On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 20:34:37 +0100, Dave Arquati wrote:

Greg Hennessy wrote:
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 17:33:07 +0100, Dave Arquati wrote:


The same logic would say that not building the Motorway Box or
any other road scheme has "caused" congestion. Congestion has arisen
because too many people want to use too little roadspace,

My, you are a bright one.

which is because the cost of travel is suboptimal.

ROTFL! Oh really. How about, there is 'too little roadspace' (sic).

Ooh, argument through sarcasm, you must be right.

Of course.

If travellers paid for the cost of congestion they impose upon other
users, then there wouldn't be "too little roadspace",

That statement is so economically illiterate it doesn't require further
comment.

When compared to our immediate neighbours and competitors, the UK clearly
does have 'too little roadspace' (sic).

Something which implies a lack of supply.

Building new roads merely lowers the cost of travel

As does adding capacity to any service, your point ?

I'm sorry, I thought it was quite obvious, but I need to spell it out;
new capacity does not automatically relieve congestion.

ROTFL! It does if enough capacity is added.


I just lurve how the 'logical' trot out this fallacious article of eco
dogma.

Who said anything about eco dogma? This is simple economics.

Something which you clearly have no appreciation of.

[snip more uninformed....]


The demand for road space is clearly not infinite.

No, but there's an awful lot of suppressed demand. Really, go and look
it up.

Most amusing coming from someone who is unaware of the opportunity costs
caused by suppressed demand.

Imagine the consequences if the same dogma was applied to other transport
infrastructure such as power, gas or telephony.



greg


--
Müde lieg ich lieg in der Scheisse,
und niemand weiss, wie ich heisse.
Es gibt nur einen, der mich kennt,
und mich bei meinem Namen nennt.

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 19:00:49 +0100, Paul Corfield
wrote:

We (those LU employees who work there) should just be shoved in some
modern office equivalent of a battery hen shed should we?

Well, you're all moving into the Shard of Glass when it's built,
apparently.

--
James Farrar
. @gmail.com

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 00:32:52 +0100, James Farrar
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 19:00:49 +0100, Paul Corfield
wrote:

We (those LU employees who work there) should just be shoved in some
modern office equivalent of a battery hen shed should we?

Well, you're all moving into the Shard of Glass when it's built,
apparently.

I suspect that that building would not be cheap enough. I think we need
to be transferred to wherever they take the portacabins that were used
on the construction of the Shard. That might be low cost enough to
satisfy our resident critic of all public sector organisations.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Paul Corfield wrote:
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 00:32:52 +0100, James Farrar
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 19:00:49 +0100, Paul Corfield
wrote:

We (those LU employees who work there) should just be shoved in some
modern office equivalent of a battery hen shed should we?
Well, you're all moving into the Shard of Glass when it's built,
apparently.

I suspect that that building would not be cheap enough. I think we need
to be transferred to wherever they take the portacabins that were used
on the construction of the Shard. That might be low cost enough to
satisfy our resident critic of all public sector organisations.

Mmm. Maybe all London's public sector organisations should be relocated
to the Welsh valleys...

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London