Britains Crap Roads, Answers wanted
 

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
.. .
iantheengineer wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
.. .
iantheengineer wrote:

When labour came to power the country had no money.

********.


No not ******** FACT

Writing the word "fact" in capital letters does not make your statement
true. Please feel free to try again and this time, try quoting a "fact"
that you think supports your case. In the meantime I'll pop off and do
some work because it's going to be a good long time before you can
produce any evidence in your favour. I'd say from now until hell freezes
over.

--
Having problems understanding usenet? Or do you simply need help but
are getting unhelpful answers? Subscribe to: uk.net.beginners for
friendly advice in a flame-free environment.

Yopu to Mr Firth full of it you can counter argue but you have no facts
backing you up, so I throw down the gauntlet, oh and please remove thoise
rose tinted glasses popular in the 80s before examining. Bring it on

Britains Crap Roads, Answers wanted
 

"derek" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 19:26:39 -0000, "iantheengineer"
wrote:



Okay lets see, so you need to buy something what do you do.

1. Pay for it with money

2. Borrow the money

When labour came to power the country had no money. It was in a huge
deficit.It has taken time to gather the money for spending.


They never said that they stopped road building because they were
short of money. Prescott just cancelled all the schemes wholesale. In
Doncaster they had widened one of the approach roads to the city right
up to the river Don and Prescott cancelled the bloody bridge 1 day
before the contract was due to be signed so the new road was useless.

They cancelled the road improvements to make the trains seem more
attractive out of political dogma. It was the series of train crashes
and the Railtrack meltdown that forced them to do an about turn.


It was also on the back of research that idicated that road building was not
the answer

Since labour came to power councils bid for work using local transport
plans.

And? they now bid and are awarded money on the merit and benefit the
schemes give, giving it back to the local people


Large road building schemes are NOT the answer. it has been proven that
traffic grows according to network capacity. So we build another M25
result
more traffic


That can only occurr if there is a reservoir of unsatified demand, it
is a sign we need more capacity, maybe another road somewhere else.

There always is oh I cant be bothered see one of my other posts Ive
explained it in pre-school language

So we upgrade the A9 from Perth to Inverness to motorway standard.
Please explain where all the extra congestion will come from and why.


Okay lets see. People can only travel if they are able to travel. People
desire better jobs, better homes, better standard of living. They can get
these by shopping around, or how you say getting an interview and a job. So
Sean who has been unemployed sees this new road going to a neighbouring
conurbation ahh new oppurtunities so he goes and gets a job. So as there is
no public transport he buys a second hand car off of George, who has bought
a new car. Sean travels on the new road to an from work every day. Think
about this multiplied and you may be getting closer to the picture


Local transport plans are developed by local authorities to best solve
the
problems they have / prepare for the future.

Each plan is judged with others and funding allocatr=ted by central
government.

As for the inital state of the roads ask any local government highway
engineer for the truth ( i was one) and they will tell you.

Yuppies were synonimus with the 80's its a known FACT.

Wrong Yuppies were a '90s phenomena, as several people have told you.

www.bbc.co.uk/games/pop/ index.shtml?category=brain&game=1980s_quiz - 3k

Please see the mention of yuppies on the old beeb

So we didnt get tax breaks during the Thatcherite days???


FACT She sold off all
of the national utilities, which now make huge profits for private
shareholders

LOL Yorkshire Water offerred itself back into public ownership for
free, and (whoever) refused it!

Okay perhaps 1 exception

instead of such funding going back into th coffers. All that MT
ever did was to lower taxes at the expense of everything else. If you
were
working all well and good but if you were not ( highest levels of
unemployment for years) then tough.




It was coming anyway that's *why* MT got in. Remember the "Winter of
discontent"? Who's got the rose tinted seebakrascopes on now?


MT got in through lies and deciept but thats another story and not one I
will waste my life arguing over, you have your beliefs I have mine and never
the twain thankfully will meet.



DG

Britains Crap Roads, Answers wanted
 

On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 20:17:40 -0000, "iantheengineer"
wrote:


France has a different geographic population split, they are far less spread
with concentrations of individuals in cities and very little in between,
thus a lesser need to travel.

??? WTF does that lot mean?

