Congestion Charge. The Lib Dem point of view.
Brian L Johnson
" http://rtaylor.co.uk/922 - Cambridge Congestion Charge - The Liberal Democrat View as of Thursday 19th March #cambridge #uk"
What next? To ease crowding in cycle lanes, issue everybody with unicycles?
--
-blj-
Paul Rudin
"Sian Reid described a vision of Cambridge that she, and her Liberal
Democrat colleagues, aspire to. A city where everyone lives close to
their work and commutes by walking or cycling."
I rather get the impression that they're rather keen on everyone
spending their lives sitting on the bus :/
Brian L Johnson
... yes, sitting and laughing as hummingbirds bring us tidbits from the roadside marshmallow trees, and listening to choirs of roadside animals as they line up to bid us 'Good morning!' our way to work.
--
-blj-
Paul Rudin
> On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 09:04:54 +0000
> Paul Rudin <paul....@rudin.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> A city where everyone lives close to their work and commutes by walking or cycling.
>
> So, this will be cloud cuckoo land will it?
(For the avoidance of doubt those were not my words - I was quoting from
the web page mentioned.)
Brian Morrison
Apologies for the quoting error, I was in a hurry and didn't notice how
my snip had changed the attribution.
--
Brian
Jennifer Liddle
> On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 09:04:54 +0000
> Paul Rudin <paul....@rudin.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
Good point. We'll never get perfection, so let's have a vision of
Cambridge where everybody has to travel miles to work on congested roads
in pollution generating vehicles, and work towards that instead.
--
Jennifer Liddle http://www.jsquared.co.uk/jennyl
PGP Key: http://www.jsquared.co.uk/jennyl/pgpkey.html
Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you
do it. - Mahatma Gandhi
Martin
I have been attending these Transport Commission sessions and they have
been interesting in exposing the various flaws in different objectors'
arguments, both for and against. (And no-one could accuse them of giving
the County Council officers an easy time IMO.)
John Bridge, for instance, had claimed there were alternatives to where
large sums of money for transport investment would come from if the £500m
was not forthcoming (i.e. the congestion charge TIF plans were dropped).
Under questioning the best he could come up with was 2% on business rates
(which anyway would not be much in comparison) which he seemed to suggest
his members would support if all ploughed back into transport!
http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/cambridge-congestion-charge-the-business-perspective.html
seems to corroborate what I heard.
And as per the OP, this fourth meeting finally exposed the obvious
discrepancy between the view that the scheme needs to be more CO2-focussed
while at the same time having massive (90%) residents' discounts. Sian
Reid said in response to questioning that "There is clearly a conflict
between those two objectives". Indeed.
Martin
John Burnham
>
> Good point. We'll never get perfection, so let's have a vision of
> Cambridge where everybody has to travel miles to work on congested roads
> in pollution generating vehicles, and work towards that instead.
Or maybe, and this is such a wild and crazy idea that it may well baffle
and bamboozle some of the people here who seem to have somewhat of a
binary viewpoint, we should work towards an achievable vision that
improves matters and allows people to see an actual improvement. Once
we've achieved that, then we could reassess the situation and perhaps
realise that further improvements could be made.
Sigh.
J
Tim Ward
news:alpine.LSU.2.00.0...@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk...
>
> "There is clearly a conflict between those two objectives"
There is pretty well always a conflict between objectives every single time
politicians are called upon to decide something. Otherwise there would be an
"obvious" "right" answer, and the techies would just get on with
implementing it without bothering the politicians.
Politicians exist to take the blame for whichever way they decided on such
issues.
--
Tim Ward
www.brettward.co.uk
Tim Ward
news:pan.2009.03.20...@jaka.demon.co.uk...
>
> Or maybe, and this is such a wild and crazy idea that it may well baffle
> and bamboozle some of the people here who seem to have somewhat of a
> binary viewpoint, we should work towards an achievable vision that
> improves matters and allows people to see an actual improvement. Once
> we've achieved that, then we could reassess the situation and perhaps
> realise that further improvements could be made.
Er yes, that's what's been happening over the last many years.
Or haven't you noticed that we no longer have juggernauts queueing in
Trinity Street?
--
Tim Ward
www.brettward.co.uk
John Burnham
Yeah, it's just a shame that some of the improvements haven't been seen to
be improvements and that's the sort of thing that ends up turning public
opinion against such plans. For example, I see the work going on in the
Milton Road / Cowley Road area as basically just screwing up the entire
area with no discernable benefit. Am I right ? Well, that's a matter of
opinion, but the issue is that people see what they regard as collosal
cock-ups and it makes them less likely to accept possibly better plans.
It's not that I see all road works that hold me up or cause me
inconvenience as wrong. I happily put up with the road works on the A1
that eventually produced the much improved stretch between Alconbury and
Peterborough. Why ? Because you could see that it was going to make a
positive difference. Come on, as a politician, you must know the
importance of public perception and, at the moment, I'm afraid at least
this member of the public's perception is that whilst there are some
improvements, there's a lot of work which seems to be producing the
opposite effect.
J
Tim Ward
>
> Yeah, it's just a shame that some of the improvements haven't been seen to
> be improvements and that's the sort of thing that ends up turning public
> opinion against such plans. For example, I see the work going on in the
> Milton Road / Cowley Road area as basically just screwing up the entire
> area with no discernable benefit. Am I right ?
Quite likely. Definitely looks like the last several rebuilds of that area
have been to support the single occupant car commuter and sod everybody
else.
--
Tim Ward
www.brettward.co.uk
John Burnham
Hmm. To be honest, I doubt it helps even them. Poor road signage leads to
people zooming down the wrong lanes and suddenly discovering they're in
the wrong lane and thus they have to try and force their way back into the
correct lane. It's just a mess and that's what the public remembers - the
messes, the inconveniences, the cock-ups. So, your initial point about the
traffic situation in Cambridge having generally improved may well be
correct, but the public perception is that it's no better or that it's
worse. This may have some link to why so many people are distrustful of
the major schemes that are going ahead or are being mooted. If the
perceived track record is so poor, no wonder everyone believes that the
guided bus is doomed, or that the congestion charge will be a huge fiasco
or even that the money for the cycling city stuff is being poured onto the
road in the form of red paint as opposed to something more useful. It's
probably also why people going on about cities where everyone walks or
cycles and no nasty internal combustion engines are allowed are treated
with such derision. Well, that and the whole naivete of the statement.
