First Eurostar on its way to St. Pancras

[pembrokestephen]

Fine, I don't have any rugrats but I don't mind funding the infrastructure that's needed to support the nation's selfishly generated progeny.

You have the temerity to rant about other people's selfishness?? When all you can do is rant about how you pay taxes for this, and you pay taxes for that, so therefore everything should be set up for your exclusive benefit?

The ironies are delicious...

 

[baldrick]

I travel into Waterloo, so Eurostar from Waterloo was v handy.

However, St Pancreas is gorgeous, so am v excited about travelling from there. And it's hardly difficult to get to from Waterloo, an additional 15 minutes at most?[/QUOTE]

That surely negates the £5 billion they spent on the link to knock 20 minutes off the journey time?

so? the world doesn't revolve aorund London. The tube links from St Pancras are better, and the overland services cover more of England. Plus St Pancras is fucking gorgeous these days

 

[roryer]

No, however as motorists pay huge swathes of extra tax, there is a reasonable expectation that some of this should find its way back into infrastructure for our cars.

Drinkers pay tax and they don't really cause that much social harm really, do you also think the money raised from alcohol tax should be paid to fund free alcohol for big drinkers? How about funding rehabilitation? Likewise for car addicts, money raised in taxes should pay for bicycle infrastructure and PT.

Anyway how much is the future of the planet worth? How much are over 3500 children killed or seriously injured every year worth? How much is peace and quiet in our cities where 90% of the UK population worth? How much is clean air worth? How much is public space for recreation not cars worth?

BAN PRIVATE CARS NOW!!!

 

[Crispy]

I think st pancras is actually quicker to get to than waterloo, even though it's further away from me

 

[pembrokestephen]

BAN PRIVATE CARS NOW!!!

Roryer -

(I'm aware that this is now creeping off topic, but if you want to start a Ban Private Cars thread, I'd be happy to contribute there)

I live in the wilds of West Wales. Public transport isn't worth a damn - 2 hour headways on buses and trains, neither service particularly reliable. I would be utterly screwed without a car, even though, in principle, I'd much prefer to use public transport. In a brazen attempt to keep this on topic, I'd point out that Wales used to be amazingly well-provided for railway lines, but most of them got cut by Beeching, leaving us with a couple of spindly routes that I suspect only exist because the Powers that Be have forgotten about them

Should my car be banned, too?

 

[Crispy]

Should my car be banned, too?

In an ideal world, yes, from the city. Cars make sense outside the city.

 

[Cobbles]

Drinkers pay tax and they don't really cause that much social harm really, do you also think the money raised from alcohol tax should be paid to fund free alcohol for big drinkers?

Social harm from drinking? - you mean that having our city centres full of puking brawling morons who have to be swept up by the Police and A&E is beneficial to society? - strange.

Still, I like your idea about tax levied on alcohol - this could work well with vehicles - the (huge) volume of tax raised on fuel can be used to subsidise the vehicles with te greatest thirst! - brilliant concept!

Anyway how much is the future of the planet worth?

Not a lot judging by the sales of central heating versus insulation - domestic property pollutes far more than private and PSV vehicles - are you going to ban home heating?

How much are over 3500 children killed or seriously injured every year worth?

Indeed, we should also ban all sharp things and build all railway systems in enclosed tunnels so the little dears can't top themselves by playing on th e tracks. The answeer to that problem is teaching the little darlings some social responsibility like the latest "bunch of yoof larkin' abaht onna pavement" advert tries to do.

How much is peace and quiet in our cities where 90% of the UK population worth?

Oh yes, buses and trams are absolutely silent and vibration free - just like railways.

How much is clean air worth?

Oh no don't tell me that we have to stop generating leccy as well, it's going to be an awfully dull world - no big sound systems, no internet, hand cranked telly......

How much is public space for recreation not cars worth?

So you want a lot of long thin parks generated from roads?

BAN PRIVATE CARS NOW!!!

Meanwhile, back on planet reality, what was the point of spending 5 billion quid so that some people get a 20 minute benefit each way on a jaunt to Paris whilst others have to trek an extra 20 minutes a different station whilst the vast majority of the UK don't get any benefit at all?

 

[Roadkill]

BAN PRIVATE CARS NOW!!!

We've had this argument before.

I'm sorry to say this, but you were being completely unrealistic then, and you still are. The private car isn't going anywhere in the near future, and nor should it. In its place, the car is a good thing.