Some facts..

France has 4x the land area of the UK.

The English and French populations are similar.

10% of the French population works in agriculture (presumably in the
countryside),

2.5% of the English population work in agriculture.

So the density of population in the English and French countriside is
about the same. Hint: Probably because that's what the land will
support. Although French farmers might get a bit more generous
subsidies.


The UK is far more spread out,

How can it be? We are one quarter the size!

and travel has
throuigh this spread become more necessary, nbut only through a failing of
the planning system over the past years.


No doubt. But it's no different in France, there are just as many out
of town shopping centres in France as the UK. Probably because we're
both copying American ideas, a few years behind as per usual.

DG

Britains Crap Roads, Answers wanted
 

On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 20:56:34 -0000, "iantheengineer"
wrote:


Yopu to Mr Firth full of it you can counter argue but you have no facts
backing you up, so I throw down the gauntlet, oh and please remove thoise
rose tinted glasses popular in the 80s before examining. Bring it on


Labour came to power in 97 with the public finances in the best state for a
decade

I suggest you read the treasurys own figures for that year

http://archive.treasury.gov.uk/budge...t/chap4ana.htm


also try figuring out how Brown managed to run a *surplus* for the the 1st
four years of power by sticking to tory spending limits.




greg

--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
The Following is a true story.....
Only the names have been changed to protect the guilty.

Britains Crap Roads, Answers wanted
 

On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 21:14:09 -0000, "iantheengineer"
wrote:


They cancelled the road improvements to make the trains seem more
attractive out of political dogma. It was the series of train crashes
and the Railtrack meltdown that forced them to do an about turn.


It was also on the back of research that idicated that road building was not
the answer


The like of Transport 2,000 (Transport 1997?)


It would be easy to find research with the opposite conclusion.


Since labour came to power councils bid for work using local transport
plans.

And? they now bid and are awarded money on the merit and benefit the
schemes give, giving it back to the local people


Large road building schemes are NOT the answer. it has been proven that
traffic grows according to network capacity. So we build another M25
result
more traffic


That can only occurr if there is a reservoir of unsatified demand, it
is a sign we need more capacity, maybe another road somewhere else.

There always is oh I cant be bothered see one of my other posts Ive
explained it in pre-school language

So we upgrade the A9 from Perth to Inverness to motorway standard.
Please explain where all the extra congestion will come from and why.


Okay lets see. People can only travel if they are able to travel. People
desire better jobs, better homes, better standard of living. They can get
these by shopping around, or how you say getting an interview and a job. So
Sean who has been unemployed sees this new road going to a neighbouring
conurbation ahh new oppurtunities so he goes and gets a job. So as there is
no public transport he buys a second hand car off of George, who has bought
a new car. Sean travels on the new road to an from work every day. Think
about this multiplied and you may be getting closer to the picture

But he can do that on the existing A9, if it was a motorway it would
be several times safer and a little bit quicker. So if that's a
prospect it's already happened. BTW there are no neighbouring
conurbations between Perth and Inverness.

It's only because the resource (the road) is being used to 100%
capacity and way beyond so that a 30% increase in capacity results in
(eventually) 30% more cars.

The NHS plans to run it's hospitals at 80% utilisation, because that
figure is the most efficient. Some of our motorways are running at
obscene multiples of the capacity they were designed for, in these
circumstances the green weenies are correct when they say build more
capacity get more cars.

Examine the M62 from junction 27 (IKEA) to the Worsley interchange.
Traffic from industrial west yorkshire heading north to Scotland via
the M6 (BTW. The Dept of Transport have said we will only *ever* have
1 motorway route to Scotland, the M6 up the west of the country).
traffic has to head *south* on the M62 to the M61 junction at Worsley
before going north. It puts about 24 miles on the journey at
presumably tremendous cost to the country. The M62 is over capacity
around Manchester, Bradford, and Leeds it would have been much better
if they had actually built the Aire Valley Motorway (M65) 20 years ago
when they had the money for it, but it was filibustered out by a
handful of Hooray Henry Farming Nimbys who probably use the land for
hunting!

BTW the IKEA traffic is so bad at that junction that the police are
there ready to close it as soon as the roads sieze up when IKEA have a
1 day sale. The junction is original (since Ca. 1976) IKEA have been
there 4-5 years and there is no sign/mention of any junction
improvements.


Local transport plans are developed by local authorities to best solve
the
problems they have / prepare for the future.

I see there is a block on the Leeds Supertram after the Leeds City
Council have already spent tens of megaquids of our money on initial
investigations/research, *and* already made a start on civil
engineering works out of their own money, and now the Gov's got cold
feet again, and apparently kicked the whole project into touch in the
last fortnight.


Each plan is judged with others and funding allocatr=ted by central
government.

As for the inital state of the roads ask any local government highway
engineer for the truth ( i was one) and they will tell you.

Yuppies were synonimus with the 80's its a known FACT.

Wrong Yuppies were a '90s phenomena, as several people have told you.

www.bbc.co.uk/games/pop/ index.shtml?category=brain&game=1980s_quiz - 3k


Won't run on my (2) computers both say "needs plug in".

Please see the mention of yuppies on the old beeb

So we didnt get tax breaks during the Thatcherite days???


Not me, overall my tax hasn't changed much since the Callaghan era
until the recent 10% increase in NI contributions that is.


FACT She sold off all
of the national utilities, which now make huge profits for private
shareholders

LOL Yorkshire Water offerred itself back into public ownership for
free, and (whoever) refused it!

Okay perhaps 1 exception

instead of such funding going back into th coffers. All that MT
ever did was to lower taxes at the expense of everything else. If you
were
working all well and good but if you were not ( highest levels of
unemployment for years) then tough.


The pseudo prosperity we thought we were entitled to was
unsustainable, it had been achieved by trading with (read ripping off
the natives in) the Old British Empire as a captive market (Sterling
Area) , and after the war they all kicked us into touch because we
were too week to hold it all together. I don't blame them. So the
shipyard workers, the dockers, the car workers, the steelworkers, and
the miners tried to strike their way to the prosperity they thought
they had a right to expect.

Bad Move, Bad Move..

It's a pity because the country could have modernised using the new
technology instead of shunning technology, letting that go to the
chinese and going the "service industry" route. But, Hey - Ho..




It was coming anyway that's *why* MT got in. Remember the "Winter of
discontent"? Who's got the rose tinted seebakrascopes on now?


MT got in through lies and deciept but thats another story and not one I
will waste my life arguing over, you have your beliefs I have mine and never
the twain thankfully will meet.


You surely didn't seriously expect Callaghan, with his Solomon Binding
Social contract/compact to get back in?

DG

Britains Crap Roads, Answers wanted
 

Britains Crap Roads, Answers wanted
 

On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 22:51:51 +0000, derek wrote:


It was also on the back of research that idicated that road building was not
the answer


The like of Transport 2,000 (Transport 1997?)



Ohh you mean the single issue pressure group funded mostly by bus
companies.


greg
--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
The Following is a true story.....
Only the names have been changed to protect the guilty.

Britains Crap Roads, Answers wanted
 

Britains Crap Roads, Answers wanted
 

"derek" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 20:17:40 -0000, "iantheengineer"
wrote:


France has a different geographic population split, they are far less
spread
with concentrations of individuals in cities and very little in between,
thus a lesser need to travel.

??? WTF does that lot mean?

Some facts..

France has 4x the land area of the UK.

Where did you learn this "fact". France actually has 2.23 times the land
area of the UK.
(Source: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/1996/in1.pdf)
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Britains Crap Roads, Answers wanted
 

On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 20:01:41 -0000, "iantheengineer"
wrote:


"derek" wrote in message
.. .


Im afraid countless studies have found that roadbuilding is not the answer
to the problem.

Countless?

Who's doin' the countin'? Under what circumstances?

By your reckoning road destruction *IS* a solution.

From what you say we'd be better off just dynamiteing all the bridges
on our motorways because roads just breed cars. So let's block all the
motorways and issue everybody with rose tinted seebackrascopes and
we'll all go back to living like we did in 1956 without motorways..

People have chosen to travel through the freedomn of choice
that roads and increased wealth have given them, thus perpetuating the
problem.

