New depot plans not enough to satisfy residents
 

David Splett wrote:
"Robin May" wrote in message
. 4...
Seems like typical NIMBYism to me.

Why do some people think that the acronym "NIMBY" is a means of
gaining them support and justification for imposing some
quality-of-life-reducing development on someone else?

These sorts of things should be built Well Away from where people
live, even if it adds significantly to the cost.

If people choose to live in a road between a railway and a canal, they
can't expect rural peace. I bet the houses were built there *after* the
railway arrived. According to Streetmap, there is already a "Works" at
one end of Harvey Road and the A412 Watford Road at the other end.
Metronet quite reasonably want this depot next to their railway, and are
using disused railway land, not virgin Green Belt land.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

New depot plans not enough to satisfy residents
 

"Jack Taylor" Jack @Carney.co.uk wrote in message
...

What assurances will Metronet receive that, if they do
incur additional expenditure by locating further away
from Croxley Green, the local council will not then
plan a new housing estate for sometime in the next
twenty years that will *still* result in the depot being
surrounded by residential properties?

The Green Belt should be that assurance.

Anyway, it sounds to me that the residents are not asking for the thing to
be built elsewhere, just that there should be an access road to a main road
and not Harvey Road. This sounds pretty reasonable to me. Most depots are
accessed from main roads, OTTOMH all except Neasden, which has one access in
residential Quainton Street the other entrance on main Neasden Lane.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

New depot plans not enough to satisfy residents
 

(Nick Cooper) wrote the
following in:

On 02 Jul 2004 23:43:46 GMT, (JWBA68) wrote:

"There is a school on Harvey Road so there are children going
down there
and even if they have cut down the number of lorries, just one
lorry is one too many."

Said the mother dropping off a lone child, having driven 200
metres in a small truck masquerading as a car....

It's really amazing the contradictions surrounding the school run.
People drive their children to school to keep them safe from the
marauding paedophiles which line every street. They ignore the fact
that this means any child emerging from school steps out into a sea of
vehicles moving extremely chaotically (when there are that many cars in
what is usually a small space, normal road rules break down).

I have two schools right next to each other at the end of my street and
so I'm very well acquainted with what happens during the school rush.
To be honest I'm amazed that no children have been killed yet. When you
put together a very small street and junction, massive numbers of cars,
people doing very strange and quite silly parking manoeuvres and
children who seem to have very little traffic sense (the number of
times I've seen children run out from between two parked cars into the
path of an oncoming car!), it is surely a recipe for disaster.

--
message by Robin May-Silk and his close friend, Robert Kilroy-Kotton
"GIVE IN! IT'S TIME TO GO!" - The NHS offers a high standard of care.

Would you take the office of relief?:
http://robinmay.fotopic.net/p4600200.html

New depot plans not enough to satisfy residents
 

Richard J. ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

If people choose to live in a road between a railway and a canal, they
can't expect rural peace. I bet the houses were built there *after* the
railway arrived.

Very probably - it *is* Metroland.

Either way, the railway and canal would certainly have been there when
those residents moved in.

New depot plans not enough to satisfy residents
 

David Splett ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

These sorts of things should be built Well Away from where people
live, even if it adds significantly to the cost.

So where exactly should London Underground build depots, "well away" from
where people live, yet within - oooh - about 30 miles of a bit of LU track?

Bearing in mind "not on green belt"?

New depot plans not enough to satisfy residents
 

Adrian wrote:
So where exactly should London Underground build depots, "well away" from
where people live, yet within - oooh - about 30 miles of a bit of LU track?

Bearing in mind "not on green belt"?

Park Royal?

Colin McKenzie
--
The great advantage of not trusting statistics is that
it leaves you free to believe the damned lies instead!

New depot plans not enough to satisfy residents
 

Adrian wrote:
Richard J. ) gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying :

If people choose to live in a road between a railway and a canal,
they can't expect rural peace. I bet the houses were built there
*after* the railway arrived.

Very probably - it *is* Metroland.

Either way, the railway and canal would certainly have been there
when those residents moved in.

I had a look at the site today. The houses date from the 1930s. The
"Works" at the end of Harvey Road turns out to be IMC, the catering/bar
equipment specialists, who have been there for at least 35 years. See
http://www.imco.co.uk/images/small-map.jpg for a map showing how Harvey
Road is their main access route. Funny how the residents don't seem to
notice their lorries.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

New depot plans not enough to satisfy residents
 

In message , JWBA68
writes
She said: "There will still be lorries going down Harvey Road and workers
will still come down there.

*Workers* coming down their road? Goodness!

--
Ian Jelf, MITG, Birmingham, UK
Registered "Blue Badge" Tourist Guide for
London & the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

New depot plans not enough to satisfy residents
 

In message , David Splett
writes
"Robin May" wrote in message
.4...
Seems like typical NIMBYism to me.

Why do some people think that the acronym "NIMBY" is a means of gaining them
support and justification for imposing some quality-of-life-reducing
development on someone else?

These sorts of things should be built Well Away from where people live, even
if it adds significantly to the cost.
Great. They can build the Croxley Rail Link in the middle of the Fens.
Or in the Central Scottish Highlands. Or in Iceland. Or Antarctica.

"Things" from road and railway lines to mobile telephone masts have to
be built near or relatively near to centres of population as, er, that's
what they serve.

I'd still call it NIMBYism.

--
Ian Jelf, MITG, Birmingham, UK
Registered "Blue Badge" Tourist Guide for
London & the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk