Cars, cars, cars...

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

Basically speaking the government/councils need to subsidise unprofitable PT routes. Privatisation alone will never work.
Then make using cars cost prohibitive. This will be seen as a tax on the poor and workers so will not fly.
What would help most is if people could find cost neutral, career equal, jobs close to home*. Top salary might be lost but that can be offset by travel savings both in money and time.

*This is based on a theory that there are people travelling from town A to work in town B while others are doing the reverse for the same jobs.

Yeah, part of it is loosening up the house-building market so we can build houses where the jobs are.

Wrong way around. Build the jobs where people live. The UK is already suffering because London is a bottleneck. We are one of the most centralised countries in Europe. This isn't a good thing.

Thank you, comrade. So that's agreed we will allocate 10,000 employment contracts to Tyneside. The ministry will be in touch later to allocate roles to these contracts.

More seriously, development (housing and commercial property) has always followed employment, not the other way around.

How is thst working out?

Its an age old problem, but providing incentives for businesses to locate in different regions is a known thing.

Focusing solely on making London and the SE less awful or even more connected from even further away seems like being in a hole and frantically digging to me.

Any one been to Manchester recently? Seems to be working there.

London and the SE aren't awful. They're great. If you are going to build an economy around Finance and other services, it's likely to be focused around major urban centres. This will sound harsh but insisting unconnected industries relocate to places that only exist because of historic presence of raw materials is a hiding to nothing. Let them go the way of the abandoned medieval villages and start afresh where the work is.

No, I think you'll find London and the SE really are awful, you know. Just try getting around in a car. Or on a bike. Or on public transport.

You said "centres" i.e. plural. Was that by accident, or intentional? Because I'm going to stick my neck out and categorise Manchester as an urban centre. Is it better that the economic growth in Manchester in recent years (which has actually occurred, despite what RC says) took place in that city, or would it have been better if it had all been in London? Would it have been able to happen in London at all? Or would more of it had happened if it had taken place in London?

Genuinely interested.

If you say so. Really seems quite nice to me. Manchester is supposed to be a great place to live, too.

rjsterry

veronese68 said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

focuszing723 said:

Meh, WTF. Here's a Rimac Nevera for a couple of million quid.

Way more interesting than some philosophical debate about public transport. And more on topic as this is a thread about cars after all.

And for those without a couple of million burning a hole in their pockets, here's something that's great fun but much more affordable:


https://evo.co.uk/peugeot/peugeot-205-gti/205366/tolman-peugeot-205-gti-2022-review

I used to have 205gti, cracking fun.

They look so small now.

That bloke in the picture looks like he has an enormous head, probably because our expectation of car size is now skewed.

I almost wondered if it was a scale model.

briantrumpet

rjsterry said:

veronese68 said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

focuszing723 said:

Meh, WTF. Here's a Rimac Nevera for a couple of million quid.

Way more interesting than some philosophical debate about public transport. And more on topic as this is a thread about cars after all.

And for those without a couple of million burning a hole in their pockets, here's something that's great fun but much more affordable:


https://evo.co.uk/peugeot/peugeot-205-gti/205366/tolman-peugeot-205-gti-2022-review

I used to have 205gti, cracking fun.

They look so small now.

That bloke in the picture looks like he has an enormous head, probably because our expectation of car size is now skewed.

I almost wondered if it was a scale model.

veronese68

pblakeney said:

veronese68 said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

focuszing723 said:

Meh, WTF. Here's a Rimac Nevera for a couple of million quid.

Way more interesting than some philosophical debate about public transport. And more on topic as this is a thread about cars after all.

And for those without a couple of million burning a hole in their pockets, here's something that's great fun but much more affordable:


https://evo.co.uk/peugeot/peugeot-205-gti/205366/tolman-peugeot-205-gti-2022-review

I used to have 205gti, cracking fun.

They look so small now.

That bloke in the picture looks like he has an enormous head, probably because our expectation of car size is now skewed.

Tried getting in an original Mini recently?
I was shocked at how small they are. Way different from my memories.

