Plough money into roads to boost business, minister told (From Southend Standard)
Get involved: send your pictures, video, news and views by texting ECHONEWS to 80360, or email us Click here for details »
Plough money into roads to boost Essex business, minister told
4:00pm Thursday 28th February 2013 in Echo News
Lord Green, second from right, visits Southend Airport
MILLIONS of pounds need to be ploughed into the A127 and A13 to open Southend up for business.
That is the view of the Essex Chamber of Commerce, which invited Government minister Stephen Green to visit the area yesterday to lobby for his support.
Lord Green, minister for trade and investment, called for the county’s companies to explore the possibility of exports and praised the impact of the revamped Southend Airport.
But he refused to condemn possible plans for a Thames estuary airport, which business and political leaders believe could devastate the local economy.
Lord Green said: “Clearly aviation capacity is a vital issue for this country and the south east in particular, and that is why the Government has commissioned an inquiry into the matter.
“I cannot comment further on that at the moment.”
The Government is facing mounting pressure to come up with a way of expanding the UK’s airport capacity in order to maintain the country’s status as an international hub.
In 2011, Lord Norman Foster’s published plans to build a four-runway airport on the Isle of Grain in Kent, adding flesh to the bones of London mayor Boris Johnson’s long-held advocacy for an estuary airport.
But council chiefs and traders in Southend, Canvey and Kent claimed it would ruin the economies of estuary towns and irrevocably damage habitats for wildlife.
Denise Rossiter, chief executive of Essex Chambers of Commerce, and Robert Leng, the chambers’ president, spent yesterday giving Lord Green a tour of flourishing businesses in Rayleigh and Southend.
But Mr Leng was insistent that sizeable sums of money needed to be invested in the county by Whitehall if it was to fulfil its potential.
He said: “There is a great opportunity in Essex - we have a lot of factors in our favour.
“However, our road infrastructure is something that needs to be improved.
“We believe investment in the A127 and A13 would do a lot to open this area up for business, and that’s what we have been telling the minister.”
Comments(35)
Carnabackable
says...
4:06pm Thu 28 Feb 13
For years, both these roads have been patched and botched, too many roundabouts, to many lights, not enough flyovers, and that's just the mere tip, of this enormous fiasco.
Displeased of Shoebury
says...
4:20pm Thu 28 Feb 13
Shoebury_Cyclist
says...
4:46pm Thu 28 Feb 13
Displeased of Shoebury wrote:There's no such thing as 'road tax' and there hasn't been since 1937.
There is plenty of money for roads its called ROAD TAX. Unfortuately those in charge (don't laugh) use the tax for other things. Foreign aid,benefits for those who cannot get out of bed.
Eric the Red
says...
4:51pm Thu 28 Feb 13
Displeased of Shoebury wrote:No such thing since 1937, mate. If you mean the (Vehicle) Excise Duty, then is the Excise Duty on booze and fags spent on the NHS?
There is plenty of money for roads its called ROAD TAX. Unfortuately those in charge (don't laugh) use the tax for other things. Foreign aid,benefits for those who cannot get out of bed.
Roads are paid for out of general taxation - both National and local (Council Tax). But I agree with you about the benefits and aid. Trouble is that this corner of Essex is all build, build, build - then people wonder why the roads are clogged up!!
mys842
says...
4:55pm Thu 28 Feb 13
Nebs
says...
5:01pm Thu 28 Feb 13
The S106 payment, to buy into the Essex Dream, should be at least £50,000 per bedroom, to reflect the services that everyone else has already paid for to put in your area.
Carnabackable
says...
6:26pm Thu 28 Feb 13
Nebs wrote:OK so when you go on holiday, be not surprised when, at the hotel you stay at, you find that you are given a surcharge to pay for the new bathroom suites, installed before you arrived, the salaries of the extra beach patrols, due to the summer season, the charge for the Wi access on board the flight, of which were added whilst you wasn't on board.
When you build a new house or flat in Essex you are being given immediate access to all the infrastucture that has been built up over the years, at other peoples expense.
The S106 payment, to buy into the Essex Dream, should be at least £50,000 per bedroom, to reflect the services that everyone else has already paid for to put in your area.
Doh,
Eric the Red
says...
