Notices
Reply to Thread
Page 48 of 48 FirstFirst ... 38464748
Results 1,411 to 1,417 of 1417

Thread: Politics now. The State We're In.

  1. #1411  
    Coach791 is online now First team regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    33,174
    Quote Originally Posted by jaredb_7 View Post
    It is the role of government to encourage behaviour that benefits society as a whole. Or in some cases, discourage bad behaviour (taxes on cigarettes for example, diesel taxes for pollution etc...).

    You don't want everyone driving into city centres, both for environmental reasons and congestion reasons (which will block taxis, couriers etc...) - it would be chaos. So you discourage it by having limited parking.

    The issue I have is public transport is too expensive. Positive reinforcement is stronger than negative reinforcement. Limited parking and fines is negative, if they subsidised or capped profits or even nationalised public transport to greatly reduce costs that would be the ultimate encouragement to ditch your car.
    I would believe that Jared if public transport was invested in, cycle paths, alternative methods of entry into the city centre. However when you do none of those and simply cordon off the city and charge drivers more and fine them then there's just no evidence where I live this is the conditioning you speak of.

    The policy is clear. No public transport improvements, no alternative access to city centre and the focus still exactly on drivers, bus and taxis and just charge you more or fine you. The evidence is increasing costs of public transport with no improvement to service, increasing parking costs and no improvements.

    No investment in alternative methods of entry, obvious increases in parking costs and increases in transport costs and with no improvements to either. You said yourself public transport is too expensive.

    There's a reason for that Jared. More cars, less space, higher parking, more fines and higher public transport costs with no investment. Are you certain are councils are benevolent and just trying to protect the city centre? There's no evidence of it.

    Now if public transport was increased, if alternative methods of entry given, access for cycles increased then yes I'd agree that the policy you speak of could move people towards alternative methods of city centre entry to alleviate pressure on roads.

    However none of that is happening. Pressure on roads is not alleviated because there are no alternatives. Parking costs go up, public transport costs go up and fines increase.

    I'm not suggesting that's the policy where you are from. Just here.

    I wouldn't agree with more parking either. The obvious answer is alternative methods of entry. Increase in cycle paths, walkway into the centre. Parking outside the city centre improved with shuttle or walkways. Design flaws with overcrowding are obvious but charging people more but offering nothing else isn't looking to help city centre.
    Last edited by Coach791; 21-4-17 at 13:39.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  2. #1412  
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    24,575
    Quote Originally Posted by Coach791 View Post
    Ron that is a great point. I absolutely mean that. I've not known you too often to consider the bigger picture as well as the individual and see that are not mutually exclusive. I fully expected your position to be 'stupid peasants' there is a sign they're just lazy on their phones............fine them!

    In some cases that would be true. However as you rightly point out the system itself causes problems with too many cars, too few spaces and punishing people for that is strange. A fantastic point Ron, it really is.
    I always consider the options/angles - discard what doesn't fit and all that
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  3. #1413  
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    2,528
    Quote Originally Posted by Coach791 View Post
    I would believe that Jared if public transport was invested in, cycle paths, alternative methods of entry into the city centre. However when you do none of those and simply cordon off the city and charge drivers more and fine them then there's just no evidence where I live this is the conditioning you speak of.

    The policy is clear. No public transport improvements, no alternative access to city centre and the focus still exactly on drivers, bus and taxis and just charge you more or fine you. The evidence is increasing costs of public transport with no improvement to service, increasing parking costs and no improvements.

    No investment in alternative methods of entry, obvious increases in parking costs and increases in transport costs and with no improvements to either. You said yourself public transport is too expensive.

    There's a reason for that Jared. More cars, less space, higher parking, more fines and higher public transport costs with no investment. Are you certain are councils are benevolent and just trying to protect the city centre? There's no evidence of it.

    Now if public transport was increased, if alternative methods of entry given, access for cycles increased then yes I'd agree that the policy you speak of could move people towards alternative methods of city centre entry to alleviate pressure on roads.

    However none of that is happening. Pressure on roads is not alleviated because there are no alternatives. Parking costs go up, public transport costs go up and fines increase.
    Like I said, you're speaking about your city and I of mine. London has loads of alternative means of transportation into the city, it is developing cycleways, more tube lines, car sharing services, more bus services, whilst it simultaneously increases congestion charges and parking charges.

