RBS on verge of plans to extend car park (From Southend Standard)

can they afford it?

'Banking Headquarters'

Really? and there was me thinking the HQ was in St Andrew Square, Edinburgh.

They should offer incentives for employees to car share. It's ludicrous to give up so much land for vehicles being used by just one person.

they should extend it vertically

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
They should offer incentives for employees to car share. It's ludicrous to give up so much land for vehicles being used by just one person.

You could say that about cycle tracks, they tend to be mainly used by vehicles carrying only one person.

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
They should offer incentives for employees to car share. It's ludicrous to give up so much land for vehicles being used by just one person.

They do, but without incentives IIRC.

Car sharing, they do that already, they meet up after parking their cars in a nearby road and share the journey from there to RBS in one car!

j-w wrote:
Car sharing, they do that already, they meet up after parking their cars in a nearby road and share the journey from there to RBS in one car!

Bankers!

So basically it will cost the tax payer.

Ian P wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
They should offer incentives for employees to car share. It's ludicrous to give up so much land for vehicles being used by just one person.

You could say that about cycle tracks, they tend to be mainly used by vehicles carrying only one person.

round here it's generally baby buggies....

Ian P wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
They should offer incentives for employees to car share. It's ludicrous to give up so much land for vehicles being used by just one person.

You could say that about cycle tracks, they tend to be mainly used by vehicles carrying only one person.

Unless it's a tandem, a bicycle is a single person vehicle. Unlike cars which are 4, 5, or 6 person vehicles.
It really is stupid that so much land is wasted for car parking by RBS when a car sharing incentive for their employees would likely be much cheaper, and friendlier to the environment.

Cosmo Spring wrote:

Ian P wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
They should offer incentives for employees to car share. It's ludicrous to give up so much land for vehicles being used by just one person.

You could say that about cycle tracks, they tend to be mainly used by vehicles carrying only one person.

round here it's generally baby buggies....

Wouldn't it be nice for pedestrians to be able to use the footpath without being accosted by bl**dy cyclists. I think it's ludicrous we have to give up "our space " to these law breakers. Perhaps they should buy tandems so they can bike share!!!

Cosmo Spring wrote:
can they afford it?

Can we afford it?

They do do car sharing, however this is not possible for all staff, as many work different shift patterns each week, others are on a fixed pattern, some work part time and have to go straight to and from school to work. So for many this is not an option. The only reason the car park is not big enough at present was purely down to the council planners imposing restrictions to the number of parking places they would allow.

RBS does (or at least did) run a car sharing scheme whereby if you wanted to use the car park, you had to be part of the car sharing scheme and have multiple occupancy of the vehicle on arrival. This was strictly enforced with spot checks.

However, this had the knock on effect of causing staff who could or wouldn't car share to park on the surrounding roads whilst the car park was barely 75% full. Thus creating another problem.

In my opinion Southend Hospital has a good example of a low impact muti-storey car park. I obviously don't know how the financials would work out for this style of development, but it would surely be better than using up more land (although RBS did give up part of their car park for the new road linking Aviation Way).

OldSmokey wrote:

Cosmo Spring wrote:

Ian P wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
They should offer incentives for employees to car share. It's ludicrous to give up so much land for vehicles being used by just one person.

You could say that about cycle tracks, they tend to be mainly used by vehicles carrying only one person.

round here it's generally baby buggies....

Wouldn't it be nice for pedestrians to be able to use the footpath without being accosted by bl**dy cyclists. I think it's ludicrous we have to give up "our space " to these law breakers. Perhaps they should buy tandems so they can bike share!!!

I think the real danger to pedestrians is all the cars parked on pavements in Southend. Creating a hazard for pedestrians, the disabled, blind people, mothers with children i buggies...

This shows in its real light what will happen to policies T2 and T3 on the London Southend Airport & Environs Joint Area Action Plan. They will be a waste of money. Money that would be better spent on bigger car parks because that is how people choose to travel to work. It is cheaper than paying to park at the station and then paying train fares, it is more convenient than cycling, although when the roads are gridlocked from all the extra traffic that may change, and buses in this area are a non starter for anyone working early or late.

http://rochford.jdi-
consult.net/jaap/rea
ddoc.php?docid=187&c
hapter=4&docelemid=d
26926#d26926

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Ian P wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
They should offer incentives for employees to car share. It's ludicrous to give up so much land for vehicles being used by just one person.

You could say that about cycle tracks, they tend to be mainly used by vehicles carrying only one person.