My son had one until recently, I often had reports from friends of sightings of a black Mini with 5 big lads in suits passing them. The funnier ones were when he was giving his kid sister a lift to school, the lads were all very polite so there'd be 3 of them crammed in the back seat and she'd get the front.
Once when we were working on it a kid walking past with his parents asked why the car was so small. I told him he should ask his parents why there car was so big.
Son's now got a Mk1 Golf GTi convertible, it's still tiny compared to a modern car. But huge in comparison, and much better on a long run. Still good fun to drive.

briantrumpet

veronese68 said:

pblakeney said:

veronese68 said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

focuszing723 said:

Meh, WTF. Here's a Rimac Nevera for a couple of million quid.

Way more interesting than some philosophical debate about public transport. And more on topic as this is a thread about cars after all.

And for those without a couple of million burning a hole in their pockets, here's something that's great fun but much more affordable:


https://evo.co.uk/peugeot/peugeot-205-gti/205366/tolman-peugeot-205-gti-2022-review

I used to have 205gti, cracking fun.

They look so small now.

That bloke in the picture looks like he has an enormous head, probably because our expectation of car size is now skewed.

Tried getting in an original Mini recently?
I was shocked at how small they are. Way different from my memories.

My son had one until recently, I often had reports from friends of sightings of a black Mini with 5 big lads in suits passing them. The funnier ones were when he was giving his kid sister a lift to school, the lads were all very polite so there'd be 3 of them crammed in the back seat and she'd get the front.
Once when we were working on it a kid walking past with his parents asked why the car was so small. I told him he should ask his parents why there car was so big.
Son's now got a Mk1 Golf GTi convertible, it's still tiny compared to a modern car. But huge in comparison, and much better on a long run. Still good fun to drive.

I liked the fact that if two of you in the back seat swayed from side to side in unison, you could make a Mini sway all over the road.

Pross

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

Basically speaking the government/councils need to subsidise unprofitable PT routes. Privatisation alone will never work.
Then make using cars cost prohibitive. This will be seen as a tax on the poor and workers so will not fly.
What would help most is if people could find cost neutral, career equal, jobs close to home*. Top salary might be lost but that can be offset by travel savings both in money and time.

*This is based on a theory that there are people travelling from town A to work in town B while others are doing the reverse for the same jobs.

Yeah, part of it is loosening up the house-building market so we can build houses where the jobs are.

Wrong way around. Build the jobs where people live. The UK is already suffering because London is a bottleneck. We are one of the most centralised countries in Europe. This isn't a good thing.

Thank you, comrade. So that's agreed we will allocate 10,000 employment contracts to Tyneside. The ministry will be in touch later to allocate roles to these contracts.

More seriously, development (housing and commercial property) has always followed employment, not the other way around.

How is thst working out?

Its an age old problem, but providing incentives for businesses to locate in different regions is a known thing.

Focusing solely on making London and the SE less awful or even more connected from even further away seems like being in a hole and frantically digging to me.

Any one been to Manchester recently? Seems to be working there.

London and the SE aren't awful. They're great. If you are going to build an economy around Finance and other services, it's likely to be focused around major urban centres. This will sound harsh but insisting unconnected industries relocate to places that only exist because of historic presence of raw materials is a hiding to nothing. Let them go the way of the abandoned medieval villages and start afresh where the work is.

So we end up with one giant conurbation in the south-east, one in the Midlands and another in the north whilst everything else left abandoned? If that’s the solution to saving the planet I’ll be happy to be one of the casualties.

Dorset_Boy

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

Basically speaking the government/councils need to subsidise unprofitable PT routes. Privatisation alone will never work.
Then make using cars cost prohibitive. This will be seen as a tax on the poor and workers so will not fly.
What would help most is if people could find cost neutral, career equal, jobs close to home*. Top salary might be lost but that can be offset by travel savings both in money and time.

*This is based on a theory that there are people travelling from town A to work in town B while others are doing the reverse for the same jobs.

Yeah, part of it is loosening up the house-building market so we can build houses where the jobs are.

Wrong way around. Build the jobs where people live. The UK is already suffering because London is a bottleneck. We are one of the most centralised countries in Europe. This isn't a good thing.

Thank you, comrade. So that's agreed we will allocate 10,000 employment contracts to Tyneside. The ministry will be in touch later to allocate roles to these contracts.

More seriously, development (housing and commercial property) has always followed employment, not the other way around.

How is thst working out?

Its an age old problem, but providing incentives for businesses to locate in different regions is a known thing.

Focusing solely on making London and the SE less awful or even more connected from even further away seems like being in a hole and frantically digging to me.

Any one been to Manchester recently? Seems to be working there.

London and the SE aren't awful. They're great. If you are going to build an economy around Finance and other services, it's likely to be focused around major urban centres. This will sound harsh but insisting unconnected industries relocate to places that only exist because of historic presence of raw materials is a hiding to nothing. Let them go the way of the abandoned medieval villages and start afresh where the work is.

In 2022, there really is very little reason for financial services, legal services, accountancy services etc to be based in major urban centres. They can be done anywhere. There are plenty of truly excellent financial services companies that are not based in London, and are far more profitable and better businesses for it. A huge amont of the work invloved is not face to face with clients / customers stuff.

It would be far better for the country if all the focus for the last 25 years hadn't been on London, and the whole country would be wealthier as a result.

photonic69

briantrumpet said:

rjsterry said:

veronese68 said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

focuszing723 said:

Meh, WTF. Here's a Rimac Nevera for a couple of million quid.

Way more interesting than some philosophical debate about public transport. And more on topic as this is a thread about cars after all.

And for those without a couple of million burning a hole in their pockets, here's something that's great fun but much more affordable:


https://evo.co.uk/peugeot/peugeot-205-gti/205366/tolman-peugeot-205-gti-2022-review

I used to have 205gti, cracking fun.

They look so small now.

That bloke in the picture looks like he has an enormous head, probably because our expectation of car size is now skewed.

I almost wondered if it was a scale model.

I see your picture and raise you....

(Mini Cooper Countryman subcompact - one was parked outside my house and I almost puked. No way was it by any means a Mini. How very dare they!)

First.Aspect

Dorset_Boy said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

Basically speaking the government/councils need to subsidise unprofitable PT routes. Privatisation alone will never work.
Then make using cars cost prohibitive. This will be seen as a tax on the poor and workers so will not fly.
What would help most is if people could find cost neutral, career equal, jobs close to home*. Top salary might be lost but that can be offset by travel savings both in money and time.

*This is based on a theory that there are people travelling from town A to work in town B while others are doing the reverse for the same jobs.

Yeah, part of it is loosening up the house-building market so we can build houses where the jobs are.

Wrong way around. Build the jobs where people live. The UK is already suffering because London is a bottleneck. We are one of the most centralised countries in Europe. This isn't a good thing.

Thank you, comrade. So that's agreed we will allocate 10,000 employment contracts to Tyneside. The ministry will be in touch later to allocate roles to these contracts.

More seriously, development (housing and commercial property) has always followed employment, not the other way around.

How is thst working out?

Its an age old problem, but providing incentives for businesses to locate in different regions is a known thing.

Focusing solely on making London and the SE less awful or even more connected from even further away seems like being in a hole and frantically digging to me.

Any one been to Manchester recently? Seems to be working there.

London and the SE aren't awful. They're great. If you are going to build an economy around Finance and other services, it's likely to be focused around major urban centres. This will sound harsh but insisting unconnected industries relocate to places that only exist because of historic presence of raw materials is a hiding to nothing. Let them go the way of the abandoned medieval villages and start afresh where the work is.

In 2022, there really is very little reason for financial services, legal services, accountancy services etc to be based in major urban centres. They can be done anywhere. There are plenty of truly excellent financial services companies that are not based in London, and are far more profitable and better businesses for it. A huge amont of the work invloved is not face to face with clients / customers stuff.

It would be far better for the country if all the focus for the last 25 years hadn't been on London, and the whole country would be wealthier as a result.

You are wrong.

Build on the green belt.

This will increase economic growth for London based architectural practices.

rick_chasey

FWIW, tube ridership is the highest it's been post corona, looking at consistently over 80% of pre covid levels mid-week and in the 90s for the weekend.

