Global warming update

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul
Does anyone else know? Is burnt diesel more or less polluting than petrol?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I would guess it would depend on the receptors of the pollution, the location of those receptors, ambient environmental conditions etc.

Diesels would probably produce more particulates, whereas petrols more NOx and SOx emissions. CO/CO2 levels I would imagine would be quite similar, but then I'm no expert! Other lower concentration (put possibly more carcinogenic) pollutants must also be present in varying concentrations, but I think you'd need to see a proper emissions analysis to be able to compare petrol and diesel and for any meaningful conclusions to be drawn.

The Bosscp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by NickM

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

...NickM had the best idea for why there would be less cars on the road. People would only drive when necessary, in order to be higher up the queue when they really need a car. If I'm understanding him correctly, he suggested a system whereby the more you use a car, the lower down you are on the priority list for booking. So it would encourage you to only use a car when necessary and combat the exact problem that we've got - which is people using cars willy nilly.
And the gain therefore would be that although there would be the same amount of cars in total, there would be less of them being used at any one time. Therefore less congestion, less fuel depletion.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">A slight misunderstanding here; I'm suggesting that if people "only drive when necessary", we'll need fewer cars. Conversely, a system which gives priority to infrequent users could encourage people to consider their car use more carefully; but only if there are fewer cars in the system than at present.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I see what you mean, however even if you had the same amount of cars in the system as you've got now, you would still see the net effect that less of them would be being used at any one time.

With respect to the 'total number of cars in the system', I think you would want to not drastically reduce it, but make sure it doesn't increase either. i.e. only bring new cars in when old ones wear out, or even use that to reduce it slightly - i.e. for each two cars that conk out irrepairably, replace them with one new one - and do this until we have a much more sustainable level. However, I think this is desirable rather than imperative for the system to work - I still think you would see benefits in the form of less congestion from day 1.
I am guessing you are concerned that people would twig that there are the same number of cars, and latch on to the fact that they will still get one when they want no matter what their usage pattern is? A valid concern, but I still think people's natural 'hoarding' instinct would see them wanting to save up their credits to replace the feeling of being able to get in a car whenever they want that they enjoyed when owning their own car. I also think my 'gradual' reduction idea would minimise the chances of a 'knee-jerk' rejection of the idea, it would be important to let people see it work before you start forcing the benefits straight away - you would need to let the scheme 'find its feet' so to speak, and if it achieved this then that would be a benefit in and of itself in the first year, say.

<hr noshade size="1">
CyclingIsPermittedAlongThisFootpath GenericPath

Flying_Monkey · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by andyoxon
With the possible patter of tiny Flying Monkey feet will come the most pressure for owning a car - I'd say. The sheer amount of kit that needs to be transported has to be seen to be believed... But, if you can resist this, most other pressures should be a doddle to cope with. [;)]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Been there, done that, never needed a car... (long story, another time...)

I can't drive because I never bothered to learn to drive. It gives me pause every time I think it might be useful and makes me reconsider why I might want to... sometimes real freedom can come through setting limits. [:)]

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

The Bosscp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul

Oh, and for someone with a physics degree, you seem to have little knowledge of wind resistance.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
What's wind resistance got to do with it? Are you dissing my van on the basis of being unaerodynamic now, is that what this is about?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

You said that your van was more economical because it was slower, had a smaller engine than your car, and was diesel. You made no consideration of the wind resistence.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I haven't said it's more economical because it's slower and has a smaller engine - I've said it's more economical BECAUSE IT ACTUALLY IS - i.e. I've measured it and it has about the same size or if anything slightly smaller tank but gets considerably further on it.
I've only cited the fact that it's smaller engined and slower as possible reasons for this OBSERVED behaviour - I haven't made assertions that it 'must' be more economical because of those things!

Yes, it's less aerodynamic than a car, slightly - it does have about a 45 degree sloping front so it isn't as bad as a bus...

