On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 16:38:23 GMT, T i m wrote:

On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 17:08:44 +0100, Pete C
wrote:

On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 11:32:33 GMT, T i m wrote:


We have have been all though this on alt.food.snobs .. and I think we
came to the conclusion that most basic 'food' is bland and they way
the food fans 'fix' that fact is to smother everything with garlic and
herbs?

I find with basic food, quality and preparation is everything, I'd
rather have that than some bland pre-processed ingredients smothered
in garlic, chilli etc.

As would I Pete, so what sort of things do you mean and to what
please?

Anything really, bread, tomatoes, lettuce, olive oil, coffee beans,
bananas, cheese, even pepper corns.

Take lettuce, a normal round or iceberg lettuce are fine, but
romaine/cos lettuce and curly lettuce are better. There was a program
about them on BBC radio recently which is worth a listen:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/factual/foodprogramme_20050619.shtml

There's also loads of info on the web worth a look:

http://www.foodreference.com/html/artromainecoslettuce.html


OTOH if buying pre-prepared food, the ingredients are dictated by the
manufacturer, and if it's quite cheap then the ingredients themselves
will need to be very cheap to compensate for manufacturing costs.

Spuds taste of nothing / dirt (and I'm not talking about
muddy raw ones now g) as do most vegeatables (remember, 'to me').

I do really really love excellent chips.

As do I (sometimes). We generally only have bought chips (no deep fat
fryer) and actually enjoy 'saute' (sp?) spuds or baked (with a nice
thick baked skin). The taste remains pretty much the same though and
would only be made interesting by the filler?

It's probably as much about texture as well as taste, chips that are
fried at too low a temperature can be too greasy and soggy, and
overcooked chips can be quite indigestible. Bad oil can give chips an
unpleasant bitter flavour.

There isn't much (any?) texture in a McD's, but it will still be
better than badly cooked chips. But excellent chips have much better
texture, and probably taste better too.

Ripe vine cherries are the opposite, very
sweet and full of flavour.

So why would one eat them Pete. Do you eat them for variety (I'll
pass), because you 'like' the taste (I'll pass) or because they are
supposed to be good for you balanced diet and that (I'll eat a few but
don't 'enjoy' them as such)?

For the taste mainly, also they are pretty easy to prepare. They also
have a better flavour than when used in ketchup. What tastes do you
enjoy?

I don't even like them cooked / fried as part as a breakfast (they are
like very hot balls of water!).

They probably are! I sometimes buy lamb moussaka, and the better ones
have chunks of whole tomato which is nice. BTW they are never supposed
to be refrigerated, as it makes them lose their flavour:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=refrigerate%20tomatoes&btnG=Google+ Search&meta=

cheers,
Pete.

On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 12:27:59 +0100, Pete C
wrote:


I find with basic food, quality and preparation is everything, I'd
rather have that than some bland pre-processed ingredients smothered
in garlic, chilli etc.

As would I Pete, so what sort of things do you mean and to what
please?

Anything really, bread, tomatoes, lettuce, olive oil, coffee beans,
bananas, cheese, even pepper corns.

So, ok, let's take one from the list that I don't mind (as in 'will
eat if handed to me but probably would never buy myself') .. bananas.
(I am no fan of tomatoes, coffee or pepper).

Take lettuce, a normal round or iceberg lettuce are fine, but
romaine/cos lettuce and curly lettuce are better. There was a program
about them on BBC radio recently which is worth a listen:

Doh (I chose bananas g) . I really can't get excited about plain
lettuce (only some garnishes allow it to be edible to me). I wait till
a narna stops being green (told you 'green' wasn't a good thing g) ,
open it up and stuff it in my gob .. job done? I will eat them from
quite firm to nearly liquid (avoiding the brown bits) and 'enjoy' it
all the same (as in 3/10).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/factual/foodprogramme_20050619.shtml

Ok, thanks for that .. I'll give it a listen later ..

There's also loads of info on the web worth a look:

http://www.foodreference.com/html/artromainecoslettuce.html

Good grief .. so much information on letti ;-)


OTOH if buying pre-prepared food, the ingredients are dictated by the
manufacturer, and if it's quite cheap then the ingredients themselves
will need to be very cheap to compensate for manufacturing costs.

Understood. A friend has (had) been growing tomatoes commercially for
the last 40 years but over the last couple of years been beaten down
on price by the supermarkets to a level where it now costs him money
to grow them. This is because they can sell highly uniform and bright
red tasteless (like I can tell .. ) balls from (typically) Poland.


It's probably as much about texture as well as taste, chips that are
fried at too low a temperature can be too greasy and soggy, and
overcooked chips can be quite indigestible. Bad oil can give chips an
unpleasant bitter flavour.

Understood.

There isn't much (any?) texture in a McD's, but it will still be
better than badly cooked chips. But excellent chips have much better
texture, and probably taste better too.

Someone said there isn't any potato in a McD's chip?

Ripe vine cherries are the opposite, very
sweet and full of flavour.