6:52pm Thu 28 Feb 13
mys842 wrote:But I'm a motorist who's just paid £220 to keep his 40 year old classic in the garage and drive it about 400 miles a year - does that give me extra rights or something? A friend of mine has a VW Polo Blue Motion and pays zero VED for driving 10,000 a year....that's life.
I was about to put a bet on that '1937' and 'no such thing as Road Tax' would be mentioned by cyclist. Too late :(
Shoebury_Cyclist
says...
6:58pm Thu 28 Feb 13
Carnabackable
says...
7:13pm Thu 28 Feb 13
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:Public transport, don't make me laugh, a ruddy great double decker taking 6 people to the hospital, down to collect their pensions at 10 in the morning, run them properly during the rush hours, to ferry the workers.At other times run them every 3 hours, after all it will save on costs, pollution and declog our congested roads.
To be honest I'd rather see those millions ploughed into public transport.
Shoebury_Cyclist
says...
7:16pm Thu 28 Feb 13
Carnabackable wrote:No it won't. All those bus passengers would end up using their cars instead. So instead of one bus you'd have twenty or thirty more cars on the road for every missing bus.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:Public transport, don't make me laugh, a ruddy great double decker taking 6 people to the hospital, down to collect their pensions at 10 in the morning, run them properly during the rush hours, to ferry the workers.At other times run them every 3 hours, after all it will save on costs, pollution and declog our congested roads.
To be honest I'd rather see those millions ploughed into public transport.
Biker One
says...
7:37pm Thu 28 Feb 13
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:Why? So the busses can meandour through residential streets and not take any workers to where they need to go! Our transport system is rubbish. The traffic chaos we see most mornings is usually attributed to the school run, why I hear you ask? cos the busses are crap so parents have to use their cars. Take a look during half terms and you will see a massive difference with free flowing traffic. I need to travel 13 miles to work, the nearest a bus can take me is 3 miles from my destination and then I would have to walk, therefore I drive.
To be honest I'd rather see those millions ploughed into public transport.
And in case you haven't noticed, 'Public Transport' is all privately owned. To invest 'millions' would push fares beyond reach of some people so not a good idea of yours is it?
Shoebury_Cyclist
says...
7:45pm Thu 28 Feb 13
Biker One wrote:Which is why we need to invest in public transport. Savvy?
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:Why? So the busses can meandour through residential streets and not take any workers to where they need to go! Our transport system is rubbish. The traffic chaos we see most mornings is usually attributed to the school run, why I hear you ask? cos the busses are crap so parents have to use their cars. Take a look during half terms and you will see a massive difference with free flowing traffic. I need to travel 13 miles to work, the nearest a bus can take me is 3 miles from my destination and then I would have to walk, therefore I drive.
To be honest I'd rather see those millions ploughed into public transport.
And in case you haven't noticed, 'Public Transport' is all privately owned. To invest 'millions' would push fares beyond reach of some people so not a good idea of yours is it?
Nebs
says...
8:16pm Thu 28 Feb 13
Carnabackable wrote:I'm not surprised. I paid hotel tax last time I went to USA, 15%. But it did have free wifi.
Nebs wrote:OK so when you go on holiday, be not surprised when, at the hotel you stay at, you find that you are given a surcharge to pay for the new bathroom suites, installed before you arrived, the salaries of the extra beach patrols, due to the summer season, the charge for the Wi access on board the flight, of which were added whilst you wasn't on board.
When you build a new house or flat in Essex you are being given immediate access to all the infrastucture that has been built up over the years, at other peoples expense.
The S106 payment, to buy into the Essex Dream, should be at least £50,000 per bedroom, to reflect the services that everyone else has already paid for to put in your area.
Doh,
Perhaps we should do the same, and maybe we could have a local VAT of 1% of everything sold in the council area that goes to the council.
Biker One
says...
8:38pm Thu 28 Feb 13
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:Wrong again. Read the article, the Millions you so favourable keep quoting are aimed towards improving the 'infrastructure' Without that, public transport (in this case road transport) is doomed.
Biker One wrote:Which is why we need to invest in public transport. Savvy?Shoebury_Cyclist wrote: To be honest I'd rather see those millions ploughed into public transport.Why? So the busses can meandour through residential streets and not take any workers to where they need to go! Our transport system is rubbish. The traffic chaos we see most mornings is usually attributed to the school run, why I hear you ask? cos the busses are crap so parents have to use their cars. Take a look during half terms and you will see a massive difference with free flowing traffic. I need to travel 13 miles to work, the nearest a bus can take me is 3 miles from my destination and then I would have to walk, therefore I drive. And in case you haven't noticed, 'Public Transport' is all privately owned. To invest 'millions' would push fares beyond reach of some people so not a good idea of yours is it?