 

[editor]

Still, I like your idea about tax levied on alcohol - this could work well with vehicles - the (huge) volume of tax raised on fuel can be used to subsidise the vehicles with te greatest thirst! - brilliant concept!

How about we crush the cars of those cunts that drive around pissed instead?

Meanwhile, back on planet reality, what was the point of spending 5 billion quid so that some people get a 20 minute benefit each way on a jaunt to Paris whilst others have to trek an extra 20 minutes a different station whilst the vast majority of the UK don't get any benefit at all?

What's the point of spending millions on new motorways and bypasses just so some selfish twat sat on his own in a big polluting car can drive along from one place to the other ten minutes quicker?

The vast majority of the UK don't get any benefit at all from that.

 

[pembrokestephen]

In an ideal world, yes, from the city. Cars make sense outside the city.

When I lived in London, and owned a car, I hardly ever used it to drive in town. Quite apart from all the ecofriendly stuff, driving in London is crappy (and slow) enough that it made sense to use the pretty good (certainly by comparison to most of the UK outside it) public transport system. Which is how it should be, in my view.

(the reason I had a car was because I lived on the edge of London, and there was a noticeable difference, in terms of poorer service and higher cost, in the public transport available outside London and that available in it)

 

[roryer]

Social harm from drinking? - you mean that having our city centres full of puking brawling morons who have to be swept up by the Police and A&E is beneficial to society? - strange.

I think you're missing the point, compared to cars drinking itself causes less harm to others in soceity. However excessive drinking is not necessarily good for soceity, and thus alcohol is highly taxed, similar to petrol, your suggestion for petrol taxes to be spent on more roads is like suggesting drink taxes be spent on providing government subsidised booze for the 'puking brawling morons' you mention.

My suggestion is that we should raise the taxes on driving and petrol, and spend the money on rehabilitation for car addicts in the form of better public transport, safe routes for cyclists, better walking routes, education and promotion etc.

Your other points simply don't deserve a reponse, but as for your point about long parks, please remember that streets are for people and not cars, and it should be on the streets that people socialise and relax. Please see what a street without cars can be used for.

 

[T & P]

Meanwhile, back on planet reality, what was the point of spending 5 billion quid so that some people get a 20 minute benefit each way on a jaunt to Paris whilst others have to trek an extra 20 minutes a different station whilst the vast majority of the UK don't get any benefit at all?

Exactly the same point there is in widening the M1, or the M25, or any other already huge motorway: to save those travelling that route a bit of time.

Why should people put up with years of roadworks, forced purchases of land and hundreds of billions of Pounds spent so drivers can save 20 minutes on a motorway journey the immense majority of people in the country will seldom if ever use?

 

[Crispy]

Even the M1 widening has only ballooned out to $5bn and I'm willing to bet more people use the M1 than the eurostar.

 

[editor]

Even the M1 widening has only ballooned out to $5bn and I'm willing to bet more people use the M1 than the eurostar.

But at what environmental cost?

 

[WouldBe]

But at what environmental cost?

If it stops the 2 hour traffic jam in the J24 area (due to an event at Donnington) it will be less environmentally damaging.

 

[T & P]

It won't. It only goes from junction 6 to 10A- so a minority of Londoners can reach Luton airport a bit quicker for their flight to Newcastle.

How's that for value for money Cobbles?

 

[Cobbles]

I think you're missing the point, compared to cars drinking itself causes less harm to others in soceity. However excessive drinking is not necessarily good for soceity, and thus alcohol is highly taxed, similar to petrol,

Nonsense, alcohol isn't taxed due to some airy fairy social policy nonsense, it's taxed because it's an easy target with the Government able to rake in billions with manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers actually doing the work of collecting the tax.

your suggestion for petrol taxes to be spent on more roads is like suggesting drink taxes be spent on providing government subsidised booze for the 'puking brawling morons' you mention.

Wrong - the tax colllected should be hypothecated and spent on infrastructure (e.g. roads), by extrapolation, booze tax would be spent on enlarging casualty departments and providing city centre drunk tanks.

 

[Cobbles]

It won't. It only goes from junction 6 to 10A- so a minority of Londoners can reach Luton airport a bit quicker for their flight to Newcastle.

How's that for value for money Cobbles?

Brilliant Value - how many people do/could use the M1 simultaneously vs. how few people can jaunt off on Eurostar whose capacity is constrained by how many trains you can wedge through the Chunnel hourly.