I think a lot of people still go into the office to do their job - more often than not. I'm in 4 days a week at the moment, for example.

Dorset - I would disagree that most FS can be done remotely and not in the same centre. I think it is feasible to do it, but I don't think it's optimum at all.

I'm sure in the IFA and discretionary world you don't need to all be there but if you're actually running money or working on the institutional side you certainly do, and that's way before you get to the world of banking, market and insurance - and i'm only scratching the surface on FS.

briantrumpet

rick_chasey said:

FWIW, tube ridership is the highest it's been post corona, looking at consistently over 80% of pre covid levels mid-week and in the 90s for the weekend.

I think a lot of people still go into the office to do their job - more often than not. I'm in 4 days a week at the moment, for example.

Dorset - I would disagree that most FS can be done remotely and not in the same centre. I think it is feasible to do it, but I don't think it's optimum at all.

I'm sure in the IFA and discretionary world you don't need to all be there but if you're actually running money or working on the institutional side you certainly do, and that's way before you get to the world of banking, market and insurance - and i'm only scratching the surface on FS.

But surely if you're looking to save the planet, you don't just say "Well, that's the way it works, so we're going to have to fit round that", you say "How can we change the way we work so we can save the planet?"

rick_chasey

briantrumpet said:

rick_chasey said:

FWIW, tube ridership is the highest it's been post corona, looking at consistently over 80% of pre covid levels mid-week and in the 90s for the weekend.

I think a lot of people still go into the office to do their job - more often than not. I'm in 4 days a week at the moment, for example.

Dorset - I would disagree that most FS can be done remotely and not in the same centre. I think it is feasible to do it, but I don't think it's optimum at all.

I'm sure in the IFA and discretionary world you don't need to all be there but if you're actually running money or working on the institutional side you certainly do, and that's way before you get to the world of banking, market and insurance - and i'm only scratching the surface on FS.

But surely if you're looking to save the planet, you don't just say "Well, that's the way it works, so we're going to have to fit round that", you say "How can we change the way we work so we can save the planet?"

You might be right, but my sense is the immediate need to earn money for yourself always trumps the need to collectively save the world - the incentives are all skewed there.

So the solution, in my opinion, is to make the personal incentives to being green work - so that means making it so that being green makes you money and is more convenient.

Relying on everyone to operate altruistically just won't work - the incentives don't stack up for the individual.

I think for cars, the appeal of cars will over time erode the value of car ownership and private car trave - the logic of car ownership in the modern world dictates that - but that's only going to make people more miserable untill you improve the value of the alternatives, which is public transport that works and takes you were you need to be with minimal grief combined with the right electric bike or equivalent infrastructure to cover the final 5 miles or whatever it is.

Pross

rick_chasey said:

briantrumpet said:

rick_chasey said:

FWIW, tube ridership is the highest it's been post corona, looking at consistently over 80% of pre covid levels mid-week and in the 90s for the weekend.

I think a lot of people still go into the office to do their job - more often than not. I'm in 4 days a week at the moment, for example.

Dorset - I would disagree that most FS can be done remotely and not in the same centre. I think it is feasible to do it, but I don't think it's optimum at all.

I'm sure in the IFA and discretionary world you don't need to all be there but if you're actually running money or working on the institutional side you certainly do, and that's way before you get to the world of banking, market and insurance - and i'm only scratching the surface on FS.

But surely if you're looking to save the planet, you don't just say "Well, that's the way it works, so we're going to have to fit round that", you say "How can we change the way we work so we can save the planet?"

You might be right, but my sense is the immediate need to earn money for yourself always trumps the need to collectively save the world - the incentives are all skewed there.

So the solution, in my opinion, is to make the personal incentives to being green work - so that means making it so that being green makes you money and is more convenient.

Relying on everyone to operate altruistically just won't work - the incentives don't stack up for the individual.

Either I'm getting very confused about what you feel is the solution or you are being pretty inconsistent. On one hand you are suggesting that we completely shake up transport, which would cost hundreds of billions and require a complete sea change in attitudes, to remove all but a few private car journeys but on the other hand you think people certain industries can't be swayed to consider working in different ways to reduce the need for travel? It feels a bit like you want everyone to move to how you do things as that is what works for you.

rick_chasey

You might be right.

