In article ,
Chris Tolley writes:
Colum Mylod wrote:
On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 09:21:56 GMT, Chris Tolley
Paul Weaver wrote:
So even more people now can't drive to work in the week, but can't use
the tube at the weekend, requiring both a car and expensive train
tickets.

Very few people in that part of London *require* a car. It is a
lifestyle choice, not a necessity for the most part.

Quite a few, like me, drive ... Cars are still required by families

If true, one wonders how anyone ever managed before. But since people
plainly did manage before, perhaps it isn't a necessity, but a lifestyle
choice.

It's a positive feedback loop. People get cars, so they use services further
away, which means services tend to get concentrated around places people can
drive to rather than where they can walk to, so services aren't local any
more, so people get cars. Not a lifestyle choice at all; just reaction to
economic stimuli.
--
SAm.

Paul Weaver wrote:
forced to risk a dangerous night bus
That's nonsense, and you know it. Night buses may be less than ideal,
but they are not per se dangerous. We don't live in a US movie dystopia.

You are starting with the unproven assumption that transport is
necessary at all. People do not generally *have to* live so far from
their place of employment. The main reason that there is transport
congestion is that there are too many people on the move. They may have
all sorts of reasons for choosing to live and work where they do, but in
our society, that's exactly what it is in the vast majority of cases, a
choice. (AIH, in my case, there isn't a choice. my house, is supplied by
my employer, and is next to the building where I do a lot of my work.)
--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9767304.html
(4TC units 418 and 422 and men with red flags at Weymouth Quay, 1985)

"Sam Nelson" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Chris Tolley writes:
Colum Mylod wrote:
On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 09:21:56 GMT, Chris Tolley
Paul Weaver wrote:
So even more people now can't drive to work in the week, but can't
use
the tube at the weekend, requiring both a car and expensive train
tickets.

Very few people in that part of London *require* a car. It is a
lifestyle choice, not a necessity for the most part.

Quite a few, like me, drive ... Cars are still required by families

If true, one wonders how anyone ever managed before. But since people
plainly did manage before, perhaps it isn't a necessity, but a lifestyle
choice.

It's a positive feedback loop. People get cars, so they use services
further
away, which means services tend to get concentrated around places people
can
drive to rather than where they can walk to, so services aren't local any
more, so people get cars. Not a lifestyle choice at all; just reaction to
economic stimuli.

The first three words of your second sentence destroy your conclusion.

Sam Nelson wrote:
It's a positive feedback loop. People get cars, so they use services further
away, which means services tend to get concentrated around places people can
drive to rather than where they can walk to, so services aren't local any
more, so people get cars. Not a lifestyle choice at all; just reaction to
economic stimuli.

I didn't get a car until I was 40. I managed fine until then. I wouldn't
have a car now if it were not for that fact I had been told that my
employment would require it. Some people are told to get a car for their
job, but the majority of drivers made a choice to get one. You note this
in the first few words of your second sentence, but go on to dispute
that it is a lifestyle choice. I feel I'm on fairly safe ground
asserting that most people who learn to drive make the decision to do so
before they are 20, which is before the things you point to are likely
to matter to most of them at all.

There's joined-up thinking in your response, but not enough to convince.

On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 10:44:09 GMT, Chris Tolley
wrote:

Quite a few, like me, drive ... Cars are still required by families

If true, one wonders how anyone ever managed before. But since people
plainly did manage before, perhaps it isn't a necessity, but a lifestyle
choice.

You've sort of got the choice to opt out of the society your kids,
school, outside activities etc. exist in. But only sort of. Like
you sort of have the choice to buy your kids Clarke's sandals instead
of trainers :-)

On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 11:07:50 GMT, Chris Tolley
wrote:

I didn't get a car until I was 40. I managed fine until then. I wouldn't
have a car now if it were not for that fact I had been told that my
employment would require it.

So does it require it, or doesn't it? If you were misinformed,
rejoice and sell it.

Laurence Payne wrote:
On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 11:07:50 GMT, Chris Tolley

I didn't get a car until I was 40. I managed fine until then. I wouldn't
have a car now if it were not for that fact I had been told that my
employment would require it.

So does it require it, or doesn't it?

In general, with a city location, in and of itself, it does not. But I
am working in what most people regard as a rural location, and that tips
the balance the other way.
--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p10934302.html
(the Gornergrat Railway, Switzerland)

"Chris Tolley" wrote in message
Paul Weaver wrote:
forced to risk a dangerous night bus
That's nonsense, and you know it. Night buses may be less than ideal,
but they are not per se dangerous. We don't live in a US movie dystopia.

You are starting with the unproven assumption that transport is
necessary at all. People do not generally *have to* live so far from
their place of employment. The main reason that there is transport
congestion is that there are too many people on the move. They may have
all sorts of reasons for choosing to live and work where they do, but in
our society, that's exactly what it is in the vast majority of cases, a
choice. (AIH, in my case, there isn't a choice. my house, is supplied by
my employer, and is next to the building where I do a lot of my work.)

I wonder why so many people are travelling to work at all. I heard on the TV
last week that 1 in 9 people work from home now broadband is widely
available, although many people in non computer jobs have been working from
home for years. Yet the trains are over crowded in the morning going into
London. Traffic congestion seems to get worse everywhere. Where are all of
these people going?

Ian

Colum Mylod wrote:
The smart way to reduce congestion (not that this expansion has it, 5%
of the area at most has congestion) is to close off zones and reduce
flow. Classic example Hammersmith bridge. Close it and traffic
"evaporates".

Traffic might have evaporated from Castlenau/Lonsdale Road and the
surrounding roads to the south of the bridge. But, it miraculously
condensed on neighbouring bridges, with Putney seeing most of the
increases, although Chiswick and Kew were affected.

While it was a great boost to the quality of life to many in the area to
the south of the Bridge, closing Hammersmith Bridge was not a
"victimless crime".

Tolling the bridges, though - that's not an idea much mentioned. Given
the voracious traffic wardens in Wandsworth, especially, tolling the
bridges would bring in a whole wedge of new revenue.

In article , Huge says...

Jesus Christ but you're dumb. How do people as dumb as you achieve
adiulthood?

Perhaps you could enlighten us from your own personal experience?


--
Conor

"You're not married, you haven't got a girlfriend and you've never seen
Star Trek? Good Lord!" - Patrick Stewart, Extras.