J
Brian Morrison
> Brian Morrison wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 09:04:54 +0000
>> Paul Rudin <paul....@rudin.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> A city where everyone lives close to their work and commutes by walking or cycling.
>> So, this will be cloud cuckoo land will it?
>>
>
> Good point. We'll never get perfection, so let's have a vision of
> Cambridge where everybody has to travel miles to work on congested roads
> in pollution generating vehicles, and work towards that instead.
No, you're right, you'll never get perfection, and I doubt you'll
succeed in getting 10% of the population in the area living and working
within close proximity of each place.
That means that this statement is pointless in the extreme, because it
looks towards a future so far away as to be effectively beyond any kind
of sensible prediction as to what will happen.
I'm pleased to be reminded of why I would never vote for your party.
Indeed every time I see a posting from one of the gang of LD councillors
here it reminds me too. Keep it up!
--
Brian
Jennifer Liddle
> Jennifer Liddle wrote:
>> Brian Morrison wrote:
>>> On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 09:04:54 +0000
>>> Paul Rudin <paul....@rudin.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> A city where everyone lives close to their work and commutes by walking or cycling.
>>> So, this will be cloud cuckoo land will it?
>>>
>>
>> Good point. We'll never get perfection, so let's have a vision of
>> Cambridge where everybody has to travel miles to work on congested roads
>> in pollution generating vehicles, and work towards that instead.
>
> No, you're right, you'll never get perfection, and I doubt you'll
> succeed in getting 10% of the population in the area living and working
> within close proximity of each place.
And therefore we should.....what? Give up trying? Not bother? Hurl abuse
at anybody who suggests things could be better? Or should we recognise
that even if we can't achieve 100% perfection, it's still something worth
working towards?
--
Jennifer Liddle http://www.jsquared.co.uk/jennyl
PGP Key: http://www.jsquared.co.uk/jennyl/pgpkey.html
You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to. - Molly Ivins
John Burnham
> And therefore we should.....what? Give up trying? Not bother? Hurl abuse
> at anybody who suggests things could be better? Or should we recognise
> that even if we can't achieve 100% perfection, it's still something worth
> working towards?
No. Set realistic, achievable goals. Setting unrealistic, non-achievable
goals is counter-productive and hurts your credibility.
J
Brian Morrison
Which is exactly why it got under my skin.
--
Brian
Paul Rudin
>
> And therefore we should.....what? Give up trying? Not bother? Hurl
> abuse at anybody who suggests things could be better? Or should we
> recognise that even if we can't achieve 100% perfection, it's still
> something worth working towards?
If you really want it then you need to adopt policies that have some
chance of achieving it. That means a very radical change of planning and
transport policies.
At the moment the only political party that have stated policies that
have any hope of moving us closer to that aim are the Greens.
Dave {Reply Address In.Sig}
Once they've removed the congestion from that area, they'll stick a
congestion charge on it anyway. Or you can pay what appears to be £1.80/day
to use the P&R and take the bus for the last bit to the Science Park. Having
used the P&R last Saturday, there seems to be a dedicated ticket machine for
this so they obviously believe someone's going to fall for it.
Of course, once they build on the old P&R site, traffic chaos will resume as
normal.
--
Dave
da v...@llondel.org (without the space)
So many gadgets, so little time.
Espen Koht
<alpine.LSU.2.00.0...@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>,
Martin <mv...@remove.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
> I have been attending these Transport Commission sessions and they have
> been interesting in exposing the various flaws in different objectors'
> arguments, both for and against. (And no-one could accuse them of giving
> the County Council officers an easy time IMO.)
I've posted the question on Richard Taylor's web site, but since you
were also there, I'm curious if this is an accurate description of the
information presented, and who presented it:
"When asked about the level of a residents’ discount figures from other
cities were cited: London 90% discount, Manchester’s 100% discount (as
it was to be a cordon scheme) and Stockholm’s 100% discount."
That last example factually entirely incorrect as far as I can tell (cf.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_congestion_tax>). There is no
blanket exemption for residents in that scheme, nor is it common for any
road/congesting charging schemes I've encountered outside of the London
one and I've been half-assuming that the no-exemptions condition was
partially a realisation that this wasn't standard practice.
Martin
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009, Espen Koht wrote:
> I've posted the question on Richard Taylor's web site, but since you
> were also there, I'm curious if this is an accurate description of the
> information presented, and who presented it:
>
> "When asked about the level of a residents??? discount figures from other
> cities were cited: London 90% discount, Manchester???s 100% discount (as
> it was to be a cordon scheme) and Stockholm???s 100% discount."
I definitely have written down London 90% and Manchester 100% written
down. I have a feeling a third city was mentioned with a high discount,
but I didn't write it down as facts were coming in quickly so can't be
sure. I suspect the blog entry you mention is likely to be an accurate
report of what was said.
> That last example factually entirely incorrect as far as I can tell (cf.
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_congestion_tax>). There is no
> blanket exemption for residents in that scheme, nor is it common for any
> road/congesting charging schemes I've encountered outside of the London
> one and I've been half-assuming that the no-exemptions condition was
> partially a realisation that this wasn't standard practice.
I suggest you drop a quick e-mail to the Commissioners to point out facts
about the Stockholm example, in case that was the city mentioned as per
the blog entry.
Their e-mail is on the right-hand-side of
http://www.cambstransportcommission.co.uk/
Martin
Espen Koht
> On Fri, 20 Mar 2009, Espen Koht wrote:
>
> > I've posted the question on Richard Taylor's web site, but since you
> > were also there, I'm curious if this is an accurate description of the
> > information presented, and who presented it:
> >
> > "When asked about the level of a residents??? discount figures from other
> > cities were cited: London 90% discount, Manchester???s 100% discount (as
> > it was to be a cordon scheme) and Stockholm???s 100% discount."
