"Paul Weaver" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 10:32:48 +0000, iantheengineer wrote:
Out of this sprang the unions who fought for rights that the blues now
take
for granted. Without struggle pain and suffereing on the shoulders of
others
they would not have their nice cushly lifestyles now. However they seem
to
believe that this would have happened anyway, from what catalyst???

You dont get it do you. Don't like your job or conditions? Hand in your
notice and LEVAE. If everyone did that (of their own free will) then
companies have to change. If they don't then they have no employees to run
the business, and the recently departed can start their own business.

Unions force the majority to bow to the whims of the minority by
intimidation - something that should be illegal.



LEVAE?


When unions were formed it was not possible just to leave a job. Mostly a
single employer employed all people within an area so alternate employemnt
was naigh on impossible. Unions gave individuals the strength to act as one,
its a known fact that there is strength in numbers. If unions are so bad why
do we still have so many and each with so many members????

"Chris Jones" wrote in message
...
Building roads does not solve the problem, it helps locally but creates
problems elsewhere. Thats why we are where we arte today with
huge congestion.

Then how do you explain the fact that France for example has very little
congestion, and has built something like 4 times the amount of motorway
that
we have? Surely if what you say is true, all of their new motorways would
have filled up with traffic instantly and they'd be just as gridlocked as
we
are.


France has a different geographic population split, they are far less spread
with concentrations of individuals in cities and very little in between,
thus a lesser need to travel. The UK is far more spread out, and travel has
throuigh this spread become more necessary, nbut only through a failing of
the planning system over the past years.

"Chris Jones" wrote in message
...
Your view is certainly not shared by me, yes she may have buiilt roads,
but look at what happens road building leads to more traffic, this
has been researched.

Perhaps building roads does lead to more traffic - for example, before the
M25 was built, I would be far less likely to travel from Birmingham to
Kent,
simply because of the hassle of getting through London.

Surely new roads giving people new possibilities to travel, meet friends
and
relatives, and go for days out should be celebrated? After all, that means
our standard of living has increased, surely.



I agree in some ways, freedom of choice is good, but the problem is that now
our choices are available we are taking them not just for odd days out but
for a daily commute where previously we wouldnt have considered it.

"Paul Weaver" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 11:22:10 +0000, Chris Jones wrote:
Surely new roads giving people new possibilities to travel, meet friends
and
relatives, and go for days out should be celebrated? After all, that
means
our standard of living has increased, surely.

No the Anti car brigade think that we should live work and shop within
walking distance, and should never travel more then 10 miles except on a
holiday (via train) to Brighton. Bit like the 19th century. Traveling over
land from the Mediterranean to the Channel in 12 hours is evil.

Not at all I have a car my wife has a car we enjoy days out in the car. The
continentals actually have higher levels of car ownership, just they use
them less. It is about reducing the need for normal journeys by car ie the
daily commute.

"iantheengineer" wrote in message
...

Not at all I have a car my wife has a car we enjoy days out in the car. The
continentals actually have higher levels of car ownership, just they use
them less.

Can you give details of that lower car use than the UK ?

"Huge" wrote in message
...
"Chris Jones" writes:
Your view is certainly not shared by me, yes she may have buiilt roads,
but look at what happens road building leads to more traffic, this
has been researched.

Perhaps building roads does lead to more traffic

And even if it does, so what? Building more hospitals leads to
more patients. Is anyone objecting to that?


--
"The road to Paradise is through Intercourse."
The uk.transport FAQ; http://www.huge.org.uk/transport/FAQ.html
[email me at huge [at] huge [dot] org [dot] uk]




Ding dong get the picture!!!!!!

Have you seen the pollution that comes from a car. The congestion created by
loads of extra cars which then creates more pollution per pcu??

So lets say we build a new road around London, it gives extra capacity and
enables you to travel around London at 70mph wow fantastic!!!

Whats going to happen. All those people who have avoided this journey will
start to weigh up the fact that they can get a bette / better paid job
further away, and due to the new road get there quicker. So they buy a car
and start a new job.

But where do they live ahh West London for example and the need to get to
the East so they set off, but ohh theyt have to travel through their local
town first, and oh then along that A road before they get to the new super
duper highway.

Have the cogs started turning yet, have the lights come on, is someone
coming home at last?????

Then when they get near to the journeys end they have to travel down the B
road to get to the building where they need to park in a space all day, only
to 8 hours later do exactly the reverse.

So lets see more cars on the new roads, oh and more cars on the a road , oh
and the b road, oh and yes another car parking space required, and not
forgetting the pollution emitted by the vehicle and its effect in increasing
the congestion.....


Oh and the Sallys friend thinks what a good idea, and then Jane.. and then
John


Are we getting there...do I need to draw a picture for you.

"Usenet" wrote in message
...
In message , Chris Jones
writes
Surely new roads giving people new possibilities to travel, meet
friends and relatives, and go for days out should be celebrated? After
all, that means our standard of living has increased, surely.

New roads promise the idea of emancipation, when they really only offer
a new version of hell.
1. Any new road is quickly filled by drivers doing exactly what you're
doing; taking advantage of a supposedly easier way to travel from 'here'
to 'there'.

