"John" wrote in message
...

Alternative:
half of all cars given a red disc, rest given a blue disc then alternate
the days on which each colour can drive.

Result:
congestion cut in half but government doesn't get a penny extra from us.

It has been done by the Japanese..
they just buy two cars.

"John" wrote in message
...

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Bob Eager wrote:
That's assuming there is a choice. Nearest suitable school for my kids
is at least 8 miles away. Terrible public transport (1.5hrs by bus).
We've sent him FURTHER away so he can go by train. GIvernments never
seem to grasp that a big stick won't work if there is no alternative.

Hmm. Every one wants to have a free choice where they live, work and send
the kids to school - and *always* have an excuse about PT in their area
not being suitable for either. So we have the inevitable congestion on
the
roads.

It's not just an excuse here. We live just 3.2 miles away from the second
largest bus station in western europe
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preston_Bus_Station) but we get just *one*
bus every half-hour up to 6.15pm and then *nothing* after that; the bus
service just stops at 6.15 until the next day.

That is to cut down on pollution caused by buses..
A bus with less than about 6-10 passengers on it is going to increase
pollution so you have to stop running them.
Don't believe all the hype about buses solving the problem.. they only do so
if managed to ensure they have passengers on them.
Shame that managing them inconveniences the passengers.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
The short answer is to remove all obstacles to traffic FLOW - all those
humps bumps traffic lights and chicanes..and to tax fuel till the pips
squeak.

Traffic calming measures are there for road safety. They make very little
difference to actual flow.


I cannot believe *you* actually believe that.
They have a MASSIVE effect on congestion, and waste incredible amounts
of fuel and do almost nothing for safety..in one case I have seen them
cause an accident that would not have happened without them.

I have timed empty junctions at traffic light controlled junctions. The
average is 15 seconds of lost road per cycle on any given access to the
junction.

Everyone in Cambridge reports better traffic flow when the lights
actually fail.



People will think twice about a trip to the supermarket to get some
coffee if it costs 30 quid in fuel.

Or they'll get an electric car.

The surplus tax take can go on better roads, or better railways. Or VAT
rebates for those who HAVE to use cars..etc..like fireman and ambulances
and the like.

Why do those have to live so far from work they need to come in by car?


Because the facilities are crap where the work is?


Its all simple cost benefit..travel to an well paid job in a ****ty city
is cheaper than living in that city in a decent sized house, and the
salaries are not available outside of it.

Plus city living is crime ridden and pollution ridden.


The answer is simple,. Raise fuel prices..and get rid of obstacles stuck
in the road to slow people down and cause congestion.

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-02-06 10:44:36 +0000, The Natural Philosopher said:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Mary Fisher wrote:
But ultimately, and missed by most commentators, this is not about
making money, rather persuading people to change their lifestyles. So
the mother quoted by the OP doesn't spend £86 a month to take her
children to school, but sends them by PT, moves house or sends them to
a school in walking distance.

It's unrealistic to suggest that a mother could do any of those things!

Why? That suggests every mother in the country *has* to have a car to
take
the kids to school.

I'm not singling out mothers for using a car when not needed - it's
endemic to nearly every car owner. Even although most complain bitterly
about congestion. And unless something is done to reduce the continued
*increase* in road usage the congestion will just get worse. Road
pricing
is a way of trying to reduce usage. Those who don't like it might
like to
try and think of an alternative.

TAX FUEL.

They do, although it's still not far different in price to water.


Well it ought to be about three times the price..then scrap all road tax
and all congestion charges and all traffic calming and most of the lights.

People will not drive fast if it costs them an extra pound every ten
miles if they do.

Nor will they drive casually if its costing them half a days salary to
go to the shops in the next town.

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...

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

I notice they're not respecting your wishes...

cheers,
clive

Im sure that realistically we are all agreed that a means of taxing
road usage is fair, on the condition that the revenue generated is
used to improve both public and private transport systems,

ie line the pockets of the bus companies shareholders

On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 10:35:50 UTC, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Bob Eager wrote:
That's assuming there is a choice. Nearest suitable school for my kids
is at least 8 miles away. Terrible public transport (1.5hrs by bus).
We've sent him FURTHER away so he can go by train. GIvernments never
seem to grasp that a big stick won't work if there is no alternative.

Hmm. Every one wants to have a free choice where they live, work and send
the kids to school - and *always* have an excuse about PT in their area
not being suitable for either. So we have the inevitable congestion on the
roads.

There really is no other choice in this case. There are no grammar
schools in our twon, or the next one. Nearest one is as I said. PT is as
I said.

No doubt Mary or someone will now tell us we should send him to the
nearest school regardless, because 'it was good enough for them'.
--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...

There really is no other choice in this case. There are no grammar
schools in our twon, or the next one. Nearest one is as I said. PT is as
I said.

Is your local one non-selected?

The grammar school I went to was probably one that people would choose -
high in tables, etc. However it wasn't as good as the comprehensive I went
to in another area.