    And the result is this, reduced cars in the city falling consistently since 1990. It works.

    http://www.citymetric.com/transport/...-peak-car-1285

    Like I said, the problem is transport costs are exorbitant but that is a whole other discussion we've had many times about privatisation of railways, profits, efficiencies etc....

    The underlying point is limited parking is to discourage people using cars. Now if that power is being abused, if money isn't being used to provide alternatives etc... then yes it is wrongly punitive - but that is the issue, not the concept of parking fines in the first place.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  4. #1414  
    Coach791 is online now First team regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    33,174
    Quote Originally Posted by jaredb_7 View Post
    Like I said, you're speaking about your city and I of mine. London has loads of alternative means of transportation into the city, it is developing cycleways, more tube lines, car sharing services, more bus services, whilst it simultaneously increases congestion charges and parking charges.

    And the result is this, reduced cars in the city falling consistently since 1990. It works.

    http://www.citymetric.com/transport/...-peak-car-1285

    Like I said, the problem is transport costs are exorbitant but that is a whole other discussion we've had many times about privatisation of railways, profits, efficiencies etc....

    The underlying point is limited parking is to discourage people using cars. Now if that power is being abused, if money isn't being used to provide alternatives etc... then yes it is wrongly punitive - but that is the issue, not the concept of parking fines in the first place.
    London is very different. The City of London is an economic monster. It has such wealth that it's too expensive for the mass work force to live there. Therefore the transport links must be exceptional to allow the daily commute of those the keep the machine ticking over.

    That's how we know with correct infrastructure even a behemoth on the scale of London can work. That's why we know for certain other cities are neglected either through lack of investment or lack of interest. It isn't the fact it can't be done because London is evidence even the largest cities can work with great public transport.

    In other cities they don't bother. They don't invest in public transport or alternative transport and simply charge more or fine. It's actually a microcosm of how government views the UK economy. London is to be supported by sucking dry everywhere else.

    That's the whole point of the high speed rail network being built in the UK. The public position is it is to help poorer parts of the country connect with 'the capital' and that will benefit the poorer parts. It sounds wonderful but is quite frankly ridiculous.

    When weaker parts of the economy connect to the centre of the economy it again isn't benevolent, it will suck them dry. When you consider the rate of expansion of London, rising house prices and how people are being pushed out of their homes the monster is growing.

    What happens when the monster runs short of food supply? You just create more food and those arteries from cities outside of London will feed it. There will be a huge increase in work force commuting to London from other cities at high speed and then commuting home. Solving the problem of workers meeting rising housing costs in London, providing talent and skills to corporations at even lower costs from outside of London.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  5. #1415  
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    2,528
    Quote Originally Posted by Coach791 View Post
    London is very different. The City of London is an economic monster. It has such wealth that it's too expensive for the mass work force to live there. Therefore the transport links must be exceptional to allow the daily commute of those the keep the machine ticking over.

    That's how we know with correct infrastructure even a behemoth on the scale of London can work. That's why we know for certain other cities are neglected either through lack of investment or lack of interest. It isn't the fact it can't be done because London is evidence even the largest cities can work with great public transport.

    In other cities they don't bother. They don't invest in public transport or alternative transport and simply charge more or fine. It's actually a microcosm of how government views the UK economy. London is to be supported by sucking dry everywhere else.

    That's the whole point of the high speed rail network being built in the UK. The public position is it is to help poorer parts of the country connect with 'the capital' and that will benefit the poorer parts. It sounds wonderful but is quite frankly ridiculous.

    When weaker parts of the economy connect to the centre of the economy it again isn't benevolent, it will suck them dry. When you consider the rate of expansion of London, rising house prices and how people are being pushed out of their homes the monster is growing.

    What happens when the monster runs short of food supply? You just create more food and those arteries from cities outside of London will feed it. There will be a huge increase in work force commuting to London from other cities at high speed and then commuting home. Solving the problem of workers meeting rising housing costs in London, providing talent and skills to corporations at even lower costs from outside of London.
    You wont get any arguments from me on the under-investment of other areas.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  6. #1416  
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    24,575
    France is at the polls today

    French voters are choosing their next president

    Eleven candidates are competing

    If no candidate wins 50%, the two with the most votes will go into a run-off in two weeks
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  7. #1417  
    naturalskill is online now First team regular
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    31,786
    New factual video exposing the Global Banking Cartel

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gK3s5j7PgA
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   



Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •