M1 widening to cost 5 billion

[citydreams]

and these contracts as i said will likely as not only acutally cost 1 billion (if that) .

I'm sure the NAO will be glad to have your input because obviously you know more than them.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

er, this is a disussion forum




oh dear.

you have me on ignore...

or was that another misrepresentation...

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

I'm sure the NAO will be glad to have your input because obviously you know more than them.

are you saying that raw costs if it was not built by private entities would be the same ie 5 billion... and there's no profit in it for the company who does the work; that's remarkably public spirited of these international mega corperations to build roads with no profit margin at all....

 

[citydreams]

we need a coherant non-poltically lead transport policy....

How is transport policy supposed to be non-political? Do you have any idea what you're suggesting there?

 

[WouldBe]

we also need to stop the obbsesion with anumber of cognestion causing things

Like the number of cars on the road.

 

[Cobbles]

But you claim to live in Edinburgh so you know fuck all about London. Stick to making up bollocks on your description form for Thai-Brides-R-Us.com.

Unlike many Lunneners (I don't meet that many, probably because most of my work is with higher echelons of management), I travel extensively throughout the UK making use of air and rail transport as well as the road network.

From the evidence of my own eyes, it now takes much longer to get from, say, Chancery Lane to Kings X by taxi than it used to 5 years ago as all the cars end up jostling to avoid bus lanes. Why go by taxi? - well, the tube is just as unpleasant and filled with proles as it was 10 years ago.

 

[citydreams]

you have me on ignore...

I wish I did. But let's not go there, eh?

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

How is transport policy supposed to be non-political? Do you have any idea what you're suggesting there?

yes an independant body not a the will of the governent of the day who is accountable only to the NAO and has the abitliy to make transport policy cohesive. forces companies to produce vaule for money and limit profits in essence what's beign proposed for the NHS that they deal with the contracts and the dishing out and this isn't controlled by central goverment but deals directly with the treasurey ...

 

[citydreams]

are you saying that raw costs if it was not built by private entities would be the same ie 5 billion....

no, I'm just accusing you of having no idea what the true costs are, and that, like normal, you're spouting anti-govt rhetoric without giving a viable alternative.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

Like the number of cars on the road.

or unsysnch traffic lights road calming in un warrented areas deleiberate naoorwing of artiral roads. bus lanes which are 24/7 or run 7 til 7 7 days a week...

 

[citydreams]

yes an independant body not a the will of the governent of the day who is accountable only to the NAO.

so the NAO are in charge then? But the NAO is accountable to the House of Commons Public Accounts Commission, an all party committee of MPs

 

[dash_two]

Unlike many Lunneners (I don't meet that many, probably because most of my work is with higher echelons of management), I travel extensively throughout the UK making use of air and rail transport as well as the road network.

From the evidence of my own eyes, it now takes much longer to get from, say, Chancery Lane to Kings X by taxi than it used to 5 years ago as all the cars end up jostling to avoid bus lanes. Why go by taxi? - well, the tube is just as unpleasant and filled with proles as it was 10 years ago.

Jet setter my arse. You're on the internet all the time, so you're not getting laid either.

"You no rich like you say in email. I complain to agency."

 

[editor]

can you please quote where that has been said. or with draw the comment,

As acts of denial go, this is positively Olympian. Here's your very own words, faithfully quoted and linked.

"much as i loath ken and how he's utterly fucked london up "

"you seem to get wierdly aggressive when anyone talks about cars..."

"as infantlie as constant ranting about cars like a rattle out the pram baby perhaps?"

"...now then if you have furhter to say on the topic which isn't wildly sensationalist or knee jerk reactionary"

Pwned by your own words. No need to reply!

 

[editor]

Unlike many Lunneners (I don't meet that many, probably because most of my work is with higher echelons of management),

If they're not in London, exactly where are all these "higher echelons of management" stashed away in the UK please?

Why go by taxi? - well, the tube is just as unpleasant and filled with proles as it was 10 years ago.

There's people far more successful than you taking the tube

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

no, I'm just accusing you of having no idea what the true costs are, and that, like normal, you're spouting anti-govt rhetoric without giving a viable alternative.

so you can't have any opinion on something with propossing a fully qualified alternative... right...

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

As acts of denial go, this is positively Olympian. Here's your very own words, faithfully quoted and linked.