<hr noshade size="1">
CyclingIsPermittedAlongThisFootpath GenericPath

Canrider · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Which roughly translates as "OH yeah, damn - you're right, I can't think of a comeback, fair enough you win."<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
A more correct translation would be 'You just proved my point with your argument about living in one centre and working in another'.

Unless you're prepared to argue that people lived in hillsborough and worked in Sheffield prior to the invention of the motor car?

Actually, looking at a map, I note that hillsborough is about 2-3 miles from Sheffield. That's a walking distance in my book..wtf would you need a car to go that little way for?

"We will never win until the oil runs out or they invent hover cars - but then they may land on us." -- lardarse rider

Mister Paul · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

I haven't said it's more economical because it's slower and has a smaller engine... <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

No, it uses less fuel than my car. Which makes sense, as it's got a (slightly) smaller engine, and fewer cylinders, and isn't half as fast. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

__________________________________________________________
What we need is a new, national White Bicycle Plan

The Bosscp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Canrider

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Which roughly translates as "OH yeah, damn - you're right, I can't think of a comeback, fair enough you win."<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
A more correct translation would be 'You just proved my point with your argument about living in one centre and working in another'.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Er... well, depends what you define as a 'centre'. Some definitions would put hillsborough as PART OF the centre. But the reason I chose to work where I do and live where I do, was because I don't need to rely on something with an engine to get there.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Canrider

Unless you're prepared to argue that people lived in hillsborough and worked in Sheffield prior to the invention of the motor car?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I don't get what point you're trying to make... I would guess that it's probable that some people DID live in hillsborough and work in Sheffield prior to the invention of the motor car? Why would they not have?

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Canrider

Actually, looking at a map, I note that hillsborough is about 2-3 miles from Sheffield. That's a walking distance in my book..wtf would you need a car to go that little way for?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Correct, it is ... my commute is about 2 and a half miles. But to correct you, it's not 2-3 miles away from sheffield, it's 2-3 miles away from the CENTRE OF sheffield - it is actually IN sheffield.

Yes, you could walk - but would probably take over half an hour, it's far better and quicker to cycle... either way you don't NEED a car, but again, I don't get what your point is. Please kindly remind me of which bit of any of my previous points you're responding to.

<hr noshade size="1">
CyclingIsPermittedAlongThisFootpath GenericPath

The Bosscp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

I haven't said it's more economical because it's slower and has a smaller engine... <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

No, it uses less fuel than my car. Which makes sense, as it's got a (slightly) smaller engine, and fewer cylinders, and isn't half as fast. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
You know exactly what I mean, your silly attempt to make it look as though I've contradicted myself has failed.

<hr noshade size="1">
CyclingIsPermittedAlongThisFootpath GenericPath

marinyork · June 2007

This thread is comedy. Personally, depening on which end of town and which end of Hillsborough I'd regard anyone that drove that stretch a bit mad with traffic like it is there in the morning but that's upto them.

bof · June 2007

To answer petrol vs diesel question: they're about the same.
Diesel produces 15% more CO2 per unit than petrol, but you get on average around 15% better mileage out of a unit of diesel.
Diesel produces more particulates (though modern engines can run very clean), but has the advantage that producing biofuel is easier.

Also diesel engines last 2 times as long. All in all diesel just shades it over petrol, other things being equal

mjones · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by bof

To answer petrol vs diesel question: they're about the same.
Diesel produces 15% more CO2 per unit than petrol, but you get on average around 15% better mileage out of a unit of diesel.
Diesel produces more particulates (though modern engines can run very clean), but has the advantage that producing biofuel is easier.

Also diesel engines last 2 times as long. All in all diesel just shades it over petrol, other things being equal
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Actually diesel gives better CO2 for a comparable vehicle. NOx and PM are worse. See here for example.

Afraid I don't consider the ability to burn biodiesel to be an advantage- I'd rather burn fossil fuels than something grow where rainforest ought to be...

Canrider · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Yes, you could walk - but would probably take over half an hour, it's far better and quicker to cycle... either way you don't NEED a car, but again, I don't get what your point is. Please kindly remind me of which bit of any of my previous points you're responding to.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
It sounded as though you were arguing that you needed a car to commute from one to the other, hence the whole 'private transport' angle.