Name me any route in south Essex served by busses that can't be travelled cheaper (not to mention more environment friendly) by car or motorcycle? You would be hard pressed to mention a single one.
.
Savvy?
Shoebury_Cyclist
says...
8:45pm Thu 28 Feb 13
Biker One wrote:One 60 seat bus causes less congestion and pollution than 60 cars. Savvy?
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:Wrong again. Read the article, the Millions you so favourable keep quoting are aimed towards improving the 'infrastructure' Without that, public transport (in this case road transport) is doomed.
Biker One wrote:Which is why we need to invest in public transport. Savvy?Shoebury_Cyclist wrote: To be honest I'd rather see those millions ploughed into public transport.Why? So the busses can meandour through residential streets and not take any workers to where they need to go! Our transport system is rubbish. The traffic chaos we see most mornings is usually attributed to the school run, why I hear you ask? cos the busses are crap so parents have to use their cars. Take a look during half terms and you will see a massive difference with free flowing traffic. I need to travel 13 miles to work, the nearest a bus can take me is 3 miles from my destination and then I would have to walk, therefore I drive. And in case you haven't noticed, 'Public Transport' is all privately owned. To invest 'millions' would push fares beyond reach of some people so not a good idea of yours is it?
Name me any route in south Essex served by busses that can't be travelled cheaper (not to mention more environment friendly) by car or motorcycle? You would be hard pressed to mention a single one.
.
Savvy?
http://i1353.photobu
cket.com/albums/q672
/Forumstufftoo/Forum
%20bits/carbusbike_z
psc558190c.jpg
Biker One
says...
8:54pm Thu 28 Feb 13
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:I don't care for the link you posted as you appear to be a 'Google Warrior'
Biker One wrote:One 60 seat bus causes less congestion and pollution than 60 cars. Savvy? http://i1353.photobu cket.com/albums/q672 /Forumstufftoo/Forum %20bits/carbusbike_z psc558190c.jpgShoebury_Cyclist wrote:Wrong again. Read the article, the Millions you so favourable keep quoting are aimed towards improving the 'infrastructure' Without that, public transport (in this case road transport) is doomed. Name me any route in south Essex served by busses that can't be travelled cheaper (not to mention more environment friendly) by car or motorcycle? You would be hard pressed to mention a single one. . Savvy?Biker One wrote:Which is why we need to invest in public transport. Savvy?Shoebury_Cyclist wrote: To be honest I'd rather see those millions ploughed into public transport.Why? So the busses can meandour through residential streets and not take any workers to where they need to go! Our transport system is rubbish. The traffic chaos we see most mornings is usually attributed to the school run, why I hear you ask? cos the busses are crap so parents have to use their cars. Take a look during half terms and you will see a massive difference with free flowing traffic. I need to travel 13 miles to work, the nearest a bus can take me is 3 miles from my destination and then I would have to walk, therefore I drive. And in case you haven't noticed, 'Public Transport' is all privately owned. To invest 'millions' would push fares beyond reach of some people so not a good idea of yours is it?
So a 60 seater bus is more friendly to the environment even though it may only be carrying a couple of passengers. have you ever seen 55 out of 60 cars driving with no one at the wheel? Your analogy is faulted.
.
Please read the article again, and forget the bus argument as it's flawed. This discussion is about 'Infrastructure' I will entertain your rants as you have a right to comment but for gods sake get with the topic as it makes you look like a right banana!!!
Biker One
says...
9:03pm Thu 28 Feb 13
Thumbs down if you agree with Shoebury_Cyclist
Thumbs up if you agree with me
jayman
says...
9:14pm Thu 28 Feb 13
please, please!! do not let Southend council or Essex council near anything that even remotely resembles a shovel or some tarmac.
we have spent an unmentionable amount of cash on roads (A127) (A13)...
the penny drops (pardon the pun) when you attempt to use the new lanes or widened stretches of motorway that this colossal amount of cash has surely paid for.................
.. :(?
Biker One
says...