2. New roads cost. Not just the building cost, but all those other
factors: loss of trade to local shops, loss of views, communities cut
off from each other, and my favourite bete-noire - the bloody noise!
There are vast areas of Southern England where it's now impossible to
get away from the sound of cars and motor-bikes screaming along at top
speed (a jam on the M25 now provides a gentle respite for the
communities alongside it - say anywhere up to 3 miles away).

3. Older road-planing cost us loads. The way roads are/were costed was
to value the land, meaning it was always cheaper to go though areas
which weren't farmland or housing. Trouble was, in these over-crowded
islands, that meant the areas that were cheapest were also the areas
that benefited least from roads: common land, woodland, SSI, etc. Still,
it gives a nice view from the car, doesn't it?


--
Martin @ Strawberry Hill

Fantastic somone else who gets the picture. Over to you Ive given up trying
to instill some sense into these morons.

Good luck, fight hard and clean!!!

"PeterE" wrote in message
...
iantheengineer wrote:
"PeterE" wrote in message

But without the decisions taken under the Thatcher adminstrations,
Britain's roads would be far worse than they are now (which doesn't
bear thinking about, really).

Your view is certainly not shared by me, yes she may have buiilt
roads, but look at what happens road building leads to more traffic,
this has been researched.

Those Romans have a lot to answer for.

Increasing capacity increases demand - so what?

Which political party was John Major from????

I am not some kneejerk defender of the Conservative Party. The Major
government was disastrous for transport in the UK - remember they were
also
responsible for the botched privatisation of the railways.

Thanks for corraborating, why did Major cancel the schemes????

Oh yes no money

It was a short-term saving which is now proving to have serious long-term
effects.

In the meantime most local highway sections have never been so busy,
the only problem is getting trained staff( most local HAs have a
backlog of work). A problem once more proliferated in the 80s with
the scrapping of apprenticeships and the introduction of the YTS.

If they didn't waste so much money building humps they would find it
easier
to keep the roads in good repair.

--
http://www.speedlimit.org.uk
"If laws are to be respected, they must be worthy of respect."

#

I thought your voice was muffled you really do talk through your arse!

Speed humps are used to prevent speeding idiots and save lives. Do you
REALLY think that a local authority with limited funds would waste it n
putting in humps for the sake of it.

Come on now get real!!

"cookie" wrote in message
...

"iantheengineer" wrote in message
...

"Chris Jones" wrote in message
...
Just look at the roads around any Ikea store, for instance.

Absolute rubbish. all large developments require transport impact
assessments. The DEVELOPER pays for these to be carrioed out and the are
examined by the councils or the prevailinbg highway authority. all
junctioons and link roads are examined for capacity and the impact that
traffic will have. The examinations are robust with factors of safety
built
into them. If the junctions start to cause a proble or reach 85% of the
capacity within the (normally) 10 years following development. the
DEVELOPER
pays for the improvement works.

I should know I write TIAs on regular basis

Does this apply where the development and the access road lie within two
different authorities?

I quote the case of IKEA Leeds, which is actually in Kirklees
(Huddersfield), and the main access point of the M62/M621 comes under
Leeds
City Council.



Yes it always applies the study should undertake a materiality test which
states that any junction / link road affected by more than 5% or other LPA
recommendation then the junction must be examined and analysed in detail.

Large developments like IKEAs ( incidentally the worst traffic generator by
far) should be examined very closely. TThey are cross boundary and will be
examined by both councils

hth

"Chris Jones" wrote in message
...
To continue to build roads will continue the problem. The answer is
puvblic transport, but public transport cannot cater for all journeys
and therefore over time journeys will need to become more
corridored.

What exactly do you mean by "more corridored"? Most long distance journeys
are already corridored into the rail and motorway networks.

For example go into any city during the am peak and the tidality
of the flow is there to be seen.

Yes, commuting into city centres is probably the only thing that public
transport *can* cater for.

Without cars on the urban road network public transport would be
faster and more reliable.

Indeed it would. However, the current situation we have is that public
transport routes rarely cater for where you want to go. For example, to do
my route to work I would have to get a bus all the way into the city
centre,
then another one out again at a different angle - taking well over an
hour,
when my destination is just 7 miles away but in a direction not catered
for
by the bus network.

We know that building more roads is
a) environmentally damaging

How so? Surely free flowing traffic is using fuel more efficiently, and
thus
polluting less, than a traffic jam with thousands of cars hardly moving at
all?

b) increases usage so essentially provides no longterm greater net
capacity.

Usage does increase, however that usage tends to come off local
residential
roads, thus making life far more pleasant for residents.
For example, you could argue that the M60 completion in Manchester filled
up
to capacity almost on the day it opened, which may be true - but if you
look
at the bigger picture and how much quieter local streets in the area are,
surely it's worth it.

So where do you stop, when the whole country is one great network
of asphalt???

Don't be silly, we're nowhere near that. I don't think the motorway
network
even takes up 1% of the land in this country, there's plenty of space for
more.

Look at a map of Germany, and compare it to a map of this country. They
have
motorways all over the place, yet they still have plenty of countryside to
enjoy.



There demographics are way different so no comparison