The availability of motor cars allows people to live much further from where they work, where in the past you'd live within walking or at most cycling distance from where you worked. This is the point that was being made to you: that while separate centres existed, people didn't commute between them. By and large people would live and work in the same centre. The private car, then, makes that commute possible, but people tend to reverse the sequence of historical events.

You get people arguing 'I need a car to get to work, 'cause my work is 20 miles away!', when the reason they live 20 miles from work is *caused* by their ownership of a car, engendering the view that it's 'just natural' to travel 20, 50, 100 miles to get to work, when in fact such attitudes are extremely recent developments.

In other words, the separate centres didn't spring up to force people to commute between them, they sprung up because prior to mass automobile ownership, people very precisely *couldn't* commute between them.

"We will never win until the oil runs out or they invent hover cars - but then they may land on us." -- lardarse rider

Mister Paul · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

I haven't said it's more economical because it's slower and has a smaller engine... <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

No, it uses less fuel than my car. Which makes sense, as it's got a (slightly) smaller engine, and fewer cylinders, and isn't half as fast. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
You know exactly what I mean, your silly attempt to make it look as though I've contradicted myself has failed.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

No I don't know what you mean. Because you have contradicted yourself.

So you live in the centre of Sheffield, and you claim to have never seen a bus with more than 3 people on?

I think that says something pretty conclusive about your honesty, young Banjo.

__________________________________________________________
What we need is a new, national White Bicycle Plan

The Bosscp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by marinyork

This thread is comedy. Personally, depening on which end of town and which end of Hillsborough I'd regard anyone that drove that stretch a bit mad with traffic like it is there in the morning but that's upto them.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

It's never that bad, unless there's adverse conditions... possibly is further up outside the footy ground coming in in the morning and heading in on shalesmoor there's sometimes queues in the evening but have usually cleared by half 5.

It's a shame because when there is adverse conditions like the current spate of wet weather, the evening traffic jam is usually on the opposite side of the road heading out of town to what I'm cycling along, and so I don't get to overtake them all.

<hr noshade size="1">
CyclingIsPermittedAlongThisFootpath GenericPath

domd1979 · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss
No, the representation of what the bus actually does is more like:
1) wiggle, wiggle, wiggle down the side roads towards the major road
2) wiggle, wiggle, wiggle wiggle, wiggle, wiggle wiggle, wiggle, wiggle wiggle, wiggle, wiggle wiggle, wiggle, wiggle wiggle, wiggle, wiggle wiggle, wiggle, wiggle wiggle, wiggle, wiggle wiggle, wiggle, wiggle wiggle, wiggle, wiggle wiggle, wiggle, wiggle wiggle, wiggle, wiggle wiggle, wiggle, wiggle down side roads to get where it could get in a fifth of the time on a major road
3) wiggle, wiggle, wiggle some more up the side roads to the destination.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Nope... Bus routes can essentially be split into three varieties - direct radial routes (possibly with residential loops at the start of the route), including inter-urbans, limited stop urban/inter-urban via direct routes, and other less frequent more circuitous routes. The latter largely performs a social function, particularly for the less mobile who don't drive, by ensuring they have a bus within a walking distance they can cope with. Direct radial and limited stop services offer faster journey times, although may require a slightly longer walk, and it is these that generally have the potential to attract car users. You can't say "all bus routes go round the houses" because its untrue, and not all bus routes are there to perform the same roles. Going back to Trent, they have done extremely well at attracting car users, because they do their research and provide services accordingly.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
"DRT" as you so eloquently title it already exists. It's called a taxi.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Yes, taxis are DRT of a kind, but there are differences. A demand responsive bus generally offers door to door transport at bus-fare prices, whereas you'll have to pay through the nose for the equivalent taxi. There's different varieties of DRT some are entirely flexible, and some are semi-flexible (pre-set route, but diverts on request). DRT does have a role, but is expensive to provide, and can be difficult to design/implement without ending up with horrendous costs per passenger journey. That isn't to say it can't be done. Hampshire seem to have done quite well with Cango: http://cango.hants.gov.uk/