9:24pm Thu 28 Feb 13
jayman wrote:The A127 has all but been ignored, with the Fortune of war 'Chicane' still in place and the ridiculous 50mph limit, not exactly a help to road safety. Then the A13 and Saddlers farm, a complete farce with drivers using an opened road and skidding off due to an unfinished surface. You mention 'Motorway' if you mean the M25 then the widening of it is a positive benefit, otherwise the A127/A13 aren't motorways and come under local county council control.
oh dear god... please, please!! do not let Southend council or Essex council near anything that even remotely resembles a shovel or some tarmac. we have spent an unmentionable amount of cash on roads (A127) (A13)... the penny drops (pardon the pun) when you attempt to use the new lanes or widened stretches of motorway that this colossal amount of cash has surely paid for................. .. :(?
jayman
says...
9:42pm Thu 28 Feb 13
Biker One wrote:i apologise in regards to 'motorway'.. now that would be helpful if they where. they are indeed A roads.
jayman wrote:The A127 has all but been ignored, with the Fortune of war 'Chicane' still in place and the ridiculous 50mph limit, not exactly a help to road safety. Then the A13 and Saddlers farm, a complete farce with drivers using an opened road and skidding off due to an unfinished surface. You mention 'Motorway' if you mean the M25 then the widening of it is a positive benefit, otherwise the A127/A13 aren't motorways and come under local county council control.
oh dear god... please, please!! do not let Southend council or Essex council near anything that even remotely resembles a shovel or some tarmac. we have spent an unmentionable amount of cash on roads (A127) (A13)... the penny drops (pardon the pun) when you attempt to use the new lanes or widened stretches of motorway that this colossal amount of cash has surely paid for................. .. :(?
Biker One
says...
9:46pm Thu 28 Feb 13
jayman wrote:No apologies needed, I'm now wondering what Shoebury_Cyclist has to say as the above thumbs up/down poll shows him to be wrong.
Biker One wrote:i apologise in regards to 'motorway'.. now that would be helpful if they where. they are indeed A roads.jayman wrote: oh dear god... please, please!! do not let Southend council or Essex council near anything that even remotely resembles a shovel or some tarmac. we have spent an unmentionable amount of cash on roads (A127) (A13)... the penny drops (pardon the pun) when you attempt to use the new lanes or widened stretches of motorway that this colossal amount of cash has surely paid for................. .. :(?The A127 has all but been ignored, with the Fortune of war 'Chicane' still in place and the ridiculous 50mph limit, not exactly a help to road safety. Then the A13 and Saddlers farm, a complete farce with drivers using an opened road and skidding off due to an unfinished surface. You mention 'Motorway' if you mean the M25 then the widening of it is a positive benefit, otherwise the A127/A13 aren't motorways and come under local county council control.
By the way Jayman, I'm flying from SEN in June, I hope you will still talk to me :-))
jayman
says...
11:52pm Thu 28 Feb 13
Biker One wrote:my problem is not with the individuals who fly from Southend airport. my problem is with the council that sold it for a song and the company that sung for it...
jayman wrote:No apologies needed, I'm now wondering what Shoebury_Cyclist has to say as the above thumbs up/down poll shows him to be wrong.
Biker One wrote:i apologise in regards to 'motorway'.. now that would be helpful if they where. they are indeed A roads.jayman wrote: oh dear god... please, please!! do not let Southend council or Essex council near anything that even remotely resembles a shovel or some tarmac. we have spent an unmentionable amount of cash on roads (A127) (A13)... the penny drops (pardon the pun) when you attempt to use the new lanes or widened stretches of motorway that this colossal amount of cash has surely paid for................. .. :(?The A127 has all but been ignored, with the Fortune of war 'Chicane' still in place and the ridiculous 50mph limit, not exactly a help to road safety. Then the A13 and Saddlers farm, a complete farce with drivers using an opened road and skidding off due to an unfinished surface. You mention 'Motorway' if you mean the M25 then the widening of it is a positive benefit, otherwise the A127/A13 aren't motorways and come under local county council control.
By the way Jayman, I'm flying from SEN in June, I hope you will still talk to me :-))
ninagal
says...
2:38am Fri 1 Mar 13
Shoebury_Cyclist
says...