No doubt Mary or someone will now tell us we should send him to the
nearest school regardless, because 'it was good enough for them'.

Nearest grammar school to us is about 15 miles away. If we had kids they'd
go to the local 'comp' (aka high school). It's not unknown for others to
send their kids to another comp in preference to the grammar, despite it
being a highly rated school.

cheers,
clive

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...

There really is no other choice in this case. There are no grammar
schools in our twon, or the next one. Nearest one is as I said. PT is as
I said.

No doubt Mary or someone will now tell us we should send him to the
nearest school regardless, because 'it was good enough for them'.

As long as you know that most of these successful schools are successful
because they actively get rid of pupils that would fail to get the results
they need to stay a "good" school.

That is the figures are rigged.

On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 09:50:38 +0000, David Hansen
wrote:

Is the President of Transport 2000, who has been filmed for
Transport 2000 driving his car, part of "the anti car lobby"?

I thought he was President of the "let's see how many air miles we
can get in a week" club, but irrespective of the tame celeb as a
figurehead Transport 2000 cannot conceivably be called "independent"
as it is largely funded by the Rail Unions and led by and stuffed
with anti car campaigners.

"Transport 2000 seeks movement towards a society that relies less on
cars..."

"Activists' briefings...How to counter motoring myths"

"use of cars damages the environment, reduces quality of life for
communities and places the burden of external costs on society.
Bearing this in mind, many would argue that it is right to restrict
ownership and use of cars."

Seems a pretty straightforward summary of their position.

As for their Chairman; wasn't he previously the head of Alarm UK who
published a document called Roadblock described thus: "Roadblock is
dedicated to all the campaigners in the anti-roads movement"

"John Stewart, who ultimately came to chair ALARM, explains: "ALARM
was clearly focused from the very beginning. It was a transport
organisation whose objective was to stop all the road schemes... It
had no other objectives, no political affiliations, no constitution
and only one rule: each group had to oppose all roads in the
Assessment Studies, not just those in their own back yard - only then
would ALARM be able to argue that road-building was not the way
forward"

He was also Chairman of RoadPeace (and still their advisor) and a
luminary of the Pedestrians Association.

Dick Barry, Director, Policy and Research Officer for Unison.

Jonathan Bray, Director, produces reports for Transport 2000 from
"Jonathan Bray Associates". Another Alarm founder and assistant
Director of the "pteg Support Unit" dedicated to "Promoting
integrated public transport networks".

David Harby; Director, Membership Secretary of Rail Futures (The
Railway Development Society as was)

Jenny Raggett - Director, also member of Rail Futures and Wiltshire
Friends of the Earth.

James Harkins; Director, also Managing Director of Light Rail (UK)
Ltd

Nicola Marsden; Director, also PR Director for National Express
[Coach] Group Plc

Frank Ward - Director, also Transport and Salaried Staff Association
policy adviser

Independent?





--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

In article ,
John wrote:
Alternative: half of all cars given a red disc, rest given a blue disc
then alternate the days on which each colour can drive.

Result:
congestion cut in half but government doesn't get a penny extra from us.

Similar schemes have been tried elsewhere - people just buy a second car
and increase parking problems.

--
*How come you never hear about gruntled employees? *

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

On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 10:50:04 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

Why do those have to live so far from work they need to come in by car?

Because they cannot afford to rent or buy houses anywhere near their
work and no work is available near where they live. Well over half
the London Firemen based at central London stations live outside the
M25, many up to 60 miles away from their work. Nursing is in an even
worse situation with no affordable housing near most major hospitals
inside the M25 sphere.
--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

In article ,
John wrote:
Hmm. Every one wants to have a free choice where they live, work and
send the kids to school - and *always* have an excuse about PT in
their area not being suitable for either. So we have the inevitable
congestion on the roads.

It's not just an excuse here. We live just 3.2 miles away from the
second largest bus station in western europe
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preston_Bus_Station) but we get just *one*
bus every half-hour up to 6.15pm and then *nothing* after that; the bus
service just stops at 6.15 until the next day.

It would be an excuse if there was no PT at all. At the moment all you're
saying is a car is more convenient to you. And always will be for
everyone. No PT service can be waiting at your door to take you wherever
you wish.

I'm not criticising your views - just stating that the inevitable will
happen one day, people will be forced to reduce the increase in car usage
by whatever means - even if that is they can't get the car off the
driveway because of solid traffic jams on their road.

--
*Filthy stinking rich -- well, two out of three ain't bad

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

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-02-06 10:06:36 +0000, The Natural Philosopher said:

Andy Hall wrote:
Why do people perceive a need to go to central London to work and
do their shopping?



Simple. Because in the case of Cambridge, you can earn 100K plus
jumping on a train and going to the city, whereas 50k is the tops
locally.

Fair point. However, how about having the 100k City job but doing it
from home?


If only...

My wife had a £30k job in the city..a job that was completely doable at
home (graphic design).