>
> I definitely have written down London 90% and Manchester 100% written
> down. I have a feeling a third city was mentioned with a high discount,
> but I didn't write it down as facts were coming in quickly so can't be
> sure. I suspect the blog entry you mention is likely to be an accurate
> report of what was said.
So basically all the examples were illustrations of substantial
residents' discounts without any counter-examples to the contrary? And
since I'm still unclear on who offered these examples, can you provided
any clues as to who presented this data?
Jennifer Liddle
> No. Set realistic, achievable goals. Setting unrealistic, non-achievable
> goals is counter-productive and hurts your credibility.
> J
“Man’s reach should exceed his grasp, or what’s a heaven for?” ~~ Robert
Browning
--
Jennifer Liddle http://www.jsquared.co.uk/jennyl
PGP Key: http://www.jsquared.co.uk/jennyl/pgpkey.html
Bad officials are elected by good citizens who do not vote. - George Jean
Nathan
Tony Raven
jenn...@jsquared.co.uk says...
> John Burnham wrote:
>
> > No. Set realistic, achievable goals. Setting unrealistic, non-achievable
> > goals is counter-productive and hurts your credibility.
> > J
>
> Browning
>
Or as another literary giant put it
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all
progress depends on the unreasonable man."
- George Bernard Shaw
--
Tony
Brian L Johnson
Yeah, but what does he know of congestion charges?
--
-blj-
Brian L Johnson
> John Burnham wrote:
>
>> No. Set realistic, achievable goals. Setting unrealistic, non-achievable
>> goals is counter-productive and hurts your credibility.
>> J
>
> “Man’s reach should exceed his grasp, or what’s a heaven for?” ~~ Robert
> Browning
If you think that's relevant then why not press for investment into an as-yet undiscovered means of propulsion that will cost nothing to produce, nothing to run and cause no pollution whatsoever?
No harm in trying, eh?
--
-blj-
Brian Morrison
But how to recognise which species is which?
--
Brian
John Burnham
>
> "Man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?" ~~
> Robert Browning
"A witty quote proves nothing." - Voltaire.
John Burnham
> Or as another literary giant put it
>
> "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man
> persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all
> progress depends on the unreasonable man."
> - George Bernard Shaw
So, you prefer politicians with pie in the sky ideals that will never
work, cost a fortune and don't deliver on their promises ? There is a time
for idealism and a time for pragmatism - a quality I find sadly lacking in
many people these days.
J
Jennifer Liddle
I prefer an unreasonable politician who will make progress, over a
reasonable one who will sit on their hands and say "there is no point in
trying anything, it won't work'.
--
Jennifer Liddle http://www.jsquared.co.uk/jennyl
PGP Key: http://www.jsquared.co.uk/jennyl/pgpkey.html
Tony Raven
jo...@jaka.demon.co.uk says...
"A facility for quotation covers the absence of original thought"
Lord Peter Wimsey (Dorothy L. Sayers)
--
Tony
"He who innovates will have for his enemies all those who are well off
under the existing order of things, and only lukewarm supporters in
those who might be better off under the new."
- Niccolo Machiavelli
Tony Raven
> Jennifer Liddle <jenn...@jsquared.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > John Burnham wrote:
> >
> >> No. Set realistic, achievable goals. Setting unrealistic, non-achievable
> >> goals is counter-productive and hurts your credibility.
> >> J
> >
>
> If you think that's relevant then why not press for investment into an as-yet undiscovered means of propulsion that will cost nothing to produce, nothing to run and cause no pollution whatsoever?
>
> No harm in trying, eh?
>
No harm in trying and a Nobel Prize if you succeed. You would need to
rewrite the laws of thermodynamics to succeed but laws of physics have
been known to change.
--
Tony
"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has
taken place"
George Bernard Shaw
John Burnham
> John Burnham wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 09:38:12 +0000, Tony Raven wrote:
>>
>>> Or as another literary giant put it
>>>
>>> "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man
>>> persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all
>>> progress depends on the unreasonable man."
>>> - George Bernard Shaw
>>
>> So, you prefer politicians with pie in the sky ideals that will never
>> work, cost a fortune and don't deliver on their promises ? There is a time
>> for idealism and a time for pragmatism - a quality I find sadly lacking in
>> many people these days.
>
> I prefer an unreasonable politician who will make progress, over a
> reasonable one who will sit on their hands and say "there is no point in
> trying anything, it won't work'.
Sigh. And what part of "realistic, achievable goals" doesn't suggest
progress ? This whole binary black and white viewpoint shared by too many
people around here is somewhat irritating.
J
John Burnham
> In article <pan.2009.03.23....@jaka.demon.co.uk>,
> jo...@jaka.demon.co.uk says...
>> On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 09:11:08 +0000, Jennifer Liddle wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > "Man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?" ~~
>> > Robert Browning
>>
>> "A witty quote proves nothing." - Voltaire.
>
>
> "A facility for quotation covers the absence of original thought"
> Lord Peter Wimsey (Dorothy L. Sayers)
"Just remember who started this quoting malarkey." - John Burnham
J
Brian Morrison
> John Burnham wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 09:38:12 +0000, Tony Raven wrote:
>>
>>> Or as another literary giant put it
>>>
>>> "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man
>>> persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all
>>> progress depends on the unreasonable man."
>>> - George Bernard Shaw
>> So, you prefer politicians with pie in the sky ideals that will never
>> work, cost a fortune and don't deliver on their promises ? There is a time
>> for idealism and a time for pragmatism - a quality I find sadly lacking in
>> many people these days.
>
> I prefer an unreasonable politician who will make progress, over a
> reasonable one who will sit on their hands and say "there is no point in
> trying anything, it won't work'.
>
That depends on what is being tried. If all the possible things to try
have already been shown to be insufficient then there's a lot to be said
for sitting on one's hands until something new that can be shown to be
workable comes along.
--
Brian
Brian L Johnson
> In article <op.uq8pfac90v1caa@thedell>, no.e...@address.invalid says...