So why would one eat them Pete. Do you eat them for variety (I'll
pass), because you 'like' the taste (I'll pass) or because they are
supposed to be good for you balanced diet and that (I'll eat a few but
don't 'enjoy' them as such)?

For the taste mainly, also they are pretty easy to prepare. They also
have a better flavour than when used in ketchup. What tastes do you
enjoy?

Do you know I really don't know Pete ;-( What would I actually bother
buy and eat myself .. Dime / Curley wurly bars, Walkers Cheese and
Onion crisps .. Sweet and Sour Chicken (take away) .. Chicken Tikka,
vegeatable korma, pillau rice ..(delivery)?


http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=refrigerate%20tomatoes&btnG=Google+ Search&meta=

Ta ..

As a knock -on from this type of conversation my wife and I were
discussing what she can offer me food wise. She is currently cycling
20 miles a night and eating 'sensibly' and has lost a stone over a
couple of months (11 st now).

The problem is I could never answer the question "what would you like
to deat tonight" because I really don't care (in a nice way). That
said there are loads of things I would prefer not to eat (like veg ..
boring / tasteless) but there are only a couple of things I would
actually spit out .. like obergines / courgettes or if I find any
'tubes' in liver gag ;-( I generally will leave peppers to one
side if I find any in a meal.

As much as she finds finding stuff I might like a problem, our 15yr
old will pretty well eat anything put in front of her but asked what
she would like will often choose 'a fried egg sarnie' ;-) The
'problem' though is my wife knows if *she* doesn't sort ot my food
I'll probably not bother / eat rubbish when I suddenly realise I'm
very hungry? (not good for me) ;-(

So, I wonder if it's that I rarely eat socially (just not my thing /
can't justify the time / cost for the return), don't actually taste
the same way *most* folk taste (whatever that means) or simply have no
intrest in treating the concept of keeping this machine running into a
hobby (like does my car really care what make / spec diesel I give
it?).

Thanks for your time Pete ;-)

All the best ..

T i m

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 9 Jul 2005 11:23:33 +0100, "Doctor Evil"
wrote:

The congestion charge is a great success.

No it isn't. It's simply another stealth tax.

It is a greater success. It reduces congestion and pollution in the centre
of a city - its intention.

It also keep 1000s of polluting
vehicles out of central London each
day as a bonus keeping aior cleaner.
Many other cities are seriously considering
adopting it.

He is on about tripe like personal space.

Personal space isn't tripe,

It is and you the onkly one I have ever heard come out with this tripe.

although one could understand that it is
not something that you would experience
in your one-room council flat.

That would be a studio apartment then.

Sounds like the unsociable sort.

I'm very sociable, but being sociable
does not imply an enjoyment of
travelling in an electric sardine can.

Public transport is not just the tube at rush hour.

I also like to have space on
occasions.

You have that on normal public transport. Maybe in your sink estate they
use rickshaws.

The Little Middle England petty snobs,
who don't want to sit next to the
working class.

You do spout a lot of nonsense.

That is what you are like. That is clear.

The fact is apart from the odd exceptions,
public transport is brilliant in
highly built up areas.

You are wearing the rose tinted spectacles again.

You haven't a clue, that is clear. Maybe we should ban all public transport
because of your warped views.

Try driving from Surrey to London and then try the
train. The train is brilliant. No stress at all and
you can read a book on the way. In the car? A
nightmare. You get to London in a mental mess.

Speak for yourself.

I speak for millions.

"Mike" wrote in message
...

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
I'm not. I don't go to London any more. It was my experience on the
occasions I did use pt - from the late 50s to the late 90s. Not
frequently, by the way, just over a long period.

Then perhaps your opinion needs updating? Just about all the rolling
stock
and buses have been replaced recently, for example.


It may have - but it still smells and after travelling anywhere the first
thing any non-Londoner wants is a shower to clean off. The simple fact
is
there are too many people in London.

That is because they will not allow people to build on subsidised open
fields, paid to lay idle. Only 7.5% of the UK is built on, inc urban and
rural and inc gardens

"Capitol" wrote in message
...


Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Capitol wrote:

Ok - but better public transport removes traffic from the roads, so
everyone wins.


IMO a large piece of wishful thinking. From day 1, passenger railways
have been insolvent.


Rather a sweeping statement?

But true!!

There is not one public transport unit in the world
which is economically viable.


********. It depends totally on cost. Unless you have a supply of free
cars and petrol.

Sadly you are wrong again!


The only way to get better public
transport is to increase taxation on the majority of the population who
don't use it and waste the money on a few people who do.


There are many more parameters to be taken into account - like the
'pollution' caused by commuters in cars. And the brackets round
pollution
are there for a reason.

If you want less pollution, people need first to travel less!

Or have town planning that elinminates shopping malls and megastores, and
gets people out of cars when shopping.

On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:22:35 +0100, "Doctor Evil"
wrote:


That is because they will not allow people to build on subsidised open
fields, paid to lay idle. Only 7.5% of the UK is built on, inc urban and
rural and inc gardens

Is that minus all the places not suitable for buildings though (like
half of Wales for example)?

Now I dare say even if they were included the numbers wouldn't be as
high as say Hong Kong but probably (much) lower than the USA / NZ, Auz
and possibly most of the rest of Europe?

Isn't one of our 'problems' the fact that we are pretty well spread
across the whole of the country (hence all the long distance
commuting) whereas places like Germany have more specific popluation
centres with big gaps of nothing in-between?

All the best ..

T i m

On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:25:41 +0100, "Doctor Evil"
wrote:

Or have town planning that elinminates shopping malls and megastores, and
gets people out of cars when shopping.

But isn't that a more efficient way to shop? Ok, you drive to your
megastore, do all your shopping 'under-one-roof', load your car up
with your purchases and drive home?

Or you drive (and try to park) to numerous shops (too much stuff to
carry home by hand on PT) and drive home. Less distance possible but
possibly at a worse mpg and causing more local (polluting) congestion?

All the best ..

T i m

p.s. Proud to say has never been to Lakeside, Bluewater, Wood Green SC
etc etc .. ;-)

90% of (our) shopping is done locally (within 1/2 mile), the rest over
the net.

Worked for 5 years 1 mile away then 1 year commuting (12 miles) to the
City (hated it). 15 years at the top of my road then another 6
commuting into the City (still hated it).

Q Essex girls favoiurite wine?
A "I wanna go to Lakeside .. "

I'll get me coat ..

"T i m" wrote in message
...

Q Essex girls favoiurite wine?
A "I wanna go to Lakeside .. "

I'll get me coat ..

No, the occasional flash of wit is inspiring :-)

Mary

"T i m" wrote in message
news

So, I wonder if it's that I rarely eat socially (just not my thing /
can't justify the time / cost for the return), don't actually taste
the same way *most* folk taste (whatever that means) or simply have no
intrest in treating the concept of keeping this machine running into a
hobby (like does my car really care what make / spec diesel I give
it?).

Don't you have anyone else at home to provide you with food?

Mary

In article .net,
Doctor Evil wrote:
It may have - but it still smells and after travelling anywhere the
first thing any non-Londoner wants is a shower to clean off. The
simple fact is there are too many people in London.

That is because they will not allow people to build on subsidised open
fields, paid to lay idle. Only 7.5% of the UK is built on, inc urban and
rural and inc gardens

But a large percentage of people commuting in the rush hour don't live in
London. Building cheap housing on open fields - ie outside London - would
make the problem worse.

--
*My dog can lick anyone

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:17:33 +0100, "Doctor Evil"
wrote:



He is on about tripe like personal space.

Personal space isn't tripe,

It is and you the onkly one I have ever heard come out with this tripe.

I can imagine that you don't get out much.



although one could understand that it is
not something that you would experience
in your one-room council flat.

That would be a studio apartment then.

Probably the spin that Livingstone/Mandelson would give it, yes.


Sounds like the unsociable sort.

I'm very sociable, but being sociable
does not imply an enjoyment of
travelling in an electric sardine can.

Public transport is not just the tube at rush hour.

Overground suburban trains are the same, as are buses, except that the
means of propulsion differs.

I also like to have space on
occasions.

You have that on normal public transport.

With rude and smelly people pushed into a confined space? I don't
think so.


Maybe in your sink estate they
use rickshaws.

Actually rickshaws might not be such a stupid idea for city centres.




You haven't a clue, that is clear. Maybe we should ban all public transport
because of your warped views.

Maybe public transport should be done properly and where appropriate
and not forced onto people by artificial bending such as congestion
tax.



Try driving from Surrey to London and then try the
train. The train is brilliant. No stress at all and
you can read a book on the way. In the car? A
nightmare. You get to London in a mental mess.

Speak for yourself.

I speak for millions.

Sadly, I think you are right there.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Maybe in your sink estate they
use rickshaws.

Actually rickshaws might not be such a stupid idea for city centres.

They already have them in the West End - although pedalled rather than
pulled.

--
*You can't have everything, where would you put it?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Maybe public transport should be done properly and where appropriate
and not forced onto people by artificial bending such as congestion
tax.

The congestion tax is only 5 quid. Try finding anywhere to park for that
all day within the zone.

It does what it says. It's also reduced congestion in surrounding boroughs
as well by reducing commuting.

I'm surprised you're so selfish you want unrestricted access by road
traffic where that traffic causes so much misery to the residents.

--
*Sometimes I wake up grumpy; Other times I let him sleep.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 15:29:23 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Maybe public transport should be done properly and where appropriate
and not forced onto people by artificial bending such as congestion
tax.

The congestion tax is only 5 quid. Try finding anywhere to park for that
all day within the zone.

It does what it says. It's also reduced congestion in surrounding boroughs
as well by reducing commuting.

I'm surprised you're so selfish you want unrestricted access by road
traffic where that traffic causes so much misery to the residents.

I didn't say that I wanted unrestricted road access, only that this is
a poor way to achieve it and to fix the transport issue in general.
It is a negative approach, not a positive one.

