As predicted, Boris Island sunk
 

On 09/09/2014 09:42, d wrote:

JNugent wrote:
On 08/09/2014 12:47, d wrote:

Ah, he we go - the flip it routine. Pretend your stance is mine. Do try
harder.

You are the one who wants to control others. Not I.

Limiting is not the same as controlling.

Yes, it is.

You wish to control the lives of others by reducing their options. You
wish people only to be allowed to do what you want to do.

You OTOH are quite happy to see
others screwed over as long as you get what you want when you want.

Where does that come from?

Your living your life exactly the way you want to and preventing others
from living theirs as they wish to is known as sociopathy.

See above.

See what above?

Getting too complicated already for you? I recommend a lie down before you
post.

Nothing you had typed above, in any previous post in the thread, could
be taken as a coherent response to your behaviour being characterised as
sociopathic.

I do not expect to be able to obtain any service without paying the
market price for it. The market factors in other peoples' needs for
scarce resources which have alternative uses.

******** does it. The market factors in the ability of people to get what
they want in any way they can.

Ah... you're yet another of these stream-of-consciousness posters who
types random words and hopes to impress with them.

Oh well done, at least you have half a clue. Now do you think that
legislation would have come about if left purely to the market? No,
I don't think so.

Are you mad?
How on Earth could the market produce legislation?

Well you tell me.

Tell you what?

That the market produces legislation when everyone but you knows that it
doesn't?

You're the one claiming the market solves every problem and would
somehow magically "solve" any pollution and enviromental issues
wrt airport expansion. Or are you wriggling on that hook now?

I have made no such claim.

Who - in their right mind - would suggest such a thing?

You would.

Well, only to the extent that your "You would" has no basis in fact.

You might want to revisit the last few years wrt the banks to understand
where an essentially unregulated market eventually ends up.

That has nothing to do with unregulated markets and everything to do
with banks doing what the government told them to so.

Oh for christ sake man, get a ****ing clue. You think the government told
them to create CDOs then hide the bad investments inside them do you?

Let's not worry about banks too much - it was only a red herring you
raised in order to avoid discussing the manifestation of your own
sociopathy.

You know, you talk about the market but you don't have the first clue how
markets actually work. Speaking as someone who worked in the City for 10 years,
albeit in IT , I think I have a fairly reasonable grasp of how things were
since I worked on the systems that banks used to do all that ****.

Banks are active in the market for money (and are usually highly
controlled and constrained).

"The market" is much wider than that and is not usually anything like as
constrained as is the market for money. Telling bank staff to switch off
their PC and then switch it on again does not make you an economist.

The rest of your argument is just a mishmash of denial and plain rubbish
and frankly its not worth arguing with you any more so feel free to have
the last word and spout more nonsense.

I could not compete with yours.

Should I switch off this PC then switch it back on again?

Why be afraid? Most tube trains are severely overcrowded during the peak
periods. Why is somehow unacceptable for a Northen Line extension to
Clapham Junction to be overcrowded when the rest of the Northern is
routinely overcrowded? Do TfL intend to close down most of the Tube
network because there is overcrowding every day?

And then again maybe not. When planning various train paths to ensure the
Thameslink route will be fully utilised - a very good objective, by the way -
no-one seems to have twigged that a service to and from Clapham Junction
might be a good idea.

The fact that it would be busy from day one is a recommendation. It means
the line's operating costs would not require a subsidy from the tax-payer.
That many would change at Clapham Junction and not at Victoria or Waterloo
is to be welcomed as both those termini are overloaded during the rush hour
peaks. How much will TfL have to spend over the next twenty years to
provide Victoria and Waterloo with extra capacity which is necessary for only
a few hours a week?

Wandsworth Council did offer to pay for an extension from Clapham Junction.
As an avid Internet researcher, you should find details somewhere.

If the trains are full leaving Clapham Junction, so much the better. Is anyone
seriously suggesting that it is better to provide public transport capacity that
few people use than capacity that is over subscribed?

Your hypothetical "people further down the line" are already travelling without
using this extension. Why would they not be able to continue to do so?

The extension would be a normal Northern Line service. If it could not absorb
all the Clapham Junction passengers, so what? No one single new transport
provision is going to solve all London's transport problems; not Crossrail, not
Thameslink, not this suggestion. Each will make a considerable contribution
and rapidly become indispensable

London Overground trains do leave Clapham Junction very full. That why an
additional service is required!

Living in Leyton, I have little reason ever to be at Clapham Junction during the
morning rush hour. I have, however, been there several times during the
evening peak. (I once worked in Battersea)

You're missing two crucial points. First, it is not necessary to frequent
Clapham Junction to recognise that it is a busy station. Anyone who travels
during the rush hour knows that the entire transport system is hugely over
subscribed during the peak period. It is obvious to anyone with any common
sense that main transport hubs like Clapham Junction will be particularly busy.

Second, it is precisely because a Northern Line extension would be extremely
busy that I recommend it. I strongly oppose public money being frittered away
on silly, loss-making, transport schemes that only a handful of people will use.
(My local example is the new station on Lea Bridge Road in the only
unpopulated part of Leyton. The previous station of the same site was closed
because no-one used it)

Public transport loses money and much of it loses money hand over fist. For
various reasons public finances will be under strain for a very long time to
come, and sooner or later senior national politicians will wake up to the truth
that we can't afford to subsidise public transport in the way we have in
recent years. By far the most effective way to head off a Thatcherite
reaction is to make sure that all public transport is very heavily used and
requires minimal subsidy per person carried. The converse is also true.

Therefore any new public transport project should meet two conditions: that
it makes a major contribution to reducing a major problem and that it is heavily
utilised. A Northern Line extension to Clapham Junction and Wandsworth would
meet both those conditions.

As predicted, Boris Island sunk
 

On Tue, 9 Sep 2014 10:11:50 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 08:33:56 on Tue, 9 Sep
2014, d remarked:
I spent 6 months working right next door to heathrow and

it was bad enough just being there 9-6. For the residents it must be a

****ing nightmare. Only utterly selfish ****s would wish more aircraft

in the skys just so they can visit disneyworld in florida next week on a

whim or wherever.


Heathrow has exactly zero flights to Orlando[1], so that market is
catered for elsewhere (and rarely at a week's notice).

Clearly you had trouble understanding the "or wherever" phrase in the example.

And you appear to be having difficulty understanding that many other
resort destinations are also not served from Heathrow.

Oh. Well thanks for the heads up. Obviously the sort of planes used to fly
to resort destinations are completely different to planes that don't so
I guess that makes my example completely invalid , right?

Btw, DisneyLAND is in LA and I'm fairly sure there are flights to LA from
Heathrow unless you care to prove otherwise.

No? Shall we move on then?

So now your pedantry is out the way do you have anything valid to add or
have you shot you single sad little bolt?

--
Spud

As predicted, Boris Island sunk
 

In message , at 15:50:43 on Thu, 11 Sep
2014, d remarked:
Heathrow has exactly zero flights to Orlando[1], so that market is

catered for elsewhere (and rarely at a week's notice).



Clearly you had trouble understanding the "or wherever" phrase in the example.



And you appear to be having difficulty understanding that many other

resort destinations are also not served from Heathrow.



Oh. Well thanks for the heads up. Obviously the sort of planes used to fly

to resort destinations are completely different to planes that don't so

I guess that makes my example completely invalid , right?


They are likely to be slightly different in that they'll tend to have a
'charter' seating layout of mainly economy with poor seat pitch.

What's more important for the discussion today, however, is that there
won't be nearly as much "hubbing" going on for the passengers of such
planes, so a point-to-point airport is more appropriate.

Btw, DisneyLAND is in LA and I'm fairly sure there are flights to LA from

Heathrow unless you care to prove otherwise.


There are, but I've never heard of someone flying from the UK to
DisneyLAND. They all seem to head for Florida.

--
Roland Perry

As predicted, Boris Island sunk
 

On Thu, 11 Sep 2014 17:49:26 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
There are, but I've never heard of someone flying from the UK to
DisneyLAND. They all seem to head for Florida.

Why not go canvas the passengers on an LA flight, especially ones with kids.
I'm sure you'll find plenty.

--
Spud

As predicted, Boris Island sunk
 

On 2014-09-06 12:18:25 +0000, Mizter T said:

Blimey, you've changed your tune pretty radically! Not so long ago you
seemed to consider Heathrow as one of the gates of hell.

That's because Heathrow has itself changed massively. First T5 (which
had a very bad false start but now seems to be working nicely) and then
the new T2 replacement. It is still overloaded which causes
runway/taxiway delays, but it's nothing like it was 10 years ago.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.