The Bosscp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Canrider

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Yes, you could walk - but would probably take over half an hour, it's far better and quicker to cycle... either way you don't NEED a car, but again, I don't get what your point is. Please kindly remind me of which bit of any of my previous points you're responding to.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
It sounded as though you were arguing that you needed a car to commute from one to the other, hence the whole 'private transport' angle.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
No, sorry - apologies if it sounded like that. My refutation was probably misinterpreted as it was in response to Jaded's logicless post thus:
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Jaded:

That's because you want to go on a journey that private transport has created for you. The journey wan't there before private transport created it for you and it won't be there when private transport is no longer a viable option.

Think of your bus-less jorney as a small blip in man's tranport history.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
... i.e. he posted that without considering the fact that I have explained that my journey is the exact opposite of one that 'private transport has created for me'.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Canrider

The availability of motor cars allows people to live much further from where they work, where in the past you'd live within walking or at most cycling distance from where you worked. This is the point that was being made to you: that while separate centres existed, people didn't commute between them.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Yes, I agree that's true of some people, but it's not true of me!
The point I was making is that I have deliberately chosen to exclude myself from the set of people whom that applies to, yet because I don't fit into the forum clique of car-hating speed-camera loving greenies, I get accused of being a member of that set.
I live and work close together. The reason I do this is because I consider living 20 miles away inefficient, and a waste.
It doesn't matter whether that's a waste of energy resources, my money, time, or the environment - or all of those - the fact is it's unnecessary and therefore wasteful.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Canrider

By and large people would live and work in the same centre. The private car, then, makes that commute possible, but people tend to reverse the sequence of historical events.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
What commute do you mean by 'that' commute, please.
If you mean MY commute, then you're wrong - because the private car doesn't make it possible, as it's possible without a private car.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Canrider

You get people arguing 'I need a car to get to work, 'cause my work is 20 miles away!', when the reason they live 20 miles from work is *caused* by their ownership of a car, engendering the view that it's 'just natural' to travel 20, 50, 100 miles to get to work, when in fact such attitudes are extremely recent developments.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Yes, I largely agree. You would get arguments that it's not caused by it so much as facilitated by it and that a lot of people will commute 20 miles after being made redundant to a temporary job, say, until they find a better one closer to home, they would say that it is caused by redundancy, but there are a lot of people who have no real excuse other than they like the area where they want to live and don't really see why they shouldn't drive.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Canrider

In other words, the separate centres didn't spring up to force people to commute between them, they sprung up because prior to mass automobile ownership, people very precisely *couldn't* commute between them.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I would tend to think you're probably right as that sounds logical, but on a geographical level, what's one of the best examples of a centre that has sprung up only since it's become possible for people to commute to it?

<hr noshade size="1">
CyclingIsPermittedAlongThisFootpath GenericPath

The Bosscp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul

So you live in the centre of Sheffield, and you claim to have never seen a bus with more than 3 people on?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
YOu stand on snig hill on a morning and watch them all and you'll see what i mean.
I'll post some pics if you like.

<hr noshade size="1">
CyclingIsPermittedAlongThisFootpath GenericPath

Archcp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss
I would tend to think you're probably right as that sounds logical, but on a geographical level, what's one of the best examples of a centre that has sprung up only since it's become possible for people to commute to it?

<hr noshade size="1">
CyclingIsPermittedAlongThisFootpath GenericPath

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I guess you actually mean towns, but I'd say stuff like Meadowhall, Lakeside etc - they are built with huge carparks to accommodate customers, so they have to be out of (or on the very edge of) town, so if the buses haven't been thought out, you have to drive there (well, most people do), so it attracts more cars, so it gets bigger car parks... and the circle expands.

Before such a huge proportion of people had cars, all the shops were in the city centre, or in local high streets. Trouble is, when the big centres get all the customers, the town centres (where space for parking is tight) start to die off, so people go to the centre out of town... another vicious circle.