I think we will always need to travel for work.

I think how we travel can change. After all look how quickly we got car oriented?

First.Aspect

What we need is a hyperloop network. That way we can make roads more expensive with less capacity, but way, way cooler.

First.Aspect

RC, have you watched any of the "Adam Something" vids on Youtube?

Czech guy about your age, hilarious - although he's venturing into political commentary now which is showing his weaknesses I think. But on infrastructure he's right up your alley I think.

rjsterry

Dorset_Boy said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

Basically speaking the government/councils need to subsidise unprofitable PT routes. Privatisation alone will never work.
Then make using cars cost prohibitive. This will be seen as a tax on the poor and workers so will not fly.
What would help most is if people could find cost neutral, career equal, jobs close to home*. Top salary might be lost but that can be offset by travel savings both in money and time.

*This is based on a theory that there are people travelling from town A to work in town B while others are doing the reverse for the same jobs.

Yeah, part of it is loosening up the house-building market so we can build houses where the jobs are.

Wrong way around. Build the jobs where people live. The UK is already suffering because London is a bottleneck. We are one of the most centralised countries in Europe. This isn't a good thing.

Thank you, comrade. So that's agreed we will allocate 10,000 employment contracts to Tyneside. The ministry will be in touch later to allocate roles to these contracts.

More seriously, development (housing and commercial property) has always followed employment, not the other way around.

How is thst working out?

Its an age old problem, but providing incentives for businesses to locate in different regions is a known thing.

Focusing solely on making London and the SE less awful or even more connected from even further away seems like being in a hole and frantically digging to me.

Any one been to Manchester recently? Seems to be working there.

London and the SE aren't awful. They're great. If you are going to build an economy around Finance and other services, it's likely to be focused around major urban centres. This will sound harsh but insisting unconnected industries relocate to places that only exist because of historic presence of raw materials is a hiding to nothing. Let them go the way of the abandoned medieval villages and start afresh where the work is.

In 2022, there really is very little reason for financial services, legal services, accountancy services etc to be based in major urban centres. They can be done anywhere. There are plenty of truly excellent financial services companies that are not based in London, and are far more profitable and better businesses for it. A huge amont of the work invloved is not face to face with clients / customers stuff.

It would be far better for the country if all the focus for the last 25 years hadn't been on London, and the whole country would be wealthier as a result.

This is hilarious. As if London wasn't the capital city of a global empire that lasted for centuries. If other places want more investment and to become the centre for this or that they need to attract that investment instead of endlessly moaning about things being too centralised.

rjsterry

Pross said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

Basically speaking the government/councils need to subsidise unprofitable PT routes. Privatisation alone will never work.
Then make using cars cost prohibitive. This will be seen as a tax on the poor and workers so will not fly.
What would help most is if people could find cost neutral, career equal, jobs close to home*. Top salary might be lost but that can be offset by travel savings both in money and time.

*This is based on a theory that there are people travelling from town A to work in town B while others are doing the reverse for the same jobs.

Yeah, part of it is loosening up the house-building market so we can build houses where the jobs are.

Wrong way around. Build the jobs where people live. The UK is already suffering because London is a bottleneck. We are one of the most centralised countries in Europe. This isn't a good thing.

Thank you, comrade. So that's agreed we will allocate 10,000 employment contracts to Tyneside. The ministry will be in touch later to allocate roles to these contracts.

More seriously, development (housing and commercial property) has always followed employment, not the other way around.

How is thst working out?

Its an age old problem, but providing incentives for businesses to locate in different regions is a known thing.

Focusing solely on making London and the SE less awful or even more connected from even further away seems like being in a hole and frantically digging to me.

Any one been to Manchester recently? Seems to be working there.

London and the SE aren't awful. They're great. If you are going to build an economy around Finance and other services, it's likely to be focused around major urban centres. This will sound harsh but insisting unconnected industries relocate to places that only exist because of historic presence of raw materials is a hiding to nothing. Let them go the way of the abandoned medieval villages and start afresh where the work is.

