UK Strategic Planning

[MakemineVanilla]

2 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

Kind of. Now, you’ll hear urban myths from ex pats, but the island was indeed an island and yes Clive Road was the top of a coastal cliff. But then 130 years ago the natural harbour was filled in and turned in to a dock, that made up ground then became industrial with warehousing and a train graveyard. That contaminated land then became a housing estate as per the picture above.

There’s no chance of serious deep flooding, there’s still a dock and the water level of the sea would have to rise a good few meters. So they should be able to pay off their mortgages before there’s regular flooding.

 

That's interesting and it does make me wonder whether the real reason there are no gardens, is to avoid the owners being tempted to try and grow vegetables etc.

I was amazed to find out just how huge the development is.

Personally, I would prefer one of the classic old council houses on the cliff: they're the same design as the ones my parents lived in.

[blandy]

2 minutes ago, foreveryoung said:

Ahhh, so in reality it's cheaper to go by train?? I could (if I could be bothered) work out the mathamatics of owning that car for 10 years and fuel costs, still would work out cheaper than 10 years taking the train,

Cheaper for who? My post was really trying to highlight the way we think. We being the government and us as individuals or employers.  If you’ve taken driving lessons, taken and passed a driving test, bought a car, taxed and insured a car…before you’ve left your house you’ve already spent thousands. And the country spends gazillions on building more and more roads and maintaining those roads and so the actual cost of an employee’s trip to Slough isn’t £30 by car, at all.

And the trains? Well there’s money spent on building and maintaining that infrastructure too. But the model is different to that for roads, the mentality is different too. With roads it’s like “we all need roads”, but with rail “rail needs to pay for itself” is more the mentality, if not the reality.

Or more simply, the government subsidises roads much more heavily than rail. The individual has to pay for a car and insurance and tax before they get a choice to drive, and having spent thousands just to be able to choose, of course using the car seems a no brainer.

[chrisp65]

1 minute ago, blandy said:

Cheaper for who? My post was really trying to highlight the way we think. We being the government and us as individuals or employers.  If you’ve taken driving lessons, taken and passed a driving test, bought a car, taxed and insured a car…before you’ve left your house you’ve already spent thousands. And the country spends gazillions on building more and more roads and maintaining those roads and so the actual cost of an employee’s trip to Slough isn’t £30 by car, at all.

And the trains? Well there’s money spent on building and maintaining that infrastructure too. But the model is different to that for roads, the mentality is different too. With roads it’s like “we all need roads”, but with rail “rail needs to pay for itself” is more the mentality, if not the reality.

Or more simply, the government subsidises roads much more heavily than rail. The individual has to pay for a car and insurance and tax before they get a choice to drive, and having spent thousands just to be able to choose, of course using the car seems a no brainer.

I think the reason roads are subsidised more, is most people have access to roads, comparatively few have access to rail infrastructure. 

Even if I use the train, I’ve got an 11 mile drive to the train station this end and then a taxi ride the other end.

 

[blandy]

Just now, chrisp65 said:

I think the reason roads are subsidised more, is most people have access to roads, comparatively few have access to rail infrastructure. 

Even if I use the train, I’ve got an 11 mile drive to the train station this end and then a taxi ride the other end.

That first sentence is, er, a bit of a take. Of course, remote and rural locations are or may be poorly served by rail, or like you, have a trek to a station, but “comparatively few” have access to rail…pull the other one.

My post wasn’t about you or your journey, it just took your dilemma as the trigger for a comment about how we’re a car society and how that’s just reinforced over and over. And I’m not sure that’s really to the benefit of any of us.

[bickster]

11 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

They also mentioned today that because of the new train design for the fast London bit, the northern bit will actually be slower than current trains, with slightly less capacity. Was there ever such an ill conceived project?

That's the news that’s ill conceived.

The reason the trains will be slower is because… they aren’t building HS2 up to Manchester so they'll be using the current tracks and the trains don’t tilt because they didn't need to until some dickhead government cancelled the project. It is precisely because HS2 phase 2 got cancelled that that issue exists.

[chrisp65]

4 minutes ago, blandy said:

That first sentence is, er, a bit of a take. Of course, remote and rural locations are or may be poorly served by rail, or like you, have a trek to a station, but “comparatively few” have access to rail…pull the other one.

My post wasn’t about you or your journey, it just took your dilemma as the trigger for a comment about how we’re a car society and how that’s just reinforced over and over. And I’m not sure that’s really to the benefit of any of us.

Really? You think the same number have access to road and rail?

Have you moved to London?

[blandy]

1 minute ago, chrisp65 said:

Really? You think the same number have access to road and rail?

Have you moved to London?

Disagreeing with the term “comparatively few” being used isn't the same as saying “it’s the same number”. I dunno what you’re getting at.

The majority of people in the uk have access to rail. Obviously not at the end of their driveway or directly outside the front door, there’s not a train station outside every dwelling. But access via a walk/bus/taxi/tube/lift from a partner or neighbour…yes.

[chrisp65]

3 minutes ago, blandy said:

Disagreeing with the term “

comparatively few” being used isn't the same as saying “it’s the same number”. I dunno what you’re getting at.

The majority of people in the uk have access to rail. Obviously not at the end of their driveway or directly outside the front door, there’s not a train station outside every dwelling. But access via a walk/bus/taxi/tube/lift from a partner or neighbour…yes.

I’m clearly being a bit dim here. Surely we can agree more people have access to roads than railway stations? I never thought that could possibly be up for debate. If you compare the number of people with access to roads and the number of people with access to railway stations, would that comparison show fewer people with access to railway stations?

I genuinely didn’t think that was a contentious statement. 

[blandy]

9 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

I’m clearly being a bit dim here. Surely we can agree more people have access to roads than railway stations? I never thought that could possibly be up for debate. If you compare the number of people with access to roads and the number of people with access to railway stations, would that comparison show fewer people with access to railway stations?

I genuinely didn’t think that was a contentious statement. 

More people have access to roads than railways stations.  Many people have cars. Many people have access to train stations. Under no stretch of the definition could you legitimately claim “comparatively few” have access to rail.

999 people is fewer than 1000 people 

999 people is not comparatively few, set against 1000 people

 

[bickster]

11 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

I’m clearly being a bit dim here. Surely we can agree more people have access to roads than railway stations? I never thought that could possibly be up for debate. If you compare the number of people with access to roads and the number of people with access to railway stations, would that comparison show fewer people with access to railway stations?

I genuinely didn’t think that was a contentious statement. 

What are the numbers like for people who don’t own a car vs people who live in the country and don’t have access to a railway?

According to the 2021 census 17 million people live in a household that don’t own a car

I don’t think (without checking) that the entire rural population of the UK, let alone the subset that don’t have access to rail reaches that figure

[chrisp65]

2 minutes ago, blandy said:

More people have access to roads than railways stations.  Many people have cars. Many people have access to train stations. Under no stretch of the definition could you legitimately claim “comparatively few” have access to rail.

 

 

I’ve just found myself doubting myself and actually googled up the meaning of comparatively few. According to the Oxford learner’s dictionary, it’s being fewer or less than something else.

Given that there is no railway station in Cowbridge, Cardigan, Brecon etc., I think I’m sticking with my original statement. You find three towns with access to railway stations but not roads and I’ll concede.

@bickster that’s a very different point, you don’t need to own a car to use a road, there are buses and taxi’s. You can live by a railway station and not be able to afford the fares. You can live in Fishguard with a train station and want to go to Aberystwyth with a train station. Using the train requires a change at Shrewsbury! It’s 57 miles in a car, 270 miles by train.

I have a train station down the hill from my house, the trains to Cardiff don’t start running until after the train to Slough has left Cardiff.

Perhaps people are just winding me up? I once found my self miming a one man band because someone claimed they’d never heard of one. I think that’s what we have here. I’ve been had.

[blandy]

No need I’m being grumpy. Soz.

[VillaJ100]

10 hours ago, Genie said:

Well if the government use public money for infrastructure upgrades as a result of additional houses then it still needs to be funded, but it’ll be paid by everyone rather than those choosing to buy the new house.

Also, house builders sell at market value, not what it cost to build plus profit percentage. If they got the land for free they wouldn’t then sell the houses cheaper.

That's the key thing, any school in this day and age needs to have dedicated drop off points for cars, sad but true. It's a hell of a lot easier to make something else with the space when cars are used less (ha!) than it is to try and retrofit some sort of drop off point when you realise all the roads are paralysed 

[chrisp65]

11 minutes ago, blandy said:

No need I’m being grumpy. Soz.

Meh, it’s just chatter, no winners or losers.

 

[blandy]

1 hour ago, chrisp65 said:

Meh, it’s just chatter, no winners or losers.

Agreed. I’ll try and put my theory more amicably. It’s this:  I disagree that comparatively few people in the uk have access to rail in the uk, but I accept that some parts of the nation have little, or poor rail access. I believe that rail is also expensive for the passenger. I’d like both those situations to be improved.

People who live in rural areas, or on the coast often have poor public transport and are pretty much forced to use cars to get around. People in large towns and cities are fairly well served and London is obviously the best served in terms of public transport.

Roads and rail have been neglected by the government. Everywhere’s pot holes, cancellations, over crowded, traffic jams…it’s miserable.

So my comment was that we’re kind of hard wired individually and in government to be “motoring is the main option” and it’s a circular thing. Trains are expensive, or unavailable so I’ll use the car…all the roads are busy, so we need more roads…I’m using the car a lot, I need a new car…the air quality is poor, I need one with a pollution filter…

So we’re driven down the road of dependence on cars and it’s a bit crap. It’s a catch 22 thing.

[chrisp65]

For at least 10 years Westminster, the local Labour MP, and the Welsh government have known that the privately owned steel works in Port Talbot was in trouble. Thousands of jobs, UK steel making. Livelihoods and industry under threat. Proposals for a dedicated green energy power station to serve the steelworks, plans the local authority planners wouldn’t support, governments wouldn’t invest in.

10 years for every layer of government to see what was coming down the road and have a plan B.

Nothing.

Nothing from anybody. 

[MakemineVanilla]

On 10/01/2024 at 21:56, chrisp65 said:

I think the reason roads are subsidised more, is most people have access to roads, comparatively few have access to rail infrastructure. 

Even if I use the train, I’ve got an 11 mile drive to the train station this end and then a taxi ride the other end.

 

And, there was me thinking you lived in the same road as Gavin & Stacey!

[chrisp65]

3 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said:

And, there was me thinking you lived in the same road as Gavin & Stacey!

The train station walking distance from my house, doesn’t run a train early enough to connect with the train I need to get from Cardiff.

 

As it happens, as an experiment I did the journey yesterday. Drove to Cardiff and parked (£13.60), and got the train. Unfortunately the train arrived 10 minutes late and continued to get later and later for various reasons. So having no train connection for the Barry / Cardiff leg, then because the train was late, I missed my Reading connection for Slough. Once I got to Slough, it would have been a 45 minute walk to my meeting, so I had to book a taxi, £7. I eventually arrived at my meeting over an hour late, so had to stay on to get the work done. Which resulted in needing to get on a train from Paddington, late afternoon on a Friday, so yes, I had to stand until Bristol. The train was running slow, it took 3 hours to get from Slough to Cardiff, which coupled with the late train in the morning, combined to actually take the parking over 12 hours, so they charged me £26.

I won’t be doing that again. 

[Genie]

22 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

The train station walking distance from my house, doesn’t run a train early enough to connect with the train I need to get from Cardiff.

 

As it happens, as an experiment I did the journey yesterday. Drove to Cardiff and parked (£13.60), and got the train. Unfortunately the train arrived 10 minutes late and continued to get later and later for various reasons. So having no train connection for the Barry / Cardiff leg, then because the train was late, I missed my Reading connection for Slough. Once I got to Slough, it would have been a 45 minute walk to my meeting, so I had to book a taxi, £7. I eventually arrived at my meeting over an hour late, so had to stay on to get the work done. Which resulted in needing to get on a train from Paddington, late afternoon on a Friday, so yes, I had to stand until Bristol. The train was running slow, it took 3 hours to get from Slough to Cardiff, which coupled with the late train in the morning, combined to actually take the parking over 12 hours, so they charged me £26.

I won’t be doing that again. 

HS3, London to Cardiff.

[Lichfield Dean]

For a long long time I've been absolutely fuming that I've had to put up with these incredibly annoying Saturday deliveries and I'm sure I speak for everyone when I say thank God they've finally listened to us and have recommended getting rid of them. It's rare that decisions are made "in the interests of the consumer" so it is refreshing to see them thinking of us.

Quote

Royal Mail could be allowed to scrap Saturday post deliveries, as part of an Ofcom review into how the postal service may need updating.

The regulator is set to publish a document next week outlining options on how Royal Mail can "evolve to more closely meet consumer needs".

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-68041937