BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
What's the plan then?kingstongraham said:
I haven't mentioned anything about rejoining the EU.Stevo_666 said:
No problem. The EU policy on what new entrants would need to adopt would need checking separately though.kingstongraham said:
You need to post your chart with the single market and EU compared again, maybe?Stevo_666 said:
It would probably start with a referendum. Which I would have thought is the biggest challenge - as I recall the EU requires all new entrants to adopt the single currency and other things from which we had opt outs when we were in. Not sure that's going to get past the electorate any time soon.kingstongraham said:What would the process to rejoin the single market look like, and how long would it take?
Please ignore the fact that it will not happen while we have a bunch of ideological headbangers who don't care about the prosperity and wellbeing of this country in charge.
You've got your chart, so off you go..."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
If that's the plan don't worry. I just replied to KGs request. Joining the EEA is marginally more feasible but not much IMO.elbowloh said:
for the EAA?Stevo_666 said:
It would probably start with a referendum. Which I would have thought is the biggest challenge - as I recall the EU requires all new entrants to adopt the single currency and other things from which we had opt outs when we were in. Not sure that's going to get past the electorate any time soon.kingstongraham said:What would the process to rejoin the single market look like, and how long would it take?
Please ignore the fact that it will not happen while we have a bunch of ideological headbangers who don't care about the prosperity and wellbeing of this country in charge."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I think your answer to my question is "I don't know".Stevo_666 said:
What's the plan then?kingstongraham said:
I haven't mentioned anything about rejoining the EU.Stevo_666 said:
No problem. The EU policy on what new entrants would need to adopt would need checking separately though.kingstongraham said:
You need to post your chart with the single market and EU compared again, maybe?Stevo_666 said:
It would probably start with a referendum. Which I would have thought is the biggest challenge - as I recall the EU requires all new entrants to adopt the single currency and other things from which we had opt outs when we were in. Not sure that's going to get past the electorate any time soon.kingstongraham said:What would the process to rejoin the single market look like, and how long would it take?
Please ignore the fact that it will not happen while we have a bunch of ideological headbangers who don't care about the prosperity and wellbeing of this country in charge.
You've got your chart, so off you go...
Thanks again.0 -
I asked you to post the chart to help you remind yourself that there is a difference between the single market and the EU.0
-
Not to bring it up again but...
I mean...It's a start...💁♂️We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver1 -
does it set off at eight in the evening and stop at every single stop on the way, getting in about four in the morning?ddraver said:Not to bring it up again but...
I mean...It's a start...💁♂️0 -
You would simple ask then turn around and bend over. Accept freedom of movement, the pound becoming the euro and any number of financial ties and shared responsibilities for the liabilities of the southern states and your in as quick as you can say winky. Bit of a political hard sell mind.kingstongraham said:What would the process to rejoin the single market look like, and how long would it take?
Please ignore the fact that it will not happen while we have a bunch of ideological headbangers who don't care about the prosperity and wellbeing of this country in charge.0 -
How many times does Stevo have to post that fucking chart?john80 said:
You would simple ask then turn around and bend over. Accept freedom of movement, the pound becoming the euro and any number of financial ties and shared responsibilities for the liabilities of the southern states and your in as quick as you can say winky. Bit of a political hard sell mind.kingstongraham said:What would the process to rejoin the single market look like, and how long would it take?
Please ignore the fact that it will not happen while we have a bunch of ideological headbangers who don't care about the prosperity and wellbeing of this country in charge.1 -
I don't get the last paragraph however I don't have to live somewhere to have a view on the situation. You think it is dandy and I don't. The problem is that to significantly improve the quality of life of those that live there you are going to have to go pretty big and I don't think that is realistic. The main issue is that everyone needs something different. City dwellers all drive cars when in reality if they got rid of them and changed the infrastructure round to cycling, walking and zero emission public transport they would be better off assuming they work locally. Myself in the sticks I can get a zero emission vehicle but the distances are too large and the population too sparse to make the above work.surrey_commuter said:
OK, I am genuinely baffled.john80 said:
Given motorways are the local roads now maybe the answer is a second set of them for automated cars. At least 50 miles between exits and automated cars only. Could be the new form of public transport that is door to door. You just have to drive the first and last 50 miles yourself. We need to face facts that is the population growth wanters get their way we need to either start growing cities up to reduce urban sprawl and keep mass transport systems efficient. Or we need to start developing the less well connected parts of the country and this means getting transport door to door in an efficient manner. Alternatively we can just turn the South West into a housing estate and live with the consequences. As has been pointed out I only have to deal with this about 10-20 times a year so crack on.rjsterry said:
So we now need a motorway with no connections to the surroundings? I grew up a couple of miles from the M4/M5 interchange. Bank Holiday jams on the M5 have been happening for at least the last 40-odd years; long before most of these housing developments were built.john80 said:
The guys that commute on the m5 might have a different take on this. We allowed an excessive number of junctions and housing developments next to them. Should we then deliver a rubbish experience when you use them as well.rjsterry said:
Building more motorways for the couple of weekends a year that everyone wants to drive to Cornwall is about as daft as it gets.john80 said:
M6 version two slap bang down the middle of the country. More roads into Cornwall or any other areas where there is congestion.surrey_commuter said:
I am not against building motorways but do think you get more bang for your buck upgrading existing routes, like the A14 you mentioned.john80 said:
Every freight train I have ever seen pulling loads is a couple of diesel locomotives. Not sure that is the green answer you are looking for. When we all have electric vehicles and most of our power comes from carbon free sources why are we bothered about trains when they don't take those outside cities from door to door. This is the elephant in the room the greens miss in that if technology makes something green then they lose their objection. Why not another motorway when everything on it is green for example.elbowloh said:
Your experience is completely wrong, which is why we're investing in rail.rick_chasey said:I get that we are in a sort of neo victorian world where we have to rely on a few ultra rich benefactors to make interesting technological developments and blame the poor for their own poverty, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised everyone gets a hard on over rail.
My experience of rail is that it is abhorrently expensive and British rail cannot cope with any increased demand, and any attempt to improve capacity is met with shrieking nimbyism that massively increases the cost of it.
Plus we need to if we want to meet climate change targets.
Where would you build new motorway (s)
The M25 is 5 or 6 lanes in each direction in places now and still comes to a halt regularly. There is no motorway that can be built that won't fill up with traffic as soon as it's open.
From previous conversations we know that some people on here (including myself) believe that it is possible to be inside the M25 and be in the sticks. There are other people who would rather chew their arm off than live within 50 miles of London.