Despite actually doing work at home perfectly successfully on occasion,
the cost and stress of the job finally got to her, and when we
calculated that after all expenses and taxes it was actually netting
only about £600 a month..for what amounted to a 12 hour working day..we
decided to give it up. We offered. I mean it would have been so easy to
go self employed at a reduced rate..but they didn't want to know.

"everybody will want to do it and how will we know if they are doing the
crossword or not!?"

Cries of "if they are doing the work, who cares" fell on deaf ears..

Managers would rather outsource to India than east Anglia...

The answer is so bloody simple.

Tax fuel to the hilt, and chuck income tax. Nay, *subsidise* incomes. By
giving everyone a citizens pension..man woman and child.

Once employing someone in London will mean £100k a tear just for he
commute, whereas employing someone at home in Orkeny for the same job
will cost maybe not much more than "Bombay Call centers inc". then the
patterns will shift.

The government has proved totally inept at manging any process to
achieve the actual results it says it wants..Want less accidents? well
simple. Forget traffic calming. Every time someone has an accident that
results in death or injury, hold a full CAA style enquiry. Blame must be
assigned,. Whether its to the car drivers, the car makers or the road
designers or maintainers. Or the stupid mother that let her kid run
across the road.

Adopt swingeing fines or imprisonment, and potential lifetime bans. With
luck half the population that can't actually drive a car properly anyway
will be taken off the roads, and the rest will be so damned careful ...

Want to stop people burning fossil fuels? Make it very expensive

Want to stop people causing accidents?. Make them very expensive.

Want jobs to stay in this country? Make them cheaper to employ here than
in China.

Want people to recycle more and buy less? Tax new goods, but not
secondhand sales, and not repairs.

Want to solve the drug problem? make em so cheap and legal no one can
make money pushing them. That will sort out Afghanistan as well.
No one need steal to get them or commit violent acts because they
haven't got them. Just get them on the NHS like you do anyway for the
ones with more side effects that usually make you feel worse anyway.



With a ****ing lawyer at the head of the country, and a bloody religious
lawyer tho, we have no chance. Ban everything and reintroduce Puritanism.

I can't think of ONE piece of anything this government has done to
encourage people to *do* anything *good*. Its just 'ban this ban that
ban the other tax that fine this '

So MUCH is illegal its now costing us £27k a year to keep 'criminals'
locked up, let alone the police to arrest them and the courts to convict
them..

Government has two ways to tilt playing fields in socially desirable
directions....legislation and taxation. Legislation is entirely a
negative force, It never permits, only denies.

So far they have used the one to appallingly bad effect.

Taxation can be net neutral to the balance of the population, and if
applied slowly over a period, gives people time to adjust their lifestyles.

Huge wrote:
On 2007-02-06, Renster wrote:
Simple. Because in the case of Cambridge, you can earn 100K plus
jumping on a train and going to the city, whereas 50k is the tops
locally.
Fair point. However, how about having the 100k City job but doing it
from home?
Thats an interesting theory actually - maybe the govt should offer
both the individuals and the companies tax breaks / incentives of some
form if they actively enable / encourage a certain amount of tele-
commuting - reducing congestion, pollution, AND demand on the
overcrowded public transport system.

As opposed to the tax disincentives presently applied.


In a nutshell, yes.

Plus a tax to cover the Olympic Games overspend.

John wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Bob Eager wrote:
That's assuming there is a choice. Nearest suitable school for my kids
is at least 8 miles away. Terrible public transport (1.5hrs by bus).
We've sent him FURTHER away so he can go by train. GIvernments never
seem to grasp that a big stick won't work if there is no alternative.
Hmm. Every one wants to have a free choice where they live, work and send
the kids to school - and *always* have an excuse about PT in their area
not being suitable for either. So we have the inevitable congestion on the
roads.

It's not just an excuse here. We live just 3.2 miles away from the second
largest bus station in western europe
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preston_Bus_Station) but we get just *one* bus
every half-hour up to 6.15pm and then *nothing* after that; the bus service
just stops at 6.15 until the next day.


When I were a lad, there was one bus an hour up till about 7pm to the
nearest decent town..at the bottom of our road.

We had no car.

That journey - just 5 miles - to the town was a once a month, if that,
expedition...and took MOST of the day..10 a.m bus, half an hour to get
there, have lunch, and possibly tea, there, come back laden with
parcels, get on the bus and be back by 6pm.

Of course there was a full set of shop within a mile and a quarter of
where we lived for daily produce..it would have been unthinkable to go
as far as 5 miles for a loaf of bread, cheese, bacon, meat..and milk
came to the door daily, and the papers if you wanted them..Pubs?
unthinkable if any house in Britain had a pub less more than a mile
away, or a church..no need to drink and drive, drink and walk instead.

Frankly I can't remember going to a proper restaurant till 1964 or
thereabouts..Lyons corner house was as good as it got..

I remember going on holiday by train,. Huge snorting coal fired
locomotives. It would take a whole day to get to Devon..with three
changes of train..these days its there an back in 3/4 of a day..