So we end up with one giant conurbation in the south-east, one in the Midlands and another in the north whilst everything else left abandoned? If that’s the solution to saving the planet I’ll be happy to be one of the casualties.

Bluntly, most of us living in cities is the most efficient use of resources. Spreading everything out is always going to consume more of everything.

pblakeney

rick_chasey said:

You might be right.

I think we will always need to travel for work.

I think how we travel can change. After all look how quickly we got car oriented?

I am still 100% wfh. I save on travel costs, save the planet and gain an extra 8 hours a week free time. What's not to like?

rick_chasey

You might be right.

I think we will always need to travel for

First.Aspect said:

RC, have you watched any of the "Adam Something" vids on Youtube?

Czech guy about your age, hilarious - although he's venturing into political commentary now which is showing his weaknesses I think. But on infrastructure he's right up your alley I think.

I don’t -,YouTube not really my favourite format.

pinno

photonic69 said:

I see your picture and raise you....

(Mini Cooper Countryman subcompact - one was parked outside my house and I almost puked. No way was it by any means a Mini. How very dare they!)

How do you stuff Blue tooth, air bags, side impact protection bars, crumple zones, electric seats, sound proofing, 5 speed gearboxes, a decent size engine and everything that makes driving sanitised, quiet virtual reality into the car on the right?!

pblakeney

pinno said:

photonic69 said:

I see your picture and raise you....

(Mini Cooper Countryman subcompact - one was parked outside my house and I almost puked. No way was it by any means a Mini. How very dare they!)

How do you stuff Blue tooth, air bags, side impact protection bars, crumple zones, electric seats, sound proofing, 5 speed gearboxes, a decent size engine and everything that makes driving sanitised, quiet virtual reality into the car on the right?!

The car on the right is light because it doesn't have all that "stuff".
As a result it doesn't need a bigger engine and the handling is a hoot!

pinno

First.Aspect said:

Dorset_Boy said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

Basically speaking the government/councils need to subsidise unprofitable PT routes. Privatisation alone will never work.
Then make using cars cost prohibitive. This will be seen as a tax on the poor and workers so will not fly.
What would help most is if people could find cost neutral, career equal, jobs close to home*. Top salary might be lost but that can be offset by travel savings both in money and time.

*This is based on a theory that there are people travelling from town A to work in town B while others are doing the reverse for the same jobs.

Yeah, part of it is loosening up the house-building market so we can build houses where the jobs are.

Wrong way around. Build the jobs where people live. The UK is already suffering because London is a bottleneck. We are one of the most centralised countries in Europe. This isn't a good thing.

Thank you, comrade. So that's agreed we will allocate 10,000 employment contracts to Tyneside. The ministry will be in touch later to allocate roles to these contracts.

More seriously, development (housing and commercial property) has always followed employment, not the other way around.

How is thst working out?

Its an age old problem, but providing incentives for businesses to locate in different regions is a known thing.

Focusing solely on making London and the SE less awful or even more connected from even further away seems like being in a hole and frantically digging to me.

Any one been to Manchester recently? Seems to be working there.

London and the SE aren't awful. They're great. If you are going to build an economy around Finance and other services, it's likely to be focused around major urban centres. This will sound harsh but insisting unconnected industries relocate to places that only exist because of historic presence of raw materials is a hiding to nothing. Let them go the way of the abandoned medieval villages and start afresh where the work is.

In 2022, there really is very little reason for financial services, legal services, accountancy services etc to be based in major urban centres. They can be done anywhere. There are plenty of truly excellent financial services companies that are not based in London, and are far more profitable and better businesses for it. A huge amont of the work invloved is not face to face with clients / customers stuff.

It would be far better for the country if all the focus for the last 25 years hadn't been on London, and the whole country would be wealthier as a result.

You are wrong.

Build on the green belt.

This will increase economic growth for London based architectural practices.

Ah but d'ya think it will improve any?!

Stevo_666

pinno said:

photonic69 said:

I see your picture and raise you....

(Mini Cooper Countryman subcompact - one was parked outside my house and I almost puked. No way was it by any means a Mini. How very dare they!)