I could understand the huge investment if it was going to increase bandwidth globally and therefore and affect goods traffic as well (which of course improving the M1 also does), as opposed to just shaving a wee bit off time off a specific type of passenger travel.

It's just a grandstanding white elephant with limited utility. The money would have been better spent trying to knock a couple of hours off the East coast route to let it compete with air travel. It appears that MP's would far rather spend time in Paris or Brussels than Doncaster or Aberdeen.

 

[Crispy]

If you're going to spend booze money on casualty depts. and drunk tanks (eg. reducing the harmful side effects) then you should spend car tax on reducing the harm that cars do.

 

[Crispy]

It's just a grandstanding white elephant with limited utility. The money would have been better spent trying to knock a couple of hours off the East coast route to let it compete with air travel.

With you there, except a High Speed ecml would cost vastly more than this simple little line

 

[Cobbles]

If you're going to spend booze money on casualty depts. and drunk tanks (eg. reducing the harmful side effects) then you should spend car tax on reducing the harm that cars do.

Fine, supply every vehicle with a free (e.g. paid for by fuel tax) high efficiency catalytic converter/particulate trap + annual maintenance.

Alternatively, you could tax all vehicles based on the grottiness of what comes out of their exhausts - no exceptions, buses included.

Wait a minute, that would drive the bus fleet off the road, reducing congestion at a stroke - a double whammy......

 

[T & P]

Do you think that widening 5% of the total length of the motorway is good value Cobbles? For whom, other than a few Londoners? I don't see it that way. And I live in London.

Regarding the Eurostar, various studies have established that for every Pound invested in high speed railways the country will get back £1.80 in increased business and tourism. So even if not a single more mile of high speed line is ever built in Britain the money will be recouped and then some.

But of course one day in the future a British government might finally decide to build a high speed line between London and the North. The fact that a link to Europe already exists makes brings possibility closer.

Truth is, as far as many people are concerned an efficient, modern, high speed rail network is about the best exponent of a nation you can have. The journey from the Channel to London on old commuter lines was doing this country incalculable damage as far as tourism alone is concerned- certainly any tourist who ever came to England on the Eurostar.

 

[Cobbles]

Regarding the Eurostar, various studies have established that for every Pound invested in high speed railways the country will get back £1.80 in increased business and tourism. So even if not a single more mile of high speed line is ever built in Britain the money will be recouped and then some..

Interesting, according to the Office of National Statistics (Travel Trends International Passenger survey 2005 published Nov. 2006 http://http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/ttrends1106.pdf ), 74% of all foreign visitors arrive by air, with a paltry 11% coming via the chunnel ( a combined figure for Eurostar as well as car carriage!), which figure was still eclipsed by 16% arriving by sea

Americans form the most valuable group economically (despite being less numerous that Europeans, they spend almost ten times as much per capita - presumably none of it on Eurostar tickets as there isn't a branch line to New York).

Clearly, the vast majority of Eurpoeans don't elect to travel by train (something that 20 minutes off the journey time from Potsdam/Barcelona by train ain't going to change) and the economic effect of european train travellers is minimal.

No doubt some leger de main could be exercised to show a return on this "investment" fdirectly related to tourism (providing enough skewed questionnaires are issued) but it'll be closer to the date when hell freezes over rather than a rational ROI period.

On interesting nugget is a graph that shows that outside Lunnun, the most visited city is Edinburgh, followed closely by Glasgow, neither of which are served by Eurostar.

Truth is, as far as many people are concerned an efficient, modern, high speed rail network is about the best exponent of a nation you can have. The journey from the Channel to London on old commuter lines was doing this country incalculable damage as far as tourism alone is concerned- certainly any tourist who ever came to England on the Eurostar.

How many people think this? a dozen? - does this mean that Russia and the USA languish on the scrapheap of nationhood because they don't have a loss-making showpiece fast railway track to show off?

Excuse me, I have to go and change my underwear, I don't often laugh so explosively.....

 

[WouldBe]

Do you think that widening 5% of the total length of the motorway is good value Cobbles? For whom, other than a few Londoners?

There are plans to widen the M1 from Nottingham to Sheffield which IIRC includes J24 I previously mentioned.

 

[editor]

Fine, supply every vehicle with a free (e.g. paid for by fuel tax) high efficiency catalytic converter/particulate trap + annual maintenance.

The cost of that lot would go into tens of millions, but it's good to see that you're prepared to substantially raise the cost of motoring for everyone in the name of environmentalism.

Shame that old grannies won't be able to afford the huge tax hike, but fuck 'em, right? - after all, the less of those slow old bats on the road, the more space for you!