>> Jennifer Liddle <jenn...@jsquared.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > John Burnham wrote:
>> >
>> >> No. Set realistic, achievable goals. Setting unrealistic,
>> non-achievable
>> >> goals is counter-productive and hurts your credibility.
>> >> J
>> >
>> > ?Man?s reach should exceed his grasp, or what?s a heaven for?? ~~
>> Robert
>> > Browning
>>
>> If you think that's relevant then why not press for investment into an
>> as-yet undiscovered means of propulsion that will cost nothing to
>> produce, nothing to run and cause no pollution whatsoever?
>>
>> No harm in trying, eh?
>>
>
> No harm in trying and a Nobel Prize if you succeed.
Well, I have an idea. Do you fancy funding my research? :)
> You would need to
> rewrite the laws of thermodynamics to succeed but laws of physics have
> been known to change.
>
--
-blj-
Ed Weatherup
"I'll have a pint, if anyone is buying!" - Ed Weatherup
--
Ed.
Jennifer Liddle
> Sigh. And what part of "realistic, achievable goals" doesn't suggest
> progress ? This whole binary black and white viewpoint shared by too many
> people around here is somewhat irritating.
But not as irritating as somebody who hurls abuse at somebody for having a
vision of a better Cambridge in the future just because it can't be
achieved tomorrow.
--
Jennifer Liddle http://www.jsquared.co.uk/jennyl
PGP Key: http://www.jsquared.co.uk/jennyl/pgpkey.html
It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. - David Hume
Tim Joslin
> On Fri, 20 Mar 2009, Espen Koht wrote:
> > I've posted the question on Richard Taylor's web site, but since you
> > were also there, I'm curious if this is an accurate description of the
> > information presented, and who presented it:
>
> > "When asked about the level of a residents??? discount figures from other
> > cities were cited: London 90% discount, Manchester???s 100% discount (as
> > it was to be a cordon scheme) and Stockholm???s 100% discount."
>
>
> I suggest you drop a quick e-mail to the Commissioners to point out facts
> about the Stockholm example, in case that was the city mentioned as per
> the blog entry.
>
> Their e-mail is on the right-hand-side ofhttp://www.cambstransportcommission.co.uk/
>
> Martin
I also recollect that the other 100%er was Stockholm. Espen's point
massively undermines the force of the argument made at the meeting! I
feel a bit misled as I might not have found out about this fiction.
Tim
Brian L Johnson
> John Burnham wrote:
>
>> Sigh. And what part of "realistic, achievable goals" doesn't suggest
>> progress ? This whole binary black and white viewpoint shared by too
>> many people around here is somewhat irritating.
>
> But not as irritating as somebody who hurls abuse at somebody for having
> a vision of a better Cambridge in the future just because it can't be
> achieved tomorrow.
Feel free to have visions as grand as you like: just don't ask me to pay for the stupidly impractical ones!
--
-blj-
Tony Raven
Au contraire, I prefer people who will strive to reach higher and
occasionally fail rather than the anodyne risk averse "failure is
pilloried" people with low expectations we tend to get.
--
Tony
"Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new."
Albert Einstein
Steven Kitson
>John Burnham wrote:
>> Sigh. And what part of "realistic, achievable goals" doesn't suggest
>> progress ? This whole binary black and white viewpoint shared by too many
>> people around here is somewhat irritating.
>
>But not as irritating as somebody who hurls abuse at somebody for having a
>vision of a better Cambridge in the future just because it can't be
>achieved tomorrow.
Tomorrow, or ever. People don't want to live close to where they work,
necessarily (some do, of course).
Here's the thing I always wonder when people explain that their utopia
has everyone living close to where they work: does that mean that every
time I change jobs, I have to move house?
And what if one of a couple changes job?
The problme with your vision isn't that it's not practically achievable
right now; it's not achievable even in theory.
Tony Raven
> progress ? This whole binary black and white viewpoint shared by too many
> people around here is somewhat irritating.
>
?What are you planning to do Mr. Bell...... wire up every house in the
country?" - to Alexander Graham Bell as he presented plans for wire
telephony to bankers and investors in Philadelphia
"The concept is interesting and well-formed, but in order to earn better
than a "C," the idea must be feasible." - Yale University management
professor on Fred Smith's paper proposing a reliable overnight delivery
service - Federal Express
"There will never be a mass market for motor cars - about 1,000 in
Europe - because that is the limit on the number of chauffeurs
available!" Daimler Benz spokesperson.
People's views of what is realistic and achievable usually fall well
short of what can actually be achieved.
--
Tony
"Well, it may be all right in practice, but it will never work in
theory."
Warren Buffett
Tony Raven
> Tony Raven <ju...@raven-family.invalid> wrote:
>
> > In article <op.uq8pfac90v1caa@thedell>, no.e...@address.invalid says...
> >> Jennifer Liddle <jenn...@jsquared.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> > John Burnham wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> No. Set realistic, achievable goals. Setting unrealistic,
> >> non-achievable
> >> >> goals is counter-productive and hurts your credibility.
> >> >> J
> >> >
> >> > ?Man?s reach should exceed his grasp, or what?s a heaven for?? ~~
> >> Robert
> >> > Browning
> >>
> >> If you think that's relevant then why not press for investment into an
> >> as-yet undiscovered means of propulsion that will cost nothing to
> >> produce, nothing to run and cause no pollution whatsoever?
> >>
> >> No harm in trying, eh?
> >>
> >
> > No harm in trying and a Nobel Prize if you succeed.
>
> Well, I have an idea. Do you fancy funding my research? :)
>
Sure, on a payment on success basis.
Roland Perry
23 Mar 2009, Steven Kitson <ski...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>Here's the thing I always wonder when people explain that their utopia
>has everyone living close to where they work: does that mean that every
>time I change jobs,
To a different town
>I have to move house?
And move the kids from one school to another.
>And what if one of a couple changes job?
If it's a long way away, and its economically viable, one of the couple
ends up with a commute.
Moving house, to keep near your job, is currently heavily penalised by
Stamp Duty. I'd prefer a system (like they have in the USA) which is if
you move sufficiently nearer the new job, you can claim your moving
expenses against tax.
