Very few people in that part of London *require* a car. It is a
lifestyle choice, not a necessity for the most part.

Aside from people that work outside the train/tube hours (i.e. start
before 9AM on a sunday). I'm thinking about nurses at Chelsea &
Westminster Hospital for example. Basically unless you work government
hours you're forced to risk a dangerous night bus that takes 3 times
longer than a car, and that assumes there's a direct bus from where you
live to where you work, highly unlikely.

I'm writing this at 02:31 on a Monday morning, from work, just outside
the new extension area. Won't affect me directly as I live west of
London. Many of my collegues will have to take a new route in though,
along more congested roads.

While I'm just outside the zone, If the building was 800 yards East
we'd be in it. It's going to cause enough problems with added traffic
arround the bush at lunchtime (when some of my shifts start - yes, the
shopping centre wont help either). FYI the last tube east from work on
a Sunday is 2327, the last train west 0005. Not much good when you
finish at 0030.

But journeys in the zone will speed up by 5 minutes. Assuming 2
journeys per day, for an £8 cost, the point of the zone is to make
life easier for people on more than £48 an hour. Ken - the rich man's
mayor.

Paul Weaver wrote:
forced to risk a dangerous night bus
That's nonsense, and you know it. Night buses may be less than ideal,
but they are not per se dangerous. We don't live in a US movie dystopia.

You are starting with the unproven assumption that transport is
necessary at all. People do not generally *have to* live so far from
their place of employment. The main reason that there is transport
congestion is that there are too many people on the move. They may have
all sorts of reasons for choosing to live and work where they do, but in
our society, that's exactly what it is in the vast majority of cases, a
choice. (AIH, in my case, there isn't a choice. my house, is supplied by
my employer, and is next to the building where I do a lot of my work.)
--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9767304.html
(4TC units 418 and 422 and men with red flags at Weymouth Quay, 1985)

"Chris Tolley" wrote in message
Paul Weaver wrote:
forced to risk a dangerous night bus
That's nonsense, and you know it. Night buses may be less than ideal,
but they are not per se dangerous. We don't live in a US movie dystopia.

You are starting with the unproven assumption that transport is
necessary at all. People do not generally *have to* live so far from
their place of employment. The main reason that there is transport
congestion is that there are too many people on the move. They may have
all sorts of reasons for choosing to live and work where they do, but in
our society, that's exactly what it is in the vast majority of cases, a
choice. (AIH, in my case, there isn't a choice. my house, is supplied by
my employer, and is next to the building where I do a lot of my work.)

I wonder why so many people are travelling to work at all. I heard on the TV
last week that 1 in 9 people work from home now broadband is widely
available, although many people in non computer jobs have been working from
home for years. Yet the trains are over crowded in the morning going into
London. Traffic congestion seems to get worse everywhere. Where are all of
these people going?

Ian

On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 13:17:51 GMT, "Ian"
wrote:

I wonder why so many people are travelling to work at all. I heard on the TV
last week that 1 in 9 people work from home now broadband is widely
available, although many people in non computer jobs have been working from
home for years. Yet the trains are over crowded in the morning going into
London. Traffic congestion seems to get worse everywhere. Where are all of
these people going?

Are we wrongly connecting "1 in 9 work from home" with "now bb is
widely available"? I doubt that 10% of employed workers work from
home. I'd believe that a lot of people lose their jobs and have a go
at self-employment.

Ian wrote:
"Chris Tolley" wrote in message

Paul Weaver wrote:

forced to risk a dangerous night bus

That's nonsense, and you know it. Night buses may be less than ideal,
but they are not per se dangerous. We don't live in a US movie dystopia.

You are starting with the unproven assumption that transport is
necessary at all. People do not generally *have to* live so far from
their place of employment. The main reason that there is transport
congestion is that there are too many people on the move. They may have
all sorts of reasons for choosing to live and work where they do, but in
our society, that's exactly what it is in the vast majority of cases, a
choice. (AIH, in my case, there isn't a choice. my house, is supplied by
my employer, and is next to the building where I do a lot of my work.)