We probably need to get back to that sort of lifestyle. Supermarkets
exist because cars exist and are cheap. Corner shops do not because
since people go to the supermarket twice a week there is no need to have
them.

What has changed? cars are cheap, fuel is cheap. So why not commute?

Wages are high, time is short..why not eat out?


All through my life my choice of home has been dictated by the transport
available and the cost of it versus the job and what it paid..all one
has to do is to tilt that playing field and everything will change..

Recently we have given up working..with a house paid off, our outgoings
for two are really pretty low. Certainly sub 20k net per annum. For a
very large house and comfortable lifestyle

we probably do no do more than 8k miles a year in the cars anymore
between us, compared with over 50k when working.

We are both in our 50's, highly skilled, and ready to work from home..no
one is offering though.

I do free work, mainly technical support to DIY'ers, and a couple of
other areas..via the Internet. Why? cost its better than twiddling my
thumbs, and I enjoy it. I like work, I just hate being an employer or an
employee. Get rid of all the red tape around working - the taxes and the
bloody forms, and I might consider it again..

Saving the planet isn't about taxing this or that randomly: Its about
coming up with a viable lifestyle that is acceptable within the
constraints of what people are politically prepared to accept.

By and large we don't have to tax roads, or cars or ban people from
doing stuff. We just have to do LESS of it. The simple way to do ALL
these things is to make travel expensive, not by taxing roads..but by
taxing FUEL.

Make working from home tax advantageous - fuel tax does that anyway..

Make WORKING FOR MONEY advantageous..right now it isn't. 50% of the
GDP goes to the government, that is then used to fund an army of civil
servants, most of whom are entirely superfluous.

Crime pays, because we have made things illegal and expensive, and
because there is no tax on it, and because it suits a certain sort of
unskilled entrepreneurial spirit..cut the taxes, legalise the drugs, and
lets have those entrepreneurs dong something socially useful..



John.

Tony Bryer wrote:
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 01:01:55 +0000 John Rumm wrote :
I have never quite followed the logic of this "ever increasing"
argument. Just who is supposed to drive all these extra cars? Most
people eligible for a drivers licence already has one. The number
turning 17 each year probably does not even match the death rate.
So appart from social trends forcing more people to resort to car
use, there does not seem to be that much scope for expansion.

It's not the increasing number of cars, rather the way in which they
are used. The Telegraph recently carried an article which inter alia
tried to elicit readers sympathy for a couple living in Farnborough,
Hants who might face a five-figure bill if road pricing came in.
Each day he drives to Chiswick, West London, she drives to an office
park near Heathrow. Multiply this a thousand times over and you see
why the roads in this part of the world are full of standing traffic
for hours each day. Pre M3/M25 they would not have made this
lifestyle choice.

Several times a year I drive up the M40 to NEC, invariably endless
miles of slow-moving or static traffic coming towards London. Again
pre-M40 those drivers would almost certainly have chosen homes and
jobs in closer proximity.

Exactly.

Its amazing how the population of this country appear to bne making
choices based on cost benefit analysis, whereas the government appears
to never have heard the term.

The grammar school I went to was probably one that people would choose -
high in tables, etc. However it wasn't as good as the comprehensive I went
to in another area.

No doubt Mary or someone will now tell us we should send him to the
nearest school regardless, because 'it was good enough for them'.

No idea who said that but s/he is wrong. I'm no supporter of the
'comprehensive' system, in our city at least. We sent our teenage children
across the city (two buses) to the C of E high school rather than the local
comp. They went to the nearest C of E Middle school rather than the nearest
middle school but they did attend the nearest Primary.

Spouse and I both attended grammar schools by the way but in those days both
grammar and secondary modern schools were better than.today's comprehensives
in this city, in our opinion and experience.

Nearest grammar school to us is about 15 miles away. If we had kids they'd
go to the local 'comp' (aka high school). It's not unknown for others to
send their kids to another comp in preference to the grammar, despite it
being a highly rated school.

Circumstances alter cases. I wouldn't criticise anyone for choosing one type
of school rather than another, it should be a personal choice. If I had my
time over I'd have home educated them but it was very difficult then, it's
much easier to organise these days. However, our children had an education
despite going to school and they weren't socially deprived by being in the
local ones.

Mary

Huge wrote:
On 2007-02-06, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Well it ought to be about three times the price..then scrap all road tax
and all congestion charges and all traffic calming and most of the lights.

People will not drive fast if it costs them an extra pound every ten
miles if they do.

Nor will they drive casually if its costing them half a days salary to
go to the shops in the next town.

I never drive anywhere "casually". Am I unusual in that respect? I suspect
that people have simply got used to the cost of fuel and no longer
think about it. The fact that it costs x pounds to drive somewhere generally
causes me to think twice about it, or combine trips.


Most peole I know who are braodly 'normal people' just use the car
whenever and wherever they feel a need with no idea of thinking it
through..we have run out of coffee, pop down to the supermarket and get
some.. oh - there's no milk, go again' and so on.

planning is not a skill you need when everything can be satisfied
instantly by driving somewhere to a 24x7 supermarket.

