambitious as an average speed, especially considering
the fact
that you'll face congestion and a lot of traffic lights.
I'd be absolutely amazed if you could travel as much as
60 miles. Even
half that seems optimistic.

Who said anything about either living or working at
Charing Cross?

For goodness sake, it's even quoted in your post (and this
one).

Charing Cross is mentioned (as the centre of a particular
circle of which 15% is built-up) - but there is no mention
or claim of either *living* or *working* there.


To refresh your memory of GH's post - " the reality is that approximately
15% of the land within 1 hours commute of charring cross is built on."

reducing congestion
 

Mikael Armstrong wrote:
"Cast_Iron" wrote in message
...
Mikael Armstrong wrote:
"Cast_Iron" wrote in message
...
Mikael Armstrong wrote:
"Robin May" wrote in
message
.4...
Living many miles away from where you work and having
to
travel a long distance to get there is something that
should be discouraged. Not encouraged so that the rich
can
buy another castle and leave it empty for most of the
year.

Very true, so why not let people build a few more houses
in
such areas? The main problem is the lack of supply that
is
driving up the prices.

errrr, no. The only thing driving up house prices is
greed.

So why do we not have the same situation with cars? Cars
themselves can be bought for less now than ever in real
terms. This is due to the fact that there is far greater
supply so people buying cars can shop around for a good
deal. The laws of supply and demand will always work
things
out, and in the housing market, the market is artificially
being held high by restricting supply.


If you were to take note of news broadcasts you would have
noticed that the present government took action to force
down the price of cars.

Another part of the reason is that houses last
considerably longer than cars generally speaking. But just
for the hell of it, see what price you would have to pay
for a Mk1 Cortina now, it will be significantly above it
price when new.



The government action to reduce the price of cars has not
really made much difference. Cars are still even cheaper in
other EU countries. The main reduction in price of cars
between now and 20 years ago has been increased competition
in the market, increased efficiency in car production and
fewer trade restrictions.

Thankfully we have a far greater choice these days and
don't have to buy Mk1 Cortinas. People who wish to buy
"classic cars" are obviously free to do so.

Hmmm, You compared the difference in price rises between cars and houses. I
used the analogy of a Mk1 Cortina to illustrate that cars also increse in
value over time.

Is using an analogy something you are not familair with?

reducing congestion
 

"Stimpy" wrote in message
...
Oliver Keating wrote:

Because people who own 2 houses are clearly very rich, and the rich
should be targeted for tax for two reasons:

1) Social justice

= jealousy

Social Justice is rather stupid, why would anyone want to give anything to
someone else when it has no benefit to them in doing so? The only people who
would support such an idea are young idealists who have yet to get a grip on
reality or no hopers who cannot do it for themselves.

reducing congestion
 

"Purditer" wrote in
message ...

"Stimpy" wrote in message
...
Oliver Keating wrote:

Because people who own 2 houses are clearly very rich, and the rich
should be targeted for tax for two reasons:

1) Social justice

= jealousy

Social Justice is rather stupid, why would anyone want to give anything to
someone else when it has no benefit to them in doing so? The only people
who
would support such an idea are young idealists who have yet to get a grip
on
reality or no hopers who cannot do it for themselves.



How sad.

reducing congestion
 

"Cast_Iron" wrote in message
...
"Cast_Iron" wrote in message
...


But the net result is that buying a holiday home is
depriving someone else of a permanent home.

Only if there is a local shortage of housing. If you buy in
France, for example, there are tax advantages to buying a
new property, so there are lots of older properties around
that nobody wants. They are the ones invariably offered to
the British buyers.

Colin Bignell

Just in case you hadn't noticed this discussion has nothing to do with
France or any other country outside the UK.

I suspect the same would be true in parts of Britain, but I don't know the
housing situation well enough across the country to be able to give specific
examples from the UK. Although second home owners are blamed for pushing
prices up in rural areas, they probably first went there because the locals
wanted better wages than they could get locally, so they moved out,
depressing the local house market and making the houses cheap enough to
attract outside buyers.

Colin Bignell

reducing congestion
 

"Purditer" wrote in
message ...

"Stimpy" wrote in message
...
Oliver Keating wrote:

Because people who own 2 houses are clearly very rich, and the rich
should be targeted for tax for two reasons:

1) Social justice

= jealousy

Social Justice is rather stupid, why would anyone want to give anything to
someone else when it has no benefit to them in doing so? The only people
who
would support such an idea are young idealists who have yet to get a grip
on
reality or no hopers who cannot do it for themselves.

Noblesse oblige, or a strong sense of socialism.