To continue to build roads will continue the problem. The answer is puvblic
transport, but public transport cannot cater for all journeys and therefore
over time journeys will need to become more corridored. For example go into
any city during the am peak and the tidality of the flow is there to be
seen. IF we were to get all of the people from their cars onto public
transport, or even better living nearer to the workplace, the congestion
would be far less. No doubt you have a big swanky car that has one person in
it most of the time taking up all of that roadspace, when really all most
people need arte a seat.

If roads are expected to last we need to reduce the wear and tear on them
whic in itself has been brought about by the greater use of road transport

That's just an indication we don't have enough roads because the one's
we have are overloaded..

(the main damage to roads actually aoccurs from HGVs and PSVs, however PSVs
transport peoiple more effectively).

Not when they're running round empty. My (molto swanky) car does not
however run around empty.

This again needs more of us out of our
cars. Without cars on the urban road network public transport would be
faster and more reliable.


I see no proof of that.

As for the maintenence of roads well normally it involves patching
(completed very quickly around 2 hours)

Are you for real or what? 2 hours? *2* Hours ! The M1 around Long
Eaton in Notts has had ongoing works for what seems to be 2-3 years.

It takes tham longer than 2 hours to put the cones out!

The bridge over the river Dove on the A38 near Derby (An alternative
route to the M1 above, don't I know it!) has been subject to repairs
(Messing about with) on and off for 5+ years.

The Tinsley viaduct on the M1 at Meadowhall, Sheffield, has been
restricted to 2 lanes for the last 10 - 15 ? years. these restrictions
recently made semi-permanent pending an actual permanent repair in 2
years time. Hey, real soon now !

or overlaying (approx 2 days). oNly

Follow the yellow brick road, Follow the yellow brick road..

Follow..
Follow..
Follow..
Follow..
Follow..

Follow.. The yellow brick road.

Some.. where.. Over the rainbow..

Roads are fixed in 2 hours and resurfaced in 2 days!

Why then, Oh why aren't mine?

on rare occassions is a complete reconstruction carried out, and as I have
said this wear and tear is due to use not age.

But as you said yourself it's PSVs (mostly running empty) and HGVs
that do the damage.


I think your justification using ethernet capacity is a bit irrelevant. We
know that building more roads is

The experiences of those of us who have had to deal with Ethernet
networks demonstrates how the performance of the network declines very
dramatically as the number of instances of collisions, queuing, and
re-transmitts increases as saturation is reached. That's what "2 Jags
Prescott. Bus lanes? that's what they're there for" wanted to achieve
with the motorways to get us onto the trains, but then the railways
collapsed., and he'd wasted 4-5 years whilst the problem got worse.
Tosser!.

a) environmentally damaging

No, we have already established in this thread that motorways cover an
entirely trivial proportion of this country with concrete/tarmac. Some
cars emit exhaust gases of a better standard than the air they
aspirate, the "swanky" ones are at the better end of the performance
stakes, so the more the better, they should get a tax rebate,
(seriously!). That is if *you* are serious about reducing pollution.

b) increases usage so essentially provides no longterm greater net capacity.

Just a symptom of the fact that the existing road system is 2-5? times
overloaded.


So where do you stop, when the whole country is one great network of
asphalt???


It seems that motorways currently use up one two thousandth of the
surface of this country. So that is not a currently a limiting factor.

How about at the same point as you stop producing food, stop building
houses, building schools, and stop building hospitals?

When the need is met, stoopid.

Why not use the technologies to reduce travel more???

A very good question.

It seems the Great British public aren't ready for it. Maybe the
technology is not good enough yet. Do you imagine I could sell a
£25,000 machine by sending a media message picture of it to a
customers mobile phone? Or by setting up a poxy 20 minute, low
resolution, smeary video conferencing session? How do I do the routine
maintenance on it, once it's sold and installed? It's in Torquay BTW
480 KM and 5 hours 11 mins away in my "swanky" car. BTW I have 7 CWT
of tools, spare parts, test equipment, and manuals with me. Fuel cost
£65.00

Nat Express 10 hours 5 minutes. (What about me bits?) £47 +£40 Taxis +
2 additional hotel nights @ £108.00

Railtrack 6 hours 32 minutes (What about me bits?) £155 +£40 taxis +1
additional hotel night @£54.00

DG