6:41am Fri 1 Mar 13
Biker One wrote:You 'don't care for' the link because it highlights the folly of single occupancy motor vehicles vs public mass transit. The truth is we cannot continue giving up more and more space to cars. More car parks, wider roads simply increase the number of vehicles on the road. It's like a fat man loosening his belt to fight obesity.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:I don't care for the link you posted as you appear to be a 'Google Warrior'
Biker One wrote:One 60 seat bus causes less congestion and pollution than 60 cars. Savvy? http://i1353.photobu cket.com/albums/q672 /Forumstufftoo/Forum %20bits/carbusbike_z psc558190c.jpgShoebury_Cyclist wrote:Wrong again. Read the article, the Millions you so favourable keep quoting are aimed towards improving the 'infrastructure' Without that, public transport (in this case road transport) is doomed. Name me any route in south Essex served by busses that can't be travelled cheaper (not to mention more environment friendly) by car or motorcycle? You would be hard pressed to mention a single one. . Savvy?Biker One wrote:Which is why we need to invest in public transport. Savvy?Shoebury_Cyclist wrote: To be honest I'd rather see those millions ploughed into public transport.Why? So the busses can meandour through residential streets and not take any workers to where they need to go! Our transport system is rubbish. The traffic chaos we see most mornings is usually attributed to the school run, why I hear you ask? cos the busses are crap so parents have to use their cars. Take a look during half terms and you will see a massive difference with free flowing traffic. I need to travel 13 miles to work, the nearest a bus can take me is 3 miles from my destination and then I would have to walk, therefore I drive. And in case you haven't noticed, 'Public Transport' is all privately owned. To invest 'millions' would push fares beyond reach of some people so not a good idea of yours is it?
So a 60 seater bus is more friendly to the environment even though it may only be carrying a couple of passengers. have you ever seen 55 out of 60 cars driving with no one at the wheel? Your analogy is faulted.
.
Please read the article again, and forget the bus argument as it's flawed. This discussion is about 'Infrastructure' I will entertain your rants as you have a right to comment but for gods sake get with the topic as it makes you look like a right banana!!!
We have to start thinking differently.
As for 'empty cars' how many fully occupied cars do you see in rush hour each day, and how many are only carrying one person?
Shoebury_Cyclist
says...
6:50am Fri 1 Mar 13
Biker One wrote:Actually it simply shows how many readers of this website do not comprehend the problem of increasing congestion and pollution and the need for greatly improved public transport. I could agree with you I would still receive 'unlinked' because people on this website don't like being confronted with the truth that the private motor vehicle has had it's day.
jayman wrote:No apologies needed, I'm now wondering what Shoebury_Cyclist has to say as the above thumbs up/down poll shows him to be wrong.
Biker One wrote:i apologise in regards to 'motorway'.. now that would be helpful if they where. they are indeed A roads.jayman wrote: oh dear god... please, please!! do not let Southend council or Essex council near anything that even remotely resembles a shovel or some tarmac. we have spent an unmentionable amount of cash on roads (A127) (A13)... the penny drops (pardon the pun) when you attempt to use the new lanes or widened stretches of motorway that this colossal amount of cash has surely paid for................. .. :(?The A127 has all but been ignored, with the Fortune of war 'Chicane' still in place and the ridiculous 50mph limit, not exactly a help to road safety. Then the A13 and Saddlers farm, a complete farce with drivers using an opened road and skidding off due to an unfinished surface. You mention 'Motorway' if you mean the M25 then the widening of it is a positive benefit, otherwise the A127/A13 aren't motorways and come under local county council control.
By the way Jayman, I'm flying from SEN in June, I hope you will still talk to me :-))
Shoebury_Cyclist
says...
7:42am Fri 1 Mar 13
ninagal wrote:It would kill off the south Essex economy. Southend airport would go bust at the cost of thousands of jobs, Southend's tourist industry would die - who wants to visit a beach next to a massive noisy airport?
I'm just pleased he didn't reject the Thames estuary airport as this will be far better long term solution and will benefit Essex and Kent...
Alekhine
says...
12:54pm Fri 1 Mar 13
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:How will "call me Dave" get his shoes to the office?