As you live in the least densely populated part on England I am assuming that you are in the latter category. What I do not get is why you are so worked up about the population density in the south east?
I love the tower blocks and think the previously mentioned Elephant and Castle was a total sh1thole that should have been bulldozed long ago and that the new tower blocks are beautiful. What I don't do is get angry about the lack of towers in Hawkshead and the lack of decent restaurants and in particular the absence of authentic foreign cuisine.
So I have tried not to be confrontational because I am genuinely interested in the population density where you don't live and have no reason to go?
As a side line to this unless your hobbies are exclusively related to city life then using public transport is pretty awkward. Kayaking in a lake, going to a sailing event or going walking are all pretty difficult without a car. Me giving you my view on the state of current UK cities is not getting angry it is just giving you my view.
1 -
No. We don't. We have functioning public transport because there are enough of us in a small space to make it worthwhile. We also live within a cyclable distance of work. There is sailing and kayaking in the docks or the River Lea if that's your thing. I have a book of 50 walks - all decent length in nice countryside (granted no mountains) and all within 1hr of Central London railway station. There are numerous climbing walls. Have you ever actually visited a city?john80 said:
I don't get the last paragraph however I don't have to live somewhere to have a view on the situation. You think it is dandy and I don't. The problem is that to significantly improve the quality of life of those that live there you are going to have to go pretty big and I don't think that is realistic. The main issue is that everyone needs something different. City dwellers all drive cars when in reality if they got rid of them and changed the infrastructure round to cycling, walking and zero emission public transport they would be better off assuming they work locally. Myself in the sticks I can get a zero emission vehicle but the distances are too large and the population too sparse to make the above work.surrey_commuter said:
OK, I am genuinely baffled.john80 said:
Given motorways are the local roads now maybe the answer is a second set of them for automated cars. At least 50 miles between exits and automated cars only. Could be the new form of public transport that is door to door. You just have to drive the first and last 50 miles yourself. We need to face facts that is the population growth wanters get their way we need to either start growing cities up to reduce urban sprawl and keep mass transport systems efficient. Or we need to start developing the less well connected parts of the country and this means getting transport door to door in an efficient manner. Alternatively we can just turn the South West into a housing estate and live with the consequences. As has been pointed out I only have to deal with this about 10-20 times a year so crack on.rjsterry said:
So we now need a motorway with no connections to the surroundings? I grew up a couple of miles from the M4/M5 interchange. Bank Holiday jams on the M5 have been happening for at least the last 40-odd years; long before most of these housing developments were built.john80 said:
The guys that commute on the m5 might have a different take on this. We allowed an excessive number of junctions and housing developments next to them. Should we then deliver a rubbish experience when you use them as well.rjsterry said:
Building more motorways for the couple of weekends a year that everyone wants to drive to Cornwall is about as daft as it gets.john80 said:
M6 version two slap bang down the middle of the country. More roads into Cornwall or any other areas where there is congestion.surrey_commuter said:
I am not against building motorways but do think you get more bang for your buck upgrading existing routes, like the A14 you mentioned.john80 said:
Every freight train I have ever seen pulling loads is a couple of diesel locomotives. Not sure that is the green answer you are looking for. When we all have electric vehicles and most of our power comes from carbon free sources why are we bothered about trains when they don't take those outside cities from door to door. This is the elephant in the room the greens miss in that if technology makes something green then they lose their objection. Why not another motorway when everything on it is green for example.elbowloh said:
Your experience is completely wrong, which is why we're investing in rail.rick_chasey said:I get that we are in a sort of neo victorian world where we have to rely on a few ultra rich benefactors to make interesting technological developments and blame the poor for their own poverty, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised everyone gets a hard on over rail.
My experience of rail is that it is abhorrently expensive and British rail cannot cope with any increased demand, and any attempt to improve capacity is met with shrieking nimbyism that massively increases the cost of it.
Plus we need to if we want to meet climate change targets.
Where would you build new motorway (s)
The M25 is 5 or 6 lanes in each direction in places now and still comes to a halt regularly. There is no motorway that can be built that won't fill up with traffic as soon as it's open.
From previous conversations we know that some people on here (including myself) believe that it is possible to be inside the M25 and be in the sticks. There are other people who would rather chew their arm off than live within 50 miles of London.
As you live in the least densely populated part on England I am assuming that you are in the latter category. What I do not get is why you are so worked up about the population density in the south east?
I love the tower blocks and think the previously mentioned Elephant and Castle was a total sh1thole that should have been bulldozed long ago and that the new tower blocks are beautiful. What I don't do is get angry about the lack of towers in Hawkshead and the lack of decent restaurants and in particular the absence of authentic foreign cuisine.
So I have tried not to be confrontational because I am genuinely interested in the population density where you don't live and have no reason to go?
As a side line to this unless your hobbies are exclusively related to city life then using public transport is pretty awkward. Kayaking in a lake, going to a sailing event or going walking are all pretty difficult without a car. Me giving you my view on the state of current UK cities is not getting angry it is just giving you my view.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I don't think I've ever driven into central London apart from once I drove through it because I lived in East London and was working in Amersham and thought it might be quicker than the M25 at 6am. That was almost 20 years ago though.0
-
Having just driven through the tiny historic town of Sandbach with another 50000 cars as the M6 Northbound is closed I would suggest motorways are a necessary evil.0
-
I only saw a statement: "I haven't mentioned anything about rejoining the EU."kingstongraham said:
I think your answer to my question is "I don't know".Stevo_666 said:
What's the plan then?kingstongraham said:
I haven't mentioned anything about rejoining the EU.Stevo_666 said:
No problem. The EU policy on what new entrants would need to adopt would need checking separately though.kingstongraham said:
You need to post your chart with the single market and EU compared again, maybe?Stevo_666 said:
It would probably start with a referendum. Which I would have thought is the biggest challenge - as I recall the EU requires all new entrants to adopt the single currency and other things from which we had opt outs when we were in. Not sure that's going to get past the electorate any time soon.kingstongraham said:What would the process to rejoin the single market look like, and how long would it take?
Please ignore the fact that it will not happen while we have a bunch of ideological headbangers who don't care about the prosperity and wellbeing of this country in charge.
You've got your chart, so off you go...