And a lot of new estates around towns are being built with plenty of driveway space for cars, but nothing much in the way of shops, post offices etc....

If I had a baby elephant, it could help me clean the car. If I had a car.

The Bosscp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by domd1979

You can't say "all bus routes go round the houses" because its untrue, and not all bus routes are there to perform the same roles. Going back to Trent, they have done extremely well at attracting car users, because they do their research and provide services accordingly.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Well alright maybe not ALL, but whenever I ever go on (which is once in a blue moon) they ALWAYS seem to take the least direct route - example when I got one from hillsborough back to town due to the fact I was under the influence, it set off along infirmary road, fine. Expected it to continue along there, maybe stopping at a few stops on the way like outside tescos, ok. Should be a 15 minute journey. But no - hang on, he's turning right! Where the hell's he going?! It turns out, to get to town he goes all the way up the hill through crookes, down through broomhill and back along fulwood road, stops for a fag outside the hallamshire, turning it into a bleedin' three quarters of an hour treck. And guess how many people got on in crookes and broomhill? Yep, you guessed it - precisely none.

Granted this maybe a purely anecdotal reason why my perception of them is so poor - but when they stop making so much noise I can hear them roaring along from 10 floors up, don't pull out in front of people, and I see them with more people on, then I might start to think they have something to offer, but until then, I don't I'm afraid.

<hr noshade size="1">
CyclingIsPermittedAlongThisFootpath GenericPath

Canrider · June 2007

'that' commute being the 20+ miler.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">what's one of the best examples of a centre that has sprung up only since it's become possible for people to commute to it?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Bedroom communities. Suburbs. Bear in mind I have a North American take on these things, and urban sprawl in NAmerica boggles the mind.

"We will never win until the oil runs out or they invent hover cars - but then they may land on us." -- lardarse rider

domd1979 · June 2007

The problem with out of town centres and supermarkets is that parking is free (as well as plentiful) whereas town centre parking is charged for. Its been perpetuated by poor planning policy which has allowed out of town retail development on a massive scale, and failed to impose any requirement to charge for parking.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Arch
I guess you actually mean towns, but I'd say stuff like Meadowhall, Lakeside etc - they are built with huge carparks to accommodate customers, so they have to be out of (or on the very edge of) town, so if the buses haven't been thought out, you have to drive there (well, most people do), so it attracts more cars, so it gets bigger car parks... and the circle expands.

Before such a huge proportion of people had cars, all the shops were in the city centre, or in local high streets. Trouble is, when the big centres get all the customers, the town centres (where space for parking is tight) start to die off, so people go to the centre out of town... another vicious circle.

And a lot of new estates around towns are being built with plenty of driveway space for cars, but nothing much in the way of shops, post offices etc....

If I had a baby elephant, it could help me clean the car. If I had a car.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Unknown · June 2007

Any sign of global warming today in the Orkneys, Canrider?

Canrider · June 2007

Sunny but chilly, as I believe I've mentioned elsewhere.. I'll let you know when the rain of frogs starts and the locusts descend.

"We will never win until the oil runs out or they invent hover cars - but then they may land on us." -- lardarse rider

marinyork · June 2007

Buses in Sheffield have gone downhill a lot with service cuts and rerouting and high fares but this three people on a bus business is ridiculous.

The thread is comedy as you are trying to use dubious local geography to argue some vague point, contrast this with the OP title and it's just funny. You seem to be exaggerating how bad the buses are but understating the level of traffic. If I didn't know otherwise it'd sound like you're trying to claim the old outer service route is the only bus route that goes anywhere near where you want (that was a slow service).

The Bosscp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Arch

I guess you actually mean towns, but I'd say stuff like Meadowhall, Lakeside etc - they are built with huge carparks to accommodate customers, so they have to be out of (or on the very edge of) town, so if the buses haven't been thought out, you have to drive there (well, most people do), so it attracts more cars, so it gets bigger car parks... and the circle expands.