Colin Bignell

reducing congestion
 

reducing congestion
 

reducing congestion
 

reducing congestion
 

reducing congestion
 

In article ,
says...
"Tim S Kemp" wrote the following in:


The richest people in this country are Estate agents and Lawyers,
and they get rich by screwing other people.

Can you count prostitutes in that description?

They don't usually get rich, do they?


The good ones do.
Not the smack head back alley/railways arch types.
The really good ones even have bluechip level accountants to make sure
that they are paying proper tax, and investing their earning to cover
for when they tits sag.
--
The poster formerly known as Skodapilot.
http://www.bouncing-czechs.com

reducing congestion
 

In article ,
says...

People like to be poor and moan about it. So many of em can't be bothered to
do something about it, they expect everything on a plate.

Hardly ray.
People like to moan granted. but they don't want to be poor.

Money doesn't bring happiness, but it makes being miserable a damned
site easier.
--
The poster formerly known as Skodapilot.
http://www.bouncing-czechs.com

reducing congestion
 

In article ,
says...
You should have. £10 is such a small amount as to be of no importance
and isn't worth the effort that involved in taking it into account.

But it is at or near the ammount that you should declare when on
benefit.

I think the limit for deduction is £15 a week, but you should declare
all income/work, even voluntary unpaid work, because you weren't
available for paid work while doing it.

Being a little bit fly (i.e. claiming benefit fraudulently) doesn't make
you less of a criminal
--
The poster formerly known as Skodapilot.
http://www.bouncing-czechs.com

reducing congestion
 

In article ,
says...
Aggreed. There are plenty of jobs about. Before I went to University I did
several jobs to get by...

Gardening
Avis RentaCar delivery driver
Taxi driver
Taxi controller

The taxi jobs especially made me feel realy down but my family needed
feeding and clothing. I could either sit on my arse for £120 per week or do
those jobs for £140 per week. That extra £20 meant dealing with drunks and
lowlifes, but it gave us £20 more self respect.


Agreed on that.
When I went back to uni as a mature student, I worked almost full time
hours (including evening and weekend shifts) in most of the Ladbrokes in
the Crewe and Luton area.

I too had drunks, vandals, and various unsavouries (including conmen and
armed robbers) to deal with. ironically, working weekends and evening,
and doing the amount of hours I was doing, I could sometimes bring home
more than a manager.

As it was my degree suffered (english lit), but I was able to get into
the internet development business in London.

After moving back north for a job, things didn't work out, and I lost
it. I ended up first signing on, then labouring for a shed building
company as a seasonal job (brother worked there as a driver/erector) for
6 months, another 3 months on the dole, then got 3 months working for a
company that had the Dell laptop contract for the whole of europe as an
agency temp, before I was able to get back in web dev work.
--
The poster formerly known as Skodapilot.
http://www.bouncing-czechs.com

reducing congestion
 

Colin Bignell wrote:

I suspect the same would be true in parts of Britain, but I don't
know the housing situation well enough across the country to be able
to give specific examples from the UK. Although second home owners
are blamed for pushing prices up in rural areas, they probably first
went there because the locals wanted better wages than they could get
locally, so they moved out, depressing the local house market and
making the houses cheap enough to attract outside buyers.

Actually where I am second home owners came because it's a nice place. And
house prices weren't depressed, they merely weren't inflated - locals
weren't moving out, but there wasn't the growth as seen in the SE.

clive

reducing congestion
 

In article , Greg
Hennessy wrote:
Try the nationalised planning system courtesy of the town and
country planning act 1947.

A spiteful piece of legislation whose only purpose was to
outlaw the mechanism by which 1.5+ million privately built,
financed and *affordable* houses in the 20s and 30s. Couldn't
have that doncha know.

But, as you imply, the Conservatives, far from scrapping it,
have embraced and extended it for their own ends. You'll hear
them harp on about the need to accept the discipline of market
forces when you are shutting down a mine or steelworks, but not
when someone wants to replace a suburban bungalow or two with a
block of flats.

--
Tony Bryer

reducing congestion
 

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...

But, as you imply, the Conservatives, far from scrapping it,
have embraced and extended it for their own ends. You'll hear
them harp on about the need to accept the discipline of market
forces when you are shutting down a mine or steelworks, but not
when someone wants to replace a suburban bungalow or two with a
block of flats.

Well you don't want the poor to move in and lower the tone of the area.

reducing congestion
 

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 01:26:29 +0000 (UTC), "Cast_Iron"
wrote:


If you can't understand your own posts and responses to them I suggest you
go to school and learn.