There really is no other choice in this case. There are no grammar
schools in our twon, or the next one. Nearest one is as I said. PT is as
I said.

No doubt Mary or someone will now tell us we should send him to the
nearest school regardless, because 'it was good enough for them'.

As long as you know that most of these successful schools are successful
because they actively get rid of pupils that would fail to get the results
they need to stay a "good" school.

That is the figures are rigged.

I don't KNOW about that but I wouldn't be surprised. There weren't any
figures or tables or ratings of any kind when we had to consider schools.

Mary

dennis@home wrote:
"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...

There really is no other choice in this case. There are no grammar
schools in our twon, or the next one. Nearest one is as I said. PT is as
I said.

No doubt Mary or someone will now tell us we should send him to the
nearest school regardless, because 'it was good enough for them'.

As long as you know that most of these successful schools are successful
because they actively get rid of pupils that would fail to get the results
they need to stay a "good" school.


Good idea. If you have a bright kid you don't want it being held back by
a load of dozy plonkers.

Likewise there is nothing worse than being consistently bottom of class.

Streaming works. Accept it.



That is the figures are rigged.

"pebe" wrote in message
news

tim..... Wrote:


...........It will be at least 5 years before the infrastructure for
this is ready.

By that time the boxes will cost 20 quid each.

tim
Plus a tax to cover the Olympic Games overspend.

Ggrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr...............




--
pebe

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Good idea. If you have a bright kid you don't want it being held back by a
load of dozy plonkers.

Likewise there is nothing worse than being consistently bottom of class.

Streaming works. Accept it.

OTOH streaming also needs to be flexible. The Grammar/Secondary modern
"streaming" doesn't work in a lot of ways. Streaming within a school for
certain subjects does though. But the more mixing, the better.

OTOOH I know of places where they genuinely teach mixed-ability classes -
and make it work. Relies on your teachers being good enough to handle the
different abilities well - keeping them all interested. Just lecturing won't
do that...

cheers,
clive

On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 14:10:44 UTC, "dennis@home"
wrote:


"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...

There really is no other choice in this case. There are no grammar
schools in our twon, or the next one. Nearest one is as I said. PT is as
I said.

No doubt Mary or someone will now tell us we should send him to the
nearest school regardless, because 'it was good enough for them'.

As long as you know that most of these successful schools are successful
because they actively get rid of pupils that would fail to get the results
they need to stay a "good" school.

That is the figures are rigged.

I knew someone would come up with that old half-truth.

--
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:

Why do those have to live so far from work they need to come in by car?


Because the only job I could get within walking distance, or practical
cycling distance, is shelf-stacking. And that won't pay my bills. The
days when a bus-conductor (remember those?) could support a wife and
mortgage are long gone.

Because even today, the traffic planners believe that places of work
are noisy, smoky, smelly places, and must be sited as far away from
homes as possible. Because housing estates must contain nothing but
houses, except maybe one token shop per thousand dwellings, which is
therefore uneconomic to run. If you have to walk a mile to the nearest
acceptable pub, you'll probably be willing to do it for a 'binge-
drinking' (i.e. more than two pints) session, but if you just fancy a
single pint you'll get the car out.

Because nearly everyone works in offices, and offices don't like
standing alone. Despite the fact that there are few economies of scale
in crowding offices together, that's how the councils like it. Scattered
office blocks would look *untidy*.

As I've said before, you solve London's transport problems by doubling
the rates on office floor space, and halving domestic rates. Repeat
annually until existing transport is adequate. Large-scale commuting
is caused by businesses wanting prestige city addresses without being
willing to pay their employees enough that they can have them too.

Endless reasons...

tim..... wrote:

Anybody who believes this probably thinks that alice in wonderland
is someone's biography.

It will be at least 5 years before the infrastructure for this is ready.

By that time the boxes will cost 20 quid each.


I'm sure they will. But what will *we* have to pay for them?

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

Why do those have to live so far from work they need to come in by car?


Because the only job I could get within walking distance, or practical
cycling distance, is shelf-stacking.

10 miles? (that's practical cycling distance IMO. 30-40 mins riding - agrees
with the normally accepted commuting time by car and train)

cheers,
clive

On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 16:52:29 +0000 Joe wrote :
As I've said before, you solve London's transport problems by doubling
the rates on office floor space, and halving domestic rates. Repeat
annually until existing transport is adequate. Large-scale commuting
is caused by businesses wanting prestige city addresses without being
willing to pay their employees enough that they can have them too.

Melbourne taxes non-residential parking spaces within the city centre,
A$800, about £320 per space p.a. IIRC. It makes it much less attractive
for employers to offer parking to staff, and if they have to pay to park
they'll be less inclined to drive. And if you want to drive on the
freeways that bypass the city you pay for a transponder

http://www.theage.com.au/news/Nation...152324023.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CityLink

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

In article ,
Peter Parry wrote:
Why do those have to live so far from work they need to come in by car?