Biker One wrote:Actually it simply shows how many readers of this website do not comprehend the problem of increasing congestion and pollution and the need for greatly improved public transport. I could agree with you I would still receive 'unlinked' because people on this website don't like being confronted with the truth that the private motor vehicle has had it's day.jayman wrote:No apologies needed, I'm now wondering what Shoebury_Cyclist has to say as the above thumbs up/down poll shows him to be wrong. By the way Jayman, I'm flying from SEN in June, I hope you will still talk to me :-))Biker One wrote:i apologise in regards to 'motorway'.. now that would be helpful if they where. they are indeed A roads.jayman wrote: oh dear god... please, please!! do not let Southend council or Essex council near anything that even remotely resembles a shovel or some tarmac. we have spent an unmentionable amount of cash on roads (A127) (A13)... the penny drops (pardon the pun) when you attempt to use the new lanes or widened stretches of motorway that this colossal amount of cash has surely paid for................. .. :(?The A127 has all but been ignored, with the Fortune of war 'Chicane' still in place and the ridiculous 50mph limit, not exactly a help to road safety. Then the A13 and Saddlers farm, a complete farce with drivers using an opened road and skidding off due to an unfinished surface. You mention 'Motorway' if you mean the M25 then the widening of it is a positive benefit, otherwise the A127/A13 aren't motorways and come under local county council control.
firedog
says...
5:21pm Fri 1 Mar 13
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:When someone says "road tax"everyone knows what they mean,
Displeased of Shoebury wrote:There's no such thing as 'road tax' and there hasn't been since 1937.
There is plenty of money for roads its called ROAD TAX. Unfortuately those in charge (don't laugh) use the tax for other things. Foreign aid,benefits for those who cannot get out of bed.
but silly cyclist allways has to comment
on it,try reading the Beano you might spot something there to comment on.
Shoebury_Cyclist
says...
8:09pm Fri 1 Mar 13
firedog wrote:Try reading the comment I was responding to. They clearly do NOT know that 'road tax' does not exist, and they clearly think their fictitious 'road tax' pays for roads. Every time I see someone perpetuating that falsehood I WILL correct them. If you don't like it that's your problem. But I won't stop doing it, not for you, not for anyone.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:When someone says "road tax"everyone knows what they mean,
Displeased of Shoebury wrote:There's no such thing as 'road tax' and there hasn't been since 1937.
There is plenty of money for roads its called ROAD TAX. Unfortuately those in charge (don't laugh) use the tax for other things. Foreign aid,benefits for those who cannot get out of bed.
but silly cyclist allways has to comment
on it,try reading the Beano you might spot something there to comment on.
Here's the comment again:
"There is plenty of money for roads its called ROAD TAX. Unfortuately those in charge (don't laugh) use the tax for other things. Foreign aid,benefits for those who cannot get out of bed."
Shoebury_Cyclist
says...
8:11pm Fri 1 Mar 13
Biker One wrote:Ooh! That must be a bit embarrassing for you, eh?
jayman wrote:No apologies needed, I'm now wondering what Shoebury_Cyclist has to say as the above thumbs up/down poll shows him to be wrong.
Biker One wrote:i apologise in regards to 'motorway'.. now that would be helpful if they where. they are indeed A roads.jayman wrote: oh dear god... please, please!! do not let Southend council or Essex council near anything that even remotely resembles a shovel or some tarmac. we have spent an unmentionable amount of cash on roads (A127) (A13)... the penny drops (pardon the pun) when you attempt to use the new lanes or widened stretches of motorway that this colossal amount of cash has surely paid for................. .. :(?The A127 has all but been ignored, with the Fortune of war 'Chicane' still in place and the ridiculous 50mph limit, not exactly a help to road safety. Then the A13 and Saddlers farm, a complete farce with drivers using an opened road and skidding off due to an unfinished surface. You mention 'Motorway' if you mean the M25 then the widening of it is a positive benefit, otherwise the A127/A13 aren't motorways and come under local county council control.
By the way Jayman, I'm flying from SEN in June, I hope you will still talk to me :-))
http://i1353.photobu
cket.com/albums/q672
/Forumstufftoo/EchoS
tuff/ScreenShot2013-
03-01at151905_zps090
a3f27.jpg
Shoebury_Cyclist
says...
12:35pm Sat 2 Mar 13
Biker One wrote:When you factor in petrol/diesel, insurance, MOT costs, buying the car in the first place, and VED, pretty much every route is cheaper by bus than by car.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:Wrong again. Read the article, the Millions you so favourable keep quoting are aimed towards improving the 'infrastructure' Without that, public transport (in this case road transport) is doomed.