Before such a huge proportion of people had cars, all the shops were in the city centre, or in local high streets. Trouble is, when the big centres get all the customers, the town centres (where space for parking is tight) start to die off, so people go to the centre out of town... another vicious circle.

And a lot of new estates around towns are being built with plenty of driveway space for cars, but nothing much in the way of shops, post offices etc....
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Yes, I see... I was more thinking of people commuting to work rather than going shopping, but obviously people do work in those places aswell...
I suppose 'business parks' and 'technology parks' are the main ones I can think of, but although they are often located with specific intention to be near major roads/motorways, they are usually not far from a town and are are thus cycle-able to, i.e. if people chose their house solely based on where they work, they wouldn't need to drive.

I suppose what I'm arguing is that there's no place of work that's 30 miles from ANY houses, so the fact that people commute unnecessarily by car to work can be blamed more on their laziness or lack of care about their living location, or the fact that they don't regard living near to work as a priority when choosing their living location, rather than the fact that their workplace is where it is in the first place.
i.e. it's not the workplace's fault for being far away from them, but their fault for being far away from it!

<hr noshade size="1">
CyclingIsPermittedAlongThisFootpath GenericPath

The Bosscp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by domd1979

The problem with out of town centres and supermarkets is that parking is free (as well as plentiful) whereas town centre parking is charged for. Its been perpetuated by poor planning policy which has allowed out of town retail development on a massive scale, and failed to impose any requirement to charge for parking.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
The problem with imposing charging to park out of town, is that parking out of town has got to be more attractive to park than in the city centre, otherwise everyone would (try to) park in the city centre - because given equal cost, it's more convenient - yet there just isn't the room. Market forces dicate that unfortunately, it's the same reason why house prices are more expensive there.

<hr noshade size="1">
CyclingIsPermittedAlongThisFootpath GenericPath

The Bosscp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by marinyork

Buses in Sheffield have gone downhill a lot with service cuts and rerouting and high fares but this three people on a bus business is ridiculous.

The thread is comedy as you are trying to use dubious local geography to argue some vague point, contrast this with the OP title and it's just funny. You seem to be exaggerating how bad the buses are but understating the level of traffic. If I didn't know otherwise it'd sound like you're trying to claim the old outer service route is the only bus route that goes anywhere near where you want (that was a slow service).
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

You presumably are referring to the number 2/ number 59?
And why do you call it the 'old' outer service route? Ah yes, because it's been dropped. And why has it been dropped? Oh yes, because there was only ever three people on it. Ding dong. Round 2.

<hr noshade size="1">
CyclingIsPermittedAlongThisFootpath GenericPath

domd1979 · June 2007

That's a spurious argument. Out of town parking does not "have" to be more attractive. Its only crap planning policy that's allowed it to happen. Where you have limited town centre parking, and out-of-town development has been restricted, then you start to influence mode choice - i.e. people travel by public transport because its the only sensible way of providing for large numbers of people travelling to one place.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss
The problem with imposing charging to park out of town, is that parking out of town has got to be more attractive to park than in the city centre, otherwise everyone would (try to) park in the city centre - because given equal cost, it's more convenient - yet there just isn't the room. Market forces dicate that unfortunately, it's the same reason why house prices are more expensive there.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

marinyork · June 2007

Even the 2 and 59, woefully ran services they were where First deliberately put the most clapped out buses on the route had a lot more than 3 people on them.

Bonj, you talking about buses is rather like a conversation I had with one of my relatives once on public transport. He said all of these opinions and thought anyone that used public transport was completely bonkers and then said at the end that he hadn't been on public transport since 1929.

Meadowhall is a case in point about out of town shopping centres and poor planning. That rubbish planning policies could actively encourage people to drive miles to an out of town shopping centre that very few people would have nice things to say about the surrounding area (infact it'd be a big deterrance) amazes me.

mjones · June 2007

I do wonder how First Group and Stagecoach manage to make their vast profits running all those buses with just three people on. Can you englighten me bonj?

Global warming update

Comments

Categories