--
Roland Perry
Martin
On Mon, 23 Mar 2009, Steven Kitson wrote:
> Tomorrow, or ever. People don't want to live close to where they work,
> necessarily (some do, of course).
I'd have thought that there are a lot of people who live out in the
villages who would rather live in Cambridge, avoiding the need to commute
and get stuck in congestion every day, if they could afford the house
prices.
Martin
Roland Perry
at 14:53:55 on Mon, 23 Mar 2009, Martin <mv...@remove.cam.ac.uk>
remarked:
>I'd have thought that there are a lot of people who live out in the
>villages who would rather live in Cambridge, avoiding the need to commute
>and get stuck in congestion every day, if they could afford the house
>prices.
And we all know from reading about MP's expenses how much it appears to
cost to run a second home (so as to be close to work during the week).
--
Roland Perry
John Burnham
> John Burnham wrote:
>
>> Sigh. And what part of "realistic, achievable goals" doesn't suggest
>> progress ? This whole binary black and white viewpoint shared by too many
>> people around here is somewhat irritating.
>
> But not as irritating as somebody who hurls abuse at somebody for having a
> vision of a better Cambridge in the future just because it can't be
> achieved tomorrow.
Ok, where have I hurled abuse ? Where have I suggested that we shouldn't
have a vision of a better Cambridge ? All I want to see is something that
is feasible. I want to see a plan to get to the promised land. Having
someone suggest that we go from the current mess to a place where nobody
uses motor vehicles without filling in the gaps leaves me with a sense of
foreboding. Yes, have grand plans. I like grand plans. Now show me the
roadmap that will get us there.
J
John Burnham
> rewrite the laws of thermodynamics to succeed but laws of physics have
> been known to change.
Actually, I'm going to go against my better nature and be pedantic here.
I'd say that the laws of physics don't change, man's understanding of them
may though :)
J
TimB
wrote:
Easy solution - everyone lives alone, in their car, outside their
place of work. Once we're down to the last few thimblefuls of petrol,
we may have to do something like that!
TimB
You seem to have some pretty black-or-white views yourself.
Tim
Paul Rudin
Especially since some the of the things that the council seem especially
keen on - park and ride, expanding bus use - seem to work in the
opposite direction of the stated aim.
John Burnham
> You seem to have some pretty black-or-white views yourself.
Really ? Nah, I can see in shades of grey. There's a whole spectrum I can
see from leaving the Cambridge transport system alone to decay into
unusabilty right the way to the imposition of a system that forces people
to find employment within 2 miles of their domicile and the utter
outlawing of all private transport. Both of those options are pretty crap.
Now, an improvement in the public transport system around here so that it
was comparable to that which I've experienced in Newcastle and Edinburgh
would be a great start. Sounds to me like a shade of grey view. Then once
we've got that, we can reassess the needs and work out where to go next.
You know, basic project planning stuff for a long term ongoing project.
J
Jennifer Liddle
> Ok, where have I hurled abuse ?
My apologies. Tracking right back to the start of this thread, I find that
it was, in fact, Brian Morrison who started with:
"So, this will be cloud cuckoo land will it?"
--
Jennifer Liddle http://www.jsquared.co.uk/jennyl
PGP Key: http://www.jsquared.co.uk/jennyl/pgpkey.html
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the
average voter. - Winston Churchill
Espen H. Koht
<78e844f3-bda2-487b...@y13g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Tim Joslin <tim.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm starting to wonder if there is some kind of contorted reasoning
behind the Manchester and Stockholm examples having to do with the fact
that they are cordon schemes, and someone is interpreting that as 100%
discount for journeys within the zone, and therefore 100% discount for
residents while they are driving within the cordon relative to the
Cambridge proposal. Daft, but not entirely implausible perhaps?
Jennifer Liddle
> If you think that's relevant then why not press for investment into an
> as-yet undiscovered means of propulsion that will cost nothing to
> produce, nothing to run and cause no pollution whatsoever?
>
> No harm in trying, eh?
In the sense that I think it is worthwhile to fund pure research, then I
think my answer to that is probably "Yes". Whether or not you class such
funding as 'investment' is probably open to debate.
--
Jennifer Liddle http://www.jsquared.co.uk/jennyl
PGP Key: http://www.jsquared.co.uk/jennyl/pgpkey.html
When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the
poor have no food, they call me a communist. - Dom Helder Camara
Douglas de Lacey
I do like the .sig, which is presumably to be taken as part of the message?
Douglas de Lacey
John Burnham
> John Burnham wrote:
>
>> Ok, where have I hurled abuse ?
>
> My apologies. Tracking right back to the start of this thread, I find that
> it was, in fact, Brian Morrison who started with:
>
> "So, this will be cloud cuckoo land will it?"
Thank you. I believe that actually most of us want an improved transport
system in Cambridge, it's just that some of us are all too wary of schemes
that promise the earth and have no details. This is why I feel such plans
should show continual improvement (otherwise people complain that they're
seeing no progress but are seeing problems - Hills Road Bridge, for
example) and should be divided into shortish time scales so that changes
in circumstances can be rolled into the ongoing plans (witness the sudden
lack of interest in developing all these villages that were going to
supply the guided bus with passengers). I guess I'm just too old and
cynical to accept a utopian solution without asking questions about how it
is to be achieved.
The example I gave earlier on about the improvement in the A1 between
Alconbury and Peterborough still holds. The work caused a lot of annoyance
and hold ups but people tolerated and even welcomed the work because they
could see the benefits.
J
Brian L Johnson
> In article <op.uq8xydlj0v1caa@thedell>, no.e...@address.invalid says...
>> Tony Raven <ju...@raven-family.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> > In article <op.uq8pfac90v1caa@thedell>, no.e...@address.invalid
>> says...
>> >> Jennifer Liddle <jenn...@jsquared.co.uk> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > John Burnham wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> No. Set realistic, achievable goals. Setting unrealistic,
>> >> non-achievable
>> >> >> goals is counter-productive and hurts your credibility.
>> >> >> J
>> >> >
>> >> > ?Man?s reach should exceed his grasp, or what?s a heaven for?? ~~
>> >> Robert
>> >> > Browning
>> >>
>> >> If you think that's relevant then why not press for investment into
>> an
>> >> as-yet undiscovered means of propulsion that will cost nothing to
>> >> produce, nothing to run and cause no pollution whatsoever?
>> >>
>> >> No harm in trying, eh?
>> >>
>> >
>> > No harm in trying and a Nobel Prize if you succeed.
>>
>> Well, I have an idea. Do you fancy funding my research? :)
>>
>
> Sure, on a payment on success basis.
Okie-dokie!
Ooh! Could we apply that to other schemes more relevant to cam.transport?
F'rinstance, would we pay for the outcome of the Hills Road bridge shambles? "Well it turned out to be harder than we thought!"
--
-blj-
Jennifer Liddle
> I do like the .sig, which is presumably to be taken as part of the message?
The sig is entirely random. Honest.
--
Jennifer Liddle http://www.jsquared.co.uk/jennyl
PGP Key: http://www.jsquared.co.uk/jennyl/pgpkey.html
Voting is one of the few things where boycotting in protest clearly makes
the problem worse rather than better. - Jane Auer
Brian L Johnson
> Brian L Johnson wrote:
>
>> If you think that's relevant then why not press for investment into an
>> as-yet undiscovered means of propulsion that will cost nothing to
>> produce, nothing to run and cause no pollution whatsoever?
>> No harm in trying, eh?
>
> In the sense that I think it is worthwhile to fund pure research, then I
> think my answer to that is probably "Yes". Whether or not you class such
> funding as 'investment' is probably open to debate.
Funding pure research is an admirable goal. If you can afford it. (And none of this, "Oh, we can't afford *not* to!" nonsense.)
But we were talking about plans to Cambridge's traffic problems. I merely said that such plans stood a better chance of not wasting our money if they had a shade of reality from the outset.
For eg: say we wanted to curtail school runs. Okay, let's make school runs start at the Park'n'Ride. Get rid of the queues of individual 4x4s delivering darling sons and daughters unto their appointed places of learning by insisting that they take the bus from the P'n'R.
Obviously, you'd have to have more buses at certain times of the day, and you'd have to think whether you could *actually* ban parents from delivering their son by Lexus, etc etc. but suddenly we're into discussions of *practical* things.
--
-blj-
Roland Perry
Brian L Johnson <no.e...@address.invalid> remarked:
>For eg: say we wanted to curtail school runs. Okay, let's make school
>runs start at the Park'n'Ride. Get rid of the queues of individual
>4x4s delivering darling sons and daughters unto their appointed places
>of learning by insisting that they take the bus from the P'n'R.
>Obviously, you'd have to have more buses at certain times of the day, and you'd have to think whether you could *actually* ban parents from
>delivering their son by Lexus, etc etc. but suddenly we're into discussions of *practical* things.
When my kids were at St Faiths there was a minibus service from
Trumpington P&R. It worked well, and I had no desire to drive all the
way to the school anyway!
But it was primarily of use to (southern) A10 corridor parents.
Ironically, the ones with the least original consumption of city
roadspace.
--
Roland Perry
Brian L Johnson
Andrew Mobbs
>In article <pan.2009.03.23....@jaka.demon.co.uk>,=20
>jo...@jaka.demon.co.uk says...
>>=20
>> Sigh. And what part of "realistic, achievable goals" doesn't suggest
>> progress ? This whole binary black and white viewpoint shared by too many
>> =20
>
>?What are you planning to do Mr. Bell...... wire up every house in the=20
>country?" - to Alexander Graham Bell as he presented plans for wire=20
>telephony to bankers and investors in Philadelphia
>
>than a "C," the idea must be feasible." - Yale University management=20
>professor on Fred Smith's paper proposing a reliable overnight delivery=20
>service - Federal Express
>
>"There will never be a mass market for motor cars - about 1,000 in=20
>Europe - because that is the limit on the number of chauffeurs=20
>available!" Daimler Benz spokesperson.
>
>People's views of what is realistic and achievable usually fall well=20
>short of what can actually be achieved.
*sigh* - Unnamed commentator to Bell, unnamed professor, unnamed
spokesperson... doesn't that all rather smack of urban legend?
The Fred Smith one at least has some reliable commentary which
suggests it's a fabricated "quote" with only a tenuous basis in
reality:
http://www.fedex.com/us/about/news/ontherecord/speaker/fredsmith.pdf
(about 1/2 way down the second column on page 2 of the PDF)
--
Andrew Mobbs - http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~andrewm/
Paul Rudin
> When my kids were at St Faiths there was a minibus service from
> Trumpington P&R...
Which, of course, doesn't help with the stated aim of everyone walking
or cycling...
Brian Morrison
> John Burnham wrote:
>
>> Ok, where have I hurled abuse ?
>
> My apologies. Tracking right back to the start of this thread, I find that
> it was, in fact, Brian Morrison who started with:
>
> "So, this will be cloud cuckoo land will it?"
>
That's not abuse, that's disbelief and frustration.
But feel free to misrepresent if you like, it won't make any difference
to me.
--
Brian
Tony Raven
> I'd say that the laws of physics don't change, man's understanding of them
> may though :)
>
So there was no change between Newton's Laws of Motion and Gravity and
Einstein's? The Laws of Physics are man made constructs created to
describe the world as we observe it, not a half discovered universal
truth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_laws_in_science
Roland Perry
2009, Paul Rudin <paul....@rudin.co.uk> remarked:
>> When my kids were at St Faiths there was a minibus service from
>> Trumpington P&R...
>
>Which, of course, doesn't help with the stated aim of everyone walking
>or cycling...
Even walking from the Trumpington P&R to St Faiths is a little
ambitious. Walking or cycling from Royston is absurd.
Another answer is to make Melbourn Village College (a basket case if
ever I saw one) as good as St Faiths. I'll leave that as an exercise for
the reader.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Mon, 23 Mar 2009, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.invalid> remarked:
>The idea that anyone can commute any distance to any job is simply not
>sustainable - we don't have either the budget for the roads or the
>space to build them.
Do we have the space to build the houses near the jobs, though?
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
>>Trumpington P&R. It worked well, and I had no desire to drive all the
>>way to the school anyway!
>>
>> But it was primarily of use to (southern) A10 corridor parents.
>>Ironically, the ones with the least original consumption of city
>>roadspace.
>
>And if *everyone* had to do it...
You'd either create a huge traffic jam of parents from the entire
Cambridge hinterland all heading for Trumpington P&R, or you'd need to
provide similar minibuses from every P&R. To every school.
There'd be fewer vehicles on the road overall, but rather a lot of
minibuses to buy (and staff to drive them - I think the St Faith's
scheme got over the latter by having a couple of the groundsmen do it -
but that's a scarce resource).
--
Roland Perry
Paul Rudin
> In message <874oxki...@rudin.co.uk>, at 16:48:40 on Mon, 23 Mar
> 2009, Paul Rudin <paul....@rudin.co.uk> remarked:
>>> When my kids were at St Faiths there was a minibus service from
>>> Trumpington P&R...
>>
>>Which, of course, doesn't help with the stated aim of everyone walking
>>or cycling...
>
> Even walking from the Trumpington P&R to St Faiths is a little
> ambitious...
Neverthless, the stated objective was that people walk or cycle.
Tim Ward
news:ehk20-94D605....@nntp-serv.cam.ac.uk...
>
> I'm starting to wonder if there is some kind of contorted reasoning
> behind the Manchester and Stockholm examples having to do with the fact
> that they are cordon schemes, and someone is interpreting that as 100%
> discount for journeys within the zone, and therefore 100% discount for
> residents while they are driving within the cordon relative to the
> Cambridge proposal. Daft, but not entirely implausible perhaps?
Exactly right. Totally straightforward and obvious, not contorted, totally
plausible, did you really not realise that that was the whole point all
along?
If there were a cordon scheme there would be no need, and no demand, for a
residents' discount. As what's proposed is an area scheme there is such a
demand. If this demand were met by a change from an area scheme to a cordon
scheme that would be fine, so far as people wanting a discount are
concerned - they wouldn't expect residents to be able to drive out and back
in again during the morning rush hour without paying the full whack for
example.
--
Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear
Brett Ward Limited - www.brettward.co.uk
Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board - www.brettward.co.uk/canb
Cambridge City Councillor
Tim Ward
news:pan.2009.03.23....@jaka.demon.co.uk...
>
> There is a time
> for idealism and a time for pragmatism ...
... and that time is now: you always need both.
If there's nobody pushing the envelope you don't actually know where the
envelope is - it might not be in the same place as it was last time someone
went looking.
Tim Ward
news:N1GkbfPM...@perry.co.uk...
>
> Do we have the space to build the houses near the jobs, though?
In some cases yes. Whether you actually attempt to do so, or whether you say
"no, that's an employment area, we're not going to let anything be built
there except for more office blocks for more car commuters" is a matter of
land use planning policy.
Tim Ward
news:49c7b4d4$0$661$da29...@newsread.sanger.ac.uk...
Don't believe you! - at best it's random within a carefully chosen set!!
Tim Ward
news:MPG.2431ad2c2...@news.nildram.co.uk...
> ...
You left out the "world market for computers will be about six".
Tim Ward
news:op.uq86dto30v1caa@thedell...
>
> For eg: say we wanted to curtail school runs. Okay, let's make school
> runs start at the Park'n'Ride. Get rid of the queues of individual 4x4s
> delivering darling sons and daughters unto their appointed places of
> learning by insisting that they take the bus from the P'n'R.
Well, apart from the "insisting" bit that's now being done. But it would
take changes in the law to give anyone power to "insist" on the quality and
quantity of bus service that the schools run and "insist" that everybody use
it.
Tim Ward
>
> "A facility for quotation covers the absence of original thought"
> Lord Peter Wimsey (Dorothy L. Sayers)
Yeahbut, he was obviously taking the piss out of himself, as she was.
Roland Perry
>> ambitious...
>
>Neverthless, the stated objective was that people walk or cycle.
And I suppose I've turned that into "build a school that's good enough,
close enough, and I'll walk".
--
Roland Perry
Brian L Johnson
> "John Burnham" <jo...@jaka.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:pan.2009.03.23....@jaka.demon.co.uk...
>>
>> There is a time
>> for idealism and a time for pragmatism ...
>
> ... and that time is now: you always need both.
>
> If there's nobody pushing the envelope you don't actually know where the
> envelope is - it might not be in the same place as it was last time
> someone went looking.
As you say, as long as when one adventurous soul is riding the buffet, there's another person alongside with their hands shadowing the controls.
It wouldn't do to have everybody else saying, "Go on! Surely you don't need all *that* much height to recover." would it?
--
-blj-
Brian L Johnson
> In message <op.uq87ifzv0v1caa@thedell>, at 16:45:41 on Mon, 23 Mar 2009,
> Brian L Johnson <no.e...@address.invalid> remarked:
>>> When my kids were at St Faiths there was a minibus service from
>>> Trumpington P&R. It worked well, and I had no desire to drive all the
>>> way to the school anyway!
>>>
>>> But it was primarily of use to (southern) A10 corridor parents.
>>> Ironically, the ones with the least original consumption of city
>>> roadspace.
>>
>> And if *everyone* had to do it...
>
> You'd either create a huge traffic jam of parents from the entire
> Cambridge hinterland all heading for Trumpington P&R, or you'd need to
> provide similar minibuses from every P&R. To every school.
Don't forget that it doesn't actually need to be a 'Park and Ride'. Just the 'Ride' bit would do because the parents wouldn't be leaving their cars, would they?
> There'd be fewer vehicles on the road overall, but rather a lot of
> minibuses to buy (and staff to drive them - I think the St Faith's
> scheme got over the latter by having a couple of the groundsmen do it -
> but that's a scarce resource).
That's called employment. <g>
--
-blj-
Brian L Johnson
> "Brian L Johnson" <no.e...@address.invalid> wrote in message
> news:op.uq86dto30v1caa@thedell...