Biker One wrote:Which is why we need to invest in public transport. Savvy?Shoebury_Cyclist wrote: To be honest I'd rather see those millions ploughed into public transport.Why? So the busses can meandour through residential streets and not take any workers to where they need to go! Our transport system is rubbish. The traffic chaos we see most mornings is usually attributed to the school run, why I hear you ask? cos the busses are crap so parents have to use their cars. Take a look during half terms and you will see a massive difference with free flowing traffic. I need to travel 13 miles to work, the nearest a bus can take me is 3 miles from my destination and then I would have to walk, therefore I drive. And in case you haven't noticed, 'Public Transport' is all privately owned. To invest 'millions' would push fares beyond reach of some people so not a good idea of yours is it?
Name me any route in south Essex served by busses that can't be travelled cheaper (not to mention more environment friendly) by car or motorcycle? You would be hard pressed to mention a single one.
.
Savvy?
Nebs
says...
7:10pm Sat 2 Mar 13
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:Yes but the bus service is subsidised, as are the roads the buses use. You have to include this in the cost of the bus ride, as that part of the fare isn't paid by the passenger but rather by the taxpayer.
Biker One wrote:When you factor in petrol/diesel, insurance, MOT costs, buying the car in the first place, and VED, pretty much every route is cheaper by bus than by car.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:Wrong again. Read the article, the Millions you so favourable keep quoting are aimed towards improving the 'infrastructure' Without that, public transport (in this case road transport) is doomed.
Biker One wrote:Which is why we need to invest in public transport. Savvy?Shoebury_Cyclist wrote: To be honest I'd rather see those millions ploughed into public transport.Why? So the busses can meandour through residential streets and not take any workers to where they need to go! Our transport system is rubbish. The traffic chaos we see most mornings is usually attributed to the school run, why I hear you ask? cos the busses are crap so parents have to use their cars. Take a look during half terms and you will see a massive difference with free flowing traffic. I need to travel 13 miles to work, the nearest a bus can take me is 3 miles from my destination and then I would have to walk, therefore I drive. And in case you haven't noticed, 'Public Transport' is all privately owned. To invest 'millions' would push fares beyond reach of some people so not a good idea of yours is it?
Name me any route in south Essex served by busses that can't be travelled cheaper (not to mention more environment friendly) by car or motorcycle? You would be hard pressed to mention a single one.
.
Savvy?
Shoebury_Cyclist
says...
8:00am Sun 3 Mar 13
Nebs wrote:The buses are not as heavily subsidised as the private motor vehicle. The private motorist does not pay the cost of externalities from motoring. They don't pay the cost of pollution, the health costs, the costs of hundreds of thousands of collisions and road closures, the cost of noise pollution,. Taken as a whole motoring costs every man, woman, and child in the country over £600 per year, and none of that cost is recovered from motorists, the cost comes from other areas. There's the cost to the health service, the cost to the police, etc.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:Yes but the bus service is subsidised, as are the roads the buses use. You have to include this in the cost of the bus ride, as that part of the fare isn't paid by the passenger but rather by the taxpayer.
Biker One wrote:When you factor in petrol/diesel, insurance, MOT costs, buying the car in the first place, and VED, pretty much every route is cheaper by bus than by car.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:Wrong again. Read the article, the Millions you so favourable keep quoting are aimed towards improving the 'infrastructure' Without that, public transport (in this case road transport) is doomed.
Biker One wrote:Which is why we need to invest in public transport. Savvy?Shoebury_Cyclist wrote: To be honest I'd rather see those millions ploughed into public transport.Why? So the busses can meandour through residential streets and not take any workers to where they need to go! Our transport system is rubbish. The traffic chaos we see most mornings is usually attributed to the school run, why I hear you ask? cos the busses are crap so parents have to use their cars. Take a look during half terms and you will see a massive difference with free flowing traffic. I need to travel 13 miles to work, the nearest a bus can take me is 3 miles from my destination and then I would have to walk, therefore I drive. And in case you haven't noticed, 'Public Transport' is all privately owned. To invest 'millions' would push fares beyond reach of some people so not a good idea of yours is it?
Name me any route in south Essex served by busses that can't be travelled cheaper (not to mention more environment friendly) by car or motorcycle? You would be hard pressed to mention a single one.
.
Savvy?
This was recognised as far back as 1994:
http://ind.pn/YW45F9
It is still true today:
http://bit.ly/WIU8IG
Cosmo Spring says...
4:05pm Thu 28 Feb 13