Thanks again."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Shall I post a bigger one?kingstongraham said:
How many times does Stevo have to post that censored chart?john80 said:
You would simple ask then turn around and bend over. Accept freedom of movement, the pound becoming the euro and any number of financial ties and shared responsibilities for the liabilities of the southern states and your in as quick as you can say winky. Bit of a political hard sell mind.kingstongraham said:What would the process to rejoin the single market look like, and how long would it take?
Please ignore the fact that it will not happen while we have a bunch of ideological headbangers who don't care about the prosperity and wellbeing of this country in charge.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
You replied to my question "What would the process to rejoin the single market look like, and how long would it take?" with some random words about a referendum to consider rejoining the EU. It's just up there in this quoted thread ^Stevo_666 said:
I only saw a statement: "I haven't mentioned anything about rejoining the EU."kingstongraham said:
I think your answer to my question is "I don't know".Stevo_666 said:
What's the plan then?kingstongraham said:
I haven't mentioned anything about rejoining the EU.Stevo_666 said:
No problem. The EU policy on what new entrants would need to adopt would need checking separately though.kingstongraham said:
You need to post your chart with the single market and EU compared again, maybe?Stevo_666 said:
It would probably start with a referendum. Which I would have thought is the biggest challenge - as I recall the EU requires all new entrants to adopt the single currency and other things from which we had opt outs when we were in. Not sure that's going to get past the electorate any time soon.kingstongraham said:What would the process to rejoin the single market look like, and how long would it take?
Please ignore the fact that it will not happen while we have a bunch of ideological headbangers who don't care about the prosperity and wellbeing of this country in charge.
You've got your chart, so off you go...
Thanks again.
I still think your answer should have been "I don't know". I don't know either.0 -
I posted the report on the Select Committee where they discussed joining the EEA along with Liechtenstein, Norway, etc. That did shed some light but not a lot.kingstongraham said:
You replied to my question "What would the process to rejoin the single market look like, and how long would it take?" with some random words about a referendum to consider rejoining the EU. It's just up there in this quoted thread ^Stevo_666 said:
I only saw a statement: "I haven't mentioned anything about rejoining the EU."kingstongraham said:
I think your answer to my question is "I don't know".Stevo_666 said:
What's the plan then?kingstongraham said:
I haven't mentioned anything about rejoining the EU.Stevo_666 said:
No problem. The EU policy on what new entrants would need to adopt would need checking separately though.kingstongraham said:
You need to post your chart with the single market and EU compared again, maybe?Stevo_666 said:
It would probably start with a referendum. Which I would have thought is the biggest challenge - as I recall the EU requires all new entrants to adopt the single currency and other things from which we had opt outs when we were in. Not sure that's going to get past the electorate any time soon.kingstongraham said:What would the process to rejoin the single market look like, and how long would it take?
Please ignore the fact that it will not happen while we have a bunch of ideological headbangers who don't care about the prosperity and wellbeing of this country in charge.
You've got your chart, so off you go...
Thanks again.
I still think your answer should have been "I don't know". I don't know either.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Oh that. Not sure about the process, but if hasn't got the proverbial snowball's chance in hell of getting past a referendum, there's not much point considering the fine detail of any subsequent steps in my books.kingstongraham said:
You replied to my question "What would the process to rejoin the single market look like, and how long would it take?" with some random words about a referendum to consider rejoining the EU. It's just up there in this quoted thread ^Stevo_666 said:
I only saw a statement: "I haven't mentioned anything about rejoining the EU."kingstongraham said:
I think your answer to my question is "I don't know".Stevo_666 said:
What's the plan then?kingstongraham said:
I haven't mentioned anything about rejoining the EU.Stevo_666 said:
No problem. The EU policy on what new entrants would need to adopt would need checking separately though.kingstongraham said:
You need to post your chart with the single market and EU compared again, maybe?Stevo_666 said:
It would probably start with a referendum. Which I would have thought is the biggest challenge - as I recall the EU requires all new entrants to adopt the single currency and other things from which we had opt outs when we were in. Not sure that's going to get past the electorate any time soon.kingstongraham said:What would the process to rejoin the single market look like, and how long would it take?
Please ignore the fact that it will not happen while we have a bunch of ideological headbangers who don't care about the prosperity and wellbeing of this country in charge.
You've got your chart, so off you go...
Thanks again.
I still think your answer should have been "I don't know". I don't know either."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Was a good post. Set out how it would be better than not being in, but I don't think there exist any process on how a country would join it, because nobody has done it since the single market existed.rjsterry said:
I posted the report on the Select Committee where they discussed joining the EEA along with Liechtenstein, Norway, etc. That did shed some light but not a lot.kingstongraham said:
You replied to my question "What would the process to rejoin the single market look like, and how long would it take?" with some random words about a referendum to consider rejoining the EU. It's just up there in this quoted thread ^Stevo_666 said:
I only saw a statement: "I haven't mentioned anything about rejoining the EU."kingstongraham said:
I think your answer to my question is "I don't know".Stevo_666 said:
What's the plan then?kingstongraham said:
I haven't mentioned anything about rejoining the EU.Stevo_666 said:
No problem. The EU policy on what new entrants would need to adopt would need checking separately though.kingstongraham said:
You need to post your chart with the single market and EU compared again, maybe?Stevo_666 said:
It would probably start with a referendum. Which I would have thought is the biggest challenge - as I recall the EU requires all new entrants to adopt the single currency and other things from which we had opt outs when we were in. Not sure that's going to get past the electorate any time soon.kingstongraham said:What would the process to rejoin the single market look like, and how long would it take?
Please ignore the fact that it will not happen while we have a bunch of ideological headbangers who don't care about the prosperity and wellbeing of this country in charge.
You've got your chart, so off you go...
Thanks again.
I still think your answer should have been "I don't know". I don't know either.
I don't see why we would need a referendum to join the single market, we didn't have one to join last time, or to leave it.0 -
Given how big an issue Brexit was until recently, I think the reality is that joining the single market would need a referendum. As such a move would create a very big stir.kingstongraham said:
Was a good post. Set out how it would be better than not being in, but I don't think there exist any process on how a country would join it, because nobody has done it since the single market existed.rjsterry said:
I posted the report on the Select Committee where they discussed joining the EEA along with Liechtenstein, Norway, etc. That did shed some light but not a lot.kingstongraham said:
You replied to my question "What would the process to rejoin the single market look like, and how long would it take?" with some random words about a referendum to consider rejoining the EU. It's just up there in this quoted thread ^Stevo_666 said:
I only saw a statement: "I haven't mentioned anything about rejoining the EU."kingstongraham said:
I think your answer to my question is "I don't know".Stevo_666 said:
What's the plan then?kingstongraham said:
I haven't mentioned anything about rejoining the EU.Stevo_666 said:
No problem. The EU policy on what new entrants would need to adopt would need checking separately though.kingstongraham said:
You need to post your chart with the single market and EU compared again, maybe?Stevo_666 said:
It would probably start with a referendum. Which I would have thought is the biggest challenge - as I recall the EU requires all new entrants to adopt the single currency and other things from which we had opt outs when we were in. Not sure that's going to get past the electorate any time soon.kingstongraham said:What would the process to rejoin the single market look like, and how long would it take?