Unless it's a tandem, a bicycle is a single person vehicle. Unlike cars which are 4, 5, or 6 person vehicles.
It really is stupid that so much land is wasted for car parking by RBS when a car sharing incentive for their employees would likely be much cheaper, and friendlier to the environment.

So blinded by your hatred of motorised vehicles you also have one and two seater cars

How-ironic wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Ian P wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
They should offer incentives for employees to car share. It's ludicrous to give up so much land for vehicles being used by just one person.

You could say that about cycle tracks, they tend to be mainly used by vehicles carrying only one person.

Unless it's a tandem, a bicycle is a single person vehicle. Unlike cars which are 4, 5, or 6 person vehicles.
It really is stupid that so much land is wasted for car parking by RBS when a car sharing incentive for their employees would likely be much cheaper, and friendlier to the environment.

So blinded by your hatred of motorised vehicles you also have one and two seater cars

I don't hate motorised vehicles. Like a growing proportion of the population I've had enough of so much of our money being wasted catering for them. Motorised transport is the most heavily subsidised transport choice in the country. Motorists demand more and more car parking provided at the taxpayers cost, but ask motorists to pay to use those car parks and they have a sh!t fit.


And how many one and two seater cars are there in the RBS car park? None. There might be a few scooters and motorbikes, but not many in comparison to the cars.

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

How-ironic wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Ian P wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
They should offer incentives for employees to car share. It's ludicrous to give up so much land for vehicles being used by just one person.

You could say that about cycle tracks, they tend to be mainly used by vehicles carrying only one person.

Unless it's a tandem, a bicycle is a single person vehicle. Unlike cars which are 4, 5, or 6 person vehicles.
It really is stupid that so much land is wasted for car parking by RBS when a car sharing incentive for their employees would likely be much cheaper, and friendlier to the environment.

So blinded by your hatred of motorised vehicles you also have one and two seater cars

I don't hate motorised vehicles. Like a growing proportion of the population I've had enough of so much of our money being wasted catering for them. Motorised transport is the most heavily subsidised transport choice in the country. Motorists demand more and more car parking provided at the taxpayers cost, but ask motorists to pay to use those car parks and they have a sh!t fit.


And how many one and two seater cars are there in the RBS car park? None. There might be a few scooters and motorbikes, but not many in comparison to the cars.

I'm sure there may be one or two MGs, MR2s or Smart cars, probably more percentage wise than tandems.

How-ironic wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

How-ironic wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Ian P wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
They should offer incentives for employees to car share. It's ludicrous to give up so much land for vehicles being used by just one person.

You could say that about cycle tracks, they tend to be mainly used by vehicles carrying only one person.

Unless it's a tandem, a bicycle is a single person vehicle. Unlike cars which are 4, 5, or 6 person vehicles.
It really is stupid that so much land is wasted for car parking by RBS when a car sharing incentive for their employees would likely be much cheaper, and friendlier to the environment.

So blinded by your hatred of motorised vehicles you also have one and two seater cars

I don't hate motorised vehicles. Like a growing proportion of the population I've had enough of so much of our money being wasted catering for them. Motorised transport is the most heavily subsidised transport choice in the country. Motorists demand more and more car parking provided at the taxpayers cost, but ask motorists to pay to use those car parks and they have a sh!t fit.


And how many one and two seater cars are there in the RBS car park? None. There might be a few scooters and motorbikes, but not many in comparison to the cars.

I'm sure there may be one or two MGs, MR2s or Smart cars, probably more percentage wise than tandems.

And how much less road space and parking space do they use than 4, 5, and 6 seaters?

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

How-ironic wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

How-ironic wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Ian P wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
They should offer incentives for employees to car share. It's ludicrous to give up so much land for vehicles being used by just one person.

You could say that about cycle tracks, they tend to be mainly used by vehicles carrying only one person.

Unless it's a tandem, a bicycle is a single person vehicle. Unlike cars which are 4, 5, or 6 person vehicles.
It really is stupid that so much land is wasted for car parking by RBS when a car sharing incentive for their employees would likely be much cheaper, and friendlier to the environment.

So blinded by your hatred of motorised vehicles you also have one and two seater cars

I don't hate motorised vehicles. Like a growing proportion of the population I've had enough of so much of our money being wasted catering for them. Motorised transport is the most heavily subsidised transport choice in the country. Motorists demand more and more car parking provided at the taxpayers cost, but ask motorists to pay to use those car parks and they have a sh!t fit.


And how many one and two seater cars are there in the RBS car park? None. There might be a few scooters and motorbikes, but not many in comparison to the cars.