Because they cannot afford to rent or buy houses anywhere near their
work and no work is available near where they live.

Exactly. And that needs to be addressed and soon. There's far more to the
problem than restricting car use by any form of price alone.

--


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

In message , John
writes

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Mary Fisher wrote:
But ultimately, and missed by most commentators, this is not about
making money, rather persuading people to change their lifestyles. So
the mother quoted by the OP doesn't spend £86 a month to take her
children to school, but sends them by PT, moves house or sends them to
a school in walking distance.

It's unrealistic to suggest that a mother could do any of those things!

Why? That suggests every mother in the country *has* to have a car to take
the kids to school.

I'm not singling out mothers for using a car when not needed - it's
endemic to nearly every car owner. Even although most complain bitterly
about congestion. And unless something is done to reduce the continued
*increase* in road usage the congestion will just get worse. Road pricing
is a way of trying to reduce usage. Those who don't like it might like to
try and think of an alternative.

Alternative:
half of all cars given a red disc, rest given a blue disc then alternate the
days on which each colour can drive.

Result:
congestion cut in half but government doesn't get a penny extra from us.

Rubbish - people buy two cars (it's been tried in Germany and Italy and
probably other places)
--
geoff

Clive George wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Good idea. If you have a bright kid you don't want it being held back
by a load of dozy plonkers.

Likewise there is nothing worse than being consistently bottom of class.

Streaming works. Accept it.

OTOH streaming also needs to be flexible. The Grammar/Secondary modern
"streaming" doesn't work in a lot of ways. Streaming within a school for
certain subjects does though. But the more mixing, the better.

Small class sizes and streaming works. We had three streams in every
subjet to O level..I was in top streams for some., bottom for others.


OTOOH I know of places where they genuinely teach mixed-ability classes
- and make it work. Relies on your teachers being good enough to handle
the different abilities well - keeping them all interested. Just
lecturing won't do that...


It can't work for all subjects..You cant really teach rocket science to
kids who cant even do simple maths..and yes, there are plenty of them
that leave school that way.

Lecturing is really if ever the best way to teach anybody. It is an
efficient way of passing stuff to a bright motivated bunch of university
students maybe..but its useless in schools.



cheers,
clive

On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 21:48:39 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

OTOH streaming also needs to be flexible. The Grammar/Secondary modern
"streaming" doesn't work in a lot of ways. Streaming within a school for
certain subjects does though. But the more mixing, the better.

Small class sizes and streaming works. We had three streams in every
subjet to O level..I was in top streams for some., bottom for others.

What's interesting is that (so I'm told by someone who knows) selective
schools generate, statistically, better results for all pupils (not just
for the grammar school ones). This is because of the reduction in mixed
ability classes.

Round here, the population isn't dense enough to support a local grammar
schoool (although we were promised one 15 years ago). We have the choice
of 12 miles by train in one direction, 14 miles by train in the other
direction, or 8 miles by bus (taking nearly 3 times as long) in a third
direction.

The fourth direction is the sea, and the bloody wind turbines (a third
of which have been broken for quite a time now...)

--
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 2007-02-06 13:52:11 +0000, Huge said:

On 2007-02-06, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Well it ought to be about three times the price..then scrap all road tax
and all congestion charges and all traffic calming and most of the lights.

People will not drive fast if it costs them an extra pound every ten
miles if they do.

Nor will they drive casually if its costing them half a days salary to
go to the shops in the next town.

I never drive anywhere "casually". Am I unusual in that respect? I suspect
that people have simply got used to the cost of fuel and no longer
think about it. The fact that it costs x pounds to drive somewhere generally
causes me to think twice about it, or combine trips.

I think more about the time element.

A trip to B&Q for me is 16km each way and with titting around because
of idle weekend shoppers and
push chairs getting underfoot takes in total 2-3 hours.

The cost of the time is hugely more (excuse pun) than the fuel and
running cost for the trip.

So the game plan tends to be considering the next weekend's projects in
the early part of the week
and placing order with Screwfix or ANO while sitting in an airport
lounge in Outer Mongolia or Glasgpw
(same thing really). It's worth paying the extra few £££s to
improve the probability of a delivery
before the weekend.

Otherwise, if I've screwed up and forgotten a pack of M5 widgets
without which I can't continue a project, what do I do?

If the answer is that there is high value (measured how one wants) in
continuing the project and the sacrifice of time is worth it, then I
may do the B&Q run. Otherwise, I'll look at other project options.

It would take quite a bit in terms of added journey cost through fuel
or a tax based on distance before I would consider a trip based on this
vs. time.

On 2007-02-06 13:12:48 +0000, "dennis@home"
said:


"John" wrote in message
...

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Bob Eager wrote:
That's assuming there is a choice. Nearest suitable school for my kids
is at least 8 miles away. Terrible public transport (1.5hrs by bus).
We've sent him FURTHER away so he can go by train. GIvernments never
seem to grasp that a big stick won't work if there is no alternative.