Please ignore the fact that it will not happen while we have a bunch of ideological headbangers who don't care about the prosperity and wellbeing of this country in charge.
You've got your chart, so off you go...
Thanks again.
I still think your answer should have been "I don't know". I don't know either.
I don't see why we would need a referendum to join the single market, we didn't have one to join last time, or to leave it."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
If not a referendum then at least a very clear election result with the winning party advocating joining as a key manifesto pledge (ha) might do it but I think you are right that it would need to be seen to have broad support. Regardless of the mechanism I think it would need more clear space between it and this government to stand a chance of having a fair hearing, so again we are talking decades not years.Stevo_666 said:
Given how big an issue Brexit was until recently, I think the reality is that joining the single market would need a referendum. As such a move would create a very big stir.kingstongraham said:
Was a good post. Set out how it would be better than not being in, but I don't think there exist any process on how a country would join it, because nobody has done it since the single market existed.rjsterry said:
I posted the report on the Select Committee where they discussed joining the EEA along with Liechtenstein, Norway, etc. That did shed some light but not a lot.kingstongraham said:
You replied to my question "What would the process to rejoin the single market look like, and how long would it take?" with some random words about a referendum to consider rejoining the EU. It's just up there in this quoted thread ^Stevo_666 said:
I only saw a statement: "I haven't mentioned anything about rejoining the EU."kingstongraham said:
I think your answer to my question is "I don't know".Stevo_666 said:
What's the plan then?kingstongraham said:
I haven't mentioned anything about rejoining the EU.Stevo_666 said:
No problem. The EU policy on what new entrants would need to adopt would need checking separately though.kingstongraham said:
You need to post your chart with the single market and EU compared again, maybe?Stevo_666 said:
It would probably start with a referendum. Which I would have thought is the biggest challenge - as I recall the EU requires all new entrants to adopt the single currency and other things from which we had opt outs when we were in. Not sure that's going to get past the electorate any time soon.kingstongraham said:What would the process to rejoin the single market look like, and how long would it take?
Please ignore the fact that it will not happen while we have a bunch of ideological headbangers who don't care about the prosperity and wellbeing of this country in charge.
You've got your chart, so off you go...
Thanks again.
I still think your answer should have been "I don't know". I don't know either.
I don't see why we would need a referendum to join the single market, we didn't have one to join last time, or to leave it.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
-
Brexiteers were big fans of the Swedish pandemic strategy too.TheBigBean said:Ireland IKEA having supply issues. Unrelated to Brexit, but it seems to be the thread for such news.
Telling
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
From that viewpoint Brexit will never be donetailwindhome said:Brexit isn't done yet
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/charts/border-changes
0 -
Come on mate. I know four people that live in London and the streets are full of cars. Someone owns them. So maybe I have been too specific in my prior statement so thanks for being pedantic. However the point still stands if you care to take a look on a lot of London's streets may e Google earth is lying and has placed imaginary cars there.rjsterry said:
No. We don't. We have functioning public transport because there are enough of us in a small space to make it worthwhile. We also live within a cyclable distance of work. There is sailing and kayaking in the docks or the River Lea if that's your thing. I have a book of 50 walks - all decent length in nice countryside (granted no mountains) and all within 1hr of Central London railway station. There are numerous climbing walls. Have you ever actually visited a city?john80 said:
I don't get the last paragraph however I don't have to live somewhere to have a view on the situation. You think it is dandy and I don't. The problem is that to significantly improve the quality of life of those that live there you are going to have to go pretty big and I don't think that is realistic. The main issue is that everyone needs something different. City dwellers all drive cars when in reality if they got rid of them and changed the infrastructure round to cycling, walking and zero emission public transport they would be better off assuming they work locally. Myself in the sticks I can get a zero emission vehicle but the distances are too large and the population too sparse to make the above work.surrey_commuter said:
OK, I am genuinely baffled.john80 said:
Given motorways are the local roads now maybe the answer is a second set of them for automated cars. At least 50 miles between exits and automated cars only. Could be the new form of public transport that is door to door. You just have to drive the first and last 50 miles yourself. We need to face facts that is the population growth wanters get their way we need to either start growing cities up to reduce urban sprawl and keep mass transport systems efficient. Or we need to start developing the less well connected parts of the country and this means getting transport door to door in an efficient manner. Alternatively we can just turn the South West into a housing estate and live with the consequences. As has been pointed out I only have to deal with this about 10-20 times a year so crack on.rjsterry said:
So we now need a motorway with no connections to the surroundings? I grew up a couple of miles from the M4/M5 interchange. Bank Holiday jams on the M5 have been happening for at least the last 40-odd years; long before most of these housing developments were built.john80 said:
The guys that commute on the m5 might have a different take on this. We allowed an excessive number of junctions and housing developments next to them. Should we then deliver a rubbish experience when you use them as well.rjsterry said:
Building more motorways for the couple of weekends a year that everyone wants to drive to Cornwall is about as daft as it gets.john80 said:
M6 version two slap bang down the middle of the country. More roads into Cornwall or any other areas where there is congestion.surrey_commuter said:
I am not against building motorways but do think you get more bang for your buck upgrading existing routes, like the A14 you mentioned.john80 said:
Every freight train I have ever seen pulling loads is a couple of diesel locomotives. Not sure that is the green answer you are looking for. When we all have electric vehicles and most of our power comes from carbon free sources why are we bothered about trains when they don't take those outside cities from door to door. This is the elephant in the room the greens miss in that if technology makes something green then they lose their objection. Why not another motorway when everything on it is green for example.elbowloh said:
Your experience is completely wrong, which is why we're investing in rail.rick_chasey said:I get that we are in a sort of neo victorian world where we have to rely on a few ultra rich benefactors to make interesting technological developments and blame the poor for their own poverty, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised everyone gets a hard on over rail.
My experience of rail is that it is abhorrently expensive and British rail cannot cope with any increased demand, and any attempt to improve capacity is met with shrieking nimbyism that massively increases the cost of it.
Plus we need to if we want to meet climate change targets.
Where would you build new motorway (s)
The M25 is 5 or 6 lanes in each direction in places now and still comes to a halt regularly. There is no motorway that can be built that won't fill up with traffic as soon as it's open.
From previous conversations we know that some people on here (including myself) believe that it is possible to be inside the M25 and be in the sticks. There are other people who would rather chew their arm off than live within 50 miles of London.
As you live in the least densely populated part on England I am assuming that you are in the latter category. What I do not get is why you are so worked up about the population density in the south east?
I love the tower blocks and think the previously mentioned Elephant and Castle was a total sh1thole that should have been bulldozed long ago and that the new tower blocks are beautiful. What I don't do is get angry about the lack of towers in Hawkshead and the lack of decent restaurants and in particular the absence of authentic foreign cuisine.
So I have tried not to be confrontational because I am genuinely interested in the population density where you don't live and have no reason to go?
As a side line to this unless your hobbies are exclusively related to city life then using public transport is pretty awkward. Kayaking in a lake, going to a sailing event or going walking are all pretty difficult without a car. Me giving you my view on the state of current UK cities is not getting angry it is just giving you my view.0 -
john80 said:
Come on mate. I know four people that live in London and the streets are full of cars. Someone owns them. So maybe I have been too specific in my prior statement so thanks for being pedantic. However the point still stands if you care to take a look on a lot of London's streets may e Google earth is lying and has placed imaginary cars there.rjsterry said:
No. We don't. We have functioning public transport because there are enough of us in a small space to make it worthwhile. We also live within a cyclable distance of work. There is sailing and kayaking in the docks or the River Lea if that's your thing. I have a book of 50 walks - all decent length in nice countryside (granted no mountains) and all within 1hr of Central London railway station. There are numerous climbing walls. Have you ever actually visited a city?john80 said:
I don't get the last paragraph however I don't have to live somewhere to have a view on the situation. You think it is dandy and I don't. The problem is that to significantly improve the quality of life of those that live there you are going to have to go pretty big and I don't think that is realistic. The main issue is that everyone needs something different. City dwellers all drive cars when in reality if they got rid of them and changed the infrastructure round to cycling, walking and zero emission public transport they would be better off assuming they work locally. Myself in the sticks I can get a zero emission vehicle but the distances are too large and the population too sparse to make the above work.surrey_commuter said:
OK, I am genuinely baffled.john80 said:
Given motorways are the local roads now maybe the answer is a second set of them for automated cars. At least 50 miles between exits and automated cars only. Could be the new form of public transport that is door to door. You just have to drive the first and last 50 miles yourself. We need to face facts that is the population growth wanters get their way we need to either start growing cities up to reduce urban sprawl and keep mass transport systems efficient. Or we need to start developing the less well connected parts of the country and this means getting transport door to door in an efficient manner. Alternatively we can just turn the South West into a housing estate and live with the consequences. As has been pointed out I only have to deal with this about 10-20 times a year so crack on.rjsterry said:
So we now need a motorway with no connections to the surroundings? I grew up a couple of miles from the M4/M5 interchange. Bank Holiday jams on the M5 have been happening for at least the last 40-odd years; long before most of these housing developments were built.john80 said:
The guys that commute on the m5 might have a different take on this. We allowed an excessive number of junctions and housing developments next to them. Should we then deliver a rubbish experience when you use them as well.rjsterry said:
Building more motorways for the couple of weekends a year that everyone wants to drive to Cornwall is about as daft as it gets.john80 said:
M6 version two slap bang down the middle of the country. More roads into Cornwall or any other areas where there is congestion.surrey_commuter said:
I am not against building motorways but do think you get more bang for your buck upgrading existing routes, like the A14 you mentioned.john80 said:
Every freight train I have ever seen pulling loads is a couple of diesel locomotives. Not sure that is the green answer you are looking for. When we all have electric vehicles and most of our power comes from carbon free sources why are we bothered about trains when they don't take those outside cities from door to door. This is the elephant in the room the greens miss in that if technology makes something green then they lose their objection. Why not another motorway when everything on it is green for example.elbowloh said:
Your experience is completely wrong, which is why we're investing in rail.rick_chasey said:I get that we are in a sort of neo victorian world where we have to rely on a few ultra rich benefactors to make interesting technological developments and blame the poor for their own poverty, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised everyone gets a hard on over rail.
My experience of rail is that it is abhorrently expensive and British rail cannot cope with any increased demand, and any attempt to improve capacity is met with shrieking nimbyism that massively increases the cost of it.
Plus we need to if we want to meet climate change targets.
Where would you build new motorway (s)
The M25 is 5 or 6 lanes in each direction in places now and still comes to a halt regularly. There is no motorway that can be built that won't fill up with traffic as soon as it's open.
From previous conversations we know that some people on here (including myself) believe that it is possible to be inside the M25 and be in the sticks. There are other people who would rather chew their arm off than live within 50 miles of London.
As you live in the least densely populated part on England I am assuming that you are in the latter category. What I do not get is why you are so worked up about the population density in the south east?
I love the tower blocks and think the previously mentioned Elephant and Castle was a total sh1thole that should have been bulldozed long ago and that the new tower blocks are beautiful. What I don't do is get angry about the lack of towers in Hawkshead and the lack of decent restaurants and in particular the absence of authentic foreign cuisine.
So I have tried not to be confrontational because I am genuinely interested in the population density where you don't live and have no reason to go?
As a side line to this unless your hobbies are exclusively related to city life then using public transport is pretty awkward. Kayaking in a lake, going to a sailing event or going walking are all pretty difficult without a car. Me giving you my view on the state of current UK cities is not getting angry it is just giving you my view.
- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
Some of my best friends are londoners....pangolin said:john80 said:
Come on mate. I know four people that live in London and the streets are full of cars. Someone owns them. So maybe I have been too specific in my prior statement so thanks for being pedantic. However the point still stands if you care to take a look on a lot of London's streets may e Google earth is lying and has placed imaginary cars there.rjsterry said:
No. We don't. We have functioning public transport because there are enough of us in a small space to make it worthwhile. We also live within a cyclable distance of work. There is sailing and kayaking in the docks or the River Lea if that's your thing. I have a book of 50 walks - all decent length in nice countryside (granted no mountains) and all within 1hr of Central London railway station. There are numerous climbing walls. Have you ever actually visited a city?john80 said:
I don't get the last paragraph however I don't have to live somewhere to have a view on the situation. You think it is dandy and I don't. The problem is that to significantly improve the quality of life of those that live there you are going to have to go pretty big and I don't think that is realistic. The main issue is that everyone needs something different. City dwellers all drive cars when in reality if they got rid of them and changed the infrastructure round to cycling, walking and zero emission public transport they would be better off assuming they work locally. Myself in the sticks I can get a zero emission vehicle but the distances are too large and the population too sparse to make the above work.surrey_commuter said:
OK, I am genuinely baffled.john80 said:
Given motorways are the local roads now maybe the answer is a second set of them for automated cars. At least 50 miles between exits and automated cars only. Could be the new form of public transport that is door to door. You just have to drive the first and last 50 miles yourself. We need to face facts that is the population growth wanters get their way we need to either start growing cities up to reduce urban sprawl and keep mass transport systems efficient. Or we need to start developing the less well connected parts of the country and this means getting transport door to door in an efficient manner. Alternatively we can just turn the South West into a housing estate and live with the consequences. As has been pointed out I only have to deal with this about 10-20 times a year so crack on.rjsterry said:
So we now need a motorway with no connections to the surroundings? I grew up a couple of miles from the M4/M5 interchange. Bank Holiday jams on the M5 have been happening for at least the last 40-odd years; long before most of these housing developments were built.john80 said:
The guys that commute on the m5 might have a different take on this. We allowed an excessive number of junctions and housing developments next to them. Should we then deliver a rubbish experience when you use them as well.rjsterry said:
Building more motorways for the couple of weekends a year that everyone wants to drive to Cornwall is about as daft as it gets.john80 said:
M6 version two slap bang down the middle of the country. More roads into Cornwall or any other areas where there is congestion.surrey_commuter said:
I am not against building motorways but do think you get more bang for your buck upgrading existing routes, like the A14 you mentioned.john80 said:
Every freight train I have ever seen pulling loads is a couple of diesel locomotives. Not sure that is the green answer you are looking for. When we all have electric vehicles and most of our power comes from carbon free sources why are we bothered about trains when they don't take those outside cities from door to door. This is the elephant in the room the greens miss in that if technology makes something green then they lose their objection. Why not another motorway when everything on it is green for example.elbowloh said:
Your experience is completely wrong, which is why we're investing in rail.rick_chasey said:I get that we are in a sort of neo victorian world where we have to rely on a few ultra rich benefactors to make interesting technological developments and blame the poor for their own poverty, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised everyone gets a hard on over rail.
My experience of rail is that it is abhorrently expensive and British rail cannot cope with any increased demand, and any attempt to improve capacity is met with shrieking nimbyism that massively increases the cost of it.
Plus we need to if we want to meet climate change targets.
Where would you build new motorway (s)
The M25 is 5 or 6 lanes in each direction in places now and still comes to a halt regularly. There is no motorway that can be built that won't fill up with traffic as soon as it's open.
From previous conversations we know that some people on here (including myself) believe that it is possible to be inside the M25 and be in the sticks. There are other people who would rather chew their arm off than live within 50 miles of London.
As you live in the least densely populated part on England I am assuming that you are in the latter category. What I do not get is why you are so worked up about the population density in the south east?
I love the tower blocks and think the previously mentioned Elephant and Castle was a total sh1thole that should have been bulldozed long ago and that the new tower blocks are beautiful. What I don't do is get angry about the lack of towers in Hawkshead and the lack of decent restaurants and in particular the absence of authentic foreign cuisine.
So I have tried not to be confrontational because I am genuinely interested in the population density where you don't live and have no reason to go?
As a side line to this unless your hobbies are exclusively related to city life then using public transport is pretty awkward. Kayaking in a lake, going to a sailing event or going walking are all pretty difficult without a car. Me giving you my view on the state of current UK cities is not getting angry it is just giving you my view. 0 -
Some figures.john80 said:
Come on mate. I know four people that live in London and the streets are full of cars. Someone owns them. So maybe I have been too specific in my prior statement so thanks for being pedantic. However the point still stands if you care to take a look on a lot of London's streets may e Google earth is lying and has placed imaginary cars there.rjsterry said:
No. We don't. We have functioning public transport because there are enough of us in a small space to make it worthwhile. We also live within a cyclable distance of work. There is sailing and kayaking in the docks or the River Lea if that's your thing. I have a book of 50 walks - all decent length in nice countryside (granted no mountains) and all within 1hr of Central London railway station. There are numerous climbing walls. Have you ever actually visited a city?john80 said:
I don't get the last paragraph however I don't have to live somewhere to have a view on the situation. You think it is dandy and I don't. The problem is that to significantly improve the quality of life of those that live there you are going to have to go pretty big and I don't think that is realistic. The main issue is that everyone needs something different. City dwellers all drive cars when in reality if they got rid of them and changed the infrastructure round to cycling, walking and zero emission public transport they would be better off assuming they work locally. Myself in the sticks I can get a zero emission vehicle but the distances are too large and the population too sparse to make the above work.surrey_commuter said:
OK, I am genuinely baffled.john80 said:
Given motorways are the local roads now maybe the answer is a second set of them for automated cars. At least 50 miles between exits and automated cars only. Could be the new form of public transport that is door to door. You just have to drive the first and last 50 miles yourself. We need to face facts that is the population growth wanters get their way we need to either start growing cities up to reduce urban sprawl and keep mass transport systems efficient. Or we need to start developing the less well connected parts of the country and this means getting transport door to door in an efficient manner. Alternatively we can just turn the South West into a housing estate and live with the consequences. As has been pointed out I only have to deal with this about 10-20 times a year so crack on.rjsterry said:
So we now need a motorway with no connections to the surroundings? I grew up a couple of miles from the M4/M5 interchange. Bank Holiday jams on the M5 have been happening for at least the last 40-odd years; long before most of these housing developments were built.john80 said:
The guys that commute on the m5 might have a different take on this. We allowed an excessive number of junctions and housing developments next to them. Should we then deliver a rubbish experience when you use them as well.rjsterry said:
Building more motorways for the couple of weekends a year that everyone wants to drive to Cornwall is about as daft as it gets.john80 said:
M6 version two slap bang down the middle of the country. More roads into Cornwall or any other areas where there is congestion.surrey_commuter said:
I am not against building motorways but do think you get more bang for your buck upgrading existing routes, like the A14 you mentioned.john80 said:
Every freight train I have ever seen pulling loads is a couple of diesel locomotives. Not sure that is the green answer you are looking for. When we all have electric vehicles and most of our power comes from carbon free sources why are we bothered about trains when they don't take those outside cities from door to door. This is the elephant in the room the greens miss in that if technology makes something green then they lose their objection. Why not another motorway when everything on it is green for example.elbowloh said:
Your experience is completely wrong, which is why we're investing in rail.rick_chasey said:I get that we are in a sort of neo victorian world where we have to rely on a few ultra rich benefactors to make interesting technological developments and blame the poor for their own poverty, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised everyone gets a hard on over rail.
My experience of rail is that it is abhorrently expensive and British rail cannot cope with any increased demand, and any attempt to improve capacity is met with shrieking nimbyism that massively increases the cost of it.
Plus we need to if we want to meet climate change targets.
Where would you build new motorway (s)
The M25 is 5 or 6 lanes in each direction in places now and still comes to a halt regularly. There is no motorway that can be built that won't fill up with traffic as soon as it's open.
From previous conversations we know that some people on here (including myself) believe that it is possible to be inside the M25 and be in the sticks. There are other people who would rather chew their arm off than live within 50 miles of London.
As you live in the least densely populated part on England I am assuming that you are in the latter category. What I do not get is why you are so worked up about the population density in the south east?
I love the tower blocks and think the previously mentioned Elephant and Castle was a total sh1thole that should have been bulldozed long ago and that the new tower blocks are beautiful. What I don't do is get angry about the lack of towers in Hawkshead and the lack of decent restaurants and in particular the absence of authentic foreign cuisine.
So I have tried not to be confrontational because I am genuinely interested in the population density where you don't live and have no reason to go?
As a side line to this unless your hobbies are exclusively related to city life then using public transport is pretty awkward. Kayaking in a lake, going to a sailing event or going walking are all pretty difficult without a car. Me giving you my view on the state of current UK cities is not getting angry it is just giving you my view.There are 2.56m cars licensed in London. This equates to an average of 0.3 cars per adult. In total, 46 per cent of households do not have a car, 40 per cent have one car and 12 per cent have two or more cars, with very few households owning more than two cars.
Figures for Cumbria are notably higher at 70% of households with access to one or more cars.
The roads are still busy because London is a big place with roughly 20 times the population of Cumbria.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition1 -
If I have read your figures correctly London has 40% plus 12% means 52% of Londoners have a car parked outside there house. Cumbria 70% of households have a car parked outside. So for a county with little to no public transport we have not many more cars outside houses compared to a city with excellent in comparison transport links. It is almost as if most Londoners want or need a car. Go figure.rjsterry said:
Some figures.john80 said:
Come on mate. I know four people that live in London and the streets are full of cars. Someone owns them. So maybe I have been too specific in my prior statement so thanks for being pedantic. However the point still stands if you care to take a look on a lot of London's streets may e Google earth is lying and has placed imaginary cars there.rjsterry said:
No. We don't. We have functioning public transport because there are enough of us in a small space to make it worthwhile. We also live within a cyclable distance of work. There is sailing and kayaking in the docks or the River Lea if that's your thing. I have a book of 50 walks - all decent length in nice countryside (granted no mountains) and all within 1hr of Central London railway station. There are numerous climbing walls. Have you ever actually visited a city?john80 said:
I don't get the last paragraph however I don't have to live somewhere to have a view on the situation. You think it is dandy and I don't. The problem is that to significantly improve the quality of life of those that live there you are going to have to go pretty big and I don't think that is realistic. The main issue is that everyone needs something different. City dwellers all drive cars when in reality if they got rid of them and changed the infrastructure round to cycling, walking and zero emission public transport they would be better off assuming they work locally. Myself in the sticks I can get a zero emission vehicle but the distances are too large and the population too sparse to make the above work.surrey_commuter said:
OK, I am genuinely baffled.john80 said:
Given motorways are the local roads now maybe the answer is a second set of them for automated cars. At least 50 miles between exits and automated cars only. Could be the new form of public transport that is door to door. You just have to drive the first and last 50 miles yourself. We need to face facts that is the population growth wanters get their way we need to either start growing cities up to reduce urban sprawl and keep mass transport systems efficient. Or we need to start developing the less well connected parts of the country and this means getting transport door to door in an efficient manner. Alternatively we can just turn the South West into a housing estate and live with the consequences. As has been pointed out I only have to deal with this about 10-20 times a year so crack on.rjsterry said:
So we now need a motorway with no connections to the surroundings? I grew up a couple of miles from the M4/M5 interchange. Bank Holiday jams on the M5 have been happening for at least the last 40-odd years; long before most of these housing developments were built.john80 said:
The guys that commute on the m5 might have a different take on this. We allowed an excessive number of junctions and housing developments next to them. Should we then deliver a rubbish experience when you use them as well.rjsterry said:
Building more motorways for the couple of weekends a year that everyone wants to drive to Cornwall is about as daft as it gets.john80 said:
M6 version two slap bang down the middle of the country. More roads into Cornwall or any other areas where there is congestion.surrey_commuter said:
I am not against building motorways but do think you get more bang for your buck upgrading existing routes, like the A14 you mentioned.john80 said:
Every freight train I have ever seen pulling loads is a couple of diesel locomotives. Not sure that is the green answer you are looking for. When we all have electric vehicles and most of our power comes from carbon free sources why are we bothered about trains when they don't take those outside cities from door to door. This is the elephant in the room the greens miss in that if technology makes something green then they lose their objection. Why not another motorway when everything on it is green for example.elbowloh said:
Your experience is completely wrong, which is why we're investing in rail.rick_chasey said:I get that we are in a sort of neo victorian world where we have to rely on a few ultra rich benefactors to make interesting technological developments and blame the poor for their own poverty, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised everyone gets a hard on over rail.
My experience of rail is that it is abhorrently expensive and British rail cannot cope with any increased demand, and any attempt to improve capacity is met with shrieking nimbyism that massively increases the cost of it.
Plus we need to if we want to meet climate change targets.
Where would you build new motorway (s)
The M25 is 5 or 6 lanes in each direction in places now and still comes to a halt regularly. There is no motorway that can be built that won't fill up with traffic as soon as it's open.
From previous conversations we know that some people on here (including myself) believe that it is possible to be inside the M25 and be in the sticks. There are other people who would rather chew their arm off than live within 50 miles of London.
As you live in the least densely populated part on England I am assuming that you are in the latter category. What I do not get is why you are so worked up about the population density in the south east?
I love the tower blocks and think the previously mentioned Elephant and Castle was a total sh1thole that should have been bulldozed long ago and that the new tower blocks are beautiful. What I don't do is get angry about the lack of towers in Hawkshead and the lack of decent restaurants and in particular the absence of authentic foreign cuisine.
So I have tried not to be confrontational because I am genuinely interested in the population density where you don't live and have no reason to go?
As a side line to this unless your hobbies are exclusively related to city life then using public transport is pretty awkward. Kayaking in a lake, going to a sailing event or going walking are all pretty difficult without a car. Me giving you my view on the state of current UK cities is not getting angry it is just giving you my view.There are 2.56m cars licensed in London. This equates to an average of 0.3 cars per adult. In total, 46 per cent of households do not have a car, 40 per cent have one car and 12 per cent have two or more cars, with very few households owning more than two cars.
Figures for Cumbria are notably higher at 70% of households with access to one or more cars.
The roads are still busy because London is a big place with roughly 20 times the population of Cumbria.0 -
What do the 2% do?0
-
We need them to go places that don't have decent public transport.john80 said:
If I have read your figures correctly London has 40% plus 12% means 52% of Londoners have a car parked outside there house. Cumbria 70% of households have a car parked outside. So for a county with little to no public transport we have not many more cars outside houses compared to a city with excellent in comparison transport links. It is almost as if most Londoners want or need a car. Go figure.rjsterry said:
Some figures.john80 said:
Come on mate. I know four people that live in London and the streets are full of cars. Someone owns them. So maybe I have been too specific in my prior statement so thanks for being pedantic. However the point still stands if you care to take a look on a lot of London's streets may e Google earth is lying and has placed imaginary cars there.rjsterry said:
No. We don't. We have functioning public transport because there are enough of us in a small space to make it worthwhile. We also live within a cyclable distance of work. There is sailing and kayaking in the docks or the River Lea if that's your thing. I have a book of 50 walks - all decent length in nice countryside (granted no mountains) and all within 1hr of Central London railway station. There are numerous climbing walls. Have you ever actually visited a city?john80 said:
I don't get the last paragraph however I don't have to live somewhere to have a view on the situation. You think it is dandy and I don't. The problem is that to significantly improve the quality of life of those that live there you are going to have to go pretty big and I don't think that is realistic. The main issue is that everyone needs something different. City dwellers all drive cars when in reality if they got rid of them and changed the infrastructure round to cycling, walking and zero emission public transport they would be better off assuming they work locally. Myself in the sticks I can get a zero emission vehicle but the distances are too large and the population too sparse to make the above work.surrey_commuter said:
OK, I am genuinely baffled.john80 said:
Given motorways are the local roads now maybe the answer is a second set of them for automated cars. At least 50 miles between exits and automated cars only. Could be the new form of public transport that is door to door. You just have to drive the first and last 50 miles yourself. We need to face facts that is the population growth wanters get their way we need to either start growing cities up to reduce urban sprawl and keep mass transport systems efficient. Or we need to start developing the less well connected parts of the country and this means getting transport door to door in an efficient manner. Alternatively we can just turn the South West into a housing estate and live with the consequences. As has been pointed out I only have to deal with this about 10-20 times a year so crack on.rjsterry said:
So we now need a motorway with no connections to the surroundings? I grew up a couple of miles from the M4/M5 interchange. Bank Holiday jams on the M5 have been happening for at least the last 40-odd years; long before most of these housing developments were built.john80 said:
The guys that commute on the m5 might have a different take on this. We allowed an excessive number of junctions and housing developments next to them. Should we then deliver a rubbish experience when you use them as well.rjsterry said:
Building more motorways for the couple of weekends a year that everyone wants to drive to Cornwall is about as daft as it gets.john80 said:
M6 version two slap bang down the middle of the country. More roads into Cornwall or any other areas where there is congestion.surrey_commuter said:
I am not against building motorways but do think you get more bang for your buck upgrading existing routes, like the A14 you mentioned.john80 said:
Every freight train I have ever seen pulling loads is a couple of diesel locomotives. Not sure that is the green answer you are looking for. When we all have electric vehicles and most of our power comes from carbon free sources why are we bothered about trains when they don't take those outside cities from door to door. This is the elephant in the room the greens miss in that if technology makes something green then they lose their objection. Why not another motorway when everything on it is green for example.elbowloh said:
Your experience is completely wrong, which is why we're investing in rail.rick_chasey said:I get that we are in a sort of neo victorian world where we have to rely on a few ultra rich benefactors to make interesting technological developments and blame the poor for their own poverty, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised everyone gets a hard on over rail.
My experience of rail is that it is abhorrently expensive and British rail cannot cope with any increased demand, and any attempt to improve capacity is met with shrieking nimbyism that massively increases the cost of it.
Plus we need to if we want to meet climate change targets.
Where would you build new motorway (s)
The M25 is 5 or 6 lanes in each direction in places now and still comes to a halt regularly. There is no motorway that can be built that won't fill up with traffic as soon as it's open.
From previous conversations we know that some people on here (including myself) believe that it is possible to be inside the M25 and be in the sticks. There are other people who would rather chew their arm off than live within 50 miles of London.
As you live in the least densely populated part on England I am assuming that you are in the latter category. What I do not get is why you are so worked up about the population density in the south east?
I love the tower blocks and think the previously mentioned Elephant and Castle was a total sh1thole that should have been bulldozed long ago and that the new tower blocks are beautiful. What I don't do is get angry about the lack of towers in Hawkshead and the lack of decent restaurants and in particular the absence of authentic foreign cuisine.
So I have tried not to be confrontational because I am genuinely interested in the population density where you don't live and have no reason to go?
As a side line to this unless your hobbies are exclusively related to city life then using public transport is pretty awkward. Kayaking in a lake, going to a sailing event or going walking are all pretty difficult without a car. Me giving you my view on the state of current UK cities is not getting angry it is just giving you my view.There are 2.56m cars licensed in London. This equates to an average of 0.3 cars per adult. In total, 46 per cent of households do not have a car, 40 per cent have one car and 12 per cent have two or more cars, with very few households owning more than two cars.
Figures for Cumbria are notably higher at 70% of households with access to one or more cars.
The roads are still busy because London is a big place with roughly 20 times the population of Cumbria.0