>>
>> For eg: say we wanted to curtail school runs. Okay, let's make school
>> runs start at the Park'n'Ride. Get rid of the queues of individual 4x4s
>> delivering darling sons and daughters unto their appointed places of
>> learning by insisting that they take the bus from the P'n'R.
>
> Well, apart from the "insisting" bit that's now being done. But it would
> take changes in the law to give anyone power to "insist" on the quality
> and quantity of bus service that the schools run and "insist" that everybody
> use it.
Won't the Congestion Charge be a new 'law'? Well, draft it so that it makes driving children to school a different rate to a minivan packed[1] to the gunwales. It doesn't seem beyond the wit of man (or lawyers[2]) to lay down a few groundrules about who is the sort of person you want to keep out. Just stand by the side of the road at that time of day and you'd find no difficulty going, "Them. Them. Them over there. Them as well."
1. Within legal limits, of course. <g>
2. Okay, maybe I stretch a point for lawyers.
--
-blj-
Roland Perry
>
>sustainability of workforce travel is part of the requirement.
Last time government tinkered with workspace parking (restricting it)
the result was largely a lot of parking on the streets nearby. This is
something that workplace parking tax (as is being suggested in
Nottingham) may also trigger.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
>>Cambridge hinterland all heading for Trumpington P&R, or you'd need to
>>provide similar minibuses from every P&R. To every school.
>
>Don't forget that it doesn't actually need to be a 'Park and Ride'. Just the 'Ride' bit would do because the parents wouldn't be leaving their
>cars, would they?
You need some sort of "transfer station". Hundreds of cars (otherwise
it's not helping congestion, is it) and dozens of buses. Also somewhere
safe for 5 year olds to wait for their buses with some parental
supervision. The P&R sites provide this already (albeit by accident).
Otherwise you'd need to construct something special. And don't forget
the transfer stations at the school end - something we don't really have
the land for in central Cambridge.
--
Roland Perry
Tony Raven
Interesting aside. I was looking at the Dutch and UK data on walking
and cycling to school. I forget the exact numbers but far fewer UK
students walked or cycled to school. However if you looked at those
living within 1 mile, more UK students walked and cycled than Dutch.
Ditto for 1-2 miles and 3-5 miles. So for all distance classes more UK
than Dutch children walked or cycled. The reason for the reverse
situation on overall figures was very few UK but many Dutch students
lived within a mile of school. If I remember right the average distance
was about 1 mile for Dutch and 3 miles for UK students. So maybe the
problem we have is not that we have students unwilling to walk and cycle
but that we build schools too far away from where people live.
Espen Koht
"Tim Ward" <t...@brettward.co.uk> wrote:
> "Espen H. Koht" <eh...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:ehk20-94D605....@nntp-serv.cam.ac.uk...
> >
> > I'm starting to wonder if there is some kind of contorted reasoning
> > behind the Manchester and Stockholm examples having to do with the fact
> > that they are cordon schemes, and someone is interpreting that as 100%
> > discount for journeys within the zone, and therefore 100% discount for
> > residents while they are driving within the cordon relative to the
> > Cambridge proposal. Daft, but not entirely implausible perhaps?
>
> Exactly right. Totally straightforward and obvious, not contorted, totally
> plausible, did you really not realise that that was the whole point all
> along?
Hmmm...let's see. London: cordon scheme with residents' discount.
Stockholm: cordon scheme without residents' discount, both presented as
having "residents' discounts"? Both being compared to an area scheme?
Where does the contortion start I wonder?
> If there were a cordon scheme there would be no need, and no demand, for a
> residents' discount.
So why is there one in the London scheme? And why is that being cited as
an example along side the "100% discount" in Stockholm as if they two
were comparable?
Espen Koht
Tony Raven <ju...@raven-family.invalid> wrote:
> However if you looked at those
> living within 1 mile, more UK students walked and cycled than Dutch.
I'm really curious to see what those figures would be. Seriously, are
there any Dutch kids not walking or cycling to school if they live
within a mile of it?
Roland Perry
on Mon, 23 Mar 2009, Tony Raven <ju...@raven-family.invalid> remarked:
>So maybe the problem we have is not that we have students unwilling to
>walk and cycle but that we build schools too far away from where people
>live.
The "problem" we have is parental choice which allows them to send
children to a better school further away. The USA has solved this by
compulsory zoning. We could solve much of it by improving many of the
failing schools that parents choose not to send their children to.
In other words, make every secondary school as good as Parkside and
Hills Rd.
--
Roland Perry
Tim Ward
>
> The "problem" we have is parental choice which allows them to send
> children to a better school further away. The USA has solved this by
> compulsory zoning.
Really? In the land of the free? That sounds a bit commie for the USA?
Roland Perry
Mar 2009, Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> remarked:
>> The "problem" we have is parental choice which allows them to send
>> children to a better school further away. The USA has solved this by
>> compulsory zoning.
>
>Really? In the land of the free? That sounds a bit commie for the USA?
The USA has far more petty restrictions of that kind than the UK. It
seems that "efficiency" trumps what we'd recognise as "freedom" a lot of
the time.
--
Roland Perry
Tony Raven
@cam.ac.uk says...
Yes. I'll try and dig them out.
Roland Perry
23:58:37 on Mon, 23 Mar 2009, Espen Koht <eh...@cam.ac.uk> remarked:
>London: cordon scheme with residents' discount.
No it isn't. You can't drive within the cordon unless you've paid.
Although the most obvious cameras are on the cordon, checks are done
inside as well.
--
Roland Perry
Jonathan Amery
Espen Koht <eh...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>I'm really curious to see what those figures would be. Seriously, are
>there any Dutch kids not walking or cycling to school if they live
>within a mile of it?
Despite living 6 minutes walk from school (at 5-6mph, I was an
impatient teenager) the three years I learned cello I got a lift to
and from from my father one day a week with the instrument.
Which took about 20 minutes :-).
--
Jonathan Amery. O Lord, with your eyes you have searched me,
##### Kindly smiling, have spoken my name.
#######__o Now my boat's left on the shoreline behind me;
#######'/ By your side I will seek other seas. - Cesareo Gabarain