Hmm. Every one wants to have a free choice where they live, work and send
the kids to school - and *always* have an excuse about PT in their area
not being suitable for either. So we have the inevitable congestion on
the
roads.

It's not just an excuse here. We live just 3.2 miles away from the second
largest bus station in western europe
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preston_Bus_Station) but we get just *one*
bus every half-hour up to 6.15pm and then *nothing* after that; the bus
service just stops at 6.15 until the next day.

That is to cut down on pollution caused by buses..
A bus with less than about 6-10 passengers on it is going to increase
pollution so you have to stop running them.
Don't believe all the hype about buses solving the problem.. they only do so
if managed to ensure they have passengers on them.
Shame that managing them inconveniences the passengers.

Which is fundamentally one reason why they have such limited appeal.

On 2007-02-06 15:26:07 +0000, The Natural Philosopher said:

John wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Bob Eager wrote:
That's assuming there is a choice. Nearest suitable school for my kids
is at least 8 miles away. Terrible public transport (1.5hrs by bus).
We've sent him FURTHER away so he can go by train. GIvernments never
seem to grasp that a big stick won't work if there is no alternative.
Hmm. Every one wants to have a free choice where they live, work and send
the kids to school - and *always* have an excuse about PT in their area
not being suitable for either. So we have the inevitable congestion on the
roads.

It's not just an excuse here. We live just 3.2 miles away from the
second largest bus station in western europe
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preston_Bus_Station) but we get just
*one* bus every half-hour up to 6.15pm and then *nothing* after that;
the bus service just stops at 6.15 until the next day.


When I were a lad, there was one bus an hour up till about 7pm to the
nearest decent town..at the bottom of our road.

We had no car.

That journey - just 5 miles - to the town was a once a month, if that,
expedition...and took MOST of the day..10 a.m bus, half an hour to get
there, have lunch, and possibly tea, there, come back laden with
parcels, get on the bus and be back by 6pm.

Of course there was a full set of shop within a mile and a quarter of
where we lived for daily produce..it would have been unthinkable to go
as far as 5 miles for a loaf of bread, cheese, bacon, meat..and milk
came to the door daily, and the papers if you wanted them..

Deliveries of meat and vegetables (in season) were twice weekly by
delivery boys on bikes with a smaller wheel
at the front. I remember that they went to the tradesmen's entrance
(i.e. back door) and not the front.


Pubs? unthinkable if any house in Britain had a pub less more than a
mile away, or a church..no need to drink and drive, drink and walk
instead.
\

Often depended on the parish and the views of the vicar.



Frankly I can't remember going to a proper restaurant till 1964 or
thereabouts..Lyons corner house was as good as it got..

Here we see a friendly lion conversing with a mouse. Round the corner
we can see the Lyons corner house....

Baboom....


I remember going on holiday by train,. Huge snorting coal fired locomotives.

.... and wonderful they were too, not like those diesel things.


It would take a whole day to get to Devon..with three changes of
train..these days its there an back in 3/4 of a day..

We probably need to get back to that sort of lifestyle. Supermarkets
exist because cars exist and are cheap. Corner shops do not because
since people go to the supermarket twice a week there is no need to
have them.

... and people are not willing to pay the price for quality and for
service. Look at any French small town and you will find the
selection of traditional boulangerie, epicerie, boucher,... etc. in
the town centre, and then a ZAC (commercial estate) on the edge with a
Carrefour, a LeClerc or an Auchan together with Castorama, Leroy Merlin
etc. and a McDonalds. In other words a clear separation of market
sectors with both surviving.



What has changed? cars are cheap, fuel is cheap. So why not commute?

Wages are high, time is short..why not eat out?

... and people do....




All through my life my choice of home has been dictated by the
transport available and the cost of it versus the job and what it
paid..all one has to do is to tilt that playing field and everything
will change..

If that is your criterion.


Recently we have given up working..with a house paid off, our outgoings
for two are really pretty low. Certainly sub 20k net per annum. For a
very large house and comfortable lifestyle

we probably do no do more than 8k miles a year in the cars anymore
between us, compared with over 50k when working.

We are both in our 50's, highly skilled, and ready to work from
home..no one is offering though.

You could make it happen, but then is it worth the effort for the return?



I do free work, mainly technical support to DIY'ers, and a couple of
other areas..via the Internet. Why? cost its better than twiddling my
thumbs, and I enjoy it. I like work, I just hate being an employer or
an employee. Get rid of all the red tape around working - the taxes and
the bloody forms, and I might consider it again..

Saving the planet isn't about taxing this or that randomly: Its about
coming up with a viable lifestyle that is acceptable within the
constraints of what people are politically prepared to accept.

Therein is the nub of the issue.



By and large we don't have to tax roads, or cars or ban people from
doing stuff. We just have to do LESS of it. The simple way to do ALL
these things is to make travel expensive, not by taxing roads..but by
taxing FUEL.

Make working from home tax advantageous - fuel tax does that anyway..

Make WORKING FOR MONEY advantageous..right now it isn't. 50% of the
GDP goes to the government, that is then used to fund an army of civil
servants, most of whom are entirely superfluous.

It's a way of reducing unemployment of the unemployable.



Crime pays, because we have made things illegal and expensive, and
because there is no tax on it, and because it suits a certain sort of
unskilled entrepreneurial spirit..cut the taxes, legalise the drugs,
and lets have those entrepreneurs dong something socially useful..


Amen.

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 21:48:39 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

OTOH streaming also needs to be flexible. The Grammar/Secondary modern
"streaming" doesn't work in a lot of ways. Streaming within a school
for
certain subjects does though. But the more mixing, the better.

Small class sizes and streaming works. We had three streams in every
subjet to O level..I was in top streams for some., bottom for others.

What's interesting is that (so I'm told by someone who knows) selective
schools generate, statistically, better results for all pupils (not just
for the grammar school ones). This is because of the reduction in mixed
ability classes.

Yebbut non-selective schools doesn't imply mixed ability classes. And I do
know of at least one case where the school does do mixed ability and
apparently does so rather well.

The real killer with selective schooling is what happens on the wrong side
of the 11+. Consigning the kids to the 'lower status' school doesn't produce
good results - and there is no doubt that it is a lower status.

Round here, the population isn't dense enough to support a local grammar
schoool (although we were promised one 15 years ago).

You never answered my question about whether or not it had a non-selective
secondary school - does it?

cheers,
clive

Bob Eager wrote:
On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 21:48:39 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

OTOH streaming also needs to be flexible. The Grammar/Secondary modern
"streaming" doesn't work in a lot of ways. Streaming within a school for
certain subjects does though. But the more mixing, the better.

Small class sizes and streaming works. We had three streams in every
subjet to O level..I was in top streams for some., bottom for others.

What's interesting is that (so I'm told by someone who knows) selective
schools generate, statistically, better results for all pupils (not just
for the grammar school ones). This is because of the reduction in mixed
ability classes.

I would say that my experience of that was pretty much supportive of
that point of view. In any given subject the lower steam was treated
very differently..much more time on the basics, and less of the high
flying stuff..

Contrariwise it was a relief in the top stream when the one or two boys
who simply didn't get it moved to a lower stream and we could get on
without going over the basics three times ...

people aren't the same, and in terms of their ability to acquire a
working knowledge of a subject they are anything but equal, and they
need different treatment. Small classes and streaming deliver that, with
decent teachers.

On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 23:24:43 UTC, "Clive George"
wrote:

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 21:48:39 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

OTOH streaming also needs to be flexible. The Grammar/Secondary modern
"streaming" doesn't work in a lot of ways. Streaming within a school
for
certain subjects does though. But the more mixing, the better.

Small class sizes and streaming works. We had three streams in every
subjet to O level..I was in top streams for some., bottom for others.

What's interesting is that (so I'm told by someone who knows) selective
schools generate, statistically, better results for all pupils (not just
for the grammar school ones). This is because of the reduction in mixed
ability classes.

Yebbut non-selective schools doesn't imply mixed ability classes. And I do
know of at least one case where the school does do mixed ability and
apparently does so rather well.

The real killer with selective schooling is what happens on the wrong side
of the 11+. Consigning the kids to the 'lower status' school doesn't produce
good results - and there is no doubt that it is a lower status.

Round here, the population isn't dense enough to support a local grammar
schoool (although we were promised one 15 years ago).

You never answered my question about whether or not it had a non-selective
secondary school - does it?

Sorry, missed that bit. Yes, it does... but it doesn't do mixed ability
well. I have experience of that from the other end, since I deal with
its output...

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

Clive George wrote:
"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 21:48:39 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

OTOH streaming also needs to be flexible. The Grammar/Secondary modern
"streaming" doesn't work in a lot of ways. Streaming within a
school for
certain subjects does though. But the more mixing, the better.

Small class sizes and streaming works. We had three streams in every
subjet to O level..I was in top streams for some., bottom for others.

What's interesting is that (so I'm told by someone who knows) selective
schools generate, statistically, better results for all pupils (not just
for the grammar school ones). This is because of the reduction in mixed
ability classes.

Yebbut non-selective schools doesn't imply mixed ability classes. And I
do know of at least one case where the school does do mixed ability and
apparently does so rather well.

The real killer with selective schooling is what happens on the wrong
side of the 11+. Consigning the kids to the 'lower status' school
doesn't produce good results - and there is no doubt that it is a lower
status.

Is it ? I don't think so. Its just a different approach to a different
sort of person.

Anyway today academic excellence is more likely to get you your head
kicked in than a round of applause.



Round here, the population isn't dense enough to support a local grammar
schoool (although we were promised one 15 years ago).

You never answered my question about whether or not it had a
non-selective secondary school - does it?

cheers,
clive