The correct way would be to make public transport attractive to use,
not to make private transport less attractive. Even with that,
public transport still has the limitation that it goes from point A to
point B at time T. The customer wants to go from point C to point D
and when they want to do so. Non-polluting taxis would be a better
solution than to force people to cram into metal cans which are
vulnerable to the situation that we have seen this past week.

There are two sides to commuting. One is that it is unpleasant and a
waste of time for people who do it, especially when they can work at
home. On the other hand, there are businesses and businesses that
support those businesses who rely on people being in face to face
contact. If they are no longer able to do that, then the supporting
businesses disappear. There is an economic effect.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
I didn't say that I wanted unrestricted road access, only that this is
a poor way to achieve it and to fix the transport issue in general.
It is a negative approach, not a positive one.

The correct way would be to make public transport attractive to use,
not to make private transport less attractive. Even with that,
public transport still has the limitation that it goes from point A to
point B at time T. The customer wants to go from point C to point D
and when they want to do so.

Then they generally have a short walk at either end. Is this so bad?

And if you increase the capacity of PT by making it more frequent so
overcrowding is less at peak times it makes it even more 'inefficient'
cost wise overall.

Non-polluting taxis would be a better solution than to force people to
cram into metal cans which are vulnerable to the situation that we have
seen this past week.

Taxis would be no better than any other PT, because those who seem to
dislike close proximity to strangers would want to travel alone. And then
the taxi will be driving around empty much of the time. And then there's
the cost. I dunno what the cost per passenger mile subsidy is on PT in
London, but at the moment a taxi costs roughly 6 times the fare - more if
it's a longish journey.

There are two sides to commuting. One is that it is unpleasant and a
waste of time for people who do it, especially when they can work at
home. On the other hand, there are businesses and businesses that
support those businesses who rely on people being in face to face
contact. If they are no longer able to do that, then the supporting
businesses disappear. There is an economic effect.

I'm not denying any of that. Just the seemed view that it is fine to live
where you want and commute how you want. And complain about PT subsidies.
The end result of allowing this unchecked will be grid lock, which will do
those businesses who really do need free flowing traffic no good at all.

--
*It's a thankless job, but I've got a lot of Karma to burn off

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

T i m wrote:


p.s. Proud to say has never been to Lakeside, Bluewater, Wood Green SC
etc etc .. ;-)

You have not missed much ;-) Been to lakeside about three times... that
was about two too many!

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 18:21:08 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
I didn't say that I wanted unrestricted road access, only that this is
a poor way to achieve it and to fix the transport issue in general.
It is a negative approach, not a positive one.

The correct way would be to make public transport attractive to use,
not to make private transport less attractive. Even with that,
public transport still has the limitation that it goes from point A to
point B at time T. The customer wants to go from point C to point D
and when they want to do so.

Then they generally have a short walk at either end. Is this so bad?

Not at all, but it isn't always short, people may be carrying things
that make walking for any distance impractical, and there shouldn't be
compulsion.



And if you increase the capacity of PT by making it more frequent so
overcrowding is less at peak times it makes it even more 'inefficient'
cost wise overall.

There is another of its problems.



Non-polluting taxis would be a better solution than to force people to
cram into metal cans which are vulnerable to the situation that we have
seen this past week.

Taxis would be no better than any other PT, because those who seem to
dislike close proximity to strangers would want to travel alone. And then
the taxi will be driving around empty much of the time. And then there's
the cost. I dunno what the cost per passenger mile subsidy is on PT in
London, but at the moment a taxi costs roughly 6 times the fare - more if
it's a longish journey.

They shouldn't be.

First of all, emissions could be addressed substantially by switching
to alternative types of fuel than diesel.

Secondly, cities in many other countries, and a few in the UK, have a
GPS and computer integrated booking system so that virtually all trips
are through a control centre and vehicle movements are optimised.
There is no need for taxis to be driving around empty for any length
of time looking for business.


There are two sides to commuting. One is that it is unpleasant and a
waste of time for people who do it, especially when they can work at
home. On the other hand, there are businesses and businesses that
support those businesses who rely on people being in face to face
contact. If they are no longer able to do that, then the supporting
businesses disappear. There is an economic effect.

I'm not denying any of that. Just the seemed view that it is fine to live
where you want and commute how you want. And complain about PT subsidies.
The end result of allowing this unchecked will be grid lock, which will do
those businesses who really do need free flowing traffic no good at all.


--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


But a large percentage of people commuting in the rush hour don't live in
London. Building cheap housing on open fields - ie outside London - would
make the problem worse.

Build office blocks outside London.

Double business rates on office space within North/South Circular,
repeat annually as required. Any surplus to be spent directly on
transport improvements, not on politicians.

Remove artificial restrictions on conversion of offices to residential
use.

Discuss.

:::Jerry:::: wrote:
"Capitol" wrote in message
...


Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Well, in London, after the age of 60, all residents can apply for

a free

pass that allows free travel on all buses, underground and

overground

after roughly 0930. A zone 1-4 travel card that has the same

restrictions

costs me 5.20 squids.

ie. Someone else, who probably doesn't use the train, has to pay

taxes

to subside you!



So, I bet you don't mind someone paying their share of the cost of
Fire cover etc., just in case you might need it one day....

What about the tax payer who (has certainly in the past) paid for the
road network that they didn't use, and what about people having to
pay the cost of essential products being advertised on TV but who
either don't own a TV or don't watch ITV....


Please engage brain, if at all possible, before hitting keys!

Capitol

"Capitol" wrote in message
...


:::Jerry:::: wrote:
"Capitol" wrote in message
...


Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Well, in London, after the age of 60, all residents can apply
for

a free

pass that allows free travel on all buses, underground and

overground

after roughly 0930. A zone 1-4 travel card that has the same

restrictions

costs me 5.20 squids.

ie. Someone else, who probably doesn't use the train, has to pay

taxes

to subside you!



So, I bet you don't mind someone paying their share of the cost
of
Fire cover etc., just in case you might need it one day....

What about the tax payer who (has certainly in the past) paid for
the
road network that they didn't use, and what about people having
to
pay the cost of essential products being advertised on TV but who
either don't own a TV or don't watch ITV....


Please engage brain, if at all possible, before hitting keys!


Talking to yourself again, please do what you preach, we all have to
pay for things that we either don't use or don't approve off, it's
one of the fact of life !

Why should people without kids pay taxes to fund the education system
for example?

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
The congestion tax is only 5 quid. Try finding anywhere to park for that
all day within the zone.

£8 from last Monday I believe.

It does what it says. It's also reduced congestion in surrounding boroughs
as well by reducing commuting.

In your dreams, traffic surveys IIRC show traffic up on other routes
around the centre! It is destroying Central London as a great shopping
area. 20% loss of trade so far.

I'm surprised you're so selfish you want unrestricted access by road
traffic where that traffic causes so much misery to the residents.

That's not what I read. If you do not reduce the population in London
and the necessity to commute, then London is not economically viable
without vast price or tax increases. The residents are the people who
are currently forced to live in heavily trafficked conditions by the
stupidity of the politicians and planning laws. Public transport
subsidised by other taxpayers is not a long term solution, even to the
socialists, witness Russia.

Regards
Capitol

Andy Hall wrote:

Not at all, but it isn't always short, people may be carrying things
that make walking for any distance impractical, and there shouldn't be
compulsion.

They may also be old or handicapped, then taxis are a good answer.

Regards
Capitol

"Capitol" wrote in message
...


Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
The congestion tax is only 5 quid. Try finding anywhere to park for that
all day within the zone.

£8 from last Monday I believe.

It does what it says. It's also reduced congestion in surrounding
boroughs
as well by reducing commuting.

In your dreams, traffic surveys IIRC show traffic up on other routes
around the centre!

It will go down now it is £8.

It is destroying Central London as a great shopping
area. 20% loss of trade so far.

No one went into central London by car to shop during the week. Get real.
Place like Milton Keynes and Lakeside have taken trade.

I'm surprised you're so selfish you want unrestricted access by road
traffic where that traffic causes so much misery to the residents.

That's not what I read. If you do not reduce the population in London
and the necessity to commute, then London is not economically viable
without vast price or tax increases. The residents are the people who
are currently forced to live in heavily trafficked conditions by the
stupidity of the politicians and planning laws.

Some sense at last. Not allowing people to build on open land is the
problem. Government departments should be moved out. In fact the capital
should not be in London, it should be more central to the UK. One think
tank recommended at new location for the seat of government.

In article , Capitol wrote:
In your dreams, traffic surveys IIRC show traffic up on other
routes around the centre! It is destroying Central London as a
great shopping area. 20% loss of trade so far.

You see this sort of number tossed around but I do not believe it for
one minute. Firstly I would find it very surprising if 20% of shoppers
had gone in to central London by car. No one that I know would have
driven into central London pre CC except in exceptional circumstances.
Secondly it's £5 (until now) - not the sort of amount to put you off
if you're going to be spending hundreds at Selfridges. Finally if
there really is less traffic then those who do chose to drive in find
getting around easier and it will be much easier to park. Meanwhile
all this reduced traffic is saving other businesses money or
increasing their profits - I'm guessing at numbers but it would not
seem impossible that a Viking delivery driver could now do 35 drops in
a day, when it used to be 30.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm
[Latest version QSEDBUK 1.10 released 4 April 2005]

John Rumm wrote:
T i m wrote:


p.s. Proud to say has never been to Lakeside, Bluewater, Wood Green SC
etc etc .. ;-)


You have not missed much ;-) Been to lakeside about three times... that
was about two too many!

There's a Borders there, the only proper bookshop for many miles, also
the biggest Maplin for quite a distance, and one of the few UK Costcos.

Bugger all in the mall, of course, unless you want trainers or greeting
cards.

On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 12:03:43 GMT, T i m wrote:

On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 12:27:59 +0100, Pete C
wrote:
Anything really, bread, tomatoes, lettuce, olive oil, coffee beans,
bananas, cheese, even pepper corns.

So, ok, let's take one from the list that I don't mind (as in 'will
eat if handed to me but probably would never buy myself') .. bananas.