"much as i loath ken and how he's utterly fucked london up "

"you seem to get wierdly aggressive when anyone talks about cars..."

"as infantlie as constant ranting about cars like a rattle out the pram baby perhaps?"

"...now then if you have furhter to say on the topic which isn't wildly sensationalist or knee jerk reactionary"

Pwned by your own words. No need to reply!

or not as you stated the following...

If you've no idea why Ken has "fucked London up", and you can't find any examples of me being "weirdly agressive," "ranting about cars" or being a "knee jerk reactionary" in this thread, thenwhy post up this silly stuff?

the question being then where are my examples, you are demanding?

so i'll ask again where have i said i have no examples? quote this or retract the statement...

playing silly buggers and deleberatly misquoting doesn't count... sorry

so in your own words that'd be you pwned for not being able to susbtatiate your comments on my posts... again...

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

so the NAO are in charge then? But the NAO is accountable to the House of Commons Public Accounts Commission, an all party committee of MPs

would an all party commitee have a poltical bias towards one particualr ruling party or not?

is the bbc another accountable organiseation a poltical body?

yet again you spectacvularlly miss the point, and instead decide to errect straw men...

 

[citydreams]

would an all party commitee have a poltical bias towards one particualr ruling party or not?

is the bbc another accountable organiseation a poltical body?.

Classic! Your suggestion for transport policy was 'non-political'. The NAO is political by its nature. The commitee should have no bias. That's one of the best things about parliamentary democracy. Great isn't it. Shame it has to be so, gasp, political though.

But I see I have missed your point. Actually you want the roads to be run like the BBC. rotflmao!

 

[_angel_]

So long as you book a ticket in advance, you should have no problem getting a reserved seat for most journeys.

No. Sorry the trains esp virgin rail are a grade a disgrace. Why can't we put this kind of money into making sure there are enough trains and have enough carriages on them.

My friend tries to book her london-leeds trip (I know this is gner) months in advance and can't do it.

The virgin trains frequently miss out Wakefield and Leeds off their voyager destinations leaving passengers stranded. They don't always put enough carriages on and fuck up their shiny new reservation system so despite having booked a seat I can't get it and end up standing like sardine with two autistic boys crying for seven hours. (two of which the train is stationary)

The train doesn't stop at Leeds despite being scheduled to and I have to catch another one - missed porter reserved to help me with bags and boys and am reliant on kindness of passengers to get me off one train and on to other.

Apols for rant but trains in this country are a joke, no point in pretending they're okay.

There's no way I'd do another long distance train journey with kids again as a result.

Sorry, anyway, my point is the low fares/ nice trains only tend to happen at out of peak times, not when most people need to use the trains.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

Classic! Your suggestion for transport policy was 'non-political'. The NAO is political by its nature. The commitee should have no bias. That's one of the best things about parliamentary democracy. Great isn't it. Shame it has to be so, gasp, political though.

But I see I have missed your point. Actually you want the roads to be run like the BBC. rotflmao!

yes if you say so...

spectacularlly missing the point again...

would you say the DoT is larlgey at the whim of the ruling party of the time?

or is it totally autonomous and not subejct to the will of the ruling party?

would it be better to be a department not beholdant directly to a ruling party?

 

[citydreams]

would you say the DoT is larlgey at the whim of the ruling party of the time?

no

or is it totally autonomous and not subejct to the will of the ruling party?

no

would it be better to be a department not beholdant directly to a ruling party?

no

 

[editor]

or not as you stated the following...
the question being then where are my examples, you are demanding?

so i'll ask again where have i said i have no examples? quote this or retract the statement...

I've just posted the links to your posts! How can you deny your own words?!!

Sorry, but you're too weird to bother with. Besides, you've dragged the thread off topic enough with your bizarre outbursts.

 

[Cobbles]

If they're not in London, exactly where are all these "higher echelons of management" stashed away in the UK please?

What I said was that I don't meet many Londoners - once you get towards board/senior partner level, it's mainly Scots and Northerners.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

I've just posted the links to your posts! How can you deny your own words?!!

Sorry, but you're too weird to bother with. Besides, you've dragged the thread off topic enough with your bizarre outbursts.

or rather you can't back up you claims i have stated i can provide no examples.. thanks for playing now then have you anythign to say on topic?

pwned indeed...

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

What I said was that I don't meet many Londoners - once you get towards board/senior partner level, it's mainly Scots and Northerners.

it's alright he's not disaggeeing withyou but the strawmen he's set up based on half reaidn what you've written, does it allt he time it's quite tiresome as he then verrrs off down the demanding proof of things you haven't said, and when you adivse that you nto playign the game he then states that your poitn is in vaild it's classic trolling straight from his own text book of trolling here on urban...

 

[editor]

What I said was that I don't meet many Londoners - once you get towards board/senior partner level, it's mainly Scots and Northerners.

Really? What industry is this in then?

 

[Roadkill]

1) Loads of extra (empty most of the time) bus lanes
2) re-phased traffic lights
3) Bendy Buses

1) and 2) simply create a false impression that there's "congestion", 3) creates genuine congestion.

Mmmm paranoia.

We hear this from the whingeing car lobby all the time - that the traffic lights were deliberately put out of phase to slow cars down, make congestion worse and justify congestion charging and extra bus-priority schemes. No-one's ever advanced a shred of evidence for it, and it completely ignores the fact that in fact traffic speeds were steady or even increasing slightly before the charge was introduced, which rather blows the charge that traffic congestion was deliberately worsened out of the water. However, that little upward blip was at the tail end of a trend of worsening congestion and slowing traffic speeds that's been going on in London (and most other cities) for the last half-century - ever since mass car use took off and well before bus lanes and the like were even heard of! Why do so many car drivers and their tame lobbyists seek to deny the basic and very obvious fact that if you put more and more cars into a given area, congestion is going to get worse and worse? It really is that bloody simple!

You really should go into stand-up comedy, Cobbles. Your upper-class-twit, prole-hating, 'public transport is beneath my dignity' act borders on the hilarious at times.

Meanwhile, @garf, I notice you've ignored the point I made a couple of pages back about more road-building having signally failed to reduce congestion nationwide over the last half-century.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

Mmmm paranoia.

We hear this from the whingeing car lobby all the time - that the traffic lights were deliberately put out of phase to slow cars down, make congestion worse and justify congestion charging and extra bus-priority schemes. No-one's ever advanced a shred of evidence for it, and it completely ignores the fact that in fact traffic speeds were steady or even increasing slightly before the charge was introduced, which rather blows the charge that traffic congestion was deliberately worsened out of the water. However, that little upward blip was at the tail end of a trend of worsening congestion and slowing traffic speeds that's been going on in London (and most other cities) for the last half-century - ever since mass car use took off and well before bus lanes and the like were even heard of! Why do so many car drivers and their tame lobbyists seek to deny the basic and very obvious fact that if you put more and more cars into a given area, congestion is going to get worse and worse? It really is that bloody simple!

You really should go into stand-up comedy, Cobbles. Your upper-class-twit, prole-hating, 'public transport is beneath my dignity' act borders on the hilarious at times.

Meanwhile, @garf, I notice you've ignored the point I made a couple of pages back about more road-building having signally failed to reduce congestion nationwide over the last half-century.

i didn't chap i responded that it would have to be part of an entire investment structure of all transport, you apper to have ignored that response in favour of more car bashing nonsense...

thansk for playing...

 

[Roadkill]

i didn't chap i responded that it would have to be part of an entire investment structure of all transport, you apper to have ignored that response in favour of more car bashing nonsense...

thansk for playing...

I did wonder if you'd come out with the 'car bashing' line... Sorry garf, but it's a tedious cliche, and in my case you should know perfectly well I've nothing against cars - just against those who refuse to see that they're not an unalloyed blessing.

I didn't read your comment on investment in all forms of transport (which I agree with, incidentally) as a response to me: certainly, it didn't cast any doubt on the fact that, as I pointed out, people have been saying for more than half a century that more and more roads are the solution to congestion and they've been wrong every time.

 

[editor]

I did wonder if you'd come out with the 'car bashing' line... Sorry garf, but it's a tedious cliche, and in my case you should know perfectly well I've nothing against cars - just against those who refuse to see that they're not an unalloyed blessing.

I've got nothing against cars either despite Garf's endless accusations: they're very useful things and essential for some folks.

But I am against this arrogant notion that car drivers have some sort of 'right' to drive that overrides the rights of others and that we should keep on carving up the countryside to accommodate more and more of the things while treating pedestrians as second class citizens.

We should be working to get less cars on the road, not more, and if that means slightly inconveniencing some drivers, that's a small price to pay.