I can fully understand my posts, unlike the emoting idiot who is drawing
inferences where none clearly exist.


greg




--
Once you try my burger baby,you'll grow a new thyroid gland.
I said just eat my burger, baby,make you smart as Charlie Chan.
You say the hot sauce can't be beat. Sit back and open wide.

reducing congestion
 

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 00:15:45 -0000, "JNugent"
wrote:


GH made a point about how little of SE England is built on, that's all
(AAMOF, I don't agree with him about the need for planning controls - I am a
supporter of planning controls - but we can live with that).


I am a supporter of planning controls, but not the nationalised variety.



greg




--
Once you try my burger baby,you'll grow a new thyroid gland.
I said just eat my burger, baby,make you smart as Charlie Chan.
You say the hot sauce can't be beat. Sit back and open wide.

reducing congestion
 

"Cast_Iron" wrote in message
...
Mikael Armstrong wrote:
"Cast_Iron" wrote in message
...
Mikael Armstrong wrote:
"Cast_Iron" wrote in message
...
Mikael Armstrong wrote:
"Robin May" wrote in
message
.4...
Living many miles away from where you work and having
to
travel a long distance to get there is something that
should be discouraged. Not encouraged so that the rich
can
buy another castle and leave it empty for most of the
year.

Very true, so why not let people build a few more houses
in
such areas? The main problem is the lack of supply that
is
driving up the prices.

errrr, no. The only thing driving up house prices is
greed.

So why do we not have the same situation with cars? Cars
themselves can be bought for less now than ever in real
terms. This is due to the fact that there is far greater
supply so people buying cars can shop around for a good
deal. The laws of supply and demand will always work
things
out, and in the housing market, the market is artificially
being held high by restricting supply.


If you were to take note of news broadcasts you would have
noticed that the present government took action to force
down the price of cars.

Another part of the reason is that houses last
considerably longer than cars generally speaking. But just
for the hell of it, see what price you would have to pay
for a Mk1 Cortina now, it will be significantly above it
price when new.



The government action to reduce the price of cars has not
really made much difference. Cars are still even cheaper in
other EU countries. The main reduction in price of cars
between now and 20 years ago has been increased competition
in the market, increased efficiency in car production and
fewer trade restrictions.

Thankfully we have a far greater choice these days and
don't have to buy Mk1 Cortinas. People who wish to buy
"classic cars" are obviously free to do so.

Hmmm, You compared the difference in price rises between cars and houses.
I
used the analogy of a Mk1 Cortina to illustrate that cars also increse in
value over time.

Is using an analogy something you are not familair with?



No, I am completely familiar with it. I was pointing out that unlike the
housing market where every house except those ready for demolition have
appreciated in value. On the other hand, it is only the cars that people
deem as "classics" that generally ever appreciate given a few exceptions.
This means that the average person can still afford to purchase a car, which
is not the case in the housing market. If the only cars people could buy
were MK1 Cortinas, and no new cars were being built, I would imagine that
the cost of them would have gone even higher!

Mikael

reducing congestion
 

In article ,
JNugent wrote:
wrote:

To refresh your memory of GH's post - " the reality is that
approximately 15% of the land within 1 hours commute of charring
cross is built on."

Thank you, but there was no need at all to take the trouble. Charing Cross
is a phrase used to represent Central London, and the post effectively meant
that *SE England* is only 15% built-up.

Er, no. It makes the claim that of the land within an hours commute
of central London, about 15% is built up.

Areas within an hours commute of central london by car include
Putney (6 miles) but not a great deal futher out than that, I'd've
thought. If you're lucky enough to work flexitime (so you can miss
the worst of the peak), it might include Sevenoaks (30 miles). It
certainly does not include Alton in Hants (50 miles).

I therefore think that the claim that is wrong.

In such conditions (as I'm sure you
know) a 60 mile commute inside an hour is not impossible. Indeed, *I*
frequently do a 67 mile journey (not in London of course, but certainly in
SE England) in about 70 minutes - during the morning and evening peaks, too.

Yes, that's nice, but it is irrelevant when talking about being an
hours commute from central london.

--
Good night little fishey-wishes.... I've counted you, so no
sneaky eating each other.
-- FW (should I worry?)

reducing congestion
 

In article ,
says...

That doesn't militate against what Peter wrote.

He didn't say they were there all the time (and those of us that live and
work in or near to agricultural areas know that what you both have said is
true).

Yeah, both points are valid. It depends on the area. Lincolnshire, i.e
Spalding locality, and Norfolk tend to have all year roundcrop
production unlike up here.


--
Conor

"Cogito Eggo Sum" - "I think, therefore I am a waffle"

reducing congestion
 

In article ,
says...
wrote:

says...

In the nearest town?
Just a suggestion...

They still can't really afford one on £12k.

What can you raise on a 12K salary?

£35,000 - £40,000?

You can still get a terraced house for that oop narth, can't you?