I wait till
a narna stops being green (told you 'green' wasn't a good thing g) ,
open it up and stuff it in my gob .. job done? I will eat them from
quite firm to nearly liquid (avoiding the brown bits) and 'enjoy' it
all the same (as in 3/10).

OK, give it half an hour on the web and see what you come up with:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&c2coff=1&q=bananas&btnG=Search&meta=c r%3DcountryUK%7CcountryGB
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&c2coff=1&q=bananas+flavour&btnG=Searc h&meta=cr%3DcountryUK%7CcountryGB
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&c2coff=1&q=bananas+storage&btnG=Searc h&meta=cr%3DcountryUK%7CcountryGB


So, I wonder if it's that I rarely eat socially (just not my thing /
can't justify the time / cost for the return), don't actually taste
the same way *most* folk taste (whatever that means) or simply have no
intrest in treating the concept of keeping this machine running into a
hobby (like does my car really care what make / spec diesel I give
it?).

Well, to take bananas for an example, how many will you eat in a week,
month, year, lifetime?

Isn't half an hour spent on finding out more about them a good
investment of your time? More say than half an hour of TV watching or
posting to usenet

Thanks for your time Pete ;-)

No worries

cheers,
Pete.

All the best ..

T i m

:::Jerry:::: wrote:


Talking to yourself again, please do what you preach, we all have to
pay for things that we either don't use or don't approve off, it's
one of the fact of life !

Why should people without kids pay taxes to fund the education system
for example?



So there will be educated people around to keep the country going when
they are too old to do it themselves. That's also why they pay more
taxes than those who provide and bring up the relevant warm bodies.

Transport subsidies ultimately benefit the people who require the
transportation, which is not necessarily those transported. See my
post elsewhere about businesses which insist on prestige addresses
for themselves but which will not pay for same for their employees.

Tony Bryer wrote:

In article , Capitol wrote:

In your dreams, traffic surveys IIRC show traffic up on other
routes around the centre! It is destroying Central London as a
great shopping area. 20% loss of trade so far.


You see this sort of number tossed around but I do not believe it for
one minute. Firstly I would find it very surprising if 20% of shoppers
had gone in to central London by car. No one that I know would have
driven into central London pre CC except in exceptional circumstances.
Secondly it's £5 (until now) - not the sort of amount to put you off
if you're going to be spending hundreds at Selfridges. Finally if
there really is less traffic then those who do chose to drive in find
getting around easier and it will be much easier to park. Meanwhile
all this reduced traffic is saving other businesses money or
increasing their profits - I'm guessing at numbers but it would not
seem impossible that a Viking delivery driver could now do 35 drops in
a day, when it used to be 30.

Not my figures, this does not only reflect a drop in number of
consumers coming into Central London, but the loss of trade in all the
small shops and businesses just inside the congestion zone. IMO the
vehicle miles in the central zone have actually increased, as the number
of taxis appears to be way up on the norm of a couple of years ago
(diesel pollution?). Indeed almost a plague of them. I have not
personally noticed any significant decrease in traffic congestion in
the central zone, but bearing in mind that the traffic light timings
were deliberately screwed up until congestion charging was introduced, I
can believe that congestion has dropped back to normal pre congestion
charging levels. Now many of the central zone potential customers are
saying, "If I'm going to pay £8 + car parking charges to go into
Selfridges, I'll go elsewhere". These customers do not want to use
public transport. Selfridges etc and all the other smaller support
businesses lose out. The last time I was in Oxford street, I decided
that it was not a place I would now want to shop. The result of the
congestion charge, is IMO going to be the same as lack of low cost
parking provision in provincial town centres, they die. I was in one
yesterday, which 3 years ago was thriving. The car parking was increased
to £1/hr and almost empty. 50% of the shops were either closed or
charity operations. The local population density is extremely high, but
the customers have given up going to the town centre and presumably are
part of the reason for the 25% increase in delivery vehicle which are
clogging the road systems. The unwillingness of our politicians to
respect the actual lifestyles practised by the population is simply
foolhardy. I am very worried, because I believe in this, IMM has a
point, we need more housing on Welsh and Scottish mountain tops and
many, many fewer people and businesses in Central London and some common
sense. I doubt the number of delivery drops by Viking has increased, as
there are many more delivery drivers and taxis clogging the roads than
there were 2 years ago.
I believe that I read that the West End theatres are losing money
heavily, as the customers no longer wish to travel into London to see
their productions. Maybe someone can correct me?

I find it interesting, that I can travel into downtown Chicago by car,
and park on the waterfront and by the museums with ease and for a
reasonable cost for a family. I can't do this in London!

Regards
Capitol

"Joe" wrote in message
...
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


But a large percentage of people commuting in the rush hour don't live
in
London. Building cheap housing on open fields - ie outside London -
would
make the problem worse.

Build office blocks outside London.

Double business rates on office space within North/South Circular,
repeat annually as required. Any surplus to be spent directly on
transport improvements, not on politicians.

Remove artificial restrictions on conversion of offices to residential
use.

Discuss.