How do you stuff Blue tooth, air bags, side impact protection bars, crumple zones, electric seats, sound proofing, 5 speed gearboxes, a decent size engine and everything that makes driving sanitised, quiet virtual reality into the car on the right?!

Reminds of the old Falklands joke.
Q. How do you get 10,000 Argentines into a Mini?
A. Tell them it's not theirs.

pinno

rjsterry said:

Dorset_Boy said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

Basically speaking the government/councils need to subsidise unprofitable PT routes. Privatisation alone will never work.
Then make using cars cost prohibitive. This will be seen as a tax on the poor and workers so will not fly.
What would help most is if people could find cost neutral, career equal, jobs close to home*. Top salary might be lost but that can be offset by travel savings both in money and time.

*This is based on a theory that there are people travelling from town A to work in town B while others are doing the reverse for the same jobs.

Yeah, part of it is loosening up the house-building market so we can build houses where the jobs are.

Wrong way around. Build the jobs where people live. The UK is already suffering because London is a bottleneck. We are one of the most centralised countries in Europe. This isn't a good thing.

Thank you, comrade. So that's agreed we will allocate 10,000 employment contracts to Tyneside. The ministry will be in touch later to allocate roles to these contracts.

More seriously, development (housing and commercial property) has always followed employment, not the other way around.

How is thst working out?

Its an age old problem, but providing incentives for businesses to locate in different regions is a known thing.

Focusing solely on making London and the SE less awful or even more connected from even further away seems like being in a hole and frantically digging to me.

Any one been to Manchester recently? Seems to be working there.

London and the SE aren't awful. They're great. If you are going to build an economy around Finance and other services, it's likely to be focused around major urban centres. This will sound harsh but insisting unconnected industries relocate to places that only exist because of historic presence of raw materials is a hiding to nothing. Let them go the way of the abandoned medieval villages and start afresh where the work is.

In 2022, there really is very little reason for financial services, legal services, accountancy services etc to be based in major urban centres. They can be done anywhere. There are plenty of truly excellent financial services companies that are not based in London, and are far more profitable and better businesses for it. A huge amont of the work invloved is not face to face with clients / customers stuff.

It would be far better for the country if all the focus for the last 25 years hadn't been on London, and the whole country would be wealthier as a result.

This is hilarious. As if London wasn't the capital city of a global empire that lasted for centuries. If other places want more investment and to become the centre for this or that they need to attract that investment instead of endlessly moaning about things being too centralised.

You know that's a bit simplistic.

And also, it does not mean that we don't need to modernise and have a bit more financial equality.

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

You might be right.

I think we will always need to travel for

First.Aspect said:

RC, have you watched any of the "Adam Something" vids on Youtube?

Czech guy about your age, hilarious - although he's venturing into political commentary now which is showing his weaknesses I think. But on infrastructure he's right up your alley I think.

I don’t -,YouTube not really my favourite format.

I agree there is a proliferation of video that are either too long or too short or just terrible, but honestly I think you should look. There is an excellent one on adding more lanes to motorways, for example. And several on Muskian ideas.

He's quite talented so I can't see him doing this stuff for long.

focuszing723

rick_chasey said:

You might be right.

I think we will always need to travel for

First.Aspect said:

RC, have you watched any of the "Adam Something" vids on Youtube?

Czech guy about your age, hilarious - although he's venturing into political commentary now which is showing his weaknesses I think. But on infrastructure he's right up your alley I think.

I don’t -,YouTube not really my favourite format.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYZNSyP9v9M

Look, I know your preferred digital medium is Elon Musk's Twitter, buuuuut. Youtube is fookin wonderful. Look, look at this and it so easy to find!

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

Dorset_Boy said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

Basically speaking the government/councils need to subsidise unprofitable PT routes. Privatisation alone will never work.
Then make using cars cost prohibitive. This will be seen as a tax on the poor and workers so will not fly.
What would help most is if people could find cost neutral, career equal, jobs close to home*. Top salary might be lost but that can be offset by travel savings both in money and time.

*This is based on a theory that there are people travelling from town A to work in town B while others are doing the reverse for the same jobs.