Not in East Yorkshire. You might do in Hull but you'll need to install
bars on the windows BEFORE you move in.


--
Conor

"Cogito Eggo Sum" - "I think, therefore I am a waffle"

reducing congestion
 

In article ,
says...
Conor wrote:
In article ,
says...

In the nearest town?

Just a suggestion...

They still can't really afford one on £12k.

Tough - work hard and save until you can.

You can work as hard as you like. If the wages are low it makes no
difference.

--
Conor

"Cogito Eggo Sum" - "I think, therefore I am a waffle"

reducing congestion
 

JNugent wrote:
wrote:

JNugent wrote:

wrote:

JNugent wrote:

It was Maggie and co that forced an end to tied
housing.

Sheer, biased, blinkered, knee-jerk, nonsense.
The tied cottage was being "phased out" (pilloried as a
social anachronism) decades before 1979.
S'funny, that.
Had the tied cottages remained in their original use,
there'd be less need for hand-wringing over the housing
fate of agricultural workers, wouldn't there?

I didn't say it wasn't on the way out, I merely made the
point that Thatcher forced it to end. A subtle but
distinct difference that is obviously lost on you.

The more so because it was a lie.

So it wasn't a Thatcher government the introduced the
"Right to Buy" legislation then?

No.

As you would know (if you were not simply motivated by
unthinking knee-jerk socialism - if you'll forgive the
tautology), the RTB:

Whether you choose to believe it or not some people in this world are not
driven by ideology or dogma but are cpable of establishing the facts for
themselves and making up their own minds.

(a) was introduced under the Edward Heath government of
1970-1974,

Wrong (again)
"The statutory Right To Buy was introduced on the 3rd October 1980 in
England, Wales and Scotland."
http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib...9/rp99-036.pdf

and (b) only applied to council houses - and
certainly not to tied cottages on farms.

Your evidence is from?


Try again?

Feel free so to do.

reducing congestion
 

In article ,
says...

My prediction is that if built, they will be filled with exactly the same
sort of tenants as current social housing and that the whole thing is a
gerrymandering smokescreen.

Exactly my thoughts too. The next few years will be interesting. I
wonder how many more houses they'll suddenly find they'll need.



--
Conor

"Cogito Eggo Sum" - "I think, therefore I am a waffle"

reducing congestion
 

Greg Hennessy wrote:
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 01:26:29 +0000 (UTC), "Cast_Iron"
wrote:


If you can't understand your own posts and responses to
them I suggest you go to school and learn.



I can fully understand my posts, unlike the emoting idiot
who is drawing inferences where none clearly exist.



No emotion in my posts, talking about or to yourself again?

reducing congestion
 

In article ,
says...
Conor wrote:

Given the that the increased road congestion in Friday and Sunday
evenings is caused by many people going and from to their country
cottages for the weekend, isn't it time that second homes attracted a
punative rate of council tax?

Just how congested are the roads on Friday and Sunday evenings?
UIVMM they're far from the busiest times!

I drive nights down the A1/M1. On a Friday it is way busier than any
other night.

Of course it is, but isn't that just because other nights are quiet? How
does it compare with daytime traffic levels?

Don't know, haven't done daytime driving for a few years now. The times
I'm talking about are from 7pm-9pm (ish) and it is suprising how much
of a difference in traffic levels there is on the northbound side.

Apart from a few roads in city centers, are any roads really congested
at night? And are any likely to become so in the next ten years?

The M6 northbound in Birmingham tends to be when they're doing night
roadworks.

--
Conor

"Cogito Eggo Sum" - "I think, therefore I am a waffle"

reducing congestion
 

In article ,
says...
Cast_Iron wrote:

Was it and it is now better in what way do you think?

In every way possible.

Really? I suppose the railways are better than they used to be?
Especially in respect to track maintenance.

--
Conor

"Cogito Eggo Sum" - "I think, therefore I am a waffle"

reducing congestion
 

JNugent wrote:
wrote:

To refresh your memory of GH's post - " the reality is that
approximately 15% of the land within 1 hours commute of
charring
cross is built on."

Thank you, but there was no need at all to take the
trouble. Charing Cross is a phrase used to represent
Central London, and the post effectively meant that *SE
England* is only 15% built-up. In such conditions (as I'm
sure you know) a 60 mile commute inside an hour is not
impossible. Indeed, *I* frequently do a 67 mile journey
(not in London of course, but certainly in SE England) in
about 70 minutes - during the morning and evening peaks,
too.

But apparently, that's not possible...


As with all things it depends on the start and end points. In this instance
Charing Cross was cited as the reference point from which a one hour commute
by car will take the individual a maximum of ten miles, on a good day.