I wonder why so many people are travelling to work at all. I heard on the TV
last week that 1 in 9 people work from home now broadband is widely
available, although many people in non computer jobs have been working from
home for years. Yet the trains are over crowded in the morning going into
London. Traffic congestion seems to get worse everywhere. Where are all of
these people going?


Do they mean that at any given time 1 in 9 work from home, or that 1 in
9 people at some point work from home?

I occasionally work from home but probably not more than once a month.
Does that mean I'm part of the 1 or part of the other 8 in that statistic?


--
To contact me take a davidhowdon and add a @yahoo.co.uk to the end.

"Chris Tolley" wrote...

Paul Weaver wrote:

forced to risk a dangerous night bus

That's nonsense, and you know it. Night buses may be less than ideal,
but they are not per se dangerous. We don't live in a US movie dystopia.

You are starting with the unproven assumption that transport is
necessary at all. People do not generally *have to* live so far from
their place of employment.

You are so right.

If only all the £25K - £30K functionaries of central government and the
London local authorities would shake off this morbid desire they all have to
live in the shadow of Dagenham gasworks or Greenford "leisure" centre and
just buy flats in the West End, the City and Kensington, eh?

The main reason that there is transport
congestion is that there are too many people on the move. They may have
all sorts of reasons for choosing to live and work where they do, but in
our society, that's exactly what it is in the vast majority of cases, a
choice. (AIH, in my case, there isn't a choice. my house, is supplied by
my employer, and is next to the building where I do a lot of my work.)

And those who are not in such a fortunate position - what sort of cake do
you suggest they should be let eat?

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
"Chris Tolley" wrote...

Paul Weaver wrote:

forced to risk a dangerous night bus

That's nonsense, and you know it. Night buses may be less than ideal,
but they are not per se dangerous. We don't live in a US movie dystopia.

You are starting with the unproven assumption that transport is
necessary at all. People do not generally *have to* live so far from
their place of employment.

You are so right.

If only all the £25K - £30K functionaries of central government and the
London local authorities would shake off this morbid desire they all have
to live in the shadow of Dagenham gasworks or Greenford "leisure" centre
and just buy flats in the West End, the City and Kensington, eh?

The main reason that there is transport
congestion is that there are too many people on the move. They may have
all sorts of reasons for choosing to live and work where they do, but in
our society, that's exactly what it is in the vast majority of cases, a
choice. (AIH, in my case, there isn't a choice. my house, is supplied by
my employer, and is next to the building where I do a lot of my work.)

And those who are not in such a fortunate position - what sort of cake do
you suggest they should be let eat?

Do you really consider it fortunate that when leaving your job you also have
no option but to find somewhere else to live?

"Brimstone" wrote...

"JNugent" wrote:
"Chris Tolley" wrote...

[ ... ]

You are starting with the unproven assumption that transport is
necessary at all. People do not generally *have to* live so far from
their place of employment.

You are so right.
If only all the £25K - £30K functionaries of central government and the
London local authorities would shake off this morbid desire they all have
to live in the shadow of Dagenham gasworks or Greenford "leisure" centre
and just buy flats in the West End, the City and Kensington, eh?

... too many people on the move. They may have
all sorts of reasons for choosing to live and work where they do, but in
our society, that's exactly what it is in the vast majority of cases, a
choice. (AIH, in my case, there isn't a choice. my house, is supplied by
my employer, and is next to the building where I do a lot of my work.)

And those who are not in such a fortunate position - what sort of cake do
you suggest they should be let eat?

Do you really consider it fortunate that when leaving your job you also
have no option but to find somewhere else to live?

It all rather depends on the terms offered.

It happens to more people than you might think - including my family when I
was a boy. Many such workers nowadays buy a property of their own which they
let out, in order to have a bolt-hole if they need it (modern
landlord-tenant law quite properly allows for a tenancy to be determined
within six months if the property is needed as a home for the owner).

JNugent wrote:

And those who are not in such a fortunate position - what sort of cake do
you suggest they should be let eat?

ITYF it's brioche; cake is a mistranslation.

If you are going to make a point, I think it might be best to make it
without resorting to sarcasm. I'm happy to debate anything I said, and
correct it if necessary, but you'll need to make a case.

--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9680391.html
(Hauling cakes? 92 034 Kipling heads south through Longsight in 2004.)