I'm sure there may be one or two MGs, MR2s or Smart cars, probably more percentage wise than tandems.

And how much less road space and parking space do they use than 4, 5, and 6 seaters?

I couldn't really give a toss to be honest

How-ironic wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

How-ironic wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

How-ironic wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Ian P wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
They should offer incentives for employees to car share. It's ludicrous to give up so much land for vehicles being used by just one person.

You could say that about cycle tracks, they tend to be mainly used by vehicles carrying only one person.

Unless it's a tandem, a bicycle is a single person vehicle. Unlike cars which are 4, 5, or 6 person vehicles.
It really is stupid that so much land is wasted for car parking by RBS when a car sharing incentive for their employees would likely be much cheaper, and friendlier to the environment.

So blinded by your hatred of motorised vehicles you also have one and two seater cars

I don't hate motorised vehicles. Like a growing proportion of the population I've had enough of so much of our money being wasted catering for them. Motorised transport is the most heavily subsidised transport choice in the country. Motorists demand more and more car parking provided at the taxpayers cost, but ask motorists to pay to use those car parks and they have a sh!t fit.


And how many one and two seater cars are there in the RBS car park? None. There might be a few scooters and motorbikes, but not many in comparison to the cars.

I'm sure there may be one or two MGs, MR2s or Smart cars, probably more percentage wise than tandems.

And how much less road space and parking space do they use than 4, 5, and 6 seaters?

I couldn't really give a toss to be honest

Which translates as you lost the argument so you're going to sulk.

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

How-ironic wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

How-ironic wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

How-ironic wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Ian P wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote: They should offer incentives for employees to car share. It's ludicrous to give up so much land for vehicles being used by just one person.

You could say that about cycle tracks, they tend to be mainly used by vehicles carrying only one person.

Unless it's a tandem, a bicycle is a single person vehicle. Unlike cars which are 4, 5, or 6 person vehicles. It really is stupid that so much land is wasted for car parking by RBS when a car sharing incentive for their employees would likely be much cheaper, and friendlier to the environment.

So blinded by your hatred of motorised vehicles you also have one and two seater cars

I don't hate motorised vehicles. Like a growing proportion of the population I've had enough of so much of our money being wasted catering for them. Motorised transport is the most heavily subsidised transport choice in the country. Motorists demand more and more car parking provided at the taxpayers cost, but ask motorists to pay to use those car parks and they have a sh!t fit. And how many one and two seater cars are there in the RBS car park? None. There might be a few scooters and motorbikes, but not many in comparison to the cars.

I'm sure there may be one or two MGs, MR2s or Smart cars, probably more percentage wise than tandems.

And how much less road space and parking space do they use than 4, 5, and 6 seaters?

I couldn't really give a toss to be honest

Which translates as you lost the argument so you're going to sulk.

Not at all, as far as I'm aware there is no argument, or maybe there was in your little mind. I will now leave you to get on with it.

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

How-ironic wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

How-ironic wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

How-ironic wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:

Ian P wrote:

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote: They should offer incentives for employees to car share. It's ludicrous to give up so much land for vehicles being used by just one person.

You could say that about cycle tracks, they tend to be mainly used by vehicles carrying only one person.

Unless it's a tandem, a bicycle is a single person vehicle. Unlike cars which are 4, 5, or 6 person vehicles. It really is stupid that so much land is wasted for car parking by RBS when a car sharing incentive for their employees would likely be much cheaper, and friendlier to the environment.

So blinded by your hatred of motorised vehicles you also have one and two seater cars

I don't hate motorised vehicles. Like a growing proportion of the population I've had enough of so much of our money being wasted catering for them. Motorised transport is the most heavily subsidised transport choice in the country. Motorists demand more and more car parking provided at the taxpayers cost, but ask motorists to pay to use those car parks and they have a sh!t fit. And how many one and two seater cars are there in the RBS car park? None. There might be a few scooters and motorbikes, but not many in comparison to the cars.

I'm sure there may be one or two MGs, MR2s or Smart cars, probably more percentage wise than tandems.

And how much less road space and parking space do they use than 4, 5, and 6 seaters?

I couldn't really give a toss to be honest

Which translates as you lost the argument so you're going to sulk.

Very well put Shoebury_Cyclist :-)

Lol not at all, it's obvious you're unable to have a debate, it's always got to be an argument when someone doesn't share the same opinion.

I use argument to mean part two of the definition:

ar·gu·ment
/ˈärgyəmənt/
Noun
1. An exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry one: "I've had an argument with my father".
2. A reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.

Is this the 5 minute argument, or the full half hour?