No need to. JFDI !!!!!!!

Joe wrote:
You have not missed much ;-) Been to lakeside about three times...
that was about two too many!
There's a Borders there, the only proper bookshop for many miles, also
the biggest Maplin for quite a distance, and one of the few UK Costcos.

Perhaps that says more about the surrounding area than about the quality
of the shops.

Owain

"Capitol" wrote in message
...


Tony Bryer wrote:

In article , Capitol wrote:

In your dreams, traffic surveys IIRC show traffic up on other
routes around the centre! It is destroying Central London as a
great shopping area. 20% loss of trade so far.


You see this sort of number tossed around but I do not believe it for
one minute. Firstly I would find it very surprising if 20% of shoppers
had gone in to central London by car. No one that I know would have
driven into central London pre CC except in exceptional circumstances.
Secondly it's £5 (until now) - not the sort of amount to put you off
if you're going to be spending hundreds at Selfridges. Finally if
there really is less traffic then those who do chose to drive in find
getting around easier and it will be much easier to park. Meanwhile
all this reduced traffic is saving other businesses money or
increasing their profits - I'm guessing at numbers but it would not
seem impossible that a Viking delivery driver could now do 35 drops in
a day, when it used to be 30.

Not my figures, this does not only reflect a drop in number of
consumers coming into Central London, but the loss of trade in all the
small shops and businesses just inside the congestion zone. IMO the
vehicle miles in the central zone have actually increased, as the number
of taxis appears to be way up on the norm of a couple of years ago
(diesel pollution?). Indeed almost a plague of them. I have not
personally noticed any significant decrease in traffic congestion in
the central zone, but bearing in mind that the traffic light timings
were deliberately screwed up until congestion charging was introduced, I
can believe that congestion has dropped back to normal pre congestion
charging levels. Now many of the central zone potential customers are
saying, "If I'm going to pay £8 + car parking charges to go into
Selfridges, I'll go elsewhere". These customers do not want to use
public transport. Selfridges etc and all the other smaller support
businesses lose out. The last time I was in Oxford street, I decided
that it was not a place I would now want to shop. The result of the
congestion charge, is IMO going to be the same as lack of low cost
parking provision in provincial town centres, they die. I was in one
yesterday, which 3 years ago was thriving. The car parking was increased
to £1/hr and almost empty. 50% of the shops were either closed or
charity operations. The local population density is extremely high, but
the customers have given up going to the town centre and presumably are
part of the reason for the 25% increase in delivery vehicle which are
clogging the road systems. The unwillingness of our politicians to
respect the actual lifestyles practised by the population is simply
foolhardy. I am very worried, because I believe in this, IMM has a
point, we need more housing on Welsh and Scottish mountain tops and
many, many fewer people and businesses in Central London and some common
sense. I doubt the number of delivery drops by Viking has increased, as
there are many more delivery drivers and taxis clogging the roads than
there were 2 years ago.
I believe that I read that the West End theatres are losing money
heavily, as the customers no longer wish to travel into London to see
their productions. Maybe someone can correct me?

I find it interesting, that I can travel into downtown Chicago by car,
and park on the waterfront and by the museums with ease and for a
reasonable cost for a family. I can't do this in London!

Because Chicago is built on a grid system, not a medieval street pattern.
The business section in the morning is light in traffic, as only traffic
going there is actually there. None running straight through as happens in
the west end of London. Before the congestion charge, surveys found that
the majority of vehicles in the west end were just passing through. It is
those that need to be discouraged.

"Joe" wrote in message
...
:::Jerry:::: wrote:


Talking to yourself again, please do what you preach, we all have
to
pay for things that we either don't use or don't approve off,
it's
one of the fact of life !

Why should people without kids pay taxes to fund the education
system
for example?



So there will be educated people around to keep the country going
when
they are too old to do it themselves. That's also why they pay more
taxes than those who provide and bring up the relevant warm bodies.


So, if the tax wasn't been spent on keeping other people kids in
various ways the money could be put aside by either HMG or the tax
payer to fund their retirement.

Not that I'm against kids, I'm just applying the same stupid logic as
those who object to paying for something just because they (at this
moment in time) don't use the service or what ever.

On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 21:25:16 +0100, Pete C
wrote:

sip handy stuff

Well, to take bananas for an example, how many will you eat in a week,
month, year, lifetime?

Erm .. maybe 2 a week?

Isn't half an hour spent on finding out more about them a good
investment of your time? More say than half an hour of TV watching or
posting to usenet

I'm not quite sure where you are going here Pete .. if I found out
that eating bananas made me run twice as fast or long twice as long in
bed (but 2 hours should be enough anyway right? g) it still wouldnt
influence that fact that they tase 3/10 to me?

Today I had my fried breakfast at 11 ish (I think I enjoy the texture
as much as the taste .. 7/10), can't remember if I had any lunch as
such but dinner (6 ish) was a small basted (pork I think) chop, 2
yorkshire puds, 3 half roast spuds, and a small helping of carrots,
curly cabbage (it could of been a pot scourer) and some runners. The
veg was all steamed and the other stuff cooked in oil / it's own fat.
All nicely cooked etc ..4/10.?

I could easily have had beans on toast and enjoyed it just as much ..
;-(

All the best ..

T i m

On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 14:33:22 +0100, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


"T i m" wrote in message
.. .

Q Essex girls favoiurite wine?
A "I wanna go to Lakeside .. "

I'll get me coat ..

No, the occasional flash of wit is inspiring :-)

bows ;-)

T i m

On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 18:44:33 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

T i m wrote:


p.s. Proud to say has never been to Lakeside, Bluewater, Wood Green SC
etc etc .. ;-)

You have not missed much ;-) Been to lakeside about three times... that
was about two too many!

lol

T i m

On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 20:11:58 +0000, Joe wrote:

John Rumm wrote:
T i m wrote:


p.s. Proud to say has never been to Lakeside, Bluewater, Wood Green SC
etc etc .. ;-)


You have not missed much ;-) Been to lakeside about three times... that
was about two too many!

There's a Borders there, the only proper bookshop for many miles,

If I ever need a book (not happened yet g) I think Amazon would be
easier (I don't have any cords or sandals so would stand out in a book
shop) ;-) ( joke)
also
the biggest Maplin for quite a distance,

Hmmm Maplins you say ... rubs chin

and one of the few UK Costcos.

Isn't that for Pikeys (or is that Lidl ..or was it Makro ..?)

Bugger all in the mall, of course, unless you want trainers or greeting
cards.

(nearly) All the local shops are now charity, cards or kebabs .. wtf's
going on!

All the best .. ;-)

T i m

On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 23:32:56 +0100, Owain
wrote:

Joe wrote:
You have not missed much ;-) Been to lakeside about three times...
that was about two too many!
There's a Borders there, the only proper bookshop for many miles, also
the biggest Maplin for quite a distance, and one of the few UK Costcos.

Perhaps that says more about the surrounding area than about the quality
of the shops.

g

T i m

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Capitol wrote:
Not at all, but it isn't always short, people may be carrying things
that make walking for any distance impractical, and there shouldn't be
compulsion.

They may also be old or handicapped, then taxis are a good answer.

Assuming they can afford them. And regulations to make taxis handicapped
friendly have been fought tooth and nail by the drivers.

Prolly because it costs a lot (close to £1000) to have a handicapped
(swing out) seat fitted
--
geoff

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 00:43:11 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Then they generally have a short walk at either end. Is this so bad?

Not at all, but it isn't always short, people may be carrying things
that make walking for any distance impractical, and there shouldn't be
compulsion.

Ah, So you're like the average driver who parks within the pedestrian
crossing zig-zags at a local takeaway?

Nope.

The important thing is to have to
walk the minimum distance?

If you're carrying a lot of things it helps.


Like the mums who double park on the school run
with a space a few yards away?

Nope.




And if you increase the capacity of PT by making it more frequent so
overcrowding is less at peak times it makes it even more 'inefficient'
cost wise overall.

There is another of its problems.

Non-polluting taxis would be a better solution than to force people
to cram into metal cans which are vulnerable to the situation that we
have seen this past week.

Taxis would be no better than any other PT, because those who seem to
dislike close proximity to strangers would want to travel alone. And
then the taxi will be driving around empty much of the time. And then
there's the cost. I dunno what the cost per passenger mile subsidy is
on PT in London, but at the moment a taxi costs roughly 6 times the
fare - more if it's a longish journey.

They shouldn't be.

First of all, emissions could be addressed substantially by switching
to alternative types of fuel than diesel.

Pollution in my context doesn't just refer to the output of the exhaust.
It includes noise and congestion. Those are both pollution to the
residents.

OK, so fundamentally this means that places of business should be
separated from places of residence.



Secondly, cities in many other countries, and a few in the UK, have a
GPS and computer integrated booking system so that virtually all trips
are through a control centre and vehicle movements are optimised.
There is no need for taxis to be driving around empty for any length
of time looking for business.

You'll still need to stand around waiting for one at peak times - unless
there is an vast excess.

Doesn't seem to happen in cities that have implemented optimising
technology.

So them driving around looking for fares at other
times.

This is the whole point. They shouldn't be driving around looking for
fares. There should be no need. If there are no fares in the
computer controlled zone where they are and they want to work, they go
to one where there are.

So why not just spend that time walking to the station, etc.
They're rarely far away in most parts of London. Or take a bus to the
station.

This may be true if you want to start and end a journey within the
coverage of the bus or tube network and as long as you are not
carrying things or mind standing squashed next to pushy, smelly
people.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 00:08:55 +0100, "Doctor Evil"
wrote:


Because Chicago is built on a grid system, not a medieval street pattern.
The business section in the morning is light in traffic, as only traffic
going there is actually there. None running straight through as happens in
the west end of London. Before the congestion charge, surveys found that
the majority of vehicles in the west end were just passing through. It is
those that need to be discouraged.


Negative control again. The correct way os to encourage people to
use alternative routes by building appropriate capacity through ways
and bypasses.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com