Chat Forum
It is currently Mon Jul 06, 2020 1:13 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 168 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Mar 05, 2020 7:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5456
My son was flying from Cardiff to Edinburgh tomorrow for the Scotland U20s that various mates are playing in, a 21st birthday on Sat then the France match, back to Wales on Monday. After looking at every conceivable option he has had to drive. An 800 mile round trip driving to watch not one but two Scottish teams is dedication above and beyond.

Trains were just not an option. It takes 6 or 7 hours and are heinously expensive.

I am flying down to Bristol for the Welsh game, but was booked back from Cardiff. I've re-booked the return from Bristol at heinous price. Just watch the match be cancelled now.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 05, 2020 8:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3830
backrow wrote:

whilst in principal I agree with you, I suspect cutting all subsidies or moving to nationalisation would actually make transport worse in the UK. Perhaps a hybrid, cutting subsidies for the operators but fully nationilising the infrastructure part ?

a 3rd option would be just to give the whole shebang over to the Chinese :thumbup:


I really don’t know how the Chinese do it but high speed rail to every city for really good prices is pretty impressive. My last trip a few months ago was a 2 .5 hours journey for around 10 pounds. Their metro systems are also amazing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 05, 2020 9:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 8:57 pm
Posts: 11173
Calculus wrote:
backrow wrote:

whilst in principal I agree with you, I suspect cutting all subsidies or moving to nationalisation would actually make transport worse in the UK. Perhaps a hybrid, cutting subsidies for the operators but fully nationilising the infrastructure part ?

a 3rd option would be just to give the whole shebang over to the Chinese :thumbup:


I really don’t know how the Chinese do it but high speed rail to every city for really good prices is pretty impressive. My last trip a few months ago was a 2 .5 hours journey for around 10 pounds. Their metro systems are also amazing.


In the UK, it takes 15 years of planning permission and 2 judicial reviews to get permission to cut down a rosebush. Trains have to detour round every tree and hedgehog on the route so costs go up as quickly as speeds come down.

In China you can bulldoze a city in an afternoon to lay straight tracks.

That's how.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 05, 2020 10:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7886
Location: London
A shame but not a lot that can be done - coronavirus was a nasty final nail in the coffin. Preferred taking them over to Jersey compared to BA or Easyjet, but they couldn't compete on price. Feel sorry for anyone working for a regional airport.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 05, 2020 11:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1935
Lorthern Nights wrote:
backrow wrote:
do any of those regional routes actually make money ?
if not I can't see o Leary or whoever stepping in without some bunce from the govt, either directly like grants or more likely huge tax concessions aka bribes. On the face of it Fly-be's biggest assets were its Heathrow slots rather than its routes (if Southampton does have 95% of its flights then I can't imagine its expecially competitively priced)


Either subsidise them like rail is heavily subsidised or cut it for all and let the market decide. It’s bonkers the SE has such heavily subsidised public transport imho.


Don’t think need subsidies but APD between regionals should be cut. Bad times for Flybe employees, regional airport employees and Jose tat depend on Flybe for travel. Still doesn’t stop Home Counties pricks from braying about need to be green before going in their next safari in Kenya.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 05, 2020 11:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 3:25 pm
Posts: 713
A5D5E5 wrote:
Calculus wrote:
backrow wrote:

whilst in principal I agree with you, I suspect cutting all subsidies or moving to nationalisation would actually make transport worse in the UK. Perhaps a hybrid, cutting subsidies for the operators but fully nationilising the infrastructure part ?

a 3rd option would be just to give the whole shebang over to the Chinese :thumbup:


I really don’t know how the Chinese do it but high speed rail to every city for really good prices is pretty impressive. My last trip a few months ago was a 2 .5 hours journey for around 10 pounds. Their metro systems are also amazing.


In the UK, it takes 15 years of planning permission and 2 judicial reviews to get permission to cut down a rosebush. Trains have to detour round every tree and hedgehog on the route so costs go up as quickly as speeds come down.

In China you can bulldoze a city in an afternoon to lay straight tracks.

That's how.

There's also the restriction on free movement which means the government can restrict where people live (and therefore commute to/from).

I'd rather not have this, even if it means a shittier train service


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 06, 2020 6:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2015 8:05 pm
Posts: 12067
clydecloggie wrote:
Leinster in London wrote:
Flybmi ceased operations in 2019. Ryanair cut back the UK internal flights. Very few operators now.


Is Flybe not what used to be BMI and British Midland before that? Essentially a company that goes bust every few years?

KLM are probably licking their lips. They've already turned Amsterdam Schiphol into a continental Heathrow with flights to all parts of Britain (even Inverness etc.); they'll happily add the last remaining runways-on-farmland to their roster.

It looks like a Scottish airline Loganair is the first to pick up some of the slack. DT reporting the Channel Islands airline "Blue Islands" will be taking on 8 routes and Hull's Eastern Airways, 3 routes. It's a start I suppose.

Quote:
Loganair to take on 16 former Flybe routes

Scottish airline Loganair has announced plans to take on 16 routes operated by collapsed carrier Flybe.

The routes, from existing Loganair base airports at Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Inverness and Newcastle, will be launched over the next four months.

They include services between Aberdeen and Belfast City, Edinburgh and Manchester and Glasgow and Exeter.

The airline said it aimed to "maintain essential air connectivity within the UK regions to keep customers flying".

The first service will begin on 16 March, and Loganair has published a full list of the routes.

The additional routes to Loganair's network will see the airline operate up to 400 new services each week.

Additional 70-seat ATR 72 turboprop aircraft will join Loganair's fleet over the coming weeks to service the new routes, alongside the existing 44-strong fleet of turboprop and Embraer regional jet aircraft.

Loganair said it would be recruiting additional pilots, cabin crew and engineers to be based at Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Newcastle airports to support the expansion.

It expects more than 100 new posts to be created across the four locations.

In a statement, Loganair said it would be prioritising applications from former Flybe staff for all of the roles.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-51752375


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 06, 2020 9:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 7:53 pm
Posts: 2809
What i don't understand is that everyone is moaning that all other options are 3x the price.

Surely that means that Flybe could have charged x2 the price and still have been the cheapest option


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 06, 2020 9:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 49887
Location: Dirty Leeds
mdaclarke wrote:
What i don't understand is that everyone is moaning that all other options are 3x the price.

Surely that means that Flybe could have charged x2 the price and still have been the cheapest option

Flybe were nearly always the most expensive option compared to competing routes with easyjet/ryanair (and that is part of the reason for the failure of the business imo, high prices drove passengers to other airlines)

Now easyjet/ryanair can gouge the fúck out of those needing to rebook and put their prices up.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 06, 2020 10:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3830
inactionman wrote:
A5D5E5 wrote:
Calculus wrote:
backrow wrote:

whilst in principal I agree with you, I suspect cutting all subsidies or moving to nationalisation would actually make transport worse in the UK. Perhaps a hybrid, cutting subsidies for the operators but fully nationilising the infrastructure part ?

a 3rd option would be just to give the whole shebang over to the Chinese :thumbup:


I really don’t know how the Chinese do it but high speed rail to every city for really good prices is pretty impressive. My last trip a few months ago was a 2 .5 hours journey for around 10 pounds. Their metro systems are also amazing.


In the UK, it takes 15 years of planning permission and 2 judicial reviews to get permission to cut down a rosebush. Trains have to detour round every tree and hedgehog on the route so costs go up as quickly as speeds come down.

In China you can bulldoze a city in an afternoon to lay straight tracks.

That's how.

There's also the restriction on free movement which means the government can restrict where people live (and therefore commute to/from).

I'd rather not have this, even if it means a shittier train service


I’m not quite sure what the connection between hukou and China’s ability to develop effective high speed rail is. Of course other countries with high speed rail don’t have a hukou system.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 06, 2020 10:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 29067
Location: Hut 8
A5D5E5 wrote:
Calculus wrote:
backrow wrote:

whilst in principal I agree with you, I suspect cutting all subsidies or moving to nationalisation would actually make transport worse in the UK. Perhaps a hybrid, cutting subsidies for the operators but fully nationilising the infrastructure part ?

a 3rd option would be just to give the whole shebang over to the Chinese :thumbup:


I really don’t know how the Chinese do it but high speed rail to every city for really good prices is pretty impressive. My last trip a few months ago was a 2 .5 hours journey for around 10 pounds. Their metro systems are also amazing.


In the UK, it takes 15 years of planning permission and 2 judicial reviews to get permission to cut down a rosebush. Trains have to detour round every tree and hedgehog on the route so costs go up as quickly as speeds come down.

In China you can bulldoze a city in an afternoon to lay straight tracks.

That's how.

Yeah. That's a simplification. The UK is a tiny, congested country with significant topographical challenges to add to the population density. The short distances involved mean the gains in making trains go even 40mph faster are negligible. So the cost to benefit ratio is nonsense unlike France, Spain and China. But politicians are too dim to see this.

And FYI, I know a family which had its farm compulsory purchased under HS2. 2 years ago. They are still in rented accommodation having had no farm income for the period.......... because they haven't been paid yet for being booted out of their home.

Rail is a shambles in the UK.

- the infrastructure is run by a bunch of f**kwits (Network Rail)** who make the public sector look efficient.
- and the franchising system is a farce because you can't have concurrent operators bidding against each other for the same track use. For example, I complained to Virgin some years ago that on my route, whenever I purchased an open ticket (all operators), it was a waste of money because often during peak time, there were NO VIRGINS TRAINS stopping at my station. Note that Virgin were the express operator (30 odd mins for my journey to London) whereas the charabang mob take an hour.

The answer I got was that charabang ltd had outbid Virgin for the key slots at MK and so Virgin were not allowed to stop there at the peak times i.e. London Midland were able to force passengers to use their slower, over crowded, less reliable trains. How's that for improving worker productivity?

- ** And Netw*nk Rail. Recall this?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-b ... s-40885490

It's because Netw*nk decided that maintaining trees etc alongside the tracks was expensive and so in 15-16 they spent a fortune cutting them all down. Without considering that the vegetation held most of the steep embankments on that route intact. So, when it rained in Sep................


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 06, 2020 10:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 38979
earl the beaver wrote:
mdaclarke wrote:
What i don't understand is that everyone is moaning that all other options are 3x the price.

Surely that means that Flybe could have charged x2 the price and still have been the cheapest option

Flybe were nearly always the most expensive option compared to competing routes with easyjet/ryanair (and that is part of the reason for the failure of the business imo, high prices drove passengers to other airlines)

Now easyjet/ryanair can gouge the fúck out of those needing to rebook and put their prices up.

Most of the Flybe routes loadings are too thin for Ryanairs Boeing 737-800s which have a capacity of 186 compared to about 80 for both the Bombardier Dash 8, and the ATR 72 run by Flybe, so wouldn't fit their business model. The only route FR might be interested in would be Belfast City - a London airport; and given they previously ran Belfast City - Stansted they know the economics of it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 06, 2020 10:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 3:25 pm
Posts: 713
Calculus wrote:
inactionman wrote:
A5D5E5 wrote:
Calculus wrote:
backrow wrote:

whilst in principal I agree with you, I suspect cutting all subsidies or moving to nationalisation would actually make transport worse in the UK. Perhaps a hybrid, cutting subsidies for the operators but fully nationilising the infrastructure part ?

a 3rd option would be just to give the whole shebang over to the Chinese :thumbup:


I really don’t know how the Chinese do it but high speed rail to every city for really good prices is pretty impressive. My last trip a few months ago was a 2 .5 hours journey for around 10 pounds. Their metro systems are also amazing.


In the UK, it takes 15 years of planning permission and 2 judicial reviews to get permission to cut down a rosebush. Trains have to detour round every tree and hedgehog on the route so costs go up as quickly as speeds come down.

In China you can bulldoze a city in an afternoon to lay straight tracks.

That's how.

There's also the restriction on free movement which means the government can restrict where people live (and therefore commute to/from).


I'd rather not have this, even if it means a shittier train service


I’m not quite sure what the connection between hukou and China’s ability to develop effective high speed rail is. Of course other countries with high speed rail don’t have a hukou system.


Ability to plan and control on a system level, or try to retrospectively add infrastructure according to emerging demand where no infrastructure will reasonably fit.

To be honest, most of it is simply poor planning - e.g. extending new towns without increasing size of train stations or capacities of roads. These bits should have been done first, rather than trying to retrofit into already built housing estates where ability to to fit infrastructure is severely hampered. It's essentially a function of house building etc being planned on a local level and major transport infrastructure on a regional/national, and they rarely seem to join up.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 06, 2020 10:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 49887
Location: Dirty Leeds
camroc1 wrote:
earl the beaver wrote:
mdaclarke wrote:
What i don't understand is that everyone is moaning that all other options are 3x the price.

Surely that means that Flybe could have charged x2 the price and still have been the cheapest option

Flybe were nearly always the most expensive option compared to competing routes with easyjet/ryanair (and that is part of the reason for the failure of the business imo, high prices drove passengers to other airlines)

Now easyjet/ryanair can gouge the fúck out of those needing to rebook and put their prices up.

Most of the Flybe routes loadings are too thin for Ryanairs Boeing 737-800s which have a capacity of 186 compared to about 80 for both the Bombardier Dash 8, and the ATR 72 run by Flybe, so wouldn't fit their business model. The only route FR might be interested in would be Belfast City - a London airport; and given they previously ran Belfast City - Stansted they know the economics of it.

They pulled out of City because the runway can't take their planes and they already run to International.

To put FlyBe in perspective I used to be able to get return train tickets to taxis to/from Leeds station and my house, a train to manchester airport, flight with easy jet and taxi from Aldergrove to Holywood for about £30 cheaper per head than going LBA to City with Flybe and a five minute taxi to Holywood, unless I booked months in advance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 06, 2020 10:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8249
Prices between Edinburgh and London on LNER have gone steadily up since the government took over. This week it was 3x more expensive than the cheapest flight option (to Luton, so you do have the train in to London on top). Because of timings, and I prefer it, I booked the train, it was empty. Seems madness to me on a lot of levels.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 06, 2020 10:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 37162
Location: Pigdogistan
camroc1 wrote:
earl the beaver wrote:
mdaclarke wrote:
What i don't understand is that everyone is moaning that all other options are 3x the price.

Surely that means that Flybe could have charged x2 the price and still have been the cheapest option

Flybe were nearly always the most expensive option compared to competing routes with easyjet/ryanair (and that is part of the reason for the failure of the business imo, high prices drove passengers to other airlines)

Now easyjet/ryanair can gouge the fúck out of those needing to rebook and put their prices up.

Most of the Flybe routes loadings are too thin for Ryanairs Boeing 737-800s which have a capacity of 186 compared to about 80 for both the Bombardier Dash 8, and the ATR 72 run by Flybe, so wouldn't fit their business model. The only route FR might be interested in would be Belfast City - a London airport; and given they previously ran Belfast City - Stansted they know the economics of it.


I'm almost certain that they already run Belfast international to London.
To back up Earl's point about prices unless Flybe were bought months in advance; it was almost certainly cheaper for me to get the bus into Southampton city centre, get the train to Bournemouth, get a taxi to the airport, and fly to Dublin, than to get a bus to Southamton airport and fly to Dublin.
Ryanair only fly Bournemouth-DUB a few times a week. The other option was train to Gatwick instead of Bournemouth, with 4 flights each day so I could go at whatever time suited. This was also much cheaper, despite spending twice as long on a train as actually in the air.


Ryanair might increase activity in Bournemouth for the bigger routes that Flybe ran out of Southampton, Exeter, and Bristol and serve the SW a bit more.


Last edited by Nolanator on Fri Mar 06, 2020 10:38 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 06, 2020 10:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21421
actually I think its archaic planning permisssions and Nimby-ism that is the real problem, not the 'UK is tiny and congested' stuff - less than 6% of the Uk is built over, half that of say Netherlands or Belgium and less than a percent more 'developed land' than France.

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistic ... ber_States

I am extremely pro-Uk but by god, the UK planning waffle is useless and has such a knock on effect on other social-economic activity. a third runway at heathrow has been wanking on about since I was at school ! (i'm now 45)

even flying over London you can see how Green and open it is compared to any other major city of importance


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 06, 2020 10:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3830
Torquemada 1420 wrote:
Yeah. That's a simplification. The UK is a tiny, congested country with significant topographical challenges to add to the population density. The short distances involved mean the gains in making trains go even 40mph faster are negligible. So the cost to benefit ratio is nonsense unlike France, Spain and China. But politicians are too dim to see this.

.



a bit like Honshu Japan


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 06, 2020 10:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6478
Location: Darkest deepest northwest
earl the beaver wrote:
camroc1 wrote:
earl the beaver wrote:
mdaclarke wrote:
What i don't understand is that everyone is moaning that all other options are 3x the price.

Surely that means that Flybe could have charged x2 the price and still have been the cheapest option

Flybe were nearly always the most expensive option compared to competing routes with easyjet/ryanair (and that is part of the reason for the failure of the business imo, high prices drove passengers to other airlines)

Now easyjet/ryanair can gouge the fúck out of those needing to rebook and put their prices up.

Most of the Flybe routes loadings are too thin for Ryanairs Boeing 737-800s which have a capacity of 186 compared to about 80 for both the Bombardier Dash 8, and the ATR 72 run by Flybe, so wouldn't fit their business model. The only route FR might be interested in would be Belfast City - a London airport; and given they previously ran Belfast City - Stansted they know the economics of it.

They pulled out of City because the runway can't take their planes and they already run to International.

To put FlyBe in perspective I used to be able to get return train tickets to taxis to/from Leeds station and my house, a train to manchester airport, flight with easy jet and taxi from Aldergrove to Holywood for about £30 cheaper per head than going LBA to City with Flybe and a five minute taxi to Holywood, unless I booked months in advance.


We have used Flybe out of Knock to Manchester and Edinburgh quite a bit, only because it is far more convenient for us than travelling to Dublin. They certainly weren’t cheap, and thei baggage policy that they operated for the last 15 months made them a pain in the arse to travel with. I could see Ryanair, who fly to Liverpool and East Midlands from Knock, being interested in the Manchester route as it was consistently booked up.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 06, 2020 12:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1935
Nolanator wrote:
camroc1 wrote:
earl the beaver wrote:
mdaclarke wrote:
What i don't understand is that everyone is moaning that all other options are 3x the price.

Surely that means that Flybe could have charged x2 the price and still have been the cheapest option

Flybe were nearly always the most expensive option compared to competing routes with easyjet/ryanair (and that is part of the reason for the failure of the business imo, high prices drove passengers to other airlines)

Now easyjet/ryanair can gouge the fúck out of those needing to rebook and put their prices up.

Most of the Flybe routes loadings are too thin for Ryanairs Boeing 737-800s which have a capacity of 186 compared to about 80 for both the Bombardier Dash 8, and the ATR 72 run by Flybe, so wouldn't fit their business model. The only route FR might be interested in would be Belfast City - a London airport; and given they previously ran Belfast City - Stansted they know the economics of it.


I'm almost certain that they already run Belfast international to London.
To back up Earl's point about prices unless Flybe were bought months in advance; it was almost certainly cheaper for me to get the bus into Southampton city centre, get the train to Bournemouth, get a taxi to the airport, and fly to Dublin, than to get a bus to Southamton airport and fly to Dublin.
Ryanair only fly Bournemouth-DUB a few times a week. The other option was train to Gatwick instead of Bournemouth, with 4 flights each day so I could go at whatever time suited. This was also much cheaper, despite spending twice as long on a train as actually in the air.


Ryanair might increase activity in Bournemouth for the bigger routes that Flybe ran out of Southampton, Exeter, and Bristol and serve the SW a bit more.


The majority of Flybe routes did not have competitors and we’re domestic. To put Flybe truly in perspective you could book a next day flight Exeter to Newcastle for under hundred pounds which would be cheaper than the train and take an hour as opposed to about seven on the train. Same storey Newcastle to Southampton, Ryanair is not going to do these routes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 06, 2020 12:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 37162
Location: Pigdogistan
That's true. When I said the bigger routes, I meant the international ones that ran out of the regional airports. Hard to see who'll pick up the longer distance domestic ones.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 06, 2020 12:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2015 10:49 am
Posts: 1622
Edinburgh01 wrote:
My son was flying from Cardiff to Edinburgh tomorrow for the Scotland U20s that various mates are playing in, a 21st birthday on Sat then the France match, back to Wales on Monday. After looking at every conceivable option he has had to drive. An 800 mile round trip driving to watch not one but two Scottish teams is dedication above and beyond.

Trains were just not an option. It takes 6 or 7 hours and are heinously expensive.

I am flying down to Bristol for the Welsh game, but was booked back from Cardiff. I've re-booked the return from Bristol at heinous price. Just watch the match be cancelled now.



My mates coming down for it had the same issue, but they got a flight back for the same price as their Fly Be ticket. They were on the case first thing in the morning though.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 06, 2020 12:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1935
I have to go to Southampton a lot, really not looking forward to losing days on the train. :frown:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 06, 2020 1:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 633
inactionman wrote:
Calculus wrote:
A5D5E5 wrote:
Calculus wrote:
backrow wrote:

Ability to plan and control on a system level, or try to retrospectively add infrastructure according to emerging demand where no infrastructure will reasonably fit.

To be honest, most of it is simply poor planning - e.g. extending new towns without increasing size of train stations or capacities of roads. These bits should have been done first, rather than trying to retrofit into already built housing estates where ability to to fit infrastructure is severely hampered. It's essentially a function of house building etc being planned on a local level and major transport infrastructure on a regional/national, and they rarely seem to join up.


and corruption at a local level encouraging decisions to be made on ill-thought or downright dishonest grounds. Newtown being built near me (destroying rural feel of area) was granted permission predicated on housing need of a neighbouring borough (not even ours!) which that borough now says it can and will meet itself. In doing so, they ignored and/or overrode concerns about the corresponding travel capacities (as you note above) which are impossible to implement without a lot of compulsory purchasing as there is no room.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 06, 2020 1:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21421
^^^^ Nimby :nod:

this phrase says it all "(destroying rural feel of area)" - wtaf ? :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 06, 2020 1:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 633
Meanwhile, genuine local housing need (i.e. affordable) always ends up being implemented in smaller plots at market prices for yet more commuters rather than for proper locals, whose kids have to move >20 miles away to afford anything. F&*$ing hate property developers and their pet local councillors.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 06, 2020 1:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21421
Woddy wrote:
Meanwhile, genuine local housing need (i.e. affordable) always ends up being implemented in smaller plots at market prices for yet more commuters rather than for proper locals, whose kids have to move >20 miles away to afford anything. F&*$ing hate property developers and their pet local councillors.


Spoiler: show
Image


Woddy wrote:
People driving on country roads who clearly have all day to make their destination and (quite rightly) are driving at their comfortable but slow speed, but (quite wrongly and for which they should have their feet singed) drive all over the middle of the road so that you cannot overtake them.


doesn't seem you like people much ! :P


Last edited by backrow on Fri Mar 06, 2020 1:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 06, 2020 1:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 633
backrow wrote:
^^^^ Nimby :nod:

this phrase says it all "(destroying rural feel of area)" - wtaf ? :lol:


Yes, probably am Nimby, like all of us when we're honest. Maybe living in a properly rural area does not make any difference to you, but it does to those in our area. I would not mind so much if the housing actually ended up for the locals who really need it rather than yet more London commuters who care little for the local communities.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 06, 2020 1:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21421
Woddy wrote:
backrow wrote:
^^^^ Nimby :nod:

this phrase says it all "(destroying rural feel of area)" - wtaf ? :lol:


Yes, probably am Nimby, like all of us when we're honest. Maybe living in a properly rural area does not make any difference to you, but it does to those in our area. I would not mind so much if the housing actually ended up for the locals who really need it rather than yet more London commuters who care little for the local communities.


being serious for a sec, I do actually sympathise with you re rural development, especially if not enough schools, drainage etc has been put in place (or roads or parking). lots of developments as you say, are pretty much bunged in.

but you can't just no accept time moves on and needs change, people want to live in London, and its expanding - you don't have to go too far back and Wimbledon, Ealing, Wanstead etc were not even in London. its called progress and population growth :thumbup:

i've lived rurally before, its shite


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 06, 2020 1:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 3:25 pm
Posts: 713
It's probably worth pointing out that many of the developments woddy is referring to won't actually meet anyone's real needs aside from providing a dormitory for people to sleep in.

Crappy transport links, no real facilities (unless all you want from life is a Tesco superstore and a Toby Carvery), and therefore completely overloading any existing infrastructure to the detriment of every poor sod who lives nearby. It happens pretty much every time. There's a reason many people don't like places like Reading's Lower Earley or Harlow's New Hall.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 06, 2020 1:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 29067
Location: Hut 8
backrow wrote:
actually I think its archaic planning permisssions and Nimby-ism that is the real problem, not the 'UK is tiny and congested' stuff - less than 6% of the Uk is built over, half that of say Netherlands or Belgium and less than a percent more 'developed land' than France.

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistic ... ber_States

I am extremely pro-Uk but by god, the UK planning waffle is useless and has such a knock on effect on other social-economic activity. a third runway at heathrow has been wanking on about since I was at school ! (i'm now 45)

even flying over London you can see how Green and open it is compared to any other major city of importance

But that stat is meaningless. By definition, the connections are not being made between Stornoway and Eigg but between the highest conurbations.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 06, 2020 1:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 633
backrow wrote:
Woddy wrote:
Meanwhile, genuine local housing need (i.e. affordable) always ends up being implemented in smaller plots at market prices for yet more commuters rather than for proper locals, whose kids have to move >20 miles away to afford anything. F&*$ing hate property developers and their pet local councillors.


Spoiler: show
Image


Woddy wrote:
People driving on country roads who clearly have all day to make their destination and (quite rightly) are driving at their comfortable but slow speed, but (quite wrongly and for which they should have their feet singed) drive all over the middle of the road so that you cannot overtake them.


doesn't seem you like people much ! :P


I love people, just not you people. ;)

I get the inevitable population march, just hate the callous and disingenuous way it's being dealt with. For a nation which prides itself on probity and fair play, we are a bunch of self-cheating and corrupt bastards really.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 06, 2020 1:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21421
Torquemada 1420 wrote:
backrow wrote:
actually I think its archaic planning permisssions and Nimby-ism that is the real problem, not the 'UK is tiny and congested' stuff - less than 6% of the Uk is built over, half that of say Netherlands or Belgium and less than a percent more 'developed land' than France.

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistic ... ber_States

I am extremely pro-Uk but by god, the UK planning waffle is useless and has such a knock on effect on other social-economic activity. a third runway at heathrow has been wanking on about since I was at school ! (i'm now 45)

even flying over London you can see how Green and open it is compared to any other major city of importance

But that stat is meaningless. By definition, the connections are not being made between Stornoway and Eigg but between the highest conurbations.


ah that stat isn't meaningless at all, other far more 'crowded' countries seem to build their infrastructure with far greater ease, and much more foresight and planning. Uk as a whole really isn't that crowded, just our stupid skinny 3 lane max road networks and ancient trains.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 06, 2020 2:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 633
backrow wrote:
Torquemada 1420 wrote:
backrow wrote:
actually I think its archaic planning permisssions and Nimby-ism that is the real problem, not the 'UK is tiny and congested' stuff - less than 6% of the Uk is built over, half that of say Netherlands or Belgium and less than a percent more 'developed land' than France.

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistic ... ber_States

I am extremely pro-Uk but by god, the UK planning waffle is useless and has such a knock on effect on other social-economic activity. a third runway at heathrow has been wanking on about since I was at school ! (i'm now 45)

even flying over London you can see how Green and open it is compared to any other major city of importance

But that stat is meaningless. By definition, the connections are not being made between Stornoway and Eigg but between the highest conurbations.


ah that stat isn't meaningless at all, other far more 'crowded' countries seem to build their infrastructure with far greater ease, and much more foresight and planning. Uk as a whole really isn't that crowded, just our stupid skinny 3 lane max road networks and ancient trains.


Ironically, I love the fact that, on a technical definition of tree-density, London qualifies as a forest.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 06, 2020 2:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 29067
Location: Hut 8
backrow wrote:
Torquemada 1420 wrote:
backrow wrote:
actually I think its archaic planning permisssions and Nimby-ism that is the real problem, not the 'UK is tiny and congested' stuff - less than 6% of the Uk is built over, half that of say Netherlands or Belgium and less than a percent more 'developed land' than France.

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistic ... ber_States

I am extremely pro-Uk but by god, the UK planning waffle is useless and has such a knock on effect on other social-economic activity. a third runway at heathrow has been wanking on about since I was at school ! (i'm now 45)

even flying over London you can see how Green and open it is compared to any other major city of importance

But that stat is meaningless. By definition, the connections are not being made between Stornoway and Eigg but between the highest conurbations.


ah that stat isn't meaningless at all, other far more 'crowded' countries seem to build their infrastructure with far greater ease, and much more foresight and planning. Uk as a whole really isn't that crowded, just our stupid skinny 3 lane max road networks and ancient trains.


Not sure where you are getting your nos from but ENGLAND is ranked as the 32nd most densely populated country (and dependency) in the world. Looks like the 2nd worst in the "1st world" (after Japan) and of other countries of any meaningful land mass, only India, Bangas and Philippines are denser.

So interested in these far more crowded countries with better rail infrastructure other than Japan (which was pointed out earlier but a sample size of one is.... well, one).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 06, 2020 2:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21421
um - I did link to the stats ?

a comparison to another European country is more valid, our transport network is old, expensive and crap by and large comparatively.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 06, 2020 2:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 38979
backrow wrote:
um - I did link to the stats ?

a comparison to another European country is more valid, our transport network is old, expensive and crap by and large comparatively.

Primarily because after the second world war the UK governments of the time, both Tory and Laboiur) made the decision to keep defence spending at a level around 12% of GDP, whereas Germany, Holland, Japan etc. invested their money in infrastructure.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 06, 2020 2:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21421
camroc1 wrote:
backrow wrote:
um - I did link to the stats ?

a comparison to another European country is more valid, our transport network is old, expensive and crap by and large comparatively.

Primarily because after the second world war the UK governments of the time, both Tory and Laboiur) made the decision to keep defence spending at a level around 12% of GDP, whereas Germany, Holland, Japan etc. invested their money in infrastructure.


12 seems high, but yes. Also, not having all of our infrastructure bombed to feck meant we couldn't start so much with a blank canvas.

remember though that defence spending is still quite a small slice of the pie, and that some roads, houses schools etc were built as part of this defence spending, the guns or butter thing is a bit of a myth to GDP growth / retardant. France spent even more as a % iirc (primarily because they were not in nato post 1960's and wanted their own planes etc) but put way more into rail and roads.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 06, 2020 2:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 38979
backrow wrote:
camroc1 wrote:
backrow wrote:
um - I did link to the stats ?

a comparison to another European country is more valid, our transport network is old, expensive and crap by and large comparatively.

Primarily because after the second world war the UK governments of the time, both Tory and Laboiur) made the decision to keep defence spending at a level around 12% of GDP, whereas Germany, Holland, Japan etc. invested their money in infrastructure.


12 seems high, but yes. Also, not having all of our infrastructure bombed to feck meant we couldn't start so much with a blank canvas.

remember though that defence spending is still quite a small slice of the pie, and that some roads, houses schools etc were built as part of this defence spending, the guns or butter thing is a bit of a myth to GDP growth / retardant. France spent even more as a % iirc (primarily because they were not in nato post 1960's and wanted their own planes etc) but put way more into rail and roads.

More to the point, UK defence spending exceeded 5% of GDP until 1987.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 06, 2020 2:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 49887
Location: Dirty Leeds
camroc1 wrote:
backrow wrote:
um - I did link to the stats ?

a comparison to another European country is more valid, our transport network is old, expensive and crap by and large comparatively.

Primarily because after the second world war the UK governments of the time, both Tory and Laboiur) made the decision to keep defence spending at a level around 12% of GDP, whereas Germany, Holland, Japan etc. invested their money in infrastructure.

Germany and Holland aren't really valid comparisons to the UK, the devastation of the war on urban areas meant large scale re-planning and design of the underlying transport network was much more feasible.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 168 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bimboman, Blackrock Bullet, Boxcar Ira, CarrotGawks, clydecloggie, Google Adsense [Bot], hermie, koroke hangareka, rabble, Slim 293, Ted., Ulsters Red Hand and 58 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group