Yeah, part of it is loosening up the house-building market so we can build houses where the jobs are.

Wrong way around. Build the jobs where people live. The UK is already suffering because London is a bottleneck. We are one of the most centralised countries in Europe. This isn't a good thing.

Thank you, comrade. So that's agreed we will allocate 10,000 employment contracts to Tyneside. The ministry will be in touch later to allocate roles to these contracts.

More seriously, development (housing and commercial property) has always followed employment, not the other way around.

How is thst working out?

Its an age old problem, but providing incentives for businesses to locate in different regions is a known thing.

Focusing solely on making London and the SE less awful or even more connected from even further away seems like being in a hole and frantically digging to me.

Any one been to Manchester recently? Seems to be working there.

London and the SE aren't awful. They're great. If you are going to build an economy around Finance and other services, it's likely to be focused around major urban centres. This will sound harsh but insisting unconnected industries relocate to places that only exist because of historic presence of raw materials is a hiding to nothing. Let them go the way of the abandoned medieval villages and start afresh where the work is.

In 2022, there really is very little reason for financial services, legal services, accountancy services etc to be based in major urban centres. They can be done anywhere. There are plenty of truly excellent financial services companies that are not based in London, and are far more profitable and better businesses for it. A huge amont of the work invloved is not face to face with clients / customers stuff.

It would be far better for the country if all the focus for the last 25 years hadn't been on London, and the whole country would be wealthier as a result.

You are wrong.

Build on the green belt.

This will increase economic growth for London based architectural practices.

Doubt it. The mass housebuilders don't have much call for architects. DB is right that a lot of stuff can be done remotely, and yet they are still building more office space in the City.

focuszing723

Yep, .Rimac. as a company is damn impressive.

rjsterry

pinno said:

rjsterry said:

Dorset_Boy said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

Basically speaking the government/councils need to subsidise unprofitable PT routes. Privatisation alone will never work.
Then make using cars cost prohibitive. This will be seen as a tax on the poor and workers so will not fly.
What would help most is if people could find cost neutral, career equal, jobs close to home*. Top salary might be lost but that can be offset by travel savings both in money and time.

*This is based on a theory that there are people travelling from town A to work in town B while others are doing the reverse for the same jobs.

Yeah, part of it is loosening up the house-building market so we can build houses where the jobs are.

Wrong way around. Build the jobs where people live. The UK is already suffering because London is a bottleneck. We are one of the most centralised countries in Europe. This isn't a good thing.

Thank you, comrade. So that's agreed we will allocate 10,000 employment contracts to Tyneside. The ministry will be in touch later to allocate roles to these contracts.

More seriously, development (housing and commercial property) has always followed employment, not the other way around.

How is thst working out?

Its an age old problem, but providing incentives for businesses to locate in different regions is a known thing.

Focusing solely on making London and the SE less awful or even more connected from even further away seems like being in a hole and frantically digging to me.

Any one been to Manchester recently? Seems to be working there.

London and the SE aren't awful. They're great. If you are going to build an economy around Finance and other services, it's likely to be focused around major urban centres. This will sound harsh but insisting unconnected industries relocate to places that only exist because of historic presence of raw materials is a hiding to nothing. Let them go the way of the abandoned medieval villages and start afresh where the work is.

In 2022, there really is very little reason for financial services, legal services, accountancy services etc to be based in major urban centres. They can be done anywhere. There are plenty of truly excellent financial services companies that are not based in London, and are far more profitable and better businesses for it. A huge amont of the work invloved is not face to face with clients / customers stuff.

It would be far better for the country if all the focus for the last 25 years hadn't been on London, and the whole country would be wealthier as a result.

This is hilarious. As if London wasn't the capital city of a global empire that lasted for centuries. If other places want more investment and to become the centre for this or that they need to attract that investment instead of endlessly moaning about things being too centralised.

You know that's a bit simplistic.

And also, it does not mean that we don't need to modernise and have a bit more financial equality.

My point was that it's not a zero sum thing. Other places can prosper without having to take something away from London or Manchester. In fact they have to. If all we do is run down things in one place to fund them somewhere else we've not achieved anything.