 

[roryer]

Alternatively, you could tax all vehicles based on the grottiness of what comes out of their exhausts - no exceptions, buses included.

I agree, TfL's bus fleet already meet Euro 4 standards, but not all privately run buses and freight vehicles do, thus the introduction of the London Low Emission Zone.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/lez/default.aspx

Not quite sure how you think removing buses from the road, which carry very large number of passengers in small amount of space, and forcing everyone to drive which uses up to 50 times more road space will help congestion though? Could you explain?

I'm not saying your vision is impossible but let me just explain how it will look. To accomodate all the extra car trips we would need us to build 10 lane highways on all arterial routes out of all main centres, linked by several ring roads of similar sizes. We would need to knock down quite a lot of the current housing and development along the routes of course, and replace it with urban sprawl developments which a car dependent city generally generates, which would mean we would need to build over the green belts.

Then in 10 years our cities would be just like LA. Still stuck in traffic jams of course, with no public transport to speak of, and due to the low density living it is almost impossible to serve the city by PT.

Of course we would also need to get rid of the pesky pedestrians, all they do is get in the way of our super highways. I mean why does anyone want to walk anyway, isn't it enough walking from the massive car parks we would require to the indoor centres?

Then along comes an energy crunch due to declining reserves of oil, and the city becomes unsustainable and slowly desends into chaos.

Good thinking though!

 

[Cobbles]

The cost of that lot would go into tens of millions, but it's good to see that you're prepared to substantially raise the cost of motoring for everyone in the name of environmentalism.

Shame that old grannies won't be able to afford the huge tax hike, but fuck 'em, right? - after all, the less of those slow old bats on the road, the more space for you!

Read the post - I suggested they should be supplied FREE by using some of the dosh generated by the UK's laughably high levels of fuel taxation.

After all, there used to be grants for petrol-> LPG conversions available and diesel used to have a lower rate of tax as diesels were supposed to be more economical but when the government realised that there was hole in its revenues, that changed - cynical money grabbing dressed up as cuddly environmentalism.

 

[T & P]

Interesting, according to the Office of National Statistics (Travel Trends International Passenger survey 2005 published Nov. 2006 http://http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/ttrends1106.pdf ), 74% of all foreign visitors arrive by air, with a paltry 11% coming via the chunnel ( a combined figure for Eurostar as well as car carriage!), which figure was still eclipsed by 16% arriving by sea

Americans form the most valuable group economically (despite being less numerous that Europeans, they spend almost ten times as much per capita - presumably none of it on Eurostar tickets as there isn't a branch line to New York).

Clearly, the vast majority of Eurpoeans don't elect to travel by train (something that 20 minutes off the journey time from Potsdam/Barcelona by train ain't going to change) and the economic effect of european train travellers is minimal.

No doubt some leger de main could be exercised to show a return on this "investment" fdirectly related to tourism (providing enough skewed questionnaires are issued) but it'll be closer to the date when hell freezes over rather than a rational ROI period.

On interesting nugget is a graph that shows that outside Lunnun, the most visited city is Edinburgh, followed closely by Glasgow, neither of which are served by Eurostar.

How many French, German or Belgium potential visitors would have come to London if the high speed link had existed from the off? How many who visited England came back and told friends and family what shitty and frustrating railway network we had, and what influence did that have on others? It all adds up you know...

How many people think this? a dozen? - does this mean that Russia and the USA languish on the scrapheap of nationhood because they don't have a loss-making showpiece fast railway track to show off?

Excuse me, I have to go and change my underwear, I don't often laugh so explosively.....

You do that. I'd rather go with the experts and their reports on how the lack of a high speed rail network is preventing the nation from making up to £90bn:

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:VdXBtp3ZYfwJ:www.greengauge21.net/assets/GG21_RAIL_QandA.pdf+%22the+case+for+high+speed%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=uk

 

[Crispy]

After all, there used to be grants for petrol-> LPG conversions available and diesel used to have a lower rate of tax as diesels were supposed to be more economical but when the government realised that there was hole in its revenues, that changed - cynical money grabbing dressed up as cuddly environmentalism.

This is also a good point. Trouble is, real environmentalism isn't cuddly, it's hard. No government's going to want to do that.

 

[editor]

Read the post - I suggested they should be supplied FREE by using some of the dosh generated by the UK's laughably high levels of fuel taxation.

So who makes up the massive shortfall